Taking Down Determinism

[The Man]

The last quote was basically a recognition of determinism down to the quantum scale of the universe. And in the quote before that he recognizes that QM leaves room for a deterministic interpretation.

So not entirely deterministic, with some room because we don't know everything. It is easy to assert that the universe is not entirely random or non-deterministic. We have evidence of deterministic events and the equations with which we describe the universe (and quantum mechanics) are deterministic. Does this mean the universe is deterministic,? Well, who knows? Our description only describe what we can perceive by our current instrumentality (which happens to be also deterministic, by the way) and leaving both options open is not supporting either one. However, your ridiculous proof that simply presumes some non-determinism aspects of the universe, or other universe where some entity non-deterministically determines to interact with ours , is still simply begging the question.

 

[westprog]

You are unclear. Does a state of the universe determine the value of Pi

No. In no way is pi dependent on any property of the universe.

or does Pi determine a state of the universe?

Possibly. That's a deep question.

However, the value of pi is fixed, regardless. It's entirely deterministic.

 

[westprog]

I know, but as stated in some the geometrical defintion is the same as the mathematical... and other it isn't.

I could define pi =3 if I wanted. The arithmetical definition and the geometrical definitions both depend on their respective models. Change the model and you change the definition of pi.

 

[Dancing David]

The precise geometrical definition is always the same in all universes. It's a matter of defining the geometry.

Okay, I sit corrected.

 

[Dancing David]

The author of the article (Bryan Appleyard) has not published or posted the entire interview as far as I know. You may doubt his veracity, but I do not know what his motivation would be for lying about interviewing Stephen Hawking.

O bravo, the sophistry award!

"I can't substantiate my claim but I have no reason to doubt it."

 

[Dancing David]

I am pretty sure this is equivalent to accusing somebody of lying.

Assertion of conclusion! More rhetorical spin from the master.

Robin nowhere said that they told an untruth, or did she say it? Where?

 

[wuschel]

In order to disprove the variety of determinism that I have presented I only need to disprove the variety of determinism that I have presented.

In that case I suggest the thread title change into something like:

"Taking Down The Particular Variety Of Determinsm I Am Going To Present"

Any other varieties are irrelevant to my argument.

"No True Determinisms", then, right?

 

[Foster Zygote]

If you think that the mere presence of objects of circular shapes and their orbits in the universe constitutes the presence of ("unspoken") Pi, then you think the same way the literal creationists do.

So I should think that human metrics somehow cause the universe to behave in a certain way? What would Pi be if we had eight digits on each hand?

Btw, the circular shape and orbits of objects such as stars and planets are caused by gravity and

F_g = (G*m₁*m₂)/r²
no Pi in sight.

Ignoring your error in assuming that orbits are circular, what has this got to do with Pi?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

First of all, the author does not claim that all quotes from the article stem from an interview he did with Hawking. That particular quote does not have any indication of coming from an interview the author had with Hawking.

Second, I've been able to find a podcast where the host plays a part of a tape of an interview Hawking apparently did for some Israeli TV in 2006, it starts around 12:00.

http://www.onpointradio.org/media-p...7;s+Grand+Design&pubdate=2010-09-09&segment=2

Here's what can be heard from the podcast:


The crucial parts have been either edited out by the podcaster, or they have not been said by Hawking. The two quotes seem similar enough that I think it's the origin of the quote from the article. YMMV.

ETA: The full interview can be found here, with the full quote. Seems the podcasters edited the tape...
ETA2: Starts at 4:40.

At best then, based on this interview, all that can be said about Hawking's view on the deterministic nature of the universe is that it is confusing.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Socrates???

Okay, Socrates is about 75 years off but it works better when he is the subject of the syllogism.

Some philosophers would agree with me.
Socrates was some philosopher.
Socrates would agree with me.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Er...

So, both are conclusions of purely deductive reasoning based on axioms, but somehow that makes them completely different in terms of this discussion, because of the "mathematical constructs", and "amplified logical forms"?

Interesting how you read an entire post but miss the part about "In principle it may not be different."

I'd like to give it a try to deduce pi from euclidean axioms, but I'm afraid it might take more time than I should spend on this.

Deducing trigonometry and calculus and infinite sums and continued fractions and ...from the euclidean axioms would be quite a feat to accomplish in a lifetime, if it is at all possible.

And then we still have the point that calculations of Pi reveal its value but do not determine it.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Again if your going to consider some possible outcome state of the universe you must consider all the possible outcome states, initialy. Quantum mechanics demonstrates that the outcome state is only one of the possible states already in superposition, before the outcome. Your argument seems to stem from some particular limitation that you evidently want to impose upon the universe. That amounts to ‘What happened in the toilet (or the bathroom universe) was not causally related to me eating, because I had eaten and decided to take a dump while I was in the kitchen (a different universe). Thus the “information” that was introduced into the toilet (and the bathroom universe) is “non-deterministic” (toilet and bathroom universe) “information“’.

Your analysis baffles me.

To elaborate:

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

Evidently, you don’t understand your own argument.

Oh, like you understand that hodgepodge that you just posted.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

So not entirely deterministic, with some room because we don't know everything. It is easy to assert that the universe is not entirely random or non-deterministic. We have evidence of deterministic events and the equations with which we describe the universe (and quantum mechanics) are deterministic. Does this mean the universe is deterministic,? Well, who knows? Our description only describe what we can perceive by our current instrumentality (which happens to be also deterministic, by the way) and leaving both options open is not supporting either one. However, your ridiculous proof that simply presumes some non-determinism aspects of the universe, or other universe where some entity non-deterministically determines to interact with ours , is still simply begging the question.

Idea: Pi has a value that is not determined by any physical state of the universe.
Idea: Someone may base an action on the value of Pi.

That you find these ideas ridiculous says a lot more about your ability to reason and comprehend than it does about the proof.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

No. In no way is pi dependent on any property of the universe.

Possibly. That's a deep question.

However, the value of pi is fixed, regardless. It's entirely deterministic.

You are using "deterministic" here differently than as was defined in this post.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I could define pi =3 if I wanted. The arithmetical definition and the geometrical definitions both depend on their respective models. Change the model and you change the definition of pi.

If you changed the model then we would need a new word to call the thing that is a set of points all of which are equidistant from a given point.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

O bravo, the sophistry award!

You might want to refresh yourself on the meaning of sophistry.

"I can't substantiate my claim but I have no reason to doubt it."

What you meant here was:
"I do not have the original source of the evidence that substantiated my claim but I have no reason to doubt it."

I do admit that your inaccurate version is catchier.
O bravo, the distortion award!

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Assertion of conclusion! More rhetorical spin from the master.

I understand that you want to make a point but at least it should say something.

Robin nowhere said that they told an untruth, or did she say it? Where?

Compare hearsay (unverified statement) with untruth (verified not true) within the context of when it was posted and you'll find very little to distinguish them.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

In that case I suggest the thread title change into something like:

"Taking Down The Particular Variety Of Determinsm I Am Going To
Present"

Generally, it is a good idea to read the opening post, rather than just the title of the thread, if you want to have a clue about what you are griping about.

"No True Determinisms", then, right?

No.
"No True Determinisms of the Particular Variety Of Determinism I Am Going To
Present"

 

[H'ethetheth]

Interesting how you read an entire post but miss the part about "In principle it may not be different."

I find it interesting that you can say they are no different in principle and in the next sentence imply the opposite.

If you do mean it is no different in principle, to me that means you agree that accepting that Socrates is a man, and accepting that all men are mortal causes us to conclude that Socrates is mortal.
In the same way, accepting that space-time is flat, and that things like limits, series and calculus are logically sound, we are caused to find a certain value for pi.

Deducing trigonometry and calculus and infinite sums and continued fractions and ...from the euclidean axioms would be quite a feat to accomplish in a lifetime, if it is at all possible.

And then we still have the point that calculations of Pi reveal its value but do not determine it.

Yes they do determine it. That's exactly my point. The very axioms you begin with immediately imply a value of pi, regardless of the number of logical steps you need to make. Pi is a necessary theorem as soon as you have your axioms. You just have to find the steps to get there.
If you use different axioms, a different value for pi may come out, and if that happens to be so, it was already necessarily implied by the new axioms.

 

[epix]

Idea: Pi has a value that is not determined by any physical state of the universe.
Idea: Someone may base an action on the value of Pi.

That you find these ideas ridiculous says a lot more about your ability to reason and comprehend than it does about the proof.

Maybe the right adjective is "absurd." The value of Pi couldn't be determined when the universe was 10 million years old, coz it was way too hot and disorderly to develop life. The universe had to change its physical state for Pi to exist in the form of awareness as a product of the mind. The universe, as defined by the cosmologists, doesn't have a mind, which is the only source of the particular awarness of various relationships including number Pi, even though some scientists may come to think otherwise:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11391434

"In some sense, it's like the particles talk to each other and they decide which way to go," explained CMS Spokesperson Guido Tonelli.

How do we get out of this funky tunnel?

I think we go that way.