Re: Determinism

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Mon Apr 09 2001 - 09:51:42 BST

  • Next message: Aaron Agassi: "Re: Determinism"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA15841 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:49:10 +0100
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 03:51:42 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable
    Subject: Re: Determinism
    Message-ID: <3AD131CE.29348.B4897C@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <3ACC4226.3EAE45CA@bioinf.man.ac.uk>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On 5 Apr 2001, at 11:00, Chris Taylor wrote:

    > > There could exist no such thing as meaning in a superdetermined
    > > world, nor could there have been any reason for our self-conscious
    > > awarenesses to have evolved without the ability to reflect not
    > > conferring someevolutionary advantage, which it certainly wouldn't
    > > if (and this is the absurd consequence of superdeterminism) every
    > > motion of all our bodies was indelibly written on ths parchment of
    > > the universe one nanosecond after the Big Bang.
    >
    > Many futures for the universe are equally valid looking forward (to us
    > and anything else but a godlike philosophical construct), but looking
    > back, you can find reasons. How would you know, before the fact, that
    > your superdetermined path wasn't randomly determined rather than
    > inevitable? Therefore why would it make any difference to us simple
    > folk (or organic evolution)?
    >
    I would maintain that evolution acting upon the happenstance
    genesis of life is EXACTLY why I'm here, and that is why it can't
    have been big bang superdetermined that I am. Superdeterminism
    and evolution cannot coexist, for superdeterminism turns the
    universe into a static object, with past and future all conflated into
    an unchangeable tralfamadorean present, and suited only for the
    frozen dead, while evolution is a dynamic and irresistible force,
    changing everything it touches, and touching everything living.
    >
    > As for proof - push your coffee cup to the edge of the table, watch it
    > fall. Cause, effect. I can think of more if you want...
    >
    What causes the positron-electron pairs to wink into and out of
    existence? The question isn't whether or not you can think of more
    examples of causality, but whather I can think of one
    counterexample, which puts the lie to universal claims.
    >
    > > Actually, the idea that perfect knowledge of the present would allow
    > > perfect prediction of the future omits the fact that some events are
    > > indeed random, i.e. uncaused, such as positron-electron pairs
    >
    > At the start of this I specifically said that, ignoring the quantum, I
    > could find no *other* ghosts in these machines; this was defensive
    > posturing, but to my surprise I am assured that the quantum may well
    > be just as determinable as the classical but requires methods to
    > examine Planck scale phenomena. The guy who assures me is a rather
    > heavyweight physicist, so I have to believe him...
    >
    It is the same argument that theists put forward, with god being
    replaced by quantum fluctuations. Ask them what causes positron-
    electron pairs to do what they do, and they reply QF, but cannot
    use it to predict when/where a pair will appear/disappear (just as
    god cannot be used to predict events), and they cannot tell you
    what causes QF, any more than theists can tell you the cause of
    their god(s).

    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > --------
    >
    > BTW what word suits better for evolution's 'official' status?
    > [that 'sic' really got my back up]
    >
    > Hypertext Webster Gateway: "provisional"
    >
    > >From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
    >
    > Provisional \Pro*vi"sion*al\, a. [Cf. F. provisionnel.] Of the nature
    > of a provision; serving as a provision for the time being; -- used of
    > partial or temporary arrangements; as, a provisional government; a
    > provisional treaty.
    >
    > >From WordNet (r) 1.6 (wn)
    >
    > provisional adj : under terms not final or fully worked out or agreed
    > upon; "probationary employees"; "a provisional government"; "just a
    > tentative schedule" [syn: {probationary}, {provisionary}, {tentative}]
    >
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > Chris Taylor (chris@bioinf.man.ac.uk)
    > http://bioinf.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
    >
    >

    ===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 09 2001 - 09:52:22 BST