Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA16773 (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 17:24:09 +0100 Message-ID: <00bc01c0c110$f87c3120$5eaefea9@rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <3AD131CE.29348.B4897C@localhost> Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:20:19 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: Determinism
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.
*Why and how does superdeterminism equate with time as the fourth dimension
and merely another dimension in space-time? Einsteinian space time does
imply superdeterminism, but not all ideas of superdeterminism are
Einsteinain.
*And why and how does superdeterminism change the prospect of evolution? If
one runs simulations on choices from whatever one deemed "truly" random, or
instead uses a pseudo-random number generating algorithm, which is, indeed,
understood to be determined, what difference in the outcome?
*If space-time is both superdeterministic and objectively real, that still
does not negate the truth of duration, the passage of time as experienced
from our own frame of reference. And freedom including choice in relative
ignorance, is, likewise subjective (not illusory).
>
> 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.
*Is there evidence even here of something other than causality? There are
many things at every universal scale, of which the cause is at least to some
degree unknown. Are these also supposed to be evidence of Indeterminacy?
Rubbish!
>
> > 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 09 2001 - 17:26:57 BST