Re: Determinism

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed Apr 11 2001 - 07:33:21 BST

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: Determinism"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA21005 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:30:51 +0100
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:33:21 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable
    Subject: Re: Determinism
    Message-ID: <3AD3B461.9826.89FE77@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <00bc01c0c110$f87c3120$5eaefea9@rcn.com>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On 9 Apr 2001, at 12:20, Aaron Agassi wrote:

    >
    > ----- 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.
    >
    Actually, it does not, for the spatial aspects of the continuum are
    not reduceable to analogues of its temporal aspects.
    >
    > *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?
    >
    Certain things would simply not evolve - for instance us, there being
    no way in which greater intelligence and/or awareness could
    motivate better choices empirically realizeable in a
    superdetermined world and thus bootstrap its own selection.
    >
    > *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).
    >
    If you solve a quadratic equatrion and are completely aware that
    both variable sets will work, which does your complete lack of
    ingnorance decide upon? Is it superdetermined? Is it random? Or
    could it just happen to be an arbitrary choice? Even the decision
    to flip a coin is a choice, as well as which variable set to denote
    with 'heads'.
    > >
    > > 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!
    >
    This is a classic example of the 2500 year old greek logical fallacy
    known as Argument Ad Ignorantium, or the Argument From
    Ignorance. Even though it is logically self-contradictory for
    causality to be able to reach beyond existence into nonexistence
    in order to cause the nonexistent to manifest into existence, the
    argument presented here is that since we are unaware of any
    empirical cause for this phenomenon and have been unable to find
    one, there must exist an existent yet unknown cause for it. Thus
    you illegitimately attempt to absurdly turn the absence of observed
    cause into a proof of its unobserved existence.
    > >
    > > > 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).
    >
    This analogy is unanswered because it is unanswerable.
    > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > -- --------
    > >
    > > 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 : Wed Apr 11 2001 - 07:33:46 BST