Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA21380 (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 08:58:46 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:01:13 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <3AD3C8F9.17801.DA7275@localhost> In-reply-to: <007701c0c253$a23c2a60$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 11 Apr 2001, at 2:50, Aaron Agassi wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Determinism
>
>
> 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.
>
> *It is my understanding that Einstein holds time to be no more than an
> additional spatial dimension. Of course, that leaves many questions.
> But I digress.
>
Not when it comes to complex systems; the law of entropy
distinguishes here quite nicely, affixing an arrow to the temporal
that cannot be affixed to the spatial. Since Al didn't deal with
complex systems, this didn't trouble him.
> >
> > *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
>
> *False. Pseudo random mutation generators in simulated evolution serve
> perfectly well.
>
We have yet to evolve self-conscious awareness in such
simulations; your statement is one of faith.
>
> - 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.
>
> *Again, false. And for reasons already covered.
>
Not really. I'm still waiting for you to introduce me to the self-
consciously aware being evolved in such sims.
> >
> > *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'.
>
> *Your illustration is flawed. Omniscience would reveal all manner of
> ramifications of which correct solution to use.
>
Not if the question at hand is "which variable solves this equation?'
There is no differentiating factor there.
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> *No, you are the one arguing that anything of unknown cause must there
> fore be uncaused!
>
Yopu're the one arguing that there must BE a cause, even if we
cannot find it; that is a shining, sterling example of the classic AAI
fallacy.
>
> 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.
>
> *No, you are the one arguing that anything of unknown cause must there
> fore be uncaused!
>
Once again, my previous comment holds, with the addendum that
you didn't even address the logical impossibility of causation
transgressing the bounds of existence - nor can you.
> > >
> > > > 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 - 09:02:38 BST