Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA21580 (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 09:53:29 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 03:55:55 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <3AD3D5CB.5092.10C87C3@localhost> In-reply-to: <00a001c0c25e$64c1a2e0$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 4:07, Aaron Agassi wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 4:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Determinism
>
>
> 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.
>
> *But this is all still entirely mechanistic and deterministic.
>
Not when the complexity rises to the level of recursion.
> > >
> > > *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.
>
> *Creationist rubbish! One can use any process deemed random, instead.
> And it will make little difference.
>
You're the one with an unproveable creationist faith in your god-
surrogate called Superdeterminism, which cannot coexist with
evolution; since in neither your world nor in theirs is evolution
possible, you are the crypto-creationist, not I.
> >
> > - 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.
>
I'm still waiting.
>
> > > > > *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.
>
> *The differentiating factors are elsewhere.
>
And where would this elsewhere be, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Not to mention what.
> > > >
> > > > 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!
> >
> You'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.
>
> *You are the one needlessly multiplying entities.
>
I'm saying there doesn't sem to be a cause, yet you are postulating
an unobserved one. I'll leave the readers to judge who's committing
the Occamite trespass-by-assumption.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Address it? I can't even guess what you are talking about!
>
Cut and paste time!
> > 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.
>
End of cut and paste.
> > > >
> > > > > 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 - 09:56:58 BST