Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA22225 (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 14:55:13 +0100 Message-ID: <3AD46172.E7E43D61@bioinf.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:51:46 +0100 From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk> Organization: University of Manchester X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Determinism References: <3AD3D5CB.5092.10C87C3@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > > > 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.
Even then it is deterministic - the numbers just get a shitload longer.
> > > > *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.
Concur (Aaron). Are you (Joe) saying that the whole of computational
biology is pointless because evolving a human-like brain requires a more
detailed model than anyone has managed so far?
> >
> 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.
Extrapolate. Science is illumination by many spotlights not a couple of
floodlights.
> > > > 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'.
This is all bull. It's a trap. The question is a false one, like "Which
is the 'proper' end of this brick?" - both solutions are equivalent by
definition. If you ask a real question, I can give you a rational
answer.
> > > > > 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.
The assumption of a cause is the most reasonable given that every other
thing in existence has a cause. You would postulate a whole new mode of
non-caused reality. Not the most parsimonious approach.
> > > 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!
What on earth is 'non-existence'? We're back to our 2D-worlders in a 3D
universe I think (except I didn't think it was gonna be a roleplay).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 : Wed Apr 11 2001 - 14:58:23 BST