Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA22673 (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 17:34:11 +0100 Message-ID: <00b901c0c2a4$b1917960$5eaefea9@rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <3AD3D5CB.5092.10C87C3@localhost> Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:30:17 -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: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: Determinism
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.
*Why so? The degree of complexity only defies our ability to monitor
initially, and then to calculate. But it does not confound or confuse
itself! That is where the omniscience analogy breaks down, and some folks
become confused!
> > >
> > > *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.
*You are evading the point. Whatever you deem truly random won't do a better
job in simulation than pseudo-random numeric that are well understood.
> >
> > - 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?
*Okay, an omniscient mathematician would also know which of the possible
solution would best illustrate any other point, take up less space on the
black board, or which of them would be deemed most clever in order to
impress that cute fellow mathematician of the appropriate sex, and so on.
There are always more ramifications, somehow.
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.
*No, that's what you are doing.
*I am assuming that events of unknown cause are still caused. Because the
events of known cause reveal causality in the first place. (And, indeed,
unknown causes have later become known. But that comes in addition.)
*You are the one postulating Indeterminacy, an additional entity.
> >
> > 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
*HUH?
>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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 11 2001 - 17:37:32 BST