Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA23908 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:08:57 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:10:29 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <3AD4F275.4602.91EFF3@localhost> In-reply-to: <3AD46172.E7E43D61@bioinf.man.ac.uk> 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 14:51, 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.
>
> Even then it is deterministic - the numbers just get a shitload
> longer.
>
No, the numbers get infinitely long.
>
> > > > > *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?
>
No, I'm saying that in a superdetermined world, selection pressures
cannot be brought to bear to evolve self-conscious awareness, as
such a property would be entirely ineffectual, and threrfore could
not produce differentiable situations upon which selection could
operate.
> > >
> > 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.
>
See above explanation as to why a superdeterministic sim could
not result in the evolution of self-conscious awareness.
>
> > > > > 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.
>
One may choose to use one variable set or the other; the choice is
real, AND both alternatives perfectly suffice.
>
> > > > > > 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.
>
I would refrain from postulating unobserved causes in addition to
observed ones. Such an assumption is unwarranted. I refuse to
so overgeneralize in the absence of evidence.
>
> > > > 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).
>
Before P-E pairs pop into existence, they are nonexistent; it is as
simple as that.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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 : Thu Apr 12 2001 - 06:12:00 BST