Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA24079 (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 06:50:17 +0100 Message-ID: <006201c0c313$f7a737e0$5eaefea9@rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <3AD4F847.20361.A8AE2A@localhost> Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:46:48 -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: Thursday, April 12, 2001 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: Determinism
On 12 Apr 2001, at 1:13, Aaron Agassi wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 1:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Determinism
>
>
> 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.
>
> *So, what?
>
So, an infinitely long string of numbers cannot be assimilated in a
finite spatiotemporal milieu, such as our universe.
*These numbers where of you speak are only a representation of reality.
> >
> > > > > > *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
>
> *-And keep 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,
>
> *Why so?
>
> *After all, selection pressures are causal, mechanistic and determined
> the same as all else.
>
Evolution proceeds given a previous ground situation in which
mutations appear and from which some of them are selected.
Selection pressures operate statistically and probabilistically upon
existent populations.
*Here we disagree. Statistics are mere approximation, not "Indeterminate".
In your world, there could only be one ground
situation, perduring through the entirety of the life of the universe,
thus no selection pressures could obtain, as everything would be
simply the unfolding of a predetermined inevitability.
*False.
>
> and therefore 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 12 2001 - 06:53:13 BST