Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA24143 (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 07:30:18 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:32:48 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <3AD505C0.2209.DD5063@localhost> In-reply-to: <006201c0c313$f7a737e0$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 12 Apr 2001, at 1:46, Aaron Agassi wrote:
>
> ----- 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.
>
Which would have to be absorbable in a predicting calculation. But
the calculation has no halting point; it is never completely done. It
would take an infinite universe to contain it, and can even
omniscience be said to know everything when what is to be known
goes on forever, and there can be no future to be predicted or
imagined in which it were ever done? And how can such
necessarily forever incomplete information be the basis for a claim
of omniscience?
> > >
> > > > > > > *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".
>
But they do not determine the individual.
>
> 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.
>
But that is what superdeterminism MEANS. It means that every
last state, event and process that ever occurred, is occuring or will
ever occur in a universe with a projected periodicity of around forty
BILLion years and a max radius of the speed of light multiplied by
half that, minuse mutual gravitational attraction), was set in stone
after the first Planck instant. Every thought that ever might occur,
every brownian jiggle of molecules, every grain of sand that washed
from a mountain to a sea, would be a blind, meaningless
pseudoexercise, unfolding like billiard balls in a broke rack. And
even meaning would have to be absent from such a world, for us -
entities who signify, who bestow meaning - could not have evolved
the prerequisite conscious self-awareness to do what we do, for
evolution could not have obtained in the absence of the ability to
have our choices matter, to make a selectional difference in the
world, so that there would be a reproductive advantage to better
decisions which could willfully and genuinely effectuate better
action choices. If the course of every atom was determined at the
beginning of it all, the chance of all this just being the
consequence of a happenstance genesis accident would be
devastatingly tiny. In fact, in such a situation, in the absence of
evolution, it would be eminently more reasonable to believe in an
intelligent designer than in a purely naturalistic universe, and in
fact, that theistic belief is itself a belief in a superdeterminism with
a superdeterminer.
> >
> > 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 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 - 07:33:15 BST