Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA26134 (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 19:46:03 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.183] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:42:06 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F67fvQeVe0F7HcCPG6h000067d8@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Apr 2001 18:42:06.0965 (UTC) FILETIME=[46561250:01C0C380] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Determinism
>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:09:50 -0400
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 12:59 PM
>Subject: Re: Determinism
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> > >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > >Subject: Re: Determinism
> > >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:10:29 -0500
> > >
> > >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.
> > >
> > Are P-E pairs potentially existent if not actually existent? From where
>does
> > the positron stem or in other words, what state of affairs results in
>the
> > production of a positive electron? What happens when said positive
>electron
> > encounters a negative electron? Is it like the battle of the two Captain
> > Kirks?
> >
>You mean, surely, the two Lazuri.
>
>
There wasn't a Kirk and anti-Kirk episode? Maybe I've got my episodes mixed
up, which shows I'm not a Trekkie.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
===============================================================
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 - 19:49:05 BST