Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA26401 (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 21:31:00 +0100 Message-ID: <00d901c0c38e$f48c9480$5eaefea9@rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <F67fvQeVe0F7HcCPG6h000067d8@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Determinism Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:27:11 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: Determinism
>
>
>
>
> >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.
In 'Mirror, Mirror' the Away Team, beaming back up, switches places with
their counterparts from an alternate dimension, the dark side. In 'The Enemy
Within', a transporter malfunction splits Kirk into Jekyll and Hyde. In 'The
Alternative Factor', the crew of the Starship Enterprise encounter Lazarus,
a man at war with his mad counterpart from an alternate antimatter universe.
===============================================================
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 - 21:34:01 BST