Re: Determinism

From: Aaron Agassi (
Date: Mon Apr 16 2001 - 00:06:59 BST

  • Next message: "Re: Determinism"

    Received: by id AAA04554 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 00:10:34 +0100
    Message-ID: <002201c0c600$c65c20c0$>
    From: "Aaron Agassi" <>
    To: <>
    References: <3AD9D613.26030.655606@localhost>
    Subject: Re: Determinism
    Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:06:59 -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
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 6:10 PM
    Subject: Re: Determinism

    > On 15 Apr 2001, at 17:56, Aaron Agassi wrote:
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: <>
    > > To: <>
    > > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 5:23 PM
    > > Subject: Re: Determinism
    > >
    > >
    > > > On 15 Apr 2001, at 5:42, Aaron Agassi wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Since I hold Superdeterminism necessary and sufficient for
    > > > > freedom, my position, precisely, is that omniscience would narrow
    > > > > down choices to the one optimal decision. Never the less, this
    > > > > would be, indeed, empowering, of course.
    > > > >
    > > > Such as which one of the two perfectly suited values one should use
    > > > to solve a given quadratic equation? Degrees of perfection; hmmm.
    > > > Perhaps you're ready to count fractal iterations of angels on the
    > > > heads of pins.
    > > >
    > > I have already answered that for you:
    > >
    > > An omniscient mathematician would not only have every sufficient
    > > answer to the equation, but would also predict every real world
    > > ramification of the choice. Which value takes up less space on the
    > > black board. Which value helps the best illustration of the principle
    > > under examination. Which response will be deemed cleverest to impress
    > > that cute mathematician of the appropriate sex. And so on.
    > >
    > But the only condition set was "which solved the equation." Your
    > other ones are being pulled out of thin air.

    In reality, every choice has ramification beyond the intended application.
    Especially in hindsight, the closest thing we have to omniscience.. So, no,
    it's not out of thin air.
    > >
    > > But if it there ever could be such a situation where further narrowing
    > > down of the correct response would make no difference, then,
    > > obviously, that residual choice which makes no difference would
    > > scarcely further empower. And the choice, however arbitrary, would
    > > still be determined, by whatever criteria of preference or whatever
    > > process.
    > >
    > In other words, even though you do not and cannot know a priori
    > that the choice of one perfect equal over another is causally
    > determined (from the first flush of the newly born Big Bang), you
    > navertheless have an unshakeable faith that it must be so. How
    > touching.

    Superdeterminism is still the most elegant of the known competing hypotheses
    from the available evidence. And so, I would choose the explanation
    consistent with superdeterminism. I merely demonstrated that there was
    explanation consistent with superdeterminism, and that the hypothesis of
    superdeterminism is therefore internally consistent. Even under the a priori
    questionable hypothetical circumstance you pose, Joe Dees, that of different
    causes (the choices among adequate answers to the quadratic equation) with
    no different consequent effect, what so ever.

    Indeed, if there is a process in the mind of any mathematician, omniscient
    or not, in choosing which of the adequate solutions to offer, or else
    failing to do so, then that, in and of itself, would be the causal effect of
    the different choices among the adequate solutions to the quadratic
    equation. Thus, there already can not be different causes such that these
    different causes will have different effect, neither separately nor in
    tandem. Because, even the choosing is causal, given causality at all.

    Unless there is such a thing as Indeterminacy, which would be unnecessary
    and inelegant, and therefore nothing but unlikely argument from ignorance,
    far more so than the superdeterministic alternative remains most elegant
    among competing suppositional hypotheses.

    Because causality is observable, while the absence, as yet, of causal
    explanation in any given case simply does not constitute compelling evidence
    of it's absence. Indeed, is there even an hypothesis as to the nature of
    mythic Indeterminacy? Is it testable? And does any evidence better support
    Quantum Mechanics better than any alternative?

    The answer might be a resounding no, if, indeed, the measurement uncertainty
    held by Quantum Mechanics not to be truly measurement uncertainty at all
    (Ontological rather than Epistemological, the limits of measurability being
    explained by the hypothesis of Indeterminacy stating that causality is
    really statistical) can also be predicted otherwise. Such as, under
    Classical Physics and Thermodynamics under the science of Fisher
    Information, supporting assertion of the reality even of irretrievable
    physical information.

    Because, all that would leave are certain phenomena the causes of which are
    still unknown. Phenomena that are only paradoxical assuming that everything
    else we know or think we know, is all completely true, so that it is nature
    which doesn't add up, not the state of the art in science. For nature to be
    static and provisional, rather human understanding to be provisional in

    It all boils down to the question of the burden of proof which in turn,
    inversely, becomes the question of the greater argument from ignorance.

    And causality is observed, even if not universally. Because the cataloging
    of "white swans" is an endless process, until, if ever, the "black swan" of
    counter example refutation. While Indeterminacy is never observed. And
    unknown causes have been later discovered, while Indeterminacy has no basis
    save for currently unknown causes of unexplained effects. Indeed,
    Indeterminacy is not even a hypothetical "black swan", because it has no
    positive description or explanation, only that it would not be causality.

    That is why, currently, adherence to Indeterminacy makes the greater leap of

    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 16 2001 - 00:13:39 BST