You misunderstand quantum indeterminism. It is not epistemological or a limit of what we can know. The theory itself just deals with probabilities. This can be proven.
"Science is a religion." You know someone has nothing interesting to say when they make claims like that.
@menoftheinfinite I just had physicist Lawrence Krauss on my show, the openairatheistpocast ep 18 where I asked him about this very issue. You can listen to the episode on my channel and on the OAAPODCAST channel. Peace : )
Your scientific and philosophical dichotomy is irrelevant. The essence of science is to determine the hitherto indeterminable. Almost everything we know now was unknowable before were able to discover it. Your criticism of quantum indeterminancy is merely a misunderstanding of the scientific method; science doesn't claim to know what it doesn't know. You're fighting a chimera...
Quantum indeterminism actually fulfills both your definitions. It states that there are no causes (philosophical) AND that we can not know (scientific). Quantum theory actually provides strong empircal evidence that there are uncaused events in the universe. This is very strange and I do not know that anyone really took such a notion seriously until quantum theory. You're "philosophical indetermism" as defined was not a tennable position until quantum theory.
Google up "hidden variables quantum theory problems". There is good experimental evidence to demonstrate that hidden variables are impossible. As such qunatum events can be said to be uncaused. There is nothing that causes an atom to decay at a certain time rather than another its just does. Don't worry you are in good company with your disbelief in this Einstein himself could not believe this.
The physics is somewhat complex but not beyond the layman. Have a look around on line for "Bell's theorum" and the "Bell inequality" these do have evidence to support them and show that hidden variables are impossible. In the absense of hidden variables there can be said to be no actual cause for the particle to be found in position X as opposed to Y when we look. The wave function just happens to collapse to that point. So there is no cause in the normal sense of the word.
I know all about the physics, and the physics has nothing whatsoever to say about whether things are caused or not. You use the term "actual cause", but I'm talking about "cause", which is something entirely different. I don't consider what you call an "actual cause" to be a cause in the normal sense of the word.
Ok scrap the actual then. Makes no odds. Nothing can be said to cause a wave function to collapse to one point over and above another point. It just collaspes when observed to a point on its proability wave. Which point is NOT determined by anything i.e. nothing causes the function to favour the point it collaspes to.
Evil religion, did you check out that link I sent you? The non-causalists are followers of the Copenhagen interpretation, which I consider to be ridiculous.
If I am bruttaly honest I flip change my mind from time to tim on this matter. Its a complex subject and there are pervasive arguments each way. I generally come down on the side of non-causal though as the experimental evidence seems to back it up. But hey I could be wrong and concede that a good number of actual physicists would disagree with me (many would agree though!).
But I disagree with you that "It's a matter of pure logical fact" that there can be no evidence of non-causality.
evilreligion, "But I disagree with you that "It's a matter of pure logical fact" that there can be no evidence of non-causality.
The problem I see with this statement is that it's purely based in ignorance of causes, meaning that just because we may not be able to empirically determine the cause for a particuler phenomenon doesn't prove non-causality or lack of causes.
I think you do me a disservice here. The whole point of the bell thorum and the various experiments supporting it is that they purport to show that there is no and can not be any hidden cause (variable). Its not just a question of us not knowing the cause!
Would you say that's in a way the same as saying that there is no "thing" that we can observe as a cause of any other thing or event? I mean that we can't actually point to `*cause* itself and say "there it is there, that's what the cause of X or Y is"?
The wiki article you mention also points out some of the pit falls and flaws in this loophole out of the implications of bells theorum.
I think its far from certain as to what the truth of the matter is to be honest. There is evidence both ways. As I said I tend to lean on the side of indeterminism but would not claim it as and absolute certainty. What I want to understand is how you justify the statement that its a matter of "pure logical fact" when it clearly isn't!
The reason why I say it's a "pure logical fact" is because a thing can't exist independent of any other thing. A quantum event, for example, has dependencies, and that's what makes quantum events so extremely predictable.
A wavefunction collapse is predictable in that we (the observer) does indeed cause the event to happen by the act of observation HOWEVER there is no causal relationship that governs which point on the wavefunction the qunatum particle will collapse into. If bells theorum is true then there simply is NO cause as to why it collapses into sate X or Y when we look.
As to whether a thing can not exist indapendent of another thing I'm not sure why this rather vague statement is relevant.
evilreligion, keep in mind that Bell's theorem only considers *local* causes, and not non-local (or even non-locational) causes. DIviding the world into "local" and "non-local" is an unrealistic division, since the local is entirely caused by the non-local (since there's nothing else to cause it).
Consider what would happen if anything at all happened *completely uncaused*. There would be no predictability whatsoever. Instead of a quantum particle popping into existence, we might find a frog.
You're absolutely right. But not being able to determine the cause of a thing, doesn't prove there are hidden variables causing it either. So neither determinism or indeterminism is proven 100%
The evidence refuting determinism being fully certain is in various pure mathematic formulas, in other words, pure logic can argue that determinism isn't necessary for all forms of realities.
Couldn't we also say that the "evidence refuting determinism being fully certain is in various pure mathematic formulas" is the same as saying that all observations based on empirical measurement is inherently open to uncertainty? Mathematical formulas themselves can be proven incorrect upon future discoveries, and so to my mind we'll never have proof of indeterminism. Nor determinism, since we'll always be ignorant of all causes. All we can really say is that something is happening.. :)
Yes, your conclusion in the end is something I agree with. We can't find the logical premses that are undesputed by everyone to deduce a "fact" in the matter and we can't empirically find that everything looks like it is fully determined either. So agnostic position is rather rational at the moment, at least I think so.
Censeo, causation can't be proven empirically, just as you say "we can't empirically find that everything looks like it is fully determined".
Everything is reasoned to be fully determined in a logical manner, not in a scientific one. The reason for this is the definition of causes: what is necessary for something to exist. Thus, trying to use science to prove causation is like looking through a microscope to prove existence, or disprove non-existence.
" trying to use science to prove causation is like looking through a microscope to prove existence, or disprove non-existence"
I think a good topic for a future video could deal with this distinction between defining causation in 1. logical and 2. practical contexts, and how they overlap yet differ.
gaborvadim, they don't differ; it's the same definition (logical).
But there's another step there, before practical application. Namely, what is necessary for things are their causes, which are their parts, and that such parts are infinite.
That means, the practical application (science) is enlightened by awareness of infinite causes, and that everything is fully determined.
What about both determined and indetermined effects from a cause then? You can check my discussion with Kevin that took place when this video was uploaded (pretty long time ago) where I show by example this possibility through logic.
@Censeo, in relation to your discussion from 8 months ago, all the causes for what the sphere will do on being placed on the hemisphere are "determined" by definition (since "determined", in this sense, means, "caused"). But what those precise causes are, is "indeterminate", in the sense that all the *specific* causes aren't identified.
You tried to argue that all the specific causes are known (ie. determined). But a giant space goat not gobbling up the experiment is a cause....
Censeo, are you saying that a person conducting the experiment knows absolutely all the specific causes relating to it, which are infinite in number?
Somehow has a universal consciousness? If so, tell me how they managed that, given that consciousness is always limited in regards to perception of specific causes.
Mathematics are like deductive arguments. All facts are known in such experiments, unlike empirical experiments. It is simply an argument that proves that in a possible world, indetermined effects could be. So, it says not if indetermined effects are in this world, since it is not an experiment in this world. It just proves that we are not fully certain since this is one of many possible worlds and possible worlds can contain indetermined effects. It is deductive, not inductive reasoning.
By indetermined in this example, I mean an effect which have been caused, though the nature of the effect is not fully determined, though it has constraints and some determined nature too.
Censeo, right, thought so. So, because the observer of the experiment doesn't know all the causes at play in the experiment (they would have to be conscious of ALL causes), they cannot forecast what the sphere will do when placed on the hemisphere. The result is inevitable in the sense of being determined by causes, but what that result is, is unknown ("indeterminate") because of not knowing precisely what the causes are.
You could say it's caused to roll towards all directions down the dome at the same time. The landscape is completely symmetrical, which makes it this way.
We know that the sphere is at the center of a dome, we know that beneath the dome is evenly distributed gravity, we know that the objects have no friction, we know their density is evenly distributed in their bodies, we know that no space goat is interferring. We know from math that this sphere will roll down the dome given these circumstances.
Censeo, in *the real world* you can never know whether the sphere is at the center of a dome, because we can't measure things to an infinite number of decimal places accuracy. So the purely mathematical experiment doesn't help us when it comes to understanding the real world.
And given this, that it is possible, but not required, in a world that indetermined effects arise from a cause... what about a world which is expanding from a true singularity? Is it not certain, that such a world, would expand with full symmetry, given it was no indetermined effects ever?
Censeo, what do you mean by "determined"? Do you mean "caused" or "predictable"? (Terrible to ask that question again, I know)
Even in the case of the purely mathematical experiment with the sphere, we can't say that no causes are operating - it just shows that we can't determine them.
I know the sphere is caused to roll down. I don't mean indetermined to mean uncaused. Does it look uncaused in the example to you, that this sphere is rolling down? No, that would be silly.
No, I don't mean caused when I say determined, cause everything has a cause. I don't mean predictable either, since things we can't predict could be predictable if we had all the facts. I mean things that could not be predicted, even if we knew everything.
Censeo, you say "I mean things that could not be predicted, even if we knew everything."
The problem I have with this conception is that we can't possibly know everything, so the idea "if we knew everything" is meaningless to me. I mean that we can't possibly know everything in the real, physical world, and even in the pure mathematical world (of real numbers) we can't know everything.
Eg, in the world of pure mathematics we can't know *exactly* the angle of a curve, at any particular pt
Kevin. I say that by reality being fully determined, I mean that if you were to know everything that is possible to know about reality, then you can predict the future to a 100%. This is obviously not what you mean by determinism since you would assert that determinism couldn't mean this, because no one can know everything that is possible to know, so that definition is useless. So what do you mean by determinism? And what do you mean by indeterminism?
Strange, we both believe everything is caused but we don't think it necessarily imply the same conclutions. According to how you defined determined, I believe everything is determined.
Censeo, you will note that I'm not saying that any finite being can know what will happen in the future. So our positions aren't necessarily too different.
It is not the fact of finite beings being capable of knowing that provides anything to my argument that indeterminism is possible. You could as well say that the all would not know everything in such a world.
It has nothing to do with actual knowledge of the world. It is different causual nature of some things, where a broader possibility is at place sometimes (possibly).
My suspicion is that a determined expansion from a singularity would be symmetrical space-time where no mass form.
There is no confusion. The consiquences of bells theorum (if true) are that these events will always be unpredictable regardless of our level of knowledge. It tells us that any such hidden variable do not and can not exist its NOT simply a question of the limitations of our knowledge. That is what all the fuss is about with indeterminacy. If it where just about our limitations of knowledge it would be really unremarkable.
evilreligion, you say "these events will always be unpredictable". These events are hypothetical ones invented by mathematicians who are always coming up with new solutions (and new problems). This says to me that we're not talking about non-causation but humans who haven't yet discovered why something is happening.
I mean, the correlation is unable to be calculated under the constraint of Bells Theorem, but can be without it.
No they are not hypothetical there is empircal experimental evidence to back this up. This is not just an invention of mathematics or a thought experiment. I'm not saying its conclusive evidence as it really is fairly complex physics but this really is not jsut some fancyiful mathematical or philosphical musing. This is one of the reasons why quantum physics is so interesting. There are real implications for philosophy from the actual physics.
evilreligion, the fact that mathematicians have been trying to get around the limit of Bells Theorem means they are looking for explanations. Clearly, they don't believe that the randomness is inexplicable.
In other words, their very efforts to find explanations indicate that they don't believe it's impossible to predict the matter.
Some may well be doing this. Some still cling to determinism and hidden variables. Some just can't accept the implications of quantum theory. Most of the physics community just accept it and get on with the science.
As I have said repeatedly this matter is not conclusivly decided. The general consensus from the actual science is indeterminism but there are indeed some very clever people that disagree.
My main problem here is the notion that determinism is some kind of logical fact - it isn't.
evilreligion, if determinism is defined as "that all things are causally created, and that causes are what are necessary for things to exist, including parts for things whether internal or external", then as long as a thing has some parts, then it has causes by definition. It's not something science can disprove.
That's how definitions work. If you are not certain of a definition, then you are employing two definitions: the definition you are not certain of, and the definition of what certainty is, in order to use it to describe the quality of the definition you are not certain about - - - definitively.
This use of definitional truths is scattered throughout your own posts, but perhaps you weren't aware of it.
If you disagree with my definition of determinism, then say why.
evilreligion, you say, "Most of the physics community just accept it and get on with the science".
In fact, you don't need to practice metaphysics at all to be able to get on with the science. Speculating about whether anything happens entirely without cause is metaphysics, and isn't physics.
But I think a good understanding of physics is perhaps necessary or at least insightful for metaphysics. The way the world actualy works, as exposed by actual experimental evidence and observations, is very useful for metaphysics. This was the central theme of my final year dissitation on the philosophy of quantum physics (the nature of causation was one part of this).
Ah, seing this video for the second time. It was an interesting discussion I had with Kevin in the comment section indeed.
Another thing about this is that I see no connection between determinism and free will, since things that happen for no reason at all has no connection to free will.
On a third note, I really wish you had time to make more videos Menoftheinfinite.
I had started a new series of vids called "What is the Infinite" but then I got a serious dose of what I think is gout in my mouse button finger and I can barely use it (or most of the hand). Hopefully it'll clear up soon.
ps. I take away comments cause I see strong errors while reviewing them :)
About your 1st paragraph, reason is synonymous with cause, not sure what you mean cause you seam to have two stands or smth.
About 2nd paragraph, it is unrelated to my point and does not matter if you're right or wrong in that statement. My objection is that arguments against free will, for the reason that all things are determined is not valid unless one can show that free will is only possible when world is otherwise.
Romb, you say "reason is synonymous with cause". Reason is about consciously arriving at truths or valid theories, whereas causes are what is necessary for things to exist. Determinism means, things exist because of causes, by definition.
You could say things are synonymous with causes.
Freedom of choice is an illusion because all choices are causally created.
Reasons are more encompassing than just consciously (the reasons for higher temperature is global warming).
Why did you say that not knowing all the causes (a conscious state) makes us feel we have free will and then say no conscious state result in anything else. You contradict yourself.
Not that this topic has anything to do with the point I made initially, but heck, why not talk of something else, since you seem to not want to adress that point.
On another note. If you by choice means that at certain points, you could have done differently than you did, I rather be forced to do what my judgement is telling me (what actions it eventually determine I'd take). If that is the correct connotation of free will, its just random actions taken by people uncaused by their hopes in life ( which in turn was caused by their brains if you will), it would do nothing benefitial to anyone.
Censeo, choice is about being able to see different options with different results, and deciding based on "hopes" or values. We *appear* to have free will because of not seeing what exactly is causing or driving our choices, which is in turn because we can't identify all the causes.
So we can know that free will is an illusion, i.e. doesn't really exist. Some people are fooled by the illusion, while others aren't.
If choice is what you said, then we have that. To decide based on something means that this something is part of the causation. We always decide based on something, which means we don't have what I think you mean free will is, which is very fortunate for everyone. No one benefits from choices which isn't caused by something.
Censeo, freewill is the notion of making choices as a free agent, namely, being free to decide without being constrained by causes. You are right that we don't have free will.
@Censeo I think you miss the point my friend. Determinism dictates that everything is out of our control. When you eat hunger caused you to do so. When you go to work it was the threat of starvation and the want of a roof over your head. If you work for fun it is the excitement and contentment that caused you to choose to work over not. When you have a drink it is to relieve stresses that caused you to want one or for the pleasure it provides you.
@Luigi84289 I'd say if YOU control something, then that something would be determined by you. And how you would choose to control that something would simply be based upon what the nature of you were. So how would that scenario also not be deterministic? If you can explain that, then I agree that determinism necessarily prohibit control.
@Censeo What determines your actions? causes Control is all in the mind. You see what I'm saying? Determinism means breaking everything down to cause and effect.
@Luigi84289 Wait, you didn't answer my question. Why would the world not be deterministic if someone had control of their actions? I'm not saying anyone has, but if someone had, why would the world in that case not be determined?
@Absoloootly Yes, I would totally agree that it is just as valid to say everything boils down to fate. Are you expanding on my theory, or are you disagreeing on my use of terminology?
The philosophical or metaphysical elements of physics or QM lie in the *interpretations* of empirical data. Unfortunately most scientists are not very good philosophers so we ought take such interpretations with a grain of salt.
Logic (philosophy) and science deal with different aspects of Reality. Science deals solely with the empirical. Philosophical logic attempts to uncover principles of existence. If you like - the non-contingent facts. Scientific models, however well they may work, can only ever be contingent.
The issue is whether there is, at any given time, reason to think in terms of the miraculous rather than merely the limitations - current or perhaps in principle - of observation. My vid "Is it rational to believe ih miracles" speaks to this to some degree:
Excellent video. Thank you for this. So few people really grasp the concept of determinism. Perhaps because it is the ultimate insult to identity, self-importance, ego, and the question of subjective existence. Even with enlightenment, it is still very difficult for one to accept that their very thoughts and actions have been "set up" by an nearly infinite number of events and that we are merely witnessing consciousness and existence as a playback.
At first I thought you were throwing the old apologist straw man of the science religion out there. But then I realized you were just talking about what I sometimes refer to as "quantum religion".
I think we have philosophical determinism, but the illusion of free will because of scientific indeterminism like you demonstrated with the dice. Those unknowns, plus consciousness and the fact that some of those small reactions, which things can be reduced to are us.
Yes, I think what you say there is in accordance with my understanding. I consider the "self", or the "I" to be only a logical entity, like the number "1" - which can be can be reduced to chemical interactions in the brain.
There are purely logical conclusions we can draw that are based on the fact that we are necessarily ignorant of many things. I have made those conclusions.
I think you have trouble distinguishing quantum mechanics from the ridiculous linguistic knots required to convey its implications.
Indeterminacy doesn't apply in the same way on the macro scale where we talk about our ability to predict an event as opposed to the theoretical possibility to predict an event.
I can grant that over time the effects at the quantum scale may have observable influence at the macro scale but no as in your dice roll analogy.
Bell's theorem seems reasonable enough to me, but it only says that that the universe is not *locally* deterministic - with special emphasis on the "locally". Bell's theorem doesn't claim that the universe isn't deterministic. For example, we can't predict the result of a dice throw if all we know about is the dice, and nothing else. This is common sense. I argue that indeterminacy is fundamentally the same on the macro scale.
That is, on the macro scale, it is *theoretically* impossible to predict events (ie, with certainty) for the same reasons that we cannot do so on the quantum scale.
Bells theorem by my interpretation, makes no claim as to wheather or not the universe has only deterministic, but it gives just cause to assume that the immediate state of any "particle" will not subject itself to prediction whereas on the macro scale the predictability of a situation decays over time.
Forgive my choice of words, but language was not designed to convey these ideas.
To discuss wheter the universe "is" or "is not" deteministic upon accepting Bells theorem seems pointless to me.
I agree with you about the problem of language. As this video illustrates, even the term "deterministic" is so indeterministic that it is often useless.
I regard all things to be "deterministic" so far as being caused is concerned, but "indeterministic" so far as predictability is concerned - if that's not confusing enough.
There are countless things, unknown to me, that could make a ball move without me expecting it to. So if the ball doesn't move, I'm lucky. I don't know for sure when an event happens because of a known cause or because of an unknown cause. I can only guess.
With that stance of borderline sophism you might as well spend the rest of your days asking the question "am I in a mental institution and merely hallucinating this"
I believe I answered your question. I'm not talking about *guessing* what a future event will be, based on past experience, but on predicting with certainty a future event. And this we cannot do, not because events are not caused, but because we cannot determine what the causes are.
While *systems* of logic may make assumptions, logic itself makes none. It is primal even to the process of making assumptions. Logic cannot be proven because you would need to use logic to prove it. However, just because logic can't be proven doesn't mean that it may be wrong.
The law of identity does not constitute a logical conclusion.
It falls under the definition of an axiom.
Also worth noting:
It gets filled with holes when taken in linguistic form to refer to the physical world, and as a statement of a formal system can only apply within the system, giving it no bearing on (forgive the term)"reality"
I agree with what you say about formal systems of logic. That's why I steer clear of those, and stick with just pure logic, which can be applied to everything in reality. The law of identity is a logical truth, but is not the conclusion of a formal system of logic. It doesn't matter whether you call logic (or identity) an "axiom" or not - it's just a label. It still doesn't matter than you can't prove logic itself.
A phenomenon that is computationally intractable, like a dynamical system, is different from a system that is indeterministic by nature, such as a quantum system. The mathematical model for the first type of system is NOT probabilistic. Only its approximations are probabilistic. The second type of system is probabilistic by nature. That's the key difference which seems to elude you.
tk050305cnx, macro scale events are also probabilistic by nature, and for the same reasons that they are so on the quantum scale. They are inherently probabilistic. They are, however, fully causal, just the same as quantum events.
tk050305cnx, the "models" you speak of, for macro events, are innacurate for predicting a macro event precisely because macro events are inherently unpredictable.
There is no macro world indeterminacy. That's a conceptual misunderstanding. For example, throwing a dice is deterministic, because the "macro world physics" of the dice is fully deterministic. However, there are systems such as meteorology for example, which are deterministic but unpredictable because of their chaotic properties which make them intractable. These are called dynamical systems or sometimes non-linear dynamical systems. You seem to confuse intractability with indeterminacy.
Thomas, as I explained in the video, "deterministic" can mean one of two things. It can either mean "caused" or it can mean "(fully) predictable". All events are caused. But macro events, like a throw of a dice, are inherently unpredictable since we can't know what causal factors are operating. We can only guess, and even then we can't measure those causes we do know about.
Prima facie, it sounds like a contradiction in terms. How is "chaos" being defined in such a term? Does it just refer to a state of affairs within which we can find no discernible pattern?
I agree that doesn't depend as that :''chaos don't affect the determined part''. But in sense that is a ''whole''=predictable+unpredictable.You haw to haw this 10 random numbers in between to have 1,2,3,4 in line.
Well, for me all things are necessarily effects and causes. i.e. causes are always effects, and effects, always causes. Or, to put it another way, all things are necessarily both causes and effects.
Human beings call anything they do not know, 'weird', 'unexplainable', 'God' etc. This aspect of human beings has not changed one bit since the time people said that the earth was flat, and that is the reason why we cannot progress much further as a species.
I agree with the video, but I feel that you overestimate this "scientific religion's" following. I'm not sure how many actual scientists believe that quantum indeterminism gives us free will- many authors, such as Dennett, make the point that even if there IS actual randomness, it isn't as though we can influence or affect it in some way-- dissolving the notion that indeterminism can give us free will either.
Who cares if we don't have free will? I'm having a great ride! :)
Petexii, good points. Few actual working scientists make the errors of judgement I pointed out. They just "shut up and calculate". Most of the perpetrators are students, or mere commentators, or people outright abusing science for their own ends.
Quantum indeterminacy is not a result of a lack of epistemological accuracy, not the result of error in reasoning due to lack of knowledge. The limits of classical determinism were made apparent when probability entered physics with the rise of thermodynamics in the 19th century. This was long before the even more startling results of 20th century quantum physics, which concern not merely physics' inability to have classical knowledge of nature, but the inadequacy of a reductionist ontology.
So indeterminacy in quantum physics has more radical consequences than the epistemological limit already put on classical physics by statistical thermodynamics. Quantum physics shows that "whenever we state the properties of a body in terms of physical qualities we are imparting knowledge as to the response of various metrical indicators to its presence, and nothing more." -Sir Arthur Eddington (cont't)--->
"...science has nothing to say as to the intrinsic nature of the atom. The physical atom is, like everything else in physics, a schedule of pointer readings." -Eddington.
So in quantum physics we learn that particles are measurements, and so measurements become part of nature. This makes reality fundamentally indeterminate because knower and known are no longer separate. How nature appears depends on the kinds of questions we ask of her.
You misunderstand quantum indeterminism. It is not epistemological or a limit of what we can know. The theory itself just deals with probabilities. This can be proven.
"Science is a religion." You know someone has nothing interesting to say when they make claims like that.
frabjous79 2 weeks ago
@menoftheinfinite I just had physicist Lawrence Krauss on my show, the openairatheistpocast ep 18 where I asked him about this very issue. You can listen to the episode on my channel and on the OAAPODCAST channel. Peace : )
OpenAirAtheist 2 weeks ago
The definition of determinism should be:
"There is a DEFINITE SYSTEM OR PHYSICS acting on and defines the history of SAID OBJECT or ANYTHING that exists OR is real."
Indeterminism
"There is an INDEFINITE SYSTEM OR PHYSICS acting on and defines the history of SAID OBJECT or ANYTHING that exists OR is real."
Determinism = Logic; that ALL THINGS ARE LOGICALLY BOUND.
Indeterminism = Paradox; that ALL THINGS ARE NOT LOGICALLY BOUND, MIRACLE HAPPEN, CRAZY SHIT HAPPENS.
osheaad 7 months ago
Our lives are based on our decisions
Our decisions are based on our perspective.
Our perspective is based on our personality.
Our personality is located in the orbital layer of the pre-frontal cortex.
Our brain's wiring is determined by our DNA.
Our DNA is luck.
Therefore, Luck Is Everything (L.I.E. Theory).
chefshitpiece 1 year ago
Your scientific and philosophical dichotomy is irrelevant. The essence of science is to determine the hitherto indeterminable. Almost everything we know now was unknowable before were able to discover it. Your criticism of quantum indeterminancy is merely a misunderstanding of the scientific method; science doesn't claim to know what it doesn't know. You're fighting a chimera...
Slabbers 1 year ago
@Slabbers He's not fighting anything. Science deals with the material.and it is what we perceive it to be.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
Quantum indeterminism actually fulfills both your definitions. It states that there are no causes (philosophical) AND that we can not know (scientific). Quantum theory actually provides strong empircal evidence that there are uncaused events in the universe. This is very strange and I do not know that anyone really took such a notion seriously until quantum theory. You're "philosophical indetermism" as defined was not a tennable position until quantum theory.
evilreligion 2 years ago
evilreligion, "strong empirical evidence that there are uncaused events" is a contradiction in terms so far as I'm concerned.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
I fail to see the contradiction
Google up "hidden variables quantum theory problems". There is good experimental evidence to demonstrate that hidden variables are impossible. As such qunatum events can be said to be uncaused. There is nothing that causes an atom to decay at a certain time rather than another its just does. Don't worry you are in good company with your disbelief in this Einstein himself could not believe this.
evilreligion 2 years ago
There cannot be evidence that there are no causes. It's as simple as that. It's a matter of pure logical fact.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
However, there may be causes that *we* cannot determine. That distinction is what this video is about.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
The physics is somewhat complex but not beyond the layman. Have a look around on line for "Bell's theorum" and the "Bell inequality" these do have evidence to support them and show that hidden variables are impossible. In the absense of hidden variables there can be said to be no actual cause for the particle to be found in position X as opposed to Y when we look. The wave function just happens to collapse to that point. So there is no cause in the normal sense of the word.
evilreligion 2 years ago
I know all about the physics, and the physics has nothing whatsoever to say about whether things are caused or not. You use the term "actual cause", but I'm talking about "cause", which is something entirely different. I don't consider what you call an "actual cause" to be a cause in the normal sense of the word.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Ok scrap the actual then. Makes no odds. Nothing can be said to cause a wave function to collapse to one point over and above another point. It just collaspes when observed to a point on its proability wave. Which point is NOT determined by anything i.e. nothing causes the function to favour the point it collaspes to.
evilreligion 2 years ago
Evil religion, did you check out that link I sent you? The non-causalists are followers of the Copenhagen interpretation, which I consider to be ridiculous.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
If I am bruttaly honest I flip change my mind from time to tim on this matter. Its a complex subject and there are pervasive arguments each way. I generally come down on the side of non-causal though as the experimental evidence seems to back it up. But hey I could be wrong and concede that a good number of actual physicists would disagree with me (many would agree though!).
But I disagree with you that "It's a matter of pure logical fact" that there can be no evidence of non-causality.
evilreligion 2 years ago
evilreligion, "But I disagree with you that "It's a matter of pure logical fact" that there can be no evidence of non-causality.
The problem I see with this statement is that it's purely based in ignorance of causes, meaning that just because we may not be able to empirically determine the cause for a particuler phenomenon doesn't prove non-causality or lack of causes.
gaborvadim 2 years ago
I think you do me a disservice here. The whole point of the bell thorum and the various experiments supporting it is that they purport to show that there is no and can not be any hidden cause (variable). Its not just a question of us not knowing the cause!
evilreligion 2 years ago
Would you say that's in a way the same as saying that there is no "thing" that we can observe as a cause of any other thing or event? I mean that we can't actually point to `*cause* itself and say "there it is there, that's what the cause of X or Y is"?
gaborvadim 2 years ago
@evilreligion
Bell's theorem actually only disproves the existence of LOCAL hidden variables. It doesn't at all show the absence of hidden variables.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
See "superdeterminism" in wikipedia. So far as I'm concerned, "superdeterminism" just means "determinism".
KevinSolway 2 years ago
The wiki article you mention also points out some of the pit falls and flaws in this loophole out of the implications of bells theorum.
I think its far from certain as to what the truth of the matter is to be honest. There is evidence both ways. As I said I tend to lean on the side of indeterminism but would not claim it as and absolute certainty. What I want to understand is how you justify the statement that its a matter of "pure logical fact" when it clearly isn't!
evilreligion 2 years ago
The reason why I say it's a "pure logical fact" is because a thing can't exist independent of any other thing. A quantum event, for example, has dependencies, and that's what makes quantum events so extremely predictable.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
A wavefunction collapse is predictable in that we (the observer) does indeed cause the event to happen by the act of observation HOWEVER there is no causal relationship that governs which point on the wavefunction the qunatum particle will collapse into. If bells theorum is true then there simply is NO cause as to why it collapses into sate X or Y when we look.
As to whether a thing can not exist indapendent of another thing I'm not sure why this rather vague statement is relevant.
evilreligion 2 years ago
evilreligion, keep in mind that Bell's theorem only considers *local* causes, and not non-local (or even non-locational) causes. DIviding the world into "local" and "non-local" is an unrealistic division, since the local is entirely caused by the non-local (since there's nothing else to cause it).
Consider what would happen if anything at all happened *completely uncaused*. There would be no predictability whatsoever. Instead of a quantum particle popping into existence, we might find a frog.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
@gaborvadim
You're absolutely right. But not being able to determine the cause of a thing, doesn't prove there are hidden variables causing it either. So neither determinism or indeterminism is proven 100%
The evidence refuting determinism being fully certain is in various pure mathematic formulas, in other words, pure logic can argue that determinism isn't necessary for all forms of realities.
Censeo 2 years ago
@Censeo
Couldn't we also say that the "evidence refuting determinism being fully certain is in various pure mathematic formulas" is the same as saying that all observations based on empirical measurement is inherently open to uncertainty? Mathematical formulas themselves can be proven incorrect upon future discoveries, and so to my mind we'll never have proof of indeterminism. Nor determinism, since we'll always be ignorant of all causes. All we can really say is that something is happening.. :)
gaborvadim 2 years ago
@gaborvadim
Yes, your conclusion in the end is something I agree with. We can't find the logical premses that are undesputed by everyone to deduce a "fact" in the matter and we can't empirically find that everything looks like it is fully determined either. So agnostic position is rather rational at the moment, at least I think so.
Censeo 2 years ago
Censeo, you say "not being able to determine the cause of a thing doesn't prove there are hidden variables causing it either."
A hidden variable's existence cannot be proven, if it is by definition *hidden*.
I think evilreligion might be confusing a logical term "no-causation" with a scientific term "unpredictable with current knowledge".
KellyJones00 2 years ago
"A hidden variable's existence cannot be proven, if it is by definition *hidden*. "
True that, which is why I said what I said.
"I think evilreligion might be confusing a logical term "no-causation" with a scientific term "unpredictable with current knowledge"."
I think not, though you have to ask him. I was responding to gaborvadin in any case.
Censeo 2 years ago
Censeo, causation can't be proven empirically, just as you say "we can't empirically find that everything looks like it is fully determined".
Everything is reasoned to be fully determined in a logical manner, not in a scientific one. The reason for this is the definition of causes: what is necessary for something to exist. Thus, trying to use science to prove causation is like looking through a microscope to prove existence, or disprove non-existence.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
Hi Kelly.
" trying to use science to prove causation is like looking through a microscope to prove existence, or disprove non-existence"
I think a good topic for a future video could deal with this distinction between defining causation in 1. logical and 2. practical contexts, and how they overlap yet differ.
gaborvadim 2 years ago
gaborvadim, they don't differ; it's the same definition (logical).
But there's another step there, before practical application. Namely, what is necessary for things are their causes, which are their parts, and that such parts are infinite.
That means, the practical application (science) is enlightened by awareness of infinite causes, and that everything is fully determined.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
What about both determined and indetermined effects from a cause then? You can check my discussion with Kevin that took place when this video was uploaded (pretty long time ago) where I show by example this possibility through logic.
Censeo 2 years ago
@Censeo, in relation to your discussion from 8 months ago, all the causes for what the sphere will do on being placed on the hemisphere are "determined" by definition (since "determined", in this sense, means, "caused"). But what those precise causes are, is "indeterminate", in the sense that all the *specific* causes aren't identified.
You tried to argue that all the specific causes are known (ie. determined). But a giant space goat not gobbling up the experiment is a cause....
KellyJones00 2 years ago
"But a giant space goat not gobbling up the experiment is a cause...."
And that is a known fact in the mathematical expample as well. So this is an identified cause as well, not something unaccounted for.
Censeo 2 years ago
Censeo, are you saying that a person conducting the experiment knows absolutely all the specific causes relating to it, which are infinite in number?
Somehow has a universal consciousness? If so, tell me how they managed that, given that consciousness is always limited in regards to perception of specific causes.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
Mathematics are like deductive arguments. All facts are known in such experiments, unlike empirical experiments. It is simply an argument that proves that in a possible world, indetermined effects could be. So, it says not if indetermined effects are in this world, since it is not an experiment in this world. It just proves that we are not fully certain since this is one of many possible worlds and possible worlds can contain indetermined effects. It is deductive, not inductive reasoning.
Censeo 2 years ago
Censeo, by "indetermined" do you mean "are not caused", or "have specific causes that are not yet identified" ?
KellyJones00 2 years ago
By indetermined in this example, I mean an effect which have been caused, though the nature of the effect is not fully determined, though it has constraints and some determined nature too.
Censeo 2 years ago
Censeo, right, thought so. So, because the observer of the experiment doesn't know all the causes at play in the experiment (they would have to be conscious of ALL causes), they cannot forecast what the sphere will do when placed on the hemisphere. The result is inevitable in the sense of being determined by causes, but what that result is, is unknown ("indeterminate") because of not knowing precisely what the causes are.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
You could say it's caused to roll towards all directions down the dome at the same time. The landscape is completely symmetrical, which makes it this way.
Censeo 2 years ago
We know that the sphere is at the center of a dome, we know that beneath the dome is evenly distributed gravity, we know that the objects have no friction, we know their density is evenly distributed in their bodies, we know that no space goat is interferring. We know from math that this sphere will roll down the dome given these circumstances.
Censeo 2 years ago
Censeo, in *the real world* you can never know whether the sphere is at the center of a dome, because we can't measure things to an infinite number of decimal places accuracy. So the purely mathematical experiment doesn't help us when it comes to understanding the real world.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
"Censeo, in *the real world* you can never know whether the sphere is at the center of a dome"
Yes, of course. The whole point is to show that we don't know if this world is determined and we don't know if this world is indetermined.
Censeo 2 years ago
And given this, that it is possible, but not required, in a world that indetermined effects arise from a cause... what about a world which is expanding from a true singularity? Is it not certain, that such a world, would expand with full symmetry, given it was no indetermined effects ever?
Censeo 2 years ago
Censeo, what do you mean by "determined"? Do you mean "caused" or "predictable"? (Terrible to ask that question again, I know)
Even in the case of the purely mathematical experiment with the sphere, we can't say that no causes are operating - it just shows that we can't determine them.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
I know the sphere is caused to roll down. I don't mean indetermined to mean uncaused. Does it look uncaused in the example to you, that this sphere is rolling down? No, that would be silly.
Censeo 2 years ago
No, I don't mean caused when I say determined, cause everything has a cause. I don't mean predictable either, since things we can't predict could be predictable if we had all the facts. I mean things that could not be predicted, even if we knew everything.
Censeo 2 years ago
Censeo, you say "I mean things that could not be predicted, even if we knew everything."
The problem I have with this conception is that we can't possibly know everything, so the idea "if we knew everything" is meaningless to me. I mean that we can't possibly know everything in the real, physical world, and even in the pure mathematical world (of real numbers) we can't know everything.
Eg, in the world of pure mathematics we can't know *exactly* the angle of a curve, at any particular pt
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Kevin. I say that by reality being fully determined, I mean that if you were to know everything that is possible to know about reality, then you can predict the future to a 100%. This is obviously not what you mean by determinism since you would assert that determinism couldn't mean this, because no one can know everything that is possible to know, so that definition is useless. So what do you mean by determinism? And what do you mean by indeterminism?
Censeo 2 years ago
To me, "determined" simply means "caused". Indetermined would mean uncaused (and there is no thing which is uncaused).
It means that Nature, or the All, "knows" what is going to happen. I believe this is also called "superdeterminism", in wiki.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Strange, we both believe everything is caused but we don't think it necessarily imply the same conclutions. According to how you defined determined, I believe everything is determined.
Censeo 2 years ago
Censeo, you will note that I'm not saying that any finite being can know what will happen in the future. So our positions aren't necessarily too different.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Comment removed
Censeo 2 years ago
It is not the fact of finite beings being capable of knowing that provides anything to my argument that indeterminism is possible. You could as well say that the all would not know everything in such a world.
It has nothing to do with actual knowledge of the world. It is different causual nature of some things, where a broader possibility is at place sometimes (possibly).
My suspicion is that a determined expansion from a singularity would be symmetrical space-time where no mass form.
Censeo 2 years ago
I would say that the non-uniformity of the observable cosmos is a result of the causes of the "singularity" also being non-uniform.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Kevin, It could be. Could be what I said... could be something else.
Censeo 2 years ago
There is no confusion. The consiquences of bells theorum (if true) are that these events will always be unpredictable regardless of our level of knowledge. It tells us that any such hidden variable do not and can not exist its NOT simply a question of the limitations of our knowledge. That is what all the fuss is about with indeterminacy. If it where just about our limitations of knowledge it would be really unremarkable.
evilreligion 2 years ago
evilreligion, you say "these events will always be unpredictable". These events are hypothetical ones invented by mathematicians who are always coming up with new solutions (and new problems). This says to me that we're not talking about non-causation but humans who haven't yet discovered why something is happening.
I mean, the correlation is unable to be calculated under the constraint of Bells Theorem, but can be without it.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
No they are not hypothetical there is empircal experimental evidence to back this up. This is not just an invention of mathematics or a thought experiment. I'm not saying its conclusive evidence as it really is fairly complex physics but this really is not jsut some fancyiful mathematical or philosphical musing. This is one of the reasons why quantum physics is so interesting. There are real implications for philosophy from the actual physics.
evilreligion 2 years ago
evilreligion, the fact that mathematicians have been trying to get around the limit of Bells Theorem means they are looking for explanations. Clearly, they don't believe that the randomness is inexplicable.
In other words, their very efforts to find explanations indicate that they don't believe it's impossible to predict the matter.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
Some may well be doing this. Some still cling to determinism and hidden variables. Some just can't accept the implications of quantum theory. Most of the physics community just accept it and get on with the science.
As I have said repeatedly this matter is not conclusivly decided. The general consensus from the actual science is indeterminism but there are indeed some very clever people that disagree.
My main problem here is the notion that determinism is some kind of logical fact - it isn't.
evilreligion 2 years ago
evilreligion, if determinism is defined as "that all things are causally created, and that causes are what are necessary for things to exist, including parts for things whether internal or external", then as long as a thing has some parts, then it has causes by definition. It's not something science can disprove.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
You are just defining determinsm into being true!
Its just a tautology. You define everything as necessarily having a cause and then say that being the case determism is true!!!
Of course THAT BEING THE CASE determinism is true. I dont think that is the case though.
evilreligion 2 years ago
That's how definitions work. If you are not certain of a definition, then you are employing two definitions: the definition you are not certain of, and the definition of what certainty is, in order to use it to describe the quality of the definition you are not certain about - - - definitively.
This use of definitional truths is scattered throughout your own posts, but perhaps you weren't aware of it.
If you disagree with my definition of determinism, then say why.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
Your definition of determinism is not the problem. Your premis
"Everything has a cause" is the problem. You provide with no explanation for this and this is the point we are actually debating.
You have presented no arguement you have merely asserted something. This is like me saying
P1-Not everything has cause
P2- Determininsm is the notion that all things have a cause
C- Determinism is false
P1 - is point of contention I can just assert it!
Just as you can't just asert that everything does!
evilreligion 2 years ago
Did you have a problem with the definition mentioned earlier for "cause" (four posts up)?
KellyJones00 2 years ago
evilreligion, you say, "Most of the physics community just accept it and get on with the science".
In fact, you don't need to practice metaphysics at all to be able to get on with the science. Speculating about whether anything happens entirely without cause is metaphysics, and isn't physics.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Metaphysics is indeed not necessary for science.
But I think a good understanding of physics is perhaps necessary or at least insightful for metaphysics. The way the world actualy works, as exposed by actual experimental evidence and observations, is very useful for metaphysics. This was the central theme of my final year dissitation on the philosophy of quantum physics (the nature of causation was one part of this).
evilreligion 2 years ago
Ah, seing this video for the second time. It was an interesting discussion I had with Kevin in the comment section indeed.
Another thing about this is that I see no connection between determinism and free will, since things that happen for no reason at all has no connection to free will.
On a third note, I really wish you had time to make more videos Menoftheinfinite.
Censeo 2 years ago
I had started a new series of vids called "What is the Infinite" but then I got a serious dose of what I think is gout in my mouse button finger and I can barely use it (or most of the hand). Hopefully it'll clear up soon.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
I have a couple of vids in the workings: "Lessons of economics" and "Stages of the way".
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Made any progress there?
KellyJones00 2 years ago
Still brewing.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
P.S. My position is that all things happen for reasons, but they aren't necessarily reasons that we can know.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
ok, well, that is a mute point for free will according to above point made by me.
Censeo 2 years ago
Censeo, things don't happen for reasons. But we can know they're always caused (determined) without always knowing what the causes are.
Not knowing all the causes makes us feel we have free will (we don't see the connections).
KellyJones00 2 years ago
Comment removed
Censeo 2 years ago
Comment removed
Censeo 2 years ago
ps. I take away comments cause I see strong errors while reviewing them :)
About your 1st paragraph, reason is synonymous with cause, not sure what you mean cause you seam to have two stands or smth.
About 2nd paragraph, it is unrelated to my point and does not matter if you're right or wrong in that statement. My objection is that arguments against free will, for the reason that all things are determined is not valid unless one can show that free will is only possible when world is otherwise.
Censeo 2 years ago
Romb, you say "reason is synonymous with cause". Reason is about consciously arriving at truths or valid theories, whereas causes are what is necessary for things to exist. Determinism means, things exist because of causes, by definition.
You could say things are synonymous with causes.
Freedom of choice is an illusion because all choices are causally created.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
Reasons are more encompassing than just consciously (the reasons for higher temperature is global warming).
Why did you say that not knowing all the causes (a conscious state) makes us feel we have free will and then say no conscious state result in anything else. You contradict yourself.
Not that this topic has anything to do with the point I made initially, but heck, why not talk of something else, since you seem to not want to adress that point.
Censeo 2 years ago
Censeo, you say "reasons are more encompassing than just consciously". Yes, that's why I used "causes" rather than "reasons".
More below.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
On another note. If you by choice means that at certain points, you could have done differently than you did, I rather be forced to do what my judgement is telling me (what actions it eventually determine I'd take). If that is the correct connotation of free will, its just random actions taken by people uncaused by their hopes in life ( which in turn was caused by their brains if you will), it would do nothing benefitial to anyone.
Censeo 2 years ago
Censeo, choice is about being able to see different options with different results, and deciding based on "hopes" or values. We *appear* to have free will because of not seeing what exactly is causing or driving our choices, which is in turn because we can't identify all the causes.
So we can know that free will is an illusion, i.e. doesn't really exist. Some people are fooled by the illusion, while others aren't.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
If choice is what you said, then we have that. To decide based on something means that this something is part of the causation. We always decide based on something, which means we don't have what I think you mean free will is, which is very fortunate for everyone. No one benefits from choices which isn't caused by something.
Censeo 2 years ago
Censeo, freewill is the notion of making choices as a free agent, namely, being free to decide without being constrained by causes. You are right that we don't have free will.
KellyJones00 2 years ago
@Censeo I think you miss the point my friend. Determinism dictates that everything is out of our control. When you eat hunger caused you to do so. When you go to work it was the threat of starvation and the want of a roof over your head. If you work for fun it is the excitement and contentment that caused you to choose to work over not. When you have a drink it is to relieve stresses that caused you to want one or for the pleasure it provides you.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Luigi84289 I'd say if YOU control something, then that something would be determined by you. And how you would choose to control that something would simply be based upon what the nature of you were. So how would that scenario also not be deterministic? If you can explain that, then I agree that determinism necessarily prohibit control.
Censeo 1 year ago
@Censeo What determines your actions? causes Control is all in the mind. You see what I'm saying? Determinism means breaking everything down to cause and effect.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Luigi84289 Wait, you didn't answer my question. Why would the world not be deterministic if someone had control of their actions? I'm not saying anyone has, but if someone had, why would the world in that case not be determined?
Censeo 1 year ago
@Luigi84289
Luck--->DNA--->Brain--->Personality--->Valuers--->Decisions--->LIFE!!!
There4, luck is everything (L.I.E. Theory)
HedgehogRebellion 2 months ago
@HedgehogRebellion Fate--->DNA, etc etc... Fate is everything.
Absoloootly 1 month ago
@Absoloootly Yes, I would totally agree that it is just as valid to say everything boils down to fate. Are you expanding on my theory, or are you disagreeing on my use of terminology?
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
The philosophical or metaphysical elements of physics or QM lie in the *interpretations* of empirical data. Unfortunately most scientists are not very good philosophers so we ought take such interpretations with a grain of salt.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Logic (philosophy) and science deal with different aspects of Reality. Science deals solely with the empirical. Philosophical logic attempts to uncover principles of existence. If you like - the non-contingent facts. Scientific models, however well they may work, can only ever be contingent.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
To say "everything is miraculous" robs the miraculous of any meaning whatsoever.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Your videos are what I have been looking for! Thank you
EnAttendantG0D0T 2 years ago
The issue is whether there is, at any given time, reason to think in terms of the miraculous rather than merely the limitations - current or perhaps in principle - of observation. My vid "Is it rational to believe ih miracles" speaks to this to some degree:
watch?v=uGXx3o_50aA
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Just because we can't determine things doesn't mean that things are "magical and miraculous" - not in my book, anyway.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Excellent video. Thank you for this. So few people really grasp the concept of determinism. Perhaps because it is the ultimate insult to identity, self-importance, ego, and the question of subjective existence. Even with enlightenment, it is still very difficult for one to accept that their very thoughts and actions have been "set up" by an nearly infinite number of events and that we are merely witnessing consciousness and existence as a playback.
VelusDarkbind 2 years ago
Oh, I found your video on the subject and answered my own question.
It looks like you agree with me, but have a more in depth understanding of it. A very interesting set of videos.
sonnygll 2 years ago
At first I thought you were throwing the old apologist straw man of the science religion out there. But then I realized you were just talking about what I sometimes refer to as "quantum religion".
I think we have philosophical determinism, but the illusion of free will because of scientific indeterminism like you demonstrated with the dice. Those unknowns, plus consciousness and the fact that some of those small reactions, which things can be reduced to are us.
What's your take on it?
sonnygll 2 years ago
Yes, I think what you say there is in accordance with my understanding. I consider the "self", or the "I" to be only a logical entity, like the number "1" - which can be can be reduced to chemical interactions in the brain.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
I was just rereading your comments.
"There are countless things, unknown to me, that could make a ball move without me expecting it to. So if the ball doesn't move, I'm lucky"
The words appeal to ignorance spring to mind
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
"The words appeal to ignorance spring to mind "
I would call it an appeal to reality!
KevinSolway 2 years ago
"I would call it an appeal to reality!"
LMAO
You call asserting something as true on the basis of your own ignorance, an appeal to reality.
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
There are purely logical conclusions we can draw that are based on the fact that we are necessarily ignorant of many things. I have made those conclusions.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
"I'm lucky" in the above sentence does not meet the definition of a logical conclusion.
"There are purely logical conclusions we can draw that are based on the fact that we are necessarily ignorant"
I can think of one (and a lot of variations on a theme) but I do my best to avoid stating tautologies.
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
Tell me Kevin.
Do you reject Bells theorem?
I think you have trouble distinguishing quantum mechanics from the ridiculous linguistic knots required to convey its implications.
Indeterminacy doesn't apply in the same way on the macro scale where we talk about our ability to predict an event as opposed to the theoretical possibility to predict an event.
I can grant that over time the effects at the quantum scale may have observable influence at the macro scale but no as in your dice roll analogy.
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
Bell's theorem seems reasonable enough to me, but it only says that that the universe is not *locally* deterministic - with special emphasis on the "locally". Bell's theorem doesn't claim that the universe isn't deterministic. For example, we can't predict the result of a dice throw if all we know about is the dice, and nothing else. This is common sense. I argue that indeterminacy is fundamentally the same on the macro scale.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
That is, on the macro scale, it is *theoretically* impossible to predict events (ie, with certainty) for the same reasons that we cannot do so on the quantum scale.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Bells theorem by my interpretation, makes no claim as to wheather or not the universe has only deterministic, but it gives just cause to assume that the immediate state of any "particle" will not subject itself to prediction whereas on the macro scale the predictability of a situation decays over time.
Forgive my choice of words, but language was not designed to convey these ideas.
To discuss wheter the universe "is" or "is not" deteministic upon accepting Bells theorem seems pointless to me.
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
typo...
(has only determisistic)-->(has only determisistic properties)
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
I agree with you about the problem of language. As this video illustrates, even the term "deterministic" is so indeterministic that it is often useless.
I regard all things to be "deterministic" so far as being caused is concerned, but "indeterministic" so far as predictability is concerned - if that's not confusing enough.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
""indeterministic" so far as predictability is concerned"
To me when you say "indeterminacy is fundamentally the same on the macro scale", you accuse all pool players of relying solely on luck.
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
Yes, they are lucky they don't die before they hit the cue ball. :-) And the are lucky the cue ball doesn't move before they strike it with the cue.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Lucky?
How many times have you seen a ball move without some detectable "Newtonian" explanation?
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
There are countless things, unknown to me, that could make a ball move without me expecting it to. So if the ball doesn't move, I'm lucky. I don't know for sure when an event happens because of a known cause or because of an unknown cause. I can only guess.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
What a sneaky way to not answer the question.
With that stance of borderline sophism you might as well spend the rest of your days asking the question "am I in a mental institution and merely hallucinating this"
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
I believe I answered your question. I'm not talking about *guessing* what a future event will be, based on past experience, but on predicting with certainty a future event. And this we cannot do, not because events are not caused, but because we cannot determine what the causes are.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
"a future event"
Define event
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
"Define event". An event would be anything that happens, such as the result of the throw of a dice.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Oh. So you mean a large collection of quantum events?
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
No, I mean any event at all, quantum or otherwise.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Then you have drawn an imaginary line at the Plank length.
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
More broadly I have drawn a line between what we can know and what we can't know.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
I gave this a short giggle and a long ponder, and decided rather than to just insult you on the basis of that statement. I'd simply ask the question
What do you think we can know?
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
The only things we can know for certain are purely logical, or definitional truths.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
I argue that you can't know that on the grounds that you have to make some basic unprovable assumptions in order to define both logic and truth.
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
While *systems* of logic may make assumptions, logic itself makes none. It is primal even to the process of making assumptions. Logic cannot be proven because you would need to use logic to prove it. However, just because logic can't be proven doesn't mean that it may be wrong.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
"While *systems* of logic may make assumptions, logic itself makes none"
So, not its application in your mind then but some metaphysical essence that you have no means to demonstrate.
"However, just because logic can't be proven doesn't mean that it may be wrong."
Again with the appeal to ignorance
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
I'm using only logic to make my conclusions, and logic is not the same as ignorance. The fact that logic itself cannot be proven is not a drawback.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
"logic itself cannot be proven is not a drawback."
Says you (and I consider it a pointless subject to argue)... but your application of logic relies on assumptions...
You need at least one axiom to make any statement of truth using logic. Feel free to give me an exception.
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
The statement "A=A" (a thing is itself, which is the law of identity) is a logical truth that makes no assumptions.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
The law of identity does not constitute a logical conclusion.
It falls under the definition of an axiom.
Also worth noting:
It gets filled with holes when taken in linguistic form to refer to the physical world, and as a statement of a formal system can only apply within the system, giving it no bearing on (forgive the term)"reality"
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
I agree with what you say about formal systems of logic. That's why I steer clear of those, and stick with just pure logic, which can be applied to everything in reality. The law of identity is a logical truth, but is not the conclusion of a formal system of logic. It doesn't matter whether you call logic (or identity) an "axiom" or not - it's just a label. It still doesn't matter than you can't prove logic itself.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Define "pure logic" without making a fool of yourself please
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
Pure logic is essentially the law of identity.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
We have a video about the law of identity:
v=-gBLXJsDnII
KevinSolway 2 years ago
"We have a video about the law of identity"
facepalm
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
So no means to infer anything then?
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
A phenomenon that is computationally intractable, like a dynamical system, is different from a system that is indeterministic by nature, such as a quantum system. The mathematical model for the first type of system is NOT probabilistic. Only its approximations are probabilistic. The second type of system is probabilistic by nature. That's the key difference which seems to elude you.
tk050305cnx 2 years ago
Comment removed
KevinSolway 2 years ago
tk050305cnx, macro scale events are also probabilistic by nature, and for the same reasons that they are so on the quantum scale. They are inherently probabilistic. They are, however, fully causal, just the same as quantum events.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
tk050305cnx, the "models" you speak of, for macro events, are innacurate for predicting a macro event precisely because macro events are inherently unpredictable.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
There is no macro world indeterminacy. That's a conceptual misunderstanding. For example, throwing a dice is deterministic, because the "macro world physics" of the dice is fully deterministic. However, there are systems such as meteorology for example, which are deterministic but unpredictable because of their chaotic properties which make them intractable. These are called dynamical systems or sometimes non-linear dynamical systems. You seem to confuse intractability with indeterminacy.
tk050305cnx 2 years ago
You seem to confuse your ignorance with what is being presented. Same ol' Thomas.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Thomas, as I explained in the video, "deterministic" can mean one of two things. It can either mean "caused" or it can mean "(fully) predictable". All events are caused. But macro events, like a throw of a dice, are inherently unpredictable since we can't know what causal factors are operating. We can only guess, and even then we can't measure those causes we do know about.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
What do you think about determined chaos?
1 4756384756 2 5739687594 3 9485058473 4
organdva 2 years ago
Prima facie, it sounds like a contradiction in terms. How is "chaos" being defined in such a term? Does it just refer to a state of affairs within which we can find no discernible pattern?
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
1,2,3,4 =are determined - between are chaos.
Like fishnet. Rope is determined and holes are chaos. Without holes fishnet do not exist. I don't know if this make more sense?
organdva 2 years ago
"Chaos" just means unpredictable. Predictability doesn't depend on unpredictabilility in any sensible way that I can think of.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
I agree that doesn't depend as that :''chaos don't affect the determined part''. But in sense that is a ''whole''=predictable+unpredictable.You haw to haw this 10 random numbers in between to have 1,2,3,4 in line.
organdva 2 years ago
Doesn't the structure of the rope determine the fact and shape etc of the holes?
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Can determined events cause anything inevitably if those determined events were caused in such way that they in themselves were inevitable?
Censeo 2 years ago
In better English. Can a determined thing be the thing which determine something else?
Censeo 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand that question. Can you rephrase it? It seems you're asking if a necessary effect can itself be a cause...
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
If I understood what things seemed to you, I think you understood the question.
Censeo 2 years ago
Well, for me all things are necessarily effects and causes. i.e. causes are always effects, and effects, always causes. Or, to put it another way, all things are necessarily both causes and effects.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Human beings call anything they do not know, 'weird', 'unexplainable', 'God' etc. This aspect of human beings has not changed one bit since the time people said that the earth was flat, and that is the reason why we cannot progress much further as a species.
jupiviv 2 years ago
I agree with the video, but I feel that you overestimate this "scientific religion's" following. I'm not sure how many actual scientists believe that quantum indeterminism gives us free will- many authors, such as Dennett, make the point that even if there IS actual randomness, it isn't as though we can influence or affect it in some way-- dissolving the notion that indeterminism can give us free will either.
Who cares if we don't have free will? I'm having a great ride! :)
petexii 2 years ago
Petexii, good points. Few actual working scientists make the errors of judgement I pointed out. They just "shut up and calculate". Most of the perpetrators are students, or mere commentators, or people outright abusing science for their own ends.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Quantum indeterminacy is not a result of a lack of epistemological accuracy, not the result of error in reasoning due to lack of knowledge. The limits of classical determinism were made apparent when probability entered physics with the rise of thermodynamics in the 19th century. This was long before the even more startling results of 20th century quantum physics, which concern not merely physics' inability to have classical knowledge of nature, but the inadequacy of a reductionist ontology.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
So indeterminacy in quantum physics has more radical consequences than the epistemological limit already put on classical physics by statistical thermodynamics. Quantum physics shows that "whenever we state the properties of a body in terms of physical qualities we are imparting knowledge as to the response of various metrical indicators to its presence, and nothing more." -Sir Arthur Eddington (cont't)--->
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
"...science has nothing to say as to the intrinsic nature of the atom. The physical atom is, like everything else in physics, a schedule of pointer readings." -Eddington.
So in quantum physics we learn that particles are measurements, and so measurements become part of nature. This makes reality fundamentally indeterminate because knower and known are no longer separate. How nature appears depends on the kinds of questions we ask of her.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago