Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I should have thought that quantum mechanics and Chaos theory have pretty much scotched the idea of a purely mechanical, deterministic universe.

Until we discover Laplace's Demon the answer to this question is inevitably "I don't know, does it matter?".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I should have thought that quantum mechanics and Chaos theory have pretty much scotched the idea of a purely mechanical, deterministic universe.

Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, physics, economics, and philosophy studying the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

Chaos theory is the study of the chaotic, not the truly random. It posits that systems have deterministic behaviors and outcomes, just that they're really hard to predict. As an aside, I hate how it's named chaos theory,it's damaged the concept of predictive physics in the public eye and laymen often have the outcomes of it backwards.

I'm still waiting for anyone, here or elsewhere, to describe how a random universe is possible outside those that are only initially conditioned.

dogma wrote:I'm still waiting for anyone, here or elsewhere, to describe how a random universe is possible outside those that are only initially conditioned.

Sebster did. The idea that there are variables we don't know about effecting us.

If a determinist world ultimately means there must have been something which wasn't pre-determined, that kind of tells us other things can be too. Otherwise your giving this one event, the only event which wasn't determined a very big "god like" status by saying it is the only thing to have ever happened which wasn't pre-determined.

for humans there is no free will plain and simple, i've lived long enough to see that

What we call God, destiny, or my personal favorite, Fate, is essentially an admission that we do not and cannot know everything about the world. To a certain extent, you can predict what people would do in a given situation. Perhaps you may even be able to force someone to act in a certain way by applying stimuli. But they always are changing.

The brain's chemical levels and neural pathways changes every second. to call it a system and compare it to a computer is a false analogy. The brain is self-altering, and the hardware switches as rapidly as the software. If your own body will be different every time you are faced with a choice, then one entity could choose both ways at different points in their life- how can that be anything but free will?

Gitzbitah wrote:What we call God, destiny, or my personal favorite, Fate, is essentially an admission that we do not and cannot know everything about the world. To a certain extent, you can predict what people would do in a given situation. Perhaps you may even be able to force someone to act in a certain way by applying stimuli. But they always are changing.

The brain's chemical levels and neural pathways changes every second. to call it a system and compare it to a computer is a false analogy. The brain is self-altering, and the hardware switches as rapidly as the software. If your own body will be different every time you are faced with a choice, then one entity could choose both ways at different points in their life- how can that be anything but free will?

Well a determinist would say that the whatever your brain has been "self-altered" to is just a result of the pre-ceding event. Hence it is pre-determined as the decision you are making is being made by a brain which has came to be in such a state at that point in team because of all the other events leading up to it, each of which are determined by the preceding event.


Your computer system reference is a good one though, it is impossible for a computer to generate a true random number because of the binary digital system it works on. In it's simplest terms the whole argument of whether free will exists or not comes down to whether the universe is digital or analogue.

Sebster did. The idea that there are variables we don't know about effecting us.

That doesn't create a random universe..

Kilkrazy wrote:I should have thought that quantum mechanics and Chaos theory have pretty much scotched the idea of a purely mechanical, deterministic universe.

To those who know what they're talking about, it has. Since this point was maybe missed before...

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html

Seriously. You can predict what could happen, but not what will happen.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I should have thought that quantum mechanics and Chaos theory have pretty much scotched the idea of a purely mechanical, deterministic universe.

To those who know what they're talking about, it has. Since this point was maybe missed before...

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html

Seriously. You can predict what could happen, but not what will happen.

All that really does is knock down the concept of a predictive universe, not a deterministic one. Actions can be pre determined through mechanical principles without us ever being able to observe the system well enough to predict them. A deterministic and mechanical universe is still the core of virtually every field of physics because that concept has never been damaged in the slightest.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I should have thought that quantum mechanics and Chaos theory have pretty much scotched the idea of a purely mechanical, deterministic universe.

To those who know what they're talking about, it has. Since this point was maybe missed before...

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html

Seriously. You can predict what could happen, but not what will happen.

All that really does is knock down the concept of a predictive universe, not a deterministic one. Actions can be pre determined through mechanical principles without us ever being able to observe the system well enough to predict them. A deterministic and mechanical universe is still the core of virtually every field of physics because that concept has never been damaged in the slightest.

Shuma... that's just incorrect.

Read this and get back to me. What you are describing is classical physics and that went out the window about 100 years ago.

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I should have thought that quantum mechanics and Chaos theory have pretty much scotched the idea of a purely mechanical, deterministic universe.

To those who know what they're talking about, it has. Since this point was maybe missed before...

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html

Seriously. You can predict what could happen, but not what will happen.

All that really does is knock down the concept of a predictive universe, not a deterministic one. Actions can be pre determined through mechanical principles without us ever being able to observe the system well enough to predict them. A deterministic and mechanical universe is still the core of virtually every field of physics because that concept has never been damaged in the slightest.

Shuma... that's just incorrect.

Read this and get back to me. What you are describing is classical physics and that went out the window about 100 years ago.

A deterministic existence doesn't cease just because factors violate time and conventional physical laws within this universe, string theory has never invalidated deterministic study, it's just greatly expanded the scope of it and expanded the need for observation well past the wall of what is possible within conventional science. However string theory is a theory that seeks to explain chaotic and random phenomenon through the prism of multidimensional interaction, not invalidate determinism by stating that such effects are randomly determined. Determinism doesn't require fluidity of time, it requires an absolute snapshot of all existence as it was and ever will be, time is not a static concept, especially outside of this conventional universe. You should probably read that book again.

Physical determinism and the ability to observe and predict are not the same concept. They aren't even connected.

ShumaGorath wrote:Physical determinism and the ability to observe and predict are not the same concept. They aren't even connected.

If you want to have any kind of proof they most certainly are.

Besides, string theory could be going the way of Classical Physics in the very near future.

TyraelVladinhurst wrote:for humans there is no free will plain and simple, i've lived long enough to see that

I choose to disagree.

whatwhat wrote:
Sebster did. The idea that there are variables we don't know about effecting us.

Just because you don't realize that something affects you does not indicate that the universe is not initially conditioned.

Knowledge has almost nothing to do with reality.

whatwhat wrote:
If a determinist world ultimately means there must have been something which wasn't pre-determined, that kind of tells us other things can be too. Otherwise your giving this one event, the only event which wasn't determined a very big "god like" status by saying it is the only thing to have ever happened which wasn't pre-determined.

Sure, but a determinist world doesn't necessarily mean that there must have been something that wasn't predetermined. It is also possible to have an infinite regress.

If you want to have any kind of proof they most certainly are.

I started out in the thread with a quote about laplaces demon, that should make obvious that I'm not certain such a thing is actually possible outside of some sort of omniscient presence. The problem with an infinite observable universe is that it requires an outside observer, which would thus require another observer above that and then another above that. The mechanics themselves can be soundly deterministic, their observance logically can not. I do believe that with enough understanding though the universe can be reliably predicted on a reasonable scale by players still functioning within that universe.

Besides, string theory could be going the way of Classical Physics in the very near future.

Michiu will be so sad.

Monster Rain wrote:
If you want to have any kind of proof they most certainly are.

Besides, string theory could be going the way of Classical Physics in the very near future.

No, he's absolutely right. The whole point of both quantum mechanics and chaos theory is that physically deterministic systems can be unpredictable.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Sebster did. The idea that there are variables we don't know about effecting us.

Just because you don't realize that something affects you does not indicate that the universe is not initially conditioned.

Knowledge has almost nothing to do with reality.

I'm talking about things science doesn't understand not what we literally don't know about. So was Sebster.

Dark matter for example is something we can't sense yet has an effect on our material world.

Besides I was responding to this statement....

dogma wrote:I'm still waiting for anyone, here or elsewhere, to describe how a random universe is possible outside those that are only initially conditioned.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
If a determinist world ultimately means there must have been something which wasn't pre-determined, that kind of tells us other things can be too. Otherwise your giving this one event, the only event which wasn't determined a very big "god like" status by saying it is the only thing to have ever happened which wasn't pre-determined.

Sure, but a determinist world doesn't necessarily mean that there must have been something that wasn't predetermined. It is also possible to have an infinite regress.

No because there still needs to be a cause of an infinate regress in a determinist world.

No because there still needs to be a cause of an infinate regress in a determinist world.

Then how do you explain something that is deterministic and cyclical?

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
If you want to have any kind of proof they most certainly are.

Besides, string theory could be going the way of Classical Physics in the very near future.

No, he's absolutely right. The whole point of both quantum mechanics and chaos theory is that physically deterministic systems can be unpredictable.

I see your point.

To me though, the uncertainty principle's logical conclusion is that nothing is deterministic because there's no way to predict what will happen given that at any given time there's a non-zero chance of anything happening anywhere.

whatwhat wrote:
I'm talking about things science doesn't understand not what we literally don't know about. So was Sebster.

Dark matter for example is something we can't sense yet has an effect on our material world.

That doesn't impact my argument at all. Not understanding something does not indicate that the universe is not deterministic. It indicates that we don't understand something.

whatwhat wrote:
No because there still needs to be a cause of an infinate regress in a determinist world.

No, there doesn't. This has been proven mathematically and logically. We naturally assume causation because we have finite lives, but there is no reason to apply the same reasoning to what is essentially "everything".

ShumaGorath wrote:

No because there still needs to be a cause of an infinate regress in a determinist world.

Then how do you explain something that is deterministic and cyclical?

You can't thats the major flaw with determinism.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
No because there still needs to be a cause of an infinate regress in a determinist world.

No, there doesn't. This has been proven mathematically and logically. We naturally assume causation because we have finite lives, but there is no reason to apply the same reasoning to what is essentially "everything".

I'd love to hear the mathematic proof for getting something from nothing dogma, what is that?

No an infinate regression of events through time is itself an event, an event with no cause.

whatwhat wrote:Dark matter for example is something we can't sense yet has an effect on our material world.

If there is such a thing.

Monster Rain wrote:
To me though, the uncertainty principle's logical conclusion is that nothing is deterministic because there's no way to predict what will happen given that at any given time there's a non-zero chance of anything happening anywhere.

But we can predict the probability of any given event, which indicates determinism. It changes what determinism constitutes, but it doesn't eliminate it.

We're sort of hitting a point where we cross the looking glass here, because a lot of the terms that we use in conventional parlance no longer mean the same thing that they once did when we're speaking philosophically.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
To me though, the uncertainty principle's logical conclusion is that nothing is deterministic because there's no way to predict what will happen given that at any given time there's a non-zero chance of anything happening anywhere.

But we can predict the probability of any given event, which indicates determinism. It changes what determinism constitutes, but it doesn't eliminate it.

I see what you're getting at, but something with that type of caveat just doesn't seem... I dunno... scientific. I know, I know, if its observed with the scientific method blah blah blah.

Hopefully the LHC will straighten all this out.

whatwhat wrote:
You can't thats the major flaw with determinism.

It's actually pretty easy to do, watch: X > Y > Z > X

Logically fallacious, but logic applies only to argument. If we're talking about physical process, then logic isn't necessarily important.

whatwhat wrote:
I'd love to hear the mathematic proof for getting something from nothing dogma, what is that?

1) That's not what I said. I said that an infinite series has been mathematically proven to be possible. Its a huge part of basic differential calculus. In fact, its the part that let's you model curves, so you probably use it all the time without realizing it.

2) I argued that an infinite series does not need a cause. This is true by literal definition. If something is caused, then it is not infinite.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
You can't thats the major flaw with determinism.

It's actually pretty easy to do, watch: X > Y > Z > X

Logically fallacious, but logic applies only to argument. If we're talking about physical process, then logic isn't necessarily important.

It kind of is.

An infinite regression of events through time is itself an event, an event with no cause.

dogma wrote: If something is caused, then it is not infinite.

Then how can an infinite regression be determinst if it has no cause?

So it would appear to be the case that we cannot predict, even given complete information, the future. Instead we can only say what the probability of a given future state is. I'm cool with that; still suggests the absence of free will.

Man, spend a year out of school and you forget all sorts of things...

whatwhat wrote:
It kind of is.

An infinite regression of events through time is itself an event, an event with no cause.

No, being infinite essentially means being without cause. If a thing has a cause, then it is finite.

whatwhat wrote:
Then how can an infinite regression be determinst if it has no cause?

Self-determinism. Things determine themselves if they exist, so any identifiable thing must be determinist.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
It kind of is.

An infinite regression of events through time is itself an event, an event with no cause.

No, being infinite essentially means being without cause. If a thing has a cause, then it is finite.

whatwhat wrote:
Then how can an infinite regression be determinst if it has no cause?

Self-determinism. Things determine themselves if they exist, so any identifiable thing must be determinist.

Things determine themselves? That's not determinist at atll.