Determinism vs chance

Admitedly there appears to be a point where predictive information breaks down. A sort of vanishing point where Order trends towards Chaos as we reduce down to a theoretical zero....as to whether this is evidence of chance or randomness is very debatable IMHO.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I dont thank you'r concluson is self evident... i thank thers jus as much evidence for an intelegent designer as ther is for the existence of randomness/chance... ie... none.!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have to agree with clueless QQ. I mean determinism really eliminates the possibility of design. Even for a deity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
I dont thank you'r concluson is self evident... i thank thers jus as much evidence for an intelegent designer as ther is for the existence of randomness/chance... ie... none.!!!

Well... a "designer" coud have created the determinism we esperience... but ther may be mor options besides randomness/chanse or an intelegent-designer... an som day we may have verifiable evidence for the actual answr :shrug:

 

But once you open the door for that possibility - that determinism and chance are not the only options, one cannot be sure some third option - designed by a deity or not - is not already present. People who say these are the only possibilities cannot then posit God having some other set of rules AND assert they know these options are not present for the rest of us. How would one know?

Of course, given the configuration in the Big Bang, I had to think that and write that. And you will be forced to respond or not, also by those primal conditions.

(I still don't know why determinists bother....)

 

Well sombody mite "know"... but unless they can present verifiable evidence i jus lump 'em in wit all other dime-a-dozen beleifs.!!!

We have no choise

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Of course you are making the presumption that determinism is a rigid thing set from the outset yet....what if self adaptive determinism was a part of that outset?
Say at the outset of the big bang the universe was programmed to evolve self adaptive determinism so that universally intelligent design could evolve.
Still no need for randomness nor chance to exist..yes?


Certainly there is more than sufficient evidence of intelligent evolution as we humans have not the intelligence yet to comprehend what it is we are observing.
The example of the computer and just about every piece of technology or art form is merely our attempt to emmulate that which is surrounding us on a day to day basis. The Personal Computer is only a simulcrum of one aspect of how our minds work...and we consider the pc to be one of our crowning glories.

I take a photo of a splendid rose in my garden and arrogantly pat myself on the back for being so creative and intelligent when all I have done is render that evolved universal intelligence and creativity into a digital file which is also a poor attempt at emmulation of mental and physical workings... and so on...shessh! and we still use binary formats...bah!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So I see plenty of evidence that the universe is intelligently evolved and extrordinarilly clever and I would propose that it is so due to adaptive self determination as it has evolved. This is not the determination driven with divine volition but a universal self determination driven by need [ intelligent cause and effect]
acka "instinctive intelligence"
any ways fun guys ang gals...later

 

Not me.!!!

Yes.!!!

Hay... you mite be rite... its jus not a beleif i share.!!!

 

I guess I meant more than that...I meant that 'their' argument up to that point is based on 'these are the two possibilities', so to add in another one at the end of an argument undermines the argument.

Of course, if you don't, then you might be wrong about others.

For example we could program a robot to assert it was taller than everyone, even though it wasn't.

 

Determinism is the same sort of concept - a useful human mental abstraction that misleads if naively or carelessly employed.

It has no more reality than randomness or chance.

 

Sounds like it would probably not be determinism in the way the word is ususally used.

Nor free will.

I agree.

I agree. We still can't make something like a mouse from scratch. We can stimulate nature to do it, but that's something else.

I tend to agree, but I would avoid using the word determinism, or at least give it an up front definition, because I think you are using it significantly differently than common or philosophical usage.

 

Quantum Quack: You apparently have little or no knowledge of probability theory & statistics. Using Quantum as part of your identity at this form is misleading at best & intellectually dishoest at worst. You have little (probably no) understanding of Quantum Theory.

Most (perhaps all) quantum processes produce random data. In particular, radioactive decay is an excellent example of such a process. The nature of this data is fact, not theory.

The Heisenberg Uncertanity principle is accepted as a valid concept. It has almost the status of an observable fact. There is much experimental data supporting it.

BTW: The UC is not a statement about limitations of measurement technology (such a view is naive). It is a claim that a quantum entity cannot (even in principle) have an exact position & an exact momentum at the same time.

Your dismisal of randomness is merely your opinion which is untenable in the light of our current state of knowledge. Until you show how random data & the Uncertainty Principle can be explained as the result of deterministic processes, you are are a first rate QuackPot.

Determinism stopped being an acceptable point of view in the early 20th century, although there were some very intelligent physicists who argued in its favor until perhaps about 1940-1960).

By the end of the 20th century, there were hardly any credible physicists who argued in favor of determinism.

 

We have no choise

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yep... an i mite be rong about everthang.!!!

 

hence the use of the qualifier "Quack" or didn't you notice...?

and what makes the data qualify as random, other than the inability to determine cause of such data.

and this does not impinge upon the debate over randomness or does it?

and I suppose the scientists you have alluded to do not use the qualifer "appears" to be random and state uncategorically and unambiguously that the effects observed are indeed random and support that "opinion" with hard scientific evidence of randomness including methodology. [ and not just inability or lacking of methodology ]
if so a link please would be nice... [ don't get me wrong...I am sure that the erudite scientists have very good reasons for using the qualifier of Random, I just haven't read of them or seen them]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

and most likely so am I

 

.....except as absolute self determination which is what the universe is, entirely self determined [unto itself]

 

Dinasaur,

with all due respect, it is not up to me to prove the data as random as it is not I that is making that claim.

Suffice to say it is not sufficient in my view to claim somthing as a given [ random data ] without first describing how the assessment of randomness is achieved.

 

Mod Note:

Dinosaur,

Please refrain in future from accusative and abusive comments of this sort.
I'm quite sure you could have made your points without being so derisive.

 

Well, my argument is based on your assertions, whereas the argument that you could be wrong about everything is not.

You said to me that you have no choice. This would include what you believe. You are telling me you are utterly compelled to believe it. It is like your hair color or the shape of your nose. Well, if you are right, it really calls into question what your conclusions are based on.

 

Are their several possible futures out of which one (or perhaps more) is chosen?