Determinism vs chance

and so am I...just trying to understand.

It is true I guess that it is impossible to absolutely determine anything with the qualifier, in a way that is of practical use or utility.
eg. it would take an eternity to determine only one simple event.

However this is only if one wishes to absolutely determine anything which as stated would be a very unintelligent thing to try to do. We can however determine in part the causation of material events and effects and in some cases certainly most of the determining factors enough so that we can make useful predictions upon future behaviour. [obvious]

• Is this a valid point and one worth considering in this debate?
• Is it valid to toss out the notion of determinism simply because we cannot be absolute in our assessments?

To me this is a falacious position to take and why I regard the absolutism on this subject held by science as a little absurd. [possibly my naivity is showing again! eh?]

So regarding absolute determinism as described by science are we not talking about our ability to make an assessment of an event rather than the event itself. Afterall events happen all the time and whether or not we can assess them is utterly irrelevant.
If I set a billiard ball of at .5 c in a vector clear of obstacles and wait for it to arrive at some distant location and it does so as predicted does this mean that it is randomly inspired or determined?
Sure we could argue for decades about the reality of it all but in the mean time the ball has made it's journey as expected.
So I disagree with the notion that just because we are unable to absolutely determine events means that those event are not determined.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That viewpoint has been discarded as misleading by most physicists.

The "piece of the picture" that is missing would not meet most people's criteria for reasonableness otherwise.

If you want to simply assume the situation is as described there, for reasons of personal philosophical comfort or whatever, you of course may - but there is no evidentiary or theoretical basis for your assumption, and a great many difficulties in maintaining it without being contradicted by the evidence and theory that does currently hold the central position in the relevant scientific fields.

None of this is necessary, of course. We simply observe that "cause/effect" and "random chance", as concepts, have the same basic footing in reality and human thought. They exist on the same logical level, and projected as phenomena seem to depend on each other. To accept one as "real" and the other as "illusion" is to introduce fundamental confusions into one's descriptions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well QQ... you'r opinion mite be corect that the universe is "self determined and selfcreating" :shrug:.. i dont have evidence to form an opinion on the mater... but i thank i do sorta share you'r concept about deterministic-freewill... cause any evidence i know of leads to a deterministic universe... an yet i feel an behave as if i have free-will in the "choises" i make.!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The reality is... if specific causes didnt have specific effects we woudnt esist... verifiable evidence for randomness dont esist that i know of :shrug:

Whats an esample of this minute free will we esperience.???

 

Your going against your experience and what seems obvious - that we make free choices in most situations - and deciding that determinism is the case.

 

Yes that seems a strange notion to me also.!!!

It makes jus as much sinse as the logic of a young child closin ther eyes an thankin they cant be seen jus because they can no longer see you.!!!

 

How do you define free choise... i define it as bein uninfluenced.???

 

Possibly it may be worth considering it this way...dunno...eh
Assume for a moment that Free will is absolute and immutable [ unable to be reduced or compromised as a fundamental. [ a universal constant of sentient life forms] and provides a fundamental driver [suffering] underpinning all our behaviour.
You may say, I do not experience this freedom you talk of, it certainly appears that my freedom is compromised and thus free will must be mutable or reducable.
And I say "well at least you are aware that you are being oppressed and that your freedom is being compromised by that which is out side your control." And go on to ask

"How is it you are aware of oppression as such if freewill was not intrinsic to your thoughts?"
I would then posit that freewill does indeed exist but at this moment in human history severely oppressed as we strive to mature as a race towards that pseudo freedom. Pseudo because ultimately free will will always suffer some form of oppression whether that be a locked door or a road yet to be built or a car that runs out of fuel...
oppression = unwanted influence (determinsim)
freedom = wanted influence (self-determinism)
but influence is always present...always

 

try this:

• oppression = unwanted influence (determinsim)
• freedom = wanted influence (self-determinism)

but influence is always present...always

 

One problem with choosing that word root - influenced - is it is not a digital, on/off word. The second problem is that it makes it seem like one is only influenced by environment.

Free choice means simply that one can do more than one thing in any given situation. That there is more than one direction things could take, and it is in your hands which way it goes. Often it is many, many directions.

But let's go back to my example.

Are you saying your belief in determinism was not a free choice on your part?

I also assume that your own assessments are also not a free choice, in your opinion. Also what you think is logical and rational would also, according to you, not be a free choice.

So everything that happens when you engage in a discussion
you have no freedom over. Your sense of what is happening - for example you have no choice but to believe you know why you decided to believe in determinism.

But you don't really believe that do you?

No one believes in determinism, really. They just think they do, when they are thinking about it.

 

I am sympathetic to the breakdown, but I think influence is a tricky word. I take things into consideration.

But, hell, I don't even want to grant the whole model.

The past is not some hard thing we can look at and touch. The future is not either. And yet when we think of these things we imagine this hard thing - some past moment - impinging on the next moment like a domino. As far as I can tell NOW exists and these things - the future and the past - exist within it. NOW is vibrant, not hard and flexible.

Once you talk about determinism you have to talk about the past and then talk about the present as if it were like this hard, fixed past you imagine.

However much we have made this a habit, especially under the influence - ha, ha - of the opinions of some scientists and more so their followers, it is just a fantasy.

Note: I do think habits can confuse us into thinking they are real. If one of these habitual ideas is that we are not free, we can - freely - begin to believe this, with problematic consequences.

 

Free-will is a concept i cant emagine... an i also cant emagine a thout in which influence ant intrinsic.!!!

Well like you say... "influence is always present"... an as far as free will goes... its a distinction wit-out a diference as to whether the influence is described as "wanted" or not.!!!

 

This is basically a reiteration of what I said in the 'God of Science' thread. And I agree as much although I was more direct in slamming Evolution as a faith, which atheists are furious about

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyhow this is a very interesting discussion.

Although the first 'news' is directly supported by your previous logic. The second conclusion on the other hand is not.. I take it that is your own opinion.. So its not 'news' although I'm aware news is full of propaganda

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But it seems both of us have come to the conclusion that there is 'intelligence' that is apparent in the Universe.

You say that the Universe has a 'bias' to intelligence.. Can you please define intelligence as is being used by you as I'm a little curious?

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think this just shows that the paradox of free will and determinism is embedded in the universe itself, and that both can be true. Although its hard to grasp how such contradiction can both exist at the same time.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Then to clear that up... influence is from enviroment an genes.!!!

Thers an illusion of many many directons... but the only directon posible is the 1 you'r influenced to take.!!!

No i dont have a beleif in determinism... the verifiable evidence i see ponts to a deterministic universe.!!!

Yes i dont see evidence for free choise or thouts.!!!

Yes i thank my ideas about free will are dew to the influence from my particular genes an inviroment.!!!

It ant a beleif... it apears to be the way thangs are.!!!

oK... lol.!!!

Personaly i dont see problematic consequences in thankin the comcept of free will is an illusion... what prollems do you see it has caused me.???

 

I dont see the paridox... i see free-will as an illusion which of course was bound to hapen... lol... as we evolved to the pont of bein able to ponder such thangs.!!!

 

Well it is an illusion that can not be seen as an illusion. Determinism is simply that one thing causes another. Free Will can be determinism, where I cause myself to cause something within myself to change, and that can change something else to cause to change (through my action).

So both Free Will and Determinism are at harmony, and this will fit with what is said to be 'free will', yet everything is deterministic. Can one really call this an illusion? I don't know, but you're subject to your opinion.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When you say "I cause myself"... do you thank of "I" as bein seperate from you'r body/brane.???

 

Yes. 'I' is above matter. I guess in simplistic terms we can call it 'conscience'. Although not necessarily. If determinism is simply 'cause and effect'.. Then why must it be that only the external can be the cause and you the 'effect'. Nothing stops you being the cause and the external to be effect. The ability for this 'reversal' to develop was caused and then can be a source of cause now.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The issue of free will should be discussed in another thread. When science viewed the laws of physics to be (in principle) absolutely determinist, free will had to be viewed as a very convincing illusion or delusion. Quantum Theory seems to allow some wiggle room for a belief in free will.

At the classical level of reality (the world of our unaided senses) there seems to be causality. However, this reality is based on the quantum level world which obeys probabilistic laws. Note that a kilogram of matter contains about 10[sup]24[/sup] atoms and even more sub atomic particles. Probabilistic laws based on 10[sup]24[/sup] trials can result in some very precise predictions.

Consider throwing casino dice 10[sup]24[/sup] times. I can assure you that the results would indicate that a total of 7 occurs very close to 16.66666666667% of the time, even though the value for an individual throw cannot be predicted. A very accurate clock can be based on measurements of the radioactive decay of a material with a long half life, even though decay is a random process.

Random processes can result in what appear to be deterministic laws.

BTW: There is much experimental evidence for what many (including myself) would term capriciousness at the quantum level of reality. When viewed as particles, electrons seem to get from point A to Point B without following a continous path. Quantum Tunneling indicates that electrons occasionally get though impenetrable barriers.

Sarkus: There are a few problems with the following views.

When being careful in their language, experts in statistics & simulation use the term Pseudo Random Number Generators. An analysis of their output can be shown to be non-random.

For some simulations, physical processes are used to generate random data in order to avoid some subtle problems with Pseudo Random Number Generators due to their not producing truly random data.

There is no reason to believe that some deterministic explanation will be discovered to show that radioactive decay is not a random process. In the future, some physicist might discover that a particular quark sometimes frazzles & this causes the nucleus to decay. The effect of this explanation will be to push the randomness down from the nucleus level to the quark level. It will not change the nature of the decay statistics which strongly indicate that the process is random.

Anyone who is not willing to accept radioactive decay as a random process is denying the results of much experimental data. Belief in the randomness of radioactive decay is almost as sound as belief in the validity of the Pythagorean Theorem.

Quantum Quack: Some of the following are opinions with no evidence or cogent argument to support them. Some of the following seem like atempts to baffle with Bull-Doo when unable to dazzle with brilliance.

The following is an erroneous strawman.

Erroneous because science does not claim to have absolute knowledge. A strawman because it implies that somebody who should know better is making a claim to having absolute knowledge. Since such a view is absurd, that somebody (the person who disagrees with you) is absurd.

At the risk of having the moderator ban or admonish me, I believe that you are lacking sufficient knowlege to have worthwhile opinions relating to the basic issues of this thread. I do not think you can understand cogent counter arguments. In particular, I think that you have only a vague concept of probability theory.

I have empathy for your views because I spent several years taking courses in classical physics before taking courses in relativity & Quantum Theory. I passed those latter courses without believing any of the counter intuitive notions presented. It was years later, after much reading & contemplation, that I accepted those notions at the intellectual level of my mind. At the emotional level, I still have difficulty accepting the weirdities of Quantum Theory.