24 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganI think there is an eagerness in many parties to retain the notion of free-will within systems that it is not tenable. As for the Stoics, I'm not so sure where it is said or implied they are too guilty of this, but will accept that it is probably true. Though even if I myself feel aligned towards some of their beliefs this would certainly not be one of them.
Well I did some homework to find out if I align with the Epicureans or the Stoics and thought you might check my results. Forgive me if this is already well known to you but I lose the details very quickly in my own mind.
Homer – everything is in the hands of the gods and humans are playthings, unable to alter their fate.
Democritus – The Atomist po things intolerable and that's all there is to it.
And I think the swerving atom is neat!
The idea that if one believes their endeavours with respect to studying, say, are fated (by virtue of determinism) such that there is no point studying, I say is a problem on their part, not on those who have such a belief. I say this because such a way of thinking would be consistent with a creature (person) that was engineered so as to be lazy in this regard (and presumably many others), acceptance of this philosophy of course and still acting as one does normally would not necessarily lead to any failures. In short, there would need to be an evaluation on the part of such people as these, who holding the belief of determinism, calculate there is more to be gained (in terms of economy of effort, or increased ability to do other pleasure inducing things perhaps) from doing nothing, than the benefits received from doing something. This would in the framework of my argument, also be determined.
24 May 10
Originally posted by AgergWell it's not satisfactory to be unable to resolve this debate and I have checked some books to reach this formula.
I think perhaps the first point you made with respect to inherent unpredictability (assuming you mean truly random) not being equal to magic is perhaps a point where I will be in constant disagreement with yourself and Finnegan. Like the Stoics I don't support the notion of true randomness because from my perspective, it begs the question as to how an inanimat ...[text shortened]... e table stimulating conversation and insight that prompts me to think a little deeper. 🙂
The development of the Universe from the Big Bang to THIS is a product of natural forces that can be accounted for with the laws of Physics, as long as Quantum Mechanics is included. These laws are descriptive, not prescriptive - we may devise better ones - perhaps in a new Unified Theory. They are devised by humans to describe our observations and predictions. It is fair enough to describe them as deterministic but the implications of that statement need elaboration. What matters to me is that this is a type of determinism which must allow for a huge amount of random chance.
We might imagine a God who created this universe with completely deterministic natural laws and, being perfect, had no need to step in again. Everything that will happen is thus already written.
This notion fails for several reasons. In the first moments of the Big Bang, everything was totally chaotic - there was a maximum level of entropy. As the universe expanded, the majority of the mass of the universe continues to be chaotic, but there is room for local areas and temporary episodes of order (lower entropy) and this is seen in our ordered area of the universe and our existence as organised creatures in an orderly world. But there is no coherent way to track any current order back into that initial chaos, which might have generated any of an infinity of outcomes. Our present universe is only one of many possible outcomes. It just happens to be this way. It is not the product of a predetermined, single possible path of cause and effect.
In addition, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle implies that the motion of a particle cannot be predicted with certainty. Hence, many random events will arise which could (each or together) have incalculable consequences.
The most that could be achieved by this hypothetical God would be to create the possibility of our universe with its present values and qualities subject to the risk of countless accidental failures and frustrations.
Alternatively there could be a God who routinely interferes with the way things happen to protect His design. That would firstly be a different version of God (admitting the first version does not make sense). It would also mean that the laws of Physics were interfered with at times, leaving some trace somewhere of an event that is not explicable within the laws of Physics. If that happened, where and when?
24 May 10
3 edits
Originally posted by AgergI worked through a chapter about Free Will in a terrific book, Classical Philosophy edited by Terence Irwin. He has a chapter each for a list of topics, gathering together relevant key quotes from the various Greek Philosophers and introduces each section with his own commentary. The idea (I love it) is to enable us to have access to the original arguments in a reasonably digestible volume, contrasting different philosophers and clarifying where they agree or differ. The Lazy Argument is given in a long quote from Cicero, On Fate (the studying example was in the introduction by Irwin).
I think there is an eagerness in many parties to retain the notion of free-will within systems that it is not tenable. As for the Stoics, I'm not so sure where it is said or implied they are too guilty of this, but will accept that it is probably true.
24 May 10
Originally posted by AgergHey you and I agree here! So would vistesd I think from his earlier post (copied below).
The idea that if one believes their endeavours with respect to studying, say, are fated (by virtue of determinism) such that there is no point studying, I say is a problem on their part, not on those who have such a belief. I say this because such a way of thinking would be consistent with a creature (person) that was engineered so as to be lazy in this regard ...[text shortened]... s received from doing something. This would in the framework of my argument, also be determined.
Originally posted by vistesd
It strikes me that this argument goes all the way back (at least) to the Stoics versus the Epicureans (modified for advances in knowledge, of course). You seem to be more in line with the Stoics, Finnegan with Epicurus. (I don’t mean to imply that either of you would be a wholesale Stoic or Epicurean.)
I tend to be more with Epicurus myself. His notion of the “atomic swerve” might be replaced today with “chaos theory” models, in which, for complex systems, outcomes (except short-term and small-scale, perhaps) become inherently unpredictable (meteorology comes to mind). In light of this debate, I am taking a look at Epicurus again, though.
24 May 10
6 edits
Originally posted by finneganAdressing your (*edit, second) latest post, thanks for that. I may have to do some reading on classical philosophy myself as and when time permits.
Well it's not satisfactory to be unable to resolve this debate and I have checked some books to reach this formula.
The development of the Universe from the Big Bang to THIS is a product of natural forces that can be accounted for with the laws of Physics, as long as Quantum Mechanics is included. These laws are descriptive, not prescriptive - we may d an event that is not explicable within the laws of Physics. If that happened, where and when?
I argue that despite the fact it is unsatisfactory to have the resolution you desire (either way), this is not a justification for arguing it can be resolved.
As I've made my case both to yourself and vistesd, to say that some inanimate X is truly random imples a choice is made on the part of X, I say this because taking the path of least effort or resistance (a superset of direct causes from other things Y) is a cause for an event happening by virtue of the construct of said something, and it's situation. We are forced, admitting randomness (ie: no causation) to rule out this possibility; and so all that remains is that inanimate X decides through what seems to be the force of it's own will that it will choose event A over event B. This to me is absurd!
Chaos in it's strictest definition is not a random process, nor is the inability to invert a system and trace back to it's origin a sign of randomness either. As a simple example of the latter, consider you know that 4 is the square of some number. We can of course infer that taking such a number and squaring it would necessarily yield 4, but we cannot start only from knowing 4=x^2 and deduce the value of x (it may be 2 or -2). I argue that we would have achieved any of the infinitely many other universes given different seed parameters when the universe started. Additionally, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle seems to be a statement about our inability to deduce (or predict) the position/momentum of a particle exactly. This again does not imply random.
As far as introducing gods is concerned, I would rather not at this stage!
24 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergWell that is OK since I now concede determinism on your terms as long as it is not used differently, for the reasons discussed, which you will agree does happen on this very Forum. Indeed, I think we can both be right but you don't have to concede that. We are reasonable people, us Epicureans.
Adressing your (*edit, second) latest post, thanks for that. I may have to do some reading on classical philosophy myself as and when time permits.
I argue that despite the fact it is unsatisfactory to have the resolution you desire (either way), this is not a justification for arguing it can be resolved.
As I've made my case both to yourself and vistesd imply random.
As far as introducing gods is concerned, I would rather not at this stage!
24 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganIt has been a good discussion, truth be told I wasn't trying to pursuade you out of your position as much as I was trying to put up a defence of my own! (and I have no intentions of equivocating elsewhere for debate points, though I cannot promise others won't!) I have actually learnt a few things along the way though so thanks for that 🙂
Well that is OK since I now concede determinism on your terms as long as it is not used differently, for the reasons discussed, which you will agree does happen on this very Forum. Indeed, I think we can both be right but you don't have to concede that. We are reasonable people, us Epicureans.
24 May 10
Originally posted by AgergGreat. Now here is the harder part. We have lost the real enemy (who is quite tedious) in our own discussion (which was far more interesting). My problem with your account of determinism was not that it is wrong. It is right in important ways. It was that the words used can be misused to mean something different.
It has been a good discussion, truth be told I wasn't trying to pursuade you out of your position as much as I was trying to put up a defence of my own! (and I have no intentions of equivocating elsewhere for debate points, though I cannot promise others won't!) I have actually learnt a few things along the way though so thanks for that 🙂
If we accept YOUR account of determinism, that seems to leave us still with other problems.
Firstly, it leaves us to argue with people claiming that there is a God who designed the universe in order to create humans and who did this by setting off the Big Bang with all the laws of physics to ensure that even the fall of a sparrow was predetermined. I wonder how you answer them if you still insist on determinism in the way you do? Certainly there have been serious scientists (Penrose is one) willing to acknowledge that IF this could be shown it would support that form of Deism. More generally, scientists recognize that there are some religious claims which can be tested scientifically and that if they discovered evidence for God that would be fine - it would be magic- it would secure them with a massive stream of funds for all the research they dream of doing.
Secondly it leaves the debate about free will. I wonder if you are in fact going with the Stoics or the Epicureans? I agree with the claim (Whitehead) that all of philosophy is a footnote to Plato in this sense - that the Greeks asked the important questions and noticed the important gaps.
Another problem I have is your rejection ( it seems) of the randomness of things. For me this is quite important. Darwin, for example, made himself seriously ill with the stress of trying somehow to unearth some evidence of design, and consistently finding that the evidence shows everything in evolution could be - not sufficiently, but better - explained as random, arbitrary, meaningless. I fear that like Einstein, you are hooked on there being some order to the universe, some reliable, consistent working out of a determined law so that the sun will rise tomorrow and all will be well. Like Samuel Beckett, I do not agree and yet I love what I see.
24 May 10
5 edits
Originally posted by finneganI presume way to much! (thought I'd bored you out of this thread...glad you're sticking around)
Great. Now here is the harder part. We have lost the real enemy (who is quite tedious) in our own discussion (which was far more interesting). My problem with your account of determinism was not that it is wrong. It is right in important ways. It was that the words used can be misused to mean something different.
If we accept YOUR account of determini ...[text shortened]... e tomorrow and all will be well. Like Samuel Beckett, I do not agree and yet I love what I see.
To answer your points I'll first explicitly outline my own view of determinism (so you and I can check whether you still agree with my definition (though not necessarily agree with it in the sense you think it's a true account of the way things really are!))
1) I say there are no random events (that is to say, on some level, all events are caused)
2) From (1), given an initial collection of seed parameters (whatever they may be) the universe will evolve in one particular fashion (with a different seed, then the evolution would be different)
3) It is not possible to invert the system as it has evolved up to now and determine what caused what for all "things" in this system (I say *all* because, for a subcollection of "things", their cause can be identified...such as your last post caused this one!)
4) (1) and (2) imply there is no absolute freewill. (pseudo or illusionary free-will is ok; in that we operate under the guise we are free to choose despite the fact such choices themselves were on some level caused/determined.)
For your first point about the suggestion of a deist god, I don't see how to absolutely refute the claim. There is certainly not the two way implication: determinism <=> deist god however, since my position need not invoke such an entity. As for some religious claims that can be tested scientifically (and I suppose I'd have to ask which ones, ie: A mortal man called Jesus lived, or Son of God Jesus lived and rose from the dead???), I don't expect any non-trivial claims (Ie those that can be described without introducing magic or the supernatural) to be resolved in favour of the religious person making them. I could make the claim that this physical universe is just one transient bubble on the froth of an infinite multiverse...This too may be wrong of course!
With regards to free-will, given that you have corrected my impression the Stoics did not support this notion, and the Epicureans support the idea of atomic swerve (which to engender free-will would require random deviation from "determined path" ); I'd say I go with neither!
As for my rejection of randomness, the order I expect is that events are caused (in some way); I don't hold that this order should be what we humans can fathom (even theoretically (by (3) above))
25 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergWe disagree. I am not sure I can resolve that.
I presume way to much! (thought I'd bored you out of this thread...glad you're sticking around)
To answer your points I'll first explicitly outline my own view of determinism (so you and I can check whether you still agree with my definition (though not necessarily agree with it in the sense you think it's true)!)
1) I say there are no random events (tha his order should be what we humans can fathom (even theoretically (by (3) above))
You have great allies - including Einstein. Penrose and Hawking were in the same position of accepting that your premises leave open a form of God. But I think the modern consensus remains that you are wrong.
Ultimately it is wrong to assume that all things are caused. Heisenberg says you are wrong in the physical universe. I think that in the biological sphere which may be restricted to Earth, you are also unable to account for the role of Reason in altering the outcome of events.
My chess grade is higher than yours. Is that relevant?
25 May 10
6 edits
Originally posted by finneganI fail to see how Heisenberg refutes causation...it refutes the claim we can determine the position/velocity of particles exactly. This does not seem to imply that such motions (indeterminable) are not in some way caused. Making the claim about reason altering the outcome of events is not damaged by a deterministic view since it implies such reason would be made (and perceived to be free) anyway, and the system of events which follow would react to said reason.
We disagree. I am not sure I can resolve that.
You have great allies - including Einstein. Penrose and Hawking were in the same position of accepting that your premises leave open a form of God. But I think the modern consensus remains that you are wrong.
Ultimately it is wrong to assume that all things are caused. Heisenberg says you are wrong in t ...[text shortened]... Earth, you are also unable to account for the role of Reason in altering the outcome of events.
Your chess grade is an indication I'd get my arse kicked in most games of chess I play you 😵 (I don't have a good opening repetoire and blunder a lot!)...might also lend weight to an assertion you are the smarter of us (with things that I excel at remaining absent from the discussion). Either of those being true does not necessarily negate my arguments here though.
25 May 10
5 edits
I also fear that there may be some confusion as to what I mean by "all things are caused" I don't mean to say that if X moves from state A to state B, it was necessarily caused by some other entity Y, for it could be the inherent makeup of X, and it's position/trajectory/etc... which compels that a particular choice (in the absense of Y) is taken. But this is still causation! (albeit implicit as opposed to explicit)
If this is not a point of confusion on your part, and assuming that I am as you seem to imply, hopelessly, and bewilderingly wrong then I throw down the gauntlet and ask you please explain (in sufficient detail as to bear out your stance that I am wrong) how true randomness (with non sentient entities) actually occurs without resorting to magic, and making sure that I cannot recast your explanation in terms of causation.
I think perhaps a good starting point would be to resolve, in your favour, hidden variable theories (so as to deny me their use).
25 May 10
Originally posted by AgergI fail to see how Heisenberg refutes causation...it refutes the claim we can determine the position/velocity of particles exactly. This does not seem to imply that such motions (indeterminable) are not in some way caused.
I randomly (ha ha) picked up a 1998 book by John Maddox, "What Remains To Be Discovered," which happens to be a neat review of science stuff (though already getting old). He writes almost exactly what you say: "But in no sense is quantum mechanics a license for the belief that physical phenomena on a very small scale do not follow the principle that to each event (or happening) there is a cause." Rather, some causes may have several consequences whose likelihood can be calculated from the rules of quantum mechanics."
However I was not disputing this. I was rather claiming this as an example of a random process which makes nature inherently unpredictable. Even given with absolute precision a description of all the variables and conditions, the outcome would not be predictable even in principle. There is not a simple, continuing chain of cause - effect - cause - effect. The chain includes cause - maybe this effect, maybe a totally different effect - surprising result - cause - maybe ...
Making the claim about reason altering the outcome of events is not damaged by a deterministic view since it implies such reason would be made (and perceived to be free) anyway, and the system of events which follow would react to said reason.
As discussed earlier you have stated the Stoic position admirably. I disagree with your argument.
Firstly it has a skeptical ring to it and that terminates discussion.
Secondly, as Epicurus said (see earlier) your argument is internally self defeating: it only makes sense if you think it has some power to influence the outcome of our discussion. If this discussion is fated to end as it will end (whatever that turns out to be) then the use of reasoned argument is futile.
Thirdly, since we evidently do exercise Reason between ourselves with the intention of choosing to act on the outcome of our discussion, then our actions are to that extent shaped by Reason - that is a perfectly good explanation and does not require reference to fate. Your claim that what we do was determined is not relevant - it does not provide any information that would change things one way or the other. What it might supply, as the Stoics believed, was a psychological support so that we are calm in the face of whatever might arise and we are free from fear or from regret. However, I would prefer to take my comfort in a recognition of reality rather than a comforting myth.
25 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergThis is till hanging and I did some work - again. There are two separate threads here - Is anything in nature truly random? Is any event in nature truly not determined?
Then since you acknowledge the (theoretical) predictability of outcomes which are determined, it surely remains to be justified that there really do exist events that are *not determined*, ie: random.
Also If this is not a point of confusion on your part, and assuming that I am as you seem to imply, hopelessly, and bewilderingly wrong then I throw ...[text shortened]... esorting to magic, and making sure that I cannot recast your explanation in terms of causation.
There is an artical on the site of the American Mathematical Association about the problems of producing or demonstrating randomness. This is very difficult to achieve and it goes on to suggest the following:
http://www.ams.org/samplings/feature-column/fcarc-random
Truly random sequences of numbers may be generated by natural phenomena. Indeed, the web site HotBits, makes available random sequences generated by recording the times between the decays of radioactive particles. For instance, the time between two decays is recorded and compared to the time between the next two. If the first time is shorter than the second, a "0" is recorded, but if the first time is longer than the second, a "1" is recorded. In this way, a sequence of random bits, which may be concatenated to form random integers, is produced. Another site, Random.org, works in a similar way by recording the amplitude of atmospheric noise.
To me this asserts that natural phenomena can be truly random. Turning to Wikipedia, I checked out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
which seems to agree. Brownian Motion was another topic I checked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion
The remaining problem, as the AMA essay implies, is that even if these are random, it is hard to know how to prove they are so. It comments that the number sequence in the value of Pi may be random but we don't really know that for sure. My view is that this takes Skepticism too far but I am sure that to a mathematician, it would be much better to keep searching for a method to prove that a sequence was truly random.
Moving to events that are not determined took me into chapters about Quantum Mechanics. I conclude that I remain happy with my opinion but it is just too difficult to summarize and I have not found a simple web link that covers my reading. Maybe another day.
25 May 10
2 edits
Excuse me for interrupting. - On establishing the possibility of randomness: this seems a devilishly ticklish enterprise. For the more one looks at chaos, the less chaotic it appears. Slowly but surely, all phenomena are subjected to the empire of humanly perceived space-time.
Is there a way for us to break out of our skulls?
(A synonym for chaos: a game with no rules?)