Re: The Road with no Branches argument

From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 11/03/04 

Date: 3 Nov 2004 02:50:04 -0600

 peterdjones@yahoo.com (1Z) wrote:
>"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote in message news:<41842278$0$2547
$45beb828
>@newscene.com>...
>> peterdjones@yahoo.com (1Z) wrote:
>>
>>>Any macroscopic indeteministic system will eventually have knock-on
>>>effects on other sytems, so in the long term and large
>>>scale the world will indeed be indeterministic -- with localised
>>>pockets of (for all practical purposes) determinism, such as the
>>>ones you say you have observed.
>>
>> American Heritage "Determinism": every state of affairs,
>> including every human event, act, and decision is the
>> inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.
>
>If that were the only meaning of determinism, you personally
>could not claim to have *observed* determinism, since that
>would imply observing he entire history of the entire universe.
>Presumably it has a more approximate and localised applicability
>as well (my "for all practical purposes").

I like that including approximate and "for all practical
purposes." I'd add that it's important to know whose purposes are
being served.

>> So as long as those "knock-on" effects are governed by logical
>> processes, the system is determinate. <snip>
>
>A system that kicks off with a random event can continue
>deterministically
>until it encounters another random event. But a universe containing
>such systems is not deterministic in the global sense you quote above.

Agree. That is in line with the (worthless) opinion below that it
may be determinate only within a range of levels of description
and that a creator god could create a game of chance within those
two.

>I don't know what you mean by *logical* processes -- if you mean
>deterministic processes, why didn't you say so ?

Because, for one thing, under the above definition I don't know
if probability is implied. Probability is a logical process and
is lawful. I know that with a short definition there will likely
be lots of distinctions in the detail of definition of the
concensus view, or the view of various professions, or various
individuals.

>> It (including those
>> processes) may be very complex beyond our ability to ever
>> understand. It may be very chaotic. It may be entropic. It may
>> wind down to a random collection of molecules, particles, or even
>> "the stuff" if we ever find it. But it *could* still be
>> determinate.
>
>If there is underlying indeterminism (and QM says there is)
>AND chaotic systems, which there are, there is large-scale
>in determinism.

Agree that the determism debate requires deciding determinism
in the macro universe.

>I can't make any sense of your comment: you seem to be
>saying that it could containt all the ingredients for indeterminism
>but still be deterministic. Why ?

Just saying it could be lawful on one level but unlawful on some
other level like when you say above that at system could kick off
with a random event. Like the "big bang" being the result of a
random event.

>> My opinion, worth absolutely nothing at all, is that it is
>> determinate only within a range of levels of descriptions but
>> including that God can create a game of chance, and that
>> includes our everyday macro world and probably
>> the QM level too.
>
>Unclear again.
>Meaning that the universe is approximately, near-enough deterministic
>?

Meaning that I observe an orderly universe around me, but beyond
that I simply can't know. Intuitively, now putting myself in the
mind of a creator god (one reason my opinion is worthless) I
don't see much point in running an experiment where everything is
known in advance. If I were smart enough to create all existence,
I'd want to have some fun too and not just be bored to death. But
then we might just be an ornament on god's Xmas tree.

<snip me on tech advance>

>OTOH progress in science has revealed a lot more indeterminism
>than we used to think.

That's for sure!

>>>>>Can you predict the weather?
>>>>>If you could, it would be a refutation of my claims.
>>>> Yeah, if I could refute unfalsifiable claims I'd be real famous.
>> Still applies, evidently.
>
>The claim that the weather is indeterministic is falsifiable. You
>falsify it by predicting it.

STILL applies! There are reasons we can't predict weather
besides indeterminism, so that we can't know if it is the
result of QM effects, let alone indeterminism. If there was some
experiment published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal
reducing weather prediction to factors necessarily including
indeterminism, I think it would have been linked by now.

>>>> I've already refuted your claims: "Weather is
>>>> indeterminate.
>>>I have read back over the thread wihtout seeing any refutation.
>><snip agreeing with indeterminism opinion from Mike's POV>
>> I agree with indeterminism from your POV too, btw. I agree with
>> it from every poster's POV, including mine.
>
>Still very unclear. Are you using 'indeterminism' to mean
>'de facto unpredictability' ? Note that (in)determinism refers
>to what is actually going on, predictability to what you can know.

That's my point. We (from our POV) don't know what is
actually going on. So from our POV things like QM and weather
appear to be both indeterminate and unpredictable. An objective
POV (like a creator god) might know what is going on or might not.

>> So our only disagreement was what God knows. By "God" I mean
>> "objective POV." If you read back, then you know Mike and I
>> agreed that we cannot know "Weather is indeterminate" from
>> God's POV.
>We cannot know it is determinate from that POV either.

Correct. And that is the only POV that applies, IMO. I believe
it is inherent in the word "determinism."

>>From the POV we actually have, the evidence is that it is
>indeterminate.

I've agreed with that *opinion* many times. Others have
legitimate differing opinions about that evidence.

>>>Given two well-supported premisses, that the weather is chaotic,
>>>and that the quantum world is indeterministic, the conclusion follows.
>>
>> I don't remember two "well-supported" premises.
>
>They may be new to you.

Then let's hear them if they are based on an objective POV.

<snip what I thought was premise #1, indeterminate QM>

>> I saw no support for "amplification" generally into the macro
>> universe.
>
>It follows automatically from the fact that chaotic systems
>are *critically* dependent on their initial conditions.

That implies, from the context of your argument for indeterminate
weather, that indeterminacy is an initial condition. You
are assuming your case to make your case.

>> Mike offered one example and, in good faith, I
>> offered one (Brownian motion) but there was no support for
>> "amplification" generally, not to say that QM effects are
>> non-existent, just that they aren't "amplified" generally.
>
>How general it is depends on how many chaotic systems are around.
>In any case, if there is any indeterminism, derterminism as you define
>it above is false.

I agree with that. But I can think of a possible exception: The
possibility that two coincident indeterminate systems (as you
call them) increasing the predictability of the two in
combination. It's hard for me to concieve of this and I don't
have an example off-hand, but I think the possibility remains in
some cases. When discussing what a creator god might possibly
create, you have to use your imagination.

>> There
>> is no accounting for why every object in the universe is not
>> bouncing around at the speed of light in magnified QM ways.
>
>Yes there is: we clearly understand why on-chaotic systems
>don't amplify quantum-level effects.

Again, by implying that chaotic systems do amplify QM effects,
it seems that you're assuming your case to make your case.

>> Every
>> object may be bouncing around a teency bit, including molecules
>> in the atmosphere, but that doesn't necessarily translate to
>> indeterminism. It just as easily translates into a probabilistic
>> universe that seems to work quite nicely (lawfully), though
>> eventually everything crashes into something else (but again,
>> lawfully).
>
>It all depends on what kind of system you are dealing with.

It seems like you're just repeating your case, e.g. the assertion
that QM indeterminism is amplified into weather making it also
indeterminate. That's not making your case.

>>>But you can't refute the alleged indeterminism of weather,
>>>directly, by predicting it, and you can't refute the
>>>premisses from which it is inferred. So you can't refute it.
>>
>> You have "refute" confused with "prove the opposite case."

>Determinisn and indeterminism are logical opposites, disproving the
>one is proving the other.

An agreement that "we can't know" refutes the assertions "We can
know that the whole world is indeterminate" and "we can know that
weather is indeterminate" without needing to prove either
determinism or indeterminism.

Larry

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Road with no Branches argument
    ... If that were the only meaning of determinism, ... If there is underlying indeterminism ... > I agree with indeterminism from your POV too, ... It follows automatically from the fact that chaotic systems ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Road with no Branches argument
    ... to the universe (perhaps a god or other agency _outside_ the ... > I agree with indeterminism from your POV too, ... >>directly, by predicting it, and you can't refute the ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: A defence of determinism
    ... determinism and non-determinism are tenable. ... I'm not sure how indeterminism can support moral responsibility. ... sample of scientists who are indeterminist and a sample of scientists ... decision making believing that each person can freely judge the options ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Einstein might have had a point
    ... how ion channels actually gate themselves and their selectivity (it is ... unregulated channels that cycle through open, ... deterministic -otherwise determinism is just an unsupported assumption (And ... I think it is beholden on those proposing indeterminism as a default ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: The Road with no Branches argument
    ... > determinism. ... to amplify microscopic indeterminism to an observable ... > created a game of chance. ...
    (sci.logic)