Determinism
-
This post did not contain any content.
Fight what exactly? Determinism either is or isnt how the universe works, it isnt like some sort of external force of finite capacity that can be resisted by some application of effort. If it is true, then you have no choice but to act the way something like you would act, and the way humans are wired to think is in terms of choices and the possible outcomes of those choices, even if the choice you make and the thinking that leads you to it is inevitable. If it is not true, then the possibility of making different choices exists, but it doesnt look any different to you because you only get to perceive the result of following one set of them.
The thing about determinism is that while it may be an interesting philosophical exercise, beyond being difficult to maybe impossible to prove or disprove, it isnt really relevant to much. A deterministic universe looks, feels, and acts to us exactly like a nondeterministic one would.
-
Fight what exactly? Determinism either is or isnt how the universe works, it isnt like some sort of external force of finite capacity that can be resisted by some application of effort. If it is true, then you have no choice but to act the way something like you would act, and the way humans are wired to think is in terms of choices and the possible outcomes of those choices, even if the choice you make and the thinking that leads you to it is inevitable. If it is not true, then the possibility of making different choices exists, but it doesnt look any different to you because you only get to perceive the result of following one set of them.
The thing about determinism is that while it may be an interesting philosophical exercise, beyond being difficult to maybe impossible to prove or disprove, it isnt really relevant to much. A deterministic universe looks, feels, and acts to us exactly like a nondeterministic one would.
I took it to mean fighting against a descent into nihilism.
-
Fight what exactly? Determinism either is or isnt how the universe works, it isnt like some sort of external force of finite capacity that can be resisted by some application of effort. If it is true, then you have no choice but to act the way something like you would act, and the way humans are wired to think is in terms of choices and the possible outcomes of those choices, even if the choice you make and the thinking that leads you to it is inevitable. If it is not true, then the possibility of making different choices exists, but it doesnt look any different to you because you only get to perceive the result of following one set of them.
The thing about determinism is that while it may be an interesting philosophical exercise, beyond being difficult to maybe impossible to prove or disprove, it isnt really relevant to much. A deterministic universe looks, feels, and acts to us exactly like a nondeterministic one would.
What if some parts of the universe are deterministic, and some others aren't? Or that is is deterministic sometimes, but sometimes it is not?
Then, would it mean that initiating a chain of deterministic events that eventually causes suffering makes me responsible for this suffering?
What if i choose to cut taxes because i think I'll have more money, but it causes a series of events that end up increasing organised crimes? What if it was always the deterministic result of that choice, but the choice itself was not deterministic and I could have chosen not to do it?
-
Occam's razor defeats Plato's cave. There's no reason to think that the world we experience would be just metaphysical shadows on the wall. The burden of proof is on Mickey's shoulders.
Oh yeah and Cogito Ergo Sum. So there is one bit of definitely provable knowledge.
Occam's razor is a rule of thumb not an absolute rule of the universe.
If you go with Cogito Ergo Sum, I think that's the stance Mickey is taking. You only know for sure of your own consciousness, everything else could be a delusion of the senses. You know, like shadows on a cave wall or whatever.
-
I took it to mean fighting against a descent into nihilism.
I never understood the fight against nihilism, as if it's inherently bleak. I came to the conclusion that nothing truly matters a long time ago, but that doesn't keep me from feeling like stuff matters, and doing what matters to me. Subjective meaning can still drive you to pursue and live a good life even while you're aware that objective meaning doesn't exit. Happiness feels good, which is enough for me.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This reminds me of that stupid thing in fallout 4 about possibly being a robot essentially and how it was supposed to be some big deal but I never understood what difference it made
-
What if some parts of the universe are deterministic, and some others aren't? Or that is is deterministic sometimes, but sometimes it is not?
Then, would it mean that initiating a chain of deterministic events that eventually causes suffering makes me responsible for this suffering?
What if i choose to cut taxes because i think I'll have more money, but it causes a series of events that end up increasing organised crimes? What if it was always the deterministic result of that choice, but the choice itself was not deterministic and I could have chosen not to do it?
Oh it's even worse.
The universe is indeterministic. It's probabilistic and uncertain, but that doesn't mean you actually have a choice. Your "choices" are just determined by quantum dice rolls.
Anything can happen, nothing is certain, but you still don't actually exercise will over reality.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Determinism is an irrelevant theory because of Gödel’s incompleteness and the Halting problem.
Predictions are always made from inside the universe, thus affect their own results. Therefore, perfect predictions are irredeemably impossible.
Now, can the universe be fully predicted from the outside ? Who cares ! What is outside the universe, by definition, cannot affect it, so the question is irrelevant, again by definition.
The only case where that could hypothetically matter is if there is a one-way gate to exit the universe (if you can come back, then it’s just a weird part of the universe, not truly outside, so the first arguments still stand).
And even then, proving the universe deterministic would at best be just one hint that maybe the “outside universe” is itself deterministic, not even a full proof.
Also, observing the universe without affecting it is a pretty weird concept, with what we know about quantum measurements affecting their own results. Not impossible by definition, but it would look quite different from what we do right now.
According to our current model, we would probably observe un-collapsed quantum field waves, which is a concept inaccessible from within the universe, and could very well just be an artifact of the model instead of ground truth.
But again, this is all irrelevant until someone builds the universe an exit door. That door being one-way only by definition also means there would be no way to know what’s on the other side and if it’s worth crossing (or if it instantly kills you) before you do.
So, if we do build such a door, there would be no way to experimentally confirm it is indeed an exit from the universe, and not just a wormhole with a very far exit, or a long lived pocket dimension, or an absolute annihilator that doesn’t lead anywhere.
-
Oh it's even worse.
The universe is indeterministic. It's probabilistic and uncertain, but that doesn't mean you actually have a choice. Your "choices" are just determined by quantum dice rolls.
Anything can happen, nothing is certain, but you still don't actually exercise will over reality.
That's assuming that our current understanding of quantum mechanics is even close to accurate, just because we haven't figured out how to predict the outcomes yet doesn't mean it can't be done
-
That's assuming that our current understanding of quantum mechanics is even close to accurate, just because we haven't figured out how to predict the outcomes yet doesn't mean it can't be done
That's called Hidden Variable Theory, but there's also no indication that this is how the universe works and everything we find just reinforces indeterminism and uncertainty.
The most notable development is the math working out to make hidden variables irrelevant i.e. they do not actually help us better describe reality or predict outcomes of measurement.
The math doesn't seem to care whether God is rolling dice or not.
-
Occam's razor is a rule of thumb not an absolute rule of the universe.
If you go with Cogito Ergo Sum, I think that's the stance Mickey is taking. You only know for sure of your own consciousness, everything else could be a delusion of the senses. You know, like shadows on a cave wall or whatever.
Yes, and my response to what Mickey said was that why would we think that we're in the cave looking at shadows? Why should I complicate my view of the world with the added baggage of metaphysical idealism when materialism works just fine to explain everything I see? Sure our perception of the world is limited to our senses and measurement techniques, but the scientific framework we've built onto that base appears very consistent and functional with its predictive power. It's definitely not omniscience, but it works.
I only brought up the Cogito argument to point out that Mickey is incorrect in saying that no certain knowledge exists.
-
That's called Hidden Variable Theory, but there's also no indication that this is how the universe works and everything we find just reinforces indeterminism and uncertainty.
The most notable development is the math working out to make hidden variables irrelevant i.e. they do not actually help us better describe reality or predict outcomes of measurement.
The math doesn't seem to care whether God is rolling dice or not.
That's one theory about how it might work, our inability to come up with another way to explain the possibility of quantum determinism is not evidence against it
-
I never understood the fight against nihilism, as if it's inherently bleak. I came to the conclusion that nothing truly matters a long time ago, but that doesn't keep me from feeling like stuff matters, and doing what matters to me. Subjective meaning can still drive you to pursue and live a good life even while you're aware that objective meaning doesn't exit. Happiness feels good, which is enough for me.
-
Oh it's even worse.
The universe is indeterministic. It's probabilistic and uncertain, but that doesn't mean you actually have a choice. Your "choices" are just determined by quantum dice rolls.
Anything can happen, nothing is certain, but you still don't actually exercise will over reality.
Tbh I dont think that this is actually incompatible with determinism, since the mechanism by which the future is predetermined doesnt necessarily have to be that all causes only have one possible effect associated with them. I mostly suspect the universe is deterministic because I suspect (though this is only a suspicion that I cannot prove) that the universe has block time and therefore that, even if random events with no clear "this must lead to that" chain exist, the future is predetermined merely by "already" existing along some time axis. Sort of like how if you had a character in a flipbook roll a die, and nothing earlier in the flipbook forces the die to have to land on one particular number to keep the plot self-consistent, the outcome of the die will still always be the same, because the pages where its result is shown already have been drawn.
-
That's one theory about how it might work, our inability to come up with another way to explain the possibility of quantum determinism is not evidence against it
It's not that there aren't other ways to explain the universe, but rather, none of those alternatives are more predictive or descriptive. Not only can't we find hidden variables, we don't need them.
You can believe there are angels dancing on the heads of pins (or whatever) and that's the hidden variable causing uncertainty, but there's literally no reason to. You're introducing addition unnecessary complexity when we can explain everything without it.
-
Tbh I dont think that this is actually incompatible with determinism, since the mechanism by which the future is predetermined doesnt necessarily have to be that all causes only have one possible effect associated with them. I mostly suspect the universe is deterministic because I suspect (though this is only a suspicion that I cannot prove) that the universe has block time and therefore that, even if random events with no clear "this must lead to that" chain exist, the future is predetermined merely by "already" existing along some time axis. Sort of like how if you had a character in a flipbook roll a die, and nothing earlier in the flipbook forces the die to have to land on one particular number to keep the plot self-consistent, the outcome of the die will still always be the same, because the pages where its result is shown already have been drawn.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Sure, but now you have to make a bunch of assumptions about things we can't test or observe to keep the universe consistent with determinism. It's not impossible that the universe is predetermined, but there's just no reason to believe it is. You're making more of an aesthetic argument than a scientific one. You just believe in determinism because you like it.
-
It's not that there aren't other ways to explain the universe, but rather, none of those alternatives are more predictive or descriptive. Not only can't we find hidden variables, we don't need them.
You can believe there are angels dancing on the heads of pins (or whatever) and that's the hidden variable causing uncertainty, but there's literally no reason to. You're introducing addition unnecessary complexity when we can explain everything without it.
Our inability to predict an outcome does not prove anything about the certainty of the outcome, our understanding of physics is incomplete and any conclusions you draw from incomplete information are necessarily assumptions, you felt compelled to describe that with reference to angels as a means of delegitimizing this fact because you're emotionally invested in your preferred theory
-
Yes, and my response to what Mickey said was that why would we think that we're in the cave looking at shadows? Why should I complicate my view of the world with the added baggage of metaphysical idealism when materialism works just fine to explain everything I see? Sure our perception of the world is limited to our senses and measurement techniques, but the scientific framework we've built onto that base appears very consistent and functional with its predictive power. It's definitely not omniscience, but it works.
I only brought up the Cogito argument to point out that Mickey is incorrect in saying that no certain knowledge exists.
I think one of the points Mickey would make is you can't entirely trust the scientific framework because it's still coming from our flawed senses. Even if everything adds up, it could still be a lie. Solipsism and all that.
I don't think anyone is talking about metaphysical idealism, but conceptual things shouldn't be written off because they are inconvenient. Numbers aren't physical, but I doubt you'd say they don't exist and therefore should be ignored, unless you're the most extreme materialist.
-
Sure, but now you have to make a bunch of assumptions about things we can't test or observe to keep the universe consistent with determinism. It's not impossible that the universe is predetermined, but there's just no reason to believe it is. You're making more of an aesthetic argument than a scientific one. You just believe in determinism because you like it.
It wasnt really an argument at all, except for the part that randomness isnt incompatible with determinism. I dont have a proper scientific reason for suspecting the future already exists, it just feels somehow "simpler" since it doesnt require assuming that the time dimension is somehow particularly different from space dimensions.
-
Fight what exactly? Determinism either is or isnt how the universe works, it isnt like some sort of external force of finite capacity that can be resisted by some application of effort. If it is true, then you have no choice but to act the way something like you would act, and the way humans are wired to think is in terms of choices and the possible outcomes of those choices, even if the choice you make and the thinking that leads you to it is inevitable. If it is not true, then the possibility of making different choices exists, but it doesnt look any different to you because you only get to perceive the result of following one set of them.
The thing about determinism is that while it may be an interesting philosophical exercise, beyond being difficult to maybe impossible to prove or disprove, it isnt really relevant to much. A deterministic universe looks, feels, and acts to us exactly like a nondeterministic one would.
The truth of determinism is relevant to the most popular conception of free will. That's why this comes up repeatedly. People seem to want themselves to be free from causality itself, because being bound by it makes you not "free", and just going through the motions.
The problem here is the definition of free will itself . Rather than demanding from the universe that your mind be inexplicably free form causality, why not just accept a more useful definition of free will? Such as the ability to make decisions without undue coercion. Vague as that is, it's at least a workable definition.
