4 ms·

Even the most mainstream science already has big issues with the idea of "determinism". Many people still assume that determinism is the main paradigm, but actu

Even the most mainstream science already has big issues with the idea of "determinism". Many people still assume that determinism is the main paradigm, but actually it has not been for a while, with the introudction of the chaos theory. Chaos theory is a very challenging and interesting concept which you should check out, but one of the most mundane outcomes of it is that there is no way to predict the physical world. No way to see what is going to happen. Now, obviously one could predict a simple neutonian mechanical system for a 10 second-period, or predict enough of electrical impulses in a piece of designed silicon to make a functional processor - but in general, in the widest sense, there is no way to predict the universe. Even with the assumption that there is some completely determined process at the microscopic core of every interaction - those processes, when combined into big systems, wired up with feedback loops and put in a system so tiny that one has to had a machine 2 times bigger than the original system in the first place: and we arrive at total unpredictability of the universe. Note, this is not just practical unpredictability: the question is not about us not having enough technical prowess to predict the universe. The issue is that it is physically impossible to build any real prediction machine that would predic the whole thing: you would need a bigger universe than the universe it is trying to predict. It is even a logical contradiction! Thus determinism becomes more of a philosophical outlook than an actual physical property that could be calculated, predicted etc. Even the word itself - "determinism". Assumnig that the fate, the outcome of something is determined. In what way can it be determined if we know that it is physically impossible to determine it? Not because we lack machines or havent built a strong enough microscope. Our very own scientific paradigm, the scientific method, the way of thinking about the universe - the thing that lies at the core of our worldview - says that it is impossible to predict the whole system. Absolutely impossible. So it is unpredictable - ergo undetermined.

nemaar 8y ago
I believe you are mixing things up. A chaotic system IS deterministic, it is just really hard to predict what it will do. The fact that we (or anyone) cannot predict what will happen in our world says nothing about it being deterministic. If you are talking about practical determinism only then yes, you are most likely correct and we'll never be able to predict the future. But it is misleading and incorrect to say that the world is not deterministic just because we cannot predict its behavior.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
  I just outlined the argument where I show exactly how not being able to predict it means in effect that it is not deterministic. Can you provide some logic against that argument? (So far you just said you don't agree.) Also please note, and I repeat myself that I argue there is a great difference between "really hard to predict" and "physically impossible to predict for any being, based on our own notion of the universe".
  - nemaar 8y ago
    I am not sure what kind of argument you would like, you are trying to redefine the word 'deterministic'. My argument is that it does not work like that. Just because we cannot predict something does NOT mean that it is not deterministic. Even if it is physically impossible to predict it for anyone it still can be deterministic. That's just how this concept works. In practice this means nothing, so I think we can end this debate because you are surely not convincing me and I doubt I can convince you:)
    - Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
      I am interested, what is the definition of determinism that you are using? If it "means nothing in practice", and can be true/not true regardless of whether it is possible (even in theory) to test it - then I assume that it is unrelated to science and you are using it in a philosophical sense?
  - naasking 8y ago
    > Can you provide some logic against that argument? Turing machines are deterministic. Enumerating all Turing machines is deterministic. Whether any given Turing machine will terminate is unpredictable (the Halting problem). Unpredictability does not entail nondeterminism, although distinguishing the two is not necessarily always possible.
    - Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
      But turing machines are theoretical concepts. The physical processors we have - are only physical approximations of a theoretical concepts - and if the argument was made for the view of "determinism" that I outlined - it would be about the physical processor, the physical world itself. Paraphrasing, the theoretical image of an atom, as well as the set of atoms and other particles - is perfectly deterministic. But the chaos theory talks about the real world, not the theoretical framework.
trevyn 8y ago
And yet, we can predict certain things with surprising accuracy. The fallacy is thinking that we must predict an exact state vs. a probabilistic prediction of an information-theoretically meaningful set of states. Reality is metastable, so there are certain attractor states, even if randomness is injected throughout. I have no idea the exact second my plane is going to land tomorrow, but I’m reasonably confident it will land, and I’m very confident that the United States will still exist tomorrow. I have no idea if the United States will exist in 10,000 years, but I’m pretty sure Earth will still be a rock orbiting the Sun at that time. And so on.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
  I'm sorry if I didn't understand you reply, - I think you wrote is very obvious and I though i adressed that with the simple neutonian system reference. Using your analogy, whether United States will exist in 10000 years might actually be undetermined. Not just unknown, unpredicted, but undetermined in the chaos theory- sense. Not only you don't know it - the universe itself does not know it. And the universe is built in such a way that it is impossible to know. Not just "very hard and requires a lot of computation". Impossible, because we can show that the computations you would need would require a computer bigger than the universe itself. Then there is of course an extra note required here is that there is no way for me as a human to know if the question about United States actually is universally undetermined - or just unpredicted; if there is some entity that can predict that. But the chaos theory says that many aspects of the system, and the system as a whole is undetermined. (While having exceptions where simple things like your plane landing can be predicted with some accuracy, yes.)
intralizee 8y ago
I'm not sure how you assume chaos theory creates big issues with determinism and with what you wrote. I wouldn't agree with someone how an impossibility, "for beings inside a system of predicting how the full system will function" as conflicting with determinism. Even when a deterministic system is influenced by an outside deterministic system holding variables hidden to the initial system. I wouldn't described as undetermined by human language and write off determinism. I would say it's personal perception and arguable. Similarly I don't believe a defeatist mentality should be adopted with understanding chaos theory towards determinism. To me that would be taking an early stance, limited by our current knowledge and tools. Absolute impossible seems arrogant.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
  There is nothing defeatist about it. It's about finding the nature of the universe. I don't know why if a certain model of the universe would show up as being less accurate than another model - anyone would that "defeatist". I think it is important as scientist to not lock oneself to a specific model and think that it is defeatist if that one model shows up to be incorrect.
  - intralizee 8y ago
    Well I wouldn't say a deterministic model has been shown to be incorrect. It may come down to what is most measurable and what we decide to lean towards but I think it's way too early for that judgement. I would find it interesting if one day I go around without a determinism perception towards everything. I just haven't been able to do it with what I've read and thought about. I don't think I'm stubborn either!
akvadrako 8y ago
It doesn't do any good to redefine determinism to suit your argument.

nemaar 8y ago

I believe you are mixing things up. A chaotic system IS deterministic, it is just really hard to predict what it will do. The fact that we (or anyone) cannot predict what will happen in our world says nothing about it being deterministic. If you are talking about practical determinism only then yes, you are most likely correct and we'll never be able to predict the future. But it is misleading and incorrect to say that the world is not deterministic just because we cannot predict its behavior.

Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
I just outlined the argument where I show exactly how not being able to predict it means in effect that it is not deterministic. Can you provide some logic against that argument? (So far you just said you don't agree.) Also please note, and I repeat myself that I argue there is a great difference between "really hard to predict" and "physically impossible to predict for any being, based on our own notion of the universe".
- nemaar 8y ago
  I am not sure what kind of argument you would like, you are trying to redefine the word 'deterministic'. My argument is that it does not work like that. Just because we cannot predict something does NOT mean that it is not deterministic. Even if it is physically impossible to predict it for anyone it still can be deterministic. That's just how this concept works. In practice this means nothing, so I think we can end this debate because you are surely not convincing me and I doubt I can convince you:)
  - Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
    I am interested, what is the definition of determinism that you are using? If it "means nothing in practice", and can be true/not true regardless of whether it is possible (even in theory) to test it - then I assume that it is unrelated to science and you are using it in a philosophical sense?
- naasking 8y ago
  > Can you provide some logic against that argument? Turing machines are deterministic. Enumerating all Turing machines is deterministic. Whether any given Turing machine will terminate is unpredictable (the Halting problem). Unpredictability does not entail nondeterminism, although distinguishing the two is not necessarily always possible.
  - Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
    But turing machines are theoretical concepts. The physical processors we have - are only physical approximations of a theoretical concepts - and if the argument was made for the view of "determinism" that I outlined - it would be about the physical processor, the physical world itself. Paraphrasing, the theoretical image of an atom, as well as the set of atoms and other particles - is perfectly deterministic. But the chaos theory talks about the real world, not the theoretical framework.

trevyn 8y ago

And yet, we can predict certain things with surprising accuracy. The fallacy is thinking that we must predict an exact state vs. a probabilistic prediction of an information-theoretically meaningful set of states. Reality is metastable, so there are certain attractor states, even if randomness is injected throughout. I have no idea the exact second my plane is going to land tomorrow, but I’m reasonably confident it will land, and I’m very confident that the United States will still exist tomorrow. I have no idea if the United States will exist in 10,000 years, but I’m pretty sure Earth will still be a rock orbiting the Sun at that time. And so on.

Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
I'm sorry if I didn't understand you reply, - I think you wrote is very obvious and I though i adressed that with the simple neutonian system reference. Using your analogy, whether United States will exist in 10000 years might actually be undetermined. Not just unknown, unpredicted, but undetermined in the chaos theory- sense. Not only you don't know it - the universe itself does not know it. And the universe is built in such a way that it is impossible to know. Not just "very hard and requires a lot of computation". Impossible, because we can show that the computations you would need would require a computer bigger than the universe itself. Then there is of course an extra note required here is that there is no way for me as a human to know if the question about United States actually is universally undetermined - or just unpredicted; if there is some entity that can predict that. But the chaos theory says that many aspects of the system, and the system as a whole is undetermined. (While having exceptions where simple things like your plane landing can be predicted with some accuracy, yes.)

intralizee 8y ago

I'm not sure how you assume chaos theory creates big issues with determinism and with what you wrote. I wouldn't agree with someone how an impossibility, "for beings inside a system of predicting how the full system will function" as conflicting with determinism. Even when a deterministic system is influenced by an outside deterministic system holding variables hidden to the initial system. I wouldn't described as undetermined by human language and write off determinism. I would say it's personal perception and arguable. Similarly I don't believe a defeatist mentality should be adopted with understanding chaos theory towards determinism. To me that would be taking an early stance, limited by our current knowledge and tools. Absolute impossible seems arrogant.

Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
There is nothing defeatist about it. It's about finding the nature of the universe. I don't know why if a certain model of the universe would show up as being less accurate than another model - anyone would that "defeatist". I think it is important as scientist to not lock oneself to a specific model and think that it is defeatist if that one model shows up to be incorrect.
- intralizee 8y ago
  Well I wouldn't say a deterministic model has been shown to be incorrect. It may come down to what is most measurable and what we decide to lean towards but I think it's way too early for that judgement. I would find it interesting if one day I go around without a determinism perception towards everything. I just haven't been able to do it with what I've read and thought about. I don't think I'm stubborn either!

akvadrako 8y ago

It doesn't do any good to redefine determinism to suit your argument.