Meditations

[Vortex]

I don't think I could ascribe to any kind of theory determinism of the universe though

Oh really? Wow, I thought it was only religious people who rejected determinism. My ignorance is shown once again!

I'll try to do my "religious theory" soon. (trying out the smiles. )

I suppose I would have to say that everything is ultimately determined by the initial conditions of the universe and it's physical laws; however, it is impossible in practice to know the initial conditions and calculate everything, since Universe is a pretty humongous thing to know every single last detail of. Since the slightest of differences in those conditions would've radically altered everything making simulations is also likely to fail.

I don't think that destroys "free choice" though. You will always be the one to make the choice, even if the initial conditions ensure you will do it. It is no more an illusion than life.

Well, from a physical perspective, Bell's theorem shows that no interpretation that includes quantum mechanics can both be local and have hidden variables, that is, if like you say "everything is ultimately determined by the initial conditions of the universe and it's physical laws", implying that quantum uncertainty doesn't exist, if I understand it well we'd have to abandon all the notions of causality and assume that weird entanglements between things at a far distance are possible, including the ability to affect things that happened in the past. I wouldn't say that is very deterministic either XD

[Anteroinen]

Oh really? Wow, I thought it was only religious people who rejected determinism. My ignorance is shown once again!

I'll try to do my "religious theory" soon. (trying out the smiles. )

I suppose I would have to say that everything is ultimately determined by the initial conditions of the universe and it's physical laws; however, it is impossible in practice to know the initial conditions and calculate everything, since Universe is a pretty humongous thing to know every single last detail of. Since the slightest of differences in those conditions would've radically altered everything making simulations is also likely to fail.

I don't think that destroys "free choice" though. You will always be the one to make the choice, even if the initial conditions ensure you will do it. It is no more an illusion than life.

Well, from a physical perspective, Bell's theorem shows that no interpretation that includes quantum mechanics can both be local and have hidden variables, that is, if like you say "everything is ultimately determined by the initial conditions of the universe and it's physical laws", implying that quantum uncertainty doesn't exist, if I understand it well we'd have to abandon all the notions of causality and assume that weird entanglements between things at a far distance are possible, including the ability to affect things that happened in the past. I wouldn't say that is very deterministic either XD

Oh yeah, I forgot quantum mechanics = mindfuck. I guess not then? I must admit that went over my head for the most part.

[Redafro]

My understanding is that while we don't have the capacity to predict quantum uncertainties, they still occur according to set principles. In other words, there are laws that govern quantum uncertainties; they are not completely random and uncertain events. We know it will be a spin up or a spin down (is that right?) but we don't know when... something like that. XP

[Edit: so we cannot predict, but we know there are laws of cause and effect governing the events.]

...Therefore, we are still talking about cause and effect events governed by laws, and therefore the determinist arguments still apply. Right?

I don't know anything about time traveling particle effect theories. O_o

[Vortex]

The proccess do follow quantum laws, but the problem is that those laws carry an intrinsec uncertainty; if you want to assume locality (that cause and effect still holds) then you have to accept that there is nothing behind those uncertainties, not because we haven't yet the technology to go beyond them, but simply because that "beyond them" doesn't exist. Even if someone were omniscient, he couldn't know every position and momentum of every particle at the same instant, and that wouldn't be a contradiction because that knowledge doesn't exist (it creates as soon as the wavefunction collapses). Weird, huh?

[Redafro]

Ok... hmmm... I wish you could chat with the guys at Reasonable Doubts. Their ideas are what finally convinced me that the world must be to some degree deterministic (which was not an easy shift for me, and my friends laughed their heads off to hear the hard core free will Christian become a determinist, but I have to follow where the evidence/reason goes). I think they might argue that quantum events happen only at a quantum level and don't have any real effect on cause and effect relationships on our scale. However, there are people who argue that our brains may be quantum computers. If so, then while randomness would not = freedom, only unpredictability, randomness WOULD allow for truly unique alternative actions to be invented, thus truly maintaining free will even in on a local scale of determinism.

But the important point is always that determinism =/= predictability. Determinism states that there are no uncaused effects (there is another point of clarification too, but I forget what it is right now XP), not that we can determine what the effects will be.

So does your position still hold true with that definition?

[Oleander]

But the important point is always that determinism =/= predictability. Determinism states that there are no uncaused effects (there is another point of clarification too, but I forget what it is right now XP), not that we can determine what the effects will be.

There has to be another point of clarification, because otherwise it is a tautology. The definition of 'effect' is something that is caused.

[Redafro]

Sorry, let me think... there are no uncaused causes, or simply uncaused event works just as well I think.

[Anteroinen]

Sorry, let me think... there are no uncaused causes, or simply uncaused event works just as well I think.

So basically: everything that can cause anything has to have been caused by something, but yet there are things that haven't been caused?

[Oleander]

Is that principle the same thing as saying 'if it exists, then something caused it to exist'? Because that's not necessarily true.

[Vortex]

Ok... hmmm... I wish you could chat with the guys at Reasonable Doubts. Their ideas are what finally convinced me that the world must be to some degree deterministic (which was not an easy shift for me, and my friends laughed their heads off to hear the hard core free will Christian become a determinist, but I have to follow where the evidence/reason goes). I think they might argue that quantum events happen only at a quantum level and don't have any real effect on cause and effect relationships on our scale. However, there are people who argue that our brains may be quantum computers. If so, then while randomness would not = freedom, only unpredictability, randomness WOULD allow for truly unique alternative actions to be invented, thus truly maintaining free will even in on a local scale of determinism.

But the important point is always that determinism =/= predictability. Determinism states that there are no uncaused effects (there is another point of clarification too, but I forget what it is right now XP), not that we can determine what the effects will be.

So does your position still hold true with that definition?

Actually I was assuming that definition (causality/locality) for it; we have either to accept that counterfactual definiteness (the technical term for the existence of hidden variables, implying determinism) doesn't hold, or that locality (which implies causality and forbids those weird time effects) doesn't hold (or both don't hold, but that would be going too far XD the point is that the two cannot coexist). In fact, quantum mechanics says that we can never determine any hidden variables, in any theory. The doubt is about the existence of those variables that we won't ever determine. So determinism =/= causality, and in fact, in relativistic quantum mechanics they make opposite interpretations

EDIT: anyways, I'm no expert in the philosophical aspects of quantum mechanics, so I may be wrong. I know that Bell theorem implies no CDF+locality, but apart from that, I only say what I have read about it.