Exophase said:
But probability is NOT determinism, ie pure deductive reasoning. You present things as either deterministic or non-deterministic, but probabilistic reasoning is a middle ground between the two. For example, imagine a truly random coin flip. If you flip the coin several times the probability of it landing heads or tails is 50% each. Meaning by definition if you flip the coin an infinite number of times it'll converge at half heads, half tails. But for any given flip you can't determine it, so you can't say that this is system is purely deterministic, nor can you say that no reasoning can be made about the system. I understand that a real coin flip wouldn't be considered purely random, so please take this as an abstract analogy.
I am of the impression that the system
is completely deterministic, the only difference between the two outlined aspects being that you in one case have a deterministic function λa.c[sub]
a[/sub] where you make an abstraction over the behavior of something dependent on the world state, and in the other case have the outcome c[sub]
a[/sub] as values of this function given specific world states. The process is still completely deterministic; the only problem is that you lack sufficient information to be able to calculate c[sub]
a[/sub] in the individual case, and need to see an abstraction of the function to be able to determine what the common world state is for the function to have a certain outcome.
Described more concretely:
- A process that is considered random is a function whose parameter (world state) remains largely unknown.
- Probability theory is the art of abstracting over multiple world states to, given certain "outcome" world states, be able to come to conclusions about what the "initial" world state must have been, and thus being able to create partial functions mapping certain world states to certain outcomes. E.g. throwing a coin on Earth (initial world state) roughly yields a 1:1 chance of heads vs tails landing (outcome world state; the "randomness" is just a missing parameter to the function), throwing it on a small moon (different initial world state) yields a 0:0 chance of heads vs tails landing (conflict), throwing it inside of a medium-sized star yields a 0 chance of it landing at all (different function entirely), etc. I've just described 3 partial functions between world states that can be used for fundamental reasoning.
- There is nothing in existence that is purely deterministic, because you can never know the entire state of the universe (See the paradox related to Maxwell's demon); every conclusion is probabilistic and every deterministic function is always partially applied.
Exophase said:
In the same way that the overall ratio of flips looks deterministic, while individual flips do not, the universe can very well have this same kind of probabilistic split between the macroscopic and the microscopic. Quantum mechanics states that the position of an atomic electron relative to its nucleus is non-deterministic, but is governed by probability that restrains it within a proximity cloud. ie, it's impossible to determine at any given instance where the electron is based on the state of the universe one time tick (planck second) back. But probability lets us predict, with great confidence, that it will still be within the cloud. This kind of reliable probability in turn gives us what appear to be deterministic results at a higher level. But ultimately, quantum mechanics allow for an outlier to this.
Yes, this is the current model that is being used, and it works, and it might very well be that the movement of an electron entity is completely non-deterministic, in that even if we knew the whole state of the universe, and had infinite computing power (aka we were able to run an infinite loop in 0 seconds - that kind of computing power), we still would be unable to determine the nature of the electron's movement. But to say that "The movement of foobar is non-deterministic" is an unfounded explanation for the phenomenon that doesn't lead anywhere, because we need deterministic behavior to be able to draw conclusions, and saying that "The electron deterministically moves non-deterministically" is just a fallacy. So it might be that the movement of the electron is non-deterministic, but we cannot use reason to determine (← hint, hint) this. I am of the belief (it can't be anything else at this point since we lack empirical evidence for either conclusion) that the absolute movement of the elementary charge (be it the electron or something lower-level) is deterministic, and that we just as of now are unable to gather enough data and lack the sufficient models to be able to determine its behavior.
Exophase said:
Given that we don't fully understand human consciousness, it's not impossible for it to reflect some kind of quantum state that allows for randomness.
We can only work with existing models at this point, and since the field of psychoanalysis hasn't reached the point that we're able to make connections between the movement of sub-atomic particles and human behavior, we can't reason with world-states at the quantum level yet. So I tried to argue with what's known in the field of psychoanalysis today, and given the current models, it would seem that human behavior
is deterministic.
Exophase said:
On the other hand, I think this is somewhat of a moot discussion, because in a large sense "determinism" is somewhat of a relative concept. If given a system where observers are, under no exception, disallowed from some knowledge then the system will never appear deterministic no matter how much it may be an in an "absolute" sense. From a philosophical point of view I think this has significant bearing when considering human limitations.
Hey, we're in a philosophy thread. Most of what's being said here is moot in the long run anyways.
But yeah, we brought up free choice etc, and in order for us to be able to discuss it at some higher level than "I dunno whether we possess a free will, do you?" "Nah...", determinism had to be brought in at some point. If we choose not to go down that alley, and say "Nope, we can't assume that the universe is completely deterministic", then we have to pull in other solutions to the problem such as "We have a soul" or "The universe is really one creature with a vivid imagination" or "We serve as power sources for a robot civilization and are trapped in a virtual reality to suppress our revelation of this fact" etc. To me, not such viable alternatives.
Anyways, thanks for your input, it really contributed to the discussion, because you introduced a new point of view that I wouldn't have thought of. It's possible to imagine that the universe really is a big state machine, that operates via abstractions, and that as soon as you reach a certain micro level, it breaks down, and resorts to chaotic noise to accommodate for the microscopic observations being made. I.e. there aren't really any subatomic particles; they only spring into existence on-demand as they are needed, namely when an observation is being made, and they behave chaotically as an optimization performed by the universe. Further: it might be that, in the medieval times, the Earth really wasn't round, and it only "became" round once humans started making observations and had to find explanations for phenomena such as gravity, or why the sun stood at certain angles relative to certain wells, or why ships were gradually disappearing while moving towards the horizon. Et cetera. Crazy? Maybe, but plausible within the realm of Philosophy at least.
