• JustSomeGuy
    307


    Not only did your rephrasing of the comment fail to alter its tone, but there is very clearly nothing wrong with the tone of the comment in the first place. If you took offense to what T Clark said there, that's your own fault, not T Clark's.

    You want some help understanding one of the most important mathematical results of C21?tom

    So, you're not really interested are you.tom

    You seem to have a very fragile ego.
  • tom
    1.5k
    The only Law of Physics that I know of is Quanum Mechanics and it would take a great myth maker to interpret QM into superdetermiminism. In fact, it would take an act of your faith.Rich

    That's why 't Hooft, who got the Nobel Prize for instigating and developing the Standard Model is a Superdeterminist.

    The Copenhagen Interpretation is entirely compatible with Superdeterminism.

    And there are other Laws of Physics - specifically General Relativity, which are Superdeterministic.

    So, no faith is required, just some education.
  • JustSomeGuy
    307
    No, that determinism is false.
  • T Clark
    3k
    I was agreeing with you and addressing tom. I feel like that was made perfectly clear.JustSomeGuy

    I reread it and I agree it was clear. Sorry for jumping.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    The Copenhagen Interpretation is entirely compatible with Superdeterminism.tom

    Everything is compatible with Super-Duper-Determinism. God is all powerful.

    Let's give some credit to those of religious faith. At least they are aware enough of their faith that they don't deny it. Determinists are swimming in their own admitted illusions.

    What the heck does GTR have to do with Super-Duper-Determinism?? It's a simple equation to explain some effects of gravity. It is not even compatible with QM and had zero to do with bouncing particles (that don't even exist) somehow, someway determining everything. What's nice about Determinism is, like the Bible, anything can be interpreted and used in any way, to justify their faith. No depth of knowledge or inquiry is required. Just make up stuff on the fly.
  • T Clark
    3k
    And you have the audacity to complain about "snottiness"?

    Allow me to rephrase:

    You misunderstand quantum mechanics and metaphysics.
    tom

    How is what you quoted from me snotty? For me to say I think you misunderstand something is a perfectly civil and reasonable thing for me to say. I wasn't abusive and I didn't attack you. I don't see how it's disrespectful. I can't think of another way I could have said what I was trying to get across.

    I can't say I understand quantum mechanics, although I'm interested and I try. But I do know what QM is - it's science. I also know what free will vs. determinism and causality vs. none are - they're metaphysics. Never the twain shall meet. Well, never the twain should meet.
  • tom
    1.5k
    Everything is compatible with Super-Duper-Determinism. God is all powerful.Rich

    Classical mechanics is not super-deterministic. Or rather, the completion of quantum mechanics, to render it compatible with classical mechanics would not be superdeterministic.

    Let's give some credit to those of religious faith. At least they are aware enough of their faith that they don't deny it. Determinists are swimming in their own admitted illusions.Rich

    What you could do is demonstrate that the laws of physics are not deterministic.

    What the heck does GTR have to do with Super-Duper-Determinism??Rich

    According to GR we inhabit a stationary block space-time. This is as super-duper-deterministic as you can get.

    It is not even compatible with QM...Rich

    In what way is GR not compatible with QM?
  • WISDOMfromPO-MO
    753
    but I could say that this discussion caused the idea of poking myself.CasKev

    How would you show that?

    How is it anything more than speculation?

    I could say my intent to poke myself caused me to pick up the pin.CasKev

    Again, how do you know?

    I can definitely say that the pressing of the pin's point into my arm caused a pain signal to reach my brain!CasKev

    How can you say that?

    You are not saying that after A occurred B occurred. You are saying that one caused the other. How do you know?

    Did you empirically sense through sight, smell, sound, taste and/or touch the act of one causing the other? Or did you only empirically sense two different occurrences and then add something non-empirical--the act of causing--with your imagination?

    There is no gap to be filled, other than the fraction of time it takes for the signal to reach the brain and be interpreted.CasKev

    If there is no gap to be filled then why do you bring an act of causation into it?
  • Rich
    3.2k
    What you could do is demonstrate that the laws of physics are not deterministic.tom

    It's impossible. It would be like demonstrating God does not exist. It is all based upon faith in the Super-and-All-Powerful-Laws of Nature. Inscrutable, impenetrable, undefinable, and inexhaustible. Declaring that QM and GTR explains everything is quite an amazing leap of faith.

    [
    According to GR we inhabit a stationary block space-time. This is as super-duper-deterministic as you can get.tom

    It says no such thing. It's a simple equation. The rest of the story is just made up. In fact, there isn't even time in the equation. It is all about time as expressed in clocks and how acceleration affects then. There is nothing there about human experience of duration. Humans are not clocks.

    In what way is GR not compatible with QM?tom

    Google it.
  • tom
    1.5k
    It says no such thing. It's a simple equation. The rest of the story is just made up. In fact, there isn't even time in the equation. It is all about time as expressed in clocks and how acceleration affects then. There is nothing there about human experience of duration. Humans are not clocks.Rich

    Sorry, but GR predicts many things like, the big-bang, time dilation, gravitational waves, and that we inhabit a stationary block universe.

    Google it.Rich

    The last refuge of the bull-shitter.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Sorry, but GR predicts many things like, the big-bang, time dilation, gravitational waves, and that we inhabit a stationary block universe.tom

    The Big Bang thing is just Genesis and GTR makes no such prediction. It only concerns itself with measurements by clocks. As it turns out clocks are affected by gravity as are photons. I'm not surprised. So are waves in the ocean.

    I love it when Determinists have to defend their faith. You figure all you have to do is throw out you God (Super-Duper-Determinatism) and people are going to fall over trying to be converted? Truly bathing in their own self-admitted illusions. You are living a life of illusions right?
  • tom
    1.5k
    The Big Bang thing is just Genesis and GTR makes no such prediction. It only concerns itself with measurements by clocks. As it turns out clocks are affected by gravity as are photons. I'm not surprised. So are waves in the ocean.

    I love it when Determinists have to defend their faith. You figure all you have to do is throw out you God (Super-Duper-Determinatism) and people are going to fall over trying to be converted? Truly bathing in their own self-admitted illusions. You are living a life of illusions right?
    Rich

    How does one request a "Mute" or "Block" feature on this forum?
  • WISDOMfromPO-MO
    753
    when two things are connected it means they lead directly to one another with no space in between. I'm saying literally everything in nature is interconnected so that there is no space in between anything.JustSomeGuy

    There is space between chain links, yet they are connected.

    And we are talking about events, happenings, occurrences, etc., not about objects. That means we are talking about gaps in and/or between events, happenings, occurrences, not space between objects.

    Furthermore, just because one thing is followed by another with nothing in between does not mean that they are connected. It could mean that they are related, but it does not necessarily mean that there is any connection. Something could have, for example, been spontaneously generated.

    No I'm not. "Necessarily interconnected" means they cannot be disconnected. Everything is dependent on everything else, nothing can be isolated from the rest...JustSomeGuy

    If we can't isolate two things then we can't say that one caused the other.

    With the kind of causation I'm talking about, there are no gaps between events..."JustSomeGuy

    If there are no gaps between events, how can one be an antecedent cause of another?
  • JustSomeGuy
    307
    There is space between chain links, yet they are connected.

    And we are talking about events, happenings, occurrences, etc., not about objects. That means we are talking about gaps in and/or between events, happenings, occurrences, not space between objects.
    WISDOMfromPO-MO

    Your initial statement is rendered irrelevant by the proceeding paragraph, so I'm not sure why you included it.

    Something could have, for example, been spontaneously generated.WISDOMfromPO-MO

    Give me a real-world example of this; an event occurring spontaneously, without cause. The only time this could possibly have happened was the universe coming into existence.

    If we can't isolate two things then we can't say that one caused the other.WISDOMfromPO-MO

    If there are no gaps between events, how can one be an antecedent cause of another?WISDOMfromPO-MO

    When I consume food, my hunger is satiated. Whether you believe these are actually two separate events or not is irrelevant. This is a clear, demonstrable case of cause and effect. And there are no gaps between them. One leads directly to the other through various biological and physiological processes and reactions.
    This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
  • CasKev
    383
    Did you empirically sense through sight, smell, sound, taste and/or touch the act of one causing the other? Or did you only empirically sense two different occurrences and then add something non-empirical--the act of causing--with your imagination?WISDOMfromPO-MO

    If there is no gap to be filled then why do you bring an act of causation into it?WISDOMfromPO-MO

    You're going to cause me to put you in a class with Rich if you keep going on like this...

    Cause isn't a physical thing to be sensed. It's a term describing the link between one thing that happens due to another thing having preceded it. I would even venture to say that a cause need not be true 100% of the time (i.e. if 85% of people who are sexually abused experience depression, I would label sexual abuse as a partial or probable cause of or contributor to depression). Again, cause is a description of a chain of events, not a physical thing to be observed.
  • CasKev
    383
    That doesn't mean the idea that there are no causes is wrong. That might make sense in some situations also. As I said, I get it and I think it can be useful.T Clark

    I think it would be amiss to say there are cases where cause does not exist, at least to some extent. Even if we introduce probabilities, cause is still relevant. Consider a man approaching an intersection when the light turns yellow. This happens 10 times when he is exactly the same distance away, at the same time of day, in the same weather conditions. There are no other cars or pedestrians. If he stops 9 out of those 10 times, we could say that the combination of his innate biological traits, his previous experience in such a situation, and his expectation of results, governed his responses. There may indeed be a random element, but the combination of circumstances is heavily weighted toward stopping.

    Now change the experiment, and put a woman in his place. She would probably blow the light 9 times out of 10, because females cause way more accidents.
  • WISDOMfromPO-MO
    753
    Your initial statement is rendered irrelevant by the proceeding paragraph, so I'm not sure why you included it.JustSomeGuy

    Chain links are objects, not events. But they are connected and there is space between them. You said that when something is connected to another there is nothing between them.

    Give me a real-world example of this; an event occurring spontaneously, without cause. The only time this could possibly have happened was the universe coming into existence.JustSomeGuy

    How do you know the latter statement to be true?

    When I consume food, my hunger is satiated. Whether you believe these are actually two separate events or not is irrelevant. This is a clear, demonstrable case of cause and effect. And there are no gaps between them. One leads directly to the other through various biological and physiological processes and reactions.
    This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
    JustSomeGuy

    It sounds tautological, or something like that. It sounds like "This effect was caused by that cause because effects are caused by causes".

    If we are being intellectually honest, we don't really know why things happen. We just know that certain things, like ice, appear after certain other things, like temperatures dropping below a certain level. We don't know why or how. It could be that an omnipotent being intervened and acts as a middle man or a bridge through which ice appears. Saying that decreased temperatures caused the ice is saying that we know everything there is to know about the relationship between temperature and ice. We don't know if we know everything.

    I believe that that is a flaw in determinist thinking. How does a determinist know everything that contributed to a thought, action, state of existence, etc.?
  • JustSomeGuy
    307
    Chain links are objects, not events.WISDOMfromPO-MO

    Exactly, and as you pointed out we're talking about events; not objects.

    It sounds tautological, or something like that. It sounds like "This effect was caused by that cause because effects are caused by causes".WISDOMfromPO-MO

    That's not at all what I said, you seem to be reading into things what you want to see. The claim was that one event was caused by another event because "one leads directly to the other through various biological and physiological processes and reactions." Like dominoes, one "thing" causes a chain reaction which results in another "thing". Are you saying that the final domino falling down after being hit by the domino before it--and that one before that one, and so on, all the way back to the initial domino--is not a direct result of the initial domino falling down?

    I think you misunderstand the concept of cause and effect. If you want to claim that we can't know one thing truly causes another because there could be an omnipotent being intervening and tricking us, be prepared to be taken about as seriously as Descartes when he claimed that an evil demon could be deceiving us about the nature of reality. You're essentially saying the exact same thing. And if you actually took your own claim seriously, you would be completely and totally unable to function in the world. It would mean that humanity should give up on doing science, and throw everything we think we understand out the window, because who's to say that an omnipotent being hasn't been deceiving us this whole time? Why are you typing things on your computer? None of the users here are real. This forum isn't real. Your computer isn't real. It's all just the deception of an omnipotent being.
  • FlukeKid
    1
    Neuroscience of free will, to me implies we really don't have free will.
    "One significant finding of modern studies is that a person's brain seems to commit to certain decisions before the person becomes aware of having made them. With contemporary brain scanning technology, other scientists in 2008 were able to predict with 60% accuracy whether subjects would press a button with their left or right hand up to 10 seconds before the subject became aware of having made that choice."

    Our premotor cortex moves our bodies before we are even have made the decision to move. I very much think we have an illusion of free will.
  • Cavacava
    2.4k


    Have you ever watched a skier run moguls? The decisions the skier makes are based on what his body understands, its training, its memory, the same habitual movements. I think the phenomena you are referring to is similar. It does not impinge on the notion of an existential will, in my opinion.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.