Liquidrage

Did this make sense to anyone?

Who has changed face on determinism?

Name something that has been shown to be nondeterministic.

John Page

Actually, I don't think its possible to show that something is nondeterministic because, well, its nondeterministic.

Cheers, John

NialScorva

Things are usually considered non-deterministic with respect to something. The "good" random number generators on your computer are non-deterministic because userspace doesn't have enough information to determine one number from the next, and the equations are such that there is no way that it can be predicted.

Mr. Sammi

A small question. In determinism, does anyone think that an event over which I had no control, say something unexpeected, was determined by a causal agent arising from my casual chain of events OR do when these type of events occur the universe of discourse of determinism enlarges to encompass the casual agent of the actual cause?

Thus instead of writing somethingIdid implies happenedTOme, I write externalAGENT implies happenedTOme, which in reality is spontaneous event provided by simultaneity?

Sammi Na boodie ()

Liquidrage

Black Hole theory at one time broke determinism.
Though now there are black hole theories which keep determinism.

It would be possible to show nondeterminism by showing an event was not entirely dependant on past event.

In the case of Black hole theory it was the expected singularity coupled with escaping matter that broke determinism.
If X matter falls into a black hole, and all the wave properties of said matter are destoryed, and yet latter that matter comes out, then there is no universal determinism.

This is important because in the quantum world there is "spooky action at a distant".
All particles (even 1 trillion miles from Earth) are instantly effected by particles everywhere else.
This can be explained by stating that particles do not experience time. While we measure c to be a certain value, to particles it takes the same amount of time to go from the Sun to Earth as it does to go from the Sun to a distant galaxy. Zero time.

So if we had matter falling into a black hole, loosing all it's properties, and then coming out, then truely, particles would have no way of telling how to "react" to the particles coming out of the bacl hole before they do come out. But since we know particles don't experience time, we would have particles that are not certain (which is different from quantum uncertainty because it is only the act of observation from above the Planck length that has uncertainty, it has never been shown that the particles themselves are uncertain about all the values).

Of course, no one know really what happens inside of a black hole. But if all the information that goes in is not restored when coming out, then we have broke determinism.

John Page

I'm confused, just because we can't predict it doesn't mean it isn't caused...

I'd be very interested in a reference to the non-predictable equations you reference. I'm way out of date but the RNG's I worked with long ago took a number derived from an internal clock and then "randomized" it between the upper and lower limits. I would still regard this as a deterministic system but perhaps I need to refine my concept.

Cheers, John

PS Sammi - I'm not familiar enough with the expressions you use to understand your last post.

Liquidrage

I agree with John Page.

This is a an often misused definition of determinism.

The ability to predict the future is not a needed property of determinism.
It was a Red Herring that was attached to determinism at one time, but is not actually part of determinism.

A system can be unpredictable due to quantum uncertainty and still be completely deterministic.
Just because the macro world cannot cross into the micro world without causing uncertainty, does not mean that the micro world it self is uncertain about the results.

Edit: I am the typo King and all the internet appears to be my stage.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

John Page

Liquid:

First, I want to clarify that I'm not saying there are no non-deterministic events, just that you couldn't show them.

Second, the above example illustrates that determinism is partly conditioned on what we expect. For a truly non-deterministic event you could never say for certain whether you just haven't understood the relevant cause/correleation, it just remains a mystery because of our expectation of the way things should be.

Third, I'm fascinated by this stuff, "gravity waves" and all. It's puzzled me why people don't tend to question magnetism, for example - where's the string with which the piece of metal is being pulled? Quanta, I'm out of my league but I'm comfortable with there being a fundamental unit of some phenomenon - measurement and location issues, well going back to the magnet example or using a gravity example the force and mass are not all in one place...

Anyone care to comment on whether time is just and abstract concept like free will? It seems to me what we're measuring is changes and rates of changes (wrt to the inertial field of the observer). Our mental faculties try and pin these changes back to a master clock that doesn't exist.

Cheers, John

Kharakov

Doesn't what "is" include prior experiences of individuals/ society? Even with a deterministic universe, there is a memory of prior conflict of will (should society let Jeffrey Dahlmer &lt;sp?&gt; continue to eat people or not?).

When I decide between BBQ Chex Party Mix and Original CPM there is going to be a period of time in which I have conflicting desires- eventually the stronger desire wins out. When the stronger desire wins after a period of conflict it appears that I have executed free will because the stronger desire was my own.

The illusion of free will comes about because of the freedom our stronger desires experience in defeating weaker desires.

Morals are a symptom of thwarted desires- someone who desires greater morality wants there desires to be fulfilled to a greater degree. The person who desires a more "moral" society believes that society should act in a certain way in order to allow their desires to be achieved.

The strongest individual (greatest ability to achieve their desires) is the one that sets the rules. The weak individuals desire the rules to be changed: things "should be" this way, they "should be" that way, the weakest person is very moral- they see lots of things that should be changed. The strongest individual determines the way things are. Things are the way the strongest individual desires them to be. They are all good, as my friend used to say.

The strongest individual would have no morals, because what they desire to be is already that way. Unless you go by the definition of moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. Right behavior would be that complied with the desires of the strongest individual- because they are going to get their way anyway.


Gotta go.

excreationist

I think you missed the point of NialScorva's post - he is saying that these time-based RNG's are non-deterministic with respect to "userspace". Obviously they are still deterministic from a physical perspective.

On the other hand, there are some RNG's that don't use a clock - all they use is a "seed" and some formula and the sequence of the random numbers based on that initial seed is always the same. This is useful in things like graphics filters when you want to use a random effect - like flames or water - and you want it to be reproduceable as long as the same seed was entered.

I think I might have introduced the talk of unpredictability into this discussion... basically I was saying that if we can't predict the future and our future decisions, there is a freeness - a kind of free will. From a scientific point of view things would still be subject to deterministic cause and effect of course.