That reasoning boils down to two propositions: the first is that all events must have causes; the second is that only in closed causal chains do all events have causes.
You have no obligation to respond just because you are mentioned, but there's no need to be rude. — SophistiCat
You can't actually excape the first person perspective. — Yohan
We could try for intentional non-procreation. Give it a try! — schopenhauer1
Is it conceivable that there is a world where events have connections, but the connections are not mechanical? That is, for a given state at T0, more than one future state of the system is possible? — Echarmion
Determinism is the theory that every event is the result it's causes, probabilistic thinking (or stochastic for that matter) is about our ability to know with certainty what that event will be given the causes. The two are not only mutually compatible, they're not even in the same subject area, I'm lost as to why they keep getting treated as mutually exclusive options for the 'way the world is'. — Isaac
And that's a fundamental problem. I.e. we cannot just improve our measuring apparatus in some way. Either we come up with new physics, or this stays, whether it's an actual ontological reality or not? — Echarmion
There is no evolutionary mechanism by which traits that confer a fitness disadvantage are removed. — Echarmion
A bayesian might well argue that far from the world appearing to be deterministic, it actually appears probabilistic. — Echarmion
I wasn't so much complaining about a derail. It just seems that you (or maybe just Olivier) are itching to have this discussion - so why not have a dedicated topic for it? That would invite wider participation. — SophistiCat
But I then say that the concept of an experience is inherently a relational one: someone has an experience of something. An experience being had by nobody is an experience not being had at all, and an experience being had of nothing is again an experience not being had at all. This indubitable experience thus immediately gives justification to the notion of both a self, which is whoever the someone having the experience is, and also a world, which is whatever the something being experienced is. — Pfhorrest
Can one of you guys start a thread on determinism/indeterminism, instead of hijacking other threads? (I have the damnedest time making OPs, but I might contribute if there is one.) — SophistiCat
Just said that stochastic phenomenon look like a duck. — Olivier5
if you are aware that stochastic methods are used to model deterministic processes and yet insist that anything modelled stochastically is random, you do give up the right to be taken seriously — Kenosha Kid
When I see a phenomenon that displays a behavior resembling randomness (eg the Galton box and its results plotted against a Gauss curve), I say it looks like randomness — Olivier5
I'm not really insisting that, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. I'm just saying that this is the conclusion I will draw, personally, because I see no good reason to assume it's an elephant instead. You on the other hand, when you see that it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you conclude that it ought to be an elephant... That is your call, not mine. That sounds pretty odd to me from an empirical epistemologic perspective but you are entitled to your opinion... — Olivier5
I can do so very easily. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... Why would I not infer that it's a duck? — Olivier5
And they are also used for all sorts of calculations about random events. — Olivier5
And the result of all this is that we cannot predict the exact time an individual atom will decay. We can only give probabilities for timeframes, correct? — Echarmion
Traits might also genetically linked, so that a trait that actually does nothing to improve inclusive genetic fitness becomes dominant because it's linked to other traits that do. — Echarmion
We could imagine that the motion is probabilistic, but with such a narrow Amplitude (is that the right word) that the inaccuracies wouldn't matter for everyday purposes. — Echarmion
Stochastic
Having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.
Well, that's what I'm saying. Nature behaves as if there was some randomness in there... — Olivier5
But it's dependent on knowing the laws of the universe, which is equally esoteric. — Olivier5
Now I'm curious, do expound. — Olivier5
It's non local, in particular. Which means you can never isolate any sub-set of events from the rest of the universe in any calculation. — Olivier5
I am really just talking about the probabilistic quality of QM, the fact that e.g. at what exact time an atom of a radioactive element decays appears random. — Echarmion
This is presupposing that every attribute we have right now confers a survival advantage. — Echarmion
There'd be nothing mysterious about the unpredictable outcomes. They'd just be things that the natural laws make difficult to predict — Echarmion
I think Kenosha’s point is that despite the above, indeterminism sorta has the burden of proof here, because so far everything that we have been able to know has turned out to behave deterministically, so we should expect that to continue to be the case as the limits of our knowledge push further and further out. If something seems unpredictable at the moment, it’s probably just because of shortcomings on our measurements or theories, not because it’s inherently random. — Pfhorrest
The use of probabilities could be down to measurement errors, chaotic systems, accuracy at scale, informational constraints, ...etc. Why would you see it as evidence of those fields not being fundamentally deterministic? — Isaac
I watched a thing by Jim Al-Khalili about something like that a long while back, but not having much understanding of the basics I didn't really come away with anything more than a very general picture. I didn't get the impression that biochemicals were going to suddenly start reciting Shakespeare or forming an impromptu dance troop any time soon though, so I think we're still safe to presume they'll continue to have the effects we've so far discovered them to have! — Isaac
That's not where the uncertainty comes from, the way I understand it. The uncertainty is fundamental. Not all values of the system can be known at a time, and the values that are not known can only be expressed as probabilities. — Echarmion
Sure, we can create plausible theories to explain how certain vestigial or otherwise weird anatomies came about. But that doesn't establish that the end result was selected for. Only that there wasn't sufficient pressure to select for a different result. — Echarmion
Meanwhile, your argument, if applied to e.g. the appendix, would lead one to look for the benefits the appendix provides to modern humans to explain its existence. — Echarmion
Why do we need an explanation in the first place? Explanations are tools for specific ends, not an inherent necessity. — Echarmion
Exactly, and hence determinism is a rather esoteric idea. — Olivier5
And likewise, you don't like the idea of randomness and you try to erase it from your POV, when I see it everywhere around me. To each his own metaphysics... — Olivier5
Isn't this a misconception? Not being able to measure position and speed of a particle does not necessarily mean it ain't at an exact position and speed at a given time. — Heiko
What is not compelling to me is the story that, if the universe was to magically rewind at the time of the Big Bang and unfold again, every single thing will happen exactly the same as it did the first time around, like when you play the same movie over again — Olivier5
And QM is not a gap. Randomness is systemic in it, and it applies supposedly to the entire universe. — Olivier5
Indeterminism says that some things are predetermined to a degree, but not necessarily everything and not necessarily to a perfect degree. — Olivier5
In no situation can we possibly know all relevant information about a case, and even if by miracle we did know everything relevant about a case, we couldn't be sure of it. — Olivier5
We can never measure anything exactly, there's always a margin of error. — Olivier5
We can never be sure that any of our scientific theories is true. — Olivier5
The first two conditions will never be met. The third one would require infinite energy and time so it will never happen... None of these conditions will ever apply in our human lives. So much so that determinists appeal to various demons in their demonstrations, like the Laplace's demon. — Olivier5
No, I'm French. — Olivier5
It's not complicated to abandon an hypothesis, especially when it makes no pragmatic difference whatsoever. — Olivier5
Isn't that essentially Einstein's argument of the hidden mechanics? There is no evidence, right now, that the uncertainty can be resolved. — Echarmion
Lots of organs are weird and inefficient. The human eyeball is a common example, as are various vestigial limbs found in species. — Echarmion
Again this isn't "proof". I obviously have no idea how the universe " really" works. — Echarmion
Why would random fluctuations in the wave function — Echarmion
Prima facie, the way the universe actually appears to work is absurd, at least to our everyday notions. — Echarmion
Doesn't that show that what appears to be a determined, "mechanical" apparatus can turn out to be anything but? — Echarmion
That proves that the universe isn't so random as to prevent these kinds of predictions — Echarmion
But we know that not every attribute of every organism is actually selected for. — Echarmion
We don't check these against an objective reference point somewhere. It's only when new information does not fit the pattern at all that we re-evaluate and then only to find a new solution that is "good enough". — Echarmion
I'll take that as a no. — Olivier5
So... Did you find that magical experiment yet? — Olivier5
One has to know the true laws of nature in order to know if they are determinist of not. — Olivier5
Otherwise you're only testing an hypothethis, which you can reject if the experience fail, without rejecting determinism. Because another determinist hypothesis may still work. — Olivier5
You are not God, are you? — Olivier5
For example some cheating could well be at play. — Olivier5