These criteria seem to come from nowhere and go nowhere. I didn't ask about any of that. I asked you to imagine an experiment that could disprove determinism. And you have failed to do so. — Olivier5
All absudities we can come up with rely for their absurdity on the contrast with the real world as we experience it. But if that world is not actually deterministic then of course a non-deterministic world looks exactly like our world. — Echarmion
But who are we asking? Ourselves. Are we an unbiased observer? There doesn't seem to be a reason to think that our brains are somehow designed to answer the question. — Echarmion
information), tractable (we can make sufficiently accurate predictions of expected deterministic behaviour), and unpredictable (regular behaviour is not manifest). That is required in order to discern deterministic behaviour from non-deterministic behaviour. Anything else is irrelevant.relevant
But a universal basic income would turn off the majority of voters in the UK. And yes the scale of the reform and what is implied in its implementation would be scary for many. — Punshhh
But effects on the micro scale do exhibit constantly changing results. — Echarmion
High precision is different from full precision, and you know it. Or you should know it. Perfect precision of measurement of initial conditions is impossible. So you will have to think a bit more creatively than starting with "fully known initial conditions". That's never going to happen. — Olivier5
So, 1) you propose throwing a ball as an attempt to falsify determinism, 2) I show you some balls being thrown and landing on the ground haphazardly, and 3) you say: "no no no this doesn't count". — Olivier5
This actually happens all the time. An outcome is predicted, the experiment is done, and the outcome is not what has been predicted. It's the basic scientific process. — Echarmion
It only takes one observation where the initial state is fully known, and where the assumption of determinism leads to a single expected outcome, and to not achieve that regularity of outcome, for that assumption of determinism to be ruled out. — Kenosha Kid
Fully known? You have any example of something that can be fully known? — Olivier5
Balls have been thrown up and down before, and we do seem to have difficulties predicting their trajectory. You've heard of the Galton box? — Olivier5
Indeed, determinism cannot be a scientific theory if it is not falsifiable. It is a matter of belief, and your belief in the matter seems quite strong. — Olivier5
Nothing cuts it. You cannot fathom an experiment that would help conclude one way or another on the philosophical idea of determinism. — Olivier5
The point remains that unpredictable is not an exact synonym of undetermined, and that testing the former is not testing the latter... — Olivier5
For example the three bodies problem in classic physics is I think deterministic in the sense that it can be proven (I think) that there is only one solution to the equation. However we cannot compute the solution, we don't know how to do it, and therefore the behavior of three bodies interacting through Newtonian gravity cannot be successfully predicted with the tools at our disposal. It doesn't mean it's not deterministic. — Olivier5
How would you go about falsifying determinism, then? — Olivier5
There is no such thing. QM are generally interpreted as indeterministic. — Olivier5
The Open Universe by Karl Popper, is a a series of arguments in favor of an indeterminist outlook in (of course) quantum mechanics but also in classical physics. It's a serious, thick, argumentative and as always crystal clear book that pretty much disposes of determinism. — Olivier5
I suggest you take a look at a UK Green Party manifesto, I'm a Green voter, so I'm happy with it, myself. — Punshhh
Please do not be so harsh on Ken. — Dfpolis
President Biden's first order of business should be to sign an extradition treaty with Yemen. — Relativist
Good bye — Dfpolis
The problem in the UK is that to vote for rapid and effective action against climate change the electorate would have to vote Green. But a majority of the electorate will not vote Green because their policies, other than their green policies, are radical left policies, real socialism. The UK electorate is not ready to vote for socialism, so they can't vote for effective action on climate change, hence little change. — Punshhh
A scientific issue that creates political discussion usually means that the topic has a) opposing economic interests at hand or b) some moral issue linked with it that has made a lobby / pressure group to act. Usually politicians don't rock the boat because science. What they are interested is in voters. — ssu
When you take one sentence out of context, you can twist its meaning. — Dfpolis
"Random" has many meanings, one of which is mindless. It should be evident to anyone who read the title ("Mind or Randomness in Evolution") that the meaning of "purely random" in the abstract is totally mindless — Dfpolis
This is not saying that evolution is purely random as you claim I did. — Dfpolis
I explicitly quote Dawkins discussing the non-random aspect of evolution: — Dfpolis
These various “truther” movements, who think that they alone are aware of the secret truth that THEY don’t want you to know, are effectively proto-religions already. — Pfhorrest
“Panglossian falsehoods convene the crowd, discouraging truths disperse it.” ~Thomas Ligotti — 180 Proof
I dont know anybody who reasons this way. I think you're making stuff up. — frank
I read the part of your paper that claimed that philosophical naturalists characterise evolution as a purely random process, which is a lie.
— Kenosha Kid
Yes you wrote a lie. You can quote nothing in my paper saying that — Dfpolis
Philosophical naturalists claim macroevolution shows order emerging by pure chance.
have read Dawkins, and I stand by my claim. I said neither that evolution is entirely random, nor that Dawkins claimed that it was. If you read my paper, you would know that. — Dfpolis
I'd take that grain of salt when a matter comes to be the focus of politicians. Only that. — ssu
Best to discuss issues where politicians haven't taken the center stage. — ssu
I have read and rebutted Dawkins's nonsense — Dfpolis
It's that some well meaning person suggested we should take seriously the threat of the earth becoming like Venus. It's that someone failed to explain that "tipping point" does not mean doom. It just means we cant go back. — frank
It's both sides. It's not truth vs lies. It's battle of the bullshit — frank
Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. It is a theory of random mutation plus non-random cumulative natural selection.
Natural selection is a non-random force, pushing towards improvement. — Richard Dawkins (Climbing Mt Improbable)
Mutation is random; natural selection is the very opposite of random.
Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators. — Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker)
What Darwin did was to discover the only known alternative to random chance which is natural selection — Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)
Evolution is not just a question of adapting to an environment. It's about adapting to and competing in a constantly changing environment. The environment changes for a number of reasons, including of course the effect of life and evolution themselves on it. — Olivier5
So your noise generation is random, and the algorithm with which you process it is randomly changing at all times. — Olivier5
And without it, evolution would work. I rest my case. — Olivier5
noise is important to practically solving numerical optimisation problems, but no one would describe it as the thing "powering" that optimisation — Kenosha Kid
The generation of genetic 'noise' as you say is what powers evolution. — Olivier5
Can anyone predict the next mutation? And how this mutation will play out? — Olivier5
It is evidently a random process. — Olivier5