• Is there a logical symbol for 'may include'?
    For example there's a "necessarily true" operator, so the negation of that might be what you want. — fishfry

    That's right. Not necessarily not ( )
    is equivalent to possibly ( ) in modal logic

    Also, If you want to define the probability that it's an element or a subset, negligible functions could come in useful. It's kind of like a lower bound of likelihood:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligible_function#Examples (not negligible)

    If the probability is at least polynomially small i.e noticeable.

    A function is noticeable

    such that ,
    ..

    A function is non-negligible (more likely than not)

    such that , such that
    ..
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    "concrete" — Manuel

    I never used that word.
  • Solutions for Overpopulation
    I’m making this discussion because I think Overpopulation needs to be addressed, simply because I rarely hear it addressed and in the few times it is, there aren’t many proposed solutions. — Schrödinger's cat

    You can make any number sound scary if you really want to and you have an agenda, maybe add a plosive 'b' to a word make some scary movies.

    Wherever you are now, project a line 1 kilometre out in front of you and 1 kilometre to the right of, now make a square.

    There are about 52 other people in this square if it has the same population density of the whole earth by land area excluding Antarctica and the oceans (but including mountains, deserts and other uninhabitable areas).

    The problem isn't the number of people. It's the way we live.

    If every family in the world had just 2 kids from now on, the population would steadily decline.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    ↪Manuel

    I don't have a problem with anything you wrote. I'm not saying I have a problem with abstract thought. It's a part of who we are. I was just pointing out that it is just that, abstraction. Yes, it is beautiful, as a petal that comes from a flower - the flower being humanity.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    Reality is an honorific word. We don't say that's the real deal or the real truth meaning that there are two kinds of deals or two kinds of truth, we are just using the word "real" to emphasize something. — Manuel

    But is it not right and humble to honor reality? Without instruments we, whether by design or evolution, only perceive a thin slice of the reality around us, not a mind those things beyond our ability to yet perceive, or those things that may forever be beyond our horizon. We are only human. We can deceive ourselves by thinking we are beyond reality, when the contrary may be more accurate.

    Measurement, when done right is a Philosophers tool. But ultimately, yes, it's just a tool. And it can only take us so far.

    But I don't think it's too controversial to say that this arbitrary aspect of color is the most important things for people, it's part of what makes our experience of the world rich, irrespective of how
    they are instantiated in nature.     — Manuel

    I agree. But the world would still be beautiful if the spectrum was shifted a bit to the right towards UV, more detail in flowers etc. that we cannot see now. I was just making the point that the colors are labels we put on things solidly in the middle of certain chunks of the spectrum. You won't see too many diagrams with A labelled as cyan and B labelled as Blue because it could be confusing. But in truth, there are no colors. We abstract them as a part of the full visible spectrum. We quantize them when, strangely enough they may not even be truly quantizable. In principle there exists infinitely many distinct spectral colors
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    No. Insanity has befallen on you as you have exhibited a tendency to be intellectually dishonest and inconsistent in your venture to prove determinism to be false. — Harry Hindu

    You had exhibited that you didn't understand what it meant in the first place, which was a bit intellectually lazy of you.

    You seem to be upset that I called you out on not knowing what you were talking about.

    In effect, indeterminism is a paradox. — Harry Hindu

    I'll give you credit for reminding me of this

    I'm not saying I'm comfortable about the indeterministic argument for quantum mechanics. It is what is is I guess.

    I believe our human sprit makes us indeterministic, but not in a way that can be explained by underlying physical observable nature.

    This is why I lean towards the ensemble interpretation The Copenhagen interpretation may go a bit too far in that it introduces paradoxes.

    In the end, this is a hard argument to resolve anyway. We are all unique in our own way and have our own subjective interpretation.

    I'll just state my final position. The ensemble interpretation is the only theory I can get behind right now as it is agnostic about the question of determinism vs indeterminism.

    Copenhagen is indeterministic which I can tell you do not favor.
    Many Worlds is deterministic.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    I don't know how to quote properly here yet. — Manuel

    Just highlight it or select the text you want, a little small quote button will appear, click on it.

    Or you can just type it like this:

    [quote]Just highlight it or select the text you want, a little small quote button will appear, click on it.  [quote]

    Since I don't know about the other me's, nor can they influence me (if I understand Sean Carroll's version), how am I not free? — Manuel

    Because another branch breaks off every time you make a decision based on your apparent free will, you live in the reality of one frame (for lack of a better word) at a time in Many Worlds. But Many worlds is not a theory I support. It's too speculative and it just seems inefficient, like the universe would be wasting a lot of energy recording events that are so unlikely that it seems pointless, but maybe that's just me. I've said before in other posts, and I maintain that doing away with indeterminism in theories seems to introduce outlandish fudge. If people cannot accept the consequence of an indeterminant universe (the likelihood that )

    It's interesting and its popular with proponents of determinism.

    We can say these things about manifest objects, but not particles. — Manuel

    We can say exactly that about these objects. If a particle behaves deterministically, we do not say it has no free will. We say it behaves deterministically - the result of its actions are predetermined the moment its makes an action. If the universe is deterministic, then there is an unbroken chain of events that lead to that particles behavior and all others leading all the way back to some big bang if there was one, and since we are composed of these things, we would also adhere to these laws and everything we do not would be linked back to the past. Many people don't believe they have a soul , that they are simply the sum of their parts and in an indeterministic universe, they see themselves as deterministic beings.

    Indeterministic theories say that there is interference or intervention into the outcome of the particles action so that the particle at any one time behaves spontaneously in its action, there are no copies of the universe. There is just one, and (with the Copenhagen interpretation) only once the action has completed, does the probability wave function collapse and the outcome of the particle's action manifests itself. (At lease most indeterministic theories imply wave function collapse, some have other explanations like an unseen pilot wave as seen in Bohmian mechanics / Pilot wave theory - another interesting theory that is gaining popularity).

    Colours are produced by frequencies of light interacting with our mind/brains, and maybe other things we aren't cognizant of — Manuel
    Yeah, pretty much, but the color is arbitrary. We may have evolved our visual system to integrate into this world. In that case, factors like the luminosity and spectrum given off by the sun might have played a role in our evolution deciding that the the very thin slice of visible light we perceive is all we needed. Gamma rays are not as ever present in our lives so perhaps we didn't need to evolve to detect them .We evolved a a sense of physical touch and perceive temperature from nervous system already, so perhaps we didn't need to evolve to see infrared, i.e. there wa not need for us to evolve to see infrared light or visualize heat sources.

    But if you tend to side with eliminitavists like Dennett or the Churchlands, that's a whole different story. — Manuel

    I don't side with any one Philosopher on all things, but I will say from what I know of eliminitavism, they are right on that I think. Abstract thought is just that - the creative fabrication of abstraction. It is not true reality. It is just a part of who we are / how we evolved.

    Some schools of Buddhism believe nostalgia is abstract, that we create it ourselves. We don't really feel it, we project or abstract it out of an emotional association with positive memories. The emotion we felt at the time is real, and the memory is real, but the emotion we feel when we conjure it into our memory is abstract, which might be why we don't feel the same way when we conjure it, its almost like tricking our minds into feeling happy about it. I can't remember which Buddhist text it came from but when I read it, I felt it might be the case. But that's my view.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    Some knowledgeable in physics propose Everett's Many World hypothesis, there is determination, as the collapse happens in other universes. — Manuel

    There is no collapse in Many Worlds, which is one of the benefits out forward by proponents. All outcomes happen.
    Why? Because we have, to some extent, free will. — Manuel

    A deterministic theory Many Worlds implies no free will. You play out your life in this reality. You have no real control. Any alternate decision couldn't have been made in this reality and is in one of the other of many worlds.

    Yeah ok. I'm sorry, particles, atoms and anything else found in the subatomic world play no role in freedom: clearly new complexity emerges. — Manuel

    Our brains are based on all these particles and atoms, photons, electrical signals etc. soul outside of what we would call the human soul, if they behave deterministically, then we are deterministic.

    Maybe our connection with our spirit gives us our indeterminism, in that we have to accept some connection to the universe to be indeterministic. We lost that connection and we become deterministic like glorified automatons.

    Can anyone begin to outline how light waves manifest themselves as colours in the world? — Manuel

    Different frequencies of light produce different colours.

    In any case, I think we don't have the capacity to know any clear answer to this question. — Manuel

    Maybe not.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    ↪Wayfarer


    To be fair insanity has befallen on those working heavily in fields on the question of determinism, quantum mechanics and infinity. The latter has certainly driven some mathematicians stark raving mad.
  • Dimensional Analysis on the Gaussian Distribution
    ↪Shawn
    But, how do you get around variables influencing homoscedasticity of the curve during time evolutions? — Shawn

    I'd have to know more, and I may not be equipped to give you the best answer, but since you know time is one of you variables, consider describing what it is you are trying to do.

    In theory, it's possible afaik. But I may not be the person to consult!

    Not plugging.

    This may yield you answers as to why it's likely not the tool you use to do analysis on a normal or gaussian distribution, and alternatives suggested.

    https://math.stackexchange.com/

    The strategy to use it if you insisted on doing so might be to reformulate your problem so that you can decompose a variable into others. But in theory, it's possible, I think!

    If it's feasible in any meaningful way would be a question for the guys that hang out at the above url.

    It sounds like your problem is general relativity related from an earlier answer.
  • Dimensional Analysis on the Gaussian Distribution
    ↪Shawn


    Yes
  • The role of conspiracy theories in the American right
    ↪hypericin
    Probably the most dumbed down and insulting OP I have read on here. Politically motivated and not in any way related to philosophy, just a sad attempt to flamebait really.

    This should not be posted here, try twitter.

    A conspiracy theory can be defined as a rational type of abstract thinking about a secret plan or agreement between persons (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as but not limited to, murder or treason, usually but not always with political motivation.

    They are as old as civilisation itself and at times serve an important purpose. If you have a problem with that, then I'm not sure you are not beyond redemption.
  • To what extent is the universe infinite?
    ↪180 Proof
    they are big balls of minute quanta
  • To what extent is the universe infinite?
    Isn't the extent of Earth's (finite!) surface unbounded (infinite)? Also, whether an expanding torus or Möbius-like loop, what would it even mean to conceive of the universe as bounded by ... non-universe / nothing / nonbeing (à la "North of the North Pole")? — 180 Proof

    I think you can conceive of anything as infinite at the abstract level. I prefer to constrain my definition of infinity to quanta.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    'The uncreated' is not necessarily any kind of particle or object. But as we're so used to construing everything in terms of particles and objects, we don't know how else to think about it. — Wayfarer

    I think that's true. I would agree but the creation of matter from light may be part of it.

    That is the problem in a nutshell. — Wayfarer

    Looks about right. How would you refute the Ensemble interpretation?

    , or even further the Copenhagen interpretation. I would be curious to get your take on it, since I lean towards those interpretations (for now) especially the former. Though the latter might be a better one to refute for interest sake, as ensemble makes less assumptions.

    It's intuitively conformable with sci fi memes. — Wayfarer

    For me it's intuitive for the reason you mentioned before - No need for a collapsing wave function.
    On the determinism side, it is the best looking theory in my view. It just feels a bit ghostly - an interference pattern caused by parallel realities as it were. And yet, why not? It might just be that way. It's less outlandish than other theories I have seen that attempt to fudge away indeterminacy, that's for sure.
  • To what extent is the universe infinite?
    Yet the 9 year results of the WMAP survey has largely ended that notion.... until contrary evidence arises. — Gary Enfield

    Perhaps, and I confess ignorance about WMAP and what it does. I know what it is but it's just something I don't get too involved with. I can't help but feel they missing something

    I will say though that the universe is expanding, but they seem to just then postulate something like dark energy is causing it and they measure that.

    If the universe is infinite (in this cycle), I would have thought it would not ever need to expand or accelerate, it would just be, as in be infinite. But it isn't just as it is, It's accelerating, and I don't see enough proof for me to accept it's not a cycle coming to a slow end as it's collapsing back in on itself. Maybe it's just a flat elastic band and is now contracting. I can't escape from my belief that the universe is cyclical and possibly infinite in its cycles, but that this cycle will end,

    My feeling about WMAP is that I would inevitably someone devoted to refuting its work or looking for fallacies in it if I studied it in depth as it works at scales I struggle to accept, it makes assumptions that I would need to investigate and not believe in at first.

    I agree... yet to be precise, I have not met/encountered any physicist who espouses true 'randomness and spontaneity' - say in QM results etc. who is prepared to stray outside the realms of mathematics - which is essentially deterministic. — Gary Enfield

    Probably, but to be fair, it is difficult to get anything practical done without using determinism. Even if the universe is indeterministic, determinism is a wonderful tool.

    Indeterminacy is a key part of quantum mechanics. But, the Physicists who work on it, are working at the level of a particles' apparent indeterminacy, such as electron spin. It boils down to a probability distribution on a set of outcomes of a measurement on some observable like an electrons spin.

    Before quantum mechanics, those who worked on instrumentation essentially worked with indeterminacy in their work, as they had to deal with errors in accuracy, which meant allotting a confidence in results. Statisticians use confidence intervals in their work.

    If you consider statistics a branch of Math, I would argue indeterminacy has been around in Math for a long time.

    This was the core of my recent topic about the use of Probabilities. Did you see it? — Gary Enfield

    Send me the link and I'll look forward to reading it. I better get back to work now though. I'll get to it.

    because the only way to change an eternal cycle is to introduce a spontaneous or truly random factor...... thank you Mr.Finipolscie for that one. — Gary Enfield

    That is a nice one! And indeed if it is a potentially infinite series of cycles, maybe it is this spontaneous factor that stops them.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    Regarding what is 'made' - there's a fundamental idea in pre-modern philosophy, which seems to have been lost in the transition to modernity. That is the concept - if a concept it is - of 'the uncreated' or 'unmade'. It is found in e.g. neo-platonic philosophy, in the form of Plotinus'to hen, but is also found in Buddhism. The general drift is the distinction between the fabricated, compound, created and the unfabricated, simple and uncreated. — Wayfarer

    Maybe it's time it made a comeback then, since we know now that we can create matter from photons.

    So I wonder if modernity has lost sight of the question of what is made — Wayfarer

    Modernity has lost sight of a lot of things.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    From a practical standpoint, I highly doubt we will approach anything like a "Grand Theory of Everything." — Count Timothy von Icarus

    I don't really like the pursuit of a theory of everything. I don't feel we are in any way enlightened enough as a species to be there and I'd be a bit disappointed if the bar was set that low.

    I really like the question of determinism vs indeterminism though.

    No, but I find Many Worlds the most philosophically interesting. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    I mentioned it to a friend out of boredom years ago, someone who ordinarily wouldn't have had any interest. I then explained why it's not really outlandish and why in fact some Physicists have no choice really but to give it credit since it is deterministic and a solid theory as these theories go, since so many Physicists are hellbent on rejecting indeterminism.

    Anyway, I found she was intrigued by it because she just liked the idea that there was some version out there that made all the right moves, which I found entertaining. It's interesting that quantum mechanics throws such conundrums that you are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place if you just want the universe as conventional as Science once imagined it to be.

    But for determinism to be correct, it does appear from a Physics standpoint, that the universe is either such that we either have no genuine free will (which doesn't make any real sense to me) / or at least that our free will is just a one possible combination of an unfathomably large set of possibilities that we live through, which as you know is what Many worlds gets at, maybe many minds too.

    And for indeterminism to rule, many would argue that we would have to be living in some kind of simulation anyway, God's simulation as I see it.

    I never liked Many Worlds at first, thinking of it as a bit twilight zone but there is of course more to it and it deals with the determinism problem better than any other deterministic theory I would argue.

    You need differentiation to have meaning. It's a pretty redundant statement, but I think it gets to an essential point about the basis of what has to exist for anything to be said to exist. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    That's a good point and something I think of sometimes too.
  • To what extent is the universe infinite?
    So considering finite and infinite are sort of like debating the exact size of a Unicorn's horn. — synthesis

    So a long but not infinite series of spirals with ever reducing size then. It's finite.
    Maybe that is the nature of space time. Who knows!
  • To what extent is the universe infinite?
    ↪Banno
    Are you pointing out anything more than that we set up infinities using recursion? — Banno

    Nope, not meant to be anything more than that. I'm wondering whether the universe itself is similar to the cycles within it, seemingly finite but infinitely repetitive.
  • To what extent is the universe infinite?
    I am surprised by your examples as they do not really seem to test the idea of infinity. — Gary Enfield

    They are not meant do be. They are supposed to be examples of the finite, so that is good to hear.

    I should also point out that even nature has straight lines, and the conceptual ones marking the 3 dimensions could potentially run to infinity. — Gary Enfield

    Not really. That is just abstraction we all picked up from Math diagrams. Just because I say, "yeah that line can just go on forever" doesn't mean it actually can.

    This suggested that the Universe was no bigger than the expanding ball of matter which emerged from a point in space, and has been growing outwards ever since (but this still limits the concept of the universe to a finite size - even if it is increasing at a supposed rate). This also had the effect of giving time a start point, till it was pointed out that this would break determinist principles.
    So the
    Bang: Crunch: Bang cycle
    was introduced to restore the possibility of an eternity of existence, and avoid the need for God as creator.     — Gary Enfield

    I've seen so many theories that use duct tape fudges to avoid indeterminism, that I can't help but feel the universe may very well be indeterministic.

    The only "fudge" that seems to so hard to avoid that many Physicists have embraced it is indeterminism itself. Maybe it's not fudge.

    While the latter is the only one to argue for a finite universe which is supported by evidence, it is surprising that so much alternate evidence continues to arise to reinforce the argument for infinities. — Gary Enfield

    Because most people learn at school to throw the infinity symbol around with such impunity, but if you ask them what comes after infinity, they can just say, nothing comes after infinity, it's infinite.

    But that doesn't really deal with the profound implications of the infinite, and all the paradoxical baggage that comes with it. It's just not feasible to continue arguing for the infinite when the tools we use really only bolt the idea of infinity to the end.

    Maybe this is a place to start
    Infinitary logic:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitary_logic

    I would prefer to get a better grasp on the finite first myself, but maybe it would be of interest to you.
  • To what extent is the universe infinite?
    This universe is infinite because is made of cosmic consciousness. — Anand-Haqq

    Please provide some reasoning to support this.

    What is cosmic to you?
    What is consciousness?
    Put them together and tell me what is cosmic consciousness?
  • Computer for President?
    I didn't want to respond with the constraint just that the President could be replaced with a robot because really, the entire mechanism of government could be replaced conceivably.


    The case for computers making decisions in government is that:
    Assuming that an open source architecture can replace government:

    • A computer cannot be bribed and could make transparent decisions that are irrefutable as the rules are agreed on beforehand.
    • It's more efficient and likely cost saving in the long run.
    • If too much effort goes into making the computers intelligent, it just creates more overhead as they would have to be governed, defeating most of the key benefits in the first place.
    • The programmers become the politicians to a degree. We already see that creeping into social networks. They determine the logic and any additional constrains of the system so you are just shifting concerns to a degree
    • Hacking or cracking becomes even more pervasive as you can effectively hack government policy, if the system is implemented poorly

    If its a closed source system with shady deals done in the background, you end up with something similar to badly managed electronic voting.

    • The corruption is even more pervasive
    • There is still no transparency
    • Government is reduced to merely being a quango where the real decisions are made completely externally, already happens to a degree.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    Einstein viewed nature as ultimately intelligible. To paraphrase Einstein, the Born rule works, 'but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one.'" — Andrew M

    Exactly.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    Everytime you make an argument about how things are for everyone, even if they disagree with you, and provide reasons for those arguements you are supporting the idea of determinism. — Harry Hindu

    That's not what determinism at all, is as I understand it.
  • Question for the math folk
    ↪SophistiCat
    It was just a clarification so you didn't really need to respond, but whatever.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    I don't see the question of your OP as merely a practical one — Andrew M
    I don't really distinguish between practical and theoretical. But what is proven is then in the realm of experimental physics in that case.

    We have not proven whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic or not. But if any of it is indeterministic then it all is, if you get me, because if you have a chain of events in a system that is deterministic but for one part, then the overall outcome is indeterministic. That's what I'm trying to get at.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    Quantum phenomena are not random, they're stochastic. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    That's not certain but some theories do model the phenomena that way, or stochastically.

    Under the "many worlds" hypothesis, where in all possible quantum outcomes occur in an ever dividing set of universes, I suppose we sink back into a more deterministic system, since the output of possible new universes is determined by what comes before. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    With that in mind, quibbling over the randomness of particles just doesn't seem that big a deal. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Spoken like a true proponent of the many worlds interpretation?

    Pity it came just two years after Einstein's death, and I wonder what he would have thought of the theory. I think he may have had concerns about it needing some universal wave function that defines each of the many worlds behind the scenes, that has never been observed. He may have seen it as a bit speculative, given that he could never reconcile himself with the Copenhagen interpretation.

    I can't help but feel that (ironically) all the determinism based interpretations avoid indeterminism by simply "making stuff up". It is a cool theory, but one we really would have a hard time ever verifying!
  • Question for the math folk
    Space and time in standard fundamental theories of physics are continua, just as in classical physics. This you can readily see from any dynamical equation, such as Schrodinger equation. — SophistiCat

    Not exactly, Einstein himself discovered that light could be quantised with the photo electric effect, and depending on the type of number used, the results are technically discreet since they are approximations. The equations are ultimately calculated to yield discreet results where irrational numbers and fundamental constants are concerned, but the solution to the problems are mostly described with continua, yes. Fundamental constants, for example are improved year on year so that they are effectively approximations.
  • Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas?
    The one thing that I would say that I do wish is that the quest can be pleasurable too, because I think that without a certain amount of fun and light relief it would all become too overwhelming and beyond our human capabilities. — Jack Cummins

    I know what you mean. I've learned to deal with it to a degree but it's certainly a challenge. Some days are better than others. I welcome distractions as an opportunity to switch context and let it percolate in the subconscious, so long as it's not too much of a distraction. I do believe, we are more productive with downtime, and a varied diet of mental, physical and spiritual exercise.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    Well, there you have it. Is that you meant? — tim wood
    I'm using the below definitions.

    Determinism is the philosophical view that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

    UNCOUNTABLE NOUN [oft adjective NOUN]
    Determinism is the belief that all actions and events result from other actions, events, or situations, so people cannot in fact choose what to do.
    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/determinism

    the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way
    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/determinism

    Sorry I wasn't trying to be patronising. I didn't sleep enough.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    Why not? — Andrew M

    The device is flipping it. You can make a deterministic device to flip something, at least deterministic at the macro level, so then it's just a question of the determinism or lack of with the coin, and it's environment. Can you make it land in the same place to the namometer? That would be more of a challenge, regardless of how the flipper is and the smoothness of the surface, the polish of the coin etc? But to just make it land on heads is not too difficult, even more a human, with the right discipline and conditions for the experiment. But it's questionable whether humans are deterministic to do it with the same accuracy as a machine can.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    No way, then, to "determine." — tim wood

    Sounds like you believe we live in a simulation.

    There is no determination needed necessarily. Information as a concept is entirely abstract, it's just labels on things, we separate something into the object and the meta information that defines it or makes its rules, but it's just as likely if not more so that it does what it does. There is an attractive force, attraction takes place, the definition of how the attractiveness works is abstract and not based in reality necessarily at all. The universe doesn't calculate how to evolve, the moving parts interact with each other do what they do.

    Even from a simulation point of view, it's proven more efficient for computers to mimic reality for physics, to replicate real life collisions as opposed to just computing the information.

    Information alone as a means of solving a problem is never going to be as efficient. If I want to know where billiard ball A will end up if I slam it with billiard ball B at a certain angle, assuming I have the capability to be exact, I know where it will B from experiment with friction, momentum, static forces etc. all built in out of the box. A supercomputer can only approximate that.

    So it's the definition of determinism that's lacking here. — tim wood

    You can look it up. Getting back to determinism: If we had an exact copy of the universe with every condition the same in space and time present for when we hit ball A with ball B, same electron spin for every electron etc. etc, every hair of material on the table, the air pressure to the most infinitesimal level and on and on, would the results be the same? If yes, that's a deterministic universe.

    If no, it's indeterministic, there is some element of pure chance involved. Or maybe more precisely, if its indeterministic, we could say that there exists no other universe like ours. There can't be a copy.
    Hope that helps.

    It's not something one can easily go out and prove.
  • Is Man's Holy Grail The Obtaining Of Something For Nothing?
    ↪baker
    And yet we all leave the world poor by that materialistic metric. We leave it as we came into it, with nothing. Wealth without affluence and some modicum of enlightenment is pointless folly. Hence the unhappiness with many rich people. It isn't ordinarily an enlightened philosophy that propels many to wealth, so you're not going to arrive at your destination happy. Often, the wealthy have a singular focus to be wealthy, at the cost of all else. And bathing in their own selfishness is their only way to reinforce their position that they at least got something for their efforts, which only worsens the condition. And seeing life as a zero sum game doesn't help, because you can never truly be happy in any non psychotic sense, by relishing the misery of others. Human beings are communal, in several layers. The breakdown of community at any one of these levels is not harmonious.

    Studies have shown that people are happier once their necessities are looked after - a home to live, food, family, love. Beyond that point, you are more than likely getting unhappier.
  • Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas?
    I think that this involves the whole hypnotic power of beliefs and I wonder to what extent can we break free from it? — Jack Cummins

    From a zen point of view you could see when you were young but you are too young to appreciate it or your youth is corrupted. The hypnotism is a veil that is built up over time so you no longer see. We need to remove the veil, to break free of the hypnotism. This is analogous to switching off the TV, and uncoupling from all sources of indoctrination and programming. As long as we have free will (or at least that we think we have), its application of free will to remove the veil. It's easier said than done. And it's not done by saying.

    But habit is born out of practice, and not intent. And it's only through practice that we can do it. The psychological perspective is that the action enforces the habit and that feeds the reinforcement of intent, which is a bit counterintuitive maybe. The action provides confidence for intent and not vice versa.

    There is nice line in one of my texts on Buddhism I paraphrase now as I can't find it online but it's analogous to this:

    "Too much study without reflection is indoctrination. Too much reflection without study is desolation"

    It's the same principle I feel. We should never be getting too much information without reflecting on it. If we have no time for reflection, then surely we have no choice but to cut down on the information.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    ↪Present awareness
    Yes but the discussion was more about determinism than the motion of the astronomical bodies. We know the bodies move around in a non linear manner overall, especially in a solar systems like ours with many bodies influencing the Earth, but we don't know that it's indeterministic.
  • Coherentism VS Foundationalism as a theory of justification
    ↪Curious Layman


    It's a nice post. I see value in both and actually I think they are stronger together, as opposed to puritanical adherence to just one. I would certainly lean more towards Coherentism as I see great value in logic to create a medium of understanding from the outset sooner rather than later, and we don't seem to have much limitation in terms of grammars for these logics to express ideas. We wouldn't need to be weary of Artificial Intelligence if these grammars were lacking. They are not lacking, I think.

    It's almost like a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. One allows you to skip ahead a bit more but to retrospectively empower yourself to appreciate the other, whereas one is slower and steadier and makes less assumptions but is arguably a bit less accepting. It's safer.

    In other words, can you justify one without referring to and criticizing the other? — Curious Layman

    No need really for me. Either is a fine choice. I will counter your question with another question.
    Can you justify both without criticizing either. I think both should be embraced. In which proportions is another matter. Weak foundationalism looks interesting and I think it's something I will now read up on.

    Thanks for that.
  • Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas?
    ↪Jack Cummins


    I think it's different reasons for different people. I was raised in a similar tradition and to this day I deeply dislike the tribalism that goes with these religions. I cannot accept a single person as an arbiter or head of my relationship with "that which shall not be named but is all permeating".

    I thought about Protestantism, and it's better in that regard, but ultimately still tribal and with hard coded views I can't ever fully accept.

    Buddhism though not a religion, is a faith and has a philosophical component, much like Hinduism, which I find more functional.

    A religion is almost like a mainstream theory of some system. You may want to define your own but you may not want to be a cultist! Buddhism is certainly the one I have studied the most. So from my point of view, it's ultimately about finding something that can improve my life and outlook, offer enlightenment as I believe Zen Buddhism has - a deeply fulfilling teaching that in my opinion will change you when you study it. You will on some level transcend.

    Generally speaking, many people are Religious on loyalty and indoctrination grounds, and wanting to fit in to community. Some reject the kinds of metaphysical and esoteric doctrines of theism because they feel they do not wish to deal in uncertainties as if the universe was lacking in that regard at even just the physical level. I have observed many these days who feel insecure about theism, seeing it as some how ridiculing themselves, but that's at a very shallow perspective in my view. Some may be on a quest of empiricism and so theism is off limits like a pledge of celibacy. Some are desperate and crying out for help. These ones may turn to the dark side if they are unanswered, seeing it as some reason to reject virtue in that there is no arbiter as they see it of virtue. This is probably less likely in the nations with more eastern philosophies, as you are more expected to be your own arbiter of virtue on some level, more disciplined from a functionally practicing perspective too arguably; as meditation, sutras, and mantras, the opening to Sattori etc. are a little richer in action or effort or acceptance or devotion or whatever you want to call it. I would argue that having a philosophical side to a faith cultivates better ethics and virtue overall, but it's my subjective take.

    Are people not less hate filled here than in other forums which are about vanilla communication?
    I think that having a philosophical aspect to any theist pursuit is healthy for a person and at the community and individual level.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    If many-worlds interpretation of QM is right, it is deterministic in the sense that it is possible to predict all future states from past states (since all possible outcomes are realized) but indeterministic in the sense that it is not possible to predict the single future state that we will observe (since all the other possible future states are realized in parallel worlds which cannot interact with each other and we cannot predict in which world we will end up). — litewave

    But it can't be both really. If any part of the universe is deterministic, it all is really, as the nonlinearity or chaos rapidly escalates and the system becomes very tangential to what it otherwise might have, even if it is inconsequential things, the state is fundamentally altered, everything is connected through space-time. You use the many worlds interpretation to describe a deterministic system and ironically, you are right in my opinion. The many minds interpretation may be also, I can't recall.
    .
    That's what's so interesting. It's quite possible we are either
    a) At the whim of a supreme gambler
    b)[ b]In one of many parallel realities.[/b]

    And there would seem to be a high probability it's one of those.

    I lean more towards a) Indeterminism for all it's flaws. There's something elegant about Ensemble and Copenhagen interpretations that no matter how much I try to find my own answer they pull me back in and say to me that this is the way. The Copenhagen interpretation is not really formally defined and as I recall I lean more towards Bohr than Heisenberg in terms of what they bring to the theory. Einstein did reluctantly accept Ensemble as his preferred take, and it's a fine choice in my book. It's agnostic about determinism, and minimalist given that it doesn't try to define the unknown or unknowable. Born's statistical interpretation is a thing of beauty. Copenhagen is decidedly indeterministic and why Einstein could never truly get on board with it. There is a paradox for a Physicist accepting indeterminism, because it just deepens the rabbit hole. Arguably, it slaps you in the face and tells you there is no bottom to the rabbit hole, and some things are just unknowable. Kind of like a stop sign, "No complete answer for you at this time."

    Future states may be predicted from past states. Take the position of the Earth in relation to the Sun for example. Every 365 days, the Earth is back to the starting point in its orbit. The position of Mars may be predicted and a rocket ship may be sent there! However, things like how a woman might react to any given situation, may not be predicted with accuracy! — Present awareness

    Not exactly, the Sun is moving in orbit around the galaxy, and up and down through the galactic plane like a revolving frill. The Earth is on that journey and really our solar system moves in a vortex. The sun moves and all the planets rotate around it as it does. We never truly go back to the same point, we just perceive it from the Gregorian calendar. It may very well be indeterministic too and certainly non linear.

    Though it's speculative to generalise, women are thought to have, in general, more connectedness between the hemispheres of their brain, so the fuzzy emotional part works more in tandem with the reasoning part.
  • ‘God does not play dice’
    Consider the butterfly-effect: The smallest of effects can lead to the greatest of consequences (covid-19 for example). — shawtuse

    Your very first post in TPF and you came to my thread. Good.
    Your first post mentioned ahem-19. Bad
    (Let's leave any talk of that baggage at the door?)

    Kudos for mentioning non linear dynamics.

    For those not familiar with the concept of non linear dynamics just think of a pendulum with hinges, like you would see rocking back and forth in a grandfather clock. But instead of a single straight rod, it has hinges. As it rocks, the hinges move and it turns out that from any one point where you start it in motion, the pattern it traces out is greatly different than even a tiny change. It is all about the butterfly effect and how chaos quickly emerges from something with just a very simple initial input.

    BUT, it's arguably still technically deterministic. Any slight vibration around a hinge, or a tiny difference in force means the path the hinges trace will be radically different, but it's still all based off the assumption that the conditions themselves are ever so slightly different.

    Einstein would argue that, with theoretical knowledge of the electrons at ay one time, in the system, their spin and position, that the start point is exact, that the pendulums are truly identical, that any minor perturbance of air is precisely the same. That the local effects of the Earths magnetic field throughout are the same etc. then they will trace the same pattern

    It's just that its obviously impossible for us to set the conditions for both pendulums to be in the exact state and trace the exact same path. It will never happen. Ever. But we are not comparing two pendulums, or 2 periods of a pendulums, given the seemingly same starting conditions and conditions throughout. What we are considering is whether the pendulum in all is non linearity is indeterministic.

    It is essentially deterministic provided that quantum mechanics is deterministic and we may never know the answer to that. Really the question of whether non linear dynamics is deterministic is just another way of formulating whether God plays dice, but thanks for brining up non linear systems. It's the most fruitful I think to answer this question.

    Some posters mentioned before that "What does it matter if I can fool you into thinking its indeterministic" and that point is particularly interesting in the context of non linear systems.
Home » Paul S