...where a tiny change in the initial conditions produces drastically different output, and so a tiny error in measurement of the initial conditions produces wildly incorrect predictions. That is chaos. — Pfhorrest
It follows that given the same initial conditions, you get the same results. — Harry Hindu
Even a philosopher acute enough to be conscious of this, such as Davidson, will say, without offering any reason at all for saying it, that a singular causal statement implies that there is such a true universal proposition – though perhaps we can never have knowledge of it. Such a thesis needs some reason for believing it! ‘Regularities in nature’: that is not a reason. ...
In that paper Davidson sets out to defend the view that the explanation of action by reference to reasons (something we do, for instance, when we refer to an agent’s intentions or motives in acting) is also a form of causal explanation. Indeed, he argues that reasons explain actions just inasmuch as they are the causes of those actions. This approach was in clear opposition to the Wittgensteinian orthodoxy of the time. On this latter account causal explanation was viewed as essentially a matter of showing the event to be explained as an instance of some law-like regularity (as we might explain the whistling of a kettle by reference to certain laws involving, among other things, the behaviour of gases under pressure). Since rational explanation was held, in general, not to involve any such reference to laws, but rather required showing how the action fitted into some larger pattern of rational behaviour, explanation by reference to reasons was held to be distinct from and independent of explanation by reference to causes.
The salient point is that determinism is not found in classical physics but assumed. — Banno
The salient point is that determinism is not found in classical physics but assumed — Banno
There is something to observe here, that lies under our noses. It is little attended to, and yet still so obvious as to seem trite. It is this: causality consists in the derivativeness of an effect from its causes. This is the core, the common feature, of causality in its various kinds. Effects derive from, arise out of, come of, their causes. For example, everyone will grant that physical parenthood is a causal relation. Here the derivation is material, by fission. Now analysis in terms of necessity or universality does not tell us of this derivedness of the effect; rather it forgets about that. For the necessity will be that of laws of nature; through it we shall be able to derive knowledge of the effect from knowledge of the cause, or vice versa, but that does not show us the cause as source of the effect. Causation, then, is not to be identified with necessitation. — Anscombe
You have to simply look at how you see causes being responsible for certain effects. There is an art (and pragmatism) of understanding causality and there is no metaphysical reason to see that as mere 'folk' understanding of causation. — csalisbury
-But the universe (or 'everything' or 'the one' or ' the total totality' etc )cannot be treated as a closed system where 'everything' is such and such at state 0, determining unique states at t=x — csalisbury
I like this. I think it directs us back to how we first think of causes: something happens and we know it happened due to this other thing. It doesn't mean forensically establishing a necessary frame-by-frame progression, but simply recognizing that the presence of this led to that. That's it. How the one lead to the other depends on the case. Whether the one had to lead to the other also depends on the case. — csalisbury
↪Banno A pseudorandom function is algorithmic. The decay of a radioactive isotope is not. Kenosha Kid back me up here. — Pfhorrest
Yes; but then you are going back to quantum phenomena to produce randomness.
What we in the article though is indeterminism in a classical system without reliance on quantum phenomena.
The salient point is that determinism is not found in classical physics but assumed. The article goes some way to showing that the assumption might be removed without cost. — Banno
I’m not arguing against any of that, merely distinguishing randomness from chaos as concepts. Determinism is the absence of randomness, not the absence of chaos. You could conceivably have a deterministic but chaotic system. Or a non-chaotic but indeterministic system. Or chaotic randomness, or non-chaotic determinism. They’re two separable things. — Pfhorrest
The expert consensus is also that QM and classical mechanics appear to contradict each other but they both work. The consensus also includes a need to unify both theories, or at least explain why one is so useful and incorrect, while the other is correct. I think that the unifying theory lies in explaining consciousness, as consciousness is a kind of measurement.Yes, but even aside from the measurement problem if quantum events are uncaused, then tiny divergences from initial conditions will add up over time to great divergences. What evidence can you adduce that no quantum events are uncaused? The only evidence I think is available to you to call upon is expert opinion and the expert consensus is that (at least some) quantum events are uncaused. — Janus
Them indeterminism is not found in QM, but assumed. And you seem to be agreeing that certain observations cause you to assume certain ideas.The salient point is that determinism is not found in classical physics but assumed — Banno
The probability of one ball falling in any particular bin is given by the normal curve. — Banno
And you'd observe the behavior of the balls greatly diverging.tiny divergences from initial conditions will add up over time to great divergences. — Janus
Banno
8.5k
↪Frank Apisa Actually, I've done this myself - dropping balls one at a time, slowly, so that my students could see the curve build. — Banno
So QM determines that determinism is impossible? — Harry Hindu
nonlinear meaning that a small change in the input can yield a huge change in the output. — Kenosha Kid
What effects do uncaused quantum events have on the macro-scale world? — Harry Hindu
n. Not a definition of nonlinear in the strictly mathematical sense. And what is "small"?. For example: — jgill
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.