If all is deterministic, then numbers and information, and consciousness and intent, are irrelevant. It can all be reduced to particle physics, just as thermodynamics can. I suppose it would know why brain states also feel like mental states to us. But if "feel like" is all there is, but they have no casual power, and are, themselves, determined by the physical events, then it doesn't matter. — Patterner

This is why pluralism and process philosophy are so important - you don't have to take this "nothing matters, nothing is real" view, EVEN IF you accept that everything is fundamentally caused by the lowest-level physical rules.

Just because all of the components of a clock are governed by physics doesn't mean "the cogs don't cause the clock to work" - no, to the contrary, the fact that the cogs are made of fundamental particles doing what fundamental particles do is what MAKES the cogs work, and in tandem what makes the clock as a whole work.

It's not one or the other, it's one because of the other.

The casualty of your mind can be similar. It's not "my mind is acausal because it's just physical stuff in my brain obeying the laws of physics", it's "my mind IS CASUAL and works how it works, and interacts with the things it interacts with, precisely because it's made of physical things following the laws of physics".

Your view kind of makes it seem like anything that's not fundamental isn't real - I understand that intuition, but I think that's why concepts like emergence are so important to understand. The fundamental is real, and the emergent things that emerge from the fundamental are also real.

Yeah, I understand that. But we're talking about free will. I'm not saying our minds don't cause things. I'm saying that, according to this view, our minds cause things in the same sense that the cogs cause the clock to work. And LD knows what is going to happen everywhere, including what we will all think and do, just as we know what a clock will do.

I really have no idea. All I know is that quantum mechanics is supposed to be an argument against the LD. I don't know if that argument prevails or not, but not knowing would be an argument against LD, wouldn't it? — frank

Yea, I guess the revision is that however it works, LD knows how it works.

That's if you limit LD to so-called physical events, which automatically excludes non-physical things like numbers and mental states. We could imagine an LD that has knowledge of the non-physical stuff, right? — frank

I believe it is only the Copenhagen interpretation of QM that asserts that it is an argument against LD. I don't recall the definition of LD as restricting it's knowledge to physical events. It is simply defined as knowing everything about everything with infinite precision. As such, any criticism of LD based on our current knowledge of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics is flawed because our current knowledge of these things is incomplete so it is possible that reality is different than the way we describe it using terms like "physical". By definition, LD would have access to all dimensions and all space and time.

Hope you see the point why you could not give an accurate forecast here. And it's likely that people don't bother to make a forecast when the game is told to them. First they'll think it's a 0.5 chance of getting it right or something. — ssu

Actually, I predicted that you would type 1 based on the conditions you provided, so I was able to give an accurate "forecast". I wouldn't really call it a forecast as you told me what you would do. :meh:

But this problem does come around in real world implications: — ssu

Then what use is it? A problem that does not come around in real world implications seems to be just a misuse of language.

When you think about, the problem is really similar: you can have all the flight data and tracking data of the target aircraft, know the perfomance specs of the aircraft and get a firing solution a the present for the future location some seconds in the future. If the aircraft isn't aware that it's shot and and follows the same line, it likely will get hit. But if the pilot has noticed your AA gun and will change the course after you have fired the artillery projectile, then no matter how accurate your targeting data and fire control was, you will miss or it's just a lucky chance you will hit the aircraft. — ssu

You're missing a key point of LD, and that is it knows everything about everything with infinite precision. The pilot and the gunner are both part of the everything about everything with infinite precision, so by definition LD would know how the gunner and pilot will react. LD would have predicted that the ability to evade the shot from the AA gun would have been the catalyst to develop new technology that cancels out the pilots ability to evade.

All you have done is explain how certain events in the world whether they are acts of humans, stars, disease, etc. can have an impact on our predictions of the future. I don't disagree with that as that is what I have been saying as well. It is you that is making a special case for human behavior, as if it has some special power to throw a wrench into our predictions where other events do not. It seems like you are basically begging the question of free will by implying that humans have this special power of freedom that disrupts potential predictions. If LD knows everything about everything with infinite precision, then by definition "everything" includes human behaviors.

The problem here isn't that we don't have all the relevant information, it's that you can use that relevant data even make an extrapolation and then do something else. That is basically negative self reference. — ssu

Yet we do it all the time. We use past experiences and an understanding of physics and calculus to make accurate predictions in getting to Pluto, using a computer, driving a car, riding a bike, etc. Even using our body parts in walking, holding, etc. is using our learned knowledge to be able to do these things. You don't remember but it took an effort to learn to walk and use your hands and only by repeatedly trying, observing the effects and trying again (a sensory feedback loop) do you become proficient. We use past information to acquire knowledge of the present and future. If all you can point to is some anthropomorphic notion of events in making a special pleading for human behaviors as a critique of using information to make predictions, then your argument is flawed.

But there's the catch: that isn't interaction.

And even worse: that isn't a forecast. — ssu

Then define "interaction" and "forecast". It seems to me that every thing (atoms, molecules, cells, organs, organisms, societies, planets, solar systems, galaxies, and universes) is an interaction of smaller parts and technology is based on the science it is built on, and science is based on forecasting based on existing observations. Every time you use technology you are testing the forecast science has made regarding how the universe works.

The quote can be found on anything number of sites...
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
— Laplace
I believe this is saying that LD knows everything about everything IF everything about everything is deterministic. That, I believe, is the point of Laplace's thought experiment.

But if all of reality is not deterministic, LD's calculations would not be able to figure everything out. Comparing what, based on its calculations, it says the universe would look like at any given point with what the universe actually looks like, there would be discrepancies. I suppose LD would say, "Something non-deterministic took place at that spot." — Patterner

And that would be perfectly accurate for LD to say because once you assert an event was non-deterministic it requires no further explanation. Only in asserting determinism does one either need to further explain what initial conditions existed that determined the subsequent conditions and so on ad infinitum, or until you arrive at some non-determined condition that has always existed or something comes from nothing.

Then LD isn't really useful in determining whether or not the universe is deterministic. It is assumed that it is, hence LD. We would need to determine whether or not the universe if deterministic ourselves to then determine the validity of LD, but LD was never useful in allowing us to discover that fact.

The question then is if the universe is not deterministic, then why does it appear that it is? How are we able to make consistent predictions and when our predictions fail we can point to some information we lacked in making the prediction. We only know that our prediction failed when we have access to new information.

It seems like you are basically begging the question of free will by implying that humans have this special power of freedom that disrupts potential predictions — Harry Hindu

That's my hesitation also to Ssu's argument.Though he has a strong point, still that "veto" ability seems to imply a free will as to be achieved and mislead Demon's forecast.
Seems to require at least some degree of free will that breaks the pure deterministic laws.

Anyway it is nevertheless an interesting opinion that worths consideration.Free will problem can easily frie your mind when you dive deep inside it.

But that is the question we are tying to answer. Ssu's "veto" and "free will" need to be defined. Even then our understanding of the brain is incomplete and we simply don't know how the brain makes decisions and what role the mind plays, or its relationship with the brain (the hard problem). The definition of LD seems to indicate that it knows the answers to the hard problem and fully understands how the brain works and what a mind is, and we don't, yet here we are asserting what LD knows or doesn't know from our own point of ignorance.

I walk up to a junction, what is determined about my choice-making here? That if I choose left it was determined before? That if I choose right it was determined before? And the same with back and front? There's no substance to this claim, it's pure mysticism. Choice making at junctions can't be determined rationally, they are break points in determinism.

A vexing question in regards to determinism is: what else besides you determined your actions at the junction? A simple objective glance at you performing this act ought to lead one to believe it was you that determined or willed it, and for the simple reason that nothing else did.

Since you say that life is at least partially determined, I pose you the same question, what else besides you determined your actions?

You're missing a key point of LD, and that is it knows everything about everything with infinite precision. The pilot and the gunner are both part of the everything about everything with infinite precision, so by definition LD would know how the gunner and pilot will react. — Harry Hindu

First of all, when you asked for a real world example, I assumed that kind of example didn't take into account LD.

As I've said, there is absolutely no problem for LD when it isn't making the firing decision. But if it would be assisting the gunner, do notice that the equations isn't what Laplace was talking about: LD has to take into account his own firing decision. After all, the pilot will correct his flight path when he see's the muzzle flash, and then LD has had to give the firing solution. So when does the pilot alter his flight path, when the gun is fired and when LD has made it's firing solution. So the correct forecast is dependent of the forecast made itself.

It's not simple extrapolation anymore, it's more of dynamic model or a game theoretic problem.

But here's the point: the LD having to take it's actions into account already refutes Laplace's idea. Laplace wasn't talking about game theory.

If LD knows everything about everything with infinite precision, then by definition "everything" includes human behaviors. — Harry Hindu

No. that is incorrect. It's not almighty God. It doesn't know the future. It knows only the past.

Let's remember what Laplace actually said:

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past could be present before its eyes.

And the problem isn't knowing human behavior, the problem is taking account of itself. The basic problem is the part "for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain".

Then define "interaction" and "forecast". — Harry Hindu

Forecast = an accurate model of future
interaction means simply that LD or someone interacts with something in the universe. This means that an accurate model of the future (the forecast) has to take this action into account.

Then LD isn't really useful in determining whether or not the universe is deterministic. — Harry Hindu

Well, I mean, since LD doesn't actually exist, no, it isn't really useful in determining whether or not the universe is deterministic. LD isn't a diagnostic tool. It's just an interesting way of expressing what a deterministic universe is like. If we actually had an LD, all of our questions would be answered. It might say, "Quantum events are uncaused. Therefore, I can't know precisely how things at the quantum level will look at any point in the future." Or it might say, "Quantum events only appear uncaused to humans, because you don't have sufficient intelligence (or senses, or technology) to understand the causes. But I see their causes and understand them, so I can calculate where everything at the quantum level will be at any point in the future."

Similar scenarios regarding consciousness.

I wonder if it would know every DNA mutation that will ever take place.

The question then is if the universe is not deterministic, then why does it appear that it is? How are we able to make consistent predictions and when our predictions fail we can point to some information we lacked in making the prediction. We only know that our prediction failed when we have access to new information. — Harry Hindu

Certainly, the macro physical universe is deterministic. We can calculate a whole lot of what's going to happen in the future. We know when Haley's comet will be back again. We know when the next high tide will be on any beach. We can shoot a moving target with a gun, drive cars, play baseball, and any number of other things.

Even if the quantum world is truly not deterministic, it's probabalistic to a very predictable degree, making the macro deterministic.

As such, any criticism of LD based on our current knowledge of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics is flawed because our current knowledge of these things is incomplete so it is possible that reality is different than the way we describe it using terms like "physical". By definition, LD would have access to all dimensions and all space and time. — Harry Hindu

I think it's because LaPlace lived during the advent of mechanistic thinking, and contributed heavily to it, so his universe was kind of like a pool table.

As I've said, there is absolutely no problem for LD when it isn't making the firing decision. But if it would be assisting the gunner, do notice that the equations isn't what Laplace was talking about: LD has to take into account his own firing decision. After all, the pilot will correct his flight path when he see's the muzzle flash, and then LD has had to give the firing solution. So when does the pilot alter his flight path, when the gun is fired and when LD has made it's firing solution. So the correct forecast is dependent of the forecast made itself. — ssu

With LD the solution would have included where the pilot would turn when they see the flash because the pilot is no different than any other obstacle, conscious or not, that might change the forecast between the moment one makes the forecast and the time the event that was forecasted to happen. The further ahead in the future the event is forecasted the more information you need to make an accurate forecast.

For a non-LD gunner, missing the pilot informs them what they missed in their prior forecast. You only know you made a mistake when you have more information.

But here's the point: the LD having to take it's actions into account already refutes Laplace's idea. Laplace wasn't talking about game theory. — ssu

How so when all of LD's actions that occur is part of reality that it is forecasting? Knowing everything about everything with infinite precision is knowing everything about itself too. If it has a causal relation with reality it is effectively part of reality and it's actions are no different than any other action, conscious or not, that must be accounted for in their forecast.

If LD knows everything about everything with infinite precision, then by definition "everything" includes human behaviors.
— Harry Hindu
No. that is incorrect. It's not almighty God. It doesn't know the future. It knows only the past. — ssu

That's not how I interpreted what Laplace said. What it knows is basically the "Theory of Everything" in the present. It is not defined as knowing the past. The past is something it has to extrapolate from the present state of the universe and it's Theory of Everything, just as it has to do with the future. For LD, it wouldn't actually be a "Theory" of Everything. It would be the Law of Everything.

Forecast = an accurate model of future
interaction means simply that LD or someone interacts with something in the universe. This means that an accurate model of the future (the forecast) has to take this action into account. — ssu

What would an inaccurate forecast be called? A weatherman's forecast is not always accurate. It seems to me that a forecast is simply a mental model of the future in the present. Whether it is accurate or not is a different matter.

Regarding "interact", LD is part of the universe it is forecasting so it's actions aren't any different than any other action it needs to account for in making an accurate forecast.

Certainly, the macro physical universe is deterministic. We can calculate a whole lot of what's going to happen in the future. We know when Haley's comet will be back again. We know when the next high tide will be on any beach. We can shoot a moving target with a gun, drive cars, play baseball, and any number of other things.

Even if the quantum world is truly not deterministic, it's probabalistic to a very predictable degree, making the macro deterministic. — Patterner

The observer effect in QM seems to indicate that we might be confusing the map with the territory, or the measurement with what is being measured. It appears that the events on the atomic scale are indeterministic, but it is actually our measurements (consciousness is an act of measuring and what we experience in our mind is really a measurement of the world, not the world as it is) that are incompatible with what is being measured. We are trying to use macro-scale measurements on quantum objects.

Yes, it is complicated. I have not had any luck trying to find out how we determine which slit a photon goes through. What kind of device can detect which slit a photon goes through without actually intercepting the photon? How else would it know? we don't see photons unless they hit our retina. What kind of device sees it without the photon hitting its visual receptor? I don't even know how to ask the question. Lol

With LD the solution would have included where the pilot would turn when they see the flash because the pilot is no different than any other obstacle, conscious or not, that might change the forecast between the moment one makes the forecast and the time the event that was forecasted to happen. — Harry Hindu

Again your not getting the point. That turn hasn't happened yet, it's in the future. The pilot is flying the aircraft ordinarily, because the aircraft hasn't been attacked. He's looking at the potential AA site, but as the pilot observes he's not fired upon, no reason for evasive manuevers. Maybe the site is simply a fake or the gunners simply haven't observed him. The LD giving the firing solution and the firing of the gun only alerts the pilot to make evasive maneuvers. The LD solution is defined from the LD solution itself, you cannot get around it, sorry.

Let's just remember how the LD makes the forecast in general. It knows everything at the present, and it can then extrapolate perhaps one nanosecond at a time to the future to millions of years from now. But this isn't anymore a simple extrapolation: here the correct model of future has to take into consideration the model itself. The LD solution happens partly because of the LD solution. That's circular reasoning. And here we come to the interesting philosophical issue at hand: here the LD has to make a subjective decision. It cannot be just an objective observer here. If it would be, then it wouldn't give any LD solution, the anti-aircraft gun wouldn't be fired and the pilot could perhaps fly aircraft in a straight line through the airspace where the AA gun could reach the aircraft. The gunners would angry at such fire control.

Again, the pilot alters his flight if the aircraft is attacked (sees the muzzle flashes), that happens only after the LD's firing solution, so LD cannot just extrapolate from the present something that isn't yet done.

Here's the most important issue: LD just cannot extrapolate from the past, it has to make a choice when to give the firing solution and what firing solution. That's different what Laplace had in mind. There's many ways to do this, but it isn't simple extrapolation.

This actually is very crucial to our usual way of looking at this: if there's determinism, can there be free will? That's the typical way to look at it. The LD example gives another way to look at this: here the LD has to make a subjective decision because it cannot be just an objective onlooker. And once it does, so, then not all computations can be done as earlier. A lot sure, but not all.

Perhaps in a way our free will simply limits our ability to calculate/prove/extrapolate everything about the future, if it is deterministic.

What would an inaccurate forecast be called? A weatherman's forecast is not always accurate. It seems to me that a forecast is simply a mental model of the future in the present. Whether it is accurate or not is a different matter. — Harry Hindu

In the strict sense, a model that is false.

Or simply a model that gives us something true, but it isn't a perfect example of the future.

Regarding "interact", LD is part of the universe it is forecasting so it's actions aren't any different than any other action it needs to account for in making an accurate forecast. — Harry Hindu

So can it say something that it doesn't say? No. Again, when the accurate forecast is the opposite of any forecast the LD gives, it simply cannot give an correct forecast.

The interaction part is when the whole way how such game is played out depends on the forecast, then you cannot just assume everything is fine and dandy and there's just some information missing, but LD has it so it won't be a problem.

I believe this is saying that LD knows everything about everything IF everything about everything is deterministic. That, I believe, is the point of Laplace's thought experiment.
But if all of reality is not deterministic, LD's calculations would not be able to figure everything out. — Patterner

If you think of some restricted problem, such as the movements of the planets in our solar system, this seems to work. But it treats the solar system as a closed system and restricts the predictions that are made about it. Laplace is generalizing from that to everything. That's not a defined system and it posits a range of predictions restricted to those that physics can make or a final and complete physics of the future. Don't you think that is a rather generous assumption?

Even if you swallow that assumption, consider:-
1 If LD cannot figure some things out, what follows? Does it follow that determinism is false? No.
2 If LD can predict everything accurately for the next nyears where n is any number you like. Does it follow that determinism is true? No.

Laplace's demon proves nothing.

Worse than that, if LD can accurately predict some things, does it follow that they happened because of LD's prediction? No.

Laplace's demon is irrelevant.

If you think of some restricted problem, such as the movements of the planets in our solar system, this seems to work. But it treats the solar system as a closed system and restricts the predictions that are made about it. — Ludwig V

LD is also aware of where every particle in the universe outside of our solar system is, which way each is going, and can calculate which will interact with our SS, and when. Even if two hunks of rock a thousand light-years away that are not heading this way are going to collide, and some debris from that collision will then head this way.

LD is also aware of where every particle in the universe outside of our solar system is, which way each is going, and can calculate which will interact with our SS, and when. Even if two hunks of rock a thousand light-years away that are not heading this way are going to collide, and some debris from that collision will then head this way. — Patterner

Nonetheless, it is treating the universe as a closed system.

Nonetheless, it is treating the universe as a closed system. — Ludwig V

Yes. I would not interpret Laplace's words as including any other universes. The defined system is the universe.

1 If LD cannot figure some things out, what follows? Does it follow that determinism is false? No.
2 If LD can predict everything accurately for the next nyears where n is any number you like. Does it follow that determinism is true? No. — Ludwig V

I answer Yes to both. Why not? That's the premise. Determinism rules all things, and LD has the perception and intellect to figure everything out.

it doesn't strictly have to, though.

Suppose something is casual on our physical world, but outside the physical world - perhaps a mind or spirit realm, wherein mental and spiritual events occur. And suppose there's bidirectional causality between the physical realm and this mind realm.

One need not think of specifically the physical realm as a closed system, one can instead imagine (physical realm plus mind realm) as a combined closed system. And an LD that's fully aware of what's going on in all the relevant realms of the combined closed systems is still conceivable.

↪Ludwig V it doesn't struggle have to, though. — flannel jesus

Autocorrect?

meant to say strictly, and don't call me auto correct

Ty, fixed

Shirley you don't mind.

For reference:-

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes. — Laplace

It's just a day-dream.
You can summarize this as "If determinism is true, it would be possible to predict everything". Not very exciting, is it?

One need not think of specifically the physical realm as a closed system, one can instead imagine (physical realm plus mind realm) as a combined closed system. And an LD that's fully aware of what's going on in all the relevant realms of the combined closed systems is still conceivable. — flannel jesus

"IF the universe is a closed system.." we can make all sorts of deductions and predictions. But is it? What's your evidence?

Determinism rules all things, and LD has the perception and intellect to figure everything out. — Patterner

"IF determinism rules all things..." but does it? What's your evidence? Laplace is perfectly clear that "we may regard the present state of the universe..." He doesn't pretend that this is any more than a possible way of looking at things.
Similiarly, he says clearly " An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces ... and all positions of all items..., if this intellect were also vast enough...". He doesn't even suggest that this is possible. (Interesting that he doesn't mention that God would be such an intellect.)

I answer Yes to both. Why not? That's the premise. — Patterner

You need to establish the premises in order to assert the conclusion.
Still, consider your answers:-
1 If LD cannot figure some things out, what follows? Does it follow that determinism is false? Yes.
The catch is that you have to wait until LD has figured everything out before you know whether there are some things it cannot figure out, and even longer before you know that it has not just made a mistake.
2 If LD can predict everything accurately for the next n years where n is any number you like. Does it follow that determinism is true? Yes
No, it does not follow that determinism is true, even if you can predict for any finite number of years ahead. Even if the universe is finite and time will run out, and LD predicts that, it will not follow that it got things right because it's calculations were correct.

"IF the universe is a closed system.." we can make all sorts of deductions and predictions. But is it? What's your evidence? — Ludwig V

That's... now what I said. That's not even a response to what I said.

That's... now what I said. That's not even a response to what I said. — flannel jesus

I don't think it was specifically for you.