Yes, but if you're compelled to give an answer the problem remains. — TheMadFool

See the comment directly above your last post.

If you want to understand more about the nature of nature my advice would be that you start playing palor games. Rigidity of thought is the antithesis of creativity.

Your issue is not with determinism. It's with time travel.

You seem to be considering determinability and predictability to be coterminous? — Janus

I'll be honest. I had to look coterminous up. Good word: having the same boundaries or extent in space, time, or meaning. I'm not really thinking in terms of boundaries, other than those of past, present and future. On the face of it the two words seem very similar although I have a little bug on my shoulder telling me there is directional difference between the words. I can't isolate it though.

If you can predict something then it is determinable. If something can be determined then it is predictable- although it may not be considered a prediction if you already know it. Perhaps that's the nagging feeling I have.

The difference is the reference frame. Standing at the present the future is not predictable, however, that it will come to pass is not questioned. A person watching from the future knows the path. That's why we study history. If only Julius Caesar hadn't walked into the forum on that horrible day- but he did, and the rest, as we say, is history - or determined

I would say that determinism, as a metaphysical or ontological postulate, is entirely prejudicial, — Janus

Prejudicial to what?

http://lifesratchet.com/ — apokrisis

"" Yet powered by energy, microscopic molecular machines—the ratchets of the title—work autonomously to create order out of the chaos. Life, Hoffmann argues, emerges from the random motions of atoms filtered through these sophisticated structures of our evolved machinery. ""

-- I haven't read the book but that's seems like a no brainer. I find it hard to see how it is an argument rather than an observation. The only problem is it doesn't explain the origin of life at all. It only explains the propagation of life from life. It seems that everyone is converging on the same points. For more of my ideas read the OP on "The First Few Steps Required to Believe in Primordial Soup Theory"

As for switching, I've considered switching as a possible cause for starting life - namely the circadian rhythm all things seem to have - day night, hot cold all function as on-off. The idea seemed pretty revelational to me until I realized I couldn't make molecules do too much with it other than dance around a bit and change conformation. I don't see how switching can begin life.

I heard of a research group in Japan who denied a tree of any sleep by keeping the lights on, and it grew sick and died. I briefly read up on the circadian rhythm in plants and it said it uses the day night break to conduct different functions in the leaf (redistribute resources for other activities).

So I don't consider any of these to be huge inroads at all into explaining abiogenesis. Perhaps I am failing to see the broader implication of the findings or there are other details I don't know of to strengthen the position?

And if staying silent is not an option, there is vagueness. Does Kant say anything about the specificity of the truth? You don't have to say the potential victim is hiding under their bed at 10 Dowling Street, you could just say they are in a 40,000 mile radius of here.

The counter that could be made to take the sting of absolutism out of determinism is to suggest that while our path is determined, it cannot be predicted using environmental variables from the past.

For this argument to work, you would need to assume an origin of thought that is spontaneous and independent on any other variables, internal or external.

Of course, sitting at the end of time, I can see when those little blips happened and how it made you choose the path you took.

As the semiotic, or just as the observer?

That's okay, in Australia we try to screw in candles.

Q: How many Americans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: One, so long as its T Clark.

Perhaps an important conceptual point to consider is that probability does have an outcome. As the cast dice slow their angular momentum, the probability of certain combinations occurring ratchet down markedly until ultimately there is only 1 option. Probability 100% determined.

The initial conditions that created the path were probabilistic, but the single path was created through time nonetheless. By changing our position in time we can see it.

Multiple Worlds theory could explain a paradox of making a different choice knowing the outcome ahead of time. But even then, only one path ends up being walked.

If I stand at a craps table and watch the thrower roll the dice in his hand, blow on them, get his girlfriend to blow on them, whisper a short prayer under his breath and then cast the dice down the table, just as the temperature drops half a degree and a small gust from a surge in the airconditioning hits the table, the thrower may roll a seven. With so many variables at play, it could have been anything at all that he rolled.

When I watch it back on tape, he keeps rolling a seven. He can't do anything else other than roll a seven regardless of how many times I watch it. It is determined, it was determined, it will be revealed as determined. Only if we could back up, keep the variables exactly the same, and have him roll an eight this time would determinism be proven false, but then again so would all the laws of physics.

You make it sound like I'm scrambling. I find the whole thing quite straight forward. Maybe the crater is one I have created in your thinking and you are trying to understand it by filling it with my words.

The person can always choose to say nothing to the would be murderer, and then everyone is happy.

So it's not a case of not being to truly know everything, its a case of not being able to truly know anything.

if everything is information, then 'information' has no meaning. — Wayfarer

Yes, that about sums it up. It has meaning, but only in context. It is not a universal meaning. It is only when we pop out of our local level we see that everything we have predicated our understanding on is much more complex then we can possible grasp, but even that complexity is just a semiotic respresentation of an infinitely regressing or egressing system. So we go from have a high degree of certainty in our local semiotic system to having hardly any at all.

What I don't grasp in your outlook is, why you think 'explaining the energy state changes in atoms' would somehow not be done through signs. — mcdoodle

I don't think that, and I'm not saying that mcdoodle.

Any working scientist must heighten the local detail that matters as much as they can, simplify the rest and hold certain things to be not involved with their locality - ceteris paribus - then do their thing. — mcdoodle

I have stated that this happens and have not suggested they should not understand their local layer.

Scientists at different 'levels' will regard the 'detail' they are interested in in a different way. — mcdoodle

This is my contention, yes.

I presume we start from this basis. — mcdoodle

This is the critical part. There is no place to start. All is semiotic.

What a mess. "You created", choices, free will, determined". I don't think you left anything out. I suppose you could add all of the synonyms. — Rich

If the shapes fit into the holes, Rich, then there's nothing wrong with putting them in.

So I've already made the choices which I will make tomorrow, concerning the day after tomorrow. It doesn't make sense to say that we've already made the choices which we will make in the future. If you say that these choices are already determined, then they aren't choices at all. What appears as choosing is not. It is an illusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

So when you went to the shops yesterday, that wasn't a choice? I can see that you did it. The path is written and it happened only once, so it was determined. I can draw a path of every move you've made since the day you were born, all determined, all choices. I can skip to the end of time and look at all the choices you made and the path you took. It's just you can't see it yet. Time is a curtain obscuring it.

We walk only one path. The fact you chose to go left instead of right tomorrow was written in history the day after tomorrow, but it was written- or from today's point of view, will be written. I can go to the day after tomorrow and see that you did it - and you had complete free will in doing so.

It's an interesting dilemma. I agree that in a democratic society free speech rights should be protected, but I would envisage an early stage Martian colony requiring very tight regulation on certain issues, lest it collapse through infighting before it even gets off the ground.

Seditious speech inciting insurrection, that sort of thing can't end well for a tiny colony trying to survive of the dry crust of a foreign planet.

As the society settles in and stabilizes and population numbers rise, the regulation can be relaxed. It opens an interesting perspective on how to regulate the early colony though, doesn't it.

I don't think you are arguing against me so much as don't understand me. We seem to be talking past each other and repeating ourselves.

You are laboring points that I don't disagree with. I want you to understand what the OP is saying. To do this you must abandon what Pierce or anybody else says about semiotics. Let me try and walk you through the concepts so we know where our opinions diverge.

1. If I showed you a picture of a transport protein in a cell membrane would you agree that the protein channel looks like a colored pipe sitting in a membrane represented by yellow headed lipids with squiggly tails?

Image
Image 2

A doctor may need to understand the protein channel at this level.

2. Do you see any difference to this picture of a protein channel?
Image 3

A molecular biologists may need to understand the protein channel at this level.

3. Do you agree that between the first two images and the third there has been information loss?

I thought I did a pretty good job explaining it, but I will go again from a slightly different angle. Please also feel free to read my radio analogy a few posts back.

The enormity of information is the very reason why we have symbolic representations — TimeLine

Yes, because it cuts down on the information load.

it is our attempt to cognise something that cannot be seen otherwise. — TimeLine

Yes, to understand something at the local level.

It does not 'blind us to the bigger picture' — TimeLine

In order to understand our local layer we make assumptions about the nature of the objects in it. It is a planet would be an assumption. From a cosmological perspective we see a Planet - this is a semiotic term. It sums up a whole bunch of information into one discreet package.

A planetologist may describe it in terms of their semiotics
It is a gas giant 2 billion miles in diameter with an iron core and sulphur-dioxide atmosphere, a rotational period of 2.3 days, a surface pressure of 10 million KPa and a core pressure of 40 billion kPa, a surface temperature of 600Kelvin and a core temperature of 6000 kelvin.

Between the two there has been information loss.

The cosmologist cannot claim to fully understand the cosmos without fully understanding the planets in it. They can only claim to understand their part of it - the local level.

Similarly a planetologist cannot claim to fully understand the planet unless he can explain why the electrons in the magnetosphere undergo bonding when passing through the most solar part of the magnetosphere or why there is a counter current circulation of lithium hydroxide ions in the storm below the equator.

And so we enter into a regress that contains so much information it is impossible to understand in its entirety. A cosmologists understand the cosmos, a planetologist understands the planet, a chemist understands the chemical reactions and so on, but none of them understands everything as they are using semiotic models to explain their systems and the models are not universal like 'c, a, t'.

Science specialises into fields. Specialists in each field are specialists in understanding the semiotics of that field. They seek complete understanding of that field and believe that the system can be understood in terms of the semiotics. They will not invoke a higher power to explain their system as that is like cheating.

It is not until we remove ourselves from the local level and look at all the information in all the fields and realise that these in turn are only semiotic representations of processes that it begins to dawn on us that the big question is not answered.

The future is determined, we just can't see it yet because we are at the wrong part of time. We made the choices that determined it. Just because I am unable to see it yet does not mean it is not deterministic.

There is a paradox at work though as seeing the deterministic path before time has passed you along it may cause you to make another choice, breaking the pattern. The key to the paradox however lies in understanding that the changes you make because you saw the future were always the changes you made. It was determined that you would see your future and make the changes.

Perhaps a multiple universes interpretation would not go astray after all.

I would probably pay very close attention to free speech at the moment, particularly in cases where it becomes subversive. Expressing discontent, yes - sedition - no.

I agree with the religious freedom position, particularly the caveats.

As the colony grows the focus will change, but at the start maintaining balance in as many places as possible would be shaping a lot of the policy ideas I put forward as a Martian citizen.

I'm not using Pierce.

The idea I'm using is very straight forward. We ascribe attributes to emergent phenomenon. This is like a sign or a mask for the reality of the object - it says this is an ion channel. It doesn't describe the underlying complexity of the ion channel. Therefore there is information loss.

When we study a system at a certain level we become conversant in that system using the symbols we created to represent each part of it. When we understand how that layer works in relation to the symbols we say 'case closed, I understand'.

Of course it is not a total understanding as information has been lost in providing you with the semiotics you need to understand your emergent layer. It is only by dropping back out of this layer and considering the other layers beneath it that the full complexity of the system comes to bear.

When we are faced with such enormity of information we can no longer hold tenable the assertion that we truly understand the system we are investigating. Outside of our local understanding, when asked why a system works a certain way we enter into infinite regress or egress depending on if you are a top down or bottom up kind of thinker. Ultimately there is no answer to the why question. There is no full understanding that can be derived.

Semiotics is useful for understanding local phenomenon, but blinds us to the bigger picture. It creates a false sense of confidence in our understanding of the nature of things.

That's what I'm saying TimeLine. Make sense?

I think determinism is self evident. Even pre-determinism is self-evident. I see no conflict between that and free choice. It's a temporal problem.

At the end of time, looking back I can see the path you walked. It is determined - unless we are invoking the multiple universes theory you did afterall only walk one path right?

You created the path as you made your own choices- it was free will, but you did create the path. Thus it is about tenses. It will be determined, it was determined, it is being determined. Same thing, different time position.

As well you should be.

I don't think there's any information lost in viewing the world this way — TheMadFool

I like the way you built this argument.

You are right, there is no information lost in viewing this world this way. When I look at the word cat in a book, what I see are the letters c, a, t but when I look at an ion channel I don't see the protein sequence. It is masked behind the colorful blue diagram of a pipe.

Funny you should say that because that's what she said, so shut up before my dog eats your argument and then your mum - oops mom - because that's the way we do it Australia T Clark....base 7

Hmmm, a Bill of Rights?
The right to vote
The right to choose your own partner
The right to life
The right to be tried on Earth
The right to return to Earth
The right to choose your vocation or change your vocation
The right to serve as a representative of a council

Something along those lines?
What did you have in mind?

Of course.

Timeline/MikeL fallacy – Using the phrase “Well, that’s how we do it in Australia.” — T Clark

Why is that a logical fallacy? We don't consider it a logical fallacy in Australia.

It sounds like we're on a winner.

Does a composer pursue Truth? Or what about war? Does a great warrior pursue truth? Does a beautiful young women (or man) learning how to dress to maximize her beauty pursue truth? — t0m

Yes, yes and yes.
Music is a type of truth in which there is a mathematical order between the notes played. Get it wrong and it is discordant.
A warriors truth may be the truth about his inner fortitude or the pursuit of the truth as to whether he is the greatest warrior ever. To this end he will pit himself against strong adversaries.
A woman may be looking for the truth about her beauty. If she does everything right, does she possess it? Or she may be looking to reveal the truth about her beauty to the beau.

These are all very subjective of course.

I might have to disagree here with your definition of a selfless act.
Google defines selfless as: Selfless is the opposite of selfish. If you're selfless, you think less about your self, and more about others.

Would I step in front of a bus to save a child? Probably. We all would and it would have nothing to do with the feelings generated by doing so.

Though I doubt someone who makes movies, sculptures, plays and comedy performances would be unwelcome. If nothing else, there should at least be an event planner that creates entertainment for the masses, because ultimately people get very bored very quickly. — AlexiMicrowave

A pub might suffice. Combine that with regular breaks and enough free time that those so inclined might wish to entertain the masses, you could be on a winner. But I don't think an early colony would tolerate a slacker. I could be wrong.

Would you structure law so that Science and Discovery aren't influenced by policy besides the requirement for permits on dangerous substances and processes? — AlexiMicrowave

Again, I would suggest that it is a pooling of resources. Exclusivity in any form would not work well and would lead to conclaves that might ultimately rise against each other. There would be so much voting that people would get sick of it.

I would have a science council that would report to everybody on the direction of their endeavours of their work and the rationale behind it. There would be an engineering council, an exploration council a civil rights council etc etc. If there was a conflict between the wishes of the people and the objectives of the council it could be voted on. Anybody could submit policy proposals for different things.

From each council, one member would have to be selected to form an oversight committee whose sole purpose was to resolve conflict between the councils when resources do not permit two activities.

What do you think, do you think it would work?

someone gained pleasure or happiness by helping another would that not negate the selflessness. — The duke

It depends. For me it would make me feel good, sure. But the feeling would not cause the action. It would be a result of the action. The action would be instinctive. Thus there is no negation.

Hi Duke, welcome to the site.

I think that selflessness occurs all the time, and I don't think it is through some imperative to ensure the survival of the species. I can see someone struggling and my urge is to help them. It is that fundamental drive that helps hold society together.

To put it in other words, the checks that are done would probably only be health and previous crime. — AlexiMicrowave

I take your point. What a great idea. I love that anybody can go rather than just a few select. I might move there myself, just as soon as I get some cash. While it's a pretty impressive proposal, it's more than a bit risky. As mission organizer it would certainly gets the questions flowing.

If you want the customers to keep lining up, you want to get it right. There would have to be a lot more than health and criminal record checks. Psychological profiling, gender and age balance, workplace assignment including necessary professionals (doctors, engineers) would all have to be considered.

The first wave I imagine would have to be scientists and engineers setting up the atmospheres, main buildings and gardens etc. After that consecutive waves would have to focus on maintaining and expanding the existing infrastructure of the colony. Everyone would have to work. An artisan would not be looked upon favourably by a sewer cleaner.

If the gender imbalance was wrong there would be conflict. And the question of the viability of offspring is a big question considering the different gravity and despite the shielding, higher radiation levels would have on embryogenesis.

Certainly in that situation, upon arriving on Mars, I would want to know there is a structure in place that represents the law and would help me settle in, rather than it being a free-for-all.