These criteria seem to come from nowhere and go nowhere. I didn't ask about any of that. I asked you to imagine an experiment that could disprove determinism. And you have failed to do so. — Olivier5

And, as I keep saying, you don't to devise a particular experiment. Any experiment that fulfils those criteria would suffice. The important thing would be the measurement that is inconsistent with the presumption of determinism.

All absudities we can come up with rely for their absurdity on the contrast with the real world as we experience it. But if that world is not actually deterministic then of course a non-deterministic world looks exactly like our world. — Echarmion

Can you explain this in more detail? Why would a non-deterministic world appear like ours? Why would a non-deterministic world "appear" at all? You possess genes passed down faithfully over thousands of generations through sexual acts repeated over thousands of generations. That's not happening in a universe without that deterministic regularity. There's no reason to expect the same act to achieve the same thing billions of times over, the same useful gene to be replicated billions of times over.

But who are we asking? Ourselves. Are we an unbiased observer? There doesn't seem to be a reason to think that our brains are somehow designed to answer the question. — Echarmion

Almost certainly our brains are evolved to identify deterministic behaviour. And the overwhelmingly likely explanation for that given natural selection is that it is useful. Identifying causality in a non-deterministic world doesn't seem useful. There would be no benefit in a frog being able to predict where the fly will be in 0.5 seconds such that it can flick out its tongue in the right direction if the fly's trajectory is random. Therefore such a characteristic would not evolve. We are inclined towards determinism because the universe seems deterministic, not the other way around.

I'm not convinced you've understood me at all. The phrasing for knowability I gave above was "all relevant information". For an experiment that is insensitive to the exact position and momentum of a ball, the exact position and momentum of the ball is not relevant information. For an experiment that is sensitive to these, the initial state is not knowable, and thus the experiment is not a good test for the theory's presumed determinism, or its null hypothesis. So this is really not a useful non sequitur.

Again, in order to falsify the presumed determinism, it is necessary to consider experiments that are knowable (we have all

relevant

information), tractable (we can make sufficiently accurate predictions of expected deterministic behaviour), and unpredictable (regular behaviour is not manifest). That is required in order to discern deterministic behaviour from non-deterministic behaviour. Anything else is irrelevant.

But a universal basic income would turn off the majority of voters in the UK. And yes the scale of the reform and what is implied in its implementation would be scary for many. — Punshhh

UBI is also backed by the Glib Dems. I think that's going to be a mainstay of the progressive platform in the near future; 51% of voters support it. Thanks, Covid! The Glib Dems in 2010 were also a big reforming party.

Obviously we're both guessing, but I honestly think we'd find more support for UBI than for cancelling road investment and replacing it with public transport and cycle path investment. That shit just doesn't fly. It really should.

But effects on the micro scale do exhibit constantly changing results. — Echarmion

Agreed, but it's important to be aware of why, and not lump unknowns, intractability, and genuine non-determinism into one catch-all. Otherwise you get Olivier5's claim that randomly chucking balls about demonstrates non-determinism.

Taking a moment of perspective, everything you're doing on this site relies on your expectation of regularity. You do not seriously expect the E key on your keyboard to spit out a random character on the screen. We are all comfortable with the idea that science-driven technology manifests regularity with utmost reliability. One must measure this against claims that the Universe is fundamentally random and ask: which seems to explain my experience?

High precision is different from full precision, and you know it. Or you should know it. Perfect precision of measurement of initial conditions is impossible. So you will have to think a bit more creatively than starting with "fully known initial conditions". That's never going to happen. — Olivier5

It only has to be known to the requisite precision of the experiment. In the Galton box, this would be extremely high, but not necessarily perfect. In the case of throwing balls in the air to catch them, little precision is required.

So, 1) you propose throwing a ball as an attempt to falsify determinism, 2) I show you some balls being thrown and landing on the ground haphazardly, and 3) you say: "no no no this doesn't count". — Olivier5

Do you want to refer back to my criteria for falsification? Throwing balls haphazardly is a tractable problem, but unless you know how you're throwing them, it is not a knowable one. It is not beyond out current technology to fire a tennis ball at a precise point on a wall, for instance. Throwing them like a maniac disproves nothing.

This actually happens all the time. An outcome is predicted, the experiment is done, and the outcome is not what has been predicted. It's the basic scientific process. — Echarmion

Note:

It only takes one observation where the initial state is fully known, and where the assumption of determinism leads to a single expected outcome, and to not achieve that regularity of outcome, for that assumption of determinism to be ruled out. — Kenosha Kid

Fully known? You have any example of something that can be fully known? — Olivier5

Yes, lots of experiments have relied on initial states prepared to high precision.

Balls have been thrown up and down before, and we do seem to have difficulties predicting their trajectory. You've heard of the Galton box? — Olivier5

Yes, and that is a great example of unknowability in a chaotic system yielding unpredictable behaviour at a classical scale, but it is not shown to be an example of non-deterministic behaviour. A coin toss exemplifies the same principle. I do not know whether it will land heads or tails because I cannot personally model the flipping action. A robot would fare better. Similarly one could conceive of a version of the Galton box where the initial trajectory of the ball is precisely prepared, along with arbitrarily precise optical measurements to account for error, and one could determine the final resting place of the ball this way. The absence of such precision in preparation and measurement is why this is a problem of knowability, not determinism.

Indeed, determinism cannot be a scientific theory if it is not falsifiable. It is a matter of belief, and your belief in the matter seems quite strong. — Olivier5

Actually, we haven't touched on my beliefs yet which are a little more exotic. I'm merely criticising your belief atm.

It only takes one observation where the initial state is fully known, and where the assumption of determinism leads to a single expected outcome, and to not achieve that regularity of outcome, for that assumption of determinism to be ruled out. This could be, for instance, a new experiment that tests whether QM is Copenhagen-like or MWI-like. Or it could just be throwing a ball in the air and seeing it change trajectory mid-flight. That such non-deterministic outcomes are conceivable means that determinism can be falsified at any moment. And despite centuries of experimentation from Galileo to CERN, we've yet to see a single such event.

This does not prove determinism true, of course. Gun to my head, I'd wager on a deterministic resolution to the measurement problem, after which an assumption like Popper's that the natural universe is fundamentally non-deterministic would be quite mad.

Nothing cuts it. You cannot fathom an experiment that would help conclude one way or another on the philosophical idea of determinism. — Olivier5

That sounds like a cherished belief. It has no value in science.

The point remains that unpredictable is not an exact synonym of undetermined, and that testing the former is not testing the latter... — Olivier5

That is why there are three parts to the falsifiability criteria: knowability, tractability, unpredictability. Unpredictability alone does not cut it.

For example the three bodies problem in classic physics is I think deterministic in the sense that it can be proven (I think) that there is only one solution to the equation. However we cannot compute the solution, we don't know how to do it, and therefore the behavior of three bodies interacting through Newtonian gravity cannot be successfully predicted with the tools at our disposal. It doesn't mean it's not deterministic. — Olivier5

This is an example of something being deterministic, knowable, but intractable.

How would you go about falsifying determinism, then? — Olivier5

Do you understand what falsifiability is? That nature is deterministic can be falsified by the discovery of a phenomenon which is knowable, tractable, but at any scale unpredictable.

There is no such thing. QM are generally interpreted as indeterministic. — Olivier5

This is your problem. You are not precise with language. Quantum indeterminacy relates to knowability: we cannot, for instance, know both the position and momentum of a particle to arbitrary precision. This underpins the wavefunction description of particles.

Whether the behaviour of that wavefunction is deterministic or not is the subject of the measurement problem. If the wavefunction evolves deterministically following or during measurement, QM is a deterministic theory. This is the case in MWI, for instance. If it undergoes some collapse mechanism (Copenhagen) or other probabilistic means of producing singular measurement outcomes (e.g. transactional QM), it is non-deterministic, specifically it is probabilistic.

They are not the same thing, nor are they purely random, nor are they the same thing as stochastical indeterminacy, nor are they the same thing as complexity.

The Open Universe by Karl Popper, is a a series of arguments in favor of an indeterminist outlook in (of course) quantum mechanics but also in classical physics. It's a serious, thick, argumentative and as always crystal clear book that pretty much disposes of determinism. — Olivier5

Does it, to any greater extent than the mainstream interpretations of QM did at the time? Popper wrote prior to the widespread acceptance of deterministic interpretations of QM. He also did not understand QM well, believing that quantum events were completely unpredictable, despite the Born interpretation of the wavefunction entering QM at the level of postulate by that point.

Popper's other argument was that scientific experiment always dealt with simple phenomena, i.e. theory simplifies reality and yields predictions from them, since complex phenomena are beyond our technological capabilities. Popper of all people will have known that this is not a good scientific theory, since determinism is falsifiable while his indeterminism-of-the-gaps is non-falsifiable. Indeed, he states this as a metaphysical argument and it can be dismissed as such.

This should not be confused with non-determinism in QM. You seem to lump together:
- phenomena that, given all relevant information and the technological capability to process it, yield statistical outcomes independent of the phenomena under study (randomness):
- phenomena that, given all relevant information and the technological capability to process it, would yield statistically predictable outcomes (QM, stochastics);
- phenomena that, given all relevant information, we could not make anything more than statistical predictions (complexity);
- phenomena that we cannot have all relevant information about (statistical mechanics).

I suggest you take a look at a UK Green Party manifesto, I'm a Green voter, so I'm happy with it, myself. — Punshhh

I haven't seen the last couple, but I always used to before every election. Always voted Green locally, never at a GE though. I just skimmed their latest manifesto. What do you think is alarming? Or is it the scale of the reformist ambition, rather than individual policies?

Please do not be so harsh on Ken. — Dfpolis

I am actually Scottish by blood, so...

President Biden's first order of business should be to sign an extradition treaty with Yemen. — Relativist

:rofl: :up:

Good bye — Dfpolis

Bye, crazy lying Christian dude.

The problem in the UK is that to vote for rapid and effective action against climate change the electorate would have to vote Green. But a majority of the electorate will not vote Green because their policies, other than their green policies, are radical left policies, real socialism. The UK electorate is not ready to vote for socialism, so they can't vote for effective action on climate change, hence little change. — Punshhh

Labour under Corbyn did an okay job against Theresa May. Next to Corbyn, the Green Party are centrists. People aren't avoiding the Green Party because of their social democracy views, given that the second and third largest parties in England are also social democracy parties. They don't vote Green because they don't give a crap about the world their great grandchildren will inherit: that is far too abstract and long term for your average Brit. That, and no one's beer-bellied dad ever said "This is a Green Party house and that's the end of it."

A scientific issue that creates political discussion usually means that the topic has a) opposing economic interests at hand or b) some moral issue linked with it that has made a lobby / pressure group to act. Usually politicians don't rock the boat because science. What they are interested is in voters. — ssu

Indeed, hence the default scepticism. But ultimately I don't much give a shit whether a politician acts on scientific advice for moral reasons or for votes. The sad thing is that voteworthy policy isn't likely to include effective climate action, since a-holes aren't going to vote for the person who says you can't drive your 4x4 or have 24-hour delivery anymore because climate change. Maybe the issue is less with politicians than the a-holes who vote for them. After all, if the majority thought that climate change was a priority problem, cynical politicians would adopt climate change policy just to get elected and be judged by their effectiveness on that platform.

When you take one sentence out of context, you can twist its meaning. — Dfpolis

That isn't out of context. That's your opening untruth.

"Random" has many meanings, one of which is mindless. It should be evident to anyone who read the title ("Mind or Randomness in Evolution") that the meaning of "purely random" in the abstract is totally mindless — Dfpolis

Random does not mean, nor has ever meant, mindless. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

This is not saying that evolution is purely random as you claim I did. — Dfpolis

And yet you did claim this, in the first sentence.if you're trying to convince me that you are logically incoherent, no need. It's evident from your posts.

I explicitly quote Dawkins discussing the non-random aspect of evolution: — Dfpolis

Odd, then, to cite him here as evidence that naturalists believe evolution to be purely random. Again, no shock that your magnum opus is as schizoid as your posts.

These various “truther” movements, who think that they alone are aware of the secret truth that THEY don’t want you to know, are effectively proto-religions already. — Pfhorrest

Well, you know I have the truth, sir
While all you have is lies
Put on the special glasses
See the reality behind

You know that I'm awake, sir
While you're asleep and blind
How do I know? They told me so
In capital letters in a book I got signed

(Seven Ascended Masters)

“Panglossian falsehoods convene the crowd, discouraging truths disperse it.” ~Thomas Ligotti — 180 Proof

:up: :cry:

I dont know anybody who reasons this way. I think you're making stuff up. — frank

Forests and trees maybe.

I read the part of your paper that claimed that philosophical naturalists characterise evolution as a purely random process, which is a lie.
— Kenosha Kid

Yes you wrote a lie. You can quote nothing in my paper saying that — Dfpolis

Astonishing! You can't even cite your own paper honestly.

Philosophical naturalists claim macroevolution shows order emerging by pure chance.

The very first sentence!!!

have read Dawkins, and I stand by my claim. I said neither that evolution is entirely random, nor that Dawkins claimed that it was. If you read my paper, you would know that. — Dfpolis

I read the part of your paper that claimed that philosophical naturalists characterise evolution as a purely random process, which is a lie. And I read your response to me that claimed that Dawkins' books back up this lie, which is also a lie. So what I know for sure is that you're a charlatan. When the same charlatan explains to me that my view would change if only I read more of his charlatanry, I will take that with a pinch of salt. I don't treat backward works of fiction as sources of truth. I do get that, thanks to the brainwashing you were victim to as a child, you are obliged to though, and to that extent you have my sympathies. But you're still a charlatan.

I'd take that grain of salt when a matter comes to be the focus of politicians. Only that. — ssu

Ah. If a politician promised to follow the science, I would remain sceptical until she demonstrated it, but at least relieved they were not promising to ignore the science. Again, even in the most pessimistic situation, there are better and worse outcomes.

Best to discuss issues where politicians haven't taken the center stage. — ssu

I hope I'm reading you incorrectly, and you're not saying we should not discuss climate change on grounds that politicians cannot discuss it well.

I have read and rebutted Dawkins's nonsense — Dfpolis

This was the "nonsense" that earlier you told me to educate myself on evolution with. Now it's evident that Dawkins has repeatedly said the exact opposite of what you claimed, you're just going to dump him as a usable citation? Ha! Point still stands. You could not get one sentence into a paper without completely misrepresenting science.

It's that some well meaning person suggested we should take seriously the threat of the earth becoming like Venus. It's that someone failed to explain that "tipping point" does not mean doom. It just means we cant go back. — frank

It is very much characteristic of the [bullshit] side of the argument to conclude that, because the dangers of unconstrained fossil fuel consumption is bad, that means that the argument for climate action is bullshit. That's effectively saying that if facts make us feel bad, they aren't facts any more, which is a whacked way of reasoning.

The reason why climate change is depressing is not because people are presenting facts, or even that the occasional person exaggerates them. What is depressing is knowing that, even armed with all the facts, we can't do anything about it because the majority of us would rather believe the guys who tell us it's okay, it's a scientific hoax, and you can just keep burning oil forever with no consequences.

There is every reason to feel depressed. It is a depressing situation.

It's both sides. It's not truth vs lies. It's battle of the bullshit — frank

False equivalence. Environmental concern is overwhelmingly backed by science, that is, the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of climate action. The other "side" of this debate is that science is a hoax, that everything is fine, that all climate change is to do with natural cycles of the Earth and Sun, and that we can safely increase fossil fuel consumption. Sure, you can point to some lunatics on both sides, but to conclude from that that the whole argument is bullshit, that each side of that argument is as bad as the other, is irrational. Like Trump saying that violent white supremacists and BLM protesters are as bad as one another just because of opportunistic thuggery on both sides.

Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. It is a theory of random mutation plus non-random cumulative natural selection.
Natural selection is a non-random force, pushing towards improvement. — Richard Dawkins (Climbing Mt Improbable)

Mutation is random; natural selection is the very opposite of random.
Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators. — Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker)

What Darwin did was to discover the only known alternative to random chance which is natural selection — Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

Evolution is not just a question of adapting to an environment. It's about adapting to and competing in a constantly changing environment. The environment changes for a number of reasons, including of course the effect of life and evolution themselves on it. — Olivier5

Yes, the 'cost function' that evolution minimises is time-dependent and a function of the very genetic population it optimised. That is still an optimisation problem.

So your noise generation is random, and the algorithm with which you process it is randomly changing at all times. — Olivier5

You're still using random as a synonym for unpredictable. And it is still irrelevant to my point.

The first thing Trump said in his post-Covid address was to humbly thank the many doctors and nurses who enabled his recovery, the very doctors and nurses he believes the poor should not have access to. And half of those poor will still vote for him. :vomit:

And without it, evolution would work. I rest my case. — Olivier5

I think that was closer to my case. No one is denying that noise generation is important to solving optimisation problems. The contention isn't even whether evolution can be described as a random process, which it is not, irrespective of the importance of unpredictable (not random) noise generation.

The point here is that Dawkins & co go to great pains in many books to strenuously explain that evolution is not a random process, and yet charlatans like the OP will, with gay abandon (read: religious zeal), cite these very same people as claiming the opposite. That is my beef. By all means disagree with evolution. By all means fail to understand it. Just don't lie about it.

noise is important to practically solving numerical optimisation problems, but no one would describe it as the thing "powering" that optimisation — Kenosha Kid

In addition, the nature of the noise generation is far less important than the fact that some means or locally exploring state space exists at all.

The generation of genetic 'noise' as you say is what powers evolution. — Olivier5

It is important, but it is not the only source of characteristics variation. Nor is it especially profound. All it means is that billions of complex copying events over millions of years haven't been 100% accurate. That's the bare minimum for noise generation, and we can take that as a given. Heredition and survival advantage are what powers evolution, i.e. they are what take the current ecological solution and drive it towards a more optimised solution.

Anyone who has experience with time-dependent optimisation algorithms -- the core of my PhD, postdoctoral work and my first post-academic position -- knows that noise is important to practically solving numerical optimisation problems, but no one would describe it as the thing "powering" that optimisation. And natural selection is nothing more than a very long optimisation algorithm.

Can anyone predict the next mutation? And how this mutation will play out? — Olivier5

Unpredictable and random aren't synonyms. Nor is the generation of genetic noise as important as what is done with it, which is algorithmic, not random.

It is evidently a random process. — Olivier5

It is assuredly not.