Determinism - a scientific or a philosophical position?

[Beth Paulkey]

Which one is it? If it is a scientific theory, what is the evidence that the universe is completely deterministic? If it's a philosophical theory (which would make it a metaphysical one I suppose), what are the arguments for it?

Does any physicist today hold a strict deterministic theory?

Thank you.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Beth,

Which one is it? If it is a scientific theory, what is the evidence that the universe is completely deterministic? If it's a philosophical theory (which would make it a metaphysical one I suppose), what are the arguments for it?

Does any physicist today hold a strict deterministic theory?

That depends on what you mean by "deterministic". If you are using the mathematical definition of the term, then it is metaphysical, because no observation can distinguish between acausal determinism and non-determinism*.

Most people simply mean causality when they talk about determinism, though. Under that definition, it is a falsifiable theory, and thus scientific. Unfortunately, it has been falsified.

The Universe is not temporally causal, which is to say that there are events which are not, and cannot, be caused by the conditions prior to the event.

As for mathematical determinism as a metaphysical position, there are no logical arguments for it, or against it. So long as there is no evidence, it is blind speculation, and there is no logical reason to think it is one way or the other.

*Such a distinction is not possible according to our current understanding of the laws of physics. It is possible, at least in principle, that this could change. Future scientific theories might provide for some way to test whether the Universe is mathematically deterministic or not.

Dr. Stupid

[Soubrette]

Stimpy

Could you give me an example of an event that cannot be caused by the conditions prior to the event?

Thanks :)

Sou

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Sou,

Could you give me an example of an event that cannot be caused by the conditions prior to the event?

Sure, the decay of a neutron into a proton.

It has been empirically verified that quantum event (like nuclear decay) cannot be described in terms of deterministic local variables. This means that either they are random, or they can be described in terms of non-local deterministic variables.

If the latter is the case, then they cannot be caused by prior conditions. If they are caused by anything at all, there will be inertial frames in which the effect precedes the cause (due to special relativity).

Dr. Stupid

[Soubrette]

Thanks Stimpy :)

And apologies for lowering the tone of this thread but what's the difference between a local determinic variable and a non-local one?

Sou

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Sou,

And apologies for lowering the tone of this thread but what's the difference between a local determinic variable and a non-local one?

Local is defined in terms of special relativity. A local variables scenario is one in which all observable phenomena are functions of some set of underlying deterministic quantities which obey special relativity. That means that an event at point A can only affect something at point B after a period of time has elapsed, equal to the time required for light to travel that distance.

In different inertial frames, distances and elapsed time periods change. But even so, if the system is "local" in one inertial frame, it will be local in all inertial frames. Under such a scenario, special relativity is obeyed, and causality makes sense.

In a non-local scenario, an event at point A can affect something at point B before that minimal time has elapsed. This means that in some inertial frames, an event at A could actually affect something at point B before it even happened. In other words, causality goes out the window.

Incidentally, this is also why faster than light travel would make travel backwards in time possible.

Dr. Stupid

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

Sou:

Could you give me an example of an event that cannot be caused by the conditions prior to the event?


Sure, the decay of a neutron into a proton.

It has been empirically verified that quantum event (like nuclear decay) cannot be described in terms of deterministic local variables.
Although we might also add "according to current understanding & theory". Of course science may eventually better describe the TOE (what-is) that is Truth and if so, who knows. Tachyons, gravitons, what the heck!

Re non-locality
If they are caused by anything at all, there will be inertial frames in which the effect precedes the cause (due to special relativity).
At least the science will still be ok since the correlation will still be there.... ;)

[Stimpson J. Cat]

hammegk,

It has been empirically verified that quantum event (like nuclear decay) cannot be described in terms of deterministic local variables.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although we might also add "according to current understanding & theory". Of course science may eventually better describe the TOE (what-is) that is Truth and if so, who knows. Tachyons, gravitons, what the heck!

No. I have no doubt that our scientific theories will continue to change over time, but any new theories must still be consistent with what we have already observed. Special Relativity isn't just a theory, it is an observed phenomena. Non-locality [i]implies[/b] acausality. It is that simple.

If they are caused by anything at all, there will be inertial frames in which the effect precedes the cause (due to special relativity).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At least the science will still be ok since the correlation will still be there....

What correlation? The lack of correlations is exactly why we do not assume that there is a deterministic process at work, non-local or otherwise.

Dr. Stupid

[Jeff Corey]

At the micro level, as I understand that quantum effects are possibly indeterminant, at least so far. But at the macro level, causality, and hence, determinism, has had robust confirmation. The only quibbling about that has dealt with human behavior. Free willy, and all that.
So, without further adieu, how about it agin?
Is our behaviour determined or could I have spelt behavior correctly?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat


What correlation? The lack of correlations is exactly why we do not assume that there is a deterministic process at work, non-local or otherwise.



Well, I thought it was funny. Past-future, cause-effect, which comes first, reference frames, and yet, viola! Correlation!. :p

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
At the micro level, as I understand that quantum effects are possibly indeterminant, at least so far. But at the macro level, causality, and hence, determinism, has had robust confirmation. The only quibbling about that has dealt with human behavior. Free willy, and all that.
So, without further adieu, how about it agin?
Is our behaviour determined or could I have spelt behavior correctly?


This would be my understanding as well, and it would seem to me that the only reason anybody would care would be because of philisophical positions.

Why would causality seem to rule at marco levels which would seem to be ruled by the level lower down? Because of probability, and the enourmous amount of interactions at the basal level of reality, whatever that might be.

And how could you tell an extremly complex system from a totaly random (or somewhat random one) if you didn't know exactly how it worked? I see no way to ascertain whether the universe is at heart random or ordered, and since there is not enough evidence either way (at the universe's basal level), it would seem a position either way is philisophical rather than scientific.

[Tez]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
At the micro level, as I understand that quantum effects are possibly indeterminant, at least so far. But at the macro level, causality, and hence, determinism, has had robust confirmation. The only quibbling about that has dealt with human behavior. Free willy, and all that.
So, without further adieu, how about it agin?
Is our behaviour determined or could I have spelt behavior correctly?

Well Jeff, to quibble with your quibble, I disagree that at the macro level (local) causality has had robust confirmation. For a start, one can only claim that it has had confirmation only over time periods short enough and measurements coarse grained enough that the nonlinear (chaos theory) amplification of our (quantum theory) indeterminedness becomes irrelevant. Secondly, how big is macro? Does a superconducting current in a SQUID which is several millimetres (fractions of an inch :p) count as micro??

Basically we can only say that determinism works as an approximation under certain physical conditions we understand reasonably well. This is hardly going to allow us to probe very deeply into the problem...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tez


..... I disagree that at the macro level (local) causality has had robust confirmation. For a start, one can only claim that it has had confirmation only over time periods short enough and measurements coarse grained enough that the nonlinear (chaos theory) amplification of our (quantum theory) indeterminedness becomes relevant.
Shouldn't that be "irrelevant"?


Secondly, how big is macro? Does a superconducting current in a SQUID which is several millimetres (fractions of an inch :p) count as micro??
Isn't superconductivity "deterministic", in that set the conditions correctly and, yup, it superconducts? (BTW, a small fraction of a millimeter sounds plenty macro to me.)

[Tez]

Originally posted by hammegk

Shouldn't that be "irrelevant"?


yep - thanks.

[B}
Isn't superconductivity "deterministic", in that set the conditions correctly and, yup, it superconducts? (BTW, a small fraction of a millimeter sounds plenty macro to me.) [/B]

Well squids are the superconducting equivalent of the two-slit interferometer which is usually used as a paradigm example of quantum indeterminism. But of course thats only true if you do the single particle versions, so in fact youre right. I guess one has to do an experiment where the squid current is measured in such a way that it causes a non-deterministic collapse, which at the moment I cant really see how to do as something thats convincingly "macroscopic". So I'll concede that point...

[sorgoth]

Wait wait............................

Effect before Cause? ...Explain, please.

[Dymanic]

I'm going to challenge the central premise of the OP, and offer this quote by Daniel Dennett (the philosopher):

Scientists sometimes decieve themselves into thinking
that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations
or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective
triumphs of science, and that they themselves are
immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their
lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as
philosophy-free science; there is only science whose
philosophical baggage is taken on board without
examination.

Determinism (and its opposite) is pure philosophy.


----
The Universe is not temporally causal, which is to say that there are events which are not, and cannot, be caused by the conditions prior to the event.
----


List 17 such events.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

The Universe is not temporally causal, which is to say that there are events which are not, and cannot, be caused by the conditions prior to the event.
----

List 17 such events.

Is that supposed to be a joke? :confused:

Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Beth Paulkey
Which one is it? If it is a scientific theory, what is the evidence that the universe is completely deterministic? If it's a philosophical theory (which would make it a metaphysical one I suppose), what are the arguments for it?

Does any physicist today hold a strict deterministic theory?

Thank you.

No physicists are determinists. But that's not important or interesting. The real question you should be asking is whether the idea that all change in the world can be described by physical laws is a scientific or philosophical one. If all change in the world can be described by physical laws, then that contradicts libertarian free will as all our behaviour follows physical laws and we do not have the freedom to break out of such physical laws.

Obviously the question of whether all change in the world can be described by physical laws is a philosophical one.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Obviously the question of whether all change in the world can be described by physical laws is a philosophical one.

How so? If there is anything in the world that cannot be described by physical laws, then all you would have to do to falsify the hypothesis that all change in the world can be described by physical laws, would be to observe such a thing.

That means that the hypothesis that all change in the world can be described by physical laws, is a falsifiable hypothesis. That makes it a scientific question.

Of course, you could always argue that there are some non-observable things that exist, but which cannot be described by physical laws, but this is irrelevant. I could say the same about any scientific theory. You can always postulate that a hypothesis is false, but in such a way that it could never be demonstrated to be false. So what?

Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously the question of whether all change in the world can be described by physical laws is a philosophical one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How so? If there is anything in the world that cannot be described by physical laws, then all you would have to do to falsify the hypothesis that all change in the world can be described by physical laws, would be to observe such a thing.


No you need to verify the hypothesis. Since this will be extremely difficult to do it is consequently a philosophical issue.

[Soapy Sam]

Stimpy- what follows is ignorant speculation at best and may be simple meaningless wordplay, but I would welcome comment from those who seem to have a firmer grasp of theory.
If in addition to the 3 known spatial dimensions and the one temporal one, (chronic one??), it turns out that there "really" are another handful of dimensions; if one of those scrunched up dimensions has a temporal component; then (it seems to me) that there may be more than one kind of "before" and "after" - just as there are more than two ways to approach a point in space.

Could Einstein's "hidden variables" lurk in such a dimension, generating deterministic causality in quantum events which appear from our viewpoint to be temporally acausal?

What do you think?

I repeat , I am playing with words here. I would not begin to know how to express the question mathematically. I see nothing inconsistent in the grammar of the question, but I accept that says nothing about the physics.

nb. As these extra dimensions are physically tiny, perhaps only quantum scale events can "occur" therein?

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Whodini,
Is that supposed to be a joke? :confused:
Dr. Stupid


Well you mentioned one event. Are there others?

[Underemployed]

It is amazing that we can observe an event - a neutron decaying into a proton, say - and triumphantly conclude that since we don't know why it did it, it must be random. Or something else.

Obviously there is a reason why the neutron decayed at that precise moment. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Pedantic metaphysical arguments will not tell us why - but on the other hand, vastly expensive research projects haven't got very far, either...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Underemployed
It is amazing that we can observe an event - a neutron decaying into a proton, say - and triumphantly conclude that since we don't know why it did it, it must be random. Or something else.

Obviously there is a reason why the neutron decayed at that precise moment.

Why?

[Soapy Sam]

This is where we move back into epistemiology / philosophy. What is the difference between reason and cause. Does an event have to have an ultimate cause.
Ultimately the reason something happens is because the universe said that it must. The question is why and how does it do that?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why?

Science doesn't currently provide the answer, but do you wish to argue the decay to be "random"?

[rwald]

Well, the two possible answers are "random" or "non-local hiden variables." Take your pick.

[hammegk]

I vaguely recall some research that implied the act of "beginning to observe" a specific radioactive atom in effect resets the half-life clock for that atom.

Stop observing, start again, and each time half-life is then measureable from the new t-zero. Has this been debunked?

What did you say a "hidden variable" might be? And as Soapy asked, is something in Dim 10 local, or non-local?

[rwald]

"Non-local" in that it's outside of the event's past light cone.

And I've never head of this "resetting the half-life clock" idea. So I can't comment on it.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

How so? If there is anything in the world that cannot be described by physical laws, then all you would have to do to falsify the hypothesis that all change in the world can be described by physical laws, would be to observe such a thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No you need to verify the hypothesis. Since this will be extremely difficult to do it is consequently a philosophical issue.

Only falsifiable theories can be verified. They are verified by attempting, and failing, to falsify them. The difficulty of such verification is irrelevant. As long as it is, at least in principle, falsifiable, it is a scientific issue.


Soapy Sam,

Stimpy- what follows is ignorant speculation at best and may be simple meaningless wordplay, but I would welcome comment from those who seem to have a firmer grasp of theory.
If in addition to the 3 known spatial dimensions and the one temporal one, (chronic one??), it turns out that there "really" are another handful of dimensions; if one of those scrunched up dimensions has a temporal component; then (it seems to me) that there may be more than one kind of "before" and "after" - just as there are more than two ways to approach a point in space.

Three points.

1) These "extra dimensions" are posited by string theory, as well as by some other theories that attempt to unify QM with GR. They have not yet been demonstrated to exist.

2) A dimension does not have a "temporal component". A dimension is either "spacelike", or "timelike", depending on its geometry.

3) The conception of "spacelike" and "timelike" dimensions is a classical one, specifically deriving from the formalism of General Relativity. At the Plank scale, this formalism is not applicable. The "extra dimensions" that are posited by string theory are assumed to be scrunched down to that scale. It is therefore simply not meaningful to talk about them being "spacelike" or "timelike".

Could Einstein's "hidden variables" lurk in such a dimension, generating deterministic causality in quantum events which appear from our viewpoint to be temporally acausal?

What do you think?

I don't see how. Even if we were to imagine a second "temporal dimension", the very existence of such a dimension would render temporal causality meaningless.

Einstein posited the existence of local deterministic hidden variables. That hypothesis has been falsified. I do not think that Einstein would have been any happier with hidden variables that violate causality (nonlocal ones) than with nondeterminism. Unfortunately, I have no way of asking him.


Whodini,

Whodini,
Is that supposed to be a joke?
Dr. Stupid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well you mentioned one event. Are there others?

I mentioned an entire class of events.

It has been empirically verified that quantum event (like nuclear decay) cannot be described in terms of deterministic local variables. This means that either they are random, or they can be described in terms of non-local deterministic variables.

In fact, this class makes up all the events in the physical World. Causality is an emergent phenomena. At the fundamental level, none of the original quantum events that make up macroscopic (causal) events, are causal.


Underemployed,

It is amazing that we can observe an event - a neutron decaying into a proton, say - and triumphantly conclude that since we don't know why it did it, it must be random. Or something else.

We don't. We just don't conclude that it wasn't random either. We don't know. But until such time as a deterministic explanation is found, our description of the event must be made in terms of randomness.

Obviously there is a reason why the neutron decayed at that precise moment. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Pedantic metaphysical arguments will not tell us why - but on the other hand, vastly expensive research projects haven't got very far, either...

Is it really obvious? If so, then it should be possible to logically prove that there must be a reason. If you (or anyone else) could do this, I am sure it would be worth a Nobel Prize. But it isn't really obvious. It may be intuitively obvious, but intuition is unreliable. All sorts of intuitively obvious things have been demonstrated to be wrong.


hammegk,

I vaguely recall some research that implied the act of "beginning to observe" a specific radioactive atom in effect resets the half-life clock for that atom.

Stop observing, start again, and each time half-life is then measureable from the new t-zero. Has this been debunked?

This is nothing specific to QM. It is a property of Poisson distributions. Look at it this way. Imagine time is discrete. In such a unit of time, a decay has a probability 'p' of happening. This will result in a "half life". Furthermore, it is clear that the average time you will have to wait for the decay to happen will be the same, no matter when you start waiting for it.

Nothing is being "reset". That idea stems from the preconceived notion that the decay is somehow "predetermined".

Dr. Stupid

[Q-Source]

Stimpson,

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

The Universe is not temporally causal, which is to say that there are events which are not, and cannot, be caused by the conditions prior to the event.



Is this a fact or it is speculation?

At the fundamental level, none of the original quantum events that make up macroscopic (causal) events, are causal.

None are causal? :eek:

I know that you have explained this before, but I cannot find the thread where you talked about. So, my very specific question is this: are there events intrinsically random such that even if you are God (you have all the info) you cannot determine the behaviour of such event?.

Thanks

Q-S

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Q-Source,

The Universe is not temporally causal, which is to say that there are events which are not, and cannot, be caused by the conditions prior to the event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this a fact or it is speculation?

It has been empirically verified.

At the fundamental level, none of the original quantum events that make up macroscopic (causal) events, are causal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None are causal?

I know that you have explained this before, but I cannot find the thread where you talked about. So, my very specific question is this: are there events intrinsically random such that even if you are God (you have all the info) you cannot determine the behaviour of such event?.

That is determinism, not causality. Causality is a specific type of determinism. Specifically, a deterministic system is causal if its state at any time is completely determined by prior states.

General determinism is not falsifiable, because you can always invent additional "hidden" variables that account for any observed phenomenon.

It is somewhat analogous to a problem is chaos theory. If you have a finite time series, it is not possible to determine whether it was generated by a random process, or by a deterministic chaotic process of sufficient complexity. The more data you have, the more complex the system the data was taken from would have to be, in order for the data to be indistinguishable from a random process, but for any finite data set, the required complexity is also finite.

Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How so? If there is anything in the world that cannot be described by physical laws, then all you would have to do to falsify the hypothesis that all change in the world can be described by physical laws, would be to observe such a thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No you need to verify the hypothesis. Since this will be extremely difficult to do it is consequently a philosophical issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Only falsifiable theories can be verified.



They cannot be verified. The reason why the falsifiability criteria was introduced in the first place was due to the recognition that scientific theories cannot be verified but only ever falsified (although arguably scientific theories cannot be falsified either).

Besides your argument is viciously circular. What you are effectively doing is presupposing that "determinism" (in its appropriately modified sense) is true, and challenging people to prove it is not true by falsifying it.

Now note that I am not saying there is anything wrong with presupposing it is true. It is a basic presupposition of science. But that's all it is, a presupposition. The thesis itself, being a presupposition of science, is metaphysical by definition. Hence it is a philosophical issue.



They are verified by attempting, and failing, to falsify them.


No, failure to falsify doesn't mean the same thing as verify. You misunderstand the nature of science in any case. All scientific theories in the past ever proposed have eventually been falsified. Thus by induction it might be reasonable to suppose that all our present and future theories will eventually be falsified. In other words none of our scientific theories depict reality as it really is. Thus if "determinism" is a scientific theory then if follows that "determinism" is false. Are you sure you want to go down this path? ;)

[Beth Paulkey]

Such an outpouring of responses. Thank you all.
I would like to expand on my original questions but stay relatively concrete - let me know if I go too far astray. I'm mostly interested in the idea of determinism at the macro level I guess you'd say - rather than the quantum.

It doesn't appear that we can know the exact dimensions of everyday objects like vegetables and building materials (weighs exactly .5 kilograms, is exactly 10 cm long), one reason why cooking fails and buildings fall down. All you can do is specify your requirements within some tolerances - try a box of finishing nails from some manufacturer and look at the small variations. Maybe at the nano-machine level you can get super-thin circuits and know that they're exactly 15 atoms wide, but you can't build a house from those components yet.

Or, take the sun, which has like 99.9% of the mass of the solar system. If you can't predict the exact behavior of the sun from instant to instant, how can you hope to have a deterministic earth? (sorry, that probably gets into Quantum theory - I'm rambling).

You have an event - say a bowler rolls a strike. Can you ever hope to enumerate all the causes of that particular strike? If determinism is correct, wouldn't everything in the bowler's universe (that light-cone thing) contribute to the final outcome? And once the ball has hit the pins, all that information - the effects - is now part of the universe.

So, no event can be repeated exactly enough for anyone to say "the same causes always produce exactly the same effects" because the same causes never happen. The causes are always different.

If you say "given all the knowledge of the conditions I can predict the results correctly every time", you can explain your failures by saying "the conditions were different this time". But you don't know that until afterward.

If that's the case, I don't see how macro-determinism can ever be proven or disproven, nor how it can be effectively applied to understand our world.

I believe that laboratory experiments just control as closely as possible their conditions, so that they can be repeated or varied at the will of the experimenter, but that no one claims to be able to set up the same experiment exactly the same way every time.

Please help me pick this apart - I know it's not terribly coherent.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Stimpson,



Is this a fact or it is speculation?



None are causal? :eek:

I know that you have explained this before, but I cannot find the thread where you talked about. So, my very specific question is this: are there events intrinsically random such that even if you are God (you have all the info) you cannot determine the behaviour of such event?.

Thanks

Q-S

He argues about causality and acausality in this thread here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10084&perpage=40&highlight=acausal&pagenumber=2) Don't know if your question is addressed there. Interesting in that thread he claims that "Technically speaking, nothing is truly causal". That claim is reproduced in The One called Neo's sig :)

[Interesting Ian]

Just spotted your response to Q Source. Now I said:


II
Besides your argument is viciously circular. What you are effectively doing is presupposing that "determinism" (in its appropriately modified sense) is true, and challenging people to prove it is not true by falsifying it.


But in your response to Q Source you said:


Stimpy

General determinism is not falsifiable, because you can always invent additional "hidden" variables that account for any observed phenomenon.



Exactly! Straight out of the horse's mouth! Er . . .if that's the right expression! Yet another reason to challenge the idea that the thesis of "determinism" can be supposed to be a scientific one.

[Beth Paulkey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Interesting in that thread he claims that "Technically speaking, nothing is truly causal".
I keep waiting to hear about the discovery of that elusive fifth force, the one called "causation" - I used to think it would be something like gravity or electromagnetism, but I'm more and more inclined to believe it's just a catch-all for "it looks to me like A had something to do with the later occurrence of B".

What would we call the quantum of causation? The "becausatron"?

Edited for the codes.... the codes (homage to Dr. X)

Originally posted by Beth Paulkey

I keep waiting to hear about the discovery of that elusive fifth force, the one called "causation" - I used to think it would be something like gravity or electromagnetism, but I'm more and more inclined to believe it's just a catch-all for "it looks to me like A had something to do with the later occurrence of B".

What would we call the quantum of causation? The "becausatron"?

Gee, and I was sooooo convinced that you just started this thread to ask a question and get answers. And now, if I didn't know better, I'd swear you just wanted to rail against science.

Let's agree with this preposterous crap for a second. A wields a gun, pulls the trigger, a bullet flies and strikes B. A wound suddenly appears in B, shortly followed by blood flowing, B falling down and ceasing to breathe.

Causation?

Different A and B. B is now a female. B starts feeling frisky and jumps A's bones. B begins to swell over the next several months. Nine months after B is feeling frisky, C pops out.

Causation?

No, my friends, no. The magical cosmic muffin did it! There is no truth! No reality! It is all a muffin-driven illusion. To your talismans! Ho! Throw off your clothes, paint your bodies and worship the muffin.

Don't forget to add some butter.

Oh, wait, that can't make it taste better, can it? After all, there isn't any causation.

Cheers,

[Beth Paulkey]

Sorry Bill - I neglected to insert the sarcasm-on and sarcasm-off indicator in that last couple of sentences.

That better?

Next time I will be sure to rail in a more unambiguous fashion.

Cheers back.

The quantum of idiocy: the moronotron.

[Beth Paulkey]

No, the quantum soon-to-be called the sarcasmatron. Chill Bill.

When Dr. Stupid returns perhaps he can supply the appropriate context for the "strictly speaking nothing is causal" statement. You'd agree that it's subject to some odd interpretations?

Originally posted by Beth Paulkey
No, the quantum soon-to-be called the sarcasmatron. Chill Bill.

No, Paul, I won't. You are spouting nonsense once again. You have a problem with "causation?" then dispense with the legal system. Tear up your bible, too. The concept is that basic to both the universe and the social, moral and legal constructs that bind our society.

Cheers,

[Beth Paulkey]

Well, no. I would like to understand Dr. Stupid's statement. Can you help me out or not?

Just pretend I'm being serious for a minute.

By the way, I'm not Paul. What the heck would he be posting in science for anyway?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

They cannot be verified. The reason why the falsifiability criteria was introduced in the first place was due to the recognition that scientific theories cannot be verified but only ever falsified

You obviously mean something different by "verify" than I do. The above is not limited to scientific theories, though. It applies to any claim that is not purely abstract/mathematical.

(although arguably scientific theories cannot be falsified either).

Simply not true. This is a strawman position that blatantly ignores the fact that scientific theories are not allowed to be ad-hoc. The old argument that any theory can be "kept alive" by introducing new assumptions, ignores the fact that doing so violates Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor requires that the theory only make claims that are logically necessary to imply the testable predictions made by the theory. This means that if the theory's predictions are shown to be wrong, then this directly implies that at least one of the claims of the theory are wrong. The theory is thus falsified.

You can, of course, create a new theory that is similar to the original one, but it must be a new theory. You cannot simply add more assumptions. You must change some of the assumptions the original theory made.

incidentally, this is exactly the problem with "nonlocal hidden variables" hypotheses. They attempt to "save" determinism by introducing ad-hoc explanations for our observations. The fact that they are able to do so is a direct indication that determinism is not a scientific theory. If it were, no such add-hoc explanations would be possible. This is the problem with metaphysics in general. You just keep adding one add-hoc hypothesis after the other, continuously increasing the complexity of the "explanation", without every actually providing any real explanatory power.

Besides your argument is viciously circular. What you are effectively doing is presupposing that "determinism" (in its appropriately modified sense) is true, and challenging people to prove it is not true by falsifying it.

I am not a determinist, nor do I consider determinism to be a scientific hypothesis, nor do I assume it is true.

Now note that I am not saying there is anything wrong with presupposing it is true. It is a basic presupposition of science. But that's all it is, a presupposition. The thesis itself, being a presupposition of science, is metaphysical by definition. Hence it is a philosophical issue.

It is not a presupposition of science.

They are verified by attempting, and failing, to falsify them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, failure to falsify doesn't mean the same thing as verify.

Who appointed you as the defender of the word "verify"? The above is exactly what is meant by it in the scientific context.

You misunderstand the nature of science in any case. All scientific theories in the past ever proposed have eventually been falsified.

Not true. Many theories have been falsified, but most of them have not. Of course, many of the scientific theories that play a huge role in our lives are ones we all take for granted, and often don't even think of as scientific theories. For example, the theory that eating food will satisfy your hunger, or that drinking water will quench your thirst, or that cutting yourself will cause pain.

Of course, all of these things are very intuitive for us. They are "common sense". But often times such common sense is wrong. It is the scientific method which allows us to conclude these things through [i]reason[/b], instead of intuition.

Thus by induction it might be reasonable to suppose that all our present and future theories will eventually be falsified.

Also obviously not true.

In other words none of our scientific theories depict reality as it really is.

Nor are they intended to. They are intended to provide an accurate model of reality.

Thus if "determinism" is a scientific theory then if follows that "determinism" is false. Are you sure you want to go down this path?

I am not a determinist. Anyway, your above conclusion is wrong. For one thing, the hypothesis of Naturalism is one scientific theory that has never been falsified. So much for the first premise of your above line of reasoning. :rolleyes:


Dr. Stupid

Originally posted by Beth Paulkey
Well, no. I would like to understand Dr. Stupid's statement. Can you help me out or not?

Just pretend I'm being serious for a minute.

By the way, I'm not Paul. What the heck would he be posting in science for anyway?

Moronotron,

You have no interest in understanding. I have no interest in who you are. Stimpy's statement was very clear, but you are just one of those here who think there is an unjustified metaphysical assumption afoot in science. There isn't. We have had endless theads discussing this, and yet we just keep hearing the same, tired old drone.


Cheers,

[Beth Paulkey]

For heaven's sake, Bill, I'll leave, but haven't you been channelling a bit too much Franko these days?

Where have we discussed anything before? Never mind....

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Beth,

Well, no. I would like to understand Dr. Stupid's statement. Can you help me out or not?

The statement "Strictly speaking, nothing is causal" is meant in the same way is "strictly speaking, energy is not conserved". At the most fundamental level, many of the physical laws we take for granted do not apply.

Conservation of momentum and energy are things that happen "on average", but do not apply to fundamental particles.

Likewise, causality is something that happens "on average". Take your computer, for example. Surely that is a system that is based entirely on the principle of causality? And yet the most basic components of it, the transistor, rely on acausal quantum events, namely electrons crossing a potential threshold. Each of those events is acausal. Nothing "causes" any particular electron to cross the threshold at any particular time. But on average, the resulting behavior is very predictable, and very much a causal process.

Of course, you don't need QM to understand this phenomena. Just look at a gambling casino. The individual transactions are all games of chance, but the overall cash flow through the casino is not very random at all. The amount of money they make in any given month can very reliably be calculated in terms of the rules of the games they provide, and the number of people who play.

Dr. Stupid

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
The statement "Strictly speaking, nothing is causal" is meant in the same way is "strictly speaking, energy is not conserved". At the most fundamental level, many of the physical laws we take for granted do not apply.

Stimpy,

Strictly speaking, aren't you wasting your time and effort with this one? He's only in it for the preaching...

Cheers,

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Beth Paulkey
No, the quantum soon-to-be called the sarcasmatron. Chill Bill.

When Dr. Stupid returns perhaps he can supply the appropriate context for the "strictly speaking nothing is causal" statement. You'd agree that it's subject to some odd interpretations?

I think I know what he means. Certain events in the microscopic realm only have a probabilistic chance of occurring, be that 10%, 50%, or 90% or whatever. This is true innate randomness we're talking about here. Now Stimpy asserts that if there is only a probabilistic chance of an event occurring, but the event nevertheless occurs, then that event is "acausal".

Now the inherent randomness in the microscopic realm carries over to the macroscopic realm. Although the probability in the macroscopic realm of an event occurring, given the appropriate anticedent conditions, is so close to 100% as to make no difference, technically the probability of that event occurring is ever so slightly below 100%. Therefore all events are technically "acausal".

Of course I do not agree with his definition of "acausal". To me an event is acausal if it arose spontaneously with no anticedent conditions which would allow us to predict that event, either with certitude or probabilistically.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


No, Paul, I won't. You are spouting nonsense once again. You have a problem with "causation?" then dispense with the legal system. Tear up your bible, too. The concept is that basic to both the universe and the social, moral and legal constructs that bind our society.

Cheers,

What are you babbling on about Bill?? We're talking about physical causation here. And her name is Beth.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Beth Paulkey
For heaven's sake, Bill, I'll leave, but haven't you been channelling a bit too much Franko these days?

Where have we discussed anything before? Never mind....

For God's sake don't go because of BillHoyt! The guys just a complete ********. I've hardly read anything of Paul Bethkey but it seems to me you're clearly not him. The fact that he thinks you are him illustrates BillHoyts stupidity possibly even more effectively than even anything I could convey. Just tell BillHoyt to f*ck off.

[Q-Source]

Thank you Stimpson for the answer :)

And thank you Ian for the link ;)

I am going to read it tonight. I still have a lot of questions.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

The statement "Strictly speaking, nothing is causal" is meant in the same way is "strictly speaking, energy is not conserved". At the most fundamental level, many of the physical laws we take for granted do not apply.

Conservation of momentum and energy are things that happen "on average", but do not apply to fundamental particles.


We've whacked this horse a few times too.

And I'd say you are being ingenuous with the "energy not conserved" thought. If you look at the "entangled system" of the fundamental particle's surroundings is energy not conserved?

Also -- using your own recent definition -- what would you say actually occurs "randomly"? Is "probable" random or deterministic? I say -- deterministic.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

hammegk,

And I'd say you are being ingenuous with the "energy not conserved" thought. If you look at the "entangled system" of the fundamental particle's surroundings is energy not conserved?

No.

Also -- using your own recent definition -- what would you say actually occurs "randomly"? Is "probable" random or deterministic? I say -- deterministic.

We don't know whether anything is really random, or if it is really deterministic, but acausal and indistinguishable from random. In general use, I refer to things which are acausal as random, because it is simpler than saying "possibly random, but also possibly deterministic but acausal and thus indistinguishable from random".

Besides, the distinction between "random" and "acausal" is only really meaningful for abstract systems. When it comes to reality, the fact that they are indistinguishable renders the semantic distinction meaningless.

Dr. Stupid

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What are you babbling on about Bill?? We're talking about physical causation here. And her name is Beth.

Do you think about things before you spout off? First, I direct you to Beth's first few posts. You will see the connection between Paul Bethke and Beth Paulkey. Oh, wait, that would be evidence, wouldn't it, and Ian doesn't do evidence.

Second, trace the bullet example backwards in time and explain to me when it shifted from physical to non-physical.

Cheers,

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
hammegk,

No.
Umm, ok. We do agree that on average energy is conserved.

Now, how do we go from "average & conservation" to some other state? It may be the time dimension that is troubling me here over your "no".


We don't know whether anything is really random, or if it is really deterministic, but acausal and indistinguishable from random. In general use, I refer to things which are acausal as random, because it is simpler than saying "possibly random, but also possibly deterministic but acausal and thus indistinguishable from random".

Besides, the distinction between "random" and "acausal" is only really meaningful for abstract systems. When it comes to reality, the fact that they are indistinguishable renders the semantic distinction meaningless.

Dr. Stupid
At least your semantics sit up & beg on cue. :D

[Jeff Corey]

As an experimental psychologist, I make some assumptions about behavior.
It is caused.
The causes are potentially knowable.
The experimental method is a good idea if you want to demonstrate functional relationships between independent variables and dependent variables.
If you have a replicable functional relationship as described above, you're about as close to causality as yer ever gonna get.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Hammegk,

Now, how do we go from "average & conservation" to some other state? It may be the time dimension that is troubling me here over your "no".

I don't understand the question.

Dr. Stupid

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
We don't know whether anything is really random, or if it is really deterministic, but acausal and indistinguishable from random. In general use, I refer to things which are acausal as random, because it is simpler than saying "possibly random, but also possibly deterministic but acausal and thus indistinguishable from random".


Stimpson,

My previous question was referred to this point. I mean, we should distinguish whether or not something IS really random from whether or not it seems to be random or acausal.

You said before that:

The Universe is not temporally causal, which is to say that there are events which are not, and cannot, be caused by the conditions prior to the event.

Here you imply that events CANNOT be caused by prior conditions.

Later, you wrote otherwise regarding Underemployment's post. There he said that Science declares randomness when in fact this is so because we don't know how random events really behave.

We don't. We just don't conclude that it wasn't random either. We don't know. But until such time as a deterministic explanation is found, our description of the event must be made in terms of randomness.

Apologies if I seem to be a little bit bitchy, but I cannot get rid of this doubt. When it seems that you have already answered my question, then you come with comments like this one which brings again doubts to my head.

Do you think that a deterministic explanation may exist? Could you elaborate?

Q-S

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Q-Source,

My previous question was referred to this point. I mean, we should distinguish whether or not something IS really random from whether or not it seems to be random or acausal.

You said before that:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Universe is not temporally causal, which is to say that there are events which are not, and cannot, be caused by the conditions prior to the event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here you imply that events CANNOT be caused by prior conditions.

Later, you wrote otherwise regarding Underemployment's post. There he said that Science declares randomness when in fact this is so because we don't know how random events really behave.

Random = non-deterministic.

Deterministic <> Causal.

Causality is a type of determinism. We know that there are acausal events. We do not know, nor do we have any way of knowing, whether they are truly nondeterministic (random), or acausal but still deterministic.

From a mathematical point of view, there is a distinction between acausal and random. From a practical point of view, the distinction is meaningless.

We don't. We just don't conclude that it wasn't random either. We don't know. But until such time as a deterministic explanation is found, our description of the event must be made in terms of randomness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apologies if I seem to be a little bit bitchy, but I cannot get rid of this doubt. When it seems that you have already answered my question, then you come with comments like this one which brings again doubts to my head.

Do you think that a deterministic explanation may exist? Could you elaborate?

No, I don't. But I do not claim to understand the mathematics involved well enough to say for certain whether such an explanation is, in principle, impossible, or whether we are just unable to conceive of how such an explanation could be possible.

The point is that a causal explanation is impossible, and that until somebody comes up with a deterministic acausal one, we have no choice but to describe these phenomena in terms of random processes. And if a deterministic one truly is impossible, then it is meaningless to distinguish between an acausal but deterministic model, and a random one.

Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
[B]

Do you think about things before you spout off? First, I direct you to Beth's first few posts. You will see the connection between Paul Bethke and Beth Paulkey.



No I don't see any connection.




Oh, wait, that would be evidence, wouldn't it, and Ian doesn't do evidence.



What evidence is there that Beth Paulkey is one and the same person as Paul Bethkey? You can tell she's a girl from the way she writes anyway.



Second, trace the bullet example backwards in time and explain to me when it shifted from physical to non-physical.



What bullet example?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They cannot be verified. The reason why the falsifiability criteria was introduced in the first place was due to the recognition that scientific theories cannot be verified but only ever falsified
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You obviously mean something different by "verify" than I do.



I mean the same as everyone else in the world means by it, oh, apart from you apparently. Namely to establish something as being true.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(although arguably scientific theories cannot be falsified either).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Simply not true.



Your change of the subject is noted.

And as always you are wrong. Auxiliary hypotheses can always be introduced to save a theory.




This is a strawman position that blatantly ignores the fact that scientific theories are not allowed to be ad-hoc. The old argument that any theory can be "kept alive" by introducing new assumptions, ignores the fact that doing so violates Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor requires that the theory only make claims that are logically necessary to imply the testable predictions made by the theory. This means that if the theory's predictions are shown to be wrong, then this directly implies that at least one of the claims of the theory are wrong. The theory is thus falsified.



Ockhams razor is not really appllicable. For a kick off suppose that there were no competing theories waiting to take its place? One is not going to abandon a theory simply because of some putative anomaly or anomalies. And besides maybe some artefact is producing the anomaly. No no, you're being hopelessly naive.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides your argument is viciously circular. What you are effectively doing is presupposing that "determinism" (in its appropriately modified sense) is true, and challenging people to prove it is not true by falsifying it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am not a determinist, nor do I consider determinism to be a scientific hypothesis, nor do I assume it is true.



Note what I said. I repeat "what you are effectively doing is presupposing that "determinism" (in its appropriately modified sense) is true". To explain again, I mean by this that all change in the Universe can be described comprehensively by physical laws. I just use "determinism" in quotes as a shorthand way of referring to this idea. Not strictly speaking determinism no, but close to it in spirit.

And if determinism is not a scientific hypothesis there seems little reason to suppose that "determinism" is.

In the rest of the post you fail to understand the difference between determinism and "determinism", so I shall ignore those parts.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You misunderstand the nature of science in any case. All scientific theories in the past ever proposed have eventually been falsified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not true. Many theories have been falsified, but most of them have not. Of course, many of the scientific theories that play a huge role in our lives are ones we all take for granted, and often don't even think of as scientific theories. For example, the theory that eating food will satisfy your hunger, or that drinking water will quench your thirst, or that cutting yourself will cause pain.



These are not scientific theories.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus by induction it might be reasonable to suppose that all our present and future theories will eventually be falsified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Also obviously not true.



A scientist rejecting inductive reasoning! :eek: :rolleyes:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words none of our scientific theories depict reality as it really is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Nor are they intended to. They are intended to provide an accurate model of reality.


Your second sentence directly contradicts the first in that in the second you are presupposing there is something over and above our theories ie reality.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus if "determinism" is a scientific theory then if follows that "determinism" is false. Are you sure you want to go down this path?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am not a determinist. Anyway, your above conclusion is wrong. For one thing, the hypothesis of Naturalism is one scientific theory that has never been falsified. So much for the first premise of your above line of reasoning.



Make your mind up! Is naturalism a hypothesis or is it a theory? Could you tell me how one would falsify naturalism?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No I don't see any connection.


What evidence is there that Beth Paulkey is one and the same person as Paul Bethkey? You can tell she's a girl from the way she writes anyway.

Look, Ian, if you're that desperate, then ask "her" for a date. Just don't go whining when "she" disrobes, okay? I told you: read the first "Beth" posts.

What bullet example?

Quintessential Ian. Accuses me of babbling and he hasn't read the previous posts. Doesn't use the search engine. Won't look through the telescope.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Beth,

Likewise, causality is something that happens "on average". Take your computer, for example. Surely that is a system that is based entirely on the principle of causality? And yet the most basic components of it, the transistor, rely on acausal quantum events, namely electrons crossing a potential threshold. Each of those events is acausal. Nothing "causes" any particular electron to cross the threshold at any particular time. But on average, the resulting behavior is very predictable, and very much a causal process.
Dr. Stupid

I gotta wonder whether a sudden surge of acausal events caused my Blue-Screen-of-Death this morning...'Cause I sure didn't predict it! Didn't even really want it. I wasn't running too many applications, happened to be on this board, had Outlook open and one other app., when BAM out of the blue, it just died.

:D


Edited for speling.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Hammegk,

I don't understand the question.

Dr. Stupid

I think you are saying energy is not conserved within time/enegy constraints per Heisenberg.

My point is that the amount of "borrowed" energy to produce a real particle is just that -- borrowed. And the total of new particle + borrowed = is exactly offset by the decline in the otherwise available energetic system that is being borrowed from. I.E. over a somewhat larger portion of (energetic but empty) spacetime which includes the new particle while it exists, energy IS conserved.

That larger portion may be the entire what-is I suppose, although would not just local effect (in light cone) handle it?

I don't know if this question may, or definitely does not, impact on the topic of determinism. Sorry.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
In the rest of the post you fail to understand the difference between determinism and "determinism", so I shall ignore those parts.Is anyone looking for a new sig?

[BillyJoe]

Paul, would you like that visit from Maxwell?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by hammegk
My point is that the amount of "borrowed" energy to produce a real particle is just that -- borrowed. And the total of new particle + borrowed = is exactly offset by the decline in the otherwise available energetic system that is being borrowed from. I.E. over a somewhat larger portion of (energetic but empty) spacetime which includes the new particle while it exists, energy IS conserved. I think that was exactly Stimpy's point.....

Over a somewhat smaller portion of spacetime, energy IS NOT conserved.

In other words....
On a macroscopic scale energy is conserved.
On a microscopic scale, energy is not conserved.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

I mean the same as everyone else in the world means by it, oh, apart from you apparently. Namely to establish something as being true.

Well, apparently not everyone. In science, the term verification very specifically refers to scientific testing of the theory, meaning attempts at falsification.

Besides, what you are describing is synonymous with "proof", and thus completely inapplicable to claims about reality. It is not possible, even in principle, to ever demonstrate that anything (outside of formal logical statements) is true. The best that can be done is to demonstrate that it is probably true, through application of the scientific method.

(although arguably scientific theories cannot be falsified either).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simply not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your change of the subject is noted.

My change of subject? :confused: You are the one who has changed the subject by attacking the validity of the scientific method. I simply responded to your comment.

And as always you are wrong. Auxiliary hypotheses can always be introduced to save a theory.

No, they cannot. Not without rendering the hypothesis unscientific. You can always modify the theory, but if it was a scientific theory, then falsification means that assumptions of the theory must be changed. Adding additional auxiliary hypotheses won't save it.

Case in point: There is no set of auxiliary hypotheses that can save Newtonian physics.

This is a strawman position that blatantly ignores the fact that scientific theories are not allowed to be ad-hoc. The old argument that any theory can be "kept alive" by introducing new assumptions, ignores the fact that doing so violates Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor requires that the theory only make claims that are logically necessary to imply the testable predictions made by the theory. This means that if the theory's predictions are shown to be wrong, then this directly implies that at least one of the claims of the theory are wrong. The theory is thus falsified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ockhams razor is not really appllicable. For a kick off suppose that there were no competing theories waiting to take its place? One is not going to abandon a theory simply because of some putative anomaly or anomalies.

Since when is a putative anomaly a falsification? If the theory is reliably demonstrated to be wrong, then it will be abandoned, whether we have a new one to replace it or not.

And besides maybe some artefact is producing the anomaly. No no, you're being hopelessly naive.

You are being naive, by suggesting that the scientific method does not have a mechanism for distinguishing between anomalies due to artifacts, and actual falsifying evidence. If what you are saying were true, science wouldn't work at all!

I am not a determinist, nor do I consider determinism to be a scientific hypothesis, nor do I assume it is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note what I said. I repeat "what you are effectively doing is presupposing that "determinism" (in its appropriately modified sense) is true". To explain again, I mean by this that all change in the Universe can be described comprehensively by physical laws. I just use "determinism" in quotes as a shorthand way of referring to this idea. Not strictly speaking determinism no, but close to it in spirit.

Oh, you mean naturalism. Those are completely different concepts.

And if determinism is not a scientific hypothesis there seems little reason to suppose that "determinism" is.

Except that strict determinism is not falsifiable, and naturalism is.

In the rest of the post you fail to understand the difference between determinism and "determinism", so I shall ignore those parts.

Perhaps you should have been more clear?

Not true. Many theories have been falsified, but most of them have not. Of course, many of the scientific theories that play a huge role in our lives are ones we all take for granted, and often don't even think of as scientific theories. For example, the theory that eating food will satisfy your hunger, or that drinking water will quench your thirst, or that cutting yourself will cause pain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are not scientific theories.

Why not? Are they falsifiable hypotheses? All the scientific method is, is a formalism of the basic process of reasoning that we have used for millenia.

Thus by induction it might be reasonable to suppose that all our present and future theories will eventually be falsified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also obviously not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A scientist rejecting inductive reasoning!

The scientific method is not simply the blind application of inductive reasoning. If it were, it would be complete nonsense!

In other words none of our scientific theories depict reality as it really is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nor are they intended to. They are intended to provide an accurate model of reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your second sentence directly contradicts the first in that in the second you are presupposing there is something over and above our theories ie reality.

Of course I do. How is that contradictory?

I am not a determinist. Anyway, your above conclusion is wrong. For one thing, the hypothesis of Naturalism is one scientific theory that has never been falsified. So much for the first premise of your above line of reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make your mind up! Is naturalism a hypothesis or is it a theory?

Both. A theory is a type of hypothesis.

Could you tell me how one would falsify naturalism?

I already did. Simply provide reliable evidence that some particular phenomenon cannot be described in terms of natural laws.


hammegk,

I think you are saying energy is not conserved within time/enegy constraints per Heisenberg.

That is not what I am saying. Not even close.

My point is that the amount of "borrowed" energy to produce a real particle is just that -- borrowed. And the total of new particle + borrowed = is exactly offset by the decline in the otherwise available energetic system that is being borrowed from. I.E. over a somewhat larger portion of (energetic but empty) spacetime which includes the new particle while it exists, energy IS conserved.

This "borrowed" energy notion of yours is not a part of any scientific model of the Universe I know of. It certainly is not a part of the standard model of QM.

Even on the macroscopic scale, energy is only approximately conserved. The total energy of any macroscopic system fluctuates with time. But as is always the case with sums of independent random variables, the standard deviation of those fluctuations is proportional to the square-root of the number of variables involved, but the total is proportional to the number of variables involved. That means that for huge numbers of independent variables, the fluctuations become extraordinarily small, compared to the total energy.

Roll one six-sided die, and the average will be 3.5, with a standard deviation of about 1.7. That's a pretty large variability. But if you role 10^20 such dice, and take the average, then the mean is still 3.5, but the standard deviation will be 1.7 X 10^-10. Suddenly the result seems to be pretty well "conserved" from one trial to the next, doesn't it? Now consider that a single gram of water has more than 10^22 atoms in it.

Dr. Stupid

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I think that was exactly Stimpy's point.....

Over a somewhat smaller portion of spacetime, energy IS NOT conserved.

In other words....
On a macroscopic scale energy is conserved.
On a microscopic scale, energy is not conserved.

Er, yes, I'd agree, but go on to point out that using this idea, if I wanted to know "depth of ocean" you would just tell me that everytime you measured, the depth changed.

Tell me, is amount of water in ocean "conserved"? I'm only suggesting that measuring "energy" seems to have the same problem.

[BillyJoe]

Seems I need to qualify those statements.....

On the microscopic scale, energy is not conserved. It significantly fluctuates.
On the macroscopic scale, energy is also not conserved. It fluctuates as well but the fluctuation is insignificantly/vanishingly small.

(hammegk, I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by the measuring problem, so I won't comment any further at this point}

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Look, Ian, if you're that desperate, then ask "her" for a date. Just don't go whining when "she" disrobes, okay? I told you: read the first "Beth" posts.


I read the posts. Used the search engine to see what the first few posts were.

Saw the post where Beth explained that the name was chosen to see if it would slip by Linda.

I saw many posts actually and not one that seemed anything like Paul B. I saw a post mentioning formal logic systems and lots of funny ones too.

I would say that only a moron could think this person was the same individual as Paul B. based on the posts under the two different names.

What's your problem here Bill? Have you had other interactions with Beth Paulkey that would warrant your behaviour? That's the only think I could think of that would excuse your attitude in this thread.

I re-read Beth's posts in this thread too, in case you meant 'first Beth posts [in this thread]'... nothing there either.

Seems like an honest inquest to me.

Unless you can come up with something better than the name is similar.... I think you owe Beth Paulkey an apology.

Adam

Originally posted by slimshady2357


I read the posts. Used the search engine to see what the first few posts were.

Saw the post where Beth explained that the name was chosen to see if it would slip by Linda....
Unless you can come up with something better than the name is similar.... I think you owe Beth Paulkey an apology.

Adam

Adam,

Read in the context of the thread. Beth registered while Bethke had been banned. Linda permitted the Beth registration and the re-registration of Bethke.

Search with the keywords "Bethke Paulkey." Paradox quoted Linda's administrative post that clearly connects the two. Beth's later post thanked Linda for letting him in even though she knew Beth was an end-run around her banning of Bethke. Why do you think he/she promised to behave?

Cheers,

[Soubrette]

Bill

If you search for Linda's posts you will also find one where she states that the addresses of both Paul Bethkey and Beth Paulkey are different.

I don't know if she was referring to their locations or IP though.

Sou

Originally posted by Soubrette
Bill

If you search for Linda's posts you will also find one where she states that the addresses of both Paul Bethkey and Beth Paulkey are different.

I don't know if she was referring to their locations or IP though.

Sou

She was probably referring to the email addresses. Anybody can create aliases by using free email services.

Why did "Beth" register around the time Bethke was banned?
Why did Linda "permit" the registration?
Why did "Beth" thank Linda for that?
Why did "Beth" promise Linda "she" would behave?
Why did Linda connect the two names in a single administrative post?

Cheers,

[metacristi]

Determinism - a scientific or a philosophical position?


First of all there must be made clear that there is a difference between our capacity to predict and causation following strict rules (real determinism).Chaotic phenomena for example follow strict rules (we are able to write down the equations that govern them,very simple ones in many cases) and still,we are not capable to predict the outcome,especially on long run.Despite our incapacity to predict chaotic phenomena are purely deterministic.

To return at your question,ultimately (at least now),in my opinion,it is a philosophical problem.There is no way now to make the difference between an universe totally predetermined by a God (defined merely as the creator of the universe) or by some 'deeper' purely deterministic laws (a kind of impersonal god,provoking 'random' effects for us) existing from eternity at an 'ultimate reality' (valid in the case of an infinite regress of causes too) and a non deterministic universe.

Ignoring this possibility,in my acception,the problem enters the realm of science at least for the 'domains of definition' we know.If we accept that the different interpretations of QM are scientific hypothesis (I accept this point of view) then we have at least one interpretation that points out that determinism (in what causation is concerned) could be true at least at quantum level.
Bohm's Interpretation extends the notion of determinism at quantum level,quantum phenomena are seen not as random but as chaotic ones.
Still we do not know if 'quantum level' is the 'ultimate level',nothing proves that there cannot exist something 'beyond',so that we enter again in the realm of pure metaphysics:even if determinism is valid at quantum level we can make only pure speculations whether it extends or not beyond that.
Even accepting that there is nothing beyond quantum level we do not know if 'all that is' has the same properties,the same laws.If the 'multi bubble' scenario is true then there could exist an infinity of non interacting universes having different laws,including ones where there are no laws at all.Determinism could be valid in our universe but not in some others.

To conclude I think is better to consider the problem of determinism as belonging totally to the realm of philosophy when dealing with the ontological aspects ('ultimate reality' or an infinite regress of causes).
However if we take in account only the domains we are aware of,I think that the problem of determinism (at least till that level) has already reached the domain of science (be it only as a simple scientific hypothesis,for the moment).

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Adam,

Read in the context of the thread. Beth registered while Bethke had been banned. Linda permitted the Beth registration and the re-registration of Bethke.

Search with the keywords "Bethke Paulkey." Paradox quoted Linda's administrative post that clearly connects the two. Beth's later post thanked Linda for letting him in even though she knew Beth was an end-run around her banning of Bethke. Why do you think he/she promised to behave?

Cheers,

Ok I had more time to do some looking now that it's lunch time :)

As far as I can see it, we're both speculating. But I think the posting evidence (by Beth) is the deciding factor that comes down on my side (What I mean is, in my opinion it's what is keeping me thinking Beth is not a Paul sock puppet.

Paradox quoted Linda's administrative post that clearly connects the two

But that admin post only says they tried to register at the same time, it says nothing about them being the same person. Only that Linda had already decided to allow Paul B to re-register, so she allowed both Beth Paulkey and Paul Bethke to register.

I think the fact that Linda did NOT know whether they were the same person is held up by this post by Linda

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=158314#post158314

Beth's later post thanked Linda for letting him in even though she knew Beth was an end-run around her banning of Bethke. Why do you think he/she promised to behave?

No, Linda did NOT know Beth was an end-run around, the post I linked above shows that. I think Beth apologized because she had been 'naughty' in trying her little name experiment to see if Linda would catch it. Not because she actually was Paul. Here is the post in question. While it may look at first that she is Paul, I think the interpretation I am giving easily fits that post too.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=159224#post159224

Your questions to Sou:

Why did "Beth" register around the time Bethke was banned?

She explained this. She wanted to see if Linda would catch the similar name and keep her out

Why did Linda "permit" the registration?

Linda explained this too, she was allowing Paul B to re-register. So, not knowing if Beth Paulkey was Paul or not, she allowed the registration.

Why did "Beth" thank Linda for that?

See above, she had been 'wrong' in trying to slip the similar moniker past Linda

Why did "Beth" promise Linda "she" would behave?

Same reason, since she had already been mischievous

Why did Linda connect the two names in a single administrative post?

The only way they were connected was by Linda saying she was going to allow both to be registered. It seems to me she didn't know if Beth was Paul, but didn't care, she was allowing Paul back as Paul anyway, so she let Beth in too. I think the Linda quote implying she didn't know if Beth was Paul backs that up



I'm not saying that my interpretation of the events is obvious and with out a doubt. But I think there are some things that certainly cast the 'Beth is Paul' thing into serious doubt. As I said at the start of this post the deciding factor for me is Beth's posts. I've been through a couple dozen of them and I cannot find even one example of a post anything like Paul B's style.

Therefore I conclude (with willingness to evaluate the situation further at any time) that Beth is not Paul. And as a final note, given Beth's posts I don't think it matters all that much. Judge the posts from this user on their own.... I think it's someone you could show a little more respect to.

Adam

[Q-Source]

BillHoyt,

Why are you so concerned about whether or not Beth is Paul?

WHO CARES? :mad:

This person started this thread and made valid questions and points. Everything was going well until you came to hijejack this thread with this nonsense.

Even if it is true, many people have recognised that they have sock puppets here, maybe you also have one. So, what is the point?

Honestly, why do you waste your time and your brilliant brain on this particular individual?

Sincerely,

Q

Originally posted by Q-Source
BillHoyt,

Why are you so concerned about whether or not Beth is Paul?

WHO CARES? :mad:

This person started this thread and made valid questions and points. Everything was going well until you came to hijejack this thread with this nonsense.

Even if it is true, many people have recognised that they have sock puppets here, maybe you also have one. So, what is the point?

Honestly, why do you waste your time and your brilliant brain on this particular individual?

Sincerely,

Q

I'm not concerned about it. I just called Paul on it. Others are now disagreeing with my interpretation of the facts.

The point is, Paul is still on a mission to undermine the JREF mission. He is more subtle now, not threatening physical violence, not thumping bibles over people's heads. But the mission is there, nonetheless. He is trolling. I am tired of it. I am tired of trolls.

The mission of JREF is to educate the public about all things paranormal. I want to see that mission fulfilled. The trolls get in the way.

If I thought Paul was truly interested in determinism, I would not take swipes at him. Alas, he is not. He is here, trolling, angling for chinks in the rational armor. HE wastes OUR time.


Cheers,

[Soubrette]

Bill

Do you agree that Adam's interpretation is equally as likely as yours though?

Sou

Originally posted by Soubrette
Bill

Do you agree that Adam's interpretation is equally as likely as yours though?

Sou

I sat on a jury once. Drunk driving case. The defendant's attorney did a stellar job of explaining away:
o the weaving car (he was avoiding patches of snow on the road)
o the slurred speech (he had worked hard that day and was tired)
o the failed "walk this line" test (he was nervous- a cop had just pulled himover)
o the failed "ABC" test (he was nervous and tired - see above)
o the wildly varying driving speed (he was being cautious because it was winter)

Was each explanation plausible on its own? Yes. As a totality, no.

Flip it around for a second. Is it really plausible that, at the same time Bethke was trying to get back on the forum (because he was kicked off) somebody else is inspired to become the anti-bethke? Is it plausible for the anti-bethke to also be very religious, bible-quoting and generally fight rationalism at every turn? Then how is it an anti-Bethke? Is it plausible for someone's first post to promise to behave? Do you have any other examples?

The driver was convicted. But the jury struggled with this because members looked at each bit of evidence on its own, and bought each excuse on its own, rather than viewing the totality of evidence.

Okay, so what? I maintain she's a he. So what? Nothing per se. My point is this: Paul was a bible-witnessing, obnoxious abusive threatening troll. Beth is a bible-witnessing troll. We've still got a troll. We're infested with trolls. Troll-infestation discussions abound on this board. I know you know this. They have become one of the main topics of the board. A recurring theme, if you will.

It is time to change the channel.


Cheers.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


I'm not concerned about it. I just called Paul on it. Others are now disagreeing with my interpretation of the facts.

The point is, Paul is still on a mission to undermine the JREF mission. He is more subtle now, not threatening physical violence, not thumping bibles over people's heads. But the mission is there, nonetheless. He is trolling. I am tired of it. I am tired of trolls.

Who cares about that guy?
He cannot undermine the JREF in any way. He does not have the intellectual capacity or evil power to do that. He is one of the most inoffensive person I've ever seen in this forum.

In fact, IMO the most abusive posters here are a small group of the so-called Atheists and "Skeptics", they're really undermining and threatening this board's credibility. But nobody says a word because they are "Skeptics" :rolleyes:


The mission of JREF is to educate the public about all things paranormal. I want to see that mission fulfilled. The trolls get in the way.

The trolls come here to learn. Who do you think the JREF educates...?
Skeptics?
Physicists?

No, the mission of the JREF is to educate ignorants and paranormal believers.



If I thought Paul was truly interested in determinism, I would not take swipes at him. Alas, he is not. He is here, trolling, angling for chinks in the rational armor. HE wastes OUR time.


I read the whole thread and I did not see him preaching or saying nonsense.

How do you think that people learn?. For example, I learn from the responses he gets from people like Stimpson.

Again, don't waste your time and energy on this one.

Originally posted by Q-Source


Who cares about that guy?
He cannot undermine the JREF in any way. He does not have the intellectual capacity or evil power to do that. He is one of the most inoffensive person I've ever seen in this forum.

What changed your mind, Q? Here is what you had said a while ago:

I think that people are tired of the non sense of Bigfig, Bethke and others and that is why they spoil their threads.

So, at one point you understood the frustration and civil disobedience. Now, you don't. Okay, something has changed.

If it is just that you don't like me, that is okay, too. There are many people here who don't. Many who do. I'm not here to be liked or loved. I'm here to do my part in fulfilling JREF's mission.

I see the JREF mission as two-fold. It keeps an open mind by actively seeking evidence of paranormal abilities. It offers a tremendous sum of money to inspire people to come forward and test their claims. The actively open mind of JREF does not preclude it from taking a scientific and rational stance on these claims. Neither does it preclude JREF from educating the public about critical thinking and whacky claims. That educational mission (along with a little bit of marketing) is part of the purpose of this board.

This board needs to do what every marketing and communications piece needs to do: Attract, Inform and Persuade. The graphics have to be inviting. The topics must be interesting and informative. Moreover, it must all be persuasive. It must both inform the audience about facts and must persuade them that the facts are there is no evidence for the paranormal, no evidence for miracles. That alternative medicine is a sham. That people are being bilked daily by ministers, chiroquacks, homeopaths, clairvoyants, psychics, and mediums who take your money while telling you your Uncle Albert Einstein is in a better place and wishes you well. Of course, old Al suddenly has the IQ, knowledge of science and working vocabulary of a 14-year old. But what the hey.

The more time and bandwith we spend babysitting frankos, wraiths, paul bethkes, beth paulkeys, carlos and the droves of others, the less time and bandwith we spend getting our message out. Beth/Paul was allowed back in, to JREF's great credit. He is much tamer now, but still an attention-seeking evangelist.

So what is this board about? Teaching everybody to think critically. Helping them separate the wheat from the chaff. That can only happen in the wind, though, and somebody has got to get the fans going here and blow away the chaff.

If you want to discuss this further, may I suggest we start yet another thread on trolls, trolling, where this board wants to go and how to get there?


Cheers,

[Simon Bar Sinister]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The more time and bandwith we spend babysitting frankos, wraiths, paul bethkes, beth paulkeys, carlos and the droves of others, the less time and bandwith we spend getting our message out.


But isn't engaging these people part of "getting our message" out? I know that it's invaluable for somebody such as myself whose critical thinking and intellectual abilities are nowhere near the caliber of most of the board members. It seems to me that more of what I learn here comes from the "babysitting" responses to these people than anything else. I remember, sometime last year, when Franko had gone for a while and R & P was nearly troll-free. And you know what? It was boring. Nobody was starting discussions because everybody was basically in agreement. The trolls are apparently the catalyst that inspires the rest of you to share your knowledge with us. The only alternative I can see is for the more intelligent among us to start more threads.

On the other hand, I can understand your frustration because it must become tiresome to debate the same people on the same topics over and over again. Again, I can only suggest that you ignore them, start your own threads, and only respond to people who don't aggravate you as much.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Simon Bar Sinister



......The trolls are apparently the catalyst that inspires the rest of you to share your knowledge with us. ......

That is a very interesting point - would you like to start a new thread about that in R&P or Banter? :)

Sou

[Franko]

That is a very interesting point - would you like to start a new thread about that in R&P or Banter?

I notice that the A-Theist version of a "Troll" is essentially the same as the KKK definition of a "n*gg*r".

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


If you want to discuss this further, may I suggest we start yet another thread on trolls, trolling, where this board wants to go and how to get there?



Sorry Bill. I tried to start a thread in the Banter section but then I realised that it is worthless.

To me, Trolls and flammers do not represent any threat at all. Many people think that they are responsible for the quality and crisis of this board, but I totally disagree with that idea.

I have said it many times, we all are responsible.

Besides, I also disagree with the definition of "Troll" and who you think that fell in this category. To me, a troll is someone who is abusive, someone who's purpose is to flame other people. It has nothing to do with their religious or philosophical positions. In this regard, there are many "skeptics" and atheist who we should call trolls as well.

Q

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Sorry Bill. I tried to start a thread in the Banter section but then I realised that it is worthless.

To me, Trolls and flammers do not represent any threat at all. Many people think that they are responsible for the quality and crisis of this board, but I totally disagree with that idea.

I have said it many times, we all are responsible.

Besides, I also disagree with the definition of "Troll" and who you think that fell in this category. To me, a troll is someone who is abusive, someone who's purpose is to flame other people. It has nothing to do with their religious or philosophical positions. In this regard, there are many "skeptics" and atheist who we should call trolls as well.

Q

Well said Q :)

Now Bill, might I suggest that you admit that you were wrong about Beth and apologise to her? People will respect you more for it.

Originally posted by Q-Source

Besides, I also disagree with the definition of "Troll" and who you think that fell in this category. To me, a troll is someone who is abusive, someone who's purpose is to flame other people. It has nothing to do with their religious or philosophical positions. In this regard, there are many "skeptics" and atheist who we should call trolls as well.

Q

The correct definition of a troll is someone who "baits" posters with carefully-designed incorrect statements. That includes people who bait with seemingly innocent questions, but who really want to engage people on an opposing battlefield.

It hasn't anything to do with abuse or flaming or spamming. It is all about attention-getting and "tweaking."

Cheers,

[Franko]

Billyhypocrite:
The correct definition of a troll is someone who "baits" posters with carefully-designed incorrect statements. That includes people who bait with seemingly innocent questions, but who really want to engage people on an opposing battlefield.


bait how? By calling anyone who isn't a member of your magical religion (A-Theism) names? If you call someone a "Troll" who is far more skeptical than You, but they are opposed to your cornbread religion, wouldn't that make YOU the "Troll" by your own definition?

Why is it okay for you to believe in your god -- "free willy" -- based on no evidence, but it is a horrible sin for a Theist to believe in his god based on the evidence that YOUR god obviously doesn't exist?

TLOP (God) controls YOU controls CAR

You've been brainwashed. Deal with it.

[Martin]

Bump. The first two pages are somewhat useful. Ignore the third, if I were you.

Apart from this post, that is.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


I notice that the A-Theist version of a "Troll" is essentially the same as the KKK definition of a "ni**er".

Bam Bam Bam

another driveby assertion!

[Dancing David]

Determinism:

the biggest mistake about an event is to assume that you can find the true cause. I think it can be done by science in a very limited fashion for certain events. But it is a real mistake when looking at history or evolution!

The greatest evil is progessive-ism; the notion that things make progress.

I don't buy determinsism as a a take on science either, when you have so many enery bits interacting over such great distances , they behave well is aggregate but actual deterministic prediction is impossible.

Acausal: does it mean with out cause or that the cause can not be known?

[slimshady2357]

Well, Bill and I were both wrong :D

And to think, Beth turned out to be my good buddy whitey.... what a little bastard!

Bad whitefork! Don't make me get the newspaper out again!

Adam

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Acausal: does it mean with out cause or that the cause can not be known?

After looking at various dictionary and thesaurus wordings, perhaps acausal is basically "self-created".

What does "random" mean?


Slim : are you kidding about whitefork = beth?

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by hammegk

Slim : are you kidding about whitefork = beth?

It's possible I am misremembering, but I am not kidding. I seem to remember whitefork admitting this at some point. Now I'm hoping it wasn't in a PM :o

Adam

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Okay, I've just finished reading the preceding posts in this thread.

In my mind, part of the problem with this debate is while that the general understanding of causality has been disproven, there's a broader definition of causality that remains.

"Causality loops" such as the solution to the Grandfather Paradox and the "Babylon 4" plot in Babylon 5 would be good examples of non-local determinstic variables working to direct events, but in a wider sense causality really is preserved. It's just necessary to take a non-temporal perspective on the whole thing.

[whitefork]

Yes, whitefork/beth paulkey/kullervo/franko's goddess/rosetta stone/the lord god almighty/desianarchy (my favorite)

I outed these guys a while back. Every once in a while I use one of them if the occasion seems to warrant it.

People got all wrapped around the axle about Beth for some reason. She's really a nice person, really.