1
   

Emergence proves determinism

 
 
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 06:51 am
I'm not the go to guy for matters of physics but I'd like to talk a bit about 'emergence' and determinism/free will etc...

Ok so is the common consensus that we do not know why emergence happans, or why the collapse of the wave function happens when it does etc...

I can only see 2 general answers to the reason why would be, maybe I am missing something, please do tell.

1. Emergence seems random, but there will one day be research that shows the mechanisms for why emergence happens. Those mechanisms will be be calculable and solid equations will be established to all of what appeared in the past to be random. If this happens then we can theoretically now calculate quantum mechanics and determinism is brought back into light.

2. Emergence is caused by an immaterial essence that exists outside of the laws of the known material world. More or less a soul, or God, as I'm sure that quantum indeterminacy applies to more then just a human. But if the answer is not material (1. above) then it must be immaterial.

Atheists do not choose to believe in the immaterial as that would beg the question of a God or higher power.

So it would seem to me that the only choice that exists for the atheist is determinism. Even though the reason why emergence happens is yet unknown an atheist can only expect to find a scientific materialistic explanation.

So I do not think that emergence opens up the hope for the existence of free will. An atheist can only assume that emergence/quantum mechanics will one day be proven to fit with determinism.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,905 • Replies: 38
No top replies

 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 07:14 am
@click here,
Possibilities upon possibilities but what do you believe?If quantum studies show determined events are not proven how does that equate with your proposals.
click here
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 07:38 am
@xris,
xris;65658 wrote:
Possibilities upon possibilities but what do you believe?If quantum studies show determined events are not proven how does that equate with your proposals.


I have no idea what you are talking about and I'm not even going to guess. Please try again.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 11:47 am
@click here,
click here;65659 wrote:
I have no idea what you are talking about and I'm not even going to guess. Please try again.
Well the feelings mutual cos all you've done is pile possibilities onto possibilities and had some vague results.
click here
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 02:56 pm
@xris,
Possibilities? Vague results? What are you talking about? Have I not given the only two logical solutions? If not please tell a third or more.

If I have correctly addressed the two only logical solutions, then for the atheist, he only has one choice. Unless he wishes to believe in the spiritual without the belief in God....
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 03:01 pm
@click here,
click here;65710 wrote:
Possibilities? Vague results? What are you talking about? Have I not given the only two logical solutions? If not please tell a third or more.

If I have correctly addressed the two only logical solutions, then for the atheist, he only has one choice. Unless he wishes to believe in the spiritual without the belief in God....
Well correct me if im wrong but are you saying you believe that everything is determined,preordained?
click here
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 03:06 pm
@xris,
xris;65712 wrote:
Well correct me if im wrong but are you saying you believe that everything is determined,preordained?


Your wrong, so I'll correct you by saying that I am trying to talk through the atheists expectations from emergence. It would seem to me that emergence can do nothing else then correlate with determinism.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 03:16 pm
@click here,
Well im stuck between your god determining the future and the atheist determining my lack of free will..do you see my quandary.
click here
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 03:21 pm
@xris,
xris;65716 wrote:
Well im stuck between your god determining the future and the atheist determining my lack of free will..do you see my quandary.


I'm not saying anything about God determining the future or an atheist determining (rather accepting) a lack of free will.

Perhaps you should re-read my original post as you are not even remotely on the same topic as me.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 03:35 pm
@click here,
click here;65717 wrote:
I'm not saying anything about God determining the future or an atheist determining (rather accepting) a lack of free will.

Perhaps you should re-read my original post as you are not even remotely on the same topic as me.
Then you will have to word it in a simpler fashion for this less than capable individual.please..
0 Replies
 
Kielicious
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 03:58 pm
@click here,
click here;65657 wrote:

1. Emergence seems random, but there will one day be research that shows the mechanisms for why emergence happens. Those mechanisms will be be calculable and solid equations will be established to all of what appeared in the past to be random. If this happens then we can theoretically now calculate quantum mechanics and determinism is brought back into light.


Emergence is random? and that leads us to the ability to calculate QM? I'm lost...

click here;65657 wrote:
2. Emergence is caused by an immaterial essence that exists outside of the laws of the known material world. More or less a soul, or God, as I'm sure that quantum indeterminacy applies to more then just a human. But if the answer is not material (1. above) then it must be immaterial.


ummm what?

Emergence = god/soul ???

Now I'm really confused:perplexed:

Edit: I would steer away from the term materialism and use physicalism instead because materialism is false and outdated which is why physicalism is the agreed consensus nowadays.
0 Replies
 
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 04:32 pm
@click here,
"Determinism" is 'causation/cause and effect'.
QM refutes the notion as obsolete science/'beliefs'.
What were clumsily called 'cause and effect' are better, now, defined as "mutually (synchronously) arising features of the same event."
There can be no 'determinism' among synchronously arising moments, only linear.
'Determinism' is a relic of the refuted philosophy of 'naive realism'.
click here
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 May, 2009 12:20 am
@nameless,
Kielicious;65732 wrote:
Emergence is random? and that leads us to the ability to calculate QM? I'm lost...


Is emergence random? Has it been proven that it is random and that there is nothing that causes it to do what it does? Or is it assumed random because you don't know why emergence happens.

Kielicious wrote:

Edit: I would steer away from the term materialism and use physicalism instead because materialism is false and outdated which is why physicalism is the agreed consensus nowadays.


What is the difference between the two?

nameless wrote:
"Determinism" is 'causation/cause and effect'.
QM refutes the notion as obsolete science/'beliefs'.
What were clumsily called 'cause and effect' are better, now, defined as "mutually (synchronously) arising features of the same event."
There can be no 'determinism' among synchronously arising moments, only linear.
'Determinism' is a relic of the refuted philosophy of 'naive realism'.


QM refutes? It does? "There can be no 'determinism' among synchronously arising moments, only linear." How do you know that?
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 May, 2009 12:30 am
@click here,
click here;65786 wrote:

QM refutes? It does?

Yes. Yes.
Yes, is it the wording that throws you? I can reword this if it really bothers you, but I suspect that you know what I mean.

Quote:
"There can be no 'determinism' among synchronously arising moments, only linear." How do you know that?

Simple logic. 'Causality' must be linear. Think about it. If everything is 'happening' at the same time, there can be nothing that 'causes' something else. A 'cause' must PRECEED an 'effect'. All moments being synchronously arising, nothing 'preceeds' anything else, hence, no 'determinism'/'causality'.
From a scientific/logical Perspective...

Quote:
which is why physicalism is the agreed consensus nowadays.

Consensus among who, 'believing' materialists unmoved by the findings and logic of modern science, and too egoically and emotionally identified/invested in their 'beliefs' to update them?
Pffft!

Quote:
What is the difference between the two?

Whatever the name, the concept is still refuted.
click here
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 May, 2009 12:51 am
@nameless,
nameless;65787 wrote:
Yes. Yes.
Yes, is it the wording that throws you? I can reword this if it really bothers you, but I suspect that you know what I mean.


Yeah, I understand what you are saying, I just wasn't aware that it was true and not just a theory.

nameless wrote:

Simple logic. 'Causality' must be linear. Think about it. If everything is 'happening' at the same time, there can be nothing that 'causes' something else. A 'cause' must PRECEED an 'effect'. All moments being synchronously arising, nothing 'preceeds' anything else, hence, no 'determinism'/'causality'.
From a scientific/logical Perspective...



Sure IF everything is happening at the same time then MAYBE there is no cause and effect. This whole idea of no linear time is still being mused out and in its self creates lots of philosophical questions as well as unanswered questions. Yet then one tries to apply this thought to another theory to establish a general theory. These are just ideas and not proven facts. I would have no problem in viewing time as you have presented it in the past, it doesn't effect any of my presuppositions, but that doesn't mean I'm going to accept it on a whim and then go on to use it to 'prove' other theories.
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 May, 2009 01:11 am
@click here,
click here;65789 wrote:
Yeah, I understand what you are saying, I just wasn't aware that it was true and not just a theory.

In science, everything is a hypothesis (if untested) or a theory (if test/experimentally supported and unrefuted).
Good theories are not (yet) refuted and can be tentatively accepted. No one can know whether or not uncovered new evidence would refute the theory. Thats why theories are all tentative.
('Religion' deals with such terms as 'truth'.)

Quote:
but that doesn't mean I'm going to accept it on a whim and then go on to use it to 'prove' other theories.

I'd hope not. I am not here to argue or convince or accumulate followers or change minds. I'm offering food for thought. Do your own research and critical thought and come to your own tentative (ongoing) understandings.
Amen.
0 Replies
 
Kielicious
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 May, 2009 03:05 pm
@click here,
click here;65786 wrote:
Is emergence random? Has it been proven that it is random and that there is nothing that causes it to do what it does? Or is it assumed random because you don't know why emergence happens.


Ok well I dont know what definition of emergence youre using but I would hardly categorize it as random or have anything to do with the supernatural. Define your usage of the term so we have a better understanding of eachother.



click here;65786 wrote:
What is the difference between the two?


Materialism asserts matter is the only substance that exists. We already know that to be false. Physicalism asserts that everything is physical (pretty circular I know) but I say that because it has quite a large list that P encompasses. Physicalism goes beyond matter to include: space, time, processes, function, etc. etc...
0 Replies
 
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 May, 2009 03:50 pm
@click here,
Hi CH

click here;65657 wrote:

I can only see 2 general answers to the reason why would be, maybe I am missing something, please do tell.

1. Emergence seems random, but there will one day be research that shows the mechanisms for why emergence happens. Those mechanisms will be be calculable and solid equations will be established to all of what appeared in the past to be random. If this happens then we can theoretically now calculate quantum mechanics and determinism is brought back into light.

2. Emergence is caused by an immaterial essence that exists outside of the laws of the known material world. More or less a soul, or God, as I'm sure that quantum indeterminacy applies to more then just a human. But if the answer is not material (1. above) then it must be immaterial.


Emergence necessitates neither as far as I understand it. Emergence relates to phenomena that are manifest in systems but not in any of its constituents. Specifically, emergent properties can be described in terms of interactions of constituents with more fundamental properties. But they key thing is that the emergent phenomenon is not in any of those constituents.

A lot of the argument against emergence being reducible relies on the observation that, in many complex systems, one cannot simply take the constituents and predict the behaviour given the correct configuration. A lot of this basically seems to come down to feedback loops. I might build a simply configuration in which predictable emergence is manifest, but that manifest behaviour might effect a) the constituents, and b) other simply systems with which the first combines to form a more complex system. Out of these more complex systems there may be yet more emergent behaviour which effects the simpler systems, their constituents and other complex systems with which the first combines with to form yet more complex systems, and so on and so forth.

As such, the top-level system exhibits behaviour that one could never ascribe to any constituent, or predict to occur.

Wiki wrote:

An emergent behaviour or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviours as a collective. If emergence happens over disparate size scales, then the reason is usually a causal relation across different scales. In other words there is often a form of top-down feedback in systems with emergent properties. The processes from which emergent properties result may occur in either the observed or observing system, and can commonly be identified by their patterns of accumulating change, most generally called 'growth'. Why emergent behaviours occur include: intricate causal relations across different scales and feedback, known as interconnectivity. The emergent property itself may be either very predictable or unpredictable and unprecedented, and represent a new level of the system's evolution. The complex behaviour or properties are not a property of any single such entity, nor can they easily be predicted or deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities: they are irreducible. No physical property of an individual molecule of any gas would lead one to think that a large collection of them will transmit sound. The shape and behaviour of a flock of birds or shoal of fish are also good examples.


So emergence is unlikely to be random and there is no need to look to any immaterialist cause, or invoke quantum indeterminacy. Complexity is key here.
click here
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 03:13 am
@Bones-O,
Bones-O!;65872 wrote:

So emergence is unlikely to be random and there is no need to look to any immaterialist cause, or invoke quantum indeterminacy. Complexity is key here.



So then do you agree with my 2nd thought in my OP? That even though cause it unknown one can only expect for emergence to be deterministic? If so then the atheist can not pull away from a deterministic universe and still must expect to realize that free will is still non existent?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 04:29 am
@click here,
Free will – is our understanding wrong? - life - 01 August 2007 - New Scientist Excuse me but is it certain? Suarez does not appear to agree in this article.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Emergence proves determinism
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 09:03:49