Questioning Determinism

Stuh, if we are most comfortable thinking causally and, in consequence, feel most comfortable with a deterministic (causal) model of the Cosmos, we are trying to shrink the Cosmos to size of our brains, a form of rationalism.

JLN, yes we are certainly most comfortable thinking causally, and with a causal model of the universe. I'm not sure what you mean about your reference to scale here...what's your point then?

"Shrinking the World to the size of my brain", is, of course, a metaphor for the hubris of cosmological speculation. I, like everyone, use a causal model for thinking about the antecedent conditions necessary to produce or avoid certain conditions and events. But that does not mean causality is an adequate model of Reality itself. Determinism is good to think with--for SOME problems--but it is does not adequately describe the Cosmos.

Yes, determinism is good to think with for SOME problems....but that doesn't make it true, fundamentally.

However, nondeterminism is also good to think with for SOME problems...and once again, this doesn't make it fundamentally true.

I am neither arguing for nor against determinism, I merely do not feel that we have enough evidence to conclude either way.

Stuh, what would you count as "evidence"?

well for instance if they measured something that was supposed to be random at very exact, small time intervals and then cross correlated the data and found a repeating pattern. but in general only controlled scientific experiments of fundamental particle interactions count as evidence.

we have evidence that suggests randomness, but it's very difficult to "prove" that something is truly random when you don't know where to look for the pattern.

Thanks

I thought chaos science had left determinism dead in the water?

Eorl, it's quantum mechanics, but see my first post on this thread (1st page)

Then you completely misunderstood my argument.

My argument is simply to question the connection between causality and the possibility to predict the future (even in theory). That is it. Nothing against causality, except for one part in my original post where I question whether at the beginning of the universe there is a cause that is not preceded by another cause.

My argument concerning Abe is to show how knowledge of the future seems impossible if Abe's mind is structured in such a way as to avoid doing an event that he sees himself doing in the future. It seems that the actual event can never really be predicted.

Laplace's "superman", the perfect mind that could, if it knew something for sure and completely could deduce from that knowledge everthing, everywhere and throughout future time, requires the presupposition of a completely deterministic universe. The latter assumption is just as fanciful to me as is the former.

By the way, I see the capacity for knowledge by human beings to be permitted and limited by our very nature. It would be impossible for the most intelligent ant in the world to understand what we are doing with these computer machines or talking about through them, and this impossibility is determined by the ant's very (organic) nature. We suffer the same condition regarding the most fundamental and overarching cosmic realities. I refer here to a kind of ultimate and absolute "knowledge" beyond that obtained by theoretical physics, philosophy, or mysticism. Such forms of inquiry refer only to OUR kinds of knowledge, i.e, the answers to our questions, not the questions about "absolute reality" posed by a God-like mind. The very notion of "fundamental...realities is PERMITTED by our nature but not necessitated by it. So, I guess I do find it USEFUL to think in terms of "necessary" cause, but I do not consider the notion to be a rock-bottom handle on reality. It's only a means by which I, qua human being, can relate to that which the terms, 'reality', 'cosmos' and 'universe' refer to for me and my kind.
My position is relativistic, not absolutistic.

Ray, I'm not sure that I did misinterpret you, because I could see your logic behind saying everything that you did. But in your most recent post, I don't know what you're talking about.

Let's get back to the basics here. The question we are discussing in this thread is: is the universe deterministic or not?

1) Are you saying that it is, is not, or not sure? Our most advanced science operates under the principle that it is not deterministic, but my stance is that we cannot truly ever know whether or not it is deterministic, because there might be deterministic rules at play at an even lower level than quantum mechanics.

2) Does a deterministic universe result in a paradox? You seem to be arguing that it would cause a paradox, because you think that if it were deterministic humans could predict the future and use this knowledge of the future to change the future. This is not really a paradox though for reasons I have said.

Did I miss anything?

JLN presents a third issue to the table.

3) Are we physically incapable of understanding the universe? JLN thinks yes, because an ant has a physical limit, so logically we should too. I tend to disagree...

I agree that an ant has limitations, but not due to it's size, due to it's components. I think that a human has the tools built into our brain for logical reasoning and abstraction while an ant does not. The only physical limitation for our brains, then, would be the amount of memory we can store..but by using abstraction, we are able to consider only the relevant variables at a time and I think that solves the problem.

Like a Turing machine, I think our brains can do anything.

true, Stuh, by "ant nature" I include the limitation that it is incapable of logic (I refer, I suppose to its neurological structure), but by "human nature" I include the limitation that we seem to feel that logic provides windows onto reality. To me, logic is clearly as much of a limitation as it is an asset. It is useful for the solution to some kinds of problems, but the "rationalism" which it reflects in the realm of philosophy clearly reflects a particular limitation of our nature. It's a strength along side many we have as humans, but it also reflects our limits as well. All human knowledge is NO MORE THAN HUMAN knowledge.

My point is actually trivial, i.e, that our nature sets both our range of capabilities and limitations, and, as such, it defines the boundaries of our reality for us. Is that not obvious?

I don't agree JL. Our ability to use tools makes all the difference. Our physical structure means that we can't fly, and can't survive in space, can't live without a heart. Using tools we can do all these things. The same applies to tools such as mathematics, logic, even philosophy
I think there are no limits to our ability to understand the universe. (Unless you count the infinite amout of knowledge available, but that's beside the point)

I disagree, Eorl. I think there are severe limits on our ability to understand the universe and I think I understand what JL is talking about. The real problem is that we can never know what it is that we don't understand and logic will not get us there. I'll give you an analogy. If I tried to teach my dog how to read a newspaper, obviously this would be an exercise in futility. But the poignant thing is not that the dog is incapable of learning how to read (some humans have such learning disabilities, too) but, rather, that the dog can never understand the concept of reading, cannot understand what it is I am trying to teach him. I think there are areas for us humans which fall in the same category as a dog trying to read. We don't know what it is that we don't know. And can't know. Our brains aren't built that way. As JL has so ably said, all knowledge is HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. (It's possible that higher insights might be attained through meditation, rather than introspection, but that goes beyond the scope or direction of this thread. I won't go there.)

Dogs are not at the tool using level. We know many things that we do not naturally need to know and would never conceive of in the first place if the tools we were using (including logic) had not revealed them to us.

For example, we know all about frequencies of light that we have no business being aware of .... because our eyes cannot see them. Why would we ever imagine such things existed? Because we are capable of imagining them and using our tools to detect them. The argument is that there are things we can't imagine, but I disagree. We can imagine literally anything.

MerryAndrew, I appreciate your understanding. You capture it well in the phrase "our brains are not built that way." Let me add that even mystical enlightenment is no more than HUMAN mystical enlightenment. As far as I'm concerned it is to that extent limited, but that is no problem for mystics; it is part of their Self-realization.
Eorl, I also appreciate your perspective. It is very sensible, but my effort is here to transcend our limits, or at least to imagine the possibility of doing so. I'm afraid that my efforts are like the impossible task of leaving Plato's Cave while your's is like making the best of life within it.

Eorl, if there are things that we cannot imagine, then not being able to imagine such a possibility could be one of them.

It is not obvious. What is it about logic that is an inherit limitation??



That's not true. Many other animals have knowledge and can use logic.

Stuh, you ask what is it about logic that has the characteristic of a human limitation (as well as a strength)?
I would say that "logic" is like "grammar"; we think most effectively when we follow the rules of both. I cannot talk without the use of the subject-object (or agent-action distinction). It seems to be required for making sense of the world. Yet the ontological stature of the ego/subject/self is problematical (that's a discussion which A2Kers have had more than once).
Logic also follows rules that reflect HUMAN predispositions (I don't know if we should say that Aristotle and others "invented" or "discovered" the principles of logic, but I suspect that Aristotle and others "discovered" something about the human mind). Logic, to do its job, rests on arbitrary presuppositions such as the onotologically spurious but useful idea of the existence of static "beings" symbolized by "A", "B", "X", etc..It is their relationships that logic addresses. The reality is that instead of the existence of "beings" there exists only "becoming", which is to say process. Everything is in flux, or becoming. THINGS are not changing; process occurs in itself, but we cannot think or talk about it without the infusion of "things" that are changing.. The reality of change in itself cannot be adequately captured by either grammar or logic, as far as I know.
Rationalism, as I understand it, rests on the assumption that the structure of the human mind (i.e., its dependence on logic and grammar) reflects or corresponds with the actual structure of the world, rather than the (or a) way we humans are able to engage it.