Questioning Determinism

JLN,

The kind of logic you are referring to, that of FOPC, certainly has it's limitations. But this is just one way of describing logic mathematically which we have found useful. There are other ways of describing logic mathematically, although they are ALL poor approximations for human logic.

0 Replies

Stuh, I can imagine that there are multiple systems of logic, just as there are multiple forms of grammar in the world. But my argument would apply to all of them. All knowledge is a function of the knower as is all--including intellectual and creative--behavior.

0 Replies

Quote:

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.

This appears to be your only concrete example of a limitation of logic. But only the mathematical forms of logic such as FOPC have this limitation. Human logic does not have this problem!

0 Replies

Stuh, could you explain this further. And what does FOPC stand for?

0 Replies

I come to this discussion late, but it seems to me that the term "the" universe begs a few questions.

Like JLN, I argue that what constitutes "a " universe is a function of observer and observed." To parody Wittgenstein " the universe of a happy man is very different from that of a sad man" and this is merely to take two apocryphal humans !

Now two routes follow (a) if we assume that there is such a thing as "the" universe which is the sum total of all observer-observed interactions constituting some "fundamental reality" then no single observer could ever ascend to the position of observing the totality. Hence determinism or its absence could never be substantiated. (b) If on the other hand there is "no" fundamental reality then we are dealing with multiverses some of which may be embedded in our (statistical)own such that we may be transcendent enough to predict events. For example, we might be able to observe determinism of "the universe of an insect " even though it can't.

0 Replies

Stuh, you say "This appears to be your only concrete example of a limitation of logic."
This statement is not one of data; it is a philosophical principle that should be enough if it stands. How many philosophical principles would be needed to support my point about the limits of human knowledge?

0 Replies

Only one reason is enough, but I thought I had eliminated it. You didn't seem convinced so I was looking to see if there was some other reason I had not considered.

Ok then, I will try to explain. FOPC is first order predicate calculus / logic. It is basically all the logic that we can write by considering things in terms of variables. For instance, when you say:

A = john likes bread
A' = john does not like bread
A implies B
A is true
therefore B is true

etc, this is FOPC. Deduction, abduction, induction, modus ponens tollens etc.

But, as you pointed out, this kind of logic does not handle time or change well. It is really only truly valid at a particular INSTANT in time, because everything can be considered a constant at an instant.

But humans do not have trouble using logic in the presence of time and change, so this is not a limitation of human logic, just a limitation of FOPC.

0 Replies

It seems to me that "instances" in time have no concrete reality. They are only frozen abstractions about which we deal abstractly. By abstracton here I mean fictional, even if usefully so.
Are you saying that there are forms of human logic about which we can abstractly examine the flux of nature? Time and change as abstractions can be factored into our thinking, but are you equating them with the flux of reality?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

It seems to me that "instances" in time have no concrete reality. They are only frozen abstractions about which we deal abstractly. By abstracton here I mean fictional, even if usefully so.

Yes I agree, although sometimes we are only interested in a specific instance in time, in which case it is faithful.

Quote:

Are you saying that there are forms of human logic about which we can abstractly examine the flux of nature? Time and change as abstractions can be factored into our thinking, but are you equating them with the flux of reality?

If you can account for non-static concepts then it is necessary to use an extra dimension to consider them, eg time. I am saying that despite the fact that our knowledge is accreted throughout our life, from multiple times rather than one instantaneous time, and yet we are still able to make logical arguments from our knowledge, clearly we are very good at temporal logic.

0 Replies

Stuh,

I think determinism states:

P1: Any event in the universe follows causality
P2: Causal events are driven by natural laws and conditions
P3: It is possible to know all natural laws and all conditions

C: It is possible to predict any event in the future.

I have a problem with P3 on two related things: what it is to know, and what can be known.

I think that P3 is assuming that knowledge of a certain condition do not alter the condition itself. However, any being that can "know" in the sense that we "know" must interact with what is to be known. In this sense the being would ultimately affect the conditions. If a being is measuring a certain condition, he would alter the condition, even if by a bit, and the initial condition that he measured would not give him the chain of cause and effect that has been set.

Quote:

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 disagree with him also.

Quote:

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.

You said: "If things are deterministic, then it is predictable what knowledge a person will have in the future, even if that is knowledge of the future. Therefore, the actions that we predict for that person would already be based on their potential knowledge of the future."

Well, I am not talking about another person predicting what that person would do. I am talking of a person who does know all the natural laws and conditions of the universe at that instant, but is structured himself or herself to act in such a way as to oppose the event in the future, and whether or not this person (whose condition satisfies P3), would be able to predict the future.

0 Replies

Quote:

If a being is measuring a certain condition, he would alter the condition, even if by a bit, and the initial condition that he measured would not give him the chain of cause and effect that has been set.

That is true, measuring does cause a change. However, in the thought experiment, we do not make measurements! Basically, it goes like this:

If the universe has exact states, and is causal, and an all-powerful being know the exact state of the universe, then that all powerful being could predict any future state.

Quote:

I am talking of a person who does know all the natural laws and conditions of the universe at that instant, but is structured himself or herself to act in such a way as to oppose the event in the future, and whether or not this person (whose condition satisfies P3), would be able to predict the future.

Yes, this is the same as you said before. And you are still contradicting yourself, because we are talking about a causal universe, and in a causal universe, people do not make "decisions."

0 Replies

Interesting points, gentlemen. But is it conceivable that an all-powerful mind OF THE PRESENT could predict knowledge OF THE FUTURE without it being present knowledge?

By the way, my reference to the inherent limitations of the human organism is only intended to suggest that we are not built for omniscience. I am suggesting also the possibility that there may be dimensions of reality that we cannot, by our very nature, even begin to think of investigating.

0 Replies

Interesting points, gentlemen. But is it conceivable that an all-powerful mind OF THE PRESENT could predict knowledge OF THE FUTURE without it being present knowledge?

By the way, my reference to the inherent limitations of the human organism is only intended to suggest that we are not built for omniscience. I am suggesting also the possibility that there may be dimensions of reality that we cannot, by our very nature, even begin to think of investigating.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Interesting points, gentlemen. But is it conceivable that an all-powerful mind OF THE PRESENT could predict knowledge OF THE FUTURE without it being present knowledge?

Yes, by definition, it follows from simple logic that if the omnipotent one could determine the complete future from all present information, then he could determine the complete future from a complete set of past information as well...because present is part of the future of the past. Or did I misinterpret your question?

0 Replies

No, that was fine. My intuition, for what it is worth, is that there is no past or future, only a changing "present". Yet the NOTION of present makes no sense without notions of past and future, so there isn't a present either. There is only THIS (pointing to a passing gesture, one that disappeared as soon as it came into being).

0 Replies

JLN,

Think about it more.

First of all, to say that time is false and there is only "now" is self contradictory because you cannot deny that there is a 4th dimension that we call time, and all the words we have to describe time are independent of the nature of that dimension. For example, we could interchange "Time" with "X" in terms of vocabulary, and then "Past" would mean "left" and "future" would mean "right," and "now" would mean "here, or in front, or behind."

However, we do have a strong feeling about what time is, and I understand that you believe this feeling should be discarded -- in essence, you believe that Time is really no different than X,Y,Z. This is provably false -- time does NOT behave like the other dimensions, both mathematically, and logically.

But, let's entertain the thought for a moment. If time WAS the same as XYZ, then we could just as easily be tricked into thinking that "XY-Time" were the spatial dimensions and "Z" was really the time dimension. What would it look like if we were to interact in this world?

You would still see things moving around, and moving at different speeds, but everything in the time dimension would be moving ALMOST the same speed, except for light which you would notice is moving extremely fast.

You would also notice that things did not appear to move in a consistent fashion. You would see things wobbling back and forth, and this would slightly (so slighly that you could not see it but only measure it with extremel fine instruments) cause them to speed up or down. But basically, you would see things speeding off in one direction and wobbling back and forth in another direction. But their motion would not be consistent. There would be no such thing as conservation of momentum, because it would be possible for objects to change direction for no apparent reason at all.

But that is just what things woudl look like in a short "instant of Z". How would things change as "Z passes"? For one thing, Z would not just "pass." You would have to physically progress yourself into the future of Z by moving in one direction. But since you couldn't see into the "future", you would not be able to discern the shapes of objects in a rational way. Objects would have "shapes" all right, but those shapes would be constantly changing because they would be determined by time and Xand Y. So one dimension would be fluctuating, and would change dramatically and randomly as you propelled yourself through Z.

Once you think about it, it becomes obvious for all these logical reasons that TIME is not the same as the spatial dimensions. And furthermore, TIME is not represented the same way mathematically in the case of relativity.

All of this proves that there is a 4th dimension that is NOT like a spatial dimension. And that being said, you could still argue that the "feeling" of time is false -- that there is simply a 4th dimension different from all others, but that it is still "simultaneous" (even though that is grammatically wrong)...but this kind of argument is pointless, because it is just an argument of "what feels like what," and it does not have anything to do with "what is."

0 Replies

Quote:

That is true, measuring does cause a change. However, in the thought experiment, we do not make measurements! Basically, it goes like this:

If the universe has exact states, and is causal, and an all-powerful being know the exact state of the universe, then that all powerful being could predict any future state.

Yes, but that would contain all the problems concerning what it is to be all powerful and if such a being does or can exist.

On a side note, I don't think I would define "decisions" in the same way as is presented in your post. This would be another debate I guess.

Quote:

Yes, this is the same as you said before. And you are still contradicting yourself, because we are talking about a causal universe, and in a causal universe, people do not make "decisions."

I'm not sure if I am contradicting myself. An event X in a causal universe would ultimately occur, but whether this being (noting again that his brain is structured in such a way as to avoid the event that he predicts) can know of what X is, despite him knowing all the variables in an instantaneous time, is questionable.

Ok guys, just to let you know I might not post again for a while, semester is starting. Looks like you guys will be busy discussing about the metaphysics of time.

"Thanks for all the fish." Smile

0 Replies

Stuh, I wasn't going to respond to your last post because, as I see it, it merely complicates, or compounds, a set of assumptions that I find unrealistic. Models of Time do not point to what we experience, only a system of thoughts that I cannot relate to. You say that I say that "time is false and that there is only "now". That is not what I said. I said that terms for time segments, i.e., past, present and future, are concepts for mental constructions. That does not make them "false" as constructs; it merely means they are ONLY concepts. I also noted that the the construct,"present," makes no sense without its conceptual contrasts, "past" and "future," I said that there is only change (or flux) occurring "now". By now I referred to the phenomenal field of occurring experience. I'm trying to stay away from artificial models (although that is not completely possible as long as we are talking about thoughts) that remove us too far from actual experience. Your approach, while thoughtful, makes that difficult.

\First of all, to say that time is false and there is only "now" is self contradictory because you cannot deny that there is a 4th dimension that we call time, and all the words we have to describe time are independent of the nature of that dimension. For example, we could interchange "Time" with "X" in terms of vocabulary, and then "Past" would mean "left" and "future" would mean "right," and "now" would mean "here, or in front, or behind."

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Stuh, I wasn't going to respond to your last post because, as I see it, it merely complicates, or compounds, a set of assumptions that I find unrealistic.

Hey, you're the one always talking in riddles! Very Happy

Quote:

You say that I say that "time is false and that there is only "now". That is not what I said. I said that terms for time segments, i.e., past, present and future, are concepts for mental constructions.

Indeed, this seems equivalent to my point that they are merely words that do have some real meaning from our perspective (regardless of what may be seen from a more 'true' perspective) and as such they are not false but are true by definition.

Quote:

That does not make them "false" as constructs; it merely means they are ONLY concepts.

They are only true by definition as words. The concepts behind them aren't true by definition, but there MUST be a true physical representation of the concepts, because we are able to percieve a real difference in our reality for the words...which means that they are representing SOMETHING that is real.

Quote:

I also noted that the the construct,"present," makes no sense without its conceptual contrasts, "past" and "future,"

Indeed, and a more general way of stating that in higher dimensions is that location is meaningless if everything is at the same location.

Quote:

I said that there is only change (or flux) occurring "now". By now I referred to the phenomenal field of occurring experience.

We usually think of a state S as a function of time t, S(t). You are saying that there is no such thing as a changing time, but things change in the present. But if the state does change, then there is such a thing as a previous and next state, which can be stated mathematically as S(n) the current state, S(n-1) the previous state, S(n+1) the next state. It doesn't matter if you call it "time" or "change" because there is NO difference. So you might as well call it time because everyone else does.

Quote:

I'm trying to stay away from artificial models (although that is not completely possible as long as we are talking about thoughts) that remove us too far from actual experience. Your approach, while thoughtful, makes that difficult.

On the contrary, I'm trying to relate your abstract ideas to real experience...

0 Replies

Questioning Determinism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know