flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > determinism

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
what you think about deterministic theory ? do you believe in what it says or you believe in persons free will ? the only sure thing is that the person interacts with the whole universe taking so much influences and domino effects so that remains to him is just to choose between available options.. or just to take the influences..
is there fate or no ? is this world randomness ?

Confused

(you could never read this post, but you did.. it was written that you would Razz )
Post 24 Apr 2008, 00:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
victor



Joined: 31 Dec 2005
Posts: 126
Location: Utopia
victor
asmhack wrote:
... the person interacts with the whole universe taking so much influences and domino effects ...
This reminds me of chaos theory - tiny effects could bring about huge changes - whose father recently passed away. Refer to this. Sad
Post 24 Apr 2008, 03:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17467
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
The butterfly effect.
Post 24 Apr 2008, 03:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
I have yet to see any evidence that any part of our "will" is not just result of (deterministic) processes in our brains. So far, all evidence points other way: that every part of our consciousness is result of processes in brain.

On other side, determinism isn't as "strong" as some originally thought: by quantum mechanics we learnt that we can only determine probabilities of various outcomes, never THE ONLY outcome.
Post 24 Apr 2008, 09:43
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
by the way, check out Internet Infidels Discussion Board, there are like 10 active threads discussing that. Quality of arguments there is usually quite good, so it's worth for those interested.
Post 24 Apr 2008, 09:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Determinism is an old conservative scientific thinking, just like the flat Earth or, more recently, the conspiracies (I'm not into that again Laughing).

It can't be 'strong' or, for that matter, 'few' -- it can either be 1 or 0 (i.e 'on' or 'off'). Since quantum mechanics finally demonstrated to the conservative scientists that it is false (those type of scientists are always behind with about a century or more, with knowledge that is), there is really no doubt about the fake determinism theory.

Those that still see it as a 'possible' situation are just too conservative -- and meh, they say religion is bad... (since determinism are usually atheists, religions usually involve free will).
Post 25 Apr 2008, 11:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Artlav



Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 188
Location: Moscow, Russia
Artlav
One think i can't understand in discussions like that is why should determinism (aka fate) necessarily exclude the free will?
Post 25 Apr 2008, 12:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Stupid Question: if the world would have been deterministic, would we be thinking about this thing?
Post 25 Apr 2008, 12:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Don't forget that quantum probability applies only to subatomic levels. In our "big" levels, determinism still works just fine. And saying that quantum probability is not consistent with determinism is not nescessary true. You just have to forget definition of atom as "single point", and accept it's wave function not as probability where in space atom is, but as "true" representation of atom. That's what you should do with any physical model, anyway. With such (proper) view, outcome is always exactly defined from events preceding it.

Quote:
One think i can't understand in discussions like that is why should determinism (aka fate) necessarily exclude the free will?

if you define "free will" as something not dependant on current state of material world (free from matter), then determinism excludes it. Each neuron firing is directly dependent on previous state of things.

Quote:
Stupid Question: if the world would have been deterministic, would we be thinking about this thing?

why not?
Post 25 Apr 2008, 13:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Don't forget that quantum probability applies only to subatomic levels. In our "big" levels, determinism still works just fine.
Yep it does, to a certain extent, but it's like the Newtonian stuff -- just approximation, not the true stuff.

but of course people don't think about atoms when they go to a bus Wink

vid wrote:
why not?
because it would be a feedback effect.
Post 25 Apr 2008, 14:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Yep it does, to a certain extent, but it's like the Newtonian stuff -- just approximation, not the true stuff

There is no "true" in science. Just model of reality which explains all data available. Deterministic model works 100% for "big" stuff, and for quantum physics too, you just need to forget old definition of particles

Quote:
because it would be a feedback effect.

I don't see any problem with purely deterministic consciousness "thinking" about itself. Can you explain what you mean by "feedback effect"?
Post 26 Apr 2008, 07:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
sakeniwefu



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 29
sakeniwefu
As I understand it quantum level uncertainty derives more from our inability to measure the current state of a quantum without modifying it than anything else, maybe it is deterministic, maybe not, but there is no way to prove it one way or the other because no reliable measure can be taken.
Post 26 Apr 2008, 22:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2937
Location: vpcmipstrm
bitRAKE
I liked the message in "Minority Report" - the choice is ours. The best thing about determinism is that it can help us make better choices - or atleast communicate our intent to make better choices.

Think of Zeno's paradox - every quantum interval of space-time has branch points between two locations. Maybe they are less likely (probabalistically), but cascading can raise the probability of any branch point. Don't we all challenge ourselves (our projection of the future) - attempting to organize space-time to change the probabilities of future events?

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 27 Apr 2008, 01:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
As I understand it quantum level uncertainty derives more from our inability to measure the current state of a quantum without modifying it than anything else

No, that were early interpretations. Now it's proven that particles actually are in multiple states, until they have to "pick" one of them, simply speaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
Post 27 Apr 2008, 08:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Quote:
because it would be a feedback effect.

I don't see any problem with purely deterministic consciousness "thinking" about itself. Can you explain what you mean by "feedback effect"?
Ok, I'll try.

Firstly there can be no 'conscience' with deterministic theory.
Secondly, the feedback effect comes from the fact that the output (of the deterministic theory) would go back around to the input, because we, humans, being deterministic, think about deterministic. Unless this was 'pre-determined' (aka fate) for us, and in which case we do not think of the real fate, but of a deterministic theory.

Here's an example in case the above doesn't make sense. Let's say there is a God (not in the sense you know, but it's the "thing" that determined the Universe's fate, e.g: Big Bang, whatever caused the initial energy). So I'll just call it God (note that it goes against the normal 'God' because it doesn't give free will).

1) God creates the Universe and determines it's fate
2) God determines that humans should think about a certain deterministic theory
3) However, this thinking does not yield the true deterministic theory -- we can't think about the true deterministic theory, we think about a false one. Because the true one actually made us think about this false one. If we were to think about the true one, it would again be false, because there would be a new 'true' one.

Here's a diagram:

Initial deterministic stuff:

TRUE knowledge about the world: Deterministic type A (true)
Human knowledge: Deterministic type B (false)

Deterministic type A is the true deterministic theory -- and it's also the one that makes us think for the false Deterministic B theory.


Let's suppose that, for example, we now think about Deterministic A. That would be impossible because we weren't determined to think about that. But let's just say it is possible.

The problem is that the 'algorithm' of the world changes. Now, the true deterministic theory must make us think about this new deterministic theory. So the 'true' deterministic theory changed, and we again think about a false deterministic theory.

Code:
  _________________
 /                 \
 |   +--------+    |
 \-> | Theory | >--/
     +--------+    
When the 'false' theory (of ours) changes, no matter where, the 'true' one changes as well, because it "makes us think about changing it". This means, the one we think about can't be true, because there must always be a one more truer than ours, that makes us think so.


well at least if you believe in the deterministic theory.

doesn't make much sense
Post 28 Apr 2008, 12:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
However, this thinking does not yield the true deterministic theory -- we can't think about the true deterministic theory, we think about a false one. Because the true one actually made us think about this false one. If we were to think about the true one, it would again be false, because there would be a new 'true' one.

I don't follow here... So basically you say that it's impossible for some system to understand itself? That IMO has yet to be dis/proven.

Note that we doesn't talk about full understanding of all parts of "our system" (how we function) here. We just require understanding of one of many concepts that togetger form "our system" - the determinism. There are many components in "our system", that we unarguably already observe and understand. So what so special about determinism, compared to other well understood concepts, that should make it not understandable by us?
Post 28 Apr 2008, 12:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Yep that is correct. In deterministic theory, something must make us think about the respective theory. That something is not part of our thinking because if it were, then something else would be making us think about it.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 12:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
In deterministic theory, something must make us think about the respective theory. That something is not part of our thinking because if it were, then something else would be making us think about it.

"something that makes us think is not part of our thinking" ???

I am not sure about your definition of "being part of thinking", but this doesn't give any sense at all to me.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 12:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
If you make your computer do something, he won't think about "how you did it" -- even if he knows how it works. If you try to change the way he thinks, you could do it, but in this case, he would still not be closer to the truth -- because you changed it, and done a modification -- therefore the old theory is not correct, and even if he knows the old true theory, it's not correct anymore.

Whenever you try to modify the way it thinks (to reflect the truth) you'll still need to do something, and thus the 'determinism' changes. It's like he's try to get closer to the truth, but as he makes each new 'step' the theory changes.

Otherwise (if it doesn't change, which I think the theory is about), it will not make any steps, since everything is pre-determined.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 12:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
I don't like computer analogy much. Current computers certainly don't do anything similar to "thinking" done by our brains. But i will try to follow you in this analogy.

Your argument is that changing way we think (if we start with incorrect idea) requires some action that breaks determinism? That is hardly concievable to me... we can change way we think just by (deterministicaly) providing different data to our brain, and we can even (deterministicaly) change way our brain processes data.

I absolutely don't understand how our brains thinking about determinism imply that determinism is false.

Let's start with current deterministic materialism: Our consciousness is result of deterministic processes in our neural system. This system is evolved enough to be able to analyze and understand some concepts of itself (not nescessarily all yet). One of concept that our consciousness already discovered and understood is determinism. It has been observed and tested countless times, and no single breach of determinism was ever detected. Same can be said for magnetic force - it is another rule that forms our system, like determinism, which we have observed and understood.

Where is the flaw in that?
Post 28 Apr 2008, 13:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.