determinism

Originally posted by @humy
No, I wouldn't ask that. Determinism is a doctrine; horoscopes are not. Please don't be obtuse. Defined what you mean by "Determinism is not a scientific viewpoint" else, if not, you don't know what you are talking about.

What would let me do that? I don't trust anything I have heard.

Originally posted by @apathist
What would let me do that?

Yes, I will "let" you explain. I want you to explain. I'm not stopping you.
So, now, feel free to continue and do that...

Originally posted by @joe-shmo
"What exactly do you use daily? Knowledge of cause and effect? Science is built on that"

Yes, the applied sciences depend on determinism to be useful. There are things which ore non-deterministic, like chaos...I'm not saying it is the only view, but it is at least one view science holds. Although it is probably not complete.

Chaos theory is entirely deterministic, all it says is that for some systems very small differences in initial conditions create large differences down the line. This makes such systems unpredictable rather than non-deterministic. The problem is at the level of epistemology rather than ontology.

Can we have some clarity about what you all mean by "deterministic"? The discussion is in danger of being a little New Age otherwise. It'd also be fun to criticize what the various posters in this forum think that cause and effect means - any volunteers to have a stab at a definition?

Originally posted by @deepthought
Chaos theory is entirely deterministic, all it says is that for some systems very small differences in initial conditions create large differences down the line. This makes such systems unpredictable rather than non-deterministic. The problem is at the level of epistemology rather than ontology.

Can we have some clarity about what you all mean by "det ...[text shortened]... in this forum think that cause and effect means - any volunteers to have a stab at a definition?[/b]

Do you think there is stuff we are not allowed to question? Meta is cool, right? So what do we do with meta meta.

Does anyone here really believe your next thought was formed at the start of this universe.

My blood is not actually boiling. But it feels like it.

Originally posted by @deepthought
Chaos theory is entirely deterministic, ...

Yes, and it is a common layperson's misconception and myth propagated by TV that chaos theory is "a theory of randomness", which is totally false. I groan whenever I hear on TV "chaos theory is a theory of randomness", or words of that effect. I sometimes hear that in science fiction and sometimes from an actual scientist that has misunderstood it!
Laypeople so often equivocate 'unpredictability' with 'randomness'; they are NOT the same thing. If anyone here doesn't understand what I mean by that, I will gladly elaborate that here on request. I am well qualified to explain it because I studied chaos theory at university.

Originally posted by @apathist
Do you think there is stuff we are not allowed to question? Meta is cool, right? So what do we do with meta meta.

What is written in my posts is beyond question. Meta is the Ancient Greek word for beyond, so metaphysics is so called because it was in the chapter after the one on physics in Aristotle's writing. Meta meta X would be beyond beyond X (Z?), I'm not sure it adds any new meaning. Since meta means beyond and my posts are beyond question you have to regard them as metaquestionable.

Originally posted by @deepthought
Chaos theory is entirely deterministic, all it says is that for some systems very small differences in initial conditions create large differences down the line. This makes such systems unpredictable rather than non-deterministic. The problem is at the level of epistemology rather than ontology.

Can we have some clarity about what you all mean by " ...[text shortened]... in this forum think that cause and effect means - any volunteers to have a stab at a definition?

"Chaos theory is entirely deterministic, all it says is that for some systems very small differences in initial conditions create large differences down the line. This makes such systems unpredictable rather than non-deterministic. The problem is at the level of epistemology rather than ontology."

Thank you for pointing out my error.

Originally posted by @deepthought
Chaos theory is entirely deterministic, all it says is that for some systems very small differences in initial conditions create large differences down the line. This makes such systems unpredictable rather than non-deterministic. The problem is at the level of epistemology rather than ontology.

Can we have some clarity about what you all mean by " ...[text shortened]... in this forum think that cause and effect means - any volunteers to have a stab at a definition?

"Can we have some clarity about what you all mean by "deterministic"? The discussion is in danger of being a little New Age otherwise. It'd also be fun to criticize what the various posters in this forum think that cause and effect means - any volunteers to have a stab at a definition?"

All future states are able to be determined from a set of initial conditions?

Originally posted by @joe-shmo
"Can we have some clarity about what you all mean by "deterministic"? The discussion is in danger of being a little New Age otherwise. It'd also be fun to criticize what the various posters in this forum think that cause and effect means - any volunteers to have a stab at a definition?"

All future states are able to be determined from a set of initial conditions?

So something like the Newtonian world view. I was wondering if some sort of philosophical position was meant. Quantum mechanics seems to rule out a fundamentally deterministic universe. Of the three major interpretations only deBroglie-Bohm attempts to retain a deterministic world. The many worlds approach is deterministic, but from the point of view of an observer in any given one of them it appears that the outcome of a measurement of a mixed state is random. The Copenhagen interpretation has metaphysical randomness.

What apathist's concern seems to be is how this relates to free will - see the comment about the next thought to turn up being determined by the initial state of the universe. The difficulty is that the alternative to a clockwork universe seems to be a stochastic universe. The next thought turning up is then random. So it is not at all clear that there is any more room for libetarian free will in a stochastic universe than there is in a deterministic one.

Originally posted by @deepthought
So something like the Newtonian world view. I was wondering if some sort of philosophical position was meant. Quantum mechanics seems to rule out a fundamentally deterministic universe. Of the three major interpretations only deBroglie-Bohm attempts to retain a deterministic world. The many worlds approach is deterministic, but from the point of vie ...[text shortened]... ore room for libetarian free will in a stochastic universe than there is in a deterministic one.

Ok, a few questions I suppose.

Is Chaos Theory effectively the classical study of imperfect models of imperfect knowledge?

Is determinism an emergent phenomenon? That is, Quantum Mechanics is fundamental and the rest of physics studies the emergent characteristics of the fundamental system? Am I way out in left field?

Lets say you theoretically have perfect models and complete perfect information about universe. You run the model in reverse. About "when" in time would determinism break down? I believe you are saying it must, so when is the question.

In your opinion is life emergent, or fundamental?

Originally posted by @deepthought
So something like the Newtonian world view. I was wondering if some sort of philosophical position was meant. Quantum mechanics seems to rule out a fundamentally deterministic universe. Of the three major interpretations only deBroglie-Bohm attempts to retain a deterministic world. The many worlds approach is deterministic, but from the point of vie ...[text shortened]... ore room for libetarian free will in a stochastic universe than there is in a deterministic one.

"What apathist's concern seems to be is how this relates to free will - see the comment about the next thought to turn up being determined by the initial state of the universe. The difficulty is that the alternative to a clockwork universe seems to be a stochastic universe. The next thought turning up is then random. So it is not at all clear that there is any more room for libetarian free will in a stochastic universe than there is in a deterministic one."

Is this thread emergent and deterministic? The contents and their formation are traceable to a kernel or node. It seems like it could very easily be random (fiddle poop de dimple de doo or driven by "free will" ), but is its contents and organization more likely due to its contributors having imperfect knowledge of the topic (making it more the by product of the entirely deterministic chaos theory), than randomness?

Originally posted by @joe-shmo

Is Chaos Theory effectively the classical study of imperfect models of imperfect knowledge?

No No; chaos theory implies EVEN if your model is PERFECT, the inevitable error in your estimate and measurement error (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error) of the exact starting condition of a 'chaotic' process, even if that process is totally NONE-random (so note 'chaotic' here does NOT mean random!), no matter how tiny that error of measurement is and no matter how accuratly you do your maths calculations afterwards, will eventually an inevitably result in your prediction of the outcomes of the process to be wildly inaccurate. This is because a chaotic system is one (and defined as one) that is such that any tiny difference to its starting condition, no matter how small, will eventually result in a large difference to its final condition (I have studied and totally understood chaos theory at university).

Originally posted by @deepthought
Chaos theory is entirely deterministic, all it says is that for some systems very small differences in initial conditions create large differences down the line. This makes such systems unpredictable rather than non-deterministic. The problem is at the level of epistemology rather than ontology.

Can we have some clarity about what you all mean by " ...[text shortened]... in this forum think that cause and effect means - any volunteers to have a stab at a definition?

fun to criticize what the various posters in this forum think that cause and effect means

Cause/effect is metadifficult to inderstand.
First of all, what causes it?

Originally posted by @joe-shmo
"Chaos theory is entirely deterministic, all it says is that for some systems very small differences in initial conditions create large differences down the line. This makes such systems unpredictable rather than non-deterministic. The problem is at the level of epistemology rather than ontology."

Thank you for pointing out my error.[/b]

I understand that determinism is fine with chaos theory. I don't think that is vice versa. And I don't think I should ever be unchallenged.

This is fun. Reveal Hidden Content