determimism

[Scott Mayers]

I thought this thread was about deterring mimes from imposing their views on us all!

As to "determinism", and not "deter(-)mimism", it is etymologically from "de-" (of), "termin" (ending), "-ism" (as a consistent belief). It related to the same original intent of "finite" (a finished or complete thing) and "infinite" but they needed to distinguish different terms to refer to the way nature is understood to behave akin to our will to make things come true or not.

Nature is determinate by proximity to one's perspective in their world. But it is also indeterminate the further away from our world just as predicting the weather on some unique day in the future is. The solution is to accept indeterminate reality to be a function of totality that includes both in different dimensions as I discuss elsewhere. This requires a multi-verse perspective of reality.

I think much of the confusion of this topic lies with slippery translations of meaning regarding which is the thing 'determining'.... Nature or people?

[Obvious Leo]

Apparently determinism is wrong because both me and Obvious Leo are "not very bright".

Australians drink far too much beer to be reasonably defined as sentient and in addition to this handicap I am but a simple country lad. However I hold fast to the idea that nothing can happen unless it has been caused to happen and if that makes me an idiot in the opinion of somebody like Hex then I guess I'll just have to learn to live with it.

[Obvious Leo]

Nature is determinate by proximity to one's perspective in their world. But it is also indeterminate the further away from our world just as predicting the weather on some unique day in the future is. The solution is to accept indeterminate reality to be a function of totality that includes both in different dimensions as I discuss elsewhere. This requires a multi-verse perspective of reality.

Utter bullshit, Scott. You conflate indeterminacy with unpredictability, exactly the same logical flaw which physics falls for in QM. The weather is completely determined right down to the last drop of rain and we don't need to invent fictitious dimensions to account for the fact that it can't be predicted beyond a finite order of probability.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I thought this thread was about deterring mimes from imposing their views on us all!

As to "determinism", and not "deter(-)mimism", it is etymologically from "de-" (of), "termin" (ending), "-ism" (as a consistent belief). It related to the same original intent of "finite" (a finished or complete thing) and "infinite" but they needed to distinguish different terms to refer to the way nature is understood to behave akin to our will to make things come true or not.

Nature is determinate by proximity to one's perspective in their world. But it is also indeterminate the further away from our world just as predicting the weather on some unique day in the future is. The solution is to accept indeterminate reality to be a function of totality that includes both in different dimensions as I discuss elsewhere. This requires a multi-verse perspective of reality.

I think much of the confusion of this topic lies with slippery translations of meaning regarding which is the thing 'determining'.... Nature or people?

Nah.
Just because a thing is not predictable, does not make it indeterminate. A lack of information is not a warrant for multiverses. Multiverses is an idea which would require MORE not less or incomplete data.
The fact that more information and precision in data invariably leads to better prediction is an indication that reality is deterministic.
You are just adding nonsense to a perfectly adequate understanding. The idea that is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs, that things come to pass works. For this not to be the case would require some other reason.

[Scott Mayers]

Leo and Hobbes, you both seemed to miss my argument as your accusation of my interpretation of 'determinism'/'indeterminism' as being misconstrued was my point in mentioning how it is being misinterpreted based on multitple definitions existing using the same words. That is, determinism may refer to either that which a human can use to predict something OR to how Nature itself assures something.

You also miss the fact that my inclusion of multiple universes is to recognize that nature has proven to contain variables, not simply constants. Our particular universe we are in may appear perfectly constant with respect to order, but when we think of possibilities, there are an infinite possible routes of how one frame becomes another in time (both forward and backwards.) If you begin at point A and given another frame at point B, the shortest route may seem like the only way to get there. But you can posit another point X anywhere such that point A becomes point X which then becomes point B.

I posit multiple universes as an indeterminate and infinite set of possible realities that don't require essential existence as we understand it. A world that you might simply make up, for instance, really DOES exist somewhere in totality as a universe unto its own. But where they may 'exist' could be such that they create worlds that lack consistent formulations and so close themselves off as incomplete. If I said that I have nothing in my pocket, for instance, it assures that the unit 'nothing' is infinitely variable and real with respect to the meaning of "nothing" as a unit. So I can also be true by saying that I have a unicorn in my pocket too among an infinite set of things considered "unreal."

[Obvious Leo]

Scott. Do you actually understand the difference between linear and non-linear determinism? You're inventing complications where no complications exist. The future is a blank slate because determinism in naturally occurring systems is non-linear and that's all there is to it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Leo and Hobbes, you both seemed to miss my argument as your accusation of my interpretation of 'determinism'/'indeterminism' as being misconstrued was my point in mentioning how it is being misinterpreted based on multitple definitions existing using the same words. That is, determinism may refer to either that which a human can use to predict something OR to how Nature itself assures something.

You also miss the fact that my inclusion of multiple universes is to recognize that nature has proven to contain variables, not simply constants. Our particular universe we are in may appear perfectly constant with respect to order, but when we think of possibilities, there are an infinite possible routes of how one frame becomes another in time (both forward and backwards.) If you begin at point A and given another frame at point B, the shortest route may seem like the only way to get there. But you can posit another point X anywhere such that point A becomes point X which then becomes point B.

I posit multiple universes as an indeterminate and infinite set of possible realities that don't require essential existence as we understand it. A world that you might simply make up, for instance, really DOES exist somewhere in totality as a universe unto its own. But where they may 'exist' could be such that they create worlds that lack consistent formulations and so close themselves off as incomplete. If I said that I have nothing in my pocket, for instance, it assures that the unit 'nothing' is infinitely variable and real with respect to the meaning of "nothing" as a unit. So I can also be true by saying that I have a unicorn in my pocket too among an infinite set of things considered "unreal."

Your assessment of what Leo and I are trying to say is false.
You have no need to posit a multiple universes theory as it simply does no work.
There are not an infinite set of possibilities. . Possibility is a musing about the inevitable outcome of the Universe, where all antecedent conditions can never be known, but given assessments about previous known conditions.
For example. We might say that there is a 90% possibility for rain, as the current conditions are similar to previous conditions when it did rain. But the actual condition of rain is not about what we think is possible but about the ACTUAL conditions of the environment.
To assert that for every possibility, there has to be a new universe, is completely absurd anthropomorphism. The universe does not give a fuck about what we think is possible.

[HexHammer]

Apparently determinism is wrong because both me and Obvious Leo are "not very bright".

Australians drink far too much beer to be reasonably defined as sentient and in addition to this handicap I am but a simple country lad. However I hold fast to the idea that nothing can happen unless it has been caused to happen and if that makes me an idiot in the opinion of somebody like Hex then I guess I'll just have to learn to live with it.

I'm not the idiot here, you are by far! ..and not only an idiot but a complete retard!
None of you retards can clarify which relevance this garbage has, I have several times request that you cozy chatters can give just 1 good argument, but no one can, you are simply too stupid to give 1.

[Scott Mayers]

Leo and Hobbes, you both seemed to miss my argument as your accusation of my interpretation of 'determinism'/'indeterminism' as being misconstrued was my point in mentioning how it is being misinterpreted based on multitple definitions existing using the same words. That is, determinism may refer to either that which a human can use to predict something OR to how Nature itself assures something.

You also miss the fact that my inclusion of multiple universes is to recognize that nature has proven to contain variables, not simply constants. Our particular universe we are in may appear perfectly constant with respect to order, but when we think of possibilities, there are an infinite possible routes of how one frame becomes another in time (both forward and backwards.) If you begin at point A and given another frame at point B, the shortest route may seem like the only way to get there. But you can posit another point X anywhere such that point A becomes point X which then becomes point B.

I posit multiple universes as an indeterminate and infinite set of possible realities that don't require essential existence as we understand it. A world that you might simply make up, for instance, really DOES exist somewhere in totality as a universe unto its own. But where they may 'exist' could be such that they create worlds that lack consistent formulations and so close themselves off as incomplete. If I said that I have nothing in my pocket, for instance, it assures that the unit 'nothing' is infinitely variable and real with respect to the meaning of "nothing" as a unit. So I can also be true by saying that I have a unicorn in my pocket too among an infinite set of things considered "unreal."

Your assessment of what Leo and I are trying to say is false.
You have no need to posit a multiple universes theory as it simply does no work.
There are not an infinite set of possibilities. . Possibility is a musing about the inevitable outcome of the Universe, where all antecedent conditions can never be known, but given assessments about previous known conditions.
For example. We might say that there is a 90% possibility for rain, as the current conditions are similar to previous conditions when it did rain. But the actual condition of rain is not about what we think is possible but about the ACTUAL conditions of the environment.
To assert that for every possibility, there has to be a new universe, is completely absurd anthropomorphism. The universe does not give a fuck about what we think is possible.

Right, the universe doesn't give a fuck! So why should it care whether it only contains or acts with consistency? It is you guys who presume an anthropomorphism here as we humans are biased to default to interpreting reality through the very consistency we are defined by. You also must presume a god-like entity as you default to granting it to assert one specific and favorable outcome non-symmetrically. It reduces your understanding of determinism to a 'fate' with a certitude by asserting a literal denial of other places (universes) rather than remaining merely neutral or agnostic on the subject.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Right, the universe doesn't give a fuck! So why should it care whether it only contains or acts with consistency? It is you guys who presume an anthropomorphism here as we humans are biased to default to interpreting reality through the very consistency we are defined by. You also must presume a god-like entity as you default to granting it to assert one specific and favorable outcome non-symmetrically. It reduces your understanding of determinism to a 'fate' with a certitude by asserting a literal denial of other places (universes) rather than remaining merely neutral or agnostic on the subject.

I'm trying to unpack. But can't. This makes no sense. It seems to be a massive non-sequitur.
I've not claimed that 'we are defined by' a consistency in any sense. If you can show that then we can go on from there.
There is no presumption, god-like, or otherwise. I'm puzzled where you think you get this.
There is no assumption of ANY 'favourable' outcomes at all.
And at no time have I asserted any kind of fate.
As for being an agnostic - maybe it's all caused by large invisible pink rabbits? Should I also remain agnostic about those too. I think the large pink rabbits would be more likely than a continuously created set of infinite universes.

[SpheresOfBalance]

From my point of view, both sides of your argument don't necessarily hold any water in terms of certainty. This is why I hate to argue about unknowns. There may be multi-verses and their may not be. Our verse might be uni and it might not be. Just because someone can come up with a mental image of something, then make the math fit, doesn't mean there aren't unknowns that can't be accounted for. So it's a moot point to argue as though we can know these things, just mental masturbation. I guess it could be considered fun by some, to dream the life fantastic, then pat oneself on the back for being so creative, but the fact is these images are only contained within our minds, not necessarily in reality.

So guys, forgive me for being so dense, but I just don't get it, that is, some peoples need to assert imaginative possibility as if its absolutely true, or so the way the dialog is presented it surely seems that's what's believed. I'm just one of those type guys that hates to find out, one day, that what I thought I could build upon, was in fact swampland, that I've swindled myself.

I can see theists doing such things, as they pretty much already do it, but surely not atheists, as that's pretty much what the difference between them is supposed to be, knowing versus believing.

[Scott Mayers]

Right, the universe doesn't give a fuck! So why should it care whether it only contains or acts with consistency? It is you guys who presume an anthropomorphism here as we humans are biased to default to interpreting reality through the very consistency we are defined by. You also must presume a god-like entity as you default to granting it to assert one specific and favorable outcome non-symmetrically. It reduces your understanding of determinism to a 'fate' with a certitude by asserting a literal denial of other places (universes) rather than remaining merely neutral or agnostic on the subject.

I'm trying to unpack. But can't. This makes no sense. It seems to be a massive non-sequitur.
I've not claimed that 'we are defined by' a consistency in any sense. If you can show that then we can go on from there.
There is no presumption, god-like, or otherwise. I'm puzzled where you think you get this.
There is no assumption of ANY 'favourable' outcomes at all.
And at no time have I asserted any kind of fate.
As for being an agnostic - maybe it's all caused by large invisible pink rabbits? Should I also remain agnostic about those too. I think the large pink rabbits would be more likely than a continuously created set of infinite universes.

What I state is implicit in your stance to actually deny multiple universes as possible rather than remain neutral. You stated, "There are not an infinite set of possibilities." [your own underlining and bold text repeated here.] SpheresOfBalances' comment above is the most you could say in your position if you're sincere to what you say here. The 'consistency' is that you assert a fixed unique course of events to all of totality by limiting your interpretation of reality to simply be of our contingent universe by discretely discriminating all others. I may not know if a teapot exists floating in space on the other side of the world. But I know we actually can send a teapot adrift in space. This represents a real possibility that exists among an infinite others. It's still based on local experience/observations.

While I understand that you may not have meant "invisible pink rabbits", isn't something that is "invisible" and also "not-invisible" just a means to show that such contradictions can't exist within one universe? But giving them a place where they do is meaningful just the same. This is because while the referent you're imagining may not represent the reality apart from your creation of it in your head, you nevertheless created that image which represents a true factor about reality as a whole even if such a 'place' only exists within the dimension of your conscious mind (as opposed to the objective dimensions we might all be able to agree to.)

[SpheresOfBalance]

I thought this thread was about deterring mimes from imposing their views on us all!

As you're free to not see mimes, then your choice not to see them, with self flagellation for the cause, the perfect mime raised relief, reminders..., mimes don't really exist.

But in fact, sometimes they do and sometimes not, the trouble with black and white!

The universe is ultimately hard-coded, there is no software, the illusion contained in myriad permutations!

[Hobbes' Choice]

While I understand that you may not have meant "invisible pink rabbits", isn't something that is "invisible" and also "not-invisible" just a means to show that such contradictions can't exist within one universe?)

No, it just means that you are failing to understand the world you live in.

[Scott Mayers]

Scott. Do you actually understand the difference between linear and non-linear determinism? You're inventing complications where no complications exist. The future is a blank slate because determinism in naturally occurring systems is non-linear and that's all there is to it.

If its non-linear, you'd be accepting my interpretation since the multi-verse idea is just such. I'm not sure what your making a distinction on? A dimension exceeding a line is a plane; a dimension exceeding a plane is space; a dimension exceeding space is time; and a dimension exceeding times are completely different contingent worlds.