Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:Hold the front page for breaking news. The subject of consciousness is not a scientific question. Who's going to break it to the millions of scientists who devote their entire lives to the study of it?

idk about consciousness, but we were discussing laws of existence, randomness, etc., which aren't necessarily scientific questions, specially if we accept the metaphysical. if any non-newtonian "scientists" have devoted their entire lives to the study of such things, then, i guess i'll break it to them, and i'll start with you.

btw, "millions" of scientists devote their entire lives to the study of consciousness? you need to get your head examined by one of those millions of scientists.

alpha wrote: btw, "millions" of scientists devote their entire lives to the study of consciousness?

This is a true statement. Every university in the world has a number of different science faculties which deal with different aspects of consciousness.

Do you now wish to claim that the nature of determinism is not a scientific question? Do you indeed know the difference between linear and non-linear determinism? If not I suggest you attend to this significant deficiency without delay.

alpha wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You need to reread the wikipedia page as it states quite the opposite.

wikipedia can shove it.

And there's one of your problems!

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:We must be aware that the words are no the thing of it, but gross approximations of parts of reality. The universe does not obey laws, nor does it comply with our descriptions. Descriptions and laws are consequent on events.

Both are processual, in the sense that neither can exist or make sense as a static phenomenon. We might choose to take one or the other as synchronic or diachronic - but this would only be for explanatory purposes, not for descriptions of how they work, but what they are.
A non processual model for anything is a falsehood. Time moves on.

this is a bit too complicated for me, hc. i understand simple words, such as "causation" and "randomness". when you say the universe doesn't obey laws, do you mean it's random? because randomness can only lead to chaos, and the universe certainly has order, even though it might not be the kind of order i'd prefer. causation is the antithesis of randomness. so by the law of no contradiction, they can't bot be true at the same time. and by the law of excluded middle (yes, leo, i said it excluded middle), both can't be wrong either. there is no other imaginable option/possibility.

explain with simple words, hc.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:For Alpha's purposes, no reflections on either gives rise to "free will"....

hc, you've made my day/night.

No, when I say the universe does not obey laws, I mean, i the sense that a lawgiver has laid them down, and it complies; we are only here to uncover them. I mean that the Universe does what it does, and "Laws" are a very human way of trying to describe the universe and to try to predict what it will do next. I do no think there can be true randomness - just a lack of observation and understanding which leads to apparent randomness too difficult for us poor humans to predict.
But since we have a very good functioning science wholly reliant on a uniformitarian notion of deterministic forces, I see no reason to abandon that in the light of some stuff we are yet to understand (or maybe never will). I do not see a future where we accept that both determinism and randomness can co-exist.

alpha wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

alpha wrote:your problem is that you think everyone should abide by scientific rules and terminology.

You better fucking believe it, pal. If you want to open your ignorant gob and make sweeping statements on matters of science then you better make certain that you first acquaint yourself with the facts, or else you're going to finish up looking like a halfwit. As has been satisfactorily demonstrated.

this isn't a scientific matter you blithering idiot.

Whilst I think that science can be a poor way to understand human experience, and offers only descriptive analysis of emotional, social and political matters: nonetheless there is nothing under the sun, or beyond it that is not a fit subject for scientific investigation.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I do not see a future where we accept that both determinism and randomness can co-exist.

The clear distinction between determinism and randomness dates back to Newton and his "laws" of gravitational motion. In fact what Newton actually showed is that no such "laws" exist because the motion of every single physical entity in the universe is causally affected by the motion of every other. In other words relativistic gravitational motion is universally self-causal, or chaotic. Self-causal systems spontaneously self-organise into progressively more complex internal structures through the agency of no law beyond the meta-law of cause and effect, a fundamental fact of nature which we now understand as the process of evolution, a process which was unknown to Newton. It is these spontaneously self-generating patterns of self-organisation which science seeks to model in terms of Newton's "laws of nature" but this terminology is deceptive and misleading. These so-called "laws" are nothing more than clever and convenient heuristics devised by the consciousness of the observer to give meaning to the self-causal world which he observes.

The unpredictability of self-organising stochastic processes is NOT a function of randomness but a function of the intrinsic complexity of the causal dynamics of the entire physical universe. This is not a statement of opinion but a statement of universally accepted FACT. No physicist in the world will deny that the motion of every physical entity in the universe must necessarily affect the motion of every other and that the effect of these relativistic motions is propagated through time at the speed of light. Therefore the future can be entirely determined by the present and yet remain utterly unknowable.

The only thing we can know for certain about the future is that it will be more complex than the past, because evolution from the simple to the complex is the fundamental self-organising principle of nature, a universal statement of fact supported by 13.8 billion years worth of evidence.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I do not see a future where we accept that both determinism and randomness can co-exist.

The clear distinction between determinism and randomness dates back to Newton and his "laws" of gravitational motion. In fact what Newton actually showed is that no such "laws" exist because the motion of every single physical entity in the universe is causally affected by the motion of every other. In other words relativistic gravitational motion is universally self-causal, or chaotic. Self-causal systems spontaneously self-organise into progressively more complex internal structures through the agency of no law beyond the meta-law of cause and effect, a fundamental fact of nature which we now understand as the process of evolution, a process which was unknown to Newton. It is these spontaneously self-generating patterns of self-organisation which science seeks to model in terms of Newton's "laws of nature" but this terminology is deceptive and misleading. These so-called "laws" are nothing more than clever and convenient heuristics devised by the consciousness of the observer to give meaning to the self-causal world which he observes.

None of this language exists in Principia. I think you are doing little more than imposing your own anachronistic stance onto Newton. So you are really missing the historical significance of Newton, and wrongly claiming that the determinism/randomness dates back to Newton, when there are many pre-Newtonian examples - Epicurus for one.
It sounds like your Hobby Horse.

The unpredictability of self-organising stochastic processes is NOT a function of randomness but a function of the intrinsic complexity of the causal dynamics of the entire physical universe.

I think I already said this. The only thing I prefer to state, is that since we empty the idea of randomness everyday, rather than claim there is no such thing, we ought to say exactly what we mean by it. So yeah you can't predict a roulette wheel in normal circumstances, and whilst I agree it's not conforming to some sort of law of randomness, it is reliably "random".

This is not a statement of opinion but a statement of universally accepted FACT. No physicist in the world will deny that the motion of every physical entity in the universe must necessarily affect the motion of every other and that the effect of these relativistic motions is propagated through time at the speed of light. Therefore the future can be entirely determined by the present and yet remain utterly unknowable.

again, you are preaching to the converted.

The only thing we can know for certain about the future is that it will be more complex than the past, because evolution from the simple to the complex is the fundamental self-organising principle of nature, a universal statement of fact supported by 13.8 billion years worth of evidence.

I think not. From our narrow human metric we might consider a brain to be more complex than a quart of sand, but the exact disposition of all the atoms in the sand is not less complex than those in a brain. We just are more interested in the complexity of a brain because it has more meaning to us as living beings. Were we an atom of water trying to plot a passage through the sand it would be as complex.
As for the rest of the universe, who really knows. Maybe the last supernova in a neighbouring galaxy just wiped out the most complex and advanced civilisation since the dawn of time last week?
It also looks likely that the inevitable consequence is the heat death of the universe in which all complexity is reduced to a warm fuzz.

alpha wrote:btw, "millions" of scientists devote their entire lives to the study of consciousness?

Obvious Leo wrote:This is a true statement. Every university in the world has a number of different science faculties which deal with different aspects of consciousness.

"millions" is still not the case.

Obvious Leo wrote:Do you now wish to claim that the nature of determinism is not a scientific question? Do you indeed know the difference between linear and non-linear determinism? If not I suggest you attend to this significant deficiency without delay.

leo, whenever you attend to even one of your "millions" of actual deficiencies, i'll attend to one of my supposed ones.

science can only study observables, and determinism applies to everything, including non-observables. you're better suited joining a science forum (if you haven't already), since philosophy and logic are clearly not your thing.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No, when I say the universe does not obey laws, I mean, i the sense that a lawgiver has laid them down, and it complies; we are only here to uncover them. I mean that the Universe does what it does, and "Laws" are a very human way of trying to describe the universe and to try to predict what it will do next. I do no think there can be true randomness - just a lack of observation and understanding which leads to apparent randomness too difficult for us poor humans to predict.

so you agree that there must exist certain laws that govern the universe, just that we may not discover -all of- them.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:But since we have a very good functioning science wholly reliant on a uniformitarian notion of deterministic forces, I see no reason to abandon that in the light of some stuff we are yet to understand (or maybe never will). I do not see a future where we accept that both determinism and randomness can co-exist.

i agree. it's either one or the other, and since true randomness is impossible, that only leaves determinism.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Whilst I think that science can be a poor way to understand human experience, and offers only descriptive analysis of emotional, social and political matters: nonetheless there is nothing under the sun, or beyond it that is not a fit subject for scientific investigation.

you only say that because you're a materialist. if there are in fact immaterial things, then science (at least conventional science) isn't fit to investigate them.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I do not see a future where we accept that both determinism and randomness can co-exist.

Obvious Leo wrote:In fact what Newton actually showed is that no such "laws" exist because the motion of every single physical entity in the universe is causally affected by the motion of every other. In other words relativistic gravitational motion is universally self-causal, or chaotic. Self-causal systems spontaneously self-organise into progressively more complex internal structures through the agency of no law beyond the meta-law of cause and effect, a fundamental fact of nature which we now understand as the process of evolution, a process which was unknown to Newton. It is these spontaneously self-generating patterns of self-organisation which science seeks to model in terms of Newton's "laws of nature" but this terminology is deceptive and misleading. These so-called "laws" are nothing more than clever and convenient heuristics devised by the consciousness of the observer to give meaning to the self-causal world which he observes.

by saying things like "spontaneously" you're defying both the principle of sufficient reason, and the law of causation, but you'll probably just say that these laws are outdated, and irrelevant.

Obvious Leo wrote:The unpredictability of self-organising stochastic processes is NOT a function of randomness but a function of the intrinsic complexity of the causal dynamics of the entire physical universe. This is not a statement of opinion but a statement of universally accepted FACT. No physicist in the world will deny that the motion of every physical entity in the universe must necessarily affect the motion of every other and that the effect of these relativistic motions is propagated through time at the speed of light. Therefore the future can be entirely determined by the present and yet remain utterly unknowable.

again, this claim is based on the denial of sufficient reason, and strict causality.

Obvious Leo wrote:The only thing we can know for certain about the future is that it will be more complex than the past, because evolution from the simple to the complex is the fundamental self-organising principle of nature, a universal statement of fact supported by 13.8 billion years worth of evidence.

same as above.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:... The only thing I prefer to state, is that since we empty the idea of randomness everyday, rather than claim there is no such thing, we ought to say exactly what we mean by it. So yeah you can't predict a roulette wheel in normal circumstances, and whilst I agree it's not conforming to some sort of law of randomness, it is reliably "random".

"reliably random"? what does that mean? i'm not a scientist, so i'm not sure what "reliably" means in scientific terms.

maybe you and i can't predict a roulette wheel, but make no mistake about it, given all existing data/variables (known and unknown), and unlimited calculating ability, we can predict anything and everything, with absolute certainty and accuracy. refer to laplace's demon.

Alpha. Investigate the difference between linear and non-linear causation and all will become clear to you. You should then be able to make the distinction between determinism and pre-determinism and Laplace's demon will vanish into thin air. The fact of the roulette wheel is that it is utterly impossible to isolate all of the causal variables to a 100% order of probability. I don't just mean that it is practicably impossible but that it is literally impossible, even in principle, and the reason for this is as I stated. Every single physical entity in the universe is causally connected to every other, including the balls on the roulette wheel, and this applies all the way down to the Planck scale. The roulette wheel is fair not because of randomness, because it is entirely deterministic, but because it is absolutely and utterly impossible to predict its outcome. I'm pretty sure this is what Hobbes means by his phrase "reliably random", although it's not a form of language I would personally choose because of its want of clarity.

Obvious Leo wrote:Alpha. Investigate the difference between linear and non-linear causation and all will become clear to you. You should then be able to make the distinction between determinism and pre-determinism and Laplace's demon will vanish into thin air. The fact of the roulette wheel is that it is utterly impossible to isolate all of the causal variables to a 100% order of probability.

is it impossible for us, or an utter logical impossibility?

Obvious Leo wrote:I don't just mean that it is practicably impossible but that it is literally impossible, even in principle, and the reason for this is as I stated. Every single physical entity in the universe is causally connected to every other, including the balls on the roulette wheel, and this applies all the way down to the Planck scale. The roulette wheel is fair not because of randomness, because it is entirely deterministic, but because it is absolutely and utterly impossible to predict its outcome. I'm pretty sure this is what Hobbes means by his phrase "reliably random", although it's not a form of language I would personally choose because of its want of clarity.

i don't dispute the interconnectivity among all things in existence (not just the physical ones), but that doesn't change anything. it is logically, and theoretically possible for someone to know all the variables of all existing things at all times (including interconnective relationships between everything), giving him absolute knowledge to predict everything with absolute certainty and accuracy.

alpha wrote:is it impossible for us, or an utter logical impossibility?

It is an utter logical impossibility.

alpha wrote: i don't dispute the interconnectivity among all things in existence (not just the physical ones), but that doesn't change anything. it is logically, and theoretically possible for someone to know all the variables of all existing things at all times (including interconnective relationships between everything), giving him absolute knowledge to predict everything with absolute certainty and accuracy.

This statement is false and one which any physicist will confirm is false. The gravitational field is continuously variable all the way down to the Planck scale and it varies at the speed of light. Bear in mind that the Planck scale is a full 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest subatomic particle and the speed of light is fucking fast. Even in principle what you suggest is utterly impossible.