determimism

[Scott Mayers]

"Our universe" is comprehensible because it is our local perception of reality based on consistency, which is a function of law.

This statement is false. Comprehensibility is purely a function of the universal doctrine of causality and your teleological embellishment violates the principle of sufficient reason. Assuming a law-derived reality is a statement of belief in a pre-determined template for such a reality whose origins by definition must lie external to the universe itself. Such a statement is not a philosophical statement because it is untestable.

It's time to apply the blowtorch to the soles of your feet, Scott. Are you claiming that our universe is an entity which was caused to come into existence by a causal agent which exists external to it?

????

Declaring it false doesn't make it so. I don't know what the hell you are attempting to make better sense of by claiming some "universal doctrine of causality"? [Distinction without a difference] And to that extent, you are imposing upon reality a specific doctrine which makes you more 'teleological' [= to extend something specifically meaningful, as in a purpose, to reality.] This is because you presume a perfectly unique and absolute Universe as determined. This is a type of fatalism beyond simple determinism because you don't assume the reality of actual options. If only one outcome is assured, than you believe all that exists here is uniquely determined as in fate. What you don't or cannot see, you believe must not be actually real! This is where you break away from merely being agnostic about what you don't know as you assert a certainty that what you don't see or can't see is NOT true. My take on this is to assume nothing special about my universe.

"Such a statement is not a philosophical statement because it is untestable." No, this is practical science's perspective. Philosophy is not limited to only descriptive objects of the senses but to the thoughts as well.

This doesn't mean that there are not places where such consistencies do not exist distinct from our one universe.

Neither does it mean that there is no china teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between here and Mars. Attempting to derive meaning from a counter-factual event is a logical absurdity and positing an infinite number of universes just so this one can be accounted for is infantile.

Sorry but you don't even believe in logic to speak of what is absurd by its standards. You're also abusing the intentional meaning of the 'teapot' example here. The mere suggestion of a teapot existing there doesn't require asserting this contingent possibility actually exists, only that it is possible. And such possibility means that we CAN technically make it happen and thus prove its reality. Humans can determine this if we could get out there. On the other hand, nature wouldn't have a mind to care to create nor NOT create a pot. It makes this indeterminable with respect to totality....unless you believe yourself to be such in a Solipsistic sense.

[Obvious Leo]

you are imposing upon reality a specific doctrine which makes you more 'teleological' [= to extend something specifically meaningful, as in a purpose, to reality.]

I'm claiming the exact opposite because I don't conflate determinism with PRE-determinism, as a law-derived universe does by definition. My universe is self-determining and if you knew anything of non-linear dynamic systems theory you'd be able to see that a self-causal universe is not only sufficient to its own existence but also sufficient to the existence of any complex entities it contains, including the existence of life and mind within it. Self -organising systems EVOLVE from the simple to the complex for the simple reason that they cannot do otherwise and the fact that our universe is doing exactly this is supported by 13.8 billion years worth of evidence and it is also supported by the fact that here we are discussing it. Newton's creationist assumption simply cannot account for this because the second law of thermodynamics suggests that its informational trajectory should be the opposite. Do you share Hawking's nonsensical opinion that the existence of life and mind in our universe is a gigantic cosmic accident?

If only one outcome is assured, than you believe all that exists here is uniquely determined as in fate.

Where did I say that only one outcome was assured? That is the exact opposite of what I'm claiming. I'm saying that of the infinite index of possibilities only one will be realised but this is not to say that only one can be realised. You accuse me of supporting the very Newtonian world which I'm refuting and this is solely due to the fact that you simply don't know what chaotic determinism is.

"Such a statement is not a philosophical statement because it is untestable." No, this is practical science's perspective.

Bullshit. An untestable hypothesis is not a scientific theory.

Answer this question.

It's time to apply the blowtorch to the soles of your feet, Scott. Are you claiming that our universe is an entity which was caused to come into existence by a causal agent which exists external to it?

[Scott Mayers]

you are imposing upon reality a specific doctrine which makes you more 'teleological' [= to extend something specifically meaningful, as in a purpose, to reality.]

I'm claiming the exact opposite because I don't conflate determinism with PRE-determinism, as a law-derived universe does by definition.

A 'law-derived universe' is just one of many that we happen to be in. The same laws of any one universe also define an infinite variable worlds at least based upon some initial set of random possible inputs. When you first turn on your computer, its memory spaces are blank BUT variable, meaning that each bit in all memory can either be a one or a zero. It is this same rationale that you should recognize that our Universe is but one period of an on-off state. Each time the computer is off, it resets everything to default to zero again.
Our hard drive memory is like saving the set of inputs to the last state we 'saved' it from. Note that this type of memory is semi-permanent unlike the RAM memory for which I intend is blank above. This level of abstraction represents things like an operating system. This would be analogous to an infinite set of 'consistent' universes. Without an OS, the RAM memory represents the capacity of another infinite set of universes that both contain other consistent ones (like a different OS) and includes inconsistent ones (like merely loading random data that doesn't work.)
Now, what if one of a law-derived universe had this law: Each thing in this given universe will be consistent and have order. By such, this would account for your interpretation of our universe alone, but does not speak for all the other universes. Even if unseen or undetermined from our limited vantage point, those universes logically exist just as the computer hardware exists in any computer. Thus we actually have a real example in even our universe that demonstrates this logic itself as an observational justification for multi-universes.

My universe is self-determining and if you knew anything of non-linear dynamic systems theory you'd be able to see that a self-causal universe is not only sufficient to its own existence but also sufficient to the existence of any complex entities it contains, including the existence of life and mind within it. Self -organising systems EVOLVE from the simple to the complex for the simple reason that they cannot do otherwise and the fact that our universe is doing exactly this is supported by 13.8 billion years worth of evidence and it is also supported by the fact that here we are discussing it. Newton's creationist assumption simply cannot account for this because the second law of thermodynamics suggests that its informational trajectory should be the opposite. Do you share Hawking's nonsensical opinion that the existence of life and mind in our universe is a gigantic cosmic accident?

Here is where you reference the same idea aroused from the Gaia Hypothesis yet misinterpret the meaning of self-evolving systems. There Lovelock intended to show how living things trade off chemistry information globally and have an effect on the Earth as a distinct entity. But the very reason it was initially rejected was precisely because many interpreted his theory as implying an unusual circularity if taken literally. That is, if you assume self-organizing/evolving implies that it needs no external factors, like the sun, for instance, you ignore how such external things are necessary to even life. He wasn't implying that the Earth itself is completely independent of the rest of the universe. But this seems to be your interpretation. It was only to show the dependency of all living things to act as cell-like entities which contribute to the 'life' of the planet as a whole.
I won't speak for Hawkins because I don't know what exactly your referring to. However, I do agree to 'accident' only if you recognize all other accidents exist just as the OS that gets loaded into your RAM when you turn on the computer or any other data.

If only one outcome is assured, than you believe all that exists here is uniquely determined as in fate.

Where did I say that only one outcome was assured? That is the exact opposite of what I'm claiming. I'm saying that of the infinite index of possibilities only one will be realised but this is not to say that only one can be realised. You accuse me of supporting the very Newtonian world which I'm refuting and this is solely due to the fact that you simply don't know what chaotic determinism is.

This is where I think we are crossing our similar ideas with confusion. First, if you believe that the future is all that is allowed to be indeterminate (has options) but the past is fixed (determinate), here this suggests you actually do still believe in a Newtonian idea up to the present but then disengage at the present going forward. But this works in both directions. I believe I linked two distinct views on this by various equally authoritative scientists elsewhere. Some believe in only a forward moving universe regarding the second law of Thermodynamics; others, such as myself, see this requires symmetry and thus this works going backwards too. The latter is a logical one because it accepts the logical meaning that given , X, a non-X exists that is complementary, ....or at least some non-X (= a not-X).

It may help if instead of stating that I don't know some term, that you advance your definition of it instead. I hate to have to require extended research in some other area just to try to interpret your vocabulary. Even where I become familiar of one set of internal jargon of one area, another redefines them identically in meaning to another area but gets lost in translation as appearing as different things they are not.

"Such a statement is not a philosophical statement because it is untestable." No, this is practical science's perspective.

Bullshit. An untestable hypothesis is not a scientific theory.

Answer this question.

Ummm, wait, I thought you recognized a place for philosophy in science? Now you are forcing philosophy to be ONLY allowed to be what the present paradigm of science is too!! 'Testability' alone is about practical scientific methodology (based on observations, not mathematical abstractions). I want to pull Science back into the range of philosophy to allow math/logic to be considered as observational reality, not merely a magical tool of faith that is not allowed to be considered real.

It's time to apply the blowtorch to the soles of your feet, Scott. Are you claiming that our universe is an entity which was caused to come into existence by a causal agent which exists external to it?

No. First, I contest the word "universe" unless you include this concept to be a logical universal. You already limit your interpretation of "universe" to exclude all possibilities that you cannot humanistically determine locally. You have to include non-possibilities relative to our particular universe. For every X, some non-X complements a part of a greater logical universe, that includes both, just as zero acts a real number. I get that this is hard for you to accept since it even took a long time for the rest of society to adapt to recognizing the significance of zero, negative numbers, irrational/rational distinctions of numbers, and the complex numbers which is all the Real + the imaginary number, i.

[Obvious Leo]

zero acts a real number.

Bullshit. Your knowledge of mathematical philosophy is as weak as your logic. Real numbers represent a quantity.

I have no interest in debating your multiple universe theory because for want of any data it is not a legitimate subject for scientific or philosophical enquiry.

[Scott Mayers]

zero acts a real number.

Bullshit. Your knowledge of mathematical philosophy is as weak as your logic. Real numbers represent a quantity.

As to what I mentioned regarding definitions from here, you just spelled out a tautology. "Real numbers represent a quantity." is not a sufficiently complete definition. Are you equating "real numbers" precisely to mean "quantity" and vice versa? All you're doing is begging me to use your preferred term, "quantity" to refer to what I call, "real numbers" as you don't see a distinction. If the 'real' part is throwing you off as being inappropriate to apply, its because you don't grant 'quantities' to be a real thing and so don't like my incorporation of "Real" as a part of my symbol. But like I've said before, the symbols are referents to real things by the detailed internal referents spelled out in the actual description of the symbol, its definition [of closure, to finish, or provide endings that border or limit the meaning intended to make sense of an idea in our equally limited head.

I have no interest in debating your multiple universe theory because for want of any data it is not a legitimate subject for scientific or philosophical enquiry.

You clearly either don't follow my arguments or are just insulted by me for challenging something you believe in with devotion. I'm sorry if it appears threating to your most beloved theories of your own, I am not intending to affect you personally but opining on my own theories for the same reason you're here is why I came to this site. It's about sharing our ideas both to compete for our views AND to be able to be open to allow criticism with fairness that may alter our own beliefs.

The 'data' are anything such as numbers (including zero) and any inclusive information about reality that applies to everything, including arguments being used to prove ones views. Data is NOT only the periphery input from outside. It includes any information on the inside too. The fact that you can distinguish between sensory data and memory data distinctly requires recognizing those sets of input sources as being variable to your imposing any assignment to it. In computers, if I send a test signal out to some memory location, then use that value to test if it returns the same, I don't distinguish anything unusual about this. However, if I sent it but it unpredictably returns all relevant possibilities in that domain, like

Send a '1' (save it to memory);
Test if that same memory has what you put in, here a '1'.
If you randomly receive data that remains inconsistent, this address (what was assumed as only memory), has to be variable independent of myself or my apparent internal will to impose data upon it.

Therefore, we conclude that these addresses that act this way are 'ports', peripheral entry points from the outside world. This also proves indirectly that when considering the world at large as an entity composed of the living beings like us humans, our perspective of reality outside of ourselves has to be extended to totality as a whole to consist of more than simply what we can locally determine (our particular universe). Thus this proves that you have to at least induce that more exists as a real possibility both internally and externally.

The Gaia Hypothesis extends our localized belief in life as a single human entity to be of a cellular construct of a larger world, the Earth. But this extends the idea towards an ever greater reality, like the universe AND to the infinite smaller ones, the atomic particulars. Since we induce reality as being as much humanly indeterminate as we do to determinate things, and given that this is ALL that science allows us in methodology, we can also use any data to replace those indeterminate things in order to test reality apart from us. And a simple experiment will do: take a telescope and give it a random swing. Can you guess impose any real datum to what you think you'll 'observe', such as that you'll see exactly one star centered in the view finder upon looking in your telescope? If you find ANYTHING other than what you randomly thought of, this proves that even nature distinct from your role in reality is also indeterminate. And likewise, looking at the tiny observations of atoms, we see this inability to command our own determination upon it as subjects trapped in this reality. Thus nature is also a thing that has both determinate and indeterminate factors.

Label the set of indeterminate factors that extend beyond what we could know of our own ever changing universe, existence [literally meaning, "out-side of what is anything, including 'time' "] or, like I prefer to avoid other misunderstandings, Totality. Out there will always exist more of what is non-existent relative to any local perspective. And so Totality contains both all that is in one universe and all that is without it too. The border of what "Totality" might consist of may be unable to close. But this isn't a problem for you given you already have no trouble thinking that only time exists anyways and the future is variably unpredictable with precision. (your non-linear interpretation of the future?)

[Hobbes' Choice]

This only tells me that you don't know enough about math. A "dimension" is the set of anything in a unique direction not found in a previous set of dimensions. Thus a point is technically a dimension that has no space [Euclid Zeroth Dimension], a succession of points define a line as another dimension (we usually misname as the 'first') [x-axis Cartesian], then a plane, etc. How is this remotely mystical?

You correctly define dimensions as mathematical objects and specifically as a system of relational co-ordinates. However you then make a leap of faith and place an infinite index of possibilities within these mathematical objects and grant them the status of physically real phenomena in universes which lie beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry. I thought I was being rather kind in merely describing this Platonist horseshit as mystical nonsense. In the vernacular of my culture a host of less polite alternative labels spring readily to mind, none of which would reflect well on your fluency with the tools of logic.

Look, it is as simple as this:

Everything we discuss regarding what is 'true' or 'false' requires logic regardless to make connections of input premises to any conclusion. It is way more absurd for ones who support any observation based argument that draws some conclusion through logic but yet only treat the concepts of logic as unreal themselves. ...
You and Hobbes may argue for the non-existence of logic as anything real; but then you don't have right to use any reason to bother defending anything using logic, period!! And this is the mysticism that I actually have a justification to accuse upon you with more force because I actually DO believe logic is real!

There is a difference between a real thing and an idea. If this were not the case then anything I dream would have material existence.
Maths is a system of ideas that have been developed to help us describe the universe. But most of its postulates are not real in any sense.

No two apples are the same, so the equation 1+1=2 is only an approximation. The two apples occupy different places in space, cannot have the same mass, vary in temperature... and so on.
There are no straight lines in nature, no perfect spheres, there are no integers. irrational numbers are - well irresolvable - and yet there are thought to pertain to things which are. Even Euclid's Fifth postulate is not true in reality.

So give logic and maths its correct place. They offer analytically true statements, that work within their own assumptions and postulates systems, but only approximate reality when applied to the real world.
Throughout you have offered an idea of maths as truth. You might just as well have said that there exists a world that only has 2 dimensions. Such an idea has been expressed in Flatland, but it all examples, reality demands thickness.

[Obvious Leo]

No two apples are the same, so the equation 1+1=2 is only an approximation.

This is a profoundly important ontological principle in metaphysics first elaborated by Gottfried Leibniz as the Identity of the Indiscernibles. It states that no two distinct entities in nature can be identical and it is a principle which accords perfectly with modern physics theory.

[Hobbes' Choice]

No two apples are the same, so the equation 1+1=2 is only an approximation.

This is a profoundly important ontological principle in metaphysics first elaborated by Gottfried Leibniz as the Identity of the Indiscernibles. It states that no two distinct entities in nature can be identical and it is a principle which accords perfectly with modern physics theory.

Geewheeez never knew ah wuz so clever! Dueh.

[The Inglorious One]

I thought I'd post here just to piss-off Leo and Hobbes.

I have no problem with non-linear determinism, informed spontaneity or the idea that logic, though necessary, is only approximate. Taken together, however, this conflicts with Leo's and Hobbes' vehemently dogmatic anti-theistic attitude.

If the process had a beginning, what informed the spontaneity? What was informed? If the process informs itself, then you have theism ― a self-made God. If it did not have a beginning or if the process is atemporal, consciousness and life are implicit in the natural order and made explicit in the unfoldment of possibilities. Once again, you have theism. So, conceptually, any way we slice it we end up with a radically non-anthropomorphic God that is strikingly similar to the centuries-old doctrine of divine simplicity, howbeit, an understanding that expresses a deeper understanding than that of the medieval scholastics.

[The Inglorious One]

Now watch as Leo or Hobbes invoke magic to explain away what I said or simply resort to ad hominems if they don't ignore me.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You already invoked magic.

[The Inglorious One]

You already invoked magic.

Well, if I did, at least it's consistent with known physics. Or Leo's theory, for that matter.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You already invoked magic.

Well, if I did, at least it's consistent with known physics. Or Leo's theory, for that matter.

Invoking god as creator of the universe is not consistent with physics.

[The Inglorious One]

You already invoked magic.

Well, if I did, at least it's consistent with known physics. Or Leo's theory, for that matter.

Invoking god as creator of the universe is not consistent with physics.

Is that definitive? Because if it is, your contradicting yourself.

[Obvious Leo]

Inglorious. Since you've decided to make an intelligent contribution to this discussion I'll accord your comments the respect they deserve.

informed spontaneity

?? This is not a term I'm familiar with so I'll ask you to explain what you mean by it.

If the process had a beginning, what informed the spontaneity?

I absolutely agree with the point you make here. If the universe had a beginning then it had an external causal agent and thus the universe is not everything that exists. On the grounds that any philosophy has to start somewhere with some axiomatic principles I adopt the first law of thermodynamics as one of mine. The universe cannot be created or destroyed and is therefore eternal. The only other axiomatic principle necessary to my philosophy is the universal Aristotelian doctrine of causation. All effects must be preceded by a cause.

If it did not have a beginning or if the process is atemporal, consciousness and life are implicit in the natural order and made explicit in the unfoldment of possibilities.

Absolutely true. A true model of the universe must define a cosmos not only sufficient to its own existence but also sufficient to the existence of any complex entity it contains, including life and mind. In other words such a model must comply with the theory of evolution. However an "atemporal process" is an oxymoron because any process can only be modelled temporally in terms of interwoven causal domains.

However this is not a theistic model because such a universe cannot be defined as a Being. It is strictly pantheistic in the same sense that Spinoza and Einstein saw it. These guys were very much of the view that "the universe is god" but this is nothing like the god that the Abrahamic monotheists are offering us. This is more like the Tao of the eastern philosophies.