“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[pood]

Although it has been correctly noted that compatibilism makes no reference to quantum mechanics, the funny thing is that determinism is false. In his radical final theory, Steven Hawking proposes that the entire universe is and always has been entirely quantum mechanics indeterministic.

And Einstein was a determinist. Why do you always appeal to authority? I guess when all else fails it's an easy fallback.

More of your idiot nonsense babble. I did not “appeal to authority.” I linked an article relevant to the discussion.

You, by contrast, do nothing but appeal to authority, the alleged authority being your author who was as ignorant as he was pretentious and insufferable.

 

[pood]

Things peacegirl has no clue about:

What an ad hom is.

What an appears to authority is.

What compatibilism is.

What determinism is.

What quantum mechanics is.

 

[pood]

Although it has been correctly noted that compatibilism makes no reference to quantum mechanics, the funny thing is that determinism is false. In his radical final theory, Steven Hawking proposes that the entire universe is and always has been entirely quantum mechanics indeterministic.

I am glad to hear that Hawking moved away from that non-sense that he and Hartle concocted. However, I do not know what the universe being "quantum mechanics indeterministic" would do for him. After all, isn't quantum mechanics supposed to be probabilistically deterministic despite being indeterministic?

Yes, you can call it probabilistiic determinism if you like, but the upshot that is that form of pre-determinism is ruled out by quantum mechanics. Hence hard determinism, which is just pre-determinism with a different name, is false.

 

[pood]

Although it has been correctly noted that compatibilism makes no reference to quantum mechanics, the funny thing is that determinism is false. In his radical final theory, Steven Hawking proposes that the entire universe is and always has been entirely quantum mechanics indeterministic.

And Einstein was a determinist. Why do you always appeal to authority? I guess when all else fails it's an easy fallback.

I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will. The Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine philosophically. In that respect I am not a Jew… I believe with Schopenhauer: We can do what we wish, but we can only wish what we must. Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act is if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.

When asked about any personal responsibility for his own staggering achievements, he points a steadfast finger at the nonexistence of free will:

I claim credit for nothing. Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human being, vegetables or cosmic dust, we all dance to an invisible tune, intoned in the distance by a mysterious player.

Einstein on Free Will and the Power of the Imagination

“Human being, vegetables or cosmic dust, we all dance to an invisible tune, intoned in the distance by a mysterious player.”

www.themarginalian.org

Unfortunately, Einstein was wrong about this.

And your invoking him by saying “Einstein was a determinist” is actually the clear appeal to authority, which I did not do. Rather, I noted that Hawking had OFFERED a radical new view of reality to place it up for discussion.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

You would have to see the entire universe as a singularity, described not by any point but by a broad function, and offering zero information about any given event inside this infinite list of events... And then you literally don't know the future of any specific point without processing the function to that point.

Fuck I wish I could access someone who could help me arrange my thoughts on this.

Like, there's this thing involving einsteins tilings and decidability of location and relativity and finite/infinite choice that have been tumbling about in my head as an analog to some things about field theory.

Einstein tilings are interesting because it has been proven that *you can fill an infinite euclidean 2d space with them*, that the field produced *has local repetitions, but not global ones*.

Now, if you could select any point at random from this field, and knew only that it was generated an infinite time ago by some grand unifying theory of *tile placement*, you wouldn't be able to know where you were, even if you successfully identified a place that looks like "the known origin". ...

Okay, let me take a shot at this. Via suggestions. And we'll see where that takes the discussion.

Determinists are positing (meta)physical determinism and not epistemic certainty. That determinism does not depend on what anyone knows or can possibly know. It is more an assumption than a testable hypothesis. So, not being able to know the future is immaterial. Likewise, not knowing how, when, where, or if there was an origin is likewise immaterial to the most basic determinist position. This means that you do not need to express in terms related to knowledge, certainty, and the like.

You also said:

infinite parts look like the center but slightly different at one point and then completely different from thereon out and it is a *deterministic* pattern

It might help (me) were you to express deterministic differently. You have an aperiodic tiling covering an infinite area. By deterministic, do you mean that the tiling is set, fixed? I ask, because that would be the determinist claim. Of course, given that the determinist claim is that the infinite tiling is fixed, the determinist is thereby also asserting that there is no actualizable alternative arrangement for the tiles; that is why it is describable as fixed, set, determined. Someone might imagine being able to shift a tile and then realize the cascade of differences that would effect (ignoring, of course, that such a shifting would eliminate the fixed condition). Someone might imagine any number of alternative ways of shifting that tile with all of those different ways of shifting effecting a veritably incalculable number of alternative states/arrangements. But all of those imaginings - those logical possibilities - are not actualizable if the infinite aperiodic tiling is actually set/fixed. Essentially, the determinist holds that the tiling pattern is unalterable, ineliminable. I guess you could say that the determinist would say that the tiling can be neither destroyed nor disrupted, and that is why the imagined logical alternative possibilities can never be actual outside of what amounts to an ineffectual imagination.

Again, that is just to emphasize the (meta)physical focus of determinism as distinct from its epistemic status. Anyhow, if you deny that the tiling is set/fixed (meaning you deny that it is unalterable), then you are denying/objecting to determinism. If you think it is (meta)physically possible to break the fixed condition of the tiling, then you are denying/objecting to that determinism. And that is fine. There are good reasons for denying such a determinism.

 

[pood]

Metaphysical determinism and epistemic certainty are two different things, and, to be clear, compatibilism is fully in accord with determinism (according to compatibilists, obviously) but as I noted above in linking the Hawking article there are good reasons to doubt that determinism is a true picture of the world. What we call deterministic is an averaging over of huge numbers of quantum particles that exhibit indeterministic behavior. Because these quantum indeterminacies can be amplified to the macro world, the otological status of determinism is very much in doubt.

The indeterminism in QM comes at the time of measurement, when the quantum object has certain probabilities of manifesting itself here or there, which contradicts Newtonian classical mechanics. In the many worlds interpretation, all outcomes are realized in different branches of the universal quantum wave function. If that is correct, as I noted in another thread, it restores determinism to the world, at the price of accepting that all outcomes are real.

However, as I also noted in that other thread, this is another big problem for hard determinism. Remember the hard determinist says that at the time I choose between Coke or Pepsi, it turns out that whatever I choose I was hard determined to make that choice. Now here comes many worlds saying I make both choices based on precisely the same antecedents, a direct contradiction of hard determinism (though not determinism, because they are different).

 

[pood]

Incidentally, here is an interesting article on quantum theory by Sean Carroll, a physicist and proponent of many worlds. Unfortunately it lured me to read two-thirds of the article before slapping on a “subscribe now” firewall for the rest of it. Maybe others have a subscription, or will have better luck.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

there are good reasons to doubt that determinism is a true picture of the world.

If determinism is not the case, would you say that compatibilism is also not a true depiction? Or, do you mean to say that as per the Hawking article "there are good reasons to doubt that hard determinism is a true picture of the world"? If the latter, and since hard determinism, pre-determinism, pre-destination, nomologically necessary determinism are all - at base - claims regarding the (meta)physics of reality, then what is the (meta)physical determinism with which compatibilism is compatible?

 

[peacegirl]

Although it has been correctly noted that compatibilism makes no reference to quantum mechanics, the funny thing is that determinism is false. In his radical final theory, Steven Hawking proposes that the entire universe is and always has been entirely quantum mechanics indeterministic.

And Einstein was a determinist. Why do you always appeal to authority? I guess when all else fails it's an easy fallback.

More of your idiot nonsense babble. I did not “appeal to authority.” I linked an article relevant to the discussion.

You, by contrast, do nothing but appeal to authority, the alleged authority being your author who was as ignorant as he was pretentious and insufferable.

Wow, I didn't realize that this would cause you to be so angry. Now you're retaliating. I may be wrong, but I think you were trying to buttress your argument using someone famous to be in your court. You and Jaryn also said that the majority of philosophers are compatibilists, as if to say that how popular an idea is makes it correct. Unfortunately, theories remain theories no matter who is in agreement or how many people believe something is true. The majority of mankind believes in libertarian free will. Does that make it true? No.

You don't even understand the first thing about this author's discovery. Once a choice is made, it could never have been otherwise. The rest is logical hocus pocus. Determinism does not prescribe but if it follows a set pattern such that it pushes us from a position of dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction --- which cannot be denied --- we can only move in one direction each moment no matter how many options are at our disposal. You certainly haven't been able to disprove this because it's impossible to go back in time, undo what has already been done, to show that another choice could have been made under those exact circumstances. Your many worlds logic is pure conjecture and does nothing to prove that someone could have done anything different than what he did. From the beginning of time life has always been a movement away from dissatisfaction toward something that offers us greater satisfaction --- or we wouldn't move because we would be satisfied where we are --- which is why determinists can say with confidence that our world will unfold as it MUST.

This has nothing to do with prediction which is not needed for proof. Once this knowledge is confirmed and applied globally, the one thing that we will be able to predict with accuracy is that no one will desire to strike a first blow when all justification has been removed. Unfortunately, I was never able to get to his actual discovery (The Two-Sided Equation) to show why responsibility is increased, not decreased, which so many people wrongly believe would happen if we stopped blaming. Obviously, there is more to it than this, but I never had the chance, nor did anyone show real interst. It saddens me that this knowledge is being so easily discarded. It seems that the more theories are out there, the harder it is to find the gem. There's just too much noise. This wonderful new world could never take place in a free will environment of blame, punishment, retribution, just desert, and all the rest. So, when people say this topic is irrelevant because it doesn't change a thing, they have no conception what they're talking about.

 

[pood]

there are good reasons to doubt that determinism is a true picture of the world.

If determinism is not the case, would you say that compatibilism is also not a true depiction? Or, do you mean to say that as per the Hawking article "there are good reasons to doubt that hard determinism is a true picture of the world"? If the latter, and since hard determinism, pre-determinism, pre-destination, nomologically necessary determinism are all - at base - claims regarding the (meta)physics of reality, then what is the (meta)physical determinism with which compatibilism is compatible?

Well, yes, I suppose it would be more accurate to say that hard determinism ruled out by quantum mechanics. This is certainly true if the Copenhagen interpretation is the correct interpretation of QM. If many worlds is the correct interpretation, then we get determinism, but a weird kind of determinism in which every event with a quantum non-zero probability actually happens. I pick Coke in one world, and my (near) duplicate picks Pepsi in another, though now we are no longer strictly duplicates because we chose differently, and will go on to lead independent actual existences.

 

[pood]

Although it has been correctly noted that compatibilism makes no reference to quantum mechanics, the funny thing is that determinism is false. In his radical final theory, Steven Hawking proposes that the entire universe is and always has been entirely quantum mechanics indeterministic.

And Einstein was a determinist. Why do you always appeal to authority? I guess when all else fails it's an easy fallback.

More of your idiot nonsense babble. I did not “appeal to authority.” I linked an article relevant to the discussion.

You, by contrast, do nothing but appeal to authority, the alleged authority being your author who was as ignorant as he was pretentious and insufferable.

Wow, I didn't realize that this would cause you to be so angry.

Back to ad hom, noted.

Once a choice is made, it could never have been otherwise.

Of course it could have.

The rest is logical hocus pocus. Determinism does not prescribe but if it follows a set pattern such that it pushes us from a position of dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction --- which cannot be denied

Of course it can be denied, or, to the extent that it is affirmed, it is an empty tautology.

--- we can only move in one direction each moment no matter how many options are in front of us.

Unsupported assertion.

You certainly haven't been able to prove otherwise other than your many worlds logic which is pure conjecture. From the beginning of time the movement has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction which is why determinists can say with confidence that our world will unfold as it must.

Wrong as a matter of quantum fact.

This has nothing to do with prediction which is not needed for proof. Once this knowledge is confirmed and applied on a global scale, the one thing that we will be able to predict with accuracy is that no one will desire to strike a first blow when all justification is being removed. This could never be accomplished in a free will environment of blame and punishment and have only been partial deterrents at best.

This stuff belongs in your own thread. Stop derailing this one.

 

[pood]

You don't even understand the first thing about this author's discovery.

Nor do you, as shown by the fact that you can never summarize it, while repeatedly asking others to summarize it for you!

 

[peacegirl]

You don't even understand the first thing about this author's discovery.

Nor do you, as shown by the fact that you can never summarize it, while repeatedly asking others to summarize it for you!

I have bent over backwards to explain to you why man’s will is not free but you just respond that whatever you prefer is what you prefer so it’s circular. That may be true but when it comes to decisions regarding the possibility of someone getting hurt by his preferences, intentional or not, the choices he makes is not a trivial matter. Moreover, considering the author’s extraordinary claims, this knowledge cannot be reduced to a few sentences. It would cause too many gaps just like leaving out half of an equation would.

I have given my all trying to get to chapter two but I can’t get past chapter one, which is just the gateway to his discovery. Sadly, no one believes he has something of import. You’re certainly not interested because you believe your definition of free will is compatible with determinism. It is not compatible though if you define it as “could have done otherwise” which is the standard usage in this debate. Your definition of free will is incompatible with determinism if you were being honest with yourself. DBT explained the flaw very clearly. But determinism has nothing to do with a prescription so why keep bringing it up? This is a language issue, nothing more, because that is not what any determinist is saying.

If you can’t take the time to read his work, stop putting him down for no reason other than you don’t like his position. You will never understand the two-sided equation (his discovery) and how it extends if you aren’t the least bit interested. I actually gave you one line to satisfy your demand for a quick summary but it will never do it justice Here it is again: The world must excuse what you can no longer justify.

I don’t like being in your thread, but if I see a post that I want to respond to, I will respond. Isn’t that a privilege given to a participant? At this rate, my posts have done nothing to create even a little bit of curiosity so I’m not sure how long I’ll be here. But don’t hold your breath just yet!

 

[peacegirl]

So true!

 

[bilby]

So true!

Do you own, or could you perhaps procure the use of, a mirror?

 

[steve_bank]

Eisenstein was an example of an eccentric who's ideas in relativity were initially rejected as too far out, and in his life saw his theories proven.

In the end experiment and data won the day.

A sign on somebody's office, 'We trust in god, all else bring data'.

Human free will and determinism are not subject to experiment.

 

[DBT]

Why do you continue to trot out that fallacy? That different things can and do happen within the system doesn't mean that any one of these different events had the possibility of being different.

Every one of those things is observed amid the actuality of everything else in the system being different.

As I said if an offset on the dimension of in/out is acceptable to the notion of alternaltity and offset on the dimension of x, y or z, however you assign them, must be equally sufficient for alternality. This belief that it is fallacious at all comes from shocking deficiencies in your math education.

That makes no sense. It's not how determinism is defined. It's not how you have defined determinism. You are trying to wriggle out of the terms you, yourself have defined.

 

[DBT]

What are you even talking about? Your question isn't necessary for proof of determinism. You off on a tangent!

This is the same question asked of DBT, who has never specifically answered: Does he, or does he not, agree with fellow hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz composer’s piece was determined in advance of him composing it?

I have answered the question many times. Think about how determinism is defined. Consider your endorsement of constant conjunction, where event A must inevitably lead to events B, C, etc.

Your wording is loaded.

Music cannot composed before the composer is born and learns music and composes a score. And given your terms, what the composer writes inevitably follows from their life experience and proclivities and ability.

Think about the implications of constant conjunction.

OK. So you disagree with fellow hard determinist Jerry Coyne. Hard determinism has become schismatic!

Once again, I disagree with your loaded wording.

If you call yourself a compatibilist, you must accept that whatever happens within the system must necessarily happen. That if music is written, everything that happened led to that event, the composer was born, educated, fell in love with music, began composing, and what he wrote came from his heart and mind, his life experiences. None of which are - in your own words - separate from the system and its deterministic evolution of events.

If you are a compatibilist, you are a determinist. You accept determinism. You accept that nothing could have happened differently.

Yet your wording suggests the opposite, that you are a Libertarian, not a compatibilist.

 

[DBT]

What good is determinism when all the determining factors are unknowable?
What good is free will if it can be overridden by deterministic events?

The world is what it is regardless of what we may like or dislike.

 

[peacegirl]

So true!

Do you own, or could you perhaps procure the use of, a mirror?

No Bilby, I have listened to many worlds beliefs and other fictions but the evidence for determinism (not hard or soft) is airtight The very definition of determinism doesn’t allow for deviation or “could have done otherwise.” The belief that QM saves free will on a macro level is ludicrous and more importantly does nothing to alter what we observe in actuality. Injecting QM into the real world (i.e., the world we experience on a daily basis) is a playful thought experiment only. But what if it were true? The world would not only be undetermined, it would be chaotic where nothing could be trusted or counted on. Jeffrey Dahmer could become the Pope and the Pope could become a mass murderer. After all, anything would be possible in a world where one’s genetics and environment would have no effect on one’s decisions. It would be helter skelter with no possibility to predict anything and therefore no way to learn from past mistakes. Using QM as a defense for compatibilist free will is undermining true progress where the possibility of world peace is within our grasp.