Demystifying Determinism

[Marvin Edwards]

Science doesn't do mechanisms for QM, because from within a mathematically isolated system different mechanisms are equally valid.

For example, imagine you are inside a computer program. Assume this program is a deterministic framewise operation.

Many different mechanisms are capable of, and in fact equally valid, for driving this system. x86 mechanics will accomplish it all the same as PPC or ARM.

You could have it executed on an x86 running Minecraft, running a PPC architecture on redstone torch infrastructure.

All of these Cosmologies are equally valid mechanisms.

I can even run them all in parallel.

An honest scientist within this bottle could potentially describe both PPC and x86, or perhaps even describe a wholly different processor that is a valid cosmological driver... but wouldn't say "this is the mechanism"; rather "this mathematically describes what is going on".

Which demonstrates that logic is like a meta-mechanism, that can run on many physical architectures.

We basically exist as a process that runs upon the architecture of the brain. Geez, sorta like a soul?

 

[Jarhyn]

Science doesn't do mechanisms for QM, because from within a mathematically isolated system different mechanisms are equally valid.

For example, imagine you are inside a computer program. Assume this program is a deterministic framewise operation.

Many different mechanisms are capable of, and in fact equally valid, for driving this system. x86 mechanics will accomplish it all the same as PPC or ARM.

You could have it executed on an x86 running Minecraft, running a PPC architecture on redstone torch infrastructure.

All of these Cosmologies are equally valid mechanisms.

I can even run them all in parallel.

An honest scientist within this bottle could potentially describe both PPC and x86, or perhaps even describe a wholly different processor that is a valid cosmological driver... but wouldn't say "this is the mechanism"; rather "this mathematically describes what is going on".

Which demonstrates that logic is like a meta-mechanism, that can run on many physical architectures.

We basically exist as a process that runs upon the architecture of the brain. Geez, sorta like a soul?

Would you like to discuss the topic of the Graph Identity Soul? I'd rather you start the thread so I don't spin it too hard at the outset.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Science doesn't do mechanisms for QM, because from within a mathematically isolated system different mechanisms are equally valid.

For example, imagine you are inside a computer program. Assume this program is a deterministic framewise operation.

Many different mechanisms are capable of, and in fact equally valid, for driving this system. x86 mechanics will accomplish it all the same as PPC or ARM.

You could have it executed on an x86 running Minecraft, running a PPC architecture on redstone torch infrastructure.

All of these Cosmologies are equally valid mechanisms.

I can even run them all in parallel.

An honest scientist within this bottle could potentially describe both PPC and x86, or perhaps even describe a wholly different processor that is a valid cosmological driver... but wouldn't say "this is the mechanism"; rather "this mathematically describes what is going on".

Which demonstrates that logic is like a meta-mechanism, that can run on many physical architectures.

We basically exist as a process that runs upon the architecture of the brain. Geez, sorta like a soul?

Would you like to discuss the topic of the Graph Identity Soul? I'd rather you start the thread so I don't spin it too hard at the outset.

The idea I'm talking about is that a process is different from an object. A chef can write a book, then a hundred years after his death, someone can read the book and produce the same meal. We can build a model helicopter that will fly to a specific height, and remain there. Turn off the process and it drops to the ground. The physical material is the same, but the process is no longer running. We seem to exist as a process running upon the neural infrastructure. When the process stops, we die, and the brain becomes an inert lump of matter.

 

[SIB]

Science doesn't do mechanisms for QM, because from within a mathematically isolated system different mechanisms are equally valid.

For example, imagine you are inside a computer program. Assume this program is a deterministic framewise operation.

Many different mechanisms are capable of, and in fact equally valid, for driving this system. x86 mechanics will accomplish it all the same as PPC or ARM.

You could have it executed on an x86 running Minecraft, running a PPC architecture on redstone torch infrastructure.

All of these Cosmologies are equally valid mechanisms.

I can even run them all in parallel.

An honest scientist within this bottle could potentially describe both PPC and x86, or perhaps even describe a wholly different processor that is a valid cosmological driver... but wouldn't say "this is the mechanism"; rather "this mathematically describes what is going on".

Which demonstrates that logic is like a meta-mechanism, that can run on many physical architectures.

We basically exist as a process that runs upon the architecture of the brain. Geez, sorta like a soul?

Lets simplify it. Its like your body? The body is a physical representation of a "meta-mechanism". It runs on many physical architectures. To keep it simple we can call the them systems.

Now lets scale it up. We exists in a meta-mechanism. That would support a belief in some thing more over the reverse position to me. Its not a deity, but its not "nothing more" either.

 

[SIB]

Science doesn't do mechanisms for QM, because from within a mathematically isolated system different mechanisms are equally valid.

For example, imagine you are inside a computer program. Assume this program is a deterministic framewise operation.

Many different mechanisms are capable of, and in fact equally valid, for driving this system. x86 mechanics will accomplish it all the same as PPC or ARM.

You could have it executed on an x86 running Minecraft, running a PPC architecture on redstone torch infrastructure.

All of these Cosmologies are equally valid mechanisms.

I can even run them all in parallel.

An honest scientist within this bottle could potentially describe both PPC and x86, or perhaps even describe a wholly different processor that is a valid cosmological driver... but wouldn't say "this is the mechanism"; rather "this mathematically describes what is going on".

Which demonstrates that logic is like a meta-mechanism, that can run on many physical architectures.

We basically exist as a process that runs upon the architecture of the brain. Geez, sorta like a soul?

Would you like to discuss the topic of the Graph Identity Soul? I'd rather you start the thread so I don't spin it too hard at the outset.

The idea I'm talking about is that a process is different from an object. A chef can write a book, then a hundred years after his death, someone can read the book and produce the same meal. We can build a model helicopter that will fly to a specific height, and remain there. Turn off the process and it drops to the ground. The physical material is the same, but the process is no longer running. We seem to exist as a process running upon the neural infrastructure. When the process stops, we die, and the brain becomes an inert lump of matter.

All that suggest is that the "you" I experience stops. It doesn't suggest that that the system around you stops processing to me. Much like a memory. Or a cell dying. "You" keep going even if the memory is lost at any particular time. Then something jars your memory, and the event is relived. Even if the memory is different the "reliving" may be as real as the original event to you.

Be careful with math models. They are like philosophy. "If x= ___ then ___" type stuff. We then can start to interject anything we want. Within reason. At least math as rules we haver to follow.

In the real world its not "If x= ___" it is "X = 5". and never has it not equaled 5.

Not that the isolated systems don't have value. But we need to be careful. They can end up anywhere we want them to if we are not careful.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Which demonstrates that logic is like a meta-mechanism, that can run on many physical architectures.
We basically exist as a process that runs upon the architecture of the brain. Geez, sorta like a soul?

Lets simplify it. Its like your body? The body is a physical representation of a "meta-mechanism". It runs on many physical architectures. To keep it simple we can call the them systems.

Now lets scale it up. We exists in a meta-mechanism. That would support a belief in some thing more over the reverse position to me. Its not a deity, but its not "nothing more" either.

Well, the body is a single object. The process that is "me" runs upon the neural architecture of the brain. The brain is part of the body. In order for me to survive, the brain must survive, and in order both me and my brain to survive, the body has to survive. So all of these things are essential parts of me.

The rest of the universe? Well, that's not really me. That's just where I live. And I interact with my physical and social environment to assure that I have food to feed my body and brain, and in order to meet my biological need to reproduce (been there, done that).

If my mind were running on a different architecture, then it would not be me, but merely a copy of me, that might fool you, and fool itself, but it would not be me. So, Scotty, don't beam me up! Each time you do, I die, and a copy of me replaces me. (Which made a very interesting series of Star Trek episodes when a copy of Ryker is found in a loop in the transporter of a crashed ship, and then we have two Ryker's, one older and more experienced and the other one younger, until the younger one transfers to another ship).

 

[Jarhyn]

Which demonstrates that logic is like a meta-mechanism, that can run on many physical architectures.
We basically exist as a process that runs upon the architecture of the brain. Geez, sorta like a soul?

Lets simplify it. Its like your body? The body is a physical representation of a "meta-mechanism". It runs on many physical architectures. To keep it simple we can call the them systems.

Now lets scale it up. We exists in a meta-mechanism. That would support a belief in some thing more over the reverse position to me. Its not a deity, but its not "nothing more" either.

Well, the body is a single object. The process that is "me" runs upon the neural architecture of the brain. The brain is part of the body. In order for me to survive, the brain must survive, and in order both me and my brain to survive, the body has to survive. So all of these things are essential parts of me.

The rest of the universe? Well, that's not really me. That's just where I live. And I interact with my physical and social environment to assure that I have food to feed my body and brain, and in order to meet my biological need to reproduce (been there, done that).

If my mind were running on a different architecture, then it would not be me, but merely a copy of me, that might fool you, and fool itself, but it would not be me. So, Scotty, don't beam me up! Each time you do, I die, and a copy of me replaces me. (Which made a very interesting series of Star Trek episodes when a copy of Ryker is found in a loop in the transporter of a crashed ship, and then we have two Ryker's, one older and more experienced and the other one younger, until the younger one transfers to another ship).

See, this is where we depart. I'm more a supporter of the graph identity model, anyway.

My personal contract has me accepting that I don't really care whether I live or die, so long as my graph identity is mostly preserved.

I wish more than anything to survive as an immortal idea moreso than as a specific pile of meat.

 

[fromderinside]

Are you saying lack of language is the cave? If so you missed the notion of experiment. Not something Plato thought much about. Probably why he proposed the cave analogy.

I'd expect something more coherent from one who presumes it.

The point of the cave is that doubting with the great gnashing of teeth whether anything you think and feel is real is not the point, not of any of this.

Your wailing and gnashing of teeth at the inability to trust your own senses that there is anything real out there prevents you from finding the truth about it.

"Freedom" and "possibility" are just objects of math, "equality" and "variable"

Possibility is seeing whether F(X) calculates a defined result.

Freedom is seeing whether F(X) has equality with F(real_state).

Mathitudes don't help.

Ah, the truth strikes again. Speaking of vacuousness care to share the operations supporting your proclamations?

 

[Jarhyn]

Are you saying lack of language is the cave? If so you missed the notion of experiment. Not something Plato thought much about. Probably why he proposed the cave analogy.

I'd expect something more coherent from one who presumes it.

The point of the cave is that doubting with the great gnashing of teeth whether anything you think and feel is real is not the point, not of any of this.

Your wailing and gnashing of teeth at the inability to trust your own senses that there is anything real out there prevents you from finding the truth about it.

"Freedom" and "possibility" are just objects of math, "equality" and "variable"

Possibility is seeing whether F(X) calculates a defined result.

Freedom is seeing whether F(X) has equality with F(real_state).

Mathitudes don't help.

Ah, the truth strikes again. Speaking of vacuousness care to share the operations supporting your proclamations?

I already did.

I'm not sure if you can't understand or don't want to, but seeing as these are the tools used by science to do any science or measurement or analytics on the results of experiments at all, but either way it's not my problem.

If you want to live your life with your head up your backside in pretending algebra doesn't work, that's fine, but don't pretend to be concerned about sound logical arguments if you do.

Or maybe consider that you, like many others in this world, are potentially vulnerable to senescence.

I've spent long hours considering my game theory for being aware of senescence in my own life, choosing how I will go out on my own terms if it ever touches me and to be conscious that it has even as it takes pieces away from me. Perhaps you should start considering the same.

(But you won't because you don't think you have a choice ..)

 

[fromderinside]

You nailed it but you missed the target.

Math is used by science, it isn't science. Like material, math's are elements that can be applied in science to gain better understanding of the world. Neither is science nor ever will be science.

Applying math in your mind as game isn't science either.

You just keep falling back on propositions, also not science, deceiving yourself you are gaining knowledge.

Nope. It's a game.

As for senescence you can't avoid it. It's an attribute of life like memory, sensation, digestion, etc.

You are really in to God envy. That's not an attribute of life, its a flaw in thinking.

 

[Jarhyn]

You nailed it but you missed the target.

Math is used by science, it isn't science. Like material, math's are elements that can be applied in science to gain better understanding of the world. Neither is science nor ever will be science.

Applying math in your mind as game isn't science either.

You just keep falling back on propositions, also not science, deceiving yourself you are gaining knowledge.

Nope. It's a game.

As for senescence you can't avoid it. It's an attribute of life like memory, sensation, digestion, etc.

You are really in to God envy. That's not an attribute of life, its a flaw in thinking.

Hey man you're the one in here stating unequivocally that "the universe is dererministic".

The thing is, this statement "the universe is deterministic" is also saying "the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation"

You cannot escape that corollary of your claim. The more you run from it the more it will catch up to you.

The issue is that if the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation, then extensions of that system along such lines as I have demonstrated in some other mathematical system operating in isolation, by logic, must not be so utterly absurd as you seem to think they are.

The fact that we have to tolerate imperfection and probabilistic answers that yield provisional wills that can still be unfree is the price we pay for existing in and of the stuff of the universe rather than as gods.

And it's not "envy" so much as empathy. You should try it some time.

 

[fromderinside]

You nailed it but you missed the target.

Math is used by science, it isn't science. Like material, math's are elements that can be applied in science to gain better understanding of the world. Neither is science nor ever will be science.

Applying math in your mind as game isn't science either.

You just keep falling back on propositions, also not science, deceiving yourself you are gaining knowledge.

Nope. It's a game.

As for senescence you can't avoid it. It's an attribute of life like memory, sensation, digestion, etc.

You are really in to God envy. That's not an attribute of life, its a flaw in thinking.

Hey man you're the one in here stating unequivocally that "the universe is dererministic".

The thing is, this statement "the universe is deterministic" is also saying "the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation"

You cannot escape that corollary of your claim. The more you run from it the more it will catch up to you.

The issue is that if the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation, then extensions of that system along such lines as I have demonstrated in some other mathematical system operating in isolation, by logic, must not be so utterly absurd as you seem to think they are.

The fact that we have to tolerate imperfection and probabilistic answers that yield provisional wills that can still be unfree is the price we pay for existing in and of the stuff of the universe rather than as gods.

And it's not "envy" so much as empathy. You should try it some time.

...and he repeats he said the world is determined.

The universe or universes are whatever they may be though what we know of them seem to be similar to our world. Even if they are so they may not be determined because we know not their extent nor 95% or so of their observable properties which puts uncertainty even in to our world.

My method is deterministic and it seems to work so I remain faithful to the demonstrated results rather than some falsified set of propositions.

It makes no sense to insert ad hoc explanations such as wills etc. in the gaps.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is no gap. The immediate observable reality of a series of instructions unto a requirement has been achieved. You can see it for your self and I have said many times how to do this.

It has been achieved and described in a mathematical way as to how deterministic systems neither constrain in their deterministic nature the ability of some subset of it's particles to achieve operation of choice functions, of systemic projection, or of the mathematical logistics of assumed variation on state, and comparison in some manner to the actual outcome, with short circuiting on this operation on failure of provisional probabilistics.

None of that is an illusion. It's all observable and real and happening among our system, deterministic as it is or isn't.

 

[fromderinside]

Is seeing believing? Really?

Any more claptrap to offer?

 

[Kylie]

What does "determinism" look like, anyway?

It's morning and you're awake. You get up, make the bed, and have a shower. You look in the closet and choose from several possibilities what you will wear this morning. Then you go to the kitchen to see what's available for breakfast. There are several options: pancakes, cereal, eggs, etc. You had eggs yesterday and the day before, so you decide to fix pancakes this morning. After breakfast you head off to work.

Yes. That is exactly what determinism looks like. It is not ominous, and it is certainly not in any way "profound". It is just a series of events, where one event leads to the next, in an orderly and reliably fashion. Among these events you may have noticed yourself, making choices as to what you will wear to work and what you will eat for breakfast. That is known as free will. And it is right there among all the other daily events. And, like the physical events, your mental events will also proceed in a orderly and reliable fashion, one thought or feeling leading to the next.

You may be distracted by interruptions, of course. But even the interruptions will follow from a reliable series of prior events, which happen to bump into your own plans in a reliable fashion, even if they are unpredictable to you.

All of the "dire", "ominous", or "profound" consequences attributed to determinism constitute a complex mythology of false beliefs. For example, determinism is not some agency that plans out your life and makes all your choices for you. That's still entirely up to you. Determinism simply asserts that your behavior, as well as the behavior of all the other objects and forces in the universe, will follow from prior events (including your own prior behavior) such that, even while they are totally unpredictable in any practical sense, they are theoretically predictable if you had perfect knowledge of all of the events in play at that time. But, of course, no one has such perfect knowledge, so, determinism is basically a meaningless and irrelevant consideration in all matters of human experience.

If there is only one possible outcome, it's not a choice.

 

[The AntiChris]

If there is only one possible outcome, it's not a choice.

Presumably you're saying that there's no choice under determinism (because determinism allows only one outcome).

It follows therefore that what you mean by choice is a non-determined (random/uncaused) outcome. I don't think that's what most people who use the word mean by 'choice'.

 

[SIB]

Which demonstrates that logic is like a meta-mechanism, that can run on many physical architectures.
We basically exist as a process that runs upon the architecture of the brain. Geez, sorta like a soul?

Lets simplify it. Its like your body? The body is a physical representation of a "meta-mechanism". It runs on many physical architectures. To keep it simple we can call the them systems.

Now lets scale it up. We exists in a meta-mechanism. That would support a belief in some thing more over the reverse position to me. Its not a deity, but its not "nothing more" either.

Well, the body is a single object. The process that is "me" runs upon the neural architecture of the brain. The brain is part of the body. In order for me to survive, the brain must survive, and in order both me and my brain to survive, the body has to survive. So all of these things are essential parts of me.

The rest of the universe? Well, that's not really me. That's just where I live. And I interact with my physical and social environment to assure that I have food to feed my body and brain, and in order to meet my biological need to reproduce (been there, done that).

If my mind were running on a different architecture, then it would not be me, but merely a copy of me, that might fool you, and fool itself, but it would not be me. So, Scotty, don't beam me up! Each time you do, I die, and a copy of me replaces me. (Which made a very interesting series of Star Trek episodes when a copy of Ryker is found in a loop in the transporter of a crashed ship, and then we have two Ryker's, one older and more experienced and the other one younger, until the younger one transfers to another ship).

I think I see what you are saying. But if I scale you down a few powers of 10 you might not know you are in one "thing".

I was looking at the circulatory system is a different "architecture" than my brain. My bones are completely different than either of them.

We can not "live" without the "biosphere". The fluid and support structures isn't the same but the result is the same. "Alive". Thus the where we define the boundaries of the "object in question" becomes important to me.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

If there is only one possible outcome, it's not a choice.

There are many logical operations that we're able to perform, like the basic arithmetic functions of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. And these are all deterministic operations, meaning that given the same inputs, they will always produce the same outputs.

Choosing is another deterministic, logical operation. Choosing inputs two or more options, applies some appropriate criteria of comparison, and outputs a single 'choice'. The 'choice' is usually in the form "I will X", where X is the thing we have decided we "will" do.

A good place to watch people choosing is in a restaurant. A person walks in, sits at a table, opens the menu, looks over the possibilities, and tells the waiter what they will have for dinner. We know that choosing is happening because the multiple items on the menu have been reduced to a single dinner order. And each person has performed this operation for themselves.

Meanwhile, the waiter has been performing the operation of addition, adding the price of the meal, the drink, the side dish, and summing these into a bill. The waiter brings the dinner and the bill to the customer, who eats the dinner and responsibly pays the cashier on the way out.

The fact that there is a single sum, where previously there were just multiple numbers, is evidence that addition took place.
The fact that there is a single choice, where previously there were just multiple items on the menu, is evidence that choosing took place.

If choosing took place then there was a choice being made.
If addition took place then there was a sum being made.

Determinism cannot assert that any event is not really happening. Determinism merely asserts that every event will be reliable caused by prior events. The sum on the dinner bill is reliably caused by the waiter performing addition. The choice of what to order for dinner was reliably caused by the customer choosing what they will order from a menu of alternate possibilities. Determinism guarantees that both of these events, the adding and the choosing, would inevitably happen, exactly as we observed them to happen.

Determinism never changes anything.

 

[SIB]

Which demonstrates that logic is like a meta-mechanism, that can run on many physical architectures.
We basically exist as a process that runs upon the architecture of the brain. Geez, sorta like a soul?

Lets simplify it. Its like your body? The body is a physical representation of a "meta-mechanism". It runs on many physical architectures. To keep it simple we can call the them systems.

Now lets scale it up. We exists in a meta-mechanism. That would support a belief in some thing more over the reverse position to me. Its not a deity, but its not "nothing more" either.

Well, the body is a single object. The process that is "me" runs upon the neural architecture of the brain. The brain is part of the body. In order for me to survive, the brain must survive, and in order both me and my brain to survive, the body has to survive. So all of these things are essential parts of me.

The rest of the universe? Well, that's not really me. That's just where I live. And I interact with my physical and social environment to assure that I have food to feed my body and brain, and in order to meet my biological need to reproduce (been there, done that).

If my mind were running on a different architecture, then it would not be me, but merely a copy of me, that might fool you, and fool itself, but it would not be me. So, Scotty, don't beam me up! Each time you do, I die, and a copy of me replaces me. (Which made a very interesting series of Star Trek episodes when a copy of Ryker is found in a loop in the transporter of a crashed ship, and then we have two Ryker's, one older and more experienced and the other one younger, until the younger one transfers to another ship).

See, this is where we depart. I'm more a supporter of the graph identity model, anyway.

My personal contract has me accepting that I don't really care whether I live or die, so long as my graph identity is mostly preserved.

I wish more than anything to survive as an immortal idea moreso than as a specific pile of meat.

well then, you live forever. The information that is is you is stored for a very long time in every event (near this is sector of the universe anyway) from now on.

What's forever? 10^10? 10^100^100? 10^1000^1000? That's why the bang and big rip seems like a possibility. It just /cycles/dissipates so that the next "inflation" event can take place.

 

[SIB]

You nailed it but you missed the target.

Math is used by science, it isn't science. Like material, math's are elements that can be applied in science to gain better understanding of the world. Neither is science nor ever will be science.

Applying math in your mind as game isn't science either.

You just keep falling back on propositions, also not science, deceiving yourself you are gaining knowledge.

Nope. It's a game.

As for senescence you can't avoid it. It's an attribute of life like memory, sensation, digestion, etc.

You are really in to God envy. That's not an attribute of life, its a flaw in thinking.

Hey man you're the one in here stating unequivocally that "the universe is dererministic".

The thing is, this statement "the universe is deterministic" is also saying "the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation"

You cannot escape that corollary of your claim. The more you run from it the more it will catch up to you.

The issue is that if the universe is a completely mathematical system operating in isolation, then extensions of that system along such lines as I have demonstrated in some other mathematical system operating in isolation, by logic, must not be so utterly absurd as you seem to think they are.

The fact that we have to tolerate imperfection and probabilistic answers that yield provisional wills that can still be unfree is the price we pay for existing in and of the stuff of the universe rather than as gods.

And it's not "envy" so much as empathy. You should try it some time.

I think its more precise to say "The universe can be modeled, in part, by using an isolated mathematical system approach."

The universe isn't "math" to me. We use math, like we use words, to "model" the events around us. And, as a point of fact, its still all a human model.