Demystifying Determinism

[Jarhyn]

But it is wrong to say that there is only one ACTUAL outcome before that outcome has been reached. Until the outcome is reached, there are still several possible outcomes, each having a non-zero probability.

So, what we know is that the present only resolves one way because we only have one experience of it. The probability of any event happening in the past is thus either 1 or 0. Fundamentally, something did happen, and the fact that only one thing ever does means that only one thing ever will.

The linearity of the present in resolving to the past implies a linear future.

This means that "probability" only describes our uncertainty over what will happen, but does not in fact push any true randomness into existence.

We accept in fact that it is impossible for something not to resolve as "what happened", and some processes by their nature endeavor to discern of a set which of the set is best to select, before such a selection would be impossible, such that the only one thing that will ever happen in that place and time is the thing they wanted to happen.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

But it is wrong to say that there is only one ACTUAL outcome before that outcome has been reached.

Technically correct, but it is not wrong to say that there will be only one ACTUAL outcome, even if we don't know that that outcome will be yet.

Until the outcome is reached, there are still several possible outcomes, each having a non-zero probability.

Better than that. A POSSIBLE outcome lives forever as something that COULD HAVE happened. Even when we know for certain what ACTUALLY did happen, we also know for certain that every possibility was something that COULD HAVE happened instead.

To say that something COULD HAVE happened always carries two logical implications: (1) that it definitely DID NOT happen and (2) that it only WOULD HAVE happened under different circumstances.

Again, the ACTUAL OUTCOME can not be known until it has been reached.

I believe you are correct to say that it will not be KNOWN until it is reached. However, given reliable causation, it may in theory be PREDICTED in advance with a probability approaching 100%. A guess is different from knowledge, but still may be useful information.

It would render Brownian motion impossible. Since we live in a universe where Brownian motion has been observed, any universe that requires the absence of true randomness can not possibly be the universe in which we find ourselves.

My answer would be that "true randomness" is a deterministic event in which the outcomes are for all practical purposes unpredictable. For example, in the Wikipedia entry for Brownian Motion, Einstein explained the cause of Brownian motion is the pollen being distributed by the natural motion of the water molecules. Basically, reliable cause and effect.

Then it seems that determinism is built on the assumption that every event is reliably caused.

Absolutely! That's what the little -ism at the end is about. It indicates a belief or belief system.

There are certain subatomic events which, I believe, have no discernable cause, and which are quite random.

Well, that's the nice thing about a belief. One may have faith that there is a cause, even if the cause is not discernable. And we can still understand the notion of random as deterministic behavior that is, for one reason or another, unpredictable.

 

[Kylie]

There could be many things which lead to an event. If any one of those things is random, then we can't say the cause of the event is purely deterministic, can we?

Sure, but what you need to do is explain how the introduction of random influences results in free will whereas purely deterministic influences do not.

If it's purely deterministic influences, then there is only one possible outcome, and if there is only one possible outcome, it can not be called a choice.

Random influences mean there can be several possible outcomes and it can not be determined ahead of time which one will end up occurring.

In other words how do we act intentionally based on reasons (free will) if our actions are even partially driven by random events. This would seem to run entirely counter to what most people would understand by 'exercising one's will'.

I would say that if the universe is deterministic and there is only one possible outcome for any particular situation, then our will doesn't even exist.

On determinism in general, it's quite possible to accept that our universe is indeterministic at a very fundamental level (I'm agnostic but sceptical) but also accept that such indeterminacy is for the most part negligible in the macroscopic world and insignificant in the macromolecular structures of cell biology.

Have you heard of the Butterfly effect?

 

[Kylie]

But it is wrong to say that there is only one ACTUAL outcome before that outcome has been reached. Until the outcome is reached, there are still several possible outcomes, each having a non-zero probability.

So, what we know is that the present only resolves one way because we only have one experience of it. The probability of any event happening in the past is thus either 1 or 0. Fundamentally, something did happen, and the fact that only one thing ever does means that only one thing ever will.

The linearity of the present in resolving to the past implies a linear future.

This means that "probability" only describes our uncertainty over what will happen, but does not in fact push any true randomness into existence.

We accept in fact that it is impossible for something not to resolve as "what happened", and some processes by their nature endeavor to discern of a set which of the set is best to select, before such a selection would be impossible, such that the only one thing that will ever happen in that place and time is the thing they wanted to happen.

I would have to disagree. The fact that when we look at the options we faced in the past, one had a probability of 100% and the others of 0% does not imply that the future is the same way.

 

[Kylie]

But it is wrong to say that there is only one ACTUAL outcome before that outcome has been reached.

Technically correct, but it is not wrong to say that there will be only one ACTUAL outcome, even if we don't know that that outcome will be yet.

Yes, once we get to that point, we can only make one choice - but my point is that if we really have free will, that choice can not be set in stone before we make it.

Until the outcome is reached, there are still several possible outcomes, each having a non-zero probability.

Better than that. A POSSIBLE outcome lives forever as something that COULD HAVE happened. Even when we know for certain what ACTUALLY did happen, we also know for certain that every possibility was something that COULD HAVE happened instead.

To say that something COULD HAVE happened always carries two logical implications: (1) that it definitely DID NOT happen and (2) that it only WOULD HAVE happened under different circumstances.

Yes, once we have past that point and it is in our past. But when it is still in our future, a choice requires several options that each have a non-zero probability.

Again, the ACTUAL OUTCOME can not be known until it has been reached.

I believe you are correct to say that it will not be KNOWN until it is reached. However, given reliable causation, it may in theory be PREDICTED in advance with a probability approaching 100%. A guess is different from knowledge, but still may be useful information.

Yes, it is different. And since we aren't talking about guesses, it's not relevant.

It would render Brownian motion impossible. Since we live in a universe where Brownian motion has been observed, any universe that requires the absence of true randomness can not possibly be the universe in which we find ourselves.

My answer would be that "true randomness" is a deterministic event in which the outcomes are for all practical purposes unpredictable. For example, in the Wikipedia entry for Brownian Motion, Einstein explained the cause of Brownian motion is the pollen being distributed by the natural motion of the water molecules. Basically, reliable cause and effect.

If I had a single atom out in space where it wasn't influenced by any gravitational fields, it would still have some movement due to temperature. After all, the only way to remove all movement is to bring it to zero Kelvin, and that is impossible. If it has any amount of heat, it will be moving in some way. If it's just a single atom, how do you predict the movement it makes? There are no other atoms nearby to jostle it, after all.

Then it seems that determinism is built on the assumption that every event is reliably caused.

Absolutely! That's what the little -ism at the end is about. It indicates a belief or belief system.

And I have yet to see that assumption justified.

There are certain subatomic events which, I believe, have no discernable cause, and which are quite random.

Well, that's the nice thing about a belief. One may have faith that there is a cause, even if the cause is not discernable. And we can still understand the notion of random as deterministic behavior that is, for one reason or another, unpredictable.

You seem to be unfairly equating it with religious belief, when such a comparison is not justified.

 

[The AntiChris]

Random influences mean there can be several possible outcomes and it can not be determined ahead of time which one will end up occurring.

This implies that you believe that under determinism it is possible to to determine ahead of time. Do you? And why would it be a problem for free will?

On determinism in general, it's quite possible to accept that our universe is indeterministic at a very fundamental level (I'm agnostic but sceptical) but also accept that such indeterminacy is for the most part negligible in the macroscopic world and insignificant in the macromolecular structures of cell biology.

Have you heard of the Butterfly effect?

Of course, but I'm afraid I don't see what it has too do with what I wrote.

 

[Kylie]

Random influences mean there can be several possible outcomes and it can not be determined ahead of time which one will end up occurring.

This implies that you believe that under determinism it is possible to to determine ahead of time. Do you?

I hold that if everything is determined, then, given sufficient knowledge and skill, it must be possible to determine everything with 100% accuracy.

And why would it be a problem for free will?

Let's say you did such a calculation and were able to determine what I would order at the restaurant. You could say to me, "Kylie, my calculations show that you are certain to have the chicken for dinner." And I would have no choice but to have the chicken for dinner. I would not be able to decide to prove you wrong and order the steak instead. And don't give me that old, "Ah, but you could always change your mind purely to spite me" stuff. No I couldn't. For if you made such an exact calculation, then it MUST have also included that fact that you told me that I would have chicken. And it still showed that I would have the chicken for dinner.

On determinism in general, it's quite possible to accept that our universe is indeterministic at a very fundamental level (I'm agnostic but sceptical) but also accept that such indeterminacy is for the most part negligible in the macroscopic world and insignificant in the macromolecular structures of cell biology.

Have you heard of the Butterfly effect?

Of course, but I'm afraid I don't see what it has too do with what I wrote.

I don't see how you could fail to see the relevance.

The butterfly effect says that very small events can have results which build over time to cause large scale changes in what happens.

Since you said that the indeterminacy that is found on the subatomic level is "for the most part negligible in the macroscopic world" you have said that it can have only that kind of small effect. Such small effects will compound over time to result in large changes.

 

[The AntiChris]

I hold that if everything is determined, then, given sufficient knowledge and skill, it must be possible to determine everything with 100% accuracy.

Absolute predictability is only possible by an observer external to our universe. Embedded predictability (absolute predictability within our universe) is not possible.

It's explained here: Determinism and the Paradox of Predictability

Let's say you did such a calculation and were able to determine what I would order at the restaurant.

This is not possible (explained in the link above). Of course we can predict likelihoods of human behaviour but we can't guarantee certainties.

The butterfly effect says that very small events can have results which build over time to cause large scale changes in what happens.

Since you said that the indeterminacy that is found on the subatomic level is "for the most part negligible in the macroscopic world" you have said that it can have only that kind of small effect. Such small effects will compound over time to result in large changes.

If this were the case we would see totally unexplainable events occurring in every aspect of our existence constantly. We don't. We'd routinely put failures and disasters of all kinds down to 'unexplainable quantum fluctuation' (or something like it). We don't.

Unless of course you're suggesting these "large changes" only (or predominantly) occur in human brains, but how would you justify that odd restriction?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Yes, once we get to that point, we can only make one choice - but my point is that if we really have free will, that choice can not be set in stone before we make it.

Well, suppose it is "set in stone" that you will make the choice yourself, according to your own thoughts and feelings, your own beliefs and values, your own genetic dispositions and prior life experiences, and anything else that makes you uniquely you? In that case it would be "set in stone" that you would make the choice of your own free will.

But when it is still in our future, a choice requires several options that each have a non-zero probability.

And, it is always the case that all of our options will have a non-zero probability. A probability is not just the likelihood that a given option will be chosen, but it is also a measure of our uncertainty. As our consideration of each option proceeds, we become more certain, and if we were to recalculate the probabilities as our thoughts proceed they would change. Our final recalculation after we've made our choice is that our actual choice has a 100% probability and the other options are reduced to 0%.

But, when evaluating our estimates, we would return to the prior values, and say "our chosen option only had a 30% probability when we started". And, evaluating our estimates is how we learn to improve future estimates.

If I had a single atom out in space where it wasn't influenced by any gravitational fields, it would still have some movement due to temperature. After all, the only way to remove all movement is to bring it to zero Kelvin, and that is impossible. If it has any amount of heat, it will be moving in some way. If it's just a single atom, how do you predict the movement it makes? There are no other atoms nearby to jostle it, after all.

If there's no bouncing off other atoms then there is effectively no heat. Heat is the motion of molecules as they bounce off other molecules. The motion of the atom, sitting alone, would have to be caused by protons and neutron jockeying for position in the nucleus or perhaps the effect of the electrons circling the nucleus. But I think these forces may cause the atom to vibrate in place, but would not cause it to wander around. But I'm not a physics expert.

And I have yet to see that assumption justified.

Again, all the evidence we have in favor of a world of reliable causation is from the millions of examples of events being reliably caused.

Proving that there are uncaused events would be more difficult, because how can we provide a demonstration of an uncaused event without causing it?

 

[Kylie]

I hold that if everything is determined, then, given sufficient knowledge and skill, it must be possible to determine everything with 100% accuracy.

Absolute predictability is only possible by an observer external to our universe. Embedded predictability (absolute predictability within our universe) is not possible.

It's explained here: Determinism and the Paradox of Predictability

That seems rather convoluted to me. Determinism is correct IF everything is cause-and effect, and IF there's an entity outside our universe to observe it. This position seems to be relying on a whole lot of assumptions that are ultimately unfalsifiable. So why should I consider them?

Let's say you did such a calculation and were able to determine what I would order at the restaurant.

This is not possible (explained in the link above). Of course we can predict likelihoods of human behaviour but we can't guarantee certainties.

If it's not possible at all, if it's NEVER going to be possible, then for all intents and purposes, it's not true.

The butterfly effect says that very small events can have results which build over time to cause large scale changes in what happens.

Since you said that the indeterminacy that is found on the subatomic level is "for the most part negligible in the macroscopic world" you have said that it can have only that kind of small effect. Such small effects will compound over time to result in large changes.

If this were the case we would see totally unexplainable events occurring in every aspect of our existence constantly. We don't. We'd routinely put failures and disasters of all kinds down to 'unexplainable quantum fluctuation' (or something like it). We don't.

Unless of course you're suggesting these "large changes" only (or predominantly) occur in human brains, but how would you justify that odd restriction?

Why should we be seeing them constantly? When I say "large changes" I'm not talking about things like continents suddenly changing position. They may still be only very small things, but just large enough to have measurable effects on things so as to render things inherently unpredictable.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, once we get to that point, we can only make one choice - but my point is that if we really have free will, that choice can not be set in stone before we make it.

Well, suppose it is "set in stone" that you will make the choice yourself, according to your own thoughts and feelings, your own beliefs and values, your own genetic dispositions and prior life experiences, and anything else that makes you uniquely you? In that case it would be "set in stone" that you would make the choice of your own free will.

You miss my point that if it is "set in stone," then it's not a choice at all.

Let's look at an example of something that really IS set in stone. Star Wars (and no jokes about how all the changes George Lucas made mean it isn't really set in stone, please). Every time you watch it, it's the same. You know exactly how things will turn out. You can have the entire movie memorised. Now, tell me, does Luke actually CHOOSE to leave Tatooine and go with Obi-Wan? You know ahead of time that he is going to do it, so you know in advance.

I would say Luke does NOT choose, since it is locked in stone. He can't do anything different. It is IMPOSSIBLE to watch Star Wars and see Luke say, "Welp, now that my aunt and uncle are dead, I guess I should stay here and look after the moisture farm. It's what they would have wanted." The probability of that is literally 0%. However, the probability of Luke saying, "I want to come with you to Alderaan. There's nothing here for me now. I want to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like my father," is ALWAYS going to be 100%

But when it is still in our future, a choice requires several options that each have a non-zero probability.

And, it is always the case that all of our options will have a non-zero probability. A probability is not just the likelihood that a given option will be chosen, but it is also a measure of our uncertainty. As our consideration of each option proceeds, we become more certain, and if we were to recalculate the probabilities as our thoughts proceed they would change. Our final recalculation after we've made our choice is that our actual choice has a 100% probability and the other options are reduced to 0%.

But, when evaluating our estimates, we would return to the prior values, and say "our chosen option only had a 30% probability when we started". And, evaluating our estimates is how we learn to improve future estimates.

No, that's not what I meant.

I'm am talking about what the probabilities actually are, not what we think they are.

Please don't confuse our perception of reality with reality itself.

If I had a single atom out in space where it wasn't influenced by any gravitational fields, it would still have some movement due to temperature. After all, the only way to remove all movement is to bring it to zero Kelvin, and that is impossible. If it has any amount of heat, it will be moving in some way. If it's just a single atom, how do you predict the movement it makes? There are no other atoms nearby to jostle it, after all.

If there's no bouncing off other atoms then there is effectively no heat. Heat is the motion of molecules as they bounce off other molecules. The motion of the atom, sitting alone, would have to be caused by protons and neutron jockeying for position in the nucleus or perhaps the effect of the electrons circling the nucleus. But I think these forces may cause the atom to vibrate in place, but would not cause it to wander around. But I'm not a physics expert.

Temperature is the measure of the kinetic energy of an atom - how much it moves. Not by how much it bumps against other atoms. https://www.legendsoflearning.com/learning-objectives/temperature-thermal-energy-and-particle-motion

And I have yet to see that assumption justified.

Again, all the evidence we have in favor of a world of reliable causation is from the millions of examples of events being reliably caused.

Proving that there are uncaused events would be more difficult, because how can we provide a demonstration of an uncaused event without causing it?

How about radioactive decay? We can determine the likelihood of a specific atom decay at any moment, but we can never point at an atom and say, "That atom will undergo decay in exactly one hour, twenty three minutes and fifty two seconds."

 

[Marvin Edwards]

You miss my point that if it is "set in stone," then it's not a choice at all.

On the other hand, if it is set in stone that there will be a choice, then choosing will inevitably happen, and there's nothing we could do to avoid it.

Let's look at an example of something that really IS set in stone. Star Wars (and no jokes about how all the changes George Lucas made mean it isn't really set in stone, please). Every time you watch it, it's the same. You know exactly how things will turn out. You can have the entire movie memorised. Now, tell me, does Luke actually CHOOSE to leave Tatooine and go with Obi-Wan? You know ahead of time that he is going to do it, so you know in advance.

Like I said, if it is set in stone that Luke will actually choose to leave Tatooine, then it's rather obvious that Luke will be making that choice, every time we watch the film.

I would say Luke does NOT choose, since it is locked in stone. He can't do anything different.

Well, does Luke make a choice or not? Either it is set in stone that he will actually consider more than one option, or it is set in stone that he will simply pack up and go.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to watch Star Wars and see Luke say, "Well, now that my aunt and uncle are dead, I guess I should stay here and look after the moisture farm. It's what they would have wanted."

Well, we can't see him say that. But if that is one of the things that he considered, then we cannot say that choosing did not happen. If it happened, it happened.

The probability of that is literally 0%.

At some point prior to his choice, obviously the probability was greater than 0.

However, the probability of Luke saying, "I want to come with you to Alderaan. There's nothing here for me now. I want to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like my father," is ALWAYS going to be 100%

Only for us. We've seen the movie. But Luke did not have our literal foresight. So, he still had to make a choice before he could make that statement.

No, that's not what I meant. I'm am talking about what the probabilities actually are, not what we think they are.

What are probabilities, "actually"? If we were watching a horse race, the probabilities would literally be the "odds" that each horse would win. They are estimates, made in advance of knowing, what will happen. Nobody is calculating probabilities after the race is over.

However, each loser will be speaking the truth when he says that his horse "could have" won, because every horse in the race could have won under different circumstances. All he had to do was run faster than the other horses and he would have won. But, of course, he didn't.

Why is it "true" to say his horse "could have" won? Because "could have" always implies two things: (1) it did not happen (which is true) and (2) that it only would have happened under different circumstances (which is also true).

Please don't confuse our perception of reality with reality itself.

Please don't confuse possibilities with actualities. There will always be multiple possibilities but only one actuality. Whenever choosing happens, there will always be multiple things that we "can" do even though there is only one thing that we "will" do.

Temperature is the measure of the kinetic energy of an atom - how much it moves. Not by how much it bumps against other atoms. https://www.legendsoflearning.com/learning-objectives/temperature-thermal-energy-and-particle-motion

Bumping is how the energy is transferred and spread within the medium. The heat from the burner bumps against the bottom of the pan. The bumping against the bottom by the burner results in bumping by the bottom against the water molecules in the pan. Eventually the water boils, and becomes steam, as the molecules of water join with the molecules in the air.

How about radioactive decay? We can determine the likelihood of a specific atom decay at any moment, but we can never point at an atom and say, "That atom will undergo decay in exactly one hour, twenty three minutes and fifty two seconds."

That would be a problem of prediction, not a problem of causation. The various causes of radioactive decay are documented.

 

[Jarhyn]

Embedded predictability (absolute predictability within our universe) is not possible.

This was in fact one of my points about the future sight post. Embedded predictability is in fact possible for some manners of deterministic systems of some subset of the system, for which the relevance of context is isolated and complete. It would, in system organizational terms, require a kernel in addition to the program, but the kernel would be well defined and implementation independent.

The computational complexity grows multiplicatively with the number of decisions times the number of people actively engaging in a future sight in that moment...

It would take me a week of working it out on paper to get it all straight what the exact graph progression would be and what it would look like at scale, but the computational complexity to execute it is in fact finite at any point.

It's not impossible.

The issue is that while it is finite, it is ridiculously stupidly large.

The thing is, it still requires deterministic choice functions to operate on the result, and the computational complexity of such a system is fucking bonkers, and frankly the fact that I can think about it at all does not speak well for my mental health.

That said, this is not how  our deterministic system works. Our deterministic system operates by various boson interactions, which operate in ways we don't know how to predict and probably couldn't predict even if we could calculate after the fact what it would be without seeing the result through a scope first, to guess what's under the shell as it were.

So we are left with the inability to see the future and an ability to know that it can be predicted with "statistical certainty" because we have access to the results of the past and the knowledge that the past is singular.

This means that even if we can't access either the future or the past except through which images are delivered through our senses and the statistical models of our minds in decoding them into useful semantics, we still are attempting to do something sensible, if fast and error-prone, because "perfect will be too late".

So instead of getting to choose between the results of whole realities in perfect detail, we instead choose between wild imaginings of those same things, themselves partial swaths through that field, and some wholely missing it and shining their light instead into "nonsense" and "wills that will never be free to their goal state, even if they are freely held."

Both rely on compatibilist choice function on the result, however.

 

[fromderinside]

How many ways can one say incompleteness? Every?

 

[Kylie]

You miss my point that if it is "set in stone," then it's not a choice at all.

On the other hand, if it is set in stone that there will be a choice, then choosing will inevitably happen, and there's nothing we could do to avoid it.

How can it be a choice if it is set in stone and the outcome can't be any different? The word "choice" by definition implies that it's not set in stone.

Let's look at an example of something that really IS set in stone. Star Wars (and no jokes about how all the changes George Lucas made mean it isn't really set in stone, please). Every time you watch it, it's the same. You know exactly how things will turn out. You can have the entire movie memorised. Now, tell me, does Luke actually CHOOSE to leave Tatooine and go with Obi-Wan? You know ahead of time that he is going to do it, so you know in advance.

Like I said, if it is set in stone that Luke will actually choose to leave Tatooine, then it's rather obvious that Luke will be making that choice, every time we watch the film.

My point is that it's not a choice. A choice requires that something else could be chosen.

I would say Luke does NOT choose, since it is locked in stone. He can't do anything different.

Well, does Luke make a choice or not? Either it is set in stone that he will actually consider more than one option, or it is set in stone that he will simply pack up and go.

He does not make a choice. He must do what has been set in stone (or written in the script, in this case).

It is IMPOSSIBLE to watch Star Wars and see Luke say, "Well, now that my aunt and uncle are dead, I guess I should stay here and look after the moisture farm. It's what they would have wanted."

Well, we can't see him say that. But if that is one of the things that he considered, then we cannot say that choosing did not happen. If it happened, it happened.

[/QUOTE]
But he didn't consider it.

The probability of that is literally 0%.

At some point prior to his choice, obviously the probability was greater than 0.

How could that possibly be if it was always set in stone that he wouldn't? You can't say, "It's set in stone that he would go with Obi-Wan, so that was always going to happen no matter what," and then turn around and say, "Well, there was a point where something different MIGHT have happened..."

However, the probability of Luke saying, "I want to come with you to Alderaan. There's nothing here for me now. I want to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like my father," is ALWAYS going to be 100%

Only for us. We've seen the movie. But Luke did not have our literal foresight. So, he still had to make a choice before he could make that statement.

No he didn't. Luke was always bound to do what the script said he would do. Even if he thought he was making a choice, he wasn't actually.

No, that's not what I meant. I'm am talking about what the probabilities actually are, not what we think they are.

What are probabilities, "actually"? If we were watching a horse race, the probabilities would literally be the "odds" that each horse would win. They are estimates, made in advance of knowing, what will happen. Nobody is calculating probabilities after the race is over.

Of course not. Once the race is over and the result has actually occurred, the result is set in stone. But BEFORE it has occurred, it is not set in stone.

However, each loser will be speaking the truth when he says that his horse "could have" won, because every horse in the race could have won under different circumstances. All he had to do was run faster than the other horses and he would have won. But, of course, he didn't.

Why is it "true" to say his horse "could have" won? Because "could have" always implies two things: (1) it did not happen (which is true) and (2) that it only would have happened under different circumstances (which is also true).

It is true to say that his horse "could have" won because there were events that could have happened that would have stopped the other horses from winning. Once his horse has lost, those events have a probability of 0%, but there was a point in time when those events could have happened.

Please don't confuse our perception of reality with reality itself.

Please don't confuse possibilities with actualities. There will always be multiple possibilities but only one actuality. Whenever choosing happens, there will always be multiple things that we "can" do even though there is only one thing that we "will" do.

And I'm not denying that. I've agreed several times in this thread that once we make the choice, the probability of that choice becomes 100% and all others become 0%.

Temperature is the measure of the kinetic energy of an atom - how much it moves. Not by how much it bumps against other atoms. https://www.legendsoflearning.com/learning-objectives/temperature-thermal-energy-and-particle-motion

Bumping is how the energy is transferred and spread within the medium. The heat from the burner bumps against the bottom of the pan. The bumping against the bottom by the burner results in bumping by the bottom against the water molecules in the pan. Eventually the water boils, and becomes steam, as the molecules of water join with the molecules in the air.

That does not change the fact that a single atom that has some non-zero heat (and getting anything to absolute zero is impossible) is moving randomly. If it is isolated from other atoms, then it will still vibrate.

How about radioactive decay? We can determine the likelihood of a specific atom decay at any moment, but we can never point at an atom and say, "That atom will undergo decay in exactly one hour, twenty three minutes and fifty two seconds."

That would be a problem of prediction, not a problem of causation. The various causes of radioactive decay are documented.

There's not much in there that speaks of what makes an atom undergo decay. We can't say, "An atom's decay is caused by Event X. We just observed Event X in this atom, therefore this atom is now about to decay" with any reliability at all.

 

[DBT]

If all actions within deterministic system are determined before they happen, inputs delivered as outputs without deviation, including thoughts as a part of this process, where lies the choice? It's not as if an alternative is a possibility. Choice means the possibility of taking a different option, yet none exist within a deterministic system.

 

[The AntiChris]

That seems rather convoluted to me. Determinism is correct IF everything is cause-and effect, and IF there's an entity outside our universe to observe it. This position seems to be relying on a whole lot of assumptions that are ultimately unfalsifiable. So why should I consider them?

Because it gives a very detailed explanation of why the kind of paradox you described in your previous post shows us that our intuition that deterministic systems can be totally predicted from within that system is incorrect.

If it's not possible at all [embedded prediction], if it's NEVER going to be possible, then for all intents and purposes, it's not true.

It's not clear to me what you're saying here.

It's true that that absolute prediction is not possible in all cases from within a deterministic system. Specifically, cases in which a response to the the prediction itself is part of the prediction are problematic (in all other cases prediction appears to be perfectly perfectly possible). However this says nothing about the veracity of determinism itself.

Determinism is the theory that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. We have intuitions about what this might mean for the predictability of deterministic systems. Some of these intuitions turn out to be mistaken on deeper examination.

When I say "large changes" I'm not talking about things like continents suddenly changing position. They may still be only very small things, but just large enough to have measurable effects on things so as to render things inherently unpredictable.

But how do you believe this inherent unpredictability manifests itself in our day-to-day life? Science, medicine, engineering etc all proceed on the basis that things are inherently predictable. It seems to me that if there is any inherent unpredictability then it's, as I suggested) negligible.

 

[The AntiChris]

Embedded predictability (absolute predictability within our universe) is not possible.

This was in fact one of my points about the future sight post. Embedded predictability is in fact possible for some manners of deterministic systems...

I agree completely (I think!).

I'm talking specifically about the situation where we're attempting to predict the response of a subsystem and that subsystem uses the prediction to do the opposite.

As for the rest of your post I'm afraid it's well over my pay grade, but thanks for trying.

 

[Kylie]

That seems rather convoluted to me. Determinism is correct IF everything is cause-and effect, and IF there's an entity outside our universe to observe it. This position seems to be relying on a whole lot of assumptions that are ultimately unfalsifiable. So why should I consider them?

Because it gives a very detailed explanation of why the kind of paradox you described in your previous post shows us that our intuition that deterministic systems can be totally predicted from within that system is incorrect.

I wouldn't call the invocation of unfalsifiable entities a valid explanation.

If it's not possible at all [embedded prediction], if it's NEVER going to be possible, then for all intents and purposes, it's not true.

It's not clear to me what you're saying here.

First of all that [embedded prediction] bit was NOT in my original post. Please don't quote me and then alter my words.

What I'm saying is that your position seems to be that being able to make such a prediction can only be done by the alleged entity outside our universe. Since I have rejected that as unfalsifiable and thus utterly useless, it follows that such predictions can never be made at all. Since these predictions can never be made, claiming that it's possible to make them is nothing more than wishful thinking.

It's true that that absolute prediction is not possible in all cases from within a deterministic system. Specifically, cases in which a response to the the prediction itself is part of the prediction are problematic (in all other cases prediction appears to be perfectly perfectly possible). However this says nothing about the veracity of determinism itself.

And why should these special cases be excluded? You can't exclude them simply because they're paradoxical. That's nothing more than sweeping it under the rug. If the future can be known, then ALL of the future must be knowable, and there no mechanism in the universe to prevent that information, once known, from being spread.

Determinism is the theory that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. We have intuitions about what this might mean for the predictability of deterministic systems. Some of these intuitions turn out to be mistaken on deeper examination.

Intuition is a lousy way of determining reality. If

When I say "large changes" I'm not talking about things like continents suddenly changing position. They may still be only very small things, but just large enough to have measurable effects on things so as to render things inherently unpredictable.

But how do you believe this inherent unpredictability manifests itself in our day-to-day life? Science, medicine, engineering etc all proceed on the basis that things are inherently predictable. It seems to me that if there is any inherent unpredictability then it's, as I suggested) negligible.

There are (figuratively) infinite ways this might happen. You seem quite unfamiliar with the Butterfly effect. An atom moving in a random way in January could result in the weather being different in December, resulting in rain instead of sunshine. As a result, I might decide to drive to work instead of catching the bus.

 

[The AntiChris]

If it's not possible at all [embedded prediction], if it's NEVER going to be possible, then for all intents and purposes, it's not true.

It's not clear to me what you're saying here.

First of all that [embedded prediction] bit was NOT in my original post. Please don't quote me and then alter my words.

Apologies. I was simply attempting to add clarity (for anyone else who might read this exchange). There was no intention to misrepresent you.

What I'm saying is that your position seems to be that being able to make such a prediction can only be done by the alleged entity outside our universe. Since I have rejected that as unfalsifiable and thus utterly useless, it follows that such predictions can never be made at all. Since these predictions can never be made, claiming that it's possible to make them is nothing more than wishful thinking.

No, it's simply a statement about what can be predicted in principle given a theoretical external observer not part of the universe. If it's of no interest to you, fine.

It's true that that absolute prediction is not possible in all cases from within a deterministic system. Specifically, cases in which a response to the the prediction itself is part of the prediction are problematic (in all other cases prediction appears to be perfectly perfectly possible). However this says nothing about the veracity of determinism itself.

And why should these special cases be excluded? You can't exclude them simply because they're paradoxical.

That's nothing more than sweeping it under the rug.

They're different because they're specific types of predictions that simply can't be made. (explained at length in the link I gave you).

But how do you believe this inherent unpredictability manifests itself in our day-to-day life? Science, medicine, engineering etc all proceed on the basis that things are inherently predictable. It seems to me that if there is any inherent unpredictability then it's, as I suggested) negligible.

There are (figuratively) infinite ways this might happen. You seem quite unfamiliar with the Butterfly effect. An atom moving in a random way in January could result in the weather being different in December, resulting in rain instead of sunshine. As a result, I might decide to drive to work instead of catching the bus.

So your example of a manifestation of inherent indeterminacy is unexpected weather?

How do you differentiate events which are inherently indeterministic (fundamentally unpredictable) from deterministic events for which we have insufficient data/computing power (difficult to predict accurately)?