Is Determinism True or False?

[Nous]

Try reading the response to your OP.

Done did it. That's precisely why I pointed out that the decay of individual radioactive atoms is random and impossible to predict (as the Wikipedia article that you quoted states).

BTW, you were not able to account for the fact I can accurately predict my trivial bodily movements far in advance and with perfect precision, such as my willful misspelling of the word "quantum" as "quantom". Right?

 

[Skwim]

Done did it. That's precisely why I pointed out that the decay of individual radioactive atoms is random and impossible to predict (as the Wikipedia article that you quoted states).

Then I'm sorry your reading comprehension has failed you. And, no, I'm not going to explain how.

BTW, you were not able to account for the fact I can accurately predict my trivial bodily movements far in advance and with perfect precision, such as my willful misspelling of the word "quantum" as "quantom". Right?

In short, because it's a stupid challenge. And, no, I'm not going to explain why.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't even know how to respond to this, Carlita. Did you read and understand the quoted definition(s) of determinism? If you have even the vaguest inkling that the thesis of determinism might be true, how do you account for the random decay of radioactive atoms? Obviously, if determinism (see definition) were true, then no random or probabilistic event has ever happened or will ever happen in the universe.

I am very simple minded. I have read the definition, "and I dont know if this is the right area" nevertheless, I replied.

The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.​

I feel all things are Fixed by natural law. Nothing is sponteneous. It was meant to be. Whether humans understand it or not doesnt negate that nature is already "determined." By our actions to the atoms.

Its not complicated. All of these philosophical terms makes human brings pick at the simple things in life. It doesnt need to be supernatural. Its just the natural law.

 

[HonestJoe]

Say what? The definitions were not statements about what people perceive, but statements about how the world supposedly is.

Yes, but we’re not capable of perceiving how the world actually is. There will always be things we can’t know so that obviously impacts out ability to completely answer these kind of questions.

The decay of an individual atom is not a complex process in any sense of the term "complex"--it's the emission of a particle from the nucleus of an atom. It apparently occurs as a result of quantum tunneling.

It must be at least a little complex given that we don’t fully understand how it works. Surely it’s possible that it appears random but is actually following a deterministic set of rules we aren’t (yet?) aware of. It’s not as if it would be the first time we’ve discovered something like that.

I'm unsure what you're asking here. You seem to be implying that the existence of a random event can only be deduced if determinism were true.

No, I was suggesting it would be impossible for us to know anything if determinisms is false. The measurement of the apparently random radioactive decay assumes a certain level of determinism (for example, that we can accurately and consistently detect the decay events). If you can’t rely on that determinism, you can’t say we know the decay is random.

It’s a vicious circle of ignorance that can only be broken by us making an assumption. Pretty much all science relies on assumptions that could (however unlikely it might be) turn out to be false.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Definition:

Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human interactions, there exist conditions that could cause no other event.​

​

The two most successful theories of physics are incompatible with determinism. On the one hand, quantum physics (quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, particle physics, etc.) are fundamentally indeterministic. On the other hand, both special and general relativity render the entirety of classical determinism obsolete: simultaneity is only defined locally, so "before" and "after" (requisite states for determinism) don't exist. Finally, the past century of research into nonlinear systems has shown that even within classical mechanics the classical linear causal model (every effect has a set of causes that precede it and are both necessary and sufficient to bring about it) irrelevant, incoherent, and false. Consider a model, simulation, or similar "realization" of a cell and the process of metabolic-repair, and let f: A→B be a function
"where f is the process that takes input A and output B...The system Rosen uses for an example is the Metabolism-Repair or [M,R] system. The process, f, in this case stands for the entire metabolism goin on in an organism...The transition, f, which is being called metabolism, is a mapping taking some set of metabolites, A, into some set of products, B. What are the members of A? Really everything in the organism has to be included in A, and there has to be an implicit agreement that at least some of the members of A can enter the organism from its environment. What are the members of B? Many, if not all, of the memebers of A since the transitions in the reduced system are all strung together in the many intricate patterns or networks that make up the organism's metabolism. It also must be true that some members of B leave the organism as products of metabolism...In the context developed so far, the mapping, f, has a very special nature. It is a functional component of the system we are developing. A functional component has many interesting attributes. First of all, it exists independent of the material parts that make it possible. Reductionism has taught us that every thing in a real system can be expressed as a collection of material parts. This is not so in the case of functional components...Fragmentability is the aspect of systems that can be reduced to their material parts leaving recognizable material entities as the result. A system is not fragmentable is reducing it to its parts destroys something essential about that system. Since the crux of understanding a complex system had to do with identifying the context dependent functional components, they are by definition, not fragmentable". (pp.103-108; emphasis added; italics in original)
Mikulecky, D. C. (2005). The Circle That Never Ends: Can Complexity be Made Simple? In D. Bonchev & D. H. Rouvray (Eds.). Complexity in Chemistry, Biology, and Ecology (Mathematical and Computational Chemistry). Springer.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I feel all things are Fixed by natural law.

Which is?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Which is?

I dont analyze it. I live With it.

I will be cuting this and future abrahamic like discussions soon.

 

[Random]

If absolute block determinism is true, then it follows that nothing is false, so the question as it has been posed is unanswerable (because there is no choice to make). However, if that is indeed the case, then the reverse proposition is (paradoxically) also not false, therefore freewill exists. It's not that something is or must be true, it's that everything is. Or nothing exists.

 

[Willamena]

I dont analyze it. I live With it.

I will be cuting this and future abrahamic like discussions soon.

What is cuting?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is cuting?

lol Sorry. I bought a new tiny keyboard for my nook and its almost half the size of the nook itself, So,more spelling errors,

Im cutting out future discussions on Abrahamic topics. I dont know what else that can be learned outside of study and talking to people who live around me about it. Im already smothered at home, why be online, Thats what I meant.

 

[Wirey]

Definition:

Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human interactions, there exist conditions that could cause no other event.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.​

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

Note that these definitions eliminate the possibility of both random and probabilistic events.

If you say that determinism is true, then please specify what evidence leads to that conclusion. In particular (as an initial matter), how do you account for the fact the radioactive decay of individual atoms is in fact stochastic (i.e., random), and is an event that is impossible to predict?

I guess we'll find out.

 

[Wirey]

What is cuting?

Too much cute.

 

[Nous]

If absolute block determinism is true, then it follows that nothing is false, so the question as it has been posed is unanswerable (because there is no choice to make).

Ironically, I think some people don't really understand that.

 

[Nous]

​

The two most successful theories of physics are incompatible with determinism. On the one hand, quantum physics (quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, particle physics, etc.) are fundamentally indeterministic. On the other hand, both special and general relativity render the entirety of classical determinism obsolete: simultaneity is only defined locally, so "before" and "after" (requisite states for determinism) don't exist. Finally, the past century of research into nonlinear systems has shown that even within classical mechanics the classical linear causal model (every effect has a set of causes that precede it and are both necessary and sufficient to bring about it) irrelevant, incoherent, and false. Consider a model, simulation, or similar "realization" of a cell and the process of metabolic-repair, and let f: A→B be a function
"where f is the process that takes input A and output B...The system Rosen uses for an example is the Metabolism-Repair or [M,R] system. The process, f, in this case stands for the entire metabolism goin on in an organism...The transition, f, which is being called metabolism, is a mapping taking some set of metabolites, A, into some set of products, B. What are the members of A? Really everything in the organism has to be included in A, and there has to be an implicit agreement that at least some of the members of A can enter the organism from its environment. What are the members of B? Many, if not all, of the memebers of A since the transitions in the reduced system are all strung together in the many intricate patterns or networks that make up the organism's metabolism. It also must be true that some members of B leave the organism as products of metabolism...In the context developed so far, the mapping, f, has a very special nature. It is a functional component of the system we are developing. A functional component has many interesting attributes. First of all, it exists independent of the material parts that make it possible. Reductionism has taught us that every thing in a real system can be expressed as a collection of material parts. This is not so in the case of functional components...Fragmentability is the aspect of systems that can be reduced to their material parts leaving recognizable material entities as the result. A system is not fragmentable is reducing it to its parts destroys something essential about that system. Since the crux of understanding a complex system had to do with identifying the context dependent functional components, they are by definition, not fragmentable". (pp.103-108; emphasis added; italics in original)
Mikulecky, D. C. (2005). The Circle That Never Ends: Can Complexity be Made Simple? In D. Bonchev & D. H. Rouvray (Eds.). Complexity in Chemistry, Biology, and Ecology (Mathematical and Computational Chemistry). Springer.

Excellent post.

On the other hand, both special and general relativity render the entirety of classical determinism obsolete: simultaneity is only defined locally, so "before" and "after" (requisite states for determinism) don't exist.

Yes, two distantly separated flashes of light that are simultaneous in one inertial reference frame will not be simultaneous to an observer in an inertial reference frame that is accelerating toward one flash and away from the other.

Is there a way to maintain the principle of causality in special relativity while denying determinism?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Is there a way to maintain the principle of causality in special relativity while denying determinism?

Sure. Causality still holds locally (Iight-cones), but special relativity doesn't rid us of the ways in which Newtonian determinism is defeated both by later developments in classical physics (most famously, the kinds of nonlinear causality that we find from functional emergence, self-organization, or even the nonlocality of classical electrodynamics- see e.g., Frisch, M. (2005). Inconsistency, Asymmetry, and Non-locality: A Philosophical Investigation of Classical eEectrodynamics (Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Science). Oxford University Press.). And, of course, while there is no consensus on the nature of quantum causality, causation itself is still a part of quantum theory and determinism can't be recovered by the local causality of special relativity.

The problems that relativity, nonlinear dynamics, quantum theory, and even classical field theory have posed for causality are more challenges to a rather limited, wholly limited, reductionist (deterministic) causality of the type described by Aristotle. There are plenty of alternative causal models that incorporate e.g., mental causation, downward causation, nonlocal causality, and/or circular causality (and more). There is simply no universal causal model, although some aspects of these models are shared by almost everybody.