Miscellaneous Chatter > Philosophy & Science
Is there really a Determinism/Indeterminism Dichotomy?
sciborg2:
--- Quote from: H on March 21, 2019, 08:33:52 pm ---
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on March 21, 2019, 04:50:52 pm ---Well we could, in theory, have knowledge enough to make predictions with 100% confidence of all outcomes. But this would only be determinate in the sense of probabilistic expectation.
The actual "Why?" of causation would still be a mystery. We seem to agree on that?
So it would be determinate Luck, randomness of a special kind, given that we will be unable to explain at some fundamental level of observed change why something else doesn't happen.
Ultimately I think the problem is there is a space between Cause and Effect. Going back to Aristotle change is the actualization of something potential, which can only be done by something that is actual. Possible fire cannot change ice into water, nor water into steam.
Yet once we acknowledge issues with the idea of binding Natural Laws, why can't the freezing/boiling points of water be different in different places? After all even with Laws there has to be something about water that knows of and accepts the Law, yet that something would need other Laws to keep it from "revolting".
Aristotle would then say the fire is the Efficient Cause, and the determination of what happens to the water is the Final Cause.
I guess the nagging issue for me is the idea of a brute fact, just so Order to the world that is really just us being Lucky the natural state of Hyperchaos has let things be ordered. What fixes the Final Causes?
Do we then reach toward the Absolute for answers...I do feel more theist than atheist nowadays...
--- End quote ---
Hmm, well, in the case where we are Laplace's demon and know everything, I'm not sure what intercedes to give us indeterminacy. All I can think of it the failure of necessity. Which isn't really a given. In fact, I don't think I'd even consider it if I were the demon, given that it is possible but in not something which could be considered as probable.
If we consider that the universe is somewhat homogeneous, then laws should apply everywhere the same. Now, we don't necessarily know that, but we have also, no reason to doubt it. So, we don't seem to have hyperchaos because if we did, we wouldn't exist to even know it. So, sure it's "lucky" that it doesn't apply, but that isn't really luck, there wasn't another option, likely for some reason given in the beginning (whatever that is or was).
--- End quote ---
But this begins to eat away at the very idea of causation, since - as noted by Tallis in Of Time & Lamentation - when you remove interest relative causes all you have is a single cause - the Big Bang. Then the rest of causation is just like an arrow flying from a bow.
OTOH, this picture makes it difficult to account for how we discern cause-effect relations to build machines and do science in general.
And how can one even measure the probability of necessity failing? Certainly not mathematically.
All to say Lapace's demon is an entity we can conjure only when we've already observed cause-effect relations. I suspect there's some bit of question begging in the demon's make up...
H:
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on March 21, 2019, 09:01:47 pm ---But this begins to eat away at the very idea of causation, since - as noted by Tallis in Of Time & Lamentation - when you remove interest relative causes all you have is a single cause - the Big Bang. Then the rest of causation is just like an arrow flying from a bow.
OTOH, this picture makes it difficult to account for how we discern cause-effect relations to build machines and do science in general.
And how can one even measure the probability of necessity failing? Certainly not mathematically.
All to say Lapace's demon is an entity we can conjure only when we've already observed cause-effect relations. I suspect there's some bit of question begging in the demon's make up...
--- End quote ---
Well, indeed, there is something a "problem" of perspective, given such knowledge even undermines the notion of temporallity at all. As always, the right level of perspective is needed for the right job. So, the view from the Big Bang is likely not helpful in building a computer, if we consider that there would be a "cost" to such a vast amount of knowledge.
I do think one could not evaluate the probability of necessity failing, which is why I say, there is no real "sense" in considering it's "chance" of happening. If we can't evaluate what would make it happen, we can't evaluate it's likelyhood of happening. This is why I say, it doesn't really make sense to even factor it in to a calculation, it simply must be the case that anything we figure must consider it a fact as a precondition.
sciborg2:
--- Quote from: H on March 22, 2019, 11:39:57 am ---
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on March 21, 2019, 09:01:47 pm ---But this begins to eat away at the very idea of causation, since - as noted by Tallis in Of Time & Lamentation - when you remove interest relative causes all you have is a single cause - the Big Bang. Then the rest of causation is just like an arrow flying from a bow.
OTOH, this picture makes it difficult to account for how we discern cause-effect relations to build machines and do science in general.
And how can one even measure the probability of necessity failing? Certainly not mathematically.
All to say Lapace's demon is an entity we can conjure only when we've already observed cause-effect relations. I suspect there's some bit of question begging in the demon's make up...
--- End quote ---
Well, indeed, there is something a "problem" of perspective, given such knowledge even undermines the notion of temporallity at all. As always, the right level of perspective is needed for the right job. So, the view from the Big Bang is likely not helpful in building a computer, if we consider that there would be a "cost" to such a vast amount of knowledge.
I do think one could not evaluate the probability of necessity failing, which is why I say, there is no real "sense" in considering it's "chance" of happening. If we can't evaluate what would make it happen, we can't evaluate it's likelyhood of happening. This is why I say, it doesn't really make sense to even factor it in to a calculation, it simply must be the case that anything we figure must consider it a fact as a precondition.
--- End quote ---
I agree, though back to the OP this does undermine the idea that deterministic/random dichotomy exists in nature. Our calculations, as you say, are based on our expectations that are underpinned by a priori considerations.
Though there is a bigger challenge with consciousness and its ability to seek interest-relative cause/effect relations. How do you get that kind of consciousness *without* the very interest-relative seeking consciousness provides...As Putnam once said to explain Intentionality arising you need Intentionality...
H:
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on March 22, 2019, 03:04:32 pm ---I agree, though back to the OP this does undermine the idea that deterministic/random dichotomy exists in nature. Our calculations, as you say, are based on our expectations that are underpinned by a priori considerations.
Though there is a bigger challenge with consciousness and its ability to seek interest-relative cause/effect relations. How do you get that kind of consciousness *without* the very interest-relative seeking consciousness provides...As Putnam once said to explain Intentionality arising you need Intentionality...
--- End quote ---
Hmm, so maybe it all just is an issue of "frame of reference" in the same way that Relativity "redefined" Netwonian physics?
On Intentionality though, well, I am a bit in the dark, because I'm not exactly clear what that is off the top of my head.
sciborg2:
--- Quote from: H on March 22, 2019, 03:17:56 pm ---
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on March 22, 2019, 03:04:32 pm ---I agree, though back to the OP this does undermine the idea that deterministic/random dichotomy exists in nature. Our calculations, as you say, are based on our expectations that are underpinned by a priori considerations.
Though there is a bigger challenge with consciousness and its ability to seek interest-relative cause/effect relations. How do you get that kind of consciousness *without* the very interest-relative seeking consciousness provides...As Putnam once said to explain Intentionality arising you need Intentionality...
--- End quote ---
Hmm, so maybe it all just is an issue of "frame of reference" in the same way that Relativity "redefined" Netwonian physics?
On Intentionality though, well, I am a bit in the dark, because I'm not exactly clear what that is off the top of my head.
--- End quote ---
I think the universe has events, and while the mathematical modeling is useful the actual events are better described via Aristotle's ideas of causation and entities having particular natures & causal powers.
Re: Intentionality, I think of it just as having Aboutness of Thought, as in Thoughts about the World. Given most of our cause-effect descriptions pre-suppose consciousness due to their interest-relativity it suggests there is something...interesting...going on there...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version