Re: Determinism and prediction

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Thu May 04 2000 - 20:58:38 EDT

  • Next message: Richard Wein: "Re: Intelligent Design"

    From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>

    >At 09:23 PM 5/3/00 -0500, Chris wrote:

    >>Our
    >>knowledge of physics is still far from perfect, despite Hawking's
    suggestion
    >>that we might be nearing the end soon. *Logically,* indeterminism does not
    >>even arise as an option, and it was scientifically and philosophically
    >>invalid for Bohr, et al, ever to suggest it. It was invalid because it was
    >>the purest form of argument from ignorance one might imagine.
    >
    >Remarkable. Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics is not indeterminate?
    >I know little of quantum mechanics, but I thought Einstein lost this
    argument.

    Chris seems to be saying: never mind the evidence, determinism is the only
    logical possibility. This sounds rather similar to Dembski's attitude to ID!

    I wonder whether Chris would also reject other logical impossibilities, such
    as time dilation and a finite origin for the universe. ;-)

    If you accept the quantum nature of the universe (which has apparently been
    proven beyond reasonable doubt), then it follows that chaotic systems must
    ultimately be unpredictable. And all systems are chaotic to some degree,
    even the motion of the planets.

    So I have no doubt that the universe is probabilistic, not deterministic.
    However, I'm not sure that this necessarily addresses the issue of free
    will. Perhaps our actions are predetermined in a probabilistic sense, e.g.
    there are a number of possible shirts I may wear tomorrow, and the
    probability of each can be calculated, but I have no say in the matter!

    I feel the problem of free will is very closely linked to the problem of
    consciousness. They're both great unexplained mysteries. (By the way, I
    *still* haven't got around to reading Dennett's "Consciousness Explained").

    >As far as mathematics goes, I'm curious your response to Chaitin's proof
    >that there is randomness even in pure arithmetic?

    I haven't heard of this. I guess he's referring to something like the digits
    in pi being random. If so, then they aren't random in the sense that
    we've been discussing. They're only random to someone who doesn't
    yet know them--they would be known to a computer of sufficient power.

    Richard Wein (Tich)
    Please note my new email address <rwein@lineone.net>
    and web address <http://website.lineone.net/~rwein/>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 04 2000 - 20:55:54 EDT