Cito di Pense wrote:
Well, this isn't about determinism and stochasticity nearly as much as it is about positivism and the hope that we can establish answers to ill-formed questions.

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

Mr 1 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Well, this isn't about determinism and stochasticity nearly as much as it is about positivism and the hope that we can establish answers to ill-formed questions.

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

Do you think we really need to decide by playing with words whether the universe is deterministic or stochastic? No?

Here's your calling card in this thread:

Mr 1 wrote:I find it hard to get my head around how that exactly affects the cause-and-effect day to day workings of a human being?

You're question-begging already. Can you clarify what you mean by "cause and effect day to day workings"? No? I thought not. Full apologies in advance if you've never faced a difficult question before.

Let me be among the first to inform you that average behaviour is not necessarily determined, regardless of what precision you can apply to predict the outcome of an experiment.

hackenslash wrote:In QM realms, it's entirely meaningless to talk of such things as 'cause'.

That's a popular myth even among scientists. But it's obviously wrong.

Any measurable result of a QM test is clearly a necessary consequence of (caused by) the initial conditions. If this were not the case, then there would be no result at all. Testing, itself, would be meaningless. If causality did not exist, the relation between turning on the test equipment and getting any result at all would be pure chance. I don't think anybody believes that.

Tell you what, then, here's your experiment. Take a single atom of caesium and a photon detector, and tell me when it decayed.

Your puny intuition is as useless as your ignorance.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr 1 wrote:I find it hard to get my head around how that exactly affects the cause-and-effect day to day workings of a human being?

You're question-begging already. Can you clarify what you mean by "cause and effect day to day workings"?

What I meant was; if we look at a human being and focus on any particular action/choice on any particular day, determinism tells us this action/choice was the result of a series of causes, which themselves were the result of a series of causes, ect...

Let me be among the first to inform you that average behaviour is not necessarily determined, regardless of what precision you can apply to predict the outcome of an experiment.

Right. But do you understand how this notion actually affects the cause-and-effect day to day workings of a human being (as i've defined it above)? Would you agree with David McC that "the probabilitic nature of some events at the molecular level in neurons create the possibility of otherwise impossible generation of random signals that don't come from the background of neighbouring neural activity. " Or is it some other way? Are you sure of the matter, or is this question still very much up in the air?

I'm just asking these questions because determinism seems such an intuitively sensible concept. And to be clear I'm using the philosophy definition of determinism here; Determinsim: the philosophical doctrine that all events including human actions and choices are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs, and so that freedom of choice is illusory."

DrWho wrote:

hackenslash wrote:In QM realms, it's entirely meaningless to talk of such things as 'cause'.

That's a popular myth even among scientists. But it's obviously wrong.

Any measurable result of a QM test is clearly a necessary consequence of (caused by) the initial conditions. If this were not the case, then there would be no result at all. Testing, itself, would be meaningless. If causality did not exist, the relation between turning on the test equipment and getting any result at all would be pure chance. I don't think anybody believes that.

Quite so. IMO, hack is mistaking causality for determinism. IIRC, you used to make the same mistake yourself, DrWho.

hackenslash wrote:Tell you what, then, here's your experiment. Take a single atom of caesium and a photon detector, and tell me when it decayed.

Your puny intuition is as useless as your ignorance.

At this point in human history we can't say when it will decay. It will certainly decay though...why is that? When it will decay is not certain. But the fact that it will decay is not a matter of chance; it is certain. An event that must happen cannot be a matter of chance. And what is not a matter of chance is a matter of causation. But as usual your petty rudeness makes the potentially interesting discussion unpleasant and pointless.

Mr 1 wrote:

I'm just asking these questions because determinism seems such an intuitively sensible concept.

I would add that any other concept is unintelligible. Causality is our particular form of comprehension. To that say that some event happened for no reason at all (was caused by nothing) adds no understanding to such an event.

DrWho wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Tell you what, then, here's your experiment. Take a single atom of caesium and a photon detector, and tell me when it decayed.

Your puny intuition is as useless as your ignorance.

At this point in human history we can't say when it will decay. ...

This point, or any other. The laws of physics are unlikely to change within human history. Maybe within the history of the universe.

DavidMcC wrote:
This point, or any other. The laws of physics are unlikely to change within human history.

That's what Newton said.

hackenslash wrote:Tell you what, then, here's your experiment. Take a single atom of caesium and a photon detector, and tell me when it decayed.

Your puny intuition is as useless as your ignorance.

I don't think DrWho was saying that ... he was saying the decay of the caesium atom sets off the detector.

Also just because we can't predict the moment a single atom decays does not meant there is no underlying cause.

And yet if we have enough radio active atoms we can see they follow first order rate laws.

romansh wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Tell you what, then, here's your experiment. Take a single atom of caesium and a photon detector, and tell me when it decayed.

Your puny intuition is as useless as your ignorance.

I don't think DrWho was saying that ... he was saying the decay of the caesium atom sets off the detector.

Also just because we can't predict the moment a single atom decays does not meant there is no underlying cause.

And yet if we have enough radio active atoms we can see they follow first order rate laws.

Yes, and the other point I was making was as follows:

While it is true that we don't when the atom will decay. We do know that the atom must decay at some point in time. That fact that must decay is a necessary consequence of physical conditions and the laws of physics. Whatever must happen is connected with the principle of causation. It may be difficult to formulate but it is there.

Is the price of beans deterministic and what should we do about it if it is? I personally am not in favor of deterministic beans. Writing my congressman about the issue right now.

Mr 1 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr 1 wrote:I find it hard to get my head around how that exactly affects the cause-and-effect day to day workings of a human being?

You're question-begging already. Can you clarify what you mean by "cause and effect day to day workings"?

What I meant was; if we look at a human being and focus on any particular action/choice on any particular day, determinism tells us this action/choice was the result of a series of causes, which themselves were the result of a series of causes, ect...

Let me be among the first to inform you that average behaviour is not necessarily determined, regardless of what precision you can apply to predict the outcome of an experiment.

Right. But do you understand how this notion actually affects the cause-and-effect day to day workings of a human being (as i've defined it above)? Would you agree with David McC that "the probabilitic nature of some events at the molecular level in neurons create the possibility of otherwise impossible generation of random signals that don't come from the background of neighbouring neural activity. " Or is it some other way? Are you sure of the matter, or is this question still very much up in the air?

I'm just asking these questions because determinism seems such an intuitively sensible concept. And to be clear I'm using the philosophy definition of determinism here; Determinsim: the philosophical doctrine that all events including human actions and choices are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs, and so that freedom of choice is illusory."

And I'm suggesting to you that these matters are undecidable at present. Of course, you're welcome to offer an opinion. If you want to prove a point, go to court or do some mathematics. Frankly, it looks to me as if you're working on a theory of human psychology, and there's not much opportunity for you to be scientific about it at this level.

The possibility of this or that doesn't concern me much. It is not science, but speculation. Back to philosophy, then. Wibbling about something that is possible in principle is not the same as documenting it scientifically, and it gives me a stomach ache to see philosophers going to the buffet table of observables and stringing random shit together because it sounds good to them.

Sure, for a psychologist to beg off from the task of predicting human behaviour in detail by talking about the generation of random signals that are fundamental is one way to go. That doesn't suddenly turn the broad scope of human psychology into a scientific field. If the spectre of how easy it is to condition behaviour, along with how difficult it is to be sure of conditioning a particular behaviour leaves you wondering whether or not you're studying a science, go ahead, speculate.

DavidMcC wrote:Quite so. IMO, hack is mistaking causality for determinism. IIRC, you used to make the same mistake yourself, DrWho.

We've already accounted for the value of your opinion, David, and I've made no such mistake.

DrWho wrote:And what is not a matter of chance is a matter of causation.

And of course you can demonstrate that, can't you? Is pair-production a matter of chance? Can you point to the cause?

But as usual your petty rudeness makes the potentially interesting discussion unpleasant and pointless.

Well , as always, when somebody chances along who actually gives a fuck about your commentary on my posting style, feel free to tell them all the fuck about it. Frankly, what sours the topic for me is the holding forth in ignorance so prevalent in them, but I don't generally feel the need to whine about it.

romansh wrote:Also just because we can't predict the moment a single atom decays does not meant there is no underlying cause.

The data support exactly no conclusions regarding cause, which is entirely the point. Even talking about cause is precisely the problem.

hackenslash wrote:

romansh wrote:Also just because we can't predict the moment a single atom decays does not meant there is no underlying cause.

The data support exactly no conclusions regarding cause, which is entirely the point. Even talking about cause is precisely the problem.

I think I agree with you Hack. I have no idea whether quantum phenomena have an underlying cause (and for me it is a little bit irrelevant). Quantum phenomena as far as I can tell do have an effect. And if people want to argue that our wills are (at least partially) an effect of quantum phenomena and call that free, then fair enough.

If I believed in free will, I don't think I could argue my free will was a result (partially) of some hypothetical cosmic dice shaker.

romansh wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

romansh wrote:Also just because we can't predict the moment a single atom decays does not meant there is no underlying cause.

The data support exactly no conclusions regarding cause, which is entirely the point. Even talking about cause is precisely the problem.

I think I agree with you Hack. I have no idea whether quantum phenomena have an underlying cause (and for me it is a little bit irrelevant). Quantum phenomena as far as I can tell do have an effect. And if people want to argue that our wills are (at least partially) an effect of quantum phenomena and call that free, then fair enough.

If I believed in free will, I don't think I could argue my free will was a result (partially) of some hypothetical cosmic dice shaker.

I have a question for you. Is there a chance that the atom will never decay?

DrWho wrote:

romansh wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

romansh wrote:Also just because we can't predict the moment a single atom decays does not meant there is no underlying cause.

The data support exactly no conclusions regarding cause, which is entirely the point. Even talking about cause is precisely the problem.

I think I agree with you Hack. I have no idea whether quantum phenomena have an underlying cause (and for me it is a little bit irrelevant). Quantum phenomena as far as I can tell do have an effect. And if people want to argue that our wills are (at least partially) an effect of quantum phenomena and call that free, then fair enough.

If I believed in free will, I don't think I could argue my free will was a result (partially) of some hypothetical cosmic dice shaker.

I have a question for you. Is there a chance that the atom will never decay?

Outside of my field of experience DrWho.

this might give us an insight into the problem though