Determinism

[indigobusiness]

Determinism



Excerpt:

The viability of a deterministic worldmodel is completely independent of the number of decisions that are made by a person. Whether you make ten decisions or a quadrillion, the doctrine of determinism -- or better, timeless frozen-future fatedness -- says that any and all decisions are already pre-set and frozen into the spacetime block. The future and the rest of time contain many decisions, but the point is, the decisions do not change. They are fixed and frozen with respect to the time axis.

Someone argued with me, saying that the November 2000 election disproved determinism because the outcome kept changing. The whole point of determinism is that change and decisions exist, and in great quantity, but are illusory in that there is no metachange. The future does not change. Decisions do not change the future -- they manifest and bring about the future, or are part of the path that leads into the future.

Decisions lie along the path; the path along time is composed of decisions. The decisions are frozen into a deterministic block universe, according to the doctrine of determinism or Necessity. Quantity of decisions has nothing to do with their metaphysical quality of frozenness in spacetime. Quality is completely independent of quantity.

When you have a million times as many cars, they do not become boats. When you have a million times as many decisions and changes of plan, they do not become free; the future remains fixed and metaphysical freedom remains illusory. Ten million ghosts do not constitute a living person. Upping the quantity of decisions is a futile and desperate way of attempting to produce the ever-elusive quality of metaphysical freedom, as though by running faster you could outrun determinism.

The Fates in Greek & Roman Mythology are the three goddesses, Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos, who control human destiny and who in ancient times were considered to command the gods: "Beyond and above the Olympian gods lay the silent, brooding, everlasting fate of which victim and tyrant were alike the instruments." -- Froude

Now, if you are an open-minded person, contemplating this philosophy might cook your noodles a bit – maybe a lot. Or, maybe not! The application of serious thought to the argument can seem ludicrous, cathartic, frustrating, upsetting, or even dangerous, depending on how far you can go with it and the logic you are wont to apply. For some, the idea may have the the dramatic effect of tossing a large boulder into their calm pool of self-reflection. Maybe it depends on who or what is tossing the boulder, and why, at this particular moment? My own perspective is that the idea certainly implies much more than mere logical gymnastics and the complex word play involved. Though, it is worthy of contradistinctions and argument in the sense of dualistic thesis vs. antithesis. The analysis is also worthy of precision in terminology and epistemology.

The outcome, (can there be more than one?) could also be surprising, scintillating, uplifiting, expansive, transformative, etc.

I certainly don't intend this reference to be a support for modern, dogmatic religious beliefs in that they represent a purely exoteric vulgarization, or admixture, of the more essential core concept intended. I would hope that the implications will be well thought out by readers who are most prone to inquire. I am also going to suggest that there is a potentially deep and liberating result in the clear understanding of determinism when seen in the proper light, lest the reader misconstrue the concept of fatalism as purely constrictive, negative, or inherently worthless. The psychological results can bear that out as a slow, methodical process, or instantaneously, like the lightening of Satori.

Read more!
http://sensiblyeclectic.com/b2evolution/blogs/index.php/2004/12/13/p1504#more1504

[trotsky]

1. Determinism is a very interesting concept.

Even when it comes to "free will." Because ultimately, there is a reason WHY someone chooses one alternative over another. It might be a trivial reason - preferring red over blue - but it's a reason nonetheless and one that may arise from your past experiences, which of course determine how you view a lot of things.

And hey, if you can't decide and instead flip a coin - well, the mathematics & physics to determine a coin flip result are certainly very complicated but if you could work everything into it (the initial angular momentum of the coin, any rotation, the arc of the path it takes, etc.) that's a deterministic result.

[indigobusiness]

2. Interesting.

But, I would say that past experiences condition, rather than determine, choices.

There are other considerations, too. Including perverse impulse, paradoxical behavior, and puzzling choices.

[trotsky]

3. True, but all of those could be the products of a malfunctioning mind.

And so ultimately, some sort of chemical imbalance is steering towards that decision. We can't know with current science, but there's an incredible amount of things about the brain that we DO know now that we didn't know just a few years ago.

[indigobusiness]

4. All is mind.

Malfunctions included. Mind is not brain.

[trotsky]

5. Brain, brain. What is brain?

;-)

[indigobusiness]

6. Beats me?

You brought it up.

:}

[trotsky]

7. Sorry, obscure Star Trek reference.

From the original series episode Spock's Brain.

But still, a good question. Brain or mind? Mind is technically a product, or construct, of a brain. Malfunctioning brain leads to malfunctioning mind. Brain damage usually means mind damage.

[indigobusiness]

8. Mind is a mystery.

It is definitively NOT brain.

One medical anomaly clearly illustrates this. I don't have a reference link, but this is in the record:

A man with an unusual form of hydrocephaly was discovered at autopsy, after living a normal life, to possess only a brainstem. None of the convential brain was exstant. Merely a fluid filled cavity was found in its place.

Hard to believe, but checkable.

Then there is the story of the headless chicken that lived long after being beheaded. Months+. This is also documented.

---

Live long and prosper.

[trotsky]

9. I would like to see some links for the man.

However, I have heard of the chicken, and it still retained enough brain tissue to survive.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/mike01.shtml

When Mike was still alive a week later, Olsen took him to University of Utah scientists, who theorized Mike had enough of a brain stem left to live headless. He made it into Life magazine and the Guinness Book of World Records and was a popular attraction until he choked to death on a corn kernel in an Arizona motel.

[indigobusiness]

10. I can't search for it right now.

But, I assure you it is there.

It is a famous case, to say the least.

(edit- I might be wrong as to when the anomaly was discovered. It may have happened while he was living.)

Mind is not brain. Brain is not mind. There are other examples and arguments for this.

[trotsky]

12. Found some information on the "famous" case.

http://www.sci-con.org/articles/20040901.html

Talking to colleagues and contemporaries of Lorber, it was revealed he was probably greatly exaggerating the extent of brain loss in his cases. Said one source: "If the cortical mantle actually had been compressed to a couple of millimetres, it wouldn't even have shown up on his X-rays." Another agreed, adding that brain scans with modern techniques such as MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) show stretching, but not much real loss of brain weight with slow-onset hydrocephalus. He says the brain structure adapts to the space it is allowed: "The cortex and its connections are still there, even if grossly distorted."

Sufferers with hydrocephalus also report many subtle symptoms that don't show up in standard tests of cognition. They do well on basic reading and arithmetic or IQ-type questions, but struggle with focused attention, spatial imagination, general motor co-ordination, and other skills that rely on longer-range integrative links across the brain. This fits a picture of a brain in which all the cortical processing regions are in place but where the white matter - the wealth of insulated connections that actually occupies much of the centre of the cerebral hemispheres - has been pulled out of shape.

[indigobusiness]

13. That makes no reference to the case I cited.

I wouldn't blame you for doubting this is an accurate description of the substance of the case, or whether or not it is actually famous. It is my understanding that it is. I didn't make this up, or come by it via dubious sources. I'm not selling anything. Ignore it if you wish.

[trotsky]

15. The case you cited is incredibly lacking in details.

So pardon me while I chalk it up as "unconfirmed" until you can provide at least a link.

[indigobusiness]

16. Of course

But, I have no interest in defending it. It is an interesting case, and a mind-blowing set of facts. If you choose to trouble yourself to verify the reality of it, you will be surprised.

[SlackJawedYokel]

29. I would be interested if you could track down the citation

since this goes against everything I've ever read about neurology and the mind.(at least as you have concluded based on this particular case)

It is an interesting case, and a mind-blowing set of facts.
Undoubtedly.
If one accepts it as you described it and what you described was accurate.

Right off the bat, at least as you describe the case, I question the conclusion that his hydrocephaly was "life long", that his life was "normal" for its entire span and that he possessed "only a brainstem" for that life span.
For what portion of his life did he possess "only a brainstem"?
For what protion of his life was his behavior "normal"?
I suspect that degeneration proceeded slowly and that his behavior degenerated along with it.

As Trotsky pointed out, the human brain is quite flexible and capable of some astounding adjustments due to physical damage.
And as the article he cited pointed out, sometimes people jump to conclusions based on incomplete evidence, ie., that some bare remnants of the cerebral cortex existed but weren't visible/obvious.
There are many documented cases of the brain compensating for such damages.

I don't doubt that such a case exists or that you relate it as you remember it.
What I am doubting is that the end state of his brain at death was the same as it was during his life and that his behavior was "normal" during the end of his life.

I can easily imagine an old man who is, for all intents and purposes, comatose or barely conscious but physically normal... awakening if awakened, who eats if fed, who eliminates but has to be cleaned, who might even respond to his name... a not uncommon state for some people of advanced age... but who is hardly normal.

Please, if you can find the time, I'd appreciate it if you could find a citation for this.
Thanks.

Cletus

[indigobusiness]

30. It was brought to my attention

in a discussion of consciuosness by mind scientists.

If I scare up a reference, I'll post it. By all means, don't take my word for it, but consider what it means if true. It is a legitimate case. He functioned in all normal ways. There was no brain deterioration. There was no brain, other than brainstem.

[trotsky]

32. Reminds me of the very interesting case

that was brought to my attention while having lunch with the Queen of England. I had just gotten done shagging Ginger Spice and was almost late for lunch. Anyway, the queen explained to me how the British government was conducting secret brain surgery on all its citizens to show that only a walnut-sized region of the pancreas was responsible for all human cognitive abilities. Oh, and aliens from the Andromeda galaxy were helping them in exchange for the recipe for blood pudding.

I don't have time to look it up right now to give you a formal citation, but consider what it means if true. It is a legitimate case. These people functioned in all normal ways.

Do you believe me? No? Then why should we believe you? C'mon, until you can document your astounding case of the janitor with no brain, we can view it as a piece of fiction not very different than what I just wrote.

[indigobusiness]

33. No, I'm not asking you to believe anything.

You can choose to believe anything is a lie. That's your choice.

I have sought a reference from the interviewer who moderated the discussion on a broadcasted program. If I get a response I'll post it. But, I wonder now why I even went to that trouble. Medical archives aren't that difficult to search. But, I'm not selling the idea and haven't the time nor the desire to pursue it. I merely reported what I encountered. There was hard data that I recall scanning. And, the source was impeccable. If you want to research it or ignore it, it's your choice. Your insults aren't necessary or effective.

[indigobusiness]

34. Here is a reference you can discuss with your Queen, over lunch, perhaps

Perhaps this is an urban myth, as suggested, but the Dr. I heard reference the case I first cited didn't seem uninformed or gullible.
There appears to be some dissagreement. Who knows?


Brian Sandle ([e-mail]) wrote:
Mary Lacroix ([e-mail]) wrote: "So far some 70 individuals between 5 and 18 years of age were found to have gross or extreme hydrocephalus with virtually no neopallium who are, nevertheless, intellectually and physically normal, several of whom may be considered brilliant. The most striking example is a young man of 21 with congenital hydrocephalus for which he had no treatment, who gained a university degreee in economics and computer studies with first class honours, with an apparent absence of neopallium. There are individuals with IQs of over 130 who in infancy had virtually no brain and some who even in early adult life have very little neopallium" (J. Lorber, "Is your brain really necessary?" Archives of Disease in Childhood 53 (10): 834FF, 1978).

http://www.ial.goldthread.com/nobraindiscussion.html

[trotsky]

35. Go figure - Lorber's work was the subject of what I found earlier.

Clearly there are significant doubts about what his research really says. Thank you for finally doing some work to try and validate your claims.

[indigobusiness]

36. Lorber's work is not all that is mentioned.

I made no claims. I merely referrenced claims.

Perhaps you should contact Mary Lacroix if you're truly interested.

[e-mail]

[indigobusiness]

39. By the way..If I told you I'd shagged Ginger Spice, I wouldn't be lying...

I'd be complaining.

[trotsky]

40. Really?

You'd complain about ">this???

[indigobusiness]

41. Really.

Good luck with that.

[Az]

45. Mind is result of brain

Change the brain and you change the mind.

[Darranar]

37. Determinism is irrelevant to free will...

whether our choices are pre-determined or random, they are still choices.

[indigobusiness]

42. Good point.

Yes.

[Nikia]

11. Sometimes, I do feel like I am living in literature

If you read and write a lot like I do, you might know what I mean. An author develops a character and mighthave an ultimate plan for the character in mind. The character does and thinks different things throughout the story but is bound by his/her character and his/her fate. Most people are much more dynamic than most story characters, but sometimes I do feel like I am part of one big story with an author who has everyone's fate in mind and perhaps even already written.

[indigobusiness]

14. Now THAT

is fascinating.

[Stunster]

17. If determinism is true,

then whether you believe in determinism or not is itself determined. Rational argument about whether determinism is true would just be one of the causal factors involved (and maybe not even a significant one, or at least not the most important). In which case, there are rational worries about whether belief in determinism can ever be rationally justified, since justification seems to be a different kind of relation from that of deterministic (and especially material) causation.

For a nice presentation of some of these worries, go http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html">here.

[Ignoramus]

19. weird link or weird browser

When I open that link I'm redirected to Microsoft's web page... Seems funny somehow.

If the feedback loops of interactions were a fixed pattern in 4 dimensions of space-time, it wouldn't mean that there couldn't be theories posed and decisions made, it would just mean that your theories and decisions would be part of an existing pattern.

It's a false image of someone stymied because they can't make a decision. The pattern would be those decisions. Experience would be awareness drawn along a dimension of time.

[Stunster]

20. I don't see how that answers my point

but here's the link anyway:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html

[Ignoramus]

22. explanation

My wording was not the best.

I interpret your post as like: determinism doesn't make sense, because by the logic of determinism, decisions about theories about it would have been predetermined. So, because reason disproves the idea of determinism, determinism is false because reasoning would be involved in reasoning about it.

The problem is the assumption that reason and justification disprove determinism.

The notion that we magically choose things is based in the notion that we travel freely through time. It assumes that there are simple discreet things that encounter each other, instead of acknowledging the interconnectedness of "things".

For the sake of argument, consider time as a dimension, like width is a dimension. The width of your body doesn't travel from left to right. The width is just the width. You can draw your attention over your width from left to right. Similarly, if time were a dimension, you wouldn't travel in it in the normal sense. Awareness of a coordinate in time could appear to be traveling across it though.

So, decision could be a bifurcation in a pattern of mentality existing in time.

I didn't finish reading the sited article. I might start reading it again but I'm about to be distracted.

What I read seemed to make a similar sort of leap back and forth between describing determinism and arguing against it in terms of a given assumption that determinism is false.

[Stunster]

24. No, there's no assumption that determinism is false

The argument is not even to the conclusion that determinism is false.

No, the conclusion being argued for is that assuming determinism is true, we wouldn't be justified in believing it to be true---not because it isn't true (we're hypothesizing precisely that it is true), but because in a deterministic universe, there's no such thing as rational justification. There are only non-raional causes or causal connections.

So your belief in determinism (or in the falsity of determinism) would be like a child believing that 2 + 2 = 4, not because he understood the math and saw that 4 had to be the answer, by understanding the rational inference involved, but because he'd just been hit on the head with a baseball and this had jiggered his brain into that belief-state.

I'm suggesting that if the child's belief-state is due to the baseball hitting his head, then even though it's true that 2 + 2 = 4, the child is not justified in believing that it's true, without going through the appropriate reasoning. Now of course, going through the appropriate reasoning may cause the belief-state. But the reasoning doesn't cause the truth of the proposition. Rather, the reasoning has a logical or rational relation to that truth, not a causal one.

So, I'm suggesting that if all our belief-states are simply caused by physical states, then the rational relation between the reasoning process and the truth of the proposition the reasoner believes then believes in is irrelevant to the explanation of the belief-state. But that's just a way of saying that whether the belief is rationally justified is irrelevant to explaining whether the belief is held.

For there to be such a thing as rational justification in the world, then rational relations have to enter essentially into the explanation of belief-states. But in a deterministic materialist world, there are no rational relations, only causal, material ones.

[Ignoramus]

38. justification

I still think the argument is confused. It takes the notion of justification from a non-deterministic view point and argues about a notion of determinism with it.

If determinism were true, justifications made would be made within that deterministic reality. So, a child's belief-state would be part of that deterministic pattern. Similarly the abstract notions of whether something is justified or not, would come from the context of a deterministic reality.

If you are saying that if determinism were true, justifications would not be non-deterministic, then of course that's defined by the terms.

The notion of what it means for something to be justified in general is interesting.

[Stunster]

18. The evidence of quantum mechanics suggests

that determinism is false, even for purely physical systems.

[Stunster]

21. Another reason (non-QM this time) why determinism can't be true

Allow me to quote from THE MATTER MYTH, by Paul Davies and John Gribbin:

The set of all rational and irrational numbers forms what mathematicians call the real numbers, and they underlie almost all modern physical theory. The very notion of continuous mechanical processes, epitomized by Newton's calculus (which he formulated to describe such processes), including the fall of an apple from a tree or the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, is rooted in the concept of real numbers. Some real numbers can be expressed compactly. These include 1/2 = 0.5 and 1/3 = 0.333... But a typical real number can only be expressed as a decimal expansion consisting of an infinite string of digits with no systematic pattern to it. It is a random sequence. It follows that to specify even one such number involves an infinite quantity of information. This is clearly impossible, even in principle. Even if we were to commandeer the entire observable Universe and use it as a digital computer, its information storage capacity would still be finite, and it could not even "remember" one irrational number with complete precision.....
Consider the consequences of this for a chaotic system. Determinism implies predictability only in the idealized limit of infinite precision. In the case of the pendulum, for example, the behavior will be determined uniquely by the initial conditions. The initial data include the position of the bob, so exact predictability demands that we assign the real number that correctly describes the distance of the center of the bob from a fixed reference point. This infinite precision is, as we have seen, impossible.
In a nonchaotic system this limitation is not so serious because the errors grow only slowly. But in a chaotic system errors grow at an accelerating rate.....
It is this "sensitivity to initial conditions" that leads to the well-known statement that the flap of a butterfly's wings in Adelaide can affect the weather in Sussex next week. Because the Earth's atmosphere is a chaotic system, and because no system can in principle be described with perfect precision, completely accurate long-term weather forecasting can never be achieved---nor can accurate forecasting of any other chaotic system. We stress that this is not just a human limitation. The Universe itself cannot "know" its own workings with absolute precision, and therefore cannot "predict" what will happen next, in every detail. Some things really are random. (ibid., pp. 39-41)

Let me underline the key point. This is not just an epistemological limitation. This is the way the physical universe itself is. The idea that it's the former is an illusion. Or as these authors put it:

This sensitivity is not just the result of human inability to calculate with enough precision or to draw fine enough lines. The mathematical concept of a line is a kind of fiction, an approximation to reality. It is the uncertainty that is real, and the idealized mathematical line that is the fiction.(p. 38)

So even in dealing with macroscopic systems, uncertainty is inherent in the physical systems themselves. It's not merely at the subatomic level where quantum uncertainty resides. There is also chaotic uncertainty inherently at the macro level for non-linear dynamical systems.

Hence, I think that determinism is an illusion based on the idealized mathematical fiction that every object extended in spacetime is measureable to infinite precision, when as a matter of physical fact, this is impossible even in principle.

[Ignoramus]

23. err, I don't get it

Yes, there's the paradox about infinity, which should bring doubt into the picture about a mechanical view of the universe made of discreet "things". But, that doesn't mean that there can be such a thing as randomness. Things that happen, do happen. And any arrangement of things, forms a pattern. I think the butterfly wing's affecting weather idea is an argument against the "biblical" notion of chaos. The question is about how we perceive reality and how applicable our conventions of thought are.

[AZCat]

49. I disagree with your point (I think)

I'm not quite sure what your argument is, but if you are saying what I think you are saying, then I disagree.

The uncertainties caused by nonlinear systems are not in the physical system itself, but in our models of those systems. The physical world just "is" - there is no uncertainty. We can build proper and correct models of these systems (we have for many examples) but the problem is as your quote above states - that the inaccuracies present in a model prevent us from deterministically predicting future behavior of the real system with the model. We can use Monte Carlo methods to get an idea of where the real system might go, but that is not the same as a deterministic prediction.

But this does not invalidate the idea that the physical world is non-deterministic, it only supports the theory that we cannot predict that deterministic path.

[aneerkoinos]

51. Perhaps there is no uncertainty

but certainly there is neither determinism. Both are just qualities of our models of what "is", which IMO is a allready a defected model.

However, unless you claim direct metaphysical knowledge from God that it "is" and that it "is" deterministically, models are what we have to play with. And the Uncertainty Principle and the bubbly quantum foam at the Plack scale etc. strongly suggest that it does not "happen" (totally) deterministically. Which to my understanding should make you happy, unless you think you are a zombie. :)

[AZCat]

53. Yes (again I think)

From what I understand of quantum mechanics (1 1/2 classes) there is still an absolute state - it's just that the quantum state is different from a macromolecular state because it can coexist in what we normally think of as exclusive regions.

I don't claim to have any particular "hot line" to any deity, nor a particularly good understanding of any of this either. I don't know if the physical world is really deterministic or not, but I don't think it matters. I don't think we will ever be able to tap into the deterministic aspect to the level of prediction anyway, so positing a "clockwork universe" does no good other than making one drink heavily during college (this stuff can be heady to the young). That can make me a zombie, but I don't think I am for any other reason (re. deterministic universe). :)

[indigobusiness]

54. I think you've summed it up

nicely.

[indigobusiness]

55. I prefer to use Clinton's definition of what "is" is.

Whenever I can.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. Interesting discussion...

but probably ultimately fruitless, not in the least because we are living and thinking in a 3-dimensional universe. The 12th dimension may be where the answer lies. Or may not be.

The mathematical arguments are interesting, but if there is indeed random activity in the universe, random activity always seeks stability unless it is further stirred up somehow. It rarely, if ever, manages to achieve that stability, though, for whatever reason, and just constantly seeks it.

This eternal march toward stability could in itself be what we would consider determinism on our pathetically low level of observation.

Bertrand Russell, btw, argued passionately for the possibility of the prediction of the dice roll, the butterfly causing the hurricane and anything else that could be known if we just had all the facts. I don't know if he ever admitted that it is impossible for us to get all the facts.

Heisenberg had a lot to say about that.

[trotsky]

27. Very true.

Heisenberg would appear to give us the final answer on determinism. But then if we consider that he only says that we can't know all that there is to know about a particle, it still leaves some wiggle room to say that a certain configuration will always result in the same final configuration - it's just that we can never observe things accurately enough to know either that exact initial configuration or its final result.

A predetermined universe, the end result of which is not knowable. How's that for a paradox?

[TreasonousBastard]

28. Paradox may not be the right word...

but it is a puzzle. Or pizzle. Or quandry.

One question people much smarter than most of us-- the people who actually comprehend the mathematics of string theory-- are dealing with is just how a photon that has been traveling through space for maybe 5 billion years before we existed knows just which slit to fly through when we observe it. There is a lot more to time and space than we understand at present.

Note that although Schroedinger's cat may or may not be alive in that box, one day it most certainly will be dead. That's about as far with determinism as we've gotten.

[indigobusiness]

31. Heisenberg didn't believe in "final answers". We merely peel the onion...

layer by layer.

"The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite. Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word 'understanding'."

-Werner Heisenberg

[T_i_B]

26. Great topic for this forum!

as it allows me to mention predestination, which is kinda related to Determinism. Predestination is itself a major topic in Christian Theology. We have been discussing this issue in anther thread about the importance of good works to being a Christian, but discussion of such complex issues as Calvinist doctrine should be OK on this thread too.

I would post links were I not in St Pancras station!

[T_i_B]

43. Well I'm not in St Pancras station now!

So I can post links! And I think that I might as well given how much free will is coming into debates on here. All links taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Determinism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04756c.htm
Predestination
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm
Calvinism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03198a.htm

[indigobusiness]

52. Thanks for the links...I'll add one...

Eternal Damnation
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

[Az]

44. Perception and Illusions

Let us say the world is deterministic. We experience it from our reactive perpsective. Our minds and descisions are as you say the result of determined paths. Yet we cannot discern this. We do not know the outcome. Perhaps if someone were to hook up a computer capable of analyzing all the information in the universe faster than it happens we would be able to predict exactly what was going to happen. But that has not yet occurred.

Thus our minds are the result of seeming determinstic fate and yet we have this illusion of freewill. But since we cannot pierce the illusion then our perception of reaility is for us reality.

Consider that the reality we percieve is not actually the current reality. Our senses take a few moments to deliver their perceptions to our brain. Not a long time. But a measurable amount of time. Then they are interpretted and reassembled in our brain to create the reality we experience. Thus even the sense of experiencing reality is an illusion that we cannot perceptionally pierce. Knowing it is an illusion does not enable us to see through the illusion. Because all we can percieve is illusion.

So even though our fates were sealed the moment the universe came into existance we procede as though we ourselves determine its path. And since the universe does not know our fates, for to know a thing requires sentience, then perhaps our fates are our own, material determinism or not. For only we experience our individual perceptions and that is all that matters.

[Jim__]

46. Is such a computer feasible?

Perhaps if someone were to hook up a computer capable of analyzing all the information in the universe faster than it happens we would be able to predict exactly what was going to happen. But that has not yet occurred.

It's somewhat off topic; but is seems like the computer would have to analyze its own analysis and know the result before it actually reached it.

[Az]

47. Of course not

It is a classic problem. The point I was using it to illustrate was even if someone or something were able to look at the starting conditions and follow the logic through it would not pierce the illusion.

Chaos intereferes. Its not just that there is a huge amount of matter/engergy in the universe. Its the matter/energy interacting with other matter/energy. This creates a potential exponetially greater than just the simple accounting of matter on its own. The Ghost in the Shell as it were of freewill and consciousness exists within the process and interaction of matter and energy. It is not the matter and energy itself but rather the dance they weave through the cosmos.

[aneerkoinos]

48. Never say never

Deutch is the intellectual father of quantum computation for a reason. The reason is that accorcing to Deutch a quantum computer of certain level of complexity prove (or disprove) his multiverse-theory that he's so obsessive about that he practically alone started the whole quantum computer thing, which is now at stage where the logic-circuits to make it functional have already been designed, magnificent achievement, and only thing left is to actually built one that is complex enough to be usefull. And humans are quite good at solving such technical problems.

According to Deutch, QC will prove his interpretation of QT by using solving a computational problem that requires using the superposition potential of not only this universe, but of others too. Personally I think Deutch's interpretation is silly, he's thinking the whole thing wrong way around, but that is beside the point. Another thing beside the point is that Sarfatti's post-quantum theory predicts that QC complex enough will achieve consciousness. I can hardly wait. :)

[Az]

50. True, never close the book

Lesson learned.