Can we work around physical determinism?

[mgb]

Extreme determinsts maintain that the physical universe is just an outworking of the laws of nature and everything is predetermined by these laws. It is even argued that our brains are determined by neurological processes etc that are physically deterministic.

There seems to be a way around this determinism. It involves making a list of possible actions and making a choice from that list in such a way that the choice is not determined by either neurological states or any physical state in the world.

Here is how it works. Make a list of ordinary events and label them 0 to 9.

0. Read a book
1. Go to the library
2. Play tennis
3. Drive your car
4. Go to the cinema
5. Go to the supermarket
6. Listen to the radio
7. ...
8. ...
9. ...

Next get the decimal expansion of an irrational number such as the square root of 23
or 1/23.

We can take the square root of 11 to get going.

The square root of 11 is 3.3166247903554

Now take the first digit in the decimal expansion, 3
and go to your list;

3 = Drive your car

the next is 1

1 = Go to the library

6 = Listen to the radio

etc.

Now our choice is not determined by any physical or neurological state. It is determined by purely non physical mathematical entities. So we seem to have broken with any previously determinism by letting digits make our choice for us. If we are in the library, for example, we are engaged with a series of physical acitivities that, as a set, cannot be traced back to any previous physical state because the digit intervened and determined what set of physical events we would enter into. Comments?

[mgb]

If the method of selection were to do items in sequence then the order would be known and predetermined, but that is simply because the (predetermined) choice of the method for choosing the items was one that produced a known order rather than an unknown (before the event) order. I would argue that the process is still deterministic in both cases.

It is a question of interrupting physical determinism by substituting mathematical determinism (and preventing the brain from making a choice). In this way it is shown that the universe cannot be completely physically deterministic. (QM might be another way but it is not yet proven that QM is random)

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 11 by mgb]

I feel like this is sophistry. The individual characteristics of particles interacting determine the result of the interaction, and those interactions can be broken down into mathematical equations. Similarly, a sequence of numbers may depend on axiomatic logic in math, but when applied, it has to be applied to physical systems. The fact that we can mathematically derive the outcome of an interaction is evidence that math is consistently predictable, and despite being an invented language to model the interaction of numbers rather than discrete particles (similar to how algebra is about generic numbers rather than concrete values), the universe's physical forces can be understood such that an outcome is known before the event occurs. That's because there are axiom-like principles. I feel like your focus on numbers has caused you to miss the forest for the trees.

Yes, I can arbitrarily choose to map actions that don't have to be related to numbers to a sequence gained by applying mathematical axioms to a number system and producing a registry of actions. But that just means that, under deterministic principles, I would have to figure out your brain pattern, what set of steps it took to get from your learning of mathematics to what number you'd choose based on your predisposition, and then apply the sequence you arbitrarily chose using... yet more math! The math isn't some nebulous other-existence, it's an abstract model that takes place physically in your brain. The instant that the outcome is "known," you begin performing the action, meaning there was a sequential set of physical steps that led to you "knowing" what your actions would be.

[mgb]

Similarly, a sequence of numbers may depend on axiomatic logic in math, but when applied, it has to be applied to physical systems. The fact that we can mathematically derive the outcome of an interaction is evidence that math is consistently predictable.

You are unnecessarily confusing applied and pure mathematics. The digits of the square root of a number are pure mathematical objects. They are what they are regardless of how they can be applied to physical systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory

[Divine Insight]

All numbers are abstract and non physical.

That's a matter open to debate even within the mathematical community. In fact, they are indeed having these debates as we speak.

I personally take the position that the concept of quantity (which is ultimately the concept that numbers represent) necessarily must be referencing something physical, whether we recognize it or not. And therefore the very idea that "numbers" are non-physical things that have an existence all their own is truly absurd. There is no need to invent a make-believe Platonic world of numbers to understand the concept of quantity. It's a very physical property of our reality.

Now it is true that we can fool ourselves by making up make-believe scales of make-believe quantities. Like asking, "On a scale of 1 to 10 how much do you love someone?"

But let's face it, if you think you can quantify love you're only kidding yourself.

So just because we use numbers in utterly absurd and ridiculous (and meaningless) ways, doesn't mean that they exist as totally abstract "objects".

To the contrary, numbers are an idea of quantity, and the idea of quantity makes no sense outside of a physical world that can be quantified.

So the idea that numbers somehow "exist" as non-physical entities is, quite frankly, utterly absurd.

And yes, I understand that there exist mathematicians who take that position. But there are just as many mathematicians who agree with me. So this notion is still up for debate and not yet settled.

Not unlike the fact that religions are still up for debate and not yet settled. Although, most people have agreed to settle that Zeus was never anything more than Greek folklore. Other religions are just taking more time to reach this same conclusion about their Gods.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to mgb]

mgb I think what everyone is saying is that although you have inserted a seemingly random mathematical element in your causal chain, the square root is already predetermined mathematically (the root of x is always the root of x) but the means to arrive at that are still a series of physical actions that would be governed by the same naturalistic determinism.

I personally don't think that the universe is deterministic for reasons stated earlier in the thread - we don't fully understand quantum interactions and they seem to have an inherent unpredictability that ensures (to ME at least) that the universe is "making it up as it goes" to some extent. I would instead say that there are probabilities attached to every event in the universe, some very high and others not so much. In the same respect all of our actions have probabilities attached to them, and those probabilities could be determined by a huge number of factors - our expectations, our past experiences, the available "choices", right down to chemistry, physics, quantum fluctuations, etc.

And even IF the universe was completely deterministic, it wouldn't really matter anyways. To predict the universe you would require a simulation as complex as the universe.

[mgb]

[Replying to mgb]

mgb I think what everyone is saying is that although you have inserted a seemingly random mathematical element in your causal chain, the square root is already predetermined mathematically (the root of x is always the root of x) but the means to arrive at that are still a series of physical actions that would be governed by the same naturalistic determinism.

Yes, the means can be argued to be physically deterministic, but the digits that arrive are not part of that determinism. The buck stops when the digits are calculated. What those digits are is not physically determined. If someone is in the supermarket and you trace events back to the choice to go to the market you will find the choice was made by a digit. The choice is mathematically determined but not physically determined.

If dice had been used it would be an entirely different thing because then determinists could argue that the fall of the dice is physically determined. But these digits cannot be physically determined to be what they are. That's the difference and it is a very big difference.

Personally I think mind is not determined but that involves other arguments.

And even IF the universe was completely deterministic, it wouldn't really matter anyways. To predict the universe you would require a simulation as complex as the universe.

True but I don't think practicalities are the issue here. It is a philosophical issue.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 15 by DeMotts]

DeMotts: "I personally don't think that the universe is deterministic for reasons stated earlier in the thread - we don't fully understand quantum interactions and they seem to have an inherent unpredictability that ensures (to ME at least) that the universe is "making it up as it goes" to some extent."

It is true that we can only predict the probabilities, but what actually happens has a probability of 1. It is certainly what happened.

DeMotts: "I would instead say that there are probabilities attached to every event in the universe, some very high and others not so much.'

Again, and I stress this, prediction is a matter of probability. Observation is certainty. We can't predict whether Schroedinger's cat is dead, but when we open the box, it has become certain, one way or another.

DeMotts: "In the same respect all of our actions have probabilities attached to them, and those probabilities could be determined by a huge number of factors - our expectations, our past experiences, the available "choices", right down to chemistry, physics, quantum fluctuations, etc."

A not-too-technical discussion of this subject is to be found in the second epilogue of Tolstoy's War and Peace.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 17 by TSGracchus]

TSGracchus can you think of any individual events that you would say have a deterministic probability of 1? I suppose we could look at something like the fundamental constants of the universe, like a given mass will move towards a larger mass etc. Interested in any examples you can come up with though.

I also feel inclined to post a quote from Christopher Hitchens regarding the notion of free will and a deterministic or godly-ordained predestined universe:

Is there free will? The believer will say “Yes, because we’ve been given it.� My answer, when I’m asked is: “Yes, we have no choice.�

Thanks for the War and Peace reference, I'll check it out.

[DeMotts]

Yes, the means can be argued to be physically deterministic, but the digits that arrive are not part of that determinism. The buck stops when the digits are calculated. What those digits are is not physically determined.

But isn't that just using something pre-determined within your causal chain? If we look at your original example:

Make a list of ordinary events and label them 0 to 9.

0. Read a book
1. Go to the library
2. Play tennis
...

You have chosen a list here.

Next get the decimal expansion of an irrational number such as the square root of 23 or 1/23.

Here you are making another choice of what arithmetic you will use.

We can take the square root of 11 to get going.

The square root of 11 is 3.3166247903554

Now take the first digit in the decimal expansion, 3
and go to your list;

3 = Drive your car

Right here, this is the part where you think you are adding randomness. But you are choosing to take the square root of 11, then you are choosing to take the first digit, and that digit will always be the same, it will always be a 3 if you select those parameters. If you select different parameters it will be a different number but you are making that choice. And if we believe this to be a deterministic universe then you aren't really making that choice anyhow.

Again, I don't think the universe is deterministic, but your logic doesn't follow. You could replace that whole sequence with you picking the root of 11 and selecting the first digit with any formula that will yield the same result every time. You could say "and I'm going to pick 9, and the root of 9 is 3, so I'm going with option 3". Or you could say "I'm going to pick 2 and add 1 and that makes it 3". It's not random either way.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 17 by TSGracchus]

TSGracchus can you think of any individual events that you would say have a deterministic probability of 1? I suppose we could look at something like the fundamental constants of the universe, like a given mass will move towards a larger mass etc. Interested in any examples you can come up with though.

Thanks for the War and Peace reference, I'll check it out.

Anything that actually happens has a probability of one. For instance, any arrangement of a shuffled deck of cards is 52 factorial, has a probability of 1 in 8.0658175e+67, which is extremely small, and couldn't really be predicted, but the actual arrangement has a probability of exactly one.

Imagine a series in a Hilbert space, where n > 3 . So the probability of a what happens is always one, which is to say the the square of the cosines of the Euler angles always sum to 1 whatever the variation of the individual terms. We may not be able to determine what terms led to the result, and we could not predict before hand-with any certainty what the result would be but the result is always what actually happens. Prediction may approach certainty, but observation is always certain.

Thus, in a quantum field of periodic probabilities there is no certain prediction, because of the sensitivity to initial conditions, but the observation is what actually happens. Some of the quantum guys say the wave-form collapses, but it is mere the resolution of the uncertainty.