|
On July 17 2013 13:52 wherebugsgo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 17 2013 13:06 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 11:12 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 17 2013 05:36 positronic_toaster wrote:
Here's a wacky idea, why are we so certain that our mind is a purely 3D construct? Who's to say that there's nothing going on in another dimension that is imperceptible by our senses? Which dimension would that be? You have to provide evidence for this dimension of yours before you assert that anything can exist in it. Or, better yet, that this dimension exists in the first place. The only "fourth" dimension I can conceive of is not a spatial dimension, it's the time dimension. In his defense, he said "who's to say" and "why are we so certain" rather than asserting that any particular dimension really does exist. Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 17:53 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 10:01 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 09:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 16 2013 07:34 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 07:23 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 07:15 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 06:58 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 06:44 Reason wrote:How does this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely come into play with what you're saying there? The example given was what is the probability of picking a specific real number between 0 and 1? + Show Spoiler +Similarly, the probability that a random non repeating infinite sequence of integers contains every integer and every finite set of integers is 1 (almost sure). I don't want to go deep into those formal questions, but yes, probability is not always as easy as it seems. I'll leave my probability and set theory books unopened, but just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened.  But as I said, the main problem is not in how to read the model, it's whether the model is relevant or not that's important here. Throwing a dart For example, imagine throwing a dart at a unit square wherein the dart will impact exactly one point, and imagine that this square is the only thing in the universe besides the dart and the thrower. There is physically nowhere else for the dart to land. Then, the event that "the dart hits the square" is a sure event. No other alternative is imaginable. Next, consider the event that "the dart hits the diagonal of the unit square exactly". The probability that the dart lands on any subregion of the square is proportional to the area of that subregion. But, since the area of the diagonal of the square is zero, the probability that the dart lands exactly on the diagonal is zero. So, the dart will almost never land on the diagonal (i.e. it will almost surely not land on the diagonal). Nonetheless the set of points on the diagonal is not empty and a point on the diagonal is no less possible than any other point, therefore theoretically it is possible that the dart actually hits the diagonal. The same may be said of any point on the square. Any such point P will contain zero area and so will have zero probability of being hit by the dart. However, the dart clearly must hit the square somewhere. Therefore, in this case, it is not only possible or imaginable that an event with zero probability will occur; one must occur. Thus, we would not want to say we were certain that a given event would not occur, but rather almost certain. So.... do you prefer arsenic or cyanide? The thing here is that I won't let you choose "all the points", as the probability for that is 1. If you can decide on one single mathematical point (with P(dart hits that point) = 0), then I'll agree to cyanide and arsenic at the same time. Sorry, I was only covering probability = 0. You do realise I'm just copy pasting all this stuff right lol? Here's P = 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely#Tossing_a_coin This article does a pretty poor job of covering what it means for a probability to converge to 1. The probability isn't actually necessarily 1, it converges to 1 under certain conditions. e: or 0 or any other probability, for that matter Yeah. And no, why would I take poison for something that is going to happen? That's just absurd. I could agree to the opposite and take that damn poison if you toss either heads or tails infinity times though. This is what you said "just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened." Tossing a coin is perfectly random and the dart example is zero probability. Not sure what you old men are grumbling about tbh. Obviously I don't actually want you to kill yourself. Show nested quote +I merely implied this earlier but I'll be more blunt now:
You don't seem to understand the difference between a probability actually being 0 and a probability converging to 0 under certain conditions. The probability actually is zero. It's just that probability being zero doesn't mean "cannot happen." For example, the probability of randomly selecting any particular real number in a trial is actually zero. It doesn't just converge to zero at a limit: it actually is a probability of zero. In fact, even a countably infinite number of trials has a zero probability of selecting any particular real number randomly. Nevertheless, a real number must be selected. The situations are different. I agree that the probability of randomly selecting a particular real number is zero. However, the probability of selecting any number within a range is NOT zero. That's what the meaning of the dart experiment is. No matter how you look at it, you're going to be selecting a range of values. That's why I disagree with the way the article talks about that experiment and the probability. The probability in that case converges to 0. It's not actually 0. On July 17 2013 13:06 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +(also this doesn't even get into the problems of your thought experiment-in real life there are no things such as points because all measurement is imprecise. The question you're posing itself is meaningless. You need a dart with an infinitisemal point, which by definition doesn't exist-it's zero probability not because the dart will hit the square but not a point but rather that the dart doesn't exist to be thrown in the first place.) That's why it's a thought experiment; it's not supposed to be something one can actually do in real life. But if you think "almost surely" meaning probability of one is a meaningless question, then you're very, very wrong. I'm not sure what measurement has to do with the existence of points; a point is an object defined to have certain properties in a Euclidean space (i.e. zero-dimensional). This is a totally coherent mathematical definition. Sure, if you want to think of a dart with a dimensionless point hitting any given dimensionless point on a 2d plane then the probability of that occurring is 0. Do you see what I mean? It's a question of what does this experiment actually mean. It doesn't mean anything at all, it doesn't tell us anything beyond what we already assumed to be true. That's what I am alluding to when I am saying that this experiment is meaningless. On July 17 2013 13:06 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +If you haven't made the connection yet that the dart needs an infinitisemal point, then realize that if the dart's point had some area (even a miniscule area) then when it hits the board that area covers a certain subregion. If the point is anywhere within the boundary we can consider the dart to have hit said point. Suppose the dart's point is circular, then you can see where I'm going with that. The board and dart are obviously idealized mathematical objects in a defined Euclidean space. But it doesn't change anything even if the dart actually does have non-zero area, since any particular orientation of that area on the dartboard has probability zero (since we can slice up any interval into arbitrarily smaller sub-intervals). Written in another way, the dart example could go like this: let the board be the Cartesian plane (i.e. 2 dimensions over the reals) and let a dart be a vector of the form (x,y) situated with its tail at the origin. Now choose any point in (a,b) in the space. The probability of a random vector passing through that point is zero. To generally prove the probability thing, just look at it this way: we've got some probability space, and then let's have f(n) be a probability function which outputs probability of getting at least 1 coin flip resulting in heads after n trials where n is a natural number and f(n) is a real number. If you are correct, and probability of a sequence of pure tails is infinitesimally small, but non zero, then you have a contradiction, because f(n) is always a real number, and the only infinitesimal in the real numbers is exactly zero. If a random finite sequence is generated, the probability of that sequence having been generated is zero, because there are an infinite number of finite sequences. This is not the same thing. Does the dart's point have some area or not? If it does, then the probability of the dart's point hitting a particular point on a 2d plane can be interpreted differently, as the chance that said point is contained within a region described by the shape of the dart's point. If the dart's point does not have any area (i.e. it too is also a point) then again, this experiment is pretty meaningless. I suppose you could say that it's nothing more than the pick a number experiment but I don't believe that was what he was suggesting. As to this:
To generally prove the probability thing, just look at it this way: we've got some probability space, and then let's have f(n) be a probability function which outputs probability of getting at least 1 coin flip resulting in heads after n trials where n is a natural number and f(n) is a real number. If you are correct, and probability of a sequence of pure tails is infinitesimally small, but non zero, then you have a contradiction, because f(n) is always a real number, and the only infinitesimal in the real numbers is exactly zero.
If a random finite sequence is generated, the probability of that sequence having been generated is zero, because there are an infinite number of finite sequences.
This makes no sense at all. "if a random finite sequence is generated, the probability of that sequence having been generated is zero" What what?? The probability of it having been generated is ONE. Because it got generated. Since n is finite, if you're talking about a fair coin flip, then the probability you get n - 1 tails and then a heads is just f(n) = 2^-n which is nonzero, just as with any other particular n-length sequence of heads and tails. It's not "infinitisemally" small. It's strictly nonzero. Also, if you mean that you've observed n tails in a row, what is the probability that you now get a heads...and we know for sure that the coin is fair, then the probability of the heads occurring is 1/2. Again, nonzero. You either have failed to communicate what you were trying to communicate or you need to consider remedial high school math.
I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to come back and comment so strongly on a discussion that you feel is pointless, especially since from what I can tell a lot of what you're saying is incorrect.
"I agree that the probability of randomly selecting a particular real number is zero. However, the probability of selecting any number within a range is NOT zero."
The example given previously was pick a real number between 0 and 1. The probability of doing so is 0, just like the probability of picking any integer is 0, as there are infinite integers and infinite real numbers between 0 and 1. Two different questions with the same answer. Did you mean to write what you did?
Dart example:
+ Show Spoiler +Also, with the dart, of course in practice you could not have a dart head small enough to hit only one point on the board because one point on the board has zero area. However if you can accept that the dartboard theoretically has a center point, or as the example mentioned a diagonal line, then you should be able to understand that you could throw a real 3d dart at the board and then take the center point of the dart tip itself, if the center point of the dart tip does not coincide with the center point or diagonal of the board then it could be said that the dart "missed" the target. Such an experiment never need be carried out in practice and is merely a way to explain things for people to understand, much like tossing a coin. There are much better ways of communicating the article's content than coin tossing and dart throwing but it's meant to be easy to understand for the majority.
The real number example is fine and can be used to communicate probabilities of both 0 and 1 though neither will be certain events, so you can disregard the impractical dart experiment if you find it flawed.
What is the probability of picking a specific real number between 0 and 1? It's 0.
Pick a specific real number between 0 and 1. Now pick another at random. What is the probability that they are different? It's 1.
I am aware what probability 0 means and probability 1 means if these are sure events. I'm also aware that if probabilities are converging to either 0 or 1 and the sample size is infinite then the probability is represented as a 0 or a 1.
If I'm the one who is mistaken here please explain further as these are still relatively new concepts to me.
|
On July 17 2013 16:52 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:20 DertoQq wrote:On July 16 2013 16:57 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 23:04 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 22:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 21:31 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:just look at it, marvel at its beauty.  someone will always try and go beyond something that is already known. it's what fuels the motion of 0 and 1. if it helps, see determinism and nondeterminism only as believes subjective to the human mind one preceding the other ad infinitum. they have no effect on the universe be it known or unknown. then, the question becomes not whether or not 0 is truer then 1 but rather what can come of this sucession of ones and zeroes. you will then start to decipher/decode the software. Determinism and non determinism are not subjective believes. They are concept with concrete possible real world application, especially when it comes to the brain. The more you post the more it is clear that you have absolutely no common sense when it comes down to this subject, or that you are just trolling. Either way, don't bother responding to that. that was just an analogy ... ? either way, just look at it unfold. it stares back at you, open your mind. An analogy must at least have 1 thing in common. You're just trying to escape the debate because you have absolutely nothing to say against all the arguments said on this thread. You're not even saying anything meaningful. For all I know, you could be trying to say that inside every tomato there is a banana (and it would honestly make more sense that what I think you are trying to say). I'll give you one last chance. Give me one concrete example of a brain related action/output that can't be explained in a fully deterministic world. (and I will only answer if this hasn't already be answered in this thread) the question doesn't make sense for me. if i say that a brain action/output is based on a priori and a posteriori justifications, would it answer your question?. It's like the easiest question I could ask you and it doesn't make sense to you ? I hope you're not working in something related to science. When you say that something is false, the first thing you should be able to do is give a concrete counter example, and it's usually pretty easy to do because a lot of the scientific theories have counter example. Well, so much for your last chance ! "Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but, after considering Gödel's Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable. - "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind." (he changed his mind not his brain so there is still hope for you). else it's the fairies, they made me do it.
You didn't answer him at all.
Your claim: "the human mind cannot be explained by purely deterministic causality"
His response: "fine, but then give me an example of at least an aspect of the mind that cannot be explained by purely deterministic causality".
You have yet to answer him.
On July 17 2013 16:55 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 18:53 kwizach wrote:On July 16 2013 16:23 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 23:34 kwizach wrote:On July 15 2013 17:45 xM(Z wrote:On July 14 2013 22:22 Reason wrote:On July 14 2013 22:07 xM(Z wrote:
"subjective values having "will"" = it's when you give a greater then value to the believes of a determined system in detriment of the believes of another determined system. (the deterministic validation for the judicial system).
"comes from outside events taking place in a deterministic universe." = abstract notion regarding the inner workings of evolution itself. if evolution were to be a software, determinism and nondeterminism would be its 0 and 1. Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. your definition Causal determinists believe that there is nothing uncaused or self-caused. every time you use a notion that doesn't follow the deterministic logic of cause and effect, that notion comes from nondeterminism. shit like "greater good" , "common sense" , "value" , "subjectivity" , "objectivity" , "justice" , "singularity" and so on and so forth, do not follow the cause and effect narrative. and, if you'd want to include those notions inside your determinism you'd have to: -at micro level you'd have to prove how did atoms came to have those notions (else you'll have to argue about form being more then the sum of its parts, as i said earlier) -at marco level you'd have to know the cause of the singularity. any concept that allows for either the cause or the effect to be unknown, comes from nondeterminism. What I wrote on the previous page: On July 14 2013 22:25 kwizach wrote:
xM(Z, you seem unable to understand that the existence of values held by individuals is in no way antithetical to a deterministic universe. I personally do not consider the universe to be only deterministic, simply because of the existence of random phenomena (at the quantum level), but even if it was, there is nothing about the existence of subjectivity and values that would require stepping outside of determinism. You are failing to see the connection between the micro and macro levels. It's not the atoms which "came to have those notions". The elementary blocks, which determinism says behave according to causality, can form larger blocks (for example, cells), which still behave according to the laws of physics. Evolution is the process which explains how we have arrived from elementary blocks to complex organisms. That some of these complex organisms are capable of subjectivity and reflexiveness doesn't change in any way the fact what they are made of, their physical components, behave according to causality. that is just an assumption at this point but even if you'll get to have your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything it would still be questionable. see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorem The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency. Your rebuttal completely misses the point. The exact same reasoning I presented you with applies to the universe as we know it, which features both randomness (as can be witnessed at the quantum level) and causality. Both of these make up the physical world, and there is no need to step outside of the physical world to explain how values and subjectivity can exist. They exist because of how our brain is wired, and it is wired in such a way because of how we evolved, and we started evolving from elementary blocks which belong to the physical universe (just like the "final product"). There is no need for these elementary blocks to hold values - evolution is the process which leads to complex organisms capable of holding values. There is no need for a "theory of everything" to understand this. there was no rebuttal then because what you quoted excluded randomness for the sake of the argument. i was talking about a predetermined universe with no uncertainty nor randomness, with everything being cause and effect. i'm fine with randomness and physical causality.
Regardless, you still have not explained why values and subjectivity could not come from purely deterministic aspects of the universe. All of your previous objections could apply to the description of the universe I just presented you with (randomness + causality), and they don't hold up to it. If you're making a claim that they can't possibly come from deterministic aspects of the universe, you need to support that claim.
|
|
|
Noooooo
Pls come back and make your contribution, the thread needs new input cause it seems to be slowly dying.
Maybe because the majority here seems to agree that the mind is indeed all physical and with that there is no real discussion about the original question.
We need new and interesting thoughts and someone making an account just to post on this thread gives me hope for just that
|
Just a random thought, but most fMRI and EEG models try to explain the brain through measured activity. But activity is almost always explained as a signal sent. However, function-wise you could also explain the brain in terms of "signal received". For example, if a cell responds to a 5hz frequency band, it could also respond to a 10hz Frequency band, while the reverse is not true. The 5hz signal might have a whole different implication on the thought process than the 10hz frequency band, but the interaction of this could cause a different state than the individual frequency bands.
On another note, if you stop looking at braincells as simple switches, but start regarding them as networked computers, you also gain a whole new dimension. Certain protein transmitters might change the state of a cell, so it might suddenly execute a whole different program, which has a whole new dimension of effects on the rest of the brain. This way you dont have to view the brain as a simple 0 or 1 switchboard anymore.
|
On July 17 2013 17:53 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 13:52 wherebugsgo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 17 2013 13:06 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 11:12 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 17 2013 05:36 positronic_toaster wrote:
Here's a wacky idea, why are we so certain that our mind is a purely 3D construct? Who's to say that there's nothing going on in another dimension that is imperceptible by our senses? Which dimension would that be? You have to provide evidence for this dimension of yours before you assert that anything can exist in it. Or, better yet, that this dimension exists in the first place. The only "fourth" dimension I can conceive of is not a spatial dimension, it's the time dimension. In his defense, he said "who's to say" and "why are we so certain" rather than asserting that any particular dimension really does exist. Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 17:53 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 10:01 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 09:29 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 16 2013 07:34 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 07:23 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 07:15 Reason wrote:On July 16 2013 06:58 neptunusfisk wrote:On July 16 2013 06:44 Reason wrote:How does this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely come into play with what you're saying there? The example given was what is the probability of picking a specific real number between 0 and 1? + Show Spoiler +Similarly, the probability that a random non repeating infinite sequence of integers contains every integer and every finite set of integers is 1 (almost sure). I don't want to go deep into those formal questions, but yes, probability is not always as easy as it seems. I'll leave my probability and set theory books unopened, but just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened. But as I said, the main problem is not in how to read the model, it's whether the model is relevant or not that's important here. Throwing a dart For example, imagine throwing a dart at a unit square wherein the dart will impact exactly one point, and imagine that this square is the only thing in the universe besides the dart and the thrower. There is physically nowhere else for the dart to land. Then, the event that "the dart hits the square" is a sure event. No other alternative is imaginable. Next, consider the event that "the dart hits the diagonal of the unit square exactly". The probability that the dart lands on any subregion of the square is proportional to the area of that subregion. But, since the area of the diagonal of the square is zero, the probability that the dart lands exactly on the diagonal is zero. So, the dart will almost never land on the diagonal (i.e. it will almost surely not land on the diagonal). Nonetheless the set of points on the diagonal is not empty and a point on the diagonal is no less possible than any other point, therefore theoretically it is possible that the dart actually hits the diagonal. The same may be said of any point on the square. Any such point P will contain zero area and so will have zero probability of being hit by the dart. However, the dart clearly must hit the square somewhere. Therefore, in this case, it is not only possible or imaginable that an event with zero probability will occur; one must occur. Thus, we would not want to say we were certain that a given event would not occur, but rather almost certain. So.... do you prefer arsenic or cyanide? The thing here is that I won't let you choose "all the points", as the probability for that is 1. If you can decide on one single mathematical point (with P(dart hits that point) = 0), then I'll agree to cyanide and arsenic at the same time. Sorry, I was only covering probability = 0. You do realise I'm just copy pasting all this stuff right lol? Here's P = 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely#Tossing_a_coin This article does a pretty poor job of covering what it means for a probability to converge to 1. The probability isn't actually necessarily 1, it converges to 1 under certain conditions. e: or 0 or any other probability, for that matter Yeah. And no, why would I take poison for something that is going to happen? That's just absurd. I could agree to the opposite and take that damn poison if you toss either heads or tails infinity times though. This is what you said "just let me say that if you handed me something perfectly random (it doesn't exist) and had some event with zero probability, I would agree to take poison if it happened." Tossing a coin is perfectly random and the dart example is zero probability. Not sure what you old men are grumbling about tbh. Obviously I don't actually want you to kill yourself. Show nested quote +I merely implied this earlier but I'll be more blunt now:
You don't seem to understand the difference between a probability actually being 0 and a probability converging to 0 under certain conditions. The probability actually is zero. It's just that probability being zero doesn't mean "cannot happen." For example, the probability of randomly selecting any particular real number in a trial is actually zero. It doesn't just converge to zero at a limit: it actually is a probability of zero. In fact, even a countably infinite number of trials has a zero probability of selecting any particular real number randomly. Nevertheless, a real number must be selected. The situations are different. I agree that the probability of randomly selecting a particular real number is zero. However, the probability of selecting any number within a range is NOT zero. That's what the meaning of the dart experiment is. No matter how you look at it, you're going to be selecting a range of values. That's why I disagree with the way the article talks about that experiment and the probability. The probability in that case converges to 0. It's not actually 0. On July 17 2013 13:06 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +(also this doesn't even get into the problems of your thought experiment-in real life there are no things such as points because all measurement is imprecise. The question you're posing itself is meaningless. You need a dart with an infinitisemal point, which by definition doesn't exist-it's zero probability not because the dart will hit the square but not a point but rather that the dart doesn't exist to be thrown in the first place.) That's why it's a thought experiment; it's not supposed to be something one can actually do in real life. But if you think "almost surely" meaning probability of one is a meaningless question, then you're very, very wrong. I'm not sure what measurement has to do with the existence of points; a point is an object defined to have certain properties in a Euclidean space (i.e. zero-dimensional). This is a totally coherent mathematical definition. Sure, if you want to think of a dart with a dimensionless point hitting any given dimensionless point on a 2d plane then the probability of that occurring is 0. Do you see what I mean? It's a question of what does this experiment actually mean. It doesn't mean anything at all, it doesn't tell us anything beyond what we already assumed to be true. That's what I am alluding to when I am saying that this experiment is meaningless. On July 17 2013 13:06 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +If you haven't made the connection yet that the dart needs an infinitisemal point, then realize that if the dart's point had some area (even a miniscule area) then when it hits the board that area covers a certain subregion. If the point is anywhere within the boundary we can consider the dart to have hit said point. Suppose the dart's point is circular, then you can see where I'm going with that. The board and dart are obviously idealized mathematical objects in a defined Euclidean space. But it doesn't change anything even if the dart actually does have non-zero area, since any particular orientation of that area on the dartboard has probability zero (since we can slice up any interval into arbitrarily smaller sub-intervals). Written in another way, the dart example could go like this: let the board be the Cartesian plane (i.e. 2 dimensions over the reals) and let a dart be a vector of the form (x,y) situated with its tail at the origin. Now choose any point in (a,b) in the space. The probability of a random vector passing through that point is zero. To generally prove the probability thing, just look at it this way: we've got some probability space, and then let's have f(n) be a probability function which outputs probability of getting at least 1 coin flip resulting in heads after n trials where n is a natural number and f(n) is a real number. If you are correct, and probability of a sequence of pure tails is infinitesimally small, but non zero, then you have a contradiction, because f(n) is always a real number, and the only infinitesimal in the real numbers is exactly zero. If a random finite sequence is generated, the probability of that sequence having been generated is zero, because there are an infinite number of finite sequences. This is not the same thing. Does the dart's point have some area or not? If it does, then the probability of the dart's point hitting a particular point on a 2d plane can be interpreted differently, as the chance that said point is contained within a region described by the shape of the dart's point. If the dart's point does not have any area (i.e. it too is also a point) then again, this experiment is pretty meaningless. I suppose you could say that it's nothing more than the pick a number experiment but I don't believe that was what he was suggesting. As to this:
To generally prove the probability thing, just look at it this way: we've got some probability space, and then let's have f(n) be a probability function which outputs probability of getting at least 1 coin flip resulting in heads after n trials where n is a natural number and f(n) is a real number. If you are correct, and probability of a sequence of pure tails is infinitesimally small, but non zero, then you have a contradiction, because f(n) is always a real number, and the only infinitesimal in the real numbers is exactly zero.
If a random finite sequence is generated, the probability of that sequence having been generated is zero, because there are an infinite number of finite sequences.
This makes no sense at all. "if a random finite sequence is generated, the probability of that sequence having been generated is zero" What what?? The probability of it having been generated is ONE. Because it got generated. Since n is finite, if you're talking about a fair coin flip, then the probability you get n - 1 tails and then a heads is just f(n) = 2^-n which is nonzero, just as with any other particular n-length sequence of heads and tails. It's not "infinitisemally" small. It's strictly nonzero. Also, if you mean that you've observed n tails in a row, what is the probability that you now get a heads...and we know for sure that the coin is fair, then the probability of the heads occurring is 1/2. Again, nonzero. You either have failed to communicate what you were trying to communicate or you need to consider remedial high school math. I'm not quite sure why you felt the need to come back and comment so strongly on a discussion that you feel is pointless, especially since from what I can tell a lot of what you're saying is incorrect. "I agree that the probability of randomly selecting a particular real number is zero. However, the probability of selecting any number within a range is NOT zero." The example given previously was pick a real number between 0 and 1. The probability of doing so is 0, just like the probability of picking any integer is 0, as there are infinite integers and infinite real numbers between 0 and 1. Two different questions with the same answer. Did you mean to write what you did? Dart example: + Show Spoiler +Also, with the dart, of course in practice you could not have a dart head small enough to hit only one point on the board because one point on the board has zero area. However if you can accept that the dartboard theoretically has a center point, or as the example mentioned a diagonal line, then you should be able to understand that you could throw a real 3d dart at the board and then take the center point of the dart tip itself, if the center point of the dart tip does not coincide with the center point or diagonal of the board then it could be said that the dart "missed" the target. Such an experiment never need be carried out in practice and is merely a way to explain things for people to understand, much like tossing a coin. There are much better ways of communicating the article's content than coin tossing and dart throwing but it's meant to be easy to understand for the majority. The real number example is fine and can be used to communicate probabilities of both 0 and 1 though neither will be certain events, so you can disregard the impractical dart experiment if you find it flawed. What is the probability of picking a specific real number between 0 and 1? It's 0. Pick a specific real number between 0 and 1. Now pick another at random. What is the probability that they are different? It's 1. I am aware what probability 0 means and probability 1 means if these are sure events. I'm also aware that if probabilities are converging to either 0 or 1 and the sample size is infinite then the probability is represented as a 0 or a 1. If I'm the one who is mistaken here please explain further as these are still relatively new concepts to me.
I only just had a look at this conversation, and what you are saying seems to be correct.
However I don't agree with Shiori when he said "For example, the probability of randomly selecting any particular real number in a trial is actually zero. It doesn't just converge to zero at a limit: it actually is a probability of zero."
It has been a while since I have done maths involving limits, but it seems to me that the real number selection is an exact example of this, where 1 over infinite approaches 0.
As you said in terms of probability it is represented as 0, but it seems like implying that it is actually 0 is implying that 1 over infinite is actually 0. My understanding was that 1 over infinite is practically 0, it might as well be 0, for most purposes we can substitute it for 0 and we wont have any problems but technically it is not actually 0.
If Shiori simply meant that it is actually 0 in terms of probability then that is fine, but saying that it is not converging to zero would still be false since that is (as far as I can tell) exactly how 0 is defined in uncertain probability.
If what I have said is not correct please let me know, because as I said it has been a long time since I have done maths involving limits, and I only had a brief look at 0 probability since it is late.
|
The situations are different. I agree that the probability of randomly selecting a particular real number is zero. However, the probability of selecting any number within a range is NOT zero. That's what the meaning of the dart experiment is. No matter how you look at it, you're going to be selecting a range of values.
That's why I disagree with the way the article talks about that experiment and the probability. The probability in that case converges to 0. It's not actually 0.
Any range (i.e. an interval [a,b]) can be partitioned into arbitrarily small sub-intervals, and, what's more there are an uncountably infinite number of real numbers in this range. The probability of randomly selecting any real number on any non-trivial subinterval of the real line is precisely zero.
On July 17 2013 13:06 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +(also this doesn't even get into the problems of your thought experiment-in real life there are no things such as points because all measurement is imprecise. The question you're posing itself is meaningless. You need a dart with an infinitisemal point, which by definition doesn't exist-it's zero probability not because the dart will hit the square but not a point but rather that the dart doesn't exist to be thrown in the first place.) That's why it's a thought experiment; it's not supposed to be something one can actually do in real life. But if you think "almost surely" meaning probability of one is a meaningless question, then you're very, very wrong. I'm not sure what measurement has to do with the existence of points; a point is an object defined to have certain properties in a Euclidean space (i.e. zero-dimensional). This is a totally coherent mathematical definition.
Sure, if you want to think of a dart with a dimensionless point hitting any given dimensionless point on a 2d plane then the probability of that occurring is 0.
Do you see what I mean? It's a question of what does this experiment actually mean. It doesn't mean anything at all, it doesn't tell us anything beyond what we already assumed to be true. That's what I am alluding to when I am saying that this experiment is meaningless.
How exactly is that meaningless? You seem to be equating probability of zero with "cannot happen" when that's not what it actually means. Understood properly, there is absolutely no problem here.
On July 17 2013 13:06 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +If you haven't made the connection yet that the dart needs an infinitisemal point, then realize that if the dart's point had some area (even a miniscule area) then when it hits the board that area covers a certain subregion. If the point is anywhere within the boundary we can consider the dart to have hit said point. Suppose the dart's point is circular, then you can see where I'm going with that. The board and dart are obviously idealized mathematical objects in a defined Euclidean space. But it doesn't change anything even if the dart actually does have non-zero area, since any particular orientation of that area on the dartboard has probability zero (since we can slice up any interval into arbitrarily smaller sub-intervals). Written in another way, the dart example could go like this: let the board be the Cartesian plane (i.e. 2 dimensions over the reals) and let a dart be a vector of the form (x,y) situated with its tail at the origin. Now choose any point in (a,b) in the space. The probability of a random vector passing through that point is zero. To generally prove the probability thing, just look at it this way: we've got some probability space, and then let's have f(n) be a probability function which outputs probability of getting at least 1 coin flip resulting in heads after n trials where n is a natural number and f(n) is a real number. If you are correct, and probability of a sequence of pure tails is infinitesimally small, but non zero, then you have a contradiction, because f(n) is always a real number, and the only infinitesimal in the real numbers is exactly zero. If a random finite sequence is generated, the probability of that sequence having been generated is zero, because there are an infinite number of finite sequences.
This is not the same thing.
Does the dart's point have some area or not? If it does, then the probability of the dart's point hitting a particular point on a 2d plane can be interpreted differently, as the chance that said point is contained within a region described by the shape of the dart's point. If the dart's point does not have any area (i.e. it too is also a point) then again, this experiment is pretty meaningless.
It makes no difference because you can just ask a slightly different question: suppose the dart has a non-zero area; that means its surface is bounded by Euclidean lines, all of which are one-dimensional (i.e. have the same width as a point); what is the probability of any particular point being intersected by one of these lines (or if it's a circular head, it's just one line).
The answer is zero.
I suppose you could say that it's nothing more than the pick a number experiment but I don't believe that was what he was suggesting.
In a sense it is a pick a number experiment because we're dealing with uncountably infinite sets. That's the whole crux of this discussion.
To generally prove the probability thing, just look at it this way: we've got some probability space, and then let's have f(n) be a probability function which outputs probability of getting at least 1 coin flip resulting in heads after n trials where n is a natural number and f(n) is a real number. If you are correct, and probability of a sequence of pure tails is infinitesimally small, but non zero, then you have a contradiction, because f(n) is always a real number, and the only infinitesimal in the real numbers is exactly zero.
If a random finite sequence is generated, the probability of that sequence having been generated is zero, because there are an infinite number of finite sequences.
This makes no sense at all.
"if a random finite sequence is generated, the probability of that sequence having been generated is zero"
What what?? The probability of it having been generated is ONE. Because it got generated.
Since n is finite, if you're talking about a fair coin flip, then the probability you get n - 1 tails and then a heads is just f(n) = 2^-n which is nonzero, just as with any other particular n-length sequence of heads and tails. It's not "infinitisemally" small. It's strictly nonzero.
Also, if you mean that you've observed n tails in a row, what is the probability that you now get a heads...and we know for sure that the coin is fair, then the probability of the heads occurring is 1/2. Again, nonzero.
You either have failed to communicate what you were trying to communicate or you need to consider remedial high school math.
I apologize. I changed the subject of my example near the end; that's my fault. My sleeping pills kicked in right near the end of the post, so you'll have to bear with me  . What I meant to say was two distinct things:
1) That a probability function f(n) which spits out a "probability of successfully having a heads turn up" after n trials is equal to one for (countably, since n is a natural number) infinite trials. This implies that the probability of a sequence of never-ending tails is exactly zero, despite being logically possible since every trial is independent. If you disagree, then you must think that a never-ending sequence of tails has an infinitesimally small, but nonzero, probability, which is impossible since zero is the only infinitesimal over the reals.
2) If you randomly generate a finite sequence of numbers (that's what I forgot to put in, haha!) then the (prior) probability of any particular sequence being the one that ends up getting generated is zero, because there are an infinite number of natural numbers, ergo an infinite number of possible lengths of these sequences. This wasn't meant to have anything to do with the heads-tails things, so I'm sorry for the confusion.
Also, please don't imply I don't know any math. I may not be a PhD mathematician, but mathematics is my field; I'm pretty sure I know it better than a highschooler (what's more: high schoolers rarely deal with set theory involving infinity since they're more focused on applied math like computing integrals and so on).
However I don't agree with Shiori when he said "For example, the probability of randomly selecting any particular real number in a trial is actually zero. It doesn't just converge to zero at a limit: it actually is a probability of zero."
It has been a while since I have done maths involving limits, but it seems to me that the real number selection is an exact example of this, where 1 over infinite approaches 0.
There are no problems to be had if we define division of a real by infinity to equal zero (i.e. if infinity is an element of the extended real line). It's a simple definition, so think of it this way: intuitively, division of any real number into infinitely many equal pieces implies that each piece is infinitesimally small. The only infinitesimal element of the real line is zero, ergo all these pieces are zero, and, for the purposes of most "normal" (probability theory or measure theory, basically) zero multiplied with infinity is defined quite cooperatively to be zero.
|
On July 17 2013 16:52 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:20 DertoQq wrote:On July 16 2013 16:57 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 23:04 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 22:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 15 2013 21:31 DertoQq wrote:On July 15 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:just look at it, marvel at its beauty. someone will always try and go beyond something that is already known. it's what fuels the motion of 0 and 1. if it helps, see determinism and nondeterminism only as believes subjective to the human mind one preceding the other ad infinitum. they have no effect on the universe be it known or unknown. then, the question becomes not whether or not 0 is truer then 1 but rather what can come of this sucession of ones and zeroes. you will then start to decipher/decode the software. Determinism and non determinism are not subjective believes. They are concept with concrete possible real world application, especially when it comes to the brain. The more you post the more it is clear that you have absolutely no common sense when it comes down to this subject, or that you are just trolling. Either way, don't bother responding to that. that was just an analogy ... ? either way, just look at it unfold. it stares back at you, open your mind. An analogy must at least have 1 thing in common. You're just trying to escape the debate because you have absolutely nothing to say against all the arguments said on this thread. You're not even saying anything meaningful. For all I know, you could be trying to say that inside every tomato there is a banana (and it would honestly make more sense that what I think you are trying to say). I'll give you one last chance. Give me one concrete example of a brain related action/output that can't be explained in a fully deterministic world. (and I will only answer if this hasn't already be answered in this thread) the question doesn't make sense for me. if i say that a brain action/output is based on a priori and a posteriori justifications, would it answer your question?. It's like the easiest question I could ask you and it doesn't make sense to you ? I hope you're not working in something related to science. When you say that something is false, the first thing you should be able to do is give a concrete counter example, and it's usually pretty easy to do because a lot of the scientific theories have counter example. Well, so much for your last chance ! "Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but, after considering Gödel's Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable. - "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind." (he changed his mind not his brain so there is still hope for you). else it's the fairies, they made me do it.
You still didn't respond to my question ; ) stop dodging !
For future reference, I don't believe the world is only deterministic btw, modern science has obviously shown that there is probably randomness involved.
|
On July 17 2013 19:18 Rassy wrote:Noooooo Pls come back and make your contribution, the thread needs new input cause it seems to be slowly dying. Maybe because the majority here seems to agree that the mind is indeed all physical and with that there is no real discussion about the original question. We need new and interesting thoughts and someone making an account just to post on this thread gives me hope for just that
lol . If you're referring to skying I discovered that he was banned for advertising.
Its so hard to think of an argument against determinism. Maybe the only thing that can be said, is that philosophically, if determinism is true then it leads to a paradox. Because determinism clearly necessitates cause and effect, so in theory that would lead to an infinite chain. But because infinity is too large to exist in nature (and we know a circle wouldn't work as the circle as a whole would need to come from somewhere), then theoretically there must be some alternative to cause and effect, and thus determinism can not be the only mechanism at work. Since this mechanism caused our universe to form, then it must exist at some fundamental level in our universe. Perhaps it just occurred once during the formation (i.e. the big bang), or maybe its ongoing, but we should see some non-deterministic relation that at least can't be explained.
Now it may be hard to conceive what this is, much like its difficult to understand what a 4th spatial dimension would be. But scientists now have compelling evidence that there may be more than three spatial dimensions; and so although something is not conceivable, it could still be possible.
If there actually is a timeless space that exists outside of our universe, this may be the realm in which this other mechanism exists (it would make sense, as cause and effect would seem to require time, although again perhaps there is another mechanism for this causality to occur besides time?). Its all extremely hypothetical...but maybe the infinity argument is somewhat persuasive.
I hope I helped make this thread exciting
|
On July 18 2013 02:02 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 19:18 Rassy wrote:Noooooo Pls come back and make your contribution, the thread needs new input cause it seems to be slowly dying. Maybe because the majority here seems to agree that the mind is indeed all physical and with that there is no real discussion about the original question. We need new and interesting thoughts and someone making an account just to post on this thread gives me hope for just that lol . If you're referring to skying I discovered that he was banned for advertising. Its so hard to think of an argument against determinism. Maybe the only thing that can be said, is that philosophically, if determinism is true then it leads to a paradox. Because determinism clearly necessitates cause and effect, so in theory that would lead to an infinite chain. But because infinity is too large to exist in nature (and we know a circle wouldn't work as the circle as a whole would need to come from somewhere), then theoretically there must be some alternative to cause and effect, and thus determinism can not be the only mechanism at work. Since this mechanism caused our universe to form, then it must exist at some fundamental level in our universe. Perhaps it just occurred once during the formation (i.e. the big bang), or maybe its ongoing, but we should see some non-deterministic relation that at least can't be explained. Now it may be hard to conceive what this is, much like its difficult to understand what a 4th spatial dimension would be. But scientists now have compelling evidence that there may be more than three spatial dimensions; and so although something is not conceivable, it could still be possible. If there actually is a timeless space that exists outside of our universe, this may be the realm in which this other mechanism exists (it would make sense, as cause and effect would seem to require time, although again perhaps there is another mechanism for this causality to occur besides time?). Its all extremely hypothetical...but maybe the infinity argument is somewhat persuasive. I hope I helped make this thread exciting
That paradox can easily be avoided if organisms are deterministic internally, but world is not. No paradox in that case.
To clarify : In actual world it would mean that indeterminism in organisms is contained and has negligible influence on important processes.
|
On July 18 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:
That paradox can easily be avoided if organisms are deterministic internally, but world is not. No paradox in that case.
To clarify : In actual world it would mean that indeterminism in organisms is contained and has negligible influence on important processes.
It could be that the universe is ruled by cause and effect (eg laws of physics), but whatever "outside the universe" refers to is not.
Another argument - "cause and effect" itself is a basically a rule or law. If you were actually in a situation where literally nothing existed, then that law would also not exist. Therefore the first event did not need to have a cause.
|
On July 18 2013 02:30 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:
That paradox can easily be avoided if organisms are deterministic internally, but world is not. No paradox in that case.
To clarify : In actual world it would mean that indeterminism in organisms is contained and has negligible influence on important processes. It could be that the universe is ruled by cause and effect (eg laws of physics), but whatever "outside the universe" refers to is not. Another argument - "cause and effect" itself is a basically a rule or law. If you were actually in a situation where literally nothing existed, then that law would also not exist. Therefore the first event did not need to have a cause.
I think that both of these possibilities are basically meaningless. It's absolutely impossible to think of any situation in which causality doesn't exist, because there is no logical structure to such a space that can be hypothesized with any certainty.
|
On July 18 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 02:30 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:
That paradox can easily be avoided if organisms are deterministic internally, but world is not. No paradox in that case.
To clarify : In actual world it would mean that indeterminism in organisms is contained and has negligible influence on important processes. It could be that the universe is ruled by cause and effect (eg laws of physics), but whatever "outside the universe" refers to is not. Another argument - "cause and effect" itself is a basically a rule or law. If you were actually in a situation where literally nothing existed, then that law would also not exist. Therefore the first event did not need to have a cause. I think that both of these possibilities are basically meaningless. It's absolutely impossible to think of any situation in which causality doesn't exist, because there is no logical structure to such a space that can be hypothesized with any certainty.
Agreed. While it's a fascinating concept, there doesn't seem to be much practical use in speculating about what goes on outside of the universe.
|
On July 18 2013 03:13 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 02:30 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:
That paradox can easily be avoided if organisms are deterministic internally, but world is not. No paradox in that case.
To clarify : In actual world it would mean that indeterminism in organisms is contained and has negligible influence on important processes. It could be that the universe is ruled by cause and effect (eg laws of physics), but whatever "outside the universe" refers to is not. Another argument - "cause and effect" itself is a basically a rule or law. If you were actually in a situation where literally nothing existed, then that law would also not exist. Therefore the first event did not need to have a cause. I think that both of these possibilities are basically meaningless. It's absolutely impossible to think of any situation in which causality doesn't exist, because there is no logical structure to such a space that can be hypothesized with any certainty. Agreed. While it's a fascinating concept, there doesn't seem to be much practical use in speculating about what goes on outside of the universe.
Like, I mean, if I need to add a "assuming reality isn't fundamentally irrational" caveat to any argument I make regarding first causes or extra-universal properties, I'm totally okay with that. To me, the "maybe causality is an unnecessary feature of logic/reality/whatever" line of reasoning is only marginally better than "maybe the law of non-contradiction isn't true outside our universe" argument. I mean, yes, it's not impossible, but it seems to be largely a sophistical trick rather than possessing any explanatory power.
|
On July 18 2013 03:16 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 03:13 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 02:30 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:
That paradox can easily be avoided if organisms are deterministic internally, but world is not. No paradox in that case.
To clarify : In actual world it would mean that indeterminism in organisms is contained and has negligible influence on important processes. It could be that the universe is ruled by cause and effect (eg laws of physics), but whatever "outside the universe" refers to is not. Another argument - "cause and effect" itself is a basically a rule or law. If you were actually in a situation where literally nothing existed, then that law would also not exist. Therefore the first event did not need to have a cause. I think that both of these possibilities are basically meaningless. It's absolutely impossible to think of any situation in which causality doesn't exist, because there is no logical structure to such a space that can be hypothesized with any certainty. Agreed. While it's a fascinating concept, there doesn't seem to be much practical use in speculating about what goes on outside of the universe. Like, I mean, if I need to add a "assuming reality isn't fundamentally irrational" caveat to any argument I make regarding first causes or extra-universal properties, I'm totally okay with that. To me, the "maybe causality is an unnecessary feature of logic/reality/whatever" line of reasoning is only marginally better than "maybe the law of non-contradiction isn't true outside our universe" argument. I mean, yes, it's not impossible, but it seems to be largely a sophistical trick rather than possessing any explanatory power.
And if I say that causality seems to be a principle of reason (Verstand), and thus only applies to the phenomenological world, and that we have no idea if it applies to the noumenal world, am I being a sophist ? :p
|
On July 18 2013 03:20 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 03:16 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 03:13 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 02:30 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:
That paradox can easily be avoided if organisms are deterministic internally, but world is not. No paradox in that case.
To clarify : In actual world it would mean that indeterminism in organisms is contained and has negligible influence on important processes. It could be that the universe is ruled by cause and effect (eg laws of physics), but whatever "outside the universe" refers to is not. Another argument - "cause and effect" itself is a basically a rule or law. If you were actually in a situation where literally nothing existed, then that law would also not exist. Therefore the first event did not need to have a cause. I think that both of these possibilities are basically meaningless. It's absolutely impossible to think of any situation in which causality doesn't exist, because there is no logical structure to such a space that can be hypothesized with any certainty. Agreed. While it's a fascinating concept, there doesn't seem to be much practical use in speculating about what goes on outside of the universe. Like, I mean, if I need to add a "assuming reality isn't fundamentally irrational" caveat to any argument I make regarding first causes or extra-universal properties, I'm totally okay with that. To me, the "maybe causality is an unnecessary feature of logic/reality/whatever" line of reasoning is only marginally better than "maybe the law of non-contradiction isn't true outside our universe" argument. I mean, yes, it's not impossible, but it seems to be largely a sophistical trick rather than possessing any explanatory power. And if I say that causality seems to be a principle of reason (Verstand), and thus only applies to the phenomenological world, and that we have no idea if it applies to the noumenal world, am I being a sophist ? :p
No. But then, we have no idea if anything applies to the noumenal world.
|
On July 18 2013 03:27 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 03:20 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 18 2013 03:16 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 03:13 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 02:30 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:
That paradox can easily be avoided if organisms are deterministic internally, but world is not. No paradox in that case.
To clarify : In actual world it would mean that indeterminism in organisms is contained and has negligible influence on important processes. It could be that the universe is ruled by cause and effect (eg laws of physics), but whatever "outside the universe" refers to is not. Another argument - "cause and effect" itself is a basically a rule or law. If you were actually in a situation where literally nothing existed, then that law would also not exist. Therefore the first event did not need to have a cause. I think that both of these possibilities are basically meaningless. It's absolutely impossible to think of any situation in which causality doesn't exist, because there is no logical structure to such a space that can be hypothesized with any certainty. Agreed. While it's a fascinating concept, there doesn't seem to be much practical use in speculating about what goes on outside of the universe. Like, I mean, if I need to add a "assuming reality isn't fundamentally irrational" caveat to any argument I make regarding first causes or extra-universal properties, I'm totally okay with that. To me, the "maybe causality is an unnecessary feature of logic/reality/whatever" line of reasoning is only marginally better than "maybe the law of non-contradiction isn't true outside our universe" argument. I mean, yes, it's not impossible, but it seems to be largely a sophistical trick rather than possessing any explanatory power. And if I say that causality seems to be a principle of reason (Verstand), and thus only applies to the phenomenological world, and that we have no idea if it applies to the noumenal world, am I being a sophist ? :p No. But then, we have no idea if anything applies to the noumenal world.
Thank you Immanuel for saving free will, somehow^^
But I think Nietzsche would have answered yes to that question, so it's not as easy as it seems.
Edit : but I'm not sure at all free will exists though, just that something like it might exist.
|
On July 18 2013 03:31 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 03:27 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 03:20 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 18 2013 03:16 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 03:13 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 02:30 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:
That paradox can easily be avoided if organisms are deterministic internally, but world is not. No paradox in that case.
To clarify : In actual world it would mean that indeterminism in organisms is contained and has negligible influence on important processes. It could be that the universe is ruled by cause and effect (eg laws of physics), but whatever "outside the universe" refers to is not. Another argument - "cause and effect" itself is a basically a rule or law. If you were actually in a situation where literally nothing existed, then that law would also not exist. Therefore the first event did not need to have a cause. I think that both of these possibilities are basically meaningless. It's absolutely impossible to think of any situation in which causality doesn't exist, because there is no logical structure to such a space that can be hypothesized with any certainty. Agreed. While it's a fascinating concept, there doesn't seem to be much practical use in speculating about what goes on outside of the universe. Like, I mean, if I need to add a "assuming reality isn't fundamentally irrational" caveat to any argument I make regarding first causes or extra-universal properties, I'm totally okay with that. To me, the "maybe causality is an unnecessary feature of logic/reality/whatever" line of reasoning is only marginally better than "maybe the law of non-contradiction isn't true outside our universe" argument. I mean, yes, it's not impossible, but it seems to be largely a sophistical trick rather than possessing any explanatory power. And if I say that causality seems to be a principle of reason (Verstand), and thus only applies to the phenomenological world, and that we have no idea if it applies to the noumenal world, am I being a sophist ? :p No. But then, we have no idea if anything applies to the noumenal world. Thank you Immanuel for saving free will, somehow^^ But I think Nietzsche would have answered yes to that question, so it's not as easy as it seems. Edit : but I'm not sure at all free will exists though, just that something like it might exist.
I'm not sure the phrase "free will" has ever really been made coherent.
|
On July 18 2013 03:36 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 03:31 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 18 2013 03:27 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 03:20 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 18 2013 03:16 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 03:13 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 02:30 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:
That paradox can easily be avoided if organisms are deterministic internally, but world is not. No paradox in that case.
To clarify : In actual world it would mean that indeterminism in organisms is contained and has negligible influence on important processes. It could be that the universe is ruled by cause and effect (eg laws of physics), but whatever "outside the universe" refers to is not. Another argument - "cause and effect" itself is a basically a rule or law. If you were actually in a situation where literally nothing existed, then that law would also not exist. Therefore the first event did not need to have a cause. I think that both of these possibilities are basically meaningless. It's absolutely impossible to think of any situation in which causality doesn't exist, because there is no logical structure to such a space that can be hypothesized with any certainty. Agreed. While it's a fascinating concept, there doesn't seem to be much practical use in speculating about what goes on outside of the universe. Like, I mean, if I need to add a "assuming reality isn't fundamentally irrational" caveat to any argument I make regarding first causes or extra-universal properties, I'm totally okay with that. To me, the "maybe causality is an unnecessary feature of logic/reality/whatever" line of reasoning is only marginally better than "maybe the law of non-contradiction isn't true outside our universe" argument. I mean, yes, it's not impossible, but it seems to be largely a sophistical trick rather than possessing any explanatory power. And if I say that causality seems to be a principle of reason (Verstand), and thus only applies to the phenomenological world, and that we have no idea if it applies to the noumenal world, am I being a sophist ? :p No. But then, we have no idea if anything applies to the noumenal world. Thank you Immanuel for saving free will, somehow^^ But I think Nietzsche would have answered yes to that question, so it's not as easy as it seems. Edit : but I'm not sure at all free will exists though, just that something like it might exist. I'm not sure the phrase "free will" has ever really been made coherent.
I'm tempted to say you can draw some statements from the Critic of Pure reasons that are coherent about this problematic, but I'm not sure it makes free will itself coherent.
|
On July 18 2013 03:40 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2013 03:36 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 03:31 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 18 2013 03:27 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 03:20 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 18 2013 03:16 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 03:13 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:57 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2013 02:30 Signet wrote:On July 18 2013 02:20 mcc wrote:
That paradox can easily be avoided if organisms are deterministic internally, but world is not. No paradox in that case.
To clarify : In actual world it would mean that indeterminism in organisms is contained and has negligible influence on important processes. It could be that the universe is ruled by cause and effect (eg laws of physics), but whatever "outside the universe" refers to is not. Another argument - "cause and effect" itself is a basically a rule or law. If you were actually in a situation where literally nothing existed, then that law would also not exist. Therefore the first event did not need to have a cause. I think that both of these possibilities are basically meaningless. It's absolutely impossible to think of any situation in which causality doesn't exist, because there is no logical structure to such a space that can be hypothesized with any certainty. Agreed. While it's a fascinating concept, there doesn't seem to be much practical use in speculating about what goes on outside of the universe. Like, I mean, if I need to add a "assuming reality isn't fundamentally irrational" caveat to any argument I make regarding first causes or extra-universal properties, I'm totally okay with that. To me, the "maybe causality is an unnecessary feature of logic/reality/whatever" line of reasoning is only marginally better than "maybe the law of non-contradiction isn't true outside our universe" argument. I mean, yes, it's not impossible, but it seems to be largely a sophistical trick rather than possessing any explanatory power. And if I say that causality seems to be a principle of reason (Verstand), and thus only applies to the phenomenological world, and that we have no idea if it applies to the noumenal world, am I being a sophist ? :p No. But then, we have no idea if anything applies to the noumenal world. Thank you Immanuel for saving free will, somehow^^ But I think Nietzsche would have answered yes to that question, so it's not as easy as it seems. Edit : but I'm not sure at all free will exists though, just that something like it might exist. I'm not sure the phrase "free will" has ever really been made coherent. I'm tempted to say you can draw some statements from the Critic of Pure reasons that are coherent about this problematic, but I'm not sure it makes free will itself coherent.
Well, Kant is awesome, but even he left us with the antinomy rather than an actual proof ><.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
