Is a deterministic universe as profoundly counter intuitive for you too?

[sethoflagos]

 

 

You raised some very interesting points in your post that deserve further discussion.........

 

PS. Just so that we are all on the same page - my interpretation of the (standard) block universe implies determinism as per the definition given above (in my second paragraph, i.e. the outcome is inevitable) as well as eternalism.

 

I find this argument for an underlying non-local, stochastic, time symmetric quantum foundation very persuasive: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8959/

 

I realise that that probably doesn't mean too much to you, but the OP was specifically referring to our subjective intuitive reaction to various levels of determinism. A fully deterministic universe and random. non-causal one disturb me in about equal measure (as do anthropocentric and religious models). I feel the need for a golden mean. Ruth Kastner seems to be offering one. If she's got the maths wrong, I'm sure one of you good souls will enlighten me

Edited August 28, 2016 by sethoflagos

[koti]

Memammal

 

I read your long post in that other thread you dirercted me to. Very interesting and very intriguing - I will need to dig into this subject a lot deeper.

Unfortunately some of the commects you, studiot and sethoflagos since my last comment are challenging to me - I lack background. I will need to fill in some of the gaps before I can attempt to continue - hopefuly this thread will not get locked and I will have a chance in the future

 

 

I realise that that probably doesn't mean too much to you, but the OP was specifically referring to our subjective intuitive reaction to various levels of determinism. A fully deterministic universe and random. non-causal one disturb me in about equal measure (as do anthropocentric and religious models). I feel the need for a golden mean. Ruth Kastner seems to be offering one. If she's got the maths wrong, I'm sure one of you good souls will enlighten me

 

I will be lurking though

[studiot]

 

Memammal

Note that my reference to "deterministic" agrees with this definition: In mathematics and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state. This, in essence, describes the standard block universe.

 

A small point but what do you mean by random?

 

Mathematicians and physicists operate on different interpretations of this word.

 

So for instance is say the number 5 random?

[Memammal]

I find this argument for an underlying non-local, stochastic, time symmetric quantum foundation very persuasive: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8959/

 

I realise that that probably doesn't mean too much to you, but the OP was specifically referring to our subjective intuitive reaction to various levels of determinism. A fully deterministic universe and random. non-causal one disturb me in about equal measure (as do anthropocentric and religious models). I feel the need for a golden mean. Ruth Kastner seems to be offering one. If she's got the maths wrong, I'm sure one of you good souls will enlighten me

I will look into it. I agree (and it is understandable) that a fully deterministic universe does not sit well with most people. It just feels wrong, almost surreal. Keep in mind though that our ancestors had to undergo a series of serious reality checks when they realised that 1) our planet was not flat 2) that the Earth is in fact orbiting the sun and not the other way around, 3) that we are therefore not at the centre of our solar system, nor our galaxy, nor the universe, 4) life on Earth, including our own species, evolved from a common ancestor, 5) there was a Big Bang event billions of years ago...and other similar hair-raising moments.

 

A small point but what do you mean by random?

I borrowed that definition from Wikipedia and allow me to do so again:

A random process is a sequence of random variables whose outcomes do not follow a deterministic pattern...

...randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome​ (therefore no randomness will refer to a certain outcome).

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness)

Edited August 29, 2016 by Memammal

[studiot]

My comment was not a criticism or challenge, it was more to add information to the topic.

 

That definition is consistent with a Physics view of randomness, which focuses on the route by which you get to the result, as opposed to the result itself.

 

Mathematics (the Kolmogorov definition, which Wiki also discusses) focuses on the result and doesn't care how it is arrived at so answers my question

 

Is 5 a random number? in the affirmative.

 

We had a long thread a while back, that was before the current listing starts so I can't find, asking about the difference between random and chance.

 

You will find precious few references to 'chance' in maths texts, but lots in Physics ones, because chance is about the route.

 

There is a current thread here where 5 is defined as random.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/97886-help-a-non-native-speaker-of-english-understand-this/

Edited August 29, 2016 by studiot

[Memammal]

No problem, I did not read anything in your previous comment other than to inquire. Yes, this definition (that focuses on the route) would then indeed be more relevant to our discussion re a block universe.