The single flaw with hard determinism

[Cognisant]

I am a proponent of hard determinism but there is a flaw with it.

If we consider time like a spatial dimension so that if we were to look upon it from an external perspective we could perceive it like a series of frames like a reel of film (the same way a two dimensional entity could perceive a three dimensional object by viewing a series of cross-sections) that implies that time itself is static, that your past and present exist simultaneously, immutable, entirely predetermined.

That predetermination is the definition of hard determinism and I favor it because it's the only way I can make sense of causality, the way I see it a universe is either causal or it isn't and if it isn't any fluctuations at any point in time are going to propagate and reverberate and amplify (i.e. butterfly effect) until reality just dissolves into chaos.

But here's the kicker if time is entirely static then our universe where things like life and language are very clearly emergent properties well it isn't impossible but it's extraordinarily peculiar. There shouldn't be emergent properties in a static universe, as a single outcome within an infinite set of outcomes it's not inconceivable that a universe exists where time appears to be flowing from the perspective of those within it but it is moment by moment entirely contrived.
A series of extraordinarily unlikely coincidences lasting billions of years.


Perhaps causality is an emergent property within an acausal reality but good luck figuring out how that works.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Viewing time as a spatial dimension is a conceptual aid not an accurate model.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Time is a 4th number in n number math. It’s a dimension in relativity and Minkowski geometry, which relativity is criticized for being too influenced by. It doesn’t mean it’s the same kind of dimension. Not everyone went to school for 4th dimensional geometry - or math, for that matter, so you can have a low IQ and still know what’s going on.

One event gets changed by the next so that a foundation simply becomes supplement.

 

[Cognisant]

I didn't say time was a spatial dimension I said time in a hard deterministic universe is LIKE a spatial in that when seen from a perspective outside of time it all exists simultaneously, that the future is as predetermined as the past.

It's like I've built disabled access ramp for my argument and two retards have approached it, the first pointed at it and yelled "RAMP" then the second took the opportunity to called me a retard for not knowing how stairs work.

 

[Cognisant]

*LIKE a spatial dimension

 

[Pizzabeak]

It’s not so much using existing information to support a cause. Chaos and noise in signals are not so much interchangeable.

The universe could be a smaller part of an incomprehensibly larger structure.

I figured out my destiny through meditative techniques and occult knowledge. My experiences told me through theosophical renderings that I was really a hyperdimensional prince, or king, the original, so to speak. We are living in this universe and dimension.

As I’ve said it could be a simulation. If it’s one similar to Adam in the Garden of Eden, then we’re here, and were put here, to “rectify” creation, that is if you identify with Adam. What that means, as it isn’t explicitly stated in scripture (The Bible) but in interpretations by Jewish Sage Mystics, is that when things happen it gets uploaded to the “cosmic unconscious” or “Akashic Records”. When everything happens reality as we know it will be complete, so to speak. That would be synonymous with “time”, and as it goes on more achievement occurs.

Now, either a God or an alien could have started it, including AI/A.I./artificial intelligence. Or, we are the alien from the future in a more “cerebral” way. There could be a source.

My destiny informed me that I was the source, on the side of Gods and spirits as according to the literature. Why be put here to witness what?

Because it’s also the “bodhisattva” principle. We as other dimensional spirit beings could still have addictions we’re here for in this realm which, hypothetically according to the Judeo-Christian model of reality and science, is what’s delaying experiencing “the Other”, as some have put it.

That’s why there’s a multiverse, so that everything that could possibly happen happens faster. There’s no clause stating specifically that any reincarnation will be experience-able by you directly, even if your memory is wiped.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Determinism to me is similar to other theories like that one where one says the world is just a computer simulation. As in, it doesn’t change anything, regardless of whether it is true or false. Sure, in theory if you apply a bunch of assumptions and assume you know the exact position and movement of every quantum particle in the universe, you can predict the future. In reality, if you have a slightly wrong measurement of even one particle your prediction becomes a statistical forecast, and due to chaotic systems etc it quickly becomes a very bad forecast. And of course, in practice you hardly know the position of even a microscopic portion of the particles in the universe, so reality is indistinguishable from a nondeterministic one.

 

[Pizzabeak]

We would be able to know about particles, since the universe isn’t just a simulation, but holographic. That means every piece of information is encoded in each pixel to make a hologram operate, so the universe is similar, going beyond information encoded in DNA. For example when you breathe air, then exhale, the oxygen (O2, O as an abbreviation), turns more acidic, into CO2. So you could predict events if you understood the science enough. It kind of does change things, or can influence as much.

 

[Black Rose]

Particles can travel forward and backward in time, not enough to cause paradoxes but large changes can occur. Events that once happened can be reversed. Déjà vu - Mandela effect. Event A happens on both path B and C. B can reverse to C or C can reverse to B. What happened along path B and C both lead to A.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

If we consider time like a spatial dimension so that if we were to look upon it from an external perspective we could perceive it like a series of frames like a reel of film (the same way a two dimensional entity could perceive a three dimensional object by viewing a series of cross-sections) that implies that time itself is static, that your past and present exist simultaneously, immutable, entirely predetermined.

Just because you can consider temporality as a spatial block doesn't mean time is metaphysically a spatial block. If change is real, time is dynamic - determinism only implies that all the change are completely determined to be exactly as it occurs, by prior causes.

I favor it because it's the only way I can make sense of causality, the way I see it a universe is either causal or it isn't and if it isn't any fluctuations at any point in time are going to propagate and reverberate and amplify (i.e. butterfly effect) until reality just dissolves into chaos.

That's not necessarily true. Indeterministic fluctuations can thereotically occur within specific range and options. And indeterminism may not be acausal either (for example Cause A may indeterminiscally result in B or C - here B or C are caused by A, but whether exactly B happens or C depends on some indeterministic fluctuations).
Consider video games with RNG, for example. Just imagine for a moment, that the RNG mechanics are truly random not just pseudo. It's easy to, thus, imagine, worlds where randomness truly exist but doesn't result in some form of absolute chaos. Even the fluctiations can be principled (like folllowing some probability distribution).

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Now, either a God or an alien could have started it, including AI/A.I./artificial intelligence. Or, we are the alien from the future in a more “cerebral” way. There could be a source.

It was probably me; back in the days, I started a brute-force generative algorithm and forgot to shut it off.

 

[Pizzabeak]

It’s usually the anti-matter that’s considered going back in time or responsible for the rest of the energy. They occur in fusion and fission nuclear reactions as it’s one of the few process that produce enough energy for it to exist. What it really is is the energy released, since matter and anti-matter explode upon contact with one another. So, when there’s a reaction such as that the amount of energy can be explained also by integrating anti-matter. A positron is the anti-matter version of electron.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Now, either a God or an alien could have started it, including AI/A.I./artificial intelligence. Or, we are the alien from the future in a more “cerebral” way. There could be a source.

It was probably me; back in the days, I started a brute-force generative algorithm and forgot to shut it off.

I said and intimated as much already. Your joke isn’t so amusing because we’re somewhat past that point.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

We would be able to know about particles, since the universe isn’t just a simulation, but holographic. That means every piece of information is encoded in each pixel to make a hologram operate, so the universe is similar, going beyond information encoded in DNA. For example when you breathe air, then exhale, the oxygen (O2, O as an abbreviation), turns more acidic, into CO2. So you could predict events if you understood the science enough. It kind of does change things, or can influence as much.

you can understand as much as science as you want, doesn't help you predicting everything. E.g. a double pendulum is a trivially simple system which is perfectly described by differential equations, yet its movement is practically impossible to predict because it exhibits chaotic motion.

 

[Hadoblado]

I didn't say time was a spatial dimension I said time in a hard deterministic universe is LIKE a spatial in that when seen from a perspective outside of time it all exists simultaneously, that the future is as predetermined as the past.

It's like I've built disabled access ramp for my argument and two retards have approached it, the first pointed at it and yelled "RAMP" then the second took the opportunity to called me a retard for not knowing how stairs work.

How does a conversation about determinism even get heated? Peak internet.

 

[Sandglass]

The universe was created with transient initial conditions, not static ones. I don’t think anyone can give a proper answer to why that is the case, but it is.

From there, it doesn’t seem too out of the question that some sort of pattern would emerge that replicated itself given a large enough amount of time. The pattern that we notice is RNA which eventually led to us through evolution.

If you have not considered the many worlds theory, you might also want to read up on it. It is much more realistic than the name suggests. Following it would create a much larger sample size of instances life could be created in our universe by its current age.

I think the main problem with your line of thought Cog is you are essentially working backwards. Yes, it is incredibly unlikely that in our timeline humans would emerge; but it isn’t so out of the question that something would. That something just ended up being us. And because we are here we have the liberty of knowing how weird that is. It is unlikely you will win the lottery, but chances are someone will.

 

[Pizzabeak]

We would be able to know about particles, since the universe isn’t just a simulation, but holographic. That means every piece of information is encoded in each pixel to make a hologram operate, so the universe is similar, going beyond information encoded in DNA. For example when you breathe air, then exhale, the oxygen (O2, O as an abbreviation), turns more acidic, into CO2. So you could predict events if you understood the science enough. It kind of does change things, or can influence as much.

you can understand as much as science as you want, doesn't help you predicting everything. E.g. a double pendulum is a trivially simple system which is perfectly described by differential equations, yet its movement is practically impossible to predict because it exhibits chaotic motion.

Predicting everything is your own twisted form of a mating call exerted out due to pressure and responses picked up from cues indicating you should do whatever you need to survive and look cool. It isn’t anything you need to be a genius to see through. Googling something a second beforehand doesn’t do any good. I’m done talking to you, because there’s no point to the elusiveness.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

We would be able to know about particles, since the universe isn’t just a simulation, but holographic. That means every piece of information is encoded in each pixel to make a hologram operate, so the universe is similar, going beyond information encoded in DNA. For example when you breathe air, then exhale, the oxygen (O2, O as an abbreviation), turns more acidic, into CO2. So you could predict events if you understood the science enough. It kind of does change things, or can influence as much.

you can understand as much as science as you want, doesn't help you predicting everything. E.g. a double pendulum is a trivially simple system which is perfectly described by differential equations, yet its movement is practically impossible to predict because it exhibits chaotic motion.

Predicting everything is your own twisted form of a mating call exerted out due to pressure and responses picked up from cues indicating you should do whatever you need to survive and look cool. It isn’t anything you need to be a genius to see through. Googling something a second beforehand doesn’t do any good. I’m done talking to you, because there’s no point to the elusiveness.

Whatever that word-salad factory between your ears comes up with, man

 

[QuickTwist]

I'm a Theory A time person, personally.

But consider this:

Premise 1: Fixed states of matter are necessary to measure material objectively over time
Premise 2: Changing states of matter is only possible if there is a constant to measure the change
Premise 3: Fixed states of matter don't exist
Argument 1: If fixed states of matter don't exist, then change is the only constant
Argument 2: If the only constant is change itself, then either the universe always existed, or it all began at the same time
Argument 3: Everything that begins to exist has a first cause
Argument 4: The universe and all matter has a first cause
Argument 5: The first cause of matter and the universe must be immaterial, timeless and motionless (or omnipresent)
Argument 6: The cause of the universe must have all power over the universe and all matter in it if there are no fixed states of matter
Argument 7: Having all power over the universe necessitates a conscious being
Argument 8: The first cause of the universe and all matter was done by a creator
Argument 9: God created the universe
Argument 10: God created the universe and all matter at the same time

 

[ZenRaiden]

Determinism simply means if A B C D and so on happen one time then we can for sure predict the same outcome in case A B C D happen again.

We always work on basis of determinism, because we dont have another framework to work with. Simply put, if exactly A B C D happen we know it will have same result and if the result is not the same with absolutle certainty we find that A B C D is not infact A B C D.

 

[JansenDowel]

There shouldn't be emergent properties in a static universe, as a single outcome within an infinite set of outcomes it's not inconceivable that a universe exists where time appears to be flowing from the perspective of those within it but it is moment by moment entirely contrived.

Time is not static. And neither is the universe. This isn't really a 'problem' with determinism.

 

[redbaron]

Debate on prose moved here:

https://www.intpforum.com/threads/p...-the-single-flaw-with-hard-determinism.27897/

 

[redbaron]

Determinism simply means if A B C D and so on happen one time then we can for sure predict the same outcome in case A B C D happen again.

We always work on basis of determinism, because we dont have another framework to work with. Simply put, if exactly A B C D happen we know it will have same result and if the result is not the same with absolutle certainty we find that A B C D is not infact A B C D.

i think this is more about consistency within determinism but i agree that this is the most accurate framework we have. other frameworks just fail to demonstrate any sort of consistency or accuracy in comparison.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Psychedelics are considered techniques mentioned

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

From what I understand, current quantum-mechanics theory is largely based on stochastic models of various particles. I.e. not only is determinism not a necessary condition for making sense of the world, it's not even currently the best one.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

... with the "double slit" experiment being the classical example

 

[Pizzabeak]

From what I understand, current quantum-mechanics theory is largely based on stochastic models of various particles. I.e. not only is determinism not a necessary condition for making sense of the world, it's not even currently the best one.

Free will is determinism.

 

[Pizzabeak]

And freedom might not be free

 

[JansenDowel]

From what I understand, current quantum-mechanics theory is largely based on stochastic models of various particles. I.e. not only is determinism not a necessary condition for making sense of the world, it's not even currently the best one.

Have you read The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch? Its an excellent book that, among many other things, explains why the laws of physics MUST be computable.

 

[gilliatt]

Objectivism rejects the theory that nothing could ever have happened differently from the way it did & everything in the future is pre-set & inevitable. I am an Objectivist and I reject this theory. I believe in freedom for man, reason, volition, do not accept that man must always the a slave of some two bit dictator, authority etc.