[PLUG-TALK] Re: Omniscience vs. Freewill

Wed Apr 13 00:40:14 UTC 2005

I have to disagree with your general message, Keith.  Science doesn't
work the way you're suggesting.  Quantum Mechanics is just a theory.
It's a _model_ of how the universe works at very small scales.
(Note that there are _two_ prongs to that point:  1) QM is _just_
a model... the map is NOT the territory and 2) it only works at 
very small scales.)

All the garbage about how QM relates to philosophies like Determinism
is just a bunch of meta-physical hooey.  You might as well be arguing
about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Granted, QM is the single most successful scientific theory we 
monkeys have developed to date.  But, that doesn't mean it's true.
As you so vividly point out, we're wrong about alot of things alot
of the time.  I would bet my soul that we're wrong about QM, too.

Now, you glibly drop a few references to Gödel, chaos theory, and some
unnamed set of other things that supposedly demonstrate that
Determinism (another bit of metaphysics) is false.  And, this is
hooey, too, not for the least reason that one cannot _disprove_
metaphysical philosophies.  (enough negatives for you? ;-)

But, further, Gödel proved that certain syntactic (meaningless)
systems can not be both complete and consistent.  That's all he
proved.  And, like QM, his results only apply in a very specific
context.  All you need is one tiny little bit of _meaning_...  outside
influence... embedded entailment, to render Gödel's result
inapplicable.

If you're going to quote someone in meta-mathematics that did damage
to our logic and the philosophy that results from it, then cite
Tarski.  He did far more work to address truth and the concepts of
truth than Gödel ever did (or wanted to do).  There's a tidy little
article called "The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages" that I'd
highly recommend.  In it he independently proves Gödel's theorem and
carries the ideas much further.

As for chaos theory, it, like Gödel's theorem, is an artifact of our
_mathematics_.  Mathematics is thought... monkey thought, to be
specific.  [grin] Chaos theory demonstrates certain consequences that
ensue from our mathematical infrastructure.  That's all it is.  It
says nothing about truth, God, or the philosophy of Determinism.

But, if you _insist_ on haggling on this point, the mathematics of
chaos theory IS deterministic.  Chaos theory supports a deterministic
(but unpredictable... with the calculus, anyway) view of dynamical
systems.  So, chaos theory argues that even if the universe were a
huge system of partial differential equations, for example, it might
be unpredictable but it is definitely deterministic.

[grin] Shame on you for wielding these weapons so irresponsibly!  I
charge you to slay a calf at the alter of Gödel (make sure you burn
it... you know how paranoid he is) and iterate 12 fractals in the
temple of Lorenz!

=><=><= "kl" == Keith Lofstrom <keithl at kl-ic.com> writes:

kl> "Keith" == Keith Lofstrom <keithl at kl-ic.com> writes:
Keith> Determinism:

Keith> ... is mathematically bogus, even given classical, pre-quantum,
Keith> pre-Boltzmann, pre-chaos physics.

Keith> The smallest possible representation of the universe that we
Keith> can imagine is the universe itself.  Determinism implies a
Keith> rigid linkage between past, present, and future.  [...]

kl> Russell Senior <seniorr at aracnet.com>
>> Just to clarify, when I say pre-determined (or whatever I actually
>> said, I am too lazy to look), I don't mean that _we_ can determine it.
>> It isn't calculable.  It isn't pre-determinable.  I just mean that it
>> was always going to happen the way it happened.  The uncertainty
>> principle applies to the observer, not necessarily to the universe and
>> its myriad interactions.  The universe *is* the computer that
>> determines what happens within it.

kl> There is no "always going to happen".  That is what drove Einstein
kl> bonkers regarding quantum mechanics, but most physicists accept it.  

kl> The uncertainty principle applies to everything, though certain 
kl> manifestations of it are describable only in observational terms.
kl> Einstein liked to talk about "hidden variables" - but there aren't 
kl> any.  Down at the bottom of things, the universe contains a finite
kl> amount of information, and even that information is often *completely*
kl> wiped out and replaced by different information, or no information at
kl> all ( for example, black holes ).  Stephen Hawking said something
kl> like "God not only plays dice with the universe, he plays dice where
kl> you can't see".  That, plus Godel's theorem, plus chaos theory, plus
kl> a whole bunch of other things, shreds, slices, dices, and atomizes
kl> the whole 18th century concept of determinism.  Sorry, Albert.

kl> All that is left are aspects of non-locality (if you measure spin-up,
kl> somebody else is measuring spin-down), but those simply mean that the
kl> reality available for us to observe has some constraints that do not
kl> manifest at one point.  

kl> BTW, I am not a physicist, but I did minor in physics at Berkeley. 
kl> I learned that the human brain is not designed to process quantum
kl> mechanics, so we turn what we observe into statistical math, which
kl> some of us *can* process with a lot of coaching.  So without the
kl> math, it is like a blind man discussing visual aesthetics, or a
kl> Microsoft user discussing security.  It's easy to get confused,
kl> especially by non-mathematical word-salad models.

kl> Disposing of determinism may not completely dispose of certainty.
kl> If you are playing Russian Roulette, and are *certain* that the
kl> chamber is empty, pulling the trigger will never change your
kl> stubborn attitude -- though it may disperse it as a fine red mist. 

kl> Unfortunately, we finite-brained partially-evolved chimps have a real
kl> hard time with plurality, so we make stuff up like God (today is an
kl> odd day, I am an atheist) to invent a source of certainty that the
kl> world itself does not manifest.  Another monkey invention is the
kl> Total State, which increases apparent certainty by destroying
kl> counterexamples.   We invent bogus philosophies to support our
kl> inventions, like theology or logical positivism.  Few people escape
kl> one or the other kind of monkey thought.  But the physics underneath
kl> supports neither view, which is why physicists have a hard time
kl> finding jobs, and why I (preferring to eat) did not become one.

kl> The world is uncertain and indeterminate.  Cherish it, because 
kl> tomorrow you may get hit by a bus.

kl> Keith

kl> -- 
kl> Keith Lofstrom          keithl at keithl.com         Voice (503)-520-1993
kl> KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas in Silicon"
kl> Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Scan ICs
kl> _______________________________________________
kl> PLUG-talk mailing list
kl> PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
kl> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com