You seem to be missing the idea that I’m assuming the computer is consistent. It doesn’t crash, it doesn’t have errors. For all intents and purposes it is abstract. The universe is quite simply represented by a finite set of data, and a finite set of rules. Where those things are stored is ultimately irrelevant to the example.
As to the observer, I don’t think you’ve made a case against the observer being a part of the simulation. Their both being comprised of “matter” is irrelevant, and not even necessary.
The observer could theoretically pause the simulation, check out the data (without changing it), and then set it running again. The observer has not intefered with the universe, and is not a part of it.
You make good points, however you’re introducing randomness to the argument, and it’s complicated things. I wasn’t even considering it with my example - I assumed there was none. Also, I am assuming we have the ability to predict the (currently) unpredictable, so that we can model such as QM laws on the hypothetical computer.
All I’m saying is that you can model the universe down to some level of complexity, and it will be somewhat accurate (and entirely deterministic within the simulation). If you want more accuracy you increase the complexity. You could theoretically continue increasing the complexity of the simulation to match the actual world more closely, to an arbitrary level of accuracy. As you increase the level of complexity your simulation remains deterministic.
Yeah, see my post above. I’m talking about computers as abstract machines, not subject to physical laws. They can be considered “perfect” or “consistent”. We’re speaking in theoreticals here, it doesn’t have to be physically implementable.
Quibles, determinism is simply causality. Every effect has a cause, and every cause is an effect of more causes. Thats all I believe. I believe this because its the way I have observed all the interactions of, well, everything in my life. The idea of something happening without a cause just seems absurd to me. I cant even comprehend it. It literally defies logic, and I place alot of faith in logic. You are right that theres no logical reason to value logic, it would be circular. Ide have to take a pragmatic aproach to this problem though. Logic just produces, its more usefull, more can be done with logic because of its predicting capabilities. For the universe to be determined the way you think I mean requires that all the causes of the universe must be able to be represented in the reductionist manner you speak of. I cannot say that this is possible. I would hope it would be, but even if it never happens, this does not throw a wrench into my belief system. Even if it turns out that the universe is ever changing, that the laws that seem so absolute right now just change, that one day in the future gravity would just turn off, this is not a wrench in my system. We will just simply have to search for the reason of this change. Wheather we find it or not, to simply label it as random is to abandon the search for reason. Its useless, nothing can be done once you stop searching, but as we have seen, results are plentifull when we assume there is a reason to find. Thats the value in determinism and logic.
In the world of General Relativity, every effect is preceded by a cause. But this is not always the case on a quantum level! As much are our Aristotlian minds can’t understand the Universe in that way, the reality is that time can flow backwards and forwards at the quantum level and effect can proceed cause. I realize it doesn’t “make sense” the way we’d like things to make sense, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
I am not a scientist, and I only pick up little bits of info here and there. I definately don’t hold my knowledge to be extentive or infallible. But I do know it’s inaccurate to say scientists are calling some quantum activities random simply as a copout- they have good evidence to support their claims. Again, evidence we probably couldn’t understand even if they dumbed it down for us.
All I’m saying is that you can’t make up your own definition for “reasonable”, back it up with Dictionary.com, and expect to convince the Universe to go along with it! Quantum particles don’t always “obey” the laws of physics (again, as we know them), so why should they bow to the tenets of logic?
I’m not just saying they’re claiming this as a cop-out. I’m suggesting that it’s not possible to have direct evidence that a behaviour/event is random… Skip back in the thread a bit, we talked about this earlier. If you wanted to address the points I made back then I’d be more than happy.
I too am no specialist in Quantum Physics, but of the limited knowledge I have of it, this statement;
"the reality is that time can flow backwards and forwards at the quantum level and effect can proceed cause. "
is not supported by Quantum Physics. I think such a stance cannot be supported by Quantum Physics, because without standard causality, we lose the means to observe the world around us.
Anyways, I just had the most amazing experience. While contemplating this issue, I turned on the tv, and an amazing movie came on that pretty much details our exact conversations on this thread. Quite the coincidence really. I was bewildered by it. Its a great movie, and I was wondering if anyone has seen it. Its called, “What the Bleep Do We Know” If no one has seen it, I recomend it to everyone. The opinions of this movie will probably be most greatly apreciated by Quibles. Im telling you Quibles, if you havn’t already seen this movie, you absolutely HAVE to. When watching the movie I felt like you were arguing with me from the TV… Anyways, I recomend this movie to all that are intersted in this topic. It gets pretty screwy and abstract at points, but it tickled me philosophicly more so than any movie I have seen in ages. What a fruity statement I just made…
Yes- sorry, I meant precede. And yes, it’s also true than at a quantum level, the cause of a thing can occur after the effect. Time, at least in our very linear, rigid way of thinking, doesn’t operate in the same predictable one-way fashion as it does in the macro Newtonian Universe.
Of course, that does seriously screw with us! That’s just the way it is, though.
The evidence we have may not agree with your philosophies, but it’s dangerous to start batting around words like “impossible” when discussing quantum mechanics. You’re likely to end up with egg on your face.
Oh, I was simply suggesting the idea that providing direct evidence that some events are random isn’t possible. I don’t necessarily believe this personally, it’s just a line or argument I was following (although it appears to me to have some merit). I don’t know if the idea actually contradicts quantum mechanics (I would suggest it might not).
I find it fascinating just how damned goofy the Universe really is! If I was a physicist, I dunno whether I’d be jumping for joy or pulling my hair out.
I have just attempted to read up on randomness in quantum physics. Unfortunately I haven’t found any actually useful sites yet, but I did come across this:
I don’t know if that site is indicative of most of the literature on this topic, but they seem to bandy about the term “random” with unaccountable frivolity. Here, they appear to be using the term “intrinsically random” to describe whether photons will pass through semi-transparent mirrors unscathed or not. I was under the impression that if a photon passed through the mirror it was because it didn’t collide with any atoms on its way through. Am I incorrect here?
I suppose the concept might be that the photons collide with atoms, resulting in the photon either continuing in the same direction or being reflected. In which case I have to wonder what their reasoning is for this phenomena being “intrinsically random”.
Anyway, it appears that the term “random” as used in the field of quantum physics may simply mean “unpredictable by us at the present moment”. This being different to what I would term “true randomness”.
Phaedrus, here are some quotes I found from big names in Quantum Physics:
“… the statistical theories hide a completely determined and ascertainable reality behind variables which elude our experimental techniques.”
(Louis De Broglie)
And heres the website’s analysis of this quote:
“This last statement is very important. It is the same position that Einstein supported. The Wave Structure of Matter confirms this view. Reality is necessarily connected (by Space and Spherical In & Out Waves that form matter) but we lack knowledge of all its interconnections (hidden variables), which gives rise to the statistical / probability aspects of reality as determined by Quantum Theory.”
So you see, randomness being supported by QP is not so cut and dry as you say. Louis and Einstein happen to take mine and Soc’s stand on the issue, though I am sure other big names have taken the opposite stance. This is enough for me, because it shows that QP does not neccisarily disprove my deterministic views.
I never said it was cut and dried. But for every name you can pull out of your hat, there’s another scientist that disagrees. Hell, Einstein couldn’t make up his mind about this stuff. Keep in mind this shit’s all theory!
At any rate, your deterministic views are philosophy and completely unsupported by science. This isn’t necessarily bad, but at least you must acknowledge that you’re going thru the “evidence buffet” and only putting stuff on your plate that you already know you like. That’s a good way to buttress an argument, but not a great way to expand your wisdom.
Actually I think Science does support my theory. Not a universal law of science or anything like that, but in the majority of Scientific implementation, causality and determinism are essential. Imagine for a moment that Quantum Physics never needed to exist, imagine that Einsteins Relativity sufficiently described quantum interactions. This would be pretty much a universal law of physics and would wholly support my deterministic views. But unfortunatly quantum interactions were found to be too screwy to be predictable. But Quantum Physics does not eliminate Einstein’s Relativity, because all experimental evidence supports Relativity on the macro level. It merely says that the system is incomplete because it doesn’t account for the micro world, but it is a consistent set of macro laws. It still completely supports and suggests causal relationships among objects, just not all objects. So I can say that Science supports macro determinism. I believe in total determinism though, and the fact that we have encountered determinism on the macro level makes it more likely that it will be encounterd again, on the micro level. Until we encounter an alternative to determinism, determinism will be the more likely result. I have made the point that Quantum Physics provides no evidence of the alternative to determinism. It is mere uncertainty. We have never encountered the alternative to determinism, that being pure randomness. Heres an analougous argument:
We have an atom, and we have evidence that this atom moves in direction A. We have never known any atom that has moved in a direction other than direction A. We have another atom, but we are unable to determine which way it moves. We are uncertain. My argument is that it is more likely that the second atom moves in direction A instead of an alternate direction B, simply because we have never been aware of an atom moving in direction B, we only have evidence of direction A existing. Direction B is conceptualized, it is infinitly improbable. Until evidence for direction B is discovered, than the known direction A is much more likely. Thus, since we have evidence of determinism working on the macro level, but we have never seen evidence of pure randomness, determinism is more likely to apply to the micro level than randomness. Randomness is purely conceptuall, we have never experienced it.
It’s like there are two different Universes- a macro one, governed by General Relativity, and a micro one, governed by QM. Both are “real” (if we assume anything is), but operate on different sets of rules. Many have sought a way to tie the two sets of rules together in a GUT, but none have as yet succeeded. I think to say that since we see your rigid causality in one set of circumstances that it will emerge in the micro level is a leap of faith more than an assumption based on evidence.
Bear in mind that while Newtonian physics explains the macro universe reasonably well, some things defy it- that’s why QM arose in the first place. The acceleration of the expansion of the Universe completely stymies General Relativity- it was for this reason that Einstein first conceived his cosmological constant. He later called it “the biggest mistake of his career,” but now a century after he proposed it, it’s getting a second look. Obviously, the jury is still out on the whole dark matter/ dark energy thing, but I’d say GR isn’t adequate to explain the Universe.
Once again, I wonder why you’re so dead-set on Determinism. Forgive me if I’m way off, but you seem to be starting with a conclusion and choosing only the facts that support it. Ultimately all of philosophy is a bit or relatively harmless nonsense, anyway, so I can cut you some slack there. But ultimately there’s likely never be any truly compelling case one way for the other. It will always just be speculation about how many angels can get on that pin head.
But to show I don’t have a compulsive need to get the last word in, I’ll cede the honor to you.
My initial question was if Quantum Physics completely eliminates the possibility of determinism, which I think ive answered myself with a little research… From what I have learned and understood, Quantum Physics doesn’t even provide evidence against determinism. It just doesn’t provide evidence for it. I have found in my readings of several Quantum Physicists that the great majority of them are or were dead set on determinism as well. Those that were must have been greatly disenfranchised by being unable to apply their determinism onto Quantum interactions as they were able to do onto macro interactions. I believe I am dead set on determinism because its just so obvious. Its out there. I notice it every day. I simply cannot comprehend a break of causality, can you? I am open to it sure, as open as I am to any possibility (I do not dwell in absolutes, anything can happen) but I do not have the capacity to comprehend it. It goes against everything I have learned. It goes against the concept of learning itself. Its mystical, unkown, unproven, cannot be known, cannot be proven. How can something happen for no reason? You see what I just did? Im asking for a reason where there is theoreticly none. Thats the conundrum. I cannot imagine such a world, and I dont think you can either. I dont think anyone can.
“you seem to be starting with a conclusion and choosing only the facts that support it”
Well, only facts that support it exist, cant you see that? Facts cannot support the alternative. Providing facts would be providing evidence, providing reason. But the alternative to determinism is randomness, no reason. How does one provide reason/evidence/facts for the theory that none of these, reason/evidence/facts, exist. A break of causality would mean a break in the methods we use to provide evidence. The scientific method would be useless. Logic would be useless. I am not saying this cannot happen, but if it does, it means the end of the world as we know it. There are certainly problems with determinism and causality. Whats the first cause? Is it an infinite chain of causality? What cause caused causality in the first place? But I do not dwell on the conceptuall. I dwell on the current, the usefull, that which affects us. The rest must be left in uncertainty. Let the methods we have of providing evidence and reason work it out. If they fail, we can do nothing more. We are stuck, we can make no conclusions about anything. And I had heard somewhere that Quantum Physics introduces true randomness. This scared the shit out of me, because it indicates the failure of those methods. It indicates the end of the world. But all is well now. We still have the scientific method, logic still has its predicting capapbilities. Quantum Physics is not a threat. Just a big new world to search and find reasons for. Life is good.
“I think to say that since we see your rigid causality in one set of circumstances that it will emerge in the micro level is a leap of faith more than an assumption based on evidence.”
What about my analogous atom argument? We have only ever seen causality. How can we expect anything else?
heh, I’m still here (sorta). I’ve been really busy with school and stuff the past few days. Hopefully I’ll be able to join again in a day or so… sounds like you guys are findin’ some good stuff without me though
Quantum particles don’t always “obey” the laws of physics (again, as we know them), so why should they bow to the tenets of logic? 
And yes, it’s also true than at a quantum level, the cause of a thing can occur after the effect. Time, at least in our very linear, rigid way of thinking, doesn’t operate in the same predictable one-way fashion as it does in the macro Newtonian Universe.
That’s just the way it is, though.
