# Determinism and Fatalism: What's the Difference?

Fil Albuquerque

Tue 23 Feb, 2010 11:51 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,

Reconstructo

Tue 23 Feb, 2010 11:54 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;131733 wrote:

I think the concept of randomness violates our human logic. We can understand the "randomness" that comes from an imperfect knowledge of causes, but not ideal randomness.

I used to program video games. I've seen how "random" Random functions can be (not very). The number is snatched from somewhere. Digital systems don't allow real randomness, only ignorance of causes. (But I could, of course, be wrong.)

Fil Albuquerque

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 12:01 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;131735 wrote:
I think the concept of randomness violates our human logic. We can understand the "randomness" that comes from an imperfect knowledge of causes, but not ideal randomness.

I used to program video games. I've seen how "random" Random functions can be (not very). The number is snatched from somewhere. Digital systems don't allow real randomness, only ignorance of causes. (But I could, of course, be wrong.)

ughaibu

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 12:03 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;131733 wrote:
can someone explain beyond reasonable doubt what random might mean ?
Didn't I do this yesterday? For the world to be determined, three conditions must obtain:
1) at all times the world has an exactly describable state
2) there are laws of nature that are the same in all times and places
3) given the state of the world at any time, the state of the world at any other time is exactly specified by the given state in conjunction with the laws of nature.
A consequence of the above is that a determined world is, in principle, completely describable mathematically. If there is mathematical randomness, which is to say, if there are features of the world for which there is no possible generating algorithm, then the world is not determined. I showed you previously how to construct the prefix of a real number for which the probability of the continuation being computable is zero.

Fil Albuquerque

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 12:12 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;131740 wrote:
Didn't I do this yesterday? For the world to be determined, three conditions must obtain:
1) at all times the world has an exactly describable state
2) there are laws of nature that are the same in all times and places
3) given the state of the world at any time, the state of the world at any other time is exactly specified by the given state in conjunction with the laws of nature.
A consequence of the above is that a determined world is, in principle, completely describable mathematically. If there is mathematical randomness, which is to say, if there are features of the world for which there is no possible generating algorithm, then the world is not determined. I showed you previously how to construct the prefix of a real number for which the probability of the continuation being computable is zero.

Reconstructo

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 12:18 am
@hue-man,
I do think it's debatable whether Causality is a transcendental projection or really a part of the world. The world does conform to this projection in the macro-realm, or it conforms enough to persuade us it conforms completely. Is this because at our scale of life, statistical averages becomes measurably predictable?

If the quatum realm is only statistical but not strictly predictable/contingent, then non-determinism becomes conceivable (although against the grain of our transcendental sense of causality.)

Just a thought humbly offered.

ughaibu

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 12:19 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;131743 wrote:
At some point, maintaining the claim of realism about determinism won't justify all the things that you're committed to denying. In fact, if one is interested in the truth, I dont see how throwing out anything, in order to claim realism about determinism, is justified.

Reconstructo

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 12:21 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;131743 wrote:

I think you're right to scrutinize these concepts. Infinity is a good issue in itself. It's created by means of negation, a negative prefix. So many of our potent philosophical terms are just that sort of negation. Anatole France wrote on this in the Garden of Epicurus. Derrida addresses it, but the Anatole France quotes within his text (White Mythology) are what really moved me.

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 01:22 AM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;131738 wrote:

I agree. It's as inconceivable as infinity or an infinitesimal. The question remains: is this because our brain/mind is programmed for causality?

Fil Albuquerque

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 12:25 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;131745 wrote:
At some point, maintaining the claim of realism about determinism won't justify all the things that you're committed to denying. In fact, if one is interested in the truth, I dont see how throwing out anything, in order to claim realism about determinism, is justified.

I agree...
...but you have to admit that randomness is impossibly irrational...i mean it just drives me crazy everytime I try to get it...

..the clue against it is around you everywhere...look at a flock of birds, or fish groups in the sea...they form patterns from "chaos"...

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 01:30 AM ----------

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 01:35 AM ----------

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 01:42 AM ----------

Reconstructo;131747 wrote:
I think you're right to scrutinize these concepts. Infinity is a good issue in itself. It's created by means of negation, a negative prefix. So many of our potent philosophical terms are just that sort of negation. Anatole France wrote on this in the Garden of Epicurus. Derrida addresses it, but the Anatole France quotes within his text (White Mythology) are what really moved me.

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 01:22 AM ----------

I agree. It's as inconceivable as infinity or an infinitesimal. The question remains: is this because our brain/mind is programmed for causality?

Reconstructo

Wed 24 Feb, 2010 01:14 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;131750 wrote:

Yes, good point. Why would our brain be programmed for causality if the world didn't mirror or inspire this program? An excellent objection to Kant. The only coutnerargument to this that I can currently think of is the possibility that the world is statistically predictable/causal only at our scale of life, but not at the micro scale -- quantum mechanics and such. I'm no quantum physicist. I'm just a layman who read a few exciting books. It could be smoke and mirrors. In any case, a rich subject.