Is Logic Universal?

@ahmedjbh,

ahmedjbh;85382 wrote:

They maybe logical in their function, but not in their result, as that will depend on the rules, and as others may testify, sometimes the chess computer plays a weird move.

The logical operators the code is based upon are (supposedly) universal:
And, Or, Nor, If, Then, Else ...etc.
However the game chess has its own particular logic.
A genious move can turn into a weird move as soon as your opponent's response changes the picture.
But even if Chess itself was based on universal logic, that doesn't mean that a computer has access to a pure essence of logic to play perfectly.
On the contrary.
He only operates logically. That's all.
He also needs water for cooking like we do.
And when he makes a choice between several options he makes a decision based on logic -> not on wisdom.
That's the point i make.

@Exebeche,

A chess program uses trees with stored results and metrics to make it 'choose'; it only has one 'choice' when it comes down to it. Every procedure is explicitly algorithmic.

You could argue that the computer and the software makes a decent analogy to critical reasoning and experience acting synergistically, albeit a very simplified one. The brain seems to operate in parallel binary and it can 'compute' in the broadest sense of the word, so it appears that many aspects of it lend itself to the analogy ( I think that it is difficult to extend the word 'computer' to include brains until we reach the point that we fully understand the brain in terms of its functions on every level).

@Kielicious,

It seems to me that if by 'logic' you mean the foundational structure of arguments such as 'if bob is old, and old people are chubby, then Bob is chubby,' then yes logic is universal, but only in the anthropogenic world. If you mean any specific content of logic, any specific statement based on some premise, then no, logic is not universal, even in our own world. If, on the other hand, 'universal' truly means universal, including the world from our own and any other concievable perspective, then the statement 'logic is universal' simply doesn't mean anything. What would it mean for a mountain to have logic? Logic requires representation, defining something in terms of something else: thought. I actually do hold that everything enjoys some form of experience, but certainly not thought in any sense which remotely resembles our own. Ergo, no logic is possible in the world from most perspectives.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;85453 wrote:

A chess program uses trees with stored results and metrics to make it 'choose'; it only has one 'choice' when it comes down to it. Every procedure is explicitly algorithmic.

Sorry but this is not correct;
You are certainly right that most chesscomputers are equipped with a small number of possible game situations.
But in fact this number is tiny compared to the number of actually possible situations:
The number of possible chess game situations is estimated between 10^115 and 10^120 which is slightly more than there are atoms in the universe (10^80);
Any chess computer needs an ability to calculate a certain number of possible moves.
He has to compare the resulting situations and evaluate -> make a choice.

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;84880 wrote:

When considering the reasoning behind an assumption we would all like to believe that we have applied a logic based foundation to our conclusions.

My question takes into account that what may seem logical to some is not logic to others.

In the philosophy where we create what we think, and in the environment where energy alone is the only source of reality, and where consciousness does not exist and is illusionary, does logic actually play any part in actually acquiring knowledge, or can any mind define knowledge and logic by any definition they so choose because they are creating reality in just surmising the possibilities?

The above is NOT my personal philosophical view. I am simply curious about what people that hold to those views think.

Reposting the original thought here!

Most of you are addressing logic as some sort of mathematical computation and/or series of logistics.

I would like to discuss it in a more anthropological sense, as Bright Noon put it. More with regard to its actual usage in everyday application.

The question was in reference to how logic is regarded in the context of an existence where man creates his own reality simply by living it.

Many people are adopting this theosophy of being their own gods and creating their own universes. It is said that creation is nothing more than individual reality building upon itself through the working minds of individuals. That may not be an appropriate exact definition, but it is close enough.

So I am wondering, in a universe that is being designed by the minds of individuals, how logic plays a role in the decisions they make and ion the reailty of their situational circumstances.

If it is their own creation, than does logic also become a part of their own creation and theerfore defined by their rules? Are the laws of nature and physics beyond their control or will their creation devise logistics that pertain only to their creation?

These are questions that delve deep into the belief system of theosophy and many other creation ideologies.

I believe that logic is immovable and invulnerable and does not apply to individual circumstance. The logic of a situation is not situational. In any decision there will be specific choices, but there will always be only one logical decision when the rest are exhausted. This is where wisdom plays the role of figuring out the actual logical choice of the options. And this is also where learning how to find the logical choice makes one wiser over time through the experiences of finding those logical choices.

Knowledge can still be gained by making the wrong choices, you will learn the consequences of those decisions. So knowledge is not necessarily the goal here.

But if you are one of those who believe that the universe is of your own making and that you are your own god or a part of as collective of gods creating this universe, do you also believe that you are creating that one logical choice that overrules the rest? Is logic universal regardless of your creating, or is logic like the laws of nature, and unalterable?

@Pathfinder,

Very interesting, i believe first we must establish reality and then create logical conclusion based on various input gathered. To create reality we must first commonly agree on certain truths and understand what we encounter in our environment to be definitive. After we agree on what is reality then we can create logical assumptions for the set of truths. Logic in universal but is Dependant on reality. Logical is universal because regardless of what reality we're going to be talking about, logic is really just drawing conclusions based on the world around you. If in another reality, yes is no, then that's true and the logic is the same but the reality is different.

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;85502 wrote:

Sorry but this is not correct;
You are certainly right that most chesscomputers are equipped with a small number of possible game situations.
But in fact this number is tiny compared to the number of actually possible situations:
The number of possible chess game situations is estimated between 10^115 and 10^120 which is slightly more than there are atoms in the universe (10^80);
Any chess computer needs an ability to calculate a certain number of possible moves.
He has to compare the resulting situations and evaluate -> make a choice.

I was not trying to say that the computer stores all of the games (though since quantum storage deals with the relationships between particles, the number of atoms in the universe would not necessarily restrict that kind of storage, would it?), but that the computer stores pathways or trees of moves and it has a metric built into it to evaluate which move gives the best outcome. The metric for evaluation is the most important part, it cannot 'choose' without deterministic parameters for the 'choice'. If you start as white and play a sequence of moves in one game and do the same in another against the same program, the responses do not change and will not change. This is because the 'choice' of moves is entirely deterministic, and it has to be; all programs follow determined recursive procedures.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;85606 wrote:

I was not trying to say that the computer stores all of the games [...] but that the computer stores pathways or trees of moves and it has a metric built into it to evaluate which move gives the best outcome.

Ok, you kind of made it look like a chess computer has for each possible game situation an according page to look it up.
But your answer still isn't correct.
A chess computer does not store trees of moves. It calculates each and every tree newly in every new game (except the really most basic functions).
It wouldn't even make sense to store a 'move' because a 'move' in a different game situation causes a completely different impact. [edit: a new tree]
But anyway, what's your point about the algorithm being deterministic?
The computer can theoretically get into 10^115 different functional states which have not been programmed into it.
I wouldn't really call this deterministic.
The reason why the computers output is pretty determined is that logical reasoning is pretty determined.
If Gretel gets told by her Mom to get some cheap apples from the market and she sees in one store they sell an apple for 2 Dollars each, and in the other store they sell the same apples for 3 dollars per pair, her decision will be pretty determined.
The only reason she could react unexpectedly would be that she didn't pay attention at school.
That's not to be expected from computers.
However both will normally follow logical algorithms.
The fact that you call the evaluating algorithm for chess computers metric just makes it more mathematical and more difficult to understand, however it's only a logical algorithm nothing more.
The fact that logical algorithms are more determined than others does not make a computers choice less of a decision than Gretel's.
If you're honest, you are trying to protect the idea of making a decision as something human from the potential of computers .
Remember that we are not talking about free will here, it's a simple decision that a computer can make.
And in fact there already are chess programs who do respond with different reactions to the same situation.

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;85652 wrote:

However both will normally follow logical algorithms.
The fact that you call the evaluating algorithm for chess computers metric just makes it more mathematical and more difficult to understand, however it's only a logical algorithm nothing more.
The fact that logical algorithms are more determined than others does not make a computers choice less of a decision than Gretel's.
If you're honest, you are trying to protect the idea of making a decision as something human from the potential of computers .
Remember that we are not talking about free will here, it's a simple decision that a computer can make.
And in fact there already are chess programs who do respond with different reactions to the same situation.

but isnt their response determined by their programming?

i mean a human being had to program something into it, and depending on which move the human puts in, the computer's choice is limited to that. in a situation in chess there is often more than one choice of good moves. wouldnt that be why different programs produce different results?

i would like to see two computers with the same program give different results...then i would be really interested. or the same computer give different results to the same situation different times it comes up.

:eek: is that what you are saying?

@Pathfinder,

If you wish to personalize your own universe, logic can probably be altered and redefined. Depending on the given situation, there can be a series of algorithms performed that may all result in the same logical conclusion. One may not necessarily surpass the rest if the results are sensible and satisfying. However, out of convenience, one may find a more satisfying solution of the rest. It varies with the situation. Logic can be universal to the point that a reasonable conclusion can be reached by all. And knowledge can be an instant result from a reasonable conclusion along with the virtue and utilization of wisdom.

@salima,

salima;85664 wrote:

but isnt their response determined by their programming?

i mean a human being had to program something into it, and depending on which move the human puts in, the computer's choice is limited to that. in a situation in chess there is often more than one choice of good moves. wouldnt that be why different programs produce different results?

i would like to see two computers with the same program give different results...then i would be really interested. or the same computer give different results to the same situation different times it comes up.

:eek: is that what you are saying?

That's what i'm saying.
These programs are based on massive parallel computing. To explain what this means however i first have to insist that a chess computer does not play based on the moves a human has put in.
You have to see that if you want your chess computer to win a game you have to apply a more holistic concept.
It doesn't make sense to tell a computer what is a good move.
You always have to look at the whole board. A genious move in one situation can turn into a stupid move if the constellation is changed just a tiny bit in a far away area on the board.
That's why a chess computer will not play based on 'how good is a move' the way a soldier on a battlefield would do it.
It has to evaluate each and every possible constellation:
When you start the new game with the white figures, you have, i think twenty possible moves you can make. Your opponent also has only twenty possible moves (in the beginning).
However this doesn't mean the computer has to calculate fourty moves. No, for every possible first move there is the number of 20 possible responses, that's 400 possible constellations after the first two moves (!) The computer has to evaluate each of these constellations.
This is what is meant by the so called trees: For each move having X possible reactions makes the possible game situations grow like a tree.
Permanently evaluating, the computer doesn't continue 'obviously' useless branches of a tree, however there is no way around evaluating each and every game situation by itself.
The computer has to 'evaluate' millions of possible situations before it makes a decision.

What's new is the massive parallel computing. This is like you start several computers at a time calculating possible trees.
These programs (can) react differently in precisely the same situations.
I have read an article that reduces the different results of computing to the fact that the different calculations can take different (processing) time. However these IT-guys are normally not familiar with the concepts of complex dynamic systems (also known as Chaos theory) which i regard responsible: Minimum local change has maximum global effect, which makes appear even the slightest differences in consideredly determined processes.
Which shows that the word 'determined' is not as absolute as it's often understood in the sense of determinism (which considers the whole universe a 100% deterministic process) .

In other words the calculation algorithms are determined, but only to a certain degree.
When you have to make a decision based on values that can not be compared numerically this will increase the non-determined aspect at an exponential rate.
Let's say: Gretel can see that the apples in store number two are obviously cheaper, but they are green apples which don't taste as good as the red apples in store number one.
This will make her decision a lot more undetermined.
She will make her decision based on intuition.
That's something computers don't have so far.

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;85652 wrote:

Ok, you kind of made it look like a chess computer has for each possible game situation an according page to look it up.
But your answer still isn't correct.
A chess computer does not store trees of moves. It calculates each and every tree newly in every new game (except the really most basic functions).
It wouldn't even make sense to store a 'move' because a 'move' in a different game situation causes a completely different impact. [edit: a new tree]
But anyway, what's your point about the algorithm being deterministic?
The computer can theoretically get into 10^115 different functional states which have not been programmed into it.
I wouldn't really call this deterministic.
The reason why the computers output is pretty determined is that logical reasoning is pretty determined.
If Gretel gets told by her Mom to get some cheap apples from the market and she sees in one store they sell an apple for 2 Dollars each, and in the other store they sell the same apples for 3 dollars per pair, her decision will be pretty determined.
The only reason she could react unexpectedly would be that she didn't pay attention at school.
That's not to be expected from computers.
However both will normally follow logical algorithms.
The fact that you call the evaluating algorithm for chess computers metric just makes it more mathematical and more difficult to understand, however it's only a logical algorithm nothing more.
The fact that logical algorithms are more determined than others does not make a computers choice less of a decision than Gretel's.
If you're honest, you are trying to protect the idea of making a decision as something human from the potential of computers .
Remember that we are not talking about free will here, it's a simple decision that a computer can make.
And in fact there already are chess programs who do respond with different reactions to the same situation.

I generally agree with your statements, but I have a question. I know very very little about computer science, but it seems to me that a chess program (or any other 'decision-making' sort of program) should indeed have always the same reaction to the same situation. And I don't mean, by 'same situation,' a state of affairs on the chessboard at any given moment. I mean that, if a program is presented with exactly the same game (i.e. if the state of affairs on the board in every moment of the game is the same) it should react in the same way, should it not? If it didn't then it would simply have been programed to alter its reactions to the same situation, no? There cannot be truly 'random' acts. Any apparent randomness in a program is just behavior which has been programmed to appear random: i.e. such that the pattern cannot be guessed by the person playing against the computer. Of course, the same holds for human beings, pool balls, the movement of waves in the ocean, etc. There are no random events, only events whose causes we have not yet found.

@Pathfinder,

This is not a discussion about the options programmed into a computer software program.

This is about those who suggest that their thoughts and the collective thought processes of every living being is actually the building block and force behind all of creation. I am sure that you have heard of this teaching. many theosophists teach this.

My question is if one is capable of creating their own reality are they also creating what is logical and what is not, or is logic a constant ties to the origin of the universe that is outside of their reach.

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;85877 wrote:

This is not a discussion about the options programmed into a computer software program.

This is about those who suggest that their thoughts and the collective thought processes of every living being is actually the building block and force behind all of creation. I am sure that you have heard of this teaching. many theosophists teach this.

My question is if one is capable of creating their own reality are they also creating what is logical and what is not, or is logic a constant ties to the origin of the universe that is outside of their reach.

Like I said before, logic cannot be universal if you mean either that 1) everything in the universe behaves in accordance with the basic rules of logic, or 2) that everything in the universe practices logic as we do.

1. There is no reason to assume that the external reality (existing independely of our experience of it) behaves according to our rules, whether of logic, or physics, or anything else. Our logic is our own creation, which is true only in so far as it pertains to our own experiences and arises from our unique perspective. It is subjective and not universal; and so there is no reason to assume, though neither is there any way to disprove, that the external world functions according to basic logical premises, e.g. a thing cannot be in two places at once. That statement may sound pretty solid, and it is solid within our particular phenomenological world, but the problem is in the terms; there are no 'things' or 'places' except in our minds; everything is one, so the statement 'a thing cannot be in two places at once' simply loses all meaning if applied to things outside our world.

2. We practice logic; i.e. we think about logical relationships, and apply our logical system to problems in order to solve them. We think. While I do hold that everything in the world enjoys some form of experience, and that experience is the basis for thought, not everything thinks, and almost nothing thinks in the manner that we do. An abstraction such as pure logic is an nth derivative of basic sensation. For an entity to have the capacity for such complex thought, the entity has itself to be extremely complex in its interaction with the world. (aside; we humans do not perform the many complex tasks we do because of the complexity of our thinking; rather, our thinking is exceedingly complex because so is our behavior as a 'real' thing interacting dumbly with other things) Most things are not complex enough to generate the higher orders of thought, including abstract, formal logic.

in short; plants and split-rail fences don't think, so they don't practice logic

Therefore, if 'real' objects outside of our experience are not as complex as we are (and so far we havn't met anything that is), cannot think and cannot practice logic, and if they also don't follow dumbly in their behavior our logical rules because those rules have meaning only for us and our world, then logic is not universal in any sense. Of course, a million years from now, when homo sapiens is spread out across light years and has seen wild, unimaginably things, we will conclude erroneously, as we always do, that the fact that llogic appears to be followed by everything in the universe proves that logic is universal. But again, that is only because we see the universe through our own eyes; we cannot help but find everything to be logical. There is no mental alternative; we are not psychologcally capable of seeing something existing in two places at once, but that says something about us, not about reality.

@Pathfinder,

Noon,

Do you believe there is an alternate or parallel universe where others are creating an existence of their own device?

@Pathfinder,

If there is a universe, and then also a parallel universe, then we simply used 'universe' to mean 'a part of the universe.' Universe, as I use it, refers to everything. There cannot be, by definition, anything outside the universe if it includes everything. Though, you might say that each phenomenological world (the world-image from any given perspective) is a kind of alternate universe; there are many and they disagree, I assume, or a very fundemental level.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;85851 wrote:

I mean that, if a program is presented with exactly the same game (i.e. if the state of affairs on the board in every moment of the game is the same) it should react in the same way, should it not? If it didn't then it would simply have been programed to alter its reactions to the same situation, no? There cannot be truly 'random' acts. Any apparent randomness in a program is just behavior which has been programmed to appear random: i.e. such that the pattern cannot be guessed by the person playing against the computer. Of course, the same holds for human beings, pool balls, the movement of waves in the ocean, etc. There are no random events, only events whose causes we have not yet found.

A chess computer might sometimes get to the point where its evaluation results in having to choose between two or more options that appear just as good as the other. If it uses a randomizer to choose, there is no need for it to be 'true' coincidence.

We should not forget that the so called Chaos theory is a child of a computer calculation.
It was E. Lorenz, a meteorologist who was totally baffled to get two weather results from his computer that were completely the opposite.
His computer did not have a defect, which had been his first thought, so when he did some investigation on the calculations he found out that the reason was the slight difference in a few numbers and the calculations were correct.
This was the birth hour of the theory of complex dynamic systems.
To complex dynamic systems the tiniest change of a local value can cause a complete change of the global system behaviour.
A butterfly has never caused a hurrican however this is the more popular attempt to describe it metaphorical.

The idea of computers that you have is classical: Determined like a clockwork.
However computers are more and more used for simulations of just what i describe above : complex dynamic systems. (Of course i'm not talking about flight simulators but about scenarios like e.g. biotopes.)
Simulations of complex dynamic systems are highly undetermined. They are so undetermined that in most cases there is no other way than running the simulation and see what the output is.
This is the case especially when the simulated system is subject to non linear functions.
You could say the simulation itself is the calculation.
Calculating the global climate for example would be such a project.
You may have noticed that scientists start to obstain from making a precise prediction for the future but rather talk about different possible scenarios.
You have to run the simulation over and over again to find out how the different dynamics of the system in different areas interact and what effects little changes in the system cause.
I guess one possible reason for a function to be non linear is this differing behaviour of a system in different areas ( fractals are graphical descriptions). The more there are selfperpetuating dynamics included the more the system behaves chaotic.
So it's not correct that a computer program is a hundred percent determined.
You can not calculate what a simulation will look like after a billion steps, unless you run the simulation itself.

To make a long story short: No. A system that is subject to a non linear function is not determined.

Your point of view that the universe is completely determined is not as widely accepted anymore as it was in Newton's times.
The point is, if there was only the slightest uncertainty for the universe to behave in two or more ways, the complete determinism of the universe would break down.
And with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle we have more than a slight uncertainty.
I know that Einstein defended the deterministic way till he died. But he was a classical physicist who fought against quantum mechanics for the rest of his life after his relativity theory. Actually he failed.

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;85652 wrote:

Ok, you kind of made it look like a chess computer has for each possible game situation an according page to look it up.
But your answer still isn't correct.
A chess computer does not store trees of moves. It calculates each and every tree newly in every new game (except the really most basic functions).
It wouldn't even make sense to store a 'move' because a 'move' in a different game situation causes a completely different impact. [edit: a new tree]
But anyway, what's your point about the algorithm being deterministic?
The computer can theoretically get into 10^115 different functional states which have not been programmed into it.
I wouldn't really call this deterministic.
The reason why the computers output is pretty determined is that logical reasoning is pretty determined.
If Gretel gets told by her Mom to get some cheap apples from the market and she sees in one store they sell an apple for 2 Dollars each, and in the other store they sell the same apples for 3 dollars per pair, her decision will be pretty determined.
The only reason she could react unexpectedly would be that she didn't pay attention at school.
That's not to be expected from computers.
However both will normally follow logical algorithms.
The fact that you call the evaluating algorithm for chess computers metric just makes it more mathematical and more difficult to understand, however it's only a logical algorithm nothing more.
The fact that logical algorithms are more determined than others does not make a computers choice less of a decision than Gretel's.
If you're honest, you are trying to protect the idea of making a decision as something human from the potential of computers .
Remember that we are not talking about free will here, it's a simple decision that a computer can make.
And in fact there already are chess programs who do respond with different reactions to the same situation.

The distinction is that the brain does not necessarily map to a Turing machine. Gretel does not have to follow the instructions given to her and any input data is only tangentially related to her actions.

Besides, following a logical path to a goal is not necessarily equivalent to making a decision. You have to decide to accept the task, you have to evaluate the potential paths to take and decide which is most efficient and you have to decide what your criteria are for efficiency, and after that, you have to decide to take the most efficient path. Typically it is up to whoever is running the program to initiate actions in the program (or at least start the program).

Question: Are those chess programs based on probabilistic algorithms? Besides, isn't chess decidable? I've seen projections that claim chess will be solved within thirty years; there will be one perfect response to every move. There is some debate about its solvability (on top of that, chess could be NP-complete).

---------- Post added 08-27-2009 at 05:51 PM ----------

Exebeche;86101 wrote:

We should not forget that the so called Chaos theory is a child of a computer calculation.
It was E. Lorenz, a meteorologist who was totally baffled to get two weather results from his computer that were completely the opposite.
His computer did not have a defect, which had been his first thought, so when he did some investigation on the calculations he found out that the reason was the slight difference in a few numbers and the calculations were correct.

The idea of computers that you have is classical: Determined like a clockwork.
However computers are more and more used for simulations of just what i describe above : complex dynamic systems. (Of course i'm not talking about flight simulators but about scenarios like e.g. biotopes.)
Simulations of complex dynamic systems are highly undetermined. They are so undetermined that in most cases there is no other way than running the simulation and see what the output is.
This is the case especially when the simulated system is subject to non linear functions.
You could say the simulation itself is the calculation.
Calculating the global climate for example would be such a project.
You may have noticed that scientists start to obstain from making a precise prediction for the future but rather talk about different possible scenarios.
You have to run the simulation over and over again to find out how the different dynamics of the system in different areas interact and what effects little changes in the system cause.
I guess one possible reason for a function to be non linear is this differing behaviour of a system in different areas ( fractals are graphical descriptions). The more there are selfperpetuating dynamics included the more the system behaves chaotic.
So it's not correct that a computer program is a hundred percent determined.
You can not calculate what a simulation will look like after a billion steps, unless you run the simulation itself.

To make a long story short: No. A system that is subject to a non linear function is not determined.

Actually, Chaos theory was a child of astronomy. Henri Poincare discovered the basic irregularities while trying to solve the three body problem.

Are Turing machines non deterministic? Nope, it has been proven that every non-deterministic Turing machine is equivalent to some deterministic one. That a program can model a chaotic system does not mean that in reality the program is non deterministic. Unfortunately, I don't know the specifics of the programs that model non deterministic phenomena, but I do know that every computer maps to a Turing machine.

The point is that (unless we are talking about quantum computing) your computer is very much deterministic.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;86037 wrote:

If there is a universe, and then also a parallel universe, then we simply used 'universe' to mean 'a part of the universe.' Universe, as I use it, refers to everything. There cannot be, by definition, anything outside the universe if it includes everything. Though, you might say that each phenomenological world (the world-image from any given perspective) is a kind of alternate universe; there are many and they disagree, I assume, or a very fundemental level.

ah very good Noon, exatly what I hoped you might say.

I guess I was trying to figure out your take on how creation comes about, but after this and other posts in other threads I am beginning to see your stance.

@Pathfinder,

That was very interesting Exebeche, thank you. I wish I had more of an interest in technical sciences, as this (complex system dynamics) would be useful in developing my philosophical ideas. However, from that angle (philosophical, not technical) I do have an objection.

Quote:

So it's not correct that a computer program is a hundred percent determined. You can not calculate what a simulation will look like after a billion steps, unless you run the simulation itself.

I think this get's to the root of the problem. The fact that we are unable to predict what a modeling computer will generate is not proof that this end result is non-determined. Once, we could not predict when the full moon comes out; was it not determined then? If by 'random' or 'chaotic,' you mean only 'unpredictable' then you are quite correct in saying that the result of a modeling computer is random. In that case, it is still determined. If, on the other hand, you mean by 'chaotic' or 'random' that the result is not determined (i.e. that the scenario generated is not the result of a certain set of factors, however absurdly complex and inscrutable those factors may be) then you must believe that events can occur without causes: i.e. magic.

Quote:

Your point of view that the universe is completely determined is not as widely accepted anymore as it was in Newton's times. The point is, if there was only the slightest uncertainty for the universe to behave in two or more ways, the complete determinism of the universe would break down.

Whose 'slightest uncertainty' is this? I'm sure you're not suggesting that the universe itself is uncertain what to do, as that would be an absurd personification. As far as I know, certainty and uncertainty are not affairs that trouble shoes, coffee cups, mud puddles, etc. I assume you mean that, if we humans, who let's say believe in determinism, become ever so slightly uncertain about how the universe is going to develop, then that belief falls apart. That's quite true I suppose, but it doesn't mean that the belief has been disproven. This 'slightest uncertainty' says more about us than the world.

I find it amusing that determinism is currently the minority, eccentric opinion. The Greeks and Romans, among others throughout history, assumed that the world was entirely deterministic, and that notion caused them no trouble or lost sleep. People now seemt to shudder and think of robots when you mention determinism, but that's a fundemental misundertanding. It shouldn't be thought of as a realization that actions have no ultimate meaning and are therefore pointless, but rather as a realization that actions have no ultimate meaning and therefore are valuable only per se. That is a value which affirms life fully, as opposed to the values which would have us '..sweat and save, building for a shallow grave!' (in the immortal words of Mr. Morrison) ..if you catch my meaning.

Philosophy Forum

Is Logic Universal?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know