Free Will.

[JimC]

The question of free will is one of a deterministic universe (at the macro scale). If all outcomes are predetermined by inviolate physical laws, then there is no such thing as free will. To believe in free will you have to believe in a non-physical soul. Good luck with that.

This is where idiots come in, saying: "Ahaaaaaa! Got you there!!!!1!!1!!. Quantum physics proves the universe is not deterministic! Hah!!!"

Don't need quantum physics. Chaos theory is enough to ensure that the evolution of most physical systems has sufficient indeterminacy to avoid the old "clockwork universe" rigid model.

How does chaos theory illustrate real world indeterminacy? Isn't it totally equation driven? The way I see it is that it demonstrates how even the smallest of inputs can have huge, unforeseen repercussions, but unforeseen is not synonymous with unforeseeable.

The way I understand it, in a fully deterministic universe, if one were to clone the universe several times at a given point in time, the "tape" of all the clones as they evolved would be identical. Chaos theory implies that the clones would have ever-incresing differences as they evolved through time...

(speaking of "cloning" entire universes is a thought experiment with a pretty big dash of chutzpah, I must admit... )

[pErvinalia]

The question of free will is one of a deterministic universe (at the macro scale). If all outcomes are predetermined by inviolate physical laws, then there is no such thing as free will. To believe in free will you have to believe in a non-physical soul. Good luck with that.

This is where idiots come in, saying: "Ahaaaaaa! Got you there!!!!1!!1!!. Quantum physics proves the universe is not deterministic! Hah!!!"

Don't need quantum physics. Chaos theory is enough to ensure that the evolution of most physical systems has sufficient indeterminacy to avoid the old "clockwork universe" rigid model.

Chaos doesn't refute a deterministic universe. It merely makes prediction and calculation next to impossible due to incredible complexity.

[JimC]

The question of free will is one of a deterministic universe (at the macro scale). If all outcomes are predetermined by inviolate physical laws, then there is no such thing as free will. To believe in free will you have to believe in a non-physical soul. Good luck with that.

This is where idiots come in, saying: "Ahaaaaaa! Got you there!!!!1!!1!!. Quantum physics proves the universe is not deterministic! Hah!!!"

Don't need quantum physics. Chaos theory is enough to ensure that the evolution of most physical systems has sufficient indeterminacy to avoid the old "clockwork universe" rigid model.

Chaos doesn't refute a deterministic universe. It merely makes prediction and calculation next to impossible due to incredible complexity.

I disagree. Given identical starting conditions, any system subject to chaos (not all are, of course, but enough so that you will find chaos fairly ubiquitous) will evolve to a series of different end states, if the "experiment" is repeated over and over again. Starting state A will not always produce end state B, which is surely what one would expect from a deterministic universe.

This of course, is not a refutation of a thoroughly materialistic view of the world...

[Hermit]

Chaos theory is enough to ensure that the evolution of most physical systems has sufficient indeterminacy to avoid the old "clockwork universe" rigid model.

How does chaos theory illustrate real world indeterminacy? Isn't it totally equation driven? The way I see it is that it demonstrates how even the smallest of inputs can have huge, unforeseen repercussions, but unforeseen is not synonymous with unforeseeable.

The way I understand it, in a fully deterministic universe, if one were to clone the universe several times at a given point in time, the "tape" of all the clones as they evolved would be identical. Chaos theory implies that the clones would have ever-incresing differences as they evolved through time...

(speaking of "cloning" entire universes is a thought experiment with a pretty big dash of chutzpah, I must admit... )

I don't mind the chutzpah at all. As for the implication, are we now talking mathematical proof or sloppy opinion masquerading as a conclusion derived from chaos theory?

[JimC]

Chaos theory is enough to ensure that the evolution of most physical systems has sufficient indeterminacy to avoid the old "clockwork universe" rigid model.

How does chaos theory illustrate real world indeterminacy? Isn't it totally equation driven? The way I see it is that it demonstrates how even the smallest of inputs can have huge, unforeseen repercussions, but unforeseen is not synonymous with unforeseeable.

The way I understand it, in a fully deterministic universe, if one were to clone the universe several times at a given point in time, the "tape" of all the clones as they evolved would be identical. Chaos theory implies that the clones would have ever-incresing differences as they evolved through time...

(speaking of "cloning" entire universes is a thought experiment with a pretty big dash of chutzpah, I must admit... )

I don't mind the chutzpah at all. As for the implication, are we now talking mathematical proof or sloppy opinion masquerading as a conclusion derived from chaos theory?

Well, I did preface it by saying "The way I understand it"...

I'm not sure whether there would or could be a single "mathematical proof" that buries determinism. However, the old Newtonian "clockwork universe", at least in terms of predictions of the future behaviour of a given atom, is not going to be a valid model.

The real question is whether there is a correspondence between the absence of human free will, and a fully deterministic universe. I think they are issues with some overlap, but answering one does not automatically answer the other.

[pErvinalia]

From wiki:

Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior and condition of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect.[1] Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[2] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[3]

[Feck]

"This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved."
So that means these conditions are Only met when taking small measurements and extrapolating Real world situations DO NOT meet these criteria a butterfly does NOT cause a hurricane,but ocean temperatures might no child turns into a serial killer because On Wednesday he was left with a full diaper ... although a full childhood history of neglect and rejection MIGHT make him more likely to have a collection of dismembered sex workers under his floor .....This deterministic approach is as short sighted as the concept of Karma ...

[pErvinalia]

It's neither short sighted nor long sighted. It's reality, as far as we know it.

[JimC]

From wiki:

Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior and condition of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect.[1] Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[2] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[3]

That the future behaviour of such systems is not affected by anything other than initial conditions and the operations of the laws of physics I will agree; in essence, there is no room for woo to enter. But this does not mean that a set of initial conditions will automatically produce the same future result if repeated. I cannot reconcile such an inability to predict (even given god-like powers of perfect computation) with the usual meaning of deterministic behaviour.

[Hermit]

Well, I did preface it by saying "The way I understand it"...

OK. Sloppy opinion masquerading as a conclusion it is then.

Also, according to the Wikipedia article rEv so helpfully quoted, it is also wrong. rEv just added emphasis to the wrong sentence. I'll just correct that mistake now:

Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior and condition of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect.[1] Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[2] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[3]

The real question is whether there is a correspondence between the absence of human free will, and a fully deterministic universe. I think they are issues with some overlap, but answering one does not automatically answer the other.

Yes, except I'd delete the first two words and replace them with one other: Another real question is whether there is a correspondence between the absence of human free will, and a fully deterministic universe.

[pErvinalia]

What do you mean "this does not mean that a set of initial conditions will automatically produce the same future result if repeated"? That's exactly what it means.

[pErvinalia]

Also, according to the Wikipedia article rEv so helpfully quoted, it is also wrong. rEv just added emphasis to the wrong sentence.

Huh? Jim claimed that chaos theory refutes the concept of a deterministic universe. I quoted the bit that says that chaos theory doesn't refute the concept of a deterministic universe.

[pErvinalia]

The real question is whether there is a correspondence between the absence of human free will, and a fully deterministic universe. I think they are issues with some overlap, but answering one does not automatically answer the other.

If every action is already predetermined, then there is no room for free will. There is no free choice.

[Hermit]

Also, according to the Wikipedia article rEv so helpfully quoted, it is also wrong. rEv just added emphasis to the wrong sentence.

Huh? Jim claimed that chaos theory refutes the concept of a deterministic universe. I quoted the bit that says that chaos theory doesn't refute the concept of a deterministic universe.

Sorry. Yes you did. I do think though that the words "small differences" are the crucial ones concerning where Jim went wrong. They concretely and expressly deny his opinion that differences will develop even when initial conditions are identical.

[JimC]

What do you mean "this does not mean that a set of initial conditions will automatically produce the same future result if repeated"? That's exactly what it means.

Well, if it means that, such a claim is undoubtedly wrong. Starting from the same set of initial conditions (at least the same down to the Planck length...), many dynamic systems will produce highly divergent end states. If that does not refute clockwork determinism, I don't know what would...