Consciousness and free will.

[Obvious Leo]

How much rainfall can I expect to get on my fuchsias on 28/11/3015?

That is a non-computable question because every single event which occurs within 1000 light-years of earth from now on is potentially a casual agent. In fact there is a non-zero probability that the earth will no longer exist on this date.

i've said it before and i'll say it again; logic, reasoning, and philosophy are not (nor will they ever be) your thing. your wasting what few brain cells you have on these incomprehensible (to you) fields.

Are you disputing what I'm saying here, alpha? This a most extraordinary and daring stance for you to take because for as long as you draw breath you'll never find a single expert in this field who will agree with you. You'll either be the only bloke in the entire world who knows how causality works or else you'll be just another fuckwit.

[alpha]

How much rainfall can I expect to get on my fuchsias on 28/11/3015?

That is a non-computable question because every single event which occurs within 1000 light-years of earth from now on is potentially a casual agent. In fact there is a non-zero probability that the earth will no longer exist on this date.

i've said it before and i'll say it again; logic, reasoning, and philosophy are not (nor will they ever be) your thing. your wasting what few brain cells you have on these incomprehensible (to you) fields.

Are you disputing what I'm saying here, alpha? This a most extraordinary and daring stance for you to take because for as long as you draw breath you'll never find a single expert in this field who will agree with you. You'll either be the only bloke in the entire world who knows how causality works or else you'll be just another fuckwit.

that's logically impossible (by virtue of the law of no contradiction), as it would place me in the same category as my contradiction (you).

[Obvious Leo]

Please answer my question. Do you disagree with me when I claim that predicting the rainfall for a specific place on a specific day in the future is a non-computable function? in fact you'll find that any future event is only predictable to a finite order of probability and no future event whatsoever is predictable with 100% certainty and this is true, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE. The simple truth is that we do not live in a Newtonian universe and until such time as the physicists wake up to this fact their models will never make a lick of sense. Neither will you.

[alpha]

Please answer my question. Do you disagree with me when I claim that predicting the rainfall for a specific place on a specific day in the future is a non-computable function? in fact you'll find that any future event is only predictable to a finite order of probability and no future event whatsoever is predictable with 100% certainty and this is true, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE. The simple truth is that we do not live in a Newtonian universe and until such time as the physicists wake up to this fact their models will never make a lick of sense. Neither will you.

your problem is that you keep trying to label me with scientific/physical labels, when the reality is that i couldn't care less about science and physics. logically it is possible to predict (and "compute") anything with absolute certainty and accuracy given the proper capacity and means.

[Obvious Leo]

logically it is possible to predict (and "compute") anything with absolute certainty and accuracy given the proper capacity and means.

This statement is false and any philosopher conversant with mathematical philosophy will confirm that it is false. Boole's laws of thought and treatises on the logical foundations of mathematics are universally regarded as unshakable, so you're on your own with this bizarre opinion.

[The Inglorious One]

logically it is possible to predict (and "compute") anything with absolute certainty and accuracy given the proper capacity and means.

This statement is false and any philosopher conversant with mathematical philosophy will confirm that it is false. Boole's laws of thought and treatises on the logical foundations of mathematics are universally regarded as unshakable, so you're on your own with this bizarre opinion.

Wow, Leo. I thought you were full of it. This guy lives in another century!

[alpha]

logically it is possible to predict (and "compute") anything with absolute certainty and accuracy given the proper capacity and means.

This statement is false and any philosopher conversant with mathematical philosophy will confirm that it is false. Boole's laws of thought and treatises on the logical foundations of mathematics are universally regarded as unshakable, so you're on your own with this bizarre opinion.

Wow, Leo. I thought you were full of it. This guy lives in another century!

well, there goes my ally....

[Hobbes' Choice]

Your problem is that, although you are a determinist, you can't bring this understanding to explain the world around you. You are constantly at odds with everything you see feel and hear. Despite accepting determinism logically you can't figure out how to apply it to the world we live in. I said above that I was at the same place in my thinking about 20 years ago.
Rather than denying the existence of responsibility you need to apply your determinism to understanding what responsibility IN FACT is.
When there is a tiger in the woods that keeps terrorising the villagers it is idiotic to say that nothing is responsible for the blood trails and missing people. What you do is go into the woods with a gun and shoot the tiger - because the tiger is responsible. Get over it.
What responsible means is not the the tiger chose of his own free will. It is FREE WILL that does not exist. Responsibility is how we figure out how to make things better.

I don't know how more clearly I can say this (again):

When a crime is met with punishment, you are punishing the person for WHAT HE IS rather than what he has done and the choice he has made.

Your response if faulty. because if no one is responsible then no remedy can be found.

the tiger is responsible,

i think we are in agreement about this, except for semantics.

QED there is such a thing as responsibility and the knowledge that you might be held responsible might be the reason you do not commit crimes. This is how each of us are causal agents.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Please answer my question. Do you disagree with me when I claim that predicting the rainfall for a specific place on a specific day in the future is a non-computable function? in fact you'll find that any future event is only predictable to a finite order of probability and no future event whatsoever is predictable with 100% certainty and this is true, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE. The simple truth is that we do not live in a Newtonian universe and until such time as the physicists wake up to this fact their models will never make a lick of sense. Neither will you.

Whether of not predictability is true or false, or to what degree it is so, is NOT because of some sort of metaphysical proposition, as you have so ably attempted to elsewhere.

Since predictability rises in direct proportion to the amount of experimental controls you can place on an event, and where circumstances such as the weather have less accurate data; it follows that were we to have more control and more accurate data events would be more predictable.
In the time since I was first aware of weather forecasts (1960), the predictive power of improved data collection and modelling have enormously improved forecasts.
On the lower end of the scale - a well brushed table and clean snooker balls, with a good player brings success. When you strike a ball with another you never seem to get a bunch of flowers no matter how hard you try. A priori there is no reason for this execpt that we learn from induction.
And since I have only inductive inference I am not going to pretend I have a proof; conversely I shall not hold my breath witing for your disproof. Until then I think determinism is pretty solid.

There is no reason that "uncertainty" is anything more than just a lack of potential information. Nothing spooky.

[Obvious Leo]

There is no reason that "uncertainty" is anything more than just a lack of potential information. Nothing spooky.

In that case we're saying the same thing except that what I'm saying is that perfect information is always impossible. Once again the weather is a good example. The weather forecasts have got better over the years because more information is available and the computing power available to the forecasters has increased exponentially. However weather systems can still only be predicted to a finite order of probability and this must always be the case. The same goes for the snooker balls because a minor tectonic rumble a thousand miles away from the snooker table can potentially initiate a cascade of causal effects which affects the outcome of the snooker break. In chaotic systems an effect can be raised to a power of its cause, as in the well-documented "butterfly" effect. The same flutter of the butterfly's wing in the Amazonian rainforest can cause a hurricane in North America as well as a still-born baby in outer Mongolia or a fight in an Aussie pub. When it comes to causal chains we live in a Rumsfeldian world of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns and that's just the way it is. The future is a blank slate on which the events are yet to be written and the behaviour of a thinking mind is the loosest cannon of them all.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is no reason that "uncertainty" is anything more than just a lack of potential information. Nothing spooky.

In that case we're saying the same thing except that what I'm saying is that perfect information is always impossible. Once again the weather is a good example. The weather forecasts have got better over the years because more information is available and the computing power available to the forecasters has increased exponentially. However weather systems can still only be predicted to a finite order of probability and this must always be the case. The same goes for the snooker balls because a minor tectonic rumble a thousand miles away from the snooker table can potentially initiate a cascade of causal effects which affects the outcome of the snooker break. In chaotic systems an effect can be raised to a power of its cause, as in the well-documented "butterfly" effect. The same flutter of the butterfly's wing in the Amazonian rainforest can cause a hurricane in North America as well as a still-born baby in outer Mongolia or a fight in an Aussie pub. When it comes to causal chains we live in a Rumsfeldian world of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns and that's just the way it is. The future is a blank slate on which the events are yet to be written and the behaviour of a thinking mind is the loosest cannon of them all.

I've never liked the Butterfly Effect. If a butterfly flaps its wings it is never going to cause an earthquake, ever. An earthquake might cause the butterfly to flap, though. The BE, lacks a sense of proportion. And a certain class of thinker tend to misuse it.
Causes can terminate to the same outcome regardless of minor changes.
Lets take a man striking a ball to pot in the centre pocket. An earthquake happens in a neighbouring country and the shock wave makes the ball waver by 1mm. Enough to change the trajectory, but not enough for it to reach the pocket and come to rest in 1.5 seconds.
The outcome is not therefore affected by the earthquake, despite the input being changed. The player whose certainly about potting the ball has already caused him to seek the next ball before potting the last, feels the tremor and ignores is as there is £100 on the game.
Let's say that a god (outside of causality) blows on the Butterfly to change the world. I think it would mostly be the case that the lasting difference would be too subtle, and mostly would have no effect at all. There might not be any thing significantly different for a million years.

You forgot Zizek's unknown knowns, btw. The most important factor of the quartet.

[alpha]

i accept the so called butterfly effect, but as hobbes mentioned, the effects of anything on anything else must be proportionate. determining what is and isn't proportionate, however, is another matter.

the issue at hand, is the logical possibility or impossibility of absolute predictions. no scientific field, experience, observation, etc. has any say in what is and isn't logically possible. so unless leo can demonstrate what logical law(s) or principle(s) is being violated, it remains a logical possibility.

[Hobbes' Choice]

i accept the so called butterfly effect, but as hobbes mentioned, the effects of anything on anything else must be proportionate. determining what is and isn't proportionate, however, is another matter.

the issue at hand, is the logical possibility or impossibility of absolute predictions. no scientific field, experience, observation, etc. has any say in what is and isn't logically possible. so unless leo can demonstrate what logical law(s) or principle(s) is being violated, it remains a logical possibility.

On this matter I think that, whilst you can easily predict the falling of a ball in a pocket, you cannot be totally sure that you have a closed system of full control. That is not to say that you can have 100% certainty of some outcomes as long as the parameters of the outcome are larger than the potential variance of the conditions.

For example. If I kick a ball at a football net from 10 feet I can be reasonably sure that I shall score. There might be a small chance that the ball deflates, is hit by a bird, or bounces off a tuft of grass.
However if I extend the parameters of success such that no unforeseen change in the circumstances is incapable of interfering with the prediction then I can achieve 100% certainty.
Thus the goal post are placed a mile apart and my shooting distance is 1 foot, and the prediction is that anyone of 100 humans can try to score. I can 100% predict an outcome of scoring at least one goal.

[alpha]

i accept the so called butterfly effect, but as hobbes mentioned, the effects of anything on anything else must be proportionate. determining what is and isn't proportionate, however, is another matter.

the issue at hand, is the logical possibility or impossibility of absolute predictions. no scientific field, experience, observation, etc. has any say in what is and isn't logically possible. so unless leo can demonstrate what logical law(s) or principle(s) is being violated, it remains a logical possibility.

On this matter I think that, whilst you can easily predict the falling of a ball in a pocket, you cannot be totally sure that you have a closed system of full control. That is not to say that you can have 100% certainty of some outcomes as long as the parameters of the outcome are larger than the potential variance of the conditions.

For example. If I kick a ball at a football net from 10 feet I can be reasonably sure that I shall score. There might be a small chance that the ball deflates, is hit by a bird, or bounces off a tuft of grass.
However if I extend the parameters of success such that no unforeseen change in the circumstances is incapable of interfering with the prediction then I can achieve 100% certainty.
Thus the goal post are placed a mile apart and my shooting distance is 1 foot, and the prediction is that anyone of 100 humans can try to score. I can 100% predict an outcome of scoring at least one goal.

actually, hobbes, if we wanna get technical, even in this last example, you still can't absolutely guarantee any goal. why? because it is logically possible that none of the 100 people score. it is also possible that all of them score. my point is that trying to practicalize theoretical claims is meaningless. my claim was that absolute prediction is possible if someone/something (hypothetically) knew (or controlled) all (yes, all) the variables.

i'm not trying to prove the existence of god, or anything of the sort. i'm simply demonstrating that a deterministic (even self-determining) system means that it is necessarily predictable, in theory. if it's not even predictable in theory, then it's not deterministic in any way.

[Hobbes' Choice]

i accept the so called butterfly effect, but as hobbes mentioned, the effects of anything on anything else must be proportionate. determining what is and isn't proportionate, however, is another matter.

the issue at hand, is the logical possibility or impossibility of absolute predictions. no scientific field, experience, observation, etc. has any say in what is and isn't logically possible. so unless leo can demonstrate what logical law(s) or principle(s) is being violated, it remains a logical possibility.

On this matter I think that, whilst you can easily predict the falling of a ball in a pocket, you cannot be totally sure that you have a closed system of full control. That is not to say that you can have 100% certainty of some outcomes as long as the parameters of the outcome are larger than the potential variance of the conditions.

For example. If I kick a ball at a football net from 10 feet I can be reasonably sure that I shall score. There might be a small chance that the ball deflates, is hit by a bird, or bounces off a tuft of grass.
However if I extend the parameters of success such that no unforeseen change in the circumstances is incapable of interfering with the prediction then I can achieve 100% certainty.
Thus the goal post are placed a mile apart and my shooting distance is 1 foot, and the prediction is that anyone of 100 humans can try to score. I can 100% predict an outcome of scoring at least one goal.

actually, hobbes, if we wanna get technical, even in this last example, you still can't absolutely guarantee any goal. why? because it is logically possible that none of the 100 people score. it is also possible that all of them score. my point is that trying to practicalize theoretical claims is meaningless. my claim was that absolute prediction is possible if someone/something (hypothetically) knew (or controlled) all (yes, all) the variables.

i'm not trying to prove the existence of god, or anything of the sort. i'm simply demonstrating that a deterministic (even self-determining) system means that it is necessarily predictable, in theory. if it's not even predictable in theory, then it's not deterministic in any way.

No, you cannot control all of the variables and my thought experiment does not require it.
You cannot control all the variables for 2 reasons; 1 is that you cannot know what they are, and 2) Observation can affect the outcome.
Logic has nothing to do with the example, and I'm puzzled why you like using that word.
My example is designed such that the claim of the outcome is tiny compared with the possibility that the outcome could not be met.
If you don't like it then double the gaol size again, and reduce the distance it needs to be moved to score a goal to 1mm. You could even place the goal line in a circle around the ball so that the waft of a butterfly wing could move the ball over the line and a million stampeding cattle were sent to score.