Consciousness and free will.

[alpha]

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.

i wasn't talking about your thought experiment. i was making a general claim; that if someone knew all the variables of any situation (even some pissant many light years away, that might affect the outcome in the least bit), he/she/it would be able to predict the outcome absolutely.

i don't wanna upset you hobbes, so i won't mention that it's literally impossible to truly predict anything with absolute 100% certainty without knowing all the variables. no matter the example, saying it's 100% reliable is inaccurate. i might accept 99.9999999999%, but unless all the variables are accounted for, 100% is impossible.

[Hobbes' Choice]

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.

i wasn't talking about your thought experiment. i was making a general claim; that if someone knew all the variables of any situation (even some pissant many light years away, that might affect the outcome in the least bit), he/she/it would be able to predict the outcome absolutely.

This is a circular argument. The big question here is how could you ever know you had all the variable, and knew how they applied to the event? My example avoids needing to know.

i don't wanna upset you hobbes, so i won't mention that it's literally impossible to truly predict anything with absolute 100% certainty without knowing all the variables. no matter the example, saying it's 100% reliable is inaccurate. i might accept 99.9999999999%, but unless all the variables are accounted for, 100% is impossible.

You can't know that, so you can't say it.

[alpha]

i wasn't talking about your thought experiment. i was making a general claim; that if someone knew all the variables of any situation (even some pissant many light years away, that might affect the outcome in the least bit), he/she/it would be able to predict the outcome absolutely.

This is a circular argument. The big question here is how could you ever know you had all the variable, and knew how they applied to the event? My example avoids needing to know.

i don't wanna upset you hobbes, so i won't mention that it's literally impossible to truly predict anything with absolute 100% certainty without knowing all the variables. no matter the example, saying it's 100% reliable is inaccurate. i might accept 99.9999999999%, but unless all the variables are accounted for, 100% is impossible.

You can't know that, so you can't say it.

hobbes!!!!! examples usually discuss practical things, while philosophy and logic mostly address concepts, abstracts, and theoretical scenarios. it's unimportant how one would know something, or if one would ever know; as long as it's theoretically possible to know all the variables, and theoretically possible to know that you know all the variables, the argument is theoretically sound (no circular logic or otherwise); i.e., logically possible. again, unless a logical principle is being violated, no statement is logically impossible.

[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!

well, there goes my ally....

Sorry, alpha, but it's impossible even in principle. "Randomness" actually does exist on the quantum level. Without it, will is a meaningless concept. (Randomness and infinite complexity are indistinguishable so I put "random" in quotes.)

[alpha]

Sorry, alpha, but it's impossible even in principle. "Randomness" actually does exist on the quantum level. Without it, will is a meaningless concept. (Randomness and infinite complexity are indistinguishable so I put "random" in quotes.)

well, us "newtonian troglodytes" as leo calls us, don't believe in randomness (i don't even believe in truly infinite complexity either). "invisible/unknown variables" as they're called. either way, if something isn't predictable, not even in principle, then why the hell call it "deterministic"?

[The Inglorious One]

Sorry, alpha, but it's impossible even in principle. "Randomness" actually does exist on the quantum level. Without it, will is a meaningless concept. (Randomness and infinite complexity are indistinguishable so I put "random" in quotes.)

well, us "newtonian troglodytes" as leo calls us, don't believe in randomness (i don't even believe in truly infinite complexity either). "invisible/unknown variables" as they're called. either way, if something isn't predictable, not even in principle, then why the hell call it "deterministic"?

Beats me. Determinism is there, but it's not alone. Calling the Ground from which all things emerge the "soil of finite personalities" seems more apt: many personalities rooted in One.

[Obvious Leo]

(Randomness and infinite complexity are indistinguishable so I put "random" in quotes.)

As long as the "random" stays in quote marks this sums up chaotic determinism perfectly. The unpredictability of any physical system is a function of the complexity of its causal dynamics and not a function of uncaused events.

i accept the so called butterfly effect, but as hobbes mentioned, the effects of anything on anything else must be proportionate.

This statement is false. An effect can be vastly disproportionate to its cause, a phenomenon known in chaos theory as a bifurcation. Maybe just one adventurous ape decided that living on the ground might be a better idea than living in the trees and now spaceships are flying to Mars.

[Obvious Leo]

Think of it like this. Physical systems are always multi-causal so in the butterfly effect we mustn't think of the butterfly's wing as an initial cause. Its flap was itself caused so we merely think of it as an arbitrary starting point. The single flap of the wing produces N effects. Each of these effects then becomes a cause and each of these causes also produces N effects. Thus after the second cause/effect iteration the wing flap has produced N^2 effects. After the third this is raised to N^4 and then N^8 and then N^16 etc. At the Planck scale an atom changes in every Planck interval and 5.4 x 10^44 Planck intervals pass in every second of our lives. This means that even after a trillion trillionth of a second the entire suite of possible outcomes which the butterfly's wing might produce is non-computable.

By the way this proposition is not in the least bit controversial and it certainly isn't "my" theory. It is basic and very simple science.

[The Inglorious One]

As long as the "random" stays in quote marks this sums up chaotic determinism perfectly. The unpredictability of any physical system is a function of the complexity of its causal dynamics and not a function of uncaused events.

From "chaotic determinism," only chaos, only unintelligible mechanism. That there is at least one mind (yours) capable of entertaining your ideas as "true" belies the notion of "chaotic determinism." In other words, your ideas are self-contradicting.

[Obvious Leo]

As long as the "random" stays in quote marks this sums up chaotic determinism perfectly. The unpredictability of any physical system is a function of the complexity of its causal dynamics and not a function of uncaused events.

From "chaotic determinism," only chaotic determinism, only mechanism and unintelligibility. In the context of life-experience, it assumes direction in an infinitely complex Ground.

This is what makes chaotic determinism so fascinating because chaotically determined systems DO have a direction. They evolve from the simple to the complex and the only law needed to provide the impetus for this directionality is the law of cause and effect. This is where the term "complexity from chaos" comes from and this self-organising complexity is observed EVERYWHERE in nature. It's called EVOLUTION.

[The Inglorious One]

That's why I made the edit: your ideas are self-contradicting.

[Obvious Leo]

Inglorious. Are you suggesting that evolution towards complexity is not a mandated consequence of chaotically determined systems? This is a canonical orthodoxy in science and the convention is that since you defend a minority position the burden of proof lies with you.

[Obvious Leo]

Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking and there can be no doubt that "chaos" has been unfortunately named. Many people conflate chaos with randomness but this is as far from being the case as one could imagine. Chaos simply means self-determining but it refers to the ENTIRE SYSTEM as self-determining.

[The Inglorious One]

It's odd, but our arguments are very similar, Leo. I just take it to the next logical step. My logic includes spatial and temporal non-locality.

[Obvious Leo]

I've pointed out in the past that our positions have more in common than might be apparent at first blush, because I agree with you. Temporal non-locality is mandated by GR so the real problem is physics is really just the question of spatial non-locality, which is what causes all the quantum "weirdness" which in turn makes GR and QM incompatible with each other. Being only a simple country lad I just toss all the spatial locality questions in the trash by declaring that the Cartesian space is nothing more than an observer effect. It works magnificently because it makes all the paradoxes and counter-intuitive absurdities of spacetime physics vanish back into the luminiferous aether which gave birth to them.

"Space and time are modes in which we think, not conditions in which we exist".....Albert Einstein.

Kant would agree with him but sadly the logical positivists who infest modern physics would not.