If the determinism is true then you get stuck sometimes

[bahman]

Well, determinism simply means that the past defines the future. Fact (1), this means that you have one and only one option at any given time. But we have been in situations when there are at least two options available to us. Following fact (1), this means that one of the options is real and another one is unreal. You can, of course, choose the real option and follow but you are stuck when you choose the unreal option. We have never been stuck in any situation. Therefore, determinism is wrong when there are options available.

[attofishpi]

If the determinism is true then you get stuck sometimes

If determinism is true, then at this point in time we all would be the same stupid toss fuck.

[Dubious]

Well, determinism simply means that the past defines the future. Fact (1), this means that you have one and only one option at any given time. But we have been in situations when there are at least two options available to us. Following fact (1), this means that one of the options is real and another one is unreal. You can, of course, choose the real option and follow but you are stuck when you choose the unreal option. We have never been stuck in any situation. Therefore, determinism is wrong when there are options available.

I don't like options! I always choose the wrong one. That's why when I get a lottery ticket (which happens very rarely) I always make it a quickie. Even though it's completely random, if I do it, I'll screw that up as well. Of course quickies come in a whole range of flavors...some optional, some not.

[Scott Mayers]

Well, determinism simply means that the past defines the future. Fact (1), this means that you have one and only one option at any given time. But we have been in situations when there are at least two options available to us. Following fact (1), this means that one of the options is real and another one is unreal. You can, of course, choose the real option and follow but you are stuck when you choose the unreal option. We have never been stuck in any situation. Therefore, determinism is wrong when there are options available.

In logic and math, the concept of a "function" means that for any input (or set of them where simultaneous), one unique output can only exist to each input. As a more GENERAL set any possible set of inputs and outputs, including the capacity to invert inputs to outputs or vice verse, the term, "relation" applies. Many texts either opt to begin with general relations and then define specific types, of which a function is. But this is also taught by beginning with defining functions and then defining all relations in terms of multiple functions.

Basically, "determinism" just implies that for some understood single output, like our particular experience in this life, each reality has one and only one possible path. So you defined this correctly. HOWEVER, note that reality can and does have real distinct different outcomes (or 'outputs' as I used it above). In fact, I can argue that how it must be the case using certain thought experiments. As for the 'hard' evidence, you just have to look at the slit experiment in physics to which regardless of which interpretation you favor, the pattern of interference proves that either options exist but 'collaspes' to one unique reality or[distinctly] there exists a separate world for EACH possibility. I favor the latter because for the possiblities to be real, there has to be 'proof' of this with respect to a God's-eyeview so to speak.

If you are not familiar with this, check out Veritasium's YouTube video, "Parallel Worlds Probabely Exist. Here's Why."
I think he did a good job on explaining this. Others, like Brian Greene, have also done a good job on this. But for philosophy, Zeno's paradox of the 'Arrow' suffices and can be something that may help visualize why there has to be some logical relationship that assures both multiple possible outcomes as well as multiple possible inputs. Let me try to explain this using our modern capacities that Zeno lacked in his day: one picture frame of a film strip.

If you imagine you have a single image of an arrow. Can you determine what the 'next' image will be without knowing anything else? As an extension to this problem regarding looking backwards in time too, can you specifically assert that only one possible prior image exists that can make a rational motion picture story?


[Note that Zeno argued that this was 'paradoxical' because he assumed it should have one and only one input and output 'storyline'. He argued that this imagined 'frozen still picture' as possibly representing someone dropping the arrow, so that, using my question above, you could argue that the prior image does not have to be coming from the apparent interterpretion of a arrow flying in one unique direction. Thus, he concluded that given you cannot "determine" this, the reality is realtively 'indeterminate', which is only a contradiction if you already know the set of images predeterminately. He concluded that 'motion' in this thought experiment instance could not be 'determined' as existing and so motion itself should not be possible. He, of course would not literally think this but it helps foster the foundational questions about motion that later scientists would embrace.]

[bahman]

If the determinism is true then you get stuck sometimes

If determinism is true, then at this point in time we all would be the same stupid toss fuck.

I agree.

[bahman]

Well, determinism simply means that the past defines the future. Fact (1), this means that you have one and only one option at any given time. But we have been in situations when there are at least two options available to us. Following fact (1), this means that one of the options is real and another one is unreal. You can, of course, choose the real option and follow but you are stuck when you choose the unreal option. We have never been stuck in any situation. Therefore, determinism is wrong when there are options available.

I don't like options! I always choose the wrong one. That's why when I get a lottery ticket (which happens very rarely) I always make it a quickie. Even though it's completely random, if I do it, I'll screw that up as well. Of course quickies come in a whole range of flavors...some optional, some not.

LOL.

[bahman]

Well, determinism simply means that the past defines the future. Fact (1), this means that you have one and only one option at any given time. But we have been in situations when there are at least two options available to us. Following fact (1), this means that one of the options is real and another one is unreal. You can, of course, choose the real option and follow but you are stuck when you choose the unreal option. We have never been stuck in any situation. Therefore, determinism is wrong when there are options available.

In logic and math, the concept of a "function" means that for any input (or set of them where simultaneous), one unique output can only exist to each input. As a more GENERAL set any possible set of inputs and outputs, including the capacity to invert inputs to outputs or vice verse, the term, "relation" applies. Many texts either opt to begin with general relations and then define specific types, of which a function is. But this is also taught by beginning with defining functions and then defining all relations in terms of multiple functions.

Basically, "determinism" just implies that for some understood single output, like our particular experience in this life, each reality has one and only one possible path. So you defined this correctly. HOWEVER, note that reality can and does have real distinct different outcomes (or 'outputs' as I used it above). In fact, I can argue that how it must be the case using certain thought experiments. As for the 'hard' evidence, you just have to look at the slit experiment in physics to which regardless of which interpretation you favor, the pattern of interference proves that either options exist but 'collaspes' to one unique reality or[distinctly] there exists a separate world for EACH possibility. I favor the latter because for the possiblities to be real, there has to be 'proof' of this with respect to a God's-eyeview so to speak.

If you are not familiar with this, check out Veritasium's YouTube video, "Parallel Worlds Probabely Exist. Here's Why."
I think he did a good job on explaining this. Others, like Brian Greene, have also done a good job on this.

I am strongly against parallel worlds since it means that when we observe the system there are two parallel worlds at which a copy of us exists in each. The question is where do you get the energy for the creation of the parallel worlds? Moreover, I have an argument against Schrodinger's cat experiment: You need a very small amount of radioactive matter that didn't radiate yet. You cannot have such a sample and make sure that it didn't radiate yet unless you observe the sample which this disturbs the system and cause that the sample radiates. Please remember that we need to disturb the system to the extent that it radiates to understand that it did not radiate before.

But for philosophy, Zeno's paradox of the 'Arrow' suffices and can be something that may help visualize why there has to be some logical relationship that assures both multiple possible outcomes as well as multiple possible inputs. Let me try to explain this using our modern capacities that Zeno lacked in his day: one picture frame of a film strip.

Zeno's paradox can be resolved by considering the motion of the arrow to be discrete.

If you imagine you have a single image of an arrow. Can you determine what the 'next' image will be without knowing anything else? As an extension to this problem regarding looking backwards in time too, can you specifically assert that only one possible prior image exists that can make a rational motion picture story?

[Note that Zeno argued that this was 'paradoxical' because he assumed it should have one and only one input and output 'storyline'. He argued that this imagined 'frozen still picture' as possibly representing someone dropping the arrow, so that, using my question above, you could argue that the prior image does not have to be coming from the apparent interterpretion of a arrow flying in one unique direction. Thus, he concluded that given you cannot "determine" this, the reality is realtively 'indeterminate', which is only a contradiction if you already know the set of images predeterminately. He concluded that 'motion' in this thought experiment instance could not be 'determined' as existing and so motion itself should not be possible. He, of course would not literally think this but it helps foster the foundational questions about motion that later scientists would embrace.]

I assume, in the classical regime, if you know the position and speed of the arrow then you can say where it will be at a later time.

[Scott Mayers]

Well, determinism simply means that the past defines the future. Fact (1), this means that you have one and only one option at any given time. But we have been in situations when there are at least two options available to us. Following fact (1), this means that one of the options is real and another one is unreal. You can, of course, choose the real option and follow but you are stuck when you choose the unreal option. We have never been stuck in any situation. Therefore, determinism is wrong when there are options available.

In logic and math, the concept of a "function" means that for any input (or set of them where simultaneous), one unique output can only exist to each input. As a more GENERAL set any possible set of inputs and outputs, including the capacity to invert inputs to outputs or vice verse, the term, "relation" applies. Many texts either opt to begin with general relations and then define specific types, of which a function is. But this is also taught by beginning with defining functions and then defining all relations in terms of multiple functions.

Basically, "determinism" just implies that for some understood single output, like our particular experience in this life, each reality has one and only one possible path. So you defined this correctly. HOWEVER, note that reality can and does have real distinct different outcomes (or 'outputs' as I used it above). In fact, I can argue that how it must be the case using certain thought experiments. As for the 'hard' evidence, you just have to look at the slit experiment in physics to which regardless of which interpretation you favor, the pattern of interference proves that either options exist but 'collaspes' to one unique reality or[distinctly] there exists a separate world for EACH possibility. I favor the latter because for the possiblities to be real, there has to be 'proof' of this with respect to a God's-eyeview so to speak.

If you are not familiar with this, check out Veritasium's YouTube video, "Parallel Worlds Probabely Exist. Here's Why."
I think he did a good job on explaining this. Others, like Brian Greene, have also done a good job on this.

I am strongly against parallel worlds since it means that when we observe the system there are two parallel worlds at which a copy of us exists in each. The question is where do you get the energy for the creation of the parallel worlds? Moreover, I have an argument against Schrodinger's cat experiment: You need a very small amount of radioactive matter that didn't radiate yet. You cannot have such a sample and make sure that it didn't radiate yet unless you observe the sample which this disturbs the system and cause that the sample radiates. Please remember that we need to disturb the system to the extent that it radiates to understand that it did not radiate before.

How do you presume extra energy is needed when only one path is taken per world?

As for Schrodinger's cat, the use of the radiation is about using random generation where the cat is sure to die at least by some percentage of all possibilities.They needed some reason that the cat could possibly die. Also, radiation decay is dependant upon the particular element and can vary depending upon its concentration ["critical mass", that is].

But for philosophy, Zeno's paradox of the 'Arrow' suffices and can be something that may help visualize why there has to be some logical relationship that assures both multiple possible outcomes as well as multiple possible inputs. Let me try to explain this using our modern capacities that Zeno lacked in his day: one picture frame of a film strip.

Zeno's paradox can be resolved by considering the motion of the arrow to be discrete.

You missed the point. Zeno imagined this as discrete images in specific points OR intervals of time. The 'paradox' is not relevant to my use of this though. The question is how can you differentiate between story lines if it is possible that many stories can use the same apparent frame or image?

As another different example, here we are using various letters and combinations of words to create sentences. If you are given something like,....

".........is........",

The 'is' here represents a frame here such that you can create an infinite set of possible sentences. The words before it act like the time before the frame and the words after it act like the possible future. That "is" has no unique PATH and so given just that open sentence, you can interpret many different stories. Because this demnstrates possible optional sentences one can create 'freely' yet only one particular creation is taken at a time 'deterministically', this expresses how reality is still determinate on the whole.

If only one possible world exists, then the options that seem apparent are false and we are left with ONLY a determinate single world.

If you imagine you have a single image of an arrow. Can you determine what the 'next' image will be without knowing anything else? As an extension to this problem regarding looking backwards in time too, can you specifically assert that only one possible prior image exists that can make a rational motion picture story?

[Note that Zeno argued that this was 'paradoxical' because he assumed it should have one and only one input and output 'storyline'. He argued that this imagined 'frozen still picture' as possibly representing someone dropping the arrow, so that, using my question above, you could argue that the prior image does not have to be coming from the apparent interterpretion of a arrow flying in one unique direction. Thus, he concluded that given you cannot "determine" this, the reality is realtively 'indeterminate', which is only a contradiction if you already know the set of images predeterminately. He concluded that 'motion' in this thought experiment instance could not be 'determined' as existing and so motion itself should not be possible. He, of course would not literally think this but it helps foster the foundational questions about motion that later scientists would embrace.]

I assume, in the classical regime, if you know the position and speed of the arrow then you can say where it will be at a later time.

I gave the example of one frame (or interval at a particluar instance). For velocity, you need at least two known points in two distinct times. But also note that it is not necessary for all possibities to be realizable in our particular TYPE of world. This means that for 'consistent' worlds specifically, not all points in time or space has the same number of options. So you can still have determinate-only factors as well as relatively indeterminate ones. With respect to all infinite worlds, inconsistent ones are always more dominant; So the possible options available for our type of world will lose those options that are specifically inconsistent. [We could 'experience' such a possible irrational world but where such patterns lack consistency, they have no sensation for us. We would only experience those worlds that have consistency.

[bahman]

In logic and math, the concept of a "function" means that for any input (or set of them where simultaneous), one unique output can only exist to each input. As a more GENERAL set any possible set of inputs and outputs, including the capacity to invert inputs to outputs or vice verse, the term, "relation" applies. Many texts either opt to begin with general relations and then define specific types, of which a function is. But this is also taught by beginning with defining functions and then defining all relations in terms of multiple functions.

Basically, "determinism" just implies that for some understood single output, like our particular experience in this life, each reality has one and only one possible path. So you defined this correctly. HOWEVER, note that reality can and does have real distinct different outcomes (or 'outputs' as I used it above). In fact, I can argue that how it must be the case using certain thought experiments. As for the 'hard' evidence, you just have to look at the slit experiment in physics to which regardless of which interpretation you favor, the pattern of interference proves that either options exist but 'collaspes' to one unique reality or[distinctly] there exists a separate world for EACH possibility. I favor the latter because for the possiblities to be real, there has to be 'proof' of this with respect to a God's-eyeview so to speak.

If you are not familiar with this, check out Veritasium's YouTube video, "Parallel Worlds Probabely Exist. Here's Why."
I think he did a good job on explaining this. Others, like Brian Greene, have also done a good job on this.

I am strongly against parallel worlds since it means that when we observe the system there are two parallel worlds at which a copy of us exists in each. The question is where do you get the energy for the creation of the parallel worlds? Moreover, I have an argument against Schrodinger's cat experiment: You need a very small amount of radioactive matter that didn't radiate yet. You cannot have such a sample and make sure that it didn't radiate yet unless you observe the sample which this disturbs the system and cause that the sample radiates. Please remember that we need to disturb the system to the extent that it radiates to understand that it did not radiate before.

How do you presume extra energy is needed when only one path is taken per world?

You have at least two options, you have two according worlds too, one of them is the one you are used to living within it, another is a new one so the whole new universe should come from somewhere.

But for philosophy, Zeno's paradox of the 'Arrow' suffices and can be something that may help visualize why there has to be some logical relationship that assures both multiple possible outcomes as well as multiple possible inputs. Let me try to explain this using our modern capacities that Zeno lacked in his day: one picture frame of a film strip.

Zeno's paradox can be resolved by considering the motion of the arrow to be discrete.

You missed the point. Zeno imagined this as discrete images in specific points OR intervals of time. The 'paradox' is not relevant to my use of this though. The question is how can you differentiate between story lines if it is possible that many stories can use the same apparent frame or image?

As another different example, here we are using various letters and combinations of words to create sentences. If you are given something like,....

".........is........",

The 'is' here represents a frame here such that you can create an infinite set of possible sentences. The words before it act like the time before the frame and the words after it act like the possible future. That "is" has no unique PATH and so given just that open sentence, you can interpret many different stories. Because this demnstrates possible optional sentences one can create 'freely' yet only one particular creation is taken at a time 'deterministically', this expresses how reality is still determinate on the whole.

If only one possible world exists, then the options that seem apparent are false and we are left with ONLY a determinate single world.

In the case of motion, we know that one state of affair evolves to another state of affair constrained by laws of nature. I understand what you are saying about the "is" example but I don't see its relevance to the problem of motion since there is no unique law/prescription which tells you what comes after and before "is".

If you imagine you have a single image of an arrow. Can you determine what the 'next' image will be without knowing anything else? As an extension to this problem regarding looking backwards in time too, can you specifically assert that only one possible prior image exists that can make a rational motion picture story?

[Note that Zeno argued that this was 'paradoxical' because he assumed it should have one and only one input and output 'storyline'. He argued that this imagined 'frozen still picture' as possibly representing someone dropping the arrow, so that, using my question above, you could argue that the prior image does not have to be coming from the apparent interterpretion of a arrow flying in one unique direction. Thus, he concluded that given you cannot "determine" this, the reality is realtively 'indeterminate', which is only a contradiction if you already know the set of images predeterminately. He concluded that 'motion' in this thought experiment instance could not be 'determined' as existing and so motion itself should not be possible. He, of course would not literally think this but it helps foster the foundational questions about motion that later scientists would embrace.]

I assume, in the classical regime, if you know the position and speed of the arrow then you can say where it will be at a later time.

I gave the example of one frame (or interval at a particluar instance). For velocity, you need at least two known points in two distinct times. But also note that it is not necessary for all possibities to be realizable in our particular TYPE of world. This means that for 'consistent' worlds specifically, not all points in time or space has the same number of options. So you can still have determinate-only factors as well as relatively indeterminate ones. With respect to all infinite worlds, inconsistent ones are always more dominant; So the possible options available for our type of world will lose those options that are specifically inconsistent. [We could 'experience' such a possible irrational world but where such patterns lack consistency, they have no sensation for us. We would only experience those worlds that have consistency.

Velocity is an internal state of a particle. You however need two points for the calculation of velocity. You also need two points in time to allow motion but I don't understand the relevance of these two points with two options. For options, you need two reachable worlds at one point in time. For velocity, you need two points at different times.

[Scott Mayers]

...
How do you presume extra energy is needed when only one path is taken per world?

You have at least two options, you have two according worlds too, one of them is the one you are used to living within it, another is a new one so the whole new universe should come from somewhere.

This would not follow. We only would experience one life regardless. If we doubled in size in ONE world, that might get you into trouble. The measure of any energy we have is about one 'story' at a time.

You have to interpret the 'choices' as no longer real. The collective possible paths covering all options makes reality follow the laws determinably still. But only in one particular path does reality act indeterminate. It then follows rules based upon probabilities instead.

Zeno's paradox can be resolved by considering the motion of the arrow to be discrete.

You missed the point. Zeno imagined this as discrete images in specific points OR intervals of time. The 'paradox' is not relevant to my use of this though. The question is how can you differentiate between story lines if it is possible that many stories can use the same apparent frame or image?

As another different example, here we are using various letters and combinations of words to create sentences. If you are given something like,....

".........is........",

The 'is' here represents a frame here such that you can create an infinite set of possible sentences. The words before it act like the time before the frame and the words after it act like the possible future. That "is" has no unique PATH and so given just that open sentence, you can interpret many different stories. Because this demnstrates possible optional sentences one can create 'freely' yet only one particular creation is taken at a time 'deterministically', this expresses how reality is still determinate on the whole.

If only one possible world exists, then the options that seem apparent are false and we are left with ONLY a determinate single world.

In the case of motion, we know that one state of affair evolves to another state of affair constrained by laws of nature. I understand what you are saying about the "is" example but I don't see its relevance to the problem of motion since there is no unique law/prescription which tells you what comes after and before "is".

We have 'general' rules about language and can think of them as forms. For instance, although we mixed many variants of rules from different places into modern languages that create exceptions, do you see the pattern, "House, red, is." as a proper form? [FORM: subject, object, verb] example

Note that source language roots can convene to place the verbs at front of all sentences as a rule, like an assembly language instruction as well. Then it might be conventional to place the subject second and the object at the end. "Is (subject) (object)" for instance. We still use this form when frame it as a question, like,

"Is the house red?"

Thus, you have rules that exist in general that apply but have specific optional parameters that enable more than one possibility. The form Verb, Subject, Object can be a general law while the particular verb defines the 'function' with subject(s) and object(s) as parameters.

I gave the example of one frame (or interval at a particluar instance). For velocity, you need at least two known points in two distinct times. But also note that it is not necessary for all possibities to be realizable in our particular TYPE of world. This means that for 'consistent' worlds specifically, not all points in time or space has the same number of options. So you can still have determinate-only factors as well as relatively indeterminate ones. With respect to all infinite worlds, inconsistent ones are always more dominant; So the possible options available for our type of world will lose those options that are specifically inconsistent. [We could 'experience' such a possible irrational world but where such patterns lack consistency, they have no sensation for us. We would only experience those worlds that have consistency.

Velocity is an internal state of a particle. You however need two points for the calculation of velocity. You also need two points in time to allow motion but I don't understand the relevance of these two points with two options. For options, you need two reachable worlds at one point in time. For velocity, you need two points at different times.

Image a picture of an arrow.

That picture acts as a single point in which we are not given anything else. That is, we actually would need a second image to define which 'direction' the arrow may* be coming from. Instantaneous velocity that we use by Calculus is not necessary in this example because we have no means to determine this from just a single point regardless. This relates to Quantum Mechanics though when we consider probable options and where the Indeterminacy principle is used. But that already assumes my argument true.

[* Because the images may tell you what 'line' or path of change is happening, notice that you cannot infer that it is moving from the arrowed end or its feathered side. So in this case two points are not necessarily enough to actually determine anything specific for this example.]

[bahman]

...
How do you presume extra energy is needed when only one path is taken per world?

You have at least two options, you have two according worlds too, one of them is the one you are used to living within it, another is a new one so the whole new universe should come from somewhere.

This would not follow. We only would experience one life regardless. If we doubled in size in ONE world, that might get you into trouble. The measure of any energy we have is about one 'story' at a time.

You have to interpret the 'choices' as no longer real. The collective possible paths covering all options makes reality follow the laws determinably still. But only in one particular path does reality act indeterminate. It then follows rules based upon probabilities instead.

It follows. In parallel worlds picture, you have at least two worlds, and two copies of you each live in different world.