And that’s what defines a deterministic system (metaphysically at least): the backward chaining. No backward chaining, no metaphysical determinism. It doesn’t refute epistemological determinism at all, but that in itself shows only that determinism exists in the subset of Nature, but not as the whole set that could be Nature.
Would a valid choice be neither and going somewhere else for desert?
Would a valid choice be selecting both?
Would a valid choice be starting your own lunch buffet and offer new or improved variations of existing deserts?
If you offer a new choice in the market have you altered reality?
Actually monism has some issues in terms of describing neurons. First, it assumes a single function of the neurons can describe all possible sets of interneural activity. In fact, there’s studies showing this isn’t the case and that one has to take emergence to describe the rest of the behavior. It’s the same in physics with friction, you can’t point to the atoms that make up molecules to describe it. You have to move up one level of reasoning. I believe Dennett discusses this at length in Consciousness Explained.
Aauugh!! “Dessert”, not desert. One is usually sweet-tasting, the other one just leaves your mouth full of sand…
If I had an entrepreneurial epiphany on my way to the lunch buffet and instead of eating went to sign a lease to open my own lunch buffet at what point is reality altered if it can be altered, just not in terms of history?
Ah, logos. yes this possible and that is possible, and this is impossible and that is necessary. Also, saying ‘map’, ie. structure of reality, is a great analogy.
One important thing to understand about emergence and epiphenomenon is that they ARE in principle explainable via their constituent parts. Friction exists at the atomic level and can be explained by elementary particle fields and fundamental forces, just as Quantum Electrodynamics fully explains the phenomena of light such as reflection and refraction.
Que?
Perhaps you misunderstood. ‘working backward’ is theoretically possible because chaos is entirely determined by a set of explicit causes. It is only ‘impossible’ (using the term loosely) in practice because nonlinear systems are computationally intractable, working backwards. This does not mean that backwards causality does not exist, only that it cannot be modeled. The map is not the territory and all that jazz.
Yes exactly! ladyatis, that’s the distinction between deterministic chaos and indeterministic randomness that I was talking about.
logos: "Originally a word meaning “word,” “account,” or “reason,” it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for the principle of order and knowledge in the universe." - wikipedia
–
It was a compliment. I pictured what you were saying. I was referring to your use of the logical modifier “possibilities”. Reality in human action is either met with necessarily-so, possibly-so, or it is impossible. (The affirms or denials of premises demonstrated in deductions). The use of the term ‘map’ was good. It brought a fuller reality back into the picture, it did for me, instead of getting caught up in Kantian inclinations of ‘it’s all in the mind’. Aristotle will do that (bring fuller reality back).
Thanks.[Y]
Hi wilderness,
Without any note saying otherwise, unless they actually click on the link, it appears to the reader that you yourself wrote that paragraph from wikipedia. Could you please add something to signify the source of the paragraph? Thanks.
That was sloppy of me. I at least usually put quotes around it. Fixed. And just so everybody now knows, for the record, it was wikipedia.
That’s not 100% true in terms of it being totally described by the composing parts. Simple rules in one level that cause a lateral interaction among the members can’t be predicted to do X or Y in terms of the emergent property. Emergence is literally meaning that it emerges from one level of interaction or composition to another, producing a hierarchy, which is why you can use QED to explain some parts of macroscopic light effects, but not all of them (such as metamaterials, which were best explained under classical/wave theory of light than under non-wave modern theories, this is due to the nature that light at the macroscopic level largely behaves as a wave and not merely as particles…).
Um I’m not talking about chaos, please focus on what I’m talking about as I think we’re confusing each other here. If a phenomenon is not reversible in terms of its operation (that’s its physics), then it cannot be deterministic. What part of that don’t you understand?
I should put all my cards up and explain my POV on this. I consider myself a Non-Determinist (not an Indeterminist). What I mean by that term is that Nature on the whole does not follow any single causal chain back to a singular set of events which can be used to describe the whole of it in its current state, thus no one set of causal chains can be used to make a universal statement that Nature is in/deterministic on the whole. There may be domains within Nature which aren’t deterministic like quantum phenomena, but many other parts can be neatly described and determined like subsets of particle physics, biology, economics and so on.
This means there are deterministic and indeterministic domains running parallel in Nature. At least that’s how I see it. I see the attempt to exclude one for the other as not only logically impossible, but contradictory to many things I’ve studied in physics (I was a physics major until I shifted tracks to CS and AI theory) and biology (I liked Darwin’s bios…).
That summation helped me understand what is being discussed here. Thanks for doing that ladyattis. At least now I know the road everybody is on in their exploratory study in this current discussion within the thread.
You are wrong. Higher levels of abstraction are used in organizing, caching and communicating sets of phenomena. Even epiphenomena such as Hofstadter’s marble thought experiment can be fully described at the level of quarks, it would simply be absurd to do so. An airplane’s trajectory can be described without reference to lift, wind, etc. These are cached concepts that are used to calculate efficiently.
There is also no split between micro and macro phenomena in physics. This is one of the largest misconceptions in naive physics. Quantum Mechanics describes all physical phenomena albeit in an incalculably complex manner. The reason you think otherwise is not because you are ignorant of physics (you apparently aren’t) but because you have a confused interpretation of QM, either the Copenhagen Interpretation or a similarly realist collapse interpretation. We really can’t continue this discussion until that is sorted, so I recommend starting here.