I am not the Lord of the Wind

[Disch]

chwsks posted in r0shi's thread, and I feel compelled to give a more complete response now.

http://cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/24744/page3.html#msg148053 <-- his post.

Specifically:

Go ahead post your beliefs and I will show you how easy they are to mock.

So okay! I'll do it! (I need a break from my project anyway). I welcome critique/criticism/reasonable mocking:


My belief system is what you might call on the Atheistic side of "Deterministic Agnosticism".

The general idea is that everything that happens has a direct cause/effect behavior. If I push a glass off the table, it will fall to the ground because gravity pulls it downward. With no gravity, it wouldn't fall down, therefore gravity is the cause (of course me pushing it is also part of the cause).

This is understood and agreed upon as "truth" or "fact" by pretty much everyone of all faiths when it comes to commonly accepted science. For example everyone agrees that there's gravity, air pressure, inertia, etc. These principles can be witnessed all around us constantly. We can clearly see the effect that these causes have.

We can even use that knowledge to predict when something will happen, because we can see the cause before the effect occurs. For example if a kid is sitting on a tree branch that's too thin to support his weight, I would get worried because I expect the branch to break, causing the kid to fall and get hurt.

In essence, by understanding effects and leaning the cause, we can identify the cause in the future, and manipulate it to our advantage.


So how is this a belief system? It just sounds like I'm describing science, right?


Where my ideology begins to differ from most others is when you get into personal choice, "free will", etc. In my mind, all of the same logic applies. I often try to describe it as "The human machine".

All of our actions are determined by our genetic makeup and our personal experiences/memory. We're all large, incredibly complex state machines. We take input, and use it to produce output.

This is also largely accepted by most people on some level (even if they don't go 100% with it), as it can be observed in other people, and has been personally experienced by everyone. Memories of a bad experience will make someone want to avoid putting themselves in that situation again. Experiencing pain tells us not to do things ("putting my hand on the stove burned me! I better not do that again.")

All of these events make subtle phsyical and mental changes to our internal state, which in turn influences our future decisions and actions.

We perceive to have free will because our consciousness gives us the experience of weighing our decisions and choosing between them. But really, all we do is process fixed input and produce fixed output.

Say for example I need to decide whether to have fish or chicken for dinner. I might base my decision on whether or not I'm in the mood for fish. I might consider what I had last night. Or I might consider which is less expensive. Or I might just flip a coin.

But no matter which decision I make... if time were reversed and I was faced with that decision again, without having any more knowledge than I did the first time, I would make the exact same decision. Because all the reasons I made the first decision are still just as relevent and carry just as much weight the second time as they did the first time.

If I flipped the coin, I would have flipped it the same way, resulting in the same outcome, resulting in the same decision. Unless something changed somewhere, everything would play out exactly as it did before.


Anyway that's the "Deterministic" part. I'll get into the "Agnostic" part later if I feel like it.

[helios]

If I flipped the coin, I would have flipped it the same way, resulting in the same outcome, resulting in the same decision.

Well, that's not necessarily true, since a coin toss is a chaotic system. Variables beyond your control are in play, such as atmospheric conditions, how much energy you put into the toss, how your hand moves, etc.
But otherwise I (unsurprisingly) agree.

[Disch]

Variables beyond your control are in play, such as atmospheric conditions, how much energy you put into the toss, how your hand moves, etc.

But if you rewind time, all of those other X factors are all the same as they were. Unless any one of them has changed, the outcome can't be any different.

[R0mai]

Disch wrote: If I flipped the coin, I would have flipped it the same way, resulting in the same outcome, resulting in the same decision.
Helios wrote: Well, that's not necessarily true, since a coin toss is a chaotic system

It depends on if there are any true randomness in the world. Would things happen differently in two exactly similar worlds?

[helios]

But if you rewind time

Oh, in that case I agree unconditionally.

[hamsterman]

@R0mai "Deterministic" says no to randomness and though it can't really be disproved, there is no reason to assume it.

@Disch I feel this is a common position, especially amongst people dealing with rational sciences. I would like to hear the "Agnosticism" part though, as I don't really see what is not covered by plain determinism.

[chrisname]

Here's mine. Note that as I gain more knowledge of Physics and how the universe
works and inevitably realise some things I say now are wrong, this set of
beliefs will probably change in some ways.

Creation:
1. The universe has always existed in some "form" (time doesn't exist outside
of the universe so there is no need to ask when the universe was created)
2. The universe, in it's current "form", started ~14 billion years ago with the
Big Bang
3. The universe will probably end in a "Big Crunch" in which the gravity of all
the matter in the universe becomes too great and pulls it in on itself
4. This Big Crunch will probably cause re-expansion in a great explosion, also
known as the Big Bang.
See also: Cyclic Model ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model )
5. The universe is more or less the same for all observers, there are no "special"
places and there is no centre.
See also: Cosmology Principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle )
6. Carl Sagan (RIP): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE9dEAx5Sgw
7. Life on Earth came about through evolution.
More Carl Sagan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q55z6EsL8M

Determinism:
1. The universe is pre-deterministic, meaning that the outcome of every event
relies on the outcome of every previous event, but the outcome of each event
is actually pre-determined
2. This does not rule out free-will. We still have free will, though. I chose to
write this post. I could have chosen not to write this post, but I chose to.
I have a picture that illustrates this: http://i33.tinypic.com/71mi6v.gif

Here's my way of explaining this:
Imagine a point (not a point on a cartesian plane, a little circle or something).
Now, draw a line from the point. The line can represent our timeline. In this
timeline I drop something, say, a glass cup, and it breaks. Now draw a second
line. This is a different timeline, in which I dropped the cup but it didn't break.
In another timeline I may have caught the cup before it hit the ground, or it
could have been saved by a raptor, it doesn't matter. But there is an infinite
number of universes in which each event had a different outcome (Hitler won in
at least one of them, for example) than it did in our own universe. There is no
"main" universe (some people believe that when an event occurs, the universe
"splits" and a new timeline is created for each outcome of that event. But this
requires the existence of a "main" universe and I don't think having a "main"
universe is fair or sensible, so I don't believe it); all universes are equal
except in the outcome of certain events. The laws of Physics for our universe
apply to every other universe.

Notice that I (intentionally) use the words "timeline" and "universe"
interchangeably.

Philosophy and religion:
I'm agnostic and athiestic, in that I think there may have been a creator but
I don't believe there was. If there was a creator, it would be the creator
of deism, not theism; in other words, there probably wasn't a god but if there
was it's not a personal god.

Life has no meaning or purpose (existential nihilism). This is actually a good
thing, because it means you can give life your own meaning. Mine is to learn and
understand as much as I can before I die.

[helios]

7. Life on Earth came about through evolution.

Evolution describes the diversification of life, not its origins. The branch of biology that studies that is called abiogenesis.

[Disch]

@R0mai "Deterministic" says no to randomness

Right. Just because we don't see a pattern or a cause/effect relationship doesn't mean there isn't one.

That's why this is a belief system. There's no way to know whether or not true randomness really exists. I personally don't think it does. I assume it doesn't. (see note about assumptions below) ***

@Disch I feel this is a common position, especially amongst people dealing with rational sciences.

It's actually surprisingly unpopular. Mainly because it directly contradicts the idea of having a free will or a soul. If all we do is respond to our environment, we're not really making decisions, we're just being robots. That idea doesn't sit well with a lot of people (particularly religious denominations).

I would like to hear the "Agnosticism" part though, as I don't really see what is not covered by plain determinism.

Okie dokie.

Knowledge is gained by filling in pockets of ignorance. This makes ignorance a prerequisite to education. After all, how can you learn anything if you already know it?

In that same vein, the perception of ignorance is a motivating factor for education. If I don't understand something, I'm more likely to be interested in learning how it works.

<key paragraph>
It's detremental (but ultimately unavoidable) to fill in pockets of ignorance with false information or assumptions. This gives the perception that we're no longer ignorant, but in actuality we're still just as ignorant. Therefore we're worse off because we lack the drive, and may even strip ourselves of the ability to educate ourselves, therefore we perpetuate our own ignorance, and fail to grow.
</key paragraph>

So what determines whether or not information is "true"? According to my belief system, it's whether or not it forms that ever-important cause/effect relationship. If you can see that X is the cause of Y, and X always causes Y every time X is observed, then it is "truth" or "fact" that X does in fact cause Y. It's no longer an assumption... it's proven.

- Gravity pulls things downward
- matter tries to settle in the place of least resistance (resulting in things like air pressure)
- inhaling oxygen is necessary to survive

All of these are "true" because we see them over and over again. Not only that, but we can reliably use them to predict future events, thus reaffirming their "truth".

Without those qualifiers, information is not "true", and is therefore it is an "assumption". At best, assumptions are incomplete. At worst, they're false. Either way, they're detrimental as explained in the "key paragraph" above.


Faith, by the above definitions, fills in pockets of ignorance with assumptions, and is therefore detrimental. It can't be observed. It can't be predicted. It can't be measured, etc.

It's far better to accept that we don't know the answers to some questions, then to answer them with assumptions/nonsense/filler.


Therefore I'm agnostic by default. Simply because subscribing to any religious faith would be detremental.

I tend lean more towards Atheism because is seems more logical to me than a supreme, omnipotent diety that can control everything. Atheism is more about cause/effect. However in a sense even Atheism makes assumptions. It assumes there's no God, which again, can't be observed or predicted.++++


*** So if assumptions are so terrible, why do I assume randomness doesn't exist? Why do I assume humans are giant state machines? Doesn't assuming those things make this entire ideology hypocritical and contradictory?

Yes and no.

It's contradictory in a sense because they're assumptions. But they're necessary assumptions, "safe assumptions", in order to allow for education to persist. The only thing they assume is that there is something to be learned -- that we're ignorant about something. They don't assume to fill ignorance, they assume to expose it.

If true randomness exists, then how can we learn? Learning is impossible if the outcome is random. There's no cause/effect relationship, and therefore nothing we can gain from observing.

If free will exists, then how can we learn? It's impossible for the same reasons (free will is a form of randomness)

Therefore "safe assumptions" do not stifle the ability to learn by filling in pockets of ignorance with falsehoods. Instead they encourage that ability by pointing out "hey, you don't know how this works yet -- there's opportunity to learn here!" And so they fit right in with this ideology and are not contradictory.


++++ On the idea of Atheism... one could argue that assuming that God doesn't exist is a "safe assumption" because God would introduce an element of randomness. But that argument would only fly if God had free will, which you have to assume he doesn't.

EDIT:

chrisname wrote:

Determinism:
2. This does not rule out free-will.

It actually does, that's the thing. But I think you're speaking about the perception of free will and not actual free will.

[iw0XoG1T]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

You have chosen your axioms well they are superior to mine.

[Disch]

@ chwsks:

Awww, I was hoping for some ridicule =(

At any rate I'm aware that it's an axiom, as it's a belief system. It's impossible to have any belief system (or any knowledge) that doesn't have a foundation of axioms. Of course that statement in itself is an axiom!

EDIT: I'm somewhat axious to see if m4ster r0shi will reply.

[helios]

What are your (plural) thoughts on discrete time?

[iw0XoG1T]

How do you deal with emotions e.g. love. Do you deny it exist? Do you write love off to a predetermine result of your past experiences? Do you desire to be loved? It seems to me that you are saying that if your mother loved you it was because she had no choice.

[chrisname]

I wrote:

[Pre-determinism] does not rule out free-will.

Disch wrote:

It actually does, that's the thing. But I think you're speaking about the perception of free will and not actual free will.

I disagree. I don't choose to type this reply because the universe is making me, I want to type the reply. I am going to type the reply, but that doesn't mean I had to. I could just have well chosen not to reply, but then that would be taken into account anyway. Whatever I do is what I choose to do, but it's still what I did. That doesn't make sense because this is really hard to explain, but yeah. This quote from the image I posted says it best:

A fan wrote:

I have free will to do what I want, but I choose to oscillate.

@chwsks,
I'm assuming that's a reply to Disch, not me, but I want to answer it anyway.

I don't deny love exists, but I would deny that it is what humans seem to think it is. Love is caused by a human's desire to form a pair-bond with another human (usually one of the opposite species, although as we know same-gender attraction does exist (my opinion on homosexuality is that it is perfectly fine, and even natural, and that it acts as a safeguard against overpopulation)). The pair-bond serves to allow the two humans to mate, become parents, and raise their child together. I would assume humans became a pair-bonding species because of the amount of time it takes for us to reach adulthood.

[hamsterman]

It's actually surprisingly unpopular

Is that so? Well, that was only my guess, as many of my friends seem to accept determinism.

It's detrimental ...

How do you tell good from bad? Deterministic system has no target, so no harm can be done to it. Also, as every event is caused by previous events, it causes following ones, therefore it is never unnecessary. Events cannot be classified. As there is an infinite amount of events in infinite time line, their value is unknowable.

If you can see that X is the cause of Y, and X always causes Y every time X is observed, then it is "truth" or "fact" that X does in fact cause Y.

This would be true if there were only few variables, but, when, as I mentioned, their number is infinite, no assumption can be really safe. You take these assumptions for granted. "This gives the perception that we're no longer ignorant".
I'm not saying that you should doubt everything, I'm saying that your system is flawed.

But that argument would only fly if God had free will, which you have to assume he doesn't.

If god doesn't have free will, then what makes him a god? Without free will god is no different from a glass of water.

[helios]

I don't choose to type this reply because the universe is making me, I want to type the reply.

But where does the choice come from? What low level process made the decision and using what as input? If it used [data [collected from the outside] or [based ultimately on data collected from the outside]], then you're definitely deterministic and not free.

EDIT:

How do you tell good from bad?

He means filling gaps of knowledge with unverified data is detrimental for the purposes of knowing the truth.

This would be true if there were only few variables, but, when, as I mentioned, their number is infinite, no assumption can be really safe.

You can if you can demonstrate rationally that there's a causal relationship. One inherent and implicit assumption in determinism is that the universe is rational. For example, if you kick a ball and it moves in a given direction, it's safe to assume that it moved in that direction because you kicked it, not because of a very long chain of events that eventually made it move in that direction incidentally after you kicked it.

[chrisname]

I could reply to helios, but instead I will oscillate.

Actually, I don't really know. I haven't thought about it. If the universe is pre-deterministic, then I suppose I'm not free. I'll think about it at some point; right now I'm trying to make a Teller-Ulam bomb (not IRL, of course).

[hamsterman]

How do you deal with emotions e.g. love. Do you deny it exist?

How did you come to this conclusion? Realisation that a human is in a certain sense a machine, does not make me inhuman. It does not conflict with human ways of thinking. If fact determinism is the most tolerant belief system. It says that if something exists, it has a reason to exist and therefore is not wrong.

Do you write love off to a predetermine result of your past experiences?

Yes.

Do you desire to be loved?

Yes.

It seems to me that you are saying that if your mother loved you it was because she had no choice.

Yes.

[iw0XoG1T]

Chris I don't want to be mean-spirited--but is a determinist that believes in free will anything like an atheist that believes in God?

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=determinism

[chrisname]

We've already discussed this, and like I said, I will think about it. At the moment I'm leaning towards the "No free will" side of things.