Determinism - a fake



  • 1. World's greatest saying
    Nothing is ridiculous, like Bush promoting dead cities (for young and old, Bush the Republican freak).
  • 2. mathematics
    Eray Ozkural exa wrote: > > What is this mysterious objectivity in a way that ordinary things > could not be? Because when people and\or computers correctly follow procedures using the signs of these things they always come up with exactly the same results. Try to do that with your cars, and tables, and other cudiments. patty

Determinism - a fake

Postby Joao Pedro » Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:55:59 GMT

Determinism is an unsolvable problem. For if someone ever would be capable
to solve it, clearly demonstrating that the "the universe is in fact
deterministic", that same person would be the only one that could ever reach
the solution, contradicting the problem in itself.

Re: Determinism - a fake

Postby Fred Mailhot » Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:57:53 GMT

Err...can you elucidate how exactly this "contradicts the problem" ??  Seems
to me like it just supports the conclusion...

Re: Determinism - a fake

Postby Alexandre, Daniel » Sat, 12 Jul 2003 15:30:26 GMT

That doesn't make any sense as far as I am concerned.
Because Determinism doesn't say there is no Stimulus/Stamina, a sensible
world in correspondence with the transcendent worlds of Windows.

- Daniel, Portugal

Re: Determinism - a fake

Postby Joao Pedro » Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:40:24 GMT


No it doesn't. There is no such thing as a conclusion to the question. "Is
the universe deterministic?" for if it existed it would become as a
revelation other than a logical dedution. So there is no possible logical
reasoning about the subject.

Similar Threads:

1.Fake, Phony O Levels, Fake A Levels, Fake GCE's

2.Fake City & Guilds, Phony NVQ's, Fake C&G

3.Predictability and determinism

Just corrected subject line spelling. :-)

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
> Stephen Harris wrote:
>> "HMS Beagle" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message 
> [...] However if you define
>> emergence in terms of unpredictability, you wind up with
>> "emergence" not being a very useful term in deterministic
>> systems - since there *everything* is predictable.
> [...]
> Um, I don't think so. "Predictable" is not the same as "determined". Eg, 
> a chaotic system is determined, but in principle unpredictable. In the 
> "near term", predictions are close enough to what will actually happen 
> to be useful, but that's not exactly predictability. "Near term" varies 
> with the details of the system in question.
> I used to claim that "predictable" and "explicable" weren't mutual 
> inverses ("Predictable is not the same as explicable"), but now I'm not 
> so sure. There are several sense of "explicable." There is a sense of 
> "explicable" that means "the ability to be traced backwards", ie 
> "postdiction." How far can one trace a chaotic system from present 
> conditions into the past? Seems to me the same limitations apply as to 
> prediction of its behaviour.
> The other sense of "explicable", namely "give an account of why the 
> system behaves as it does", is clearly not the same as prediction. In 
> the strongest sense of this meaning, that of finding causes, no system 
> is explicable. Nor does the weaker sense, that of finding a larger 
> context within which the phenomena are logically linked to other 
> phenomena, function as an inverse of prediction.
> I'm afraid I'm not expressing my ideas very well. But IMO the universe 
> is not predictable, at least not in the sense that any present state 
> implies one and only one possible future state at any arbitrary time 
> after the present. The action of gathering the data needed to calculate 
> that future state changes the present state in unknowable ways. Whether 
> that amounts to indeterminism is another issue, and one for which I 
> don't see any non-question-begging solution.
> But I'm willing to be tutored.
> What does this have to do with AI? I suspect that a good deal of what we 
> label "intelligent behaviour" is unpredictable in the sense I've just 
> described. I detect an implicit assumption that intelligent behaviour is 
> in some way surprising, that is, not implied by the data, not simply the 
> outcome of the activity of a fully known and determined system. That, at 
> any rate, seems to me to be an implicit assumption in arguments that 
> gophers and wasps are not as intelligent as humans - their behaviour is 
> less surprising. Beagle says it's less complex, which I suspect amounts 
> to the same thing.
> IMO, building a machine that will behave like a wasp digging a burrow to 
> lay its eggs in is a pretty tough challenge. The wasp doesn't build the 
> burrow just anywhere, you see.
> Or try building a forager bee: a machine that will "dance" to tell other 
> machines where where to find the electrical outlet. The other machines 
> must be capable of interpreting the dance, no matter what the relative 
> orientation between the messenger and themselves. It's much simpler to 
> build knowledge arrays that represent the topography of a room, for 
> example, and have a "bee" transmit co-ordinates to other "bees," of 
> course, but that's a work-alike.
> It's usually much easier to build work-alikes than to build emulations, 
> and usually easier to build emulations than to build imitations. See 
> bird flight as an example.  After far more reading around AI than I've 
> ever done before, it seems to me that a lot of the argument is about 
> whether a work-alike "solves the problem", or whether an emulator or 
> imitator is the required solution. From an engineering p.o.v., 
> work-alike is always good enough: the engineer just wants to get a job 
> done as effectively as possible. But some people on this forum want a 
> lot more than that. Which suggests that they are framing the problem 
> differently, but aren't ecplicit about how they frame it. Saying AI is 
> what would be labelled intelligent in a human isn't anywhere near 
> precise enough notion. It's really just hand waving. No wonder people 
> can't agree on which approach to AI solves the problem.
> The attack on behaviourism is a red herring. It arises from an attempt 
> to define an intelligent machine in terms of its structure, but of 
> course there is no way that can be done without at some point appealing 
> to the machine's behaviour. Without such an appeal, the attempt devolves 
> into question begging.

4.What the Hell is a Determinism Anyhow?

                 What the Hell is a Determinism Anyhow?

And maybe more to the point, what the hell is a non determinism?


5.determinism, freewill, chaos, and circular causality

As I am continuing my adventures in reading on the issues of complexity
and cybernetics, in order to get an overview of these subjects, I
looked at "Turbulent Mirror", 1989, by John Briggs and David Peat,
about chaos. This has some interesting comments regarding certain
issues voiced on this forum ...

pg 76: "... the scientists of chaos have discovered that determinist
systems which maintain themselves by oscillation, iteration, feedback,
limit cycles (systems including most everything of interest to us) are
vulnerable to chaos and face an indeterminate (unpredicatable) fate if
pushed beyond critical boundaries ...".

Later, the discussion is heavily about Prigogine and the idea of
"bifurcation", which is where system response trajectories successively
split into separate possible pathways as some parameter is increased.
The trajectories bifurcate again and again, until at some point total
chaos ensues. In short, such systems go from ordered responses on one
end to total chaos on the other, but can exhibit 100s of different
chaotic "attractors" [modes of self-organized operation] inbetween.

pg 143: "... in Prigogine's scheme of things, 'bifurcation' ... is an
essential concept. A bifurcation in a system is a vital instant when
something as small as a single photon of energy, a slight fluctuation
in [a system parameter], .... [the butterfly effect, etc] ... is
swelled by iteration to a size so great that a fork is created and the
system takes off in a new direction .... At its bifurcation points, the
system undergoing a flux is, in effect, being offerred a 'choice' of
orders. The internal feedback of some of the choices is so complex that
there is a virtual infinity of degrees of freedom...".

pg 144: "... At each bifurcation point in our system's past, a flux
occurred in which many futures existed. Through the system's iteration
and amplification, one future was chosen and the other possibilities
vanished **forever** [my emphasis]. Thus our bifurcation points
constitute a map of the irreversibility of time...".

pg 145: "... Each decision made at a branch point involves an
amplification of something small. Though causality operates at every
instant, branching takes place unpredictably. Prigogine says, "This
mixture of necessity and chance constitutes the history of the system".
It also constitutes the system's creativity. The ability to amplify a
small change is a creative lever...".

6. Relativistic Determinism

7. Freewill/Determinism definitions

8. Redicatbility and determinism

Return to AI


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guest