Hello AppMathsDoc,

I think I know what you are getting at. First things first.

No I haven't read that book but I have read,'The Elegant Universe' by the same author.

I have heard of Newton's bucket because it was one of many disputes between Newton and Leibniz. Newton thought the bucket experiment went a long way in proving absolute space. Thinking along the same lines Newton imagined what would happen if two heavy weights were tied to each end of a rope and sent into space away from any influence of gravity.
The answer is nothing unless the weights rotate around each other.
Once this happens then Newton thought that rotation makes sense if we reference it in relation to the background of empty space. Leibniz did not agree and though that absolute space was nonsense. Unfortunately Leibniz could no devise a though experiment or otherwise to disprove Newton's idea.

Mach and Einstein put an end to the idea of absolute space.

Well as it turns out Einstein probably produced more unanswered question than we would like to think. Quantum theory does provide for the possibility of absolute space once again.

From my reading of,'The Elegant Universe' it seems as though space is not as empty as we would like to think. The following is not Green's ideas.

Kant distinguished between things-in-themselves and things-for- us.
For Kant there are two realities, however we only get to see one (things-for-us). With a little imagination we could imagine that things-in-themselves is a wave function. Things-in-themselves are only potential possibilities. Things-for-us is what we might call conscious awareness or a collapse of the wave function due to observation.

Kant might turn over in his grave at this interpretation.

Simple answer, no argument asserting, for certain, the existence of randomness is sustainable. Let's say you observe apparently unpredictable behavior such as quantum-level behaviour. You either investigate it further as to why, or you don't.

A small note about Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle" in case anybody is confused about what it is. It is actually a blindingly obvious statement about the apparent unpredictability in the behaviour, and nothing more, because, as Heisenberg himself admitted, it's about CURRENT TRAJECTORY (i.e. the momentum from now on), which we never measure anyway, we measure RECENT MOMENTUM, which the uncertainty principe does not apply to, so it's a completely useless principle. Quote from Heisenberg, "the uncertainty relation does not hold for the past". So I envision all those people who thought the "uncertainty principle" had any other relevant non-obvious meaning, as simply having egg on their faces.

Purushadasa

I endorse the concept of determinism as well.
However I fail to see a reason for someone to believe in consciousness and free will , given that random doesn't exist.

Given that there is absolutely no proof on the existence of any random phenomenon or lack of disproof that a definite pattern governs our lives , one can derive that every action can be analyzed to a countable number of variables.This includes "choice", which is the result of behavioral patterns , which in turn rely on your DNA and upbringing , ultimately tracing back to big bang. If we can know the values for every variable at any given time ( I hope the community can excuse my variable analogy) then the outcome is predictable in its entirety- semi-quoting you-thus choice is fictional.

What we consider consciousness is the collection of electrical signals. Our brain , overdeveloped as it is in the animal kingdom , allowed these collectives of signals to amass and create insticts and ultimately "consciousness".There is no such thing as life in its strict sense, it's just a term that we find convenient to give to similar atom structures.

By applying the cliché biology->chemistry->physics->math procedure we conclude that all our behavioral patterns from our so believed whimsical decision to well-thought plans can be provoked ,given the right environmental factors.

The casuality inside and outside our head , which don't really differ , denies the existence of free will as our "choices" are expected outcomes within expected circumstances. The fact that we are disputing randomness on this board can be predicted given the right tools and variables by an external observer since big bang.

Many people claim that Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty allows us rest assured since we do have choice, however this is just a barrier imposed by the inadequacy of our mathematical conception of the world , which by no means holds the essence in itself.

Hope I nailed the terminology :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apparition_Ignition

Purushadasa

I endorse the concept of determinism as well.
However I fail to see a reason for someone to believe in consciousness and free will , given that random doesn't exist.

Given that there is absolutely no proof on the existence of any random phenomenon or lack of disproof that a definite pattern governs our lives , one can derive that every action can be analyzed to a countable number of variables.This includes "choice", which is the result of behavioral patterns , which in turn rely on your DNA and upbringing , ultimately tracing back to big bang. If we can know the values for every variable at any given time ( I hope the community can excuse my variable analogy) then the outcome is predictable in its entirety- semi-quoting you-thus choice is fictional.

---

Hi Apparition,


Yes, I agree this is the logical outcome of hard determinism.


You also say:

What we consider consciousness is the collection of electrical signals. Our brain , overdeveloped as it is in the animal kingdom , allowed these collectives of signals to amass and create insticts and ultimately "consciousness".There is no such thing as life in its strict sense, it's just a term that we find convenient to give to similar atom structures.

By applying the cliché biology->chemistry->physics->math procedure we conclude that all our behavioral patterns from our so believed whimsical decision to well-thought plans can be provoked ,given the right environmental factors.

The casuality inside and outside our head , which don't really differ , denies the existence of free will as our "choices" are expected outcomes within expected circumstances. The fact that we are disputing randomness on this board can be predicted given the right tools and variables by an external observer since big bang.

Many people claim that Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty allows us rest assured since we do have choice, however this is just a barrier imposed by the inadequacy of our mathematical conception of the world , which by no means holds the essence in itself.

Hope I nailed the terminology :)[/QUOTE]



I take it from this that you are a determinist and a physicalist ( one tends to complement the other). That is, you reject such things as qualia and phenomenological consciousness.

If this is the case then I would find it interesting because we don't seem to get many determinists here.


Regards

Tut

I definitely fall into that category. Since, however, there are few around, the conversation seldom arises.

Greetings Tut and InfoJunkie

You were right, I accept determinism and physicalism in their strictest forms as they are the most logical outcomes within our understanding of how the universe works. It is rather hard to accept your "existence" (if you would allow the controversy) is nothing more than a collection of atom structures able to identify itself , thus creating the illusion of consciousness.The difficulty lies in the defence mechanisms developed by the concept loosely described as "theres got to be something more to such complex beings".

There is casuality in our history but not randomness.

However I do happen to accept some aspects of qualia , such as the difference in the magnitude of phenomena, except for this is caused by structural differences and not conscious-related ones.

Best regards to fellow determinists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apparition_Ignition

Greetings Tut and InfoJunkie

You were right, I accept determinism and physicalism in their strictest forms as they are the most logical outcomes within our understanding of how the universe works. It is rather hard to accept your "existence" (if you would allow the controversy) is nothing more than a collection of atom structures able to identify itself , thus creating the illusion of consciousness.The difficulty lies in the defence mechanisms developed by the concept loosely described as "theres got to be something more to such complex beings".

There is casuality in our history but not randomness.

However I do happen to accept some aspects of qualia , such as the difference in the magnitude of phenomena, except for this is caused by structural differences and not conscious-related ones.

Best regards to fellow determinists.

---

Hello Apparition,

To be honest I am in two minds about what you are saying. In a type of irony I guess my two minds suggests that I lean towards dualism.

David Chalmers in 'The Conscious Minds' identifies what he terms, 'the hard problem' of consciousness. Chalmers says that if any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness it is this one. I can remember this problem almost word for word because I have just recently read it.

It goes something like this:

If there is something it is like to be that organism and a mental state is conscious only if there is something it is like to be that state. Sometimes such terms as, 'phenomenological consciousness' and 'qualia' are used."

Chalmers goes on to ask himself, "Why doesn't all this information processing go on 'in the dark' free of what might be termed 'what it is like' experiences?"

If such processing does go on 'in the dark' then I would say that physicalism is true. However, experience does seem to have a 'what it is like' character about it.

Regards

Tut

If the universe was random we would see an even distribution of matter, instead we see clumps of matter. Take the accretion of planets as an example. Two particles combine and that increases the chances that another particle will join them. This only increases as the gravity increases. So called "free will" is based on a set of pre-existing configurations of matter. A coin flip seem random but in a truly random universe the coin would not only land on either heads or tails but would also occasionally burst into flames.
I no longer buy into the concept of Schroedinger's Cat. What makes us think that an event is not defined just because we do not observe it, all we know is that we are unaware of it's state.
The particles in the double slit experiment do not pass through the slits randomly, each one passes through a particular slit because it was unable to pass through the other one.

I would like to a thought. To a being which is omnipotent (capable of all things), omniscient (knowing all things) and omni present, nothing would be random. However, people possess none of these qualities which would allow us to predict every event with 100% certainty. So to answer the question, absolute randomness does not exist to anyone having absolute knowledge.