View Single Post
  #37  
Unread May 2nd, 2006, 08:54 PM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified

Quote:
Carey: The strict determinism paradigm has been out-grown in many fields of biology (but it has NOT been replaced with super-naturalism). Guys like Robert May illustrated decades ago that even very simple ecological systems can show chaotic dynamics which rapidly lose tractability. Again, I can send you relevant papers.
Maybe those involved in various fields of biology are presumptuous enough to think they have “outgrown” determinism, but let’s face it Carey, biology isn’t a hard physical science, and biologist aren’t physicists—undoubtedly, the objective mathematical truth and actual hard physical science of physics will always trump whatever circular tautologies that the philosophers of biology conjure up in their attempt to explain what they don’t truly understand.

Contrary to what many believe, “chaos” is not randomness, nor is it a lack of determinism—it’s a result of complexity and non-linearity, and the result is that the behaviors of chaotic systems are, in practice, very difficult or impossible to predict—e.g., the weather.

All the known laws of nature/physics are deterministic, including the evolution of quantum wave function, although there is that annoying “measurement problem” (and the so-called uncertainty thing) whenever we attempt to measure the position/momentum of a quanta, at which point those pesky probabilities appear to come into play—it’s an odd thing that everything we actually “know” about the classical world is deterministic, and yet at the foundation of our classical world, the quantum world, there “appears” to be this randomness and probabilities, albeit only when we attempt to “measure” the position/momentum of the “wave-particle.”

However, since we know of nothing that is truly random at the classical level, and since probabilities are always, ultimately, only an attempted quantification of our ignorance; and since there are many unexplained things happening at the quantum level, we have to conclude that all the evidence strongly indicates that the apparent randomness and the resulting probabilities that emerge whenever “measurements” are attempted, are merely a measurement/quantification of our ignorance of what is actually happening at the quantum level . . . after all, that’s why they call it a measurement “problem.”

So anyway Carey, the actual real science and real evidence tells us that all the natural laws of our world are deterministic. Thus, Fred’s First Theorem: Randomness is an illusion; ignorance, however, is real.

OK Carey, pop quiz: What are the odds that TomJ will be pissing himself as he attempts to nail me on what he mistakenly perceives an inconsistency/contradiction in my conviction that we evolved humans have freewill on the one hand, and that the known natural laws of our universe are deterministic on the other?

Last edited by Fred H.; May 2nd, 2006 at 09:10 PM.
Reply With Quote