> At 08:38 PM 4/1/99 +0200, Mario wrote, responding to Francis on Determinism:
>
> >The reason why you can't predict the direction into which a Benard cell
> >(or roll) will turn is because it depends on the initial states of a few
> >molecules (or one molecule) at a very specific moment. If you could
> >determine all the positions at a very specific moment (if you would be
> >the genius of
> >Laplace) you would be able to predict the direction.
> >In my opinion, practical inpredictability simply follows from our
> >limitations in precision of measuring and from our limited calculation
> >possibilities.
> >Still, these phenomena remain theoretically predictable.
>
> I believe there is a serious flaw in this argument for determinism. It is
> indicated in the first sentence in the phrase "a very specific moment." How
> specific? To get the concept of determinism Mario is referring to here,
> which we can conclude is *theoretical predictability* (underlying
> *practical impredictability*), the theoretical construction of time must be
> a theoretically continuous one. Otherwise the precise moment required to
> establish the precise positions doesn't exist. beyond Heisenberg's scale
> limit. All evidence strongly suggests that continuous time (and space) is a
> myth (with no evidence to the contrary) - or more kindly, that space-time
> continuity is a unique world-view that is a simplification of reality. I
> believe it is quite incorrect to call this a "practical inpredictability"
> for it is not a matter of practical detail in a space-time world, it is a
> fundamental issue of the nature of space and time itself. Hence, I argue
> that indeterminism is fundamental to our "world" (when viewed from the
> world), not merely a practical matter. This has very important implications
> for how we think of life and consciousness; namely that it reflects this
> fundamental indeterminism that is embedded in what otherwise appears to be
> material nature. I am unaware of an effective counter-argument to this.
If time is not continuous, than events will not be continuous and it will still
be able to determine how precisely our measurements and time limitations should
be to make a prediction. No doubt, physicists now can tell us how many
measurements should be done (if we have one mole of water in our vessel, we
should take the number of Avogadro to determine the position of each molecule =
10 power 23!!!) and at which time intervals and at which measurement precision
(the diameter of a water molecule?) to make a prediction about Benard cell
directions possible. Only to come to the conclusion that we impossibly can carry
out all of these measurements at the required precision and that even if we
could do there would probably be no computer which can make the necessary
calculations.I don't see how continuity or discontinuity of time causes a
problem here?
If you are a basic indeterminist, as opposed to a pure determinist like me, than
you have an additional problem: you have to explain at which 'level' or 'moment'
or 'phase transition', things become predictable, because we can all agree that
there are situations in which things are predictable. And vice versa you will
have to explain at which transition things are no longer predictable.
As a consequent determinist, I don't have that transition problem. (Of course
blind people don't have the problem of telling the difference between different
visual inputs, so in case I am blind about indeterminism, I may overlook real
problems).
Considering the phenomenon of nonlocality, one gets the impression that the
world is even more determined than we can imagine.
Anyway, why are people so opposed to determinism? What is wrong about it? Is it
some underlying emotion about feeling less 'FREE' or not in command or less
human or less divine, which pops op when it turns out that things are
determined?
-- Mario Vaneechoutte Department Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology & Immunology University Hospital De Pintelaan 185 9000 GENT Belgium Phone: +32 9 240 36 92 Fax: +32 9 240 36 59E-mail: Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.be
Symposium 'Water and Human Evolution'. April 30th , Ghent, Belgium Information at: http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Programme.html