>
>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..............I don't see how continuity or
discontinuity of time causes a
>problem here?
>
The discrete nature of states does not save the argument, unfortunately,
because we are discussing the origin of those states, not what happens
after they are defined. Once defined, then determinism holds. Its the
process of becomming determined that is non-deterministic.
One of the problems is that we are forced by our language to speak from the
paradigm we are analyzing, so we (both of us) are using mechanistic
language to analyze a mechanical paradigm. We have to be careful of
"proving" something merely with its definition and thus ignoring its ontology.
>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.
>
I believe that a state-dependent system is predictable and deterministic
(except in its most ontological sense - i.e., before observable existence).
That applies to the entire observable "non-living" physical/material world
from particles to the cosmos. So, I'm granting you a large playground. But
in return, I must reserve a playground for indeterminism because it clearly
appears as a fundamental/ontological exception to the laws of the
observable universe, It is a necessary assumption of the deterministic
paradigm that sufficient precision exists (whether practically achievable
or not) to predict the outcome of any system. That's just the way the model
is built. And I believe that is true for a state-dependent system (i.e.,
everything that is robustly observable, i.e., defined in this paradigm).
However, it is clearly not true below the Heisenberg uncertainty limit. At
that level, one cannot predict the outcome based on a thorough knowledge of
the initial conditions.
Here's how I think of it in my unsophisticated way. Once the states are
determined, they are discrete states that can be described mechanically.
But the amazing thing is that the space and time within which these states
are defined (and which also defines computability, determinism and
mechanism), apparently does not exist independently of them. There is
literally no meaning to space and time outside the discussion of states (or
material objects). So, how can one discuss the ontology of the states
without discussing the ontology of space and time itself? There is no
space/time "ether" in which objects (determined states) exist and that
would exist without them. They are part of the same world. There is a thus
recursive definition that appears in the ontology of both states (material
observable objects) and space/time. That makes the mechanical paradigm a
self-defining bubble inside a greater reality. I find this conclusion
inescapable.
>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 59
>
>E-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
>
-----------------------------------------------
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)