Deterministic?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />Hypothetically, if through technology we had infinite observational ability of both material, processes and scale, would the Meta model be deterministic?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One of the principles of physics on which the Meta Model is built is "the finite cannot become infinite". So your premise (infinite observability) is a contradiction of an MM premise. The MM cannot become deterministic except in a statistical sense, just as is true in our everyday experience.

But yes, in a model where infinite observability was possible, that model would become deterministic. But that is true simply by definition, isn't it? -|Tom|-

Tom:

It would seem as though if we had infinate observational ability that everything would be deterministic from a physics perspective. I guess hypothetically one could argue that if there were two events with equal probabilities, yet only one course would occur that this must imply indeterminability or chance. In such a scenario I suppose God would be playing dice.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />In such a scenario I suppose God would be playing dice.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't get your point. If we knew the exact velocity and spin of dice as they left a hand, the exact local gravity, the exact momentum of every air molecule that will impact the dice as they fall, and the exact coefficients of friction at every point of the surface they fall to, we could determine without fail what the dice will show after settling, as soon as they leave one's hand. This is no different in principle than predicting solar eclipses centuries ahead.

That does not make any of these events deterministic. A major asteroid strike could alter the Moon's orbit, making our eclipse prediction fail. And a sudden draft from a door opening could change the air currents in a way that would again randomize the dice outcome. So "deterministic" always means in a statistical sense. To make it otherwise would require that we know the state of all substance in the infinite universe over an infinite range of time and an infinite range of scales. But that is literally impossible because "knowing" an infinite number of things requires an infinite number of bits -- something no computer can ever be capable of. (The finite *cannot* become infinite.)

The best we can do in reality is improve the probability of a successful prediction by adding more and more information to our models. But we cannot, in principle, ever reach the point where we make the outcome truly deterministic. -|Tom|-

I agree with you Tom, but don't we still need to prove it?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />I agree with you Tom, but don't we still need to prove it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I did not phrase my argument in the form of syllogisms, but does it not cover all contingencies? What part is left to be proved?

My conclusion that "we cannot, in principle, ever reach the point where we make the outcome truly deterministic" is proved by the necessity of having an infinite amount of information, and the impossibility of achieving that goal.

The impossibility of the finite becoming infinite is proved by a one-to-one correspondence with the set of all integers (which has an infinite number of members), and the impossibility of adding any number of them together and getting an infinite sum.

Where are more details needed? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />I agree with you Tom, but don't we still need to prove it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I did not phrase my argument in the form of syllogisms, but does it not cover all contingencies? What part is left to be proved?

My conclusion that "we cannot, in principle, ever reach the point where we make the outcome truly deterministic" is proved by the necessity of having an infinite amount of information, and the impossibility of achieving that goal.

The impossibility of the finite becoming infinite is proved by a one-to-one correspondence with the set of all integers (which has an infinite number of members), and the impossibility of adding any number of them together and getting an infinite sum.

Where are more details needed? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Detail is needed in the fact that an infinate deterministic universe
would seem to be completely chaotic on all scales, since infinate materials would have infinate effects on infinate scales. An infinate domino effect would seem to drown all rationality in uncertainty. I suppose I have problems with merging skepticism with determinism.