X-Message-Number: 4792
From: 
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 19:39:27 -0400
Subject: determinism

Relatively recent posts have expressed opinions on determinism and its
implications. One
view is that, (a) even given determinism, there may be no uniquely inferrable
past (or
future); and (b)  even if the past were uniquely inferrable in principle, in
practice not much
could be done because of great sensitivity to errors in starting
observations. Both these ideas
seem to rest on an oversimplified view of inference.

In the simplistic view, the inference model is akin to trying to chart an
asteroid path: an
irregular body of relatively small mass, influenced gravitationally by many
larger or
comparable masses, is indeed very hard to track for long, using only the law
of gravitation.
But any postulated future inference engine would have many more resources.
Bodies act,
interact and react not only gravitationally but in many other ways, including
emission/absorption/scattering of photons and perhaps including non-local
quantum effects,
maybe tachyons. Taken together, these would almost certainly narrow down the
possibilities
to just one.

Hans Moravec reportedly has a similar view--that a person could be inferred,
even in the
distant future, from clues in the environment, the footprints he left in the
sands of time. I
agree (for a change).

As to the validity of determinism, I rely again on the sweep of history, in a
certain sense.
The whole thrust of the advance of science is that things make sense if we
look hard
enough, that effects are preceded by (or at least linked to) causes; and also
that Newton's
Third Law can be generalized: there are no one-sided actions, but only
interactions. And
if everything reacts with everything, then indeed information is never lost.

The current prevailing I-surrender-Dear interpretation of quantum mechanics
seems to
accept a partial randomness in the universe, but I cannot see that a true
"randomness" (an
objective randomness, not grounded just in the accidental ignorance of the
observer) has any
MEANING, let alone any possible reality. It is conceivable, of course, that
the hidden
variables are truly hidden forever from our ken, more or less as fire is
hidden from fishes,
just by our physical limitations as a species or by our three dimensionality;
but any
FUNDAMENTAL randomness is just a nonsense term that is given a spurious air
of
meaning by the misuse of language.  

Think of the quantum rules governing statistical distributions of certain
quantities. An actual
observation produces a "random" result--but all of these build up to a
definite distribution.
So we have "random" events that nevertheless follow a definite overall
PATTERN. Are
RANDOM events supposed to have MEMORIES or GUARDIAN ANGELS that warn
them not to stray too far, too often? Quantum mechanics (in the common
interpretation)
requires orderly randomness! Stuff it.

As for many-worlds, I have problems with that too, but that's another long
story.

Robert Ettinger


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4792