Category: Determinism

To reply with an email, use: email@thethirdmillennium.com

Overview:

We know that pure science or deterministic science is typified by formulas such as  the laws of motion. It is based on  a certain type of causality. What about behavioral science, biology and the humanities? Are they science? Do they have a different type of causation? How does it affect our philosophy? Every time I see an online discussion of “if determinism is strict and exclusive” then  “do we have any free will?. The following discussion leads to nothing but confusion. There is no excuse for this and a lot of harm. The distinctions may be the most important issue in terms of a humanistic philosophy and the ultimate existential questions such as “Do we have free will?” and “Why do we exist and how can anything exist?”

Paradigms:

I am not being overly ambitious in addressing this question. There are clear answers based on logic, science and mathematics. There are boundaries to strict, exclusive determinism – I call this The First Paradigm.  Of course, there are many proven, physical phenomena and laws that are strictly deterministic. It is just that they are not exclusive.

There is clear, mathematical, physical, and inductive evidence that there is an expanded view – an additional paradigm – based on mixed causality. I call this combination The Second Paradigm. I define the second paradigm as including both 1. deterministic phenomena and 2. emergence/self-organized phenomena – both 1. and 2. These two causalities  usually work together for a combined resultant. This is the proven, valid view based on logic, science and mathematics.

The lack of clarity on this distinction is a major gap in education.

I also address a third paradigm. The failure of the first two in terms of our complete reality sets up another frame. To many people this paradigm is the most important.

The First Paradigm:

Strict Determinism as the only science and causality

Strict, hard determinism has been posed as the only paradigm.  From Wikipedia: In the history of science, Laplace’s conjecture was the first published articulation of  exclusive, strict determinism – by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814. According to strict determinism, if someone – a super intelligence – in his example: “La Place’s demon” captures all information –  knows the precise location and momentum of every atom, energy state, or sub-particle in the universe, and their past  values, then the future is trapped, causatively bounded – ie. – rigidly, exactly predictable. In the case of an outcome caused by deterministic causality, this is correct. Laplace and others were absorbing and extrapolating this universal principle from a  large wave of advances in Classical Mechanics in the 17th and 18th century –  that could, for instance, predict the future movements of all the heavenly bodies indefinitely into the future –  limited only by the knowledge and accuracy of the starting state – of all parameters. The expansion of proven scientific laws just kept coming most notably by Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion and Newton’s Laws of Motion .

If strict determinism is the final causality and the future is determined to every finest detail. The universe and all of us as components are a frozen, clockwork machine. Any human decision making, and free will are false illusions.  The most important values: love, family, hope religion, ideology, are false. It fundamentally effects the foundation of other belief systems – especially religion, the dignity of man, morality, culture, ideology and our political systems. In this view , it is a final, un-editable movie reel. It philosophically forces us  to the logical, but nihilistic conclusion – what does anything matter? This is the poison that kills the human spirit and mocks all morality, and self sacrifice to ideals bigger than ourselves.

The first Paradigm is Exclusive, Strict Determinism

First the Deductive Logic of Determinism has to be defined as separate from      —     the logic of Emergence that is dependent on Inductive Logic.

Deductive Logic vs Inductive Logic

1 Deductive Logic

Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic – Science based on formulas and deductive logic (Physics, Astronomy, Electronics, etc) these have strictly defined and measurable parameters (mass, time, velocity) and formulas that always work precisely with proper input and within certain limits. These sciences are supported by valid, deductive logic.

Deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain or sound conclusion. Here is an example. The Accumulated Distance objects in gravity falls per unit time.  D=1/2 G x T squared.

Here are the characteristics of deterministic phenomena:

D, G, and T are completely defined. This result of the formula is always true and exact. If there was an instance within the defined constraints were it was not true,  then we would question not only that instance but any this instance of the law of gravity. Deductive Logic demands all or nothing. This is strict determinism.

• Strictly defined and shared elements – time, mass, distance, energy etc.
• After initial observation formulas are deduced and tested.
• There is concurrence experienced by anyone who test under the stated conditions. The test is no longer necessary.
• Anyone can use this for other values of G and in combinations of G forces such as in a moon shot calculation.

The Second Paradigm is Strict Determinism – and – Emergence/Self Organization  – BOTH

Scientific findings have proven the limits of strict, exclusive determinism.  The good news is that a Second Paradigm that also includes both strict determinism and – emergence/self- organization is ratified as the scientific, valid view. This is a science-based view that is more comprehensive and it explains the world we know.

2. Inductive Logic –

By contrast, the causality resulting from emergent and self-organization agency is supported by inductive logic. We need to understand the difference between  these logical approaches.

Inductive Logic advances sciences seeking knowledge by applying analysis starting with observation. (So is deterministic phenomenon but, the  difference is that determinitic phenomenom like any study, may start with obsevation but is expanded upon and validated by deductive logic using common, shared measurables.) Inductive reasoning constructs or evaluates general propositions that are derived from specific examples. Here – we use statistics, measurement, correlation, curve-fit and analysis, and, where possible, many of the same tools as pure science. The new mathematics of emergence is also used. This is most obvious in the behavioral and life sciences: Psychology, Biology, Sociology, Ethics etc.). The huge difference is there are no exactly defined variables and no exact, deduced  formulas. In order to use quantitative analysis, measurables are proposed and evaluated as validated later. These differences are noted and valid as a criticism of evolution as a proven theory by Dr. David Berlinsky on U-Tube and his many books and articles.

Evolution is supported by inductive reasoning. It is not supported by the Deductive proofs provided by strict definition of measurables and formulas. Evolution will never be proven by the standards of deductive logic because it is not the product of determinism. An acceptable level of ratification seems to depend on an aggregate of scientific observation and concurrence. If evolution was not true, why do embryos travel its path? Why are there remnants of structures with no current use. Why is Australia stuck with the inferior marsupial model? This has to be balanced with challenges such as the mathematical problems in protein folding and many other baffling complexities.  At this time, there may not be acceptable proof to many people. I believe in evolution because of the preponderance of proofs and the lack of no better explanation.

The certitude and concurrence are often not as obvious but when it is right, the truth is that the causality is from emergence and complexity – and not from sole determinism. It is also true that deterministic processes can not be directly contradicted. That would be magic, not science of any sort.

The revolution of the mathematic validity of emergent causality and self-organization came about with the increase in computing power. For brevity, I will just use the term “emergence”.

I always anticipated that exclusive determinism could not explain all  causative reality. Even in Physics 101 (1960) I wondered how a reach of wind over the ocean for 100 miles could cause the emergence of a wave system with 3 measures of periodicity: Height = 30  ft, time – every 30 sec, distance 200 ft. apart. But, all the deterministic factors are on the molecular level. Each molecule is an independent agent pushed downward by gravity but sideway forces are random-like in every direction. A structure on the order of 10 to the 30th appears. Where did it come from? How was that outcome determined? When I saw and  grabbed the book Chaos (1987 by James Glieck, I was primed for a revelation. This limitation of strict, deterministic causality gives us an image of a picture and the limitation sets up a frame for another picture.

The Second Paradigm is Determinism  – co-existent with – emergence and self organization 

Emergence, Self-Organization

Complexity Theory: the theory that processes having a large number of seemingly independent agents can spontaneously order themselves into a coherent system or structure or even entirely new platforms. (see Platforms below). The starting, deterministic causality may be on the molecular level and the emergence of a structure may be on an immense level – 100’s of miles. A dripping faucet may drip deterministically in an exact period. Driven by a higher input there emerges a periodic fluctuation in timing and, at a higher boundary, a random patterm.  Some forms of emergence are always present like the thermodynamic structures in weather patterns. Some are a one in a octillion long shot when some mix of organic proteins evolved as living. Improvements in functionality emerged both gradually  – over billions of years and this was punctuated by sudden, quantum jumps into a fully coded replication process – RNA DNA, multi-cellular. Life is a new platform with a whole set of new rules and additional, changing, improving functionality.

Examples of structures: whirligig, tornado, hurricane, ocean wave system, DNA, life, consciousness.

I am having a problem explaining the relationship of Emergence and Self-Organization to the surprising – without exaggeration -astounding  – discoveries of the mathematical foundations of the mechanism of emergence – the logistics map, the Mandelbrot set. Observations in physical systems followed. So I prompted Chat GPT because its basis is a broad consensus of latest research. The bolded portions for emphasis was made by me. 

Chat GPT entry:

I am writing a blog to explain the that there are 3 ways (paradigms) that explain causality. The first paradigm is exclusive, strict determinism. The second paradigm is determinism along with emergence – self organization. The third paradigm is what is left when we the first two do not explain everything. That is “Why does anything exist”. I will finish that later. Please clarify and continue at the end of this submission under emergence (below at the end of this submission). Explain how the theory of emergence is mathematically based after computer advances allowed exploration of the logistics map and the Mandelbrot set. Explain how scientist also supported this by science. This was a shocking and totally unexpected outcome and the mathematics and science supports observation of many real life examples of emergence leading from weather up to life itself.

Where do we see emergence that is not deterministic by using deductive logic processes or standards.

Chat GPT answer:

My follow-up Chat-GPT question:

The Mandelbrot set seems to be deterministic because a computer generated set with specific starting parameters, if repeated, will generate the exact same output. It is said that this shows it is both emergent and deterministic.  Comment on the limitation of a computer simulation vs real life. There almost always many artifacts in real life that will variegate output such a thermal factors and other background artifacts. In real life, with complex parameters, many on a continuum and when artifacts are always present – under these circumstances repeated submissions are not deterministic. These artifacts are not marginal in a system where starting factors, though infinitesimal, will multiply variance in output. In fact some systems of emergence such as evolution thrive on computational causality with a little artifact effects mixed in. 

Chat GPT answer:

First we should all note this conclusion that is revolutionary and valid. The La place conjecture: that we live in a fixed, clockwork universe is proven invalid. Yet, it is still being discussed seriously to this day!

” interactions of individual components give rise to emergent properties that are not predictable from the properties of the components alone.”

“exhibit more complex behaviors that cannot be predicted from their inputs.”

In the follow up question, note:

My intuition is ratified – that computed emergence, as revealed by the same Mandelbrot set output – is never deterministic in real life. My conclusion is that exclusive determinism in its real life expression is very rare or never present in an absolute sense.

I have not referred to Quantum Mechanics because I do not have a background in it sufficient to cite it. At a high level, I have to say that anything I have seen on this subject as far as my understanding goes,  is supportive of non-determinism. I never saw any support in this arena for exclusive, strict  determinism.

The fact that the First and/or Second Paradigms can not explain why anything exists  sets up another “frame”.

The Third Paradigm

The universe is proposed/defined as everything. It includes all of space, and all the matter and energy that space contains. It may even include time itself.

If we consider the first paradigm as a picture, the inability of the first paradigm to explain all causality creates an empty frame.

The addition of the causality of emergence and self organization fills out the picture of the second paradigm.

The inability of either the first or second paradigm to explain the biggest question – why does anything – the Universe –  exist – sets the “frame” for the Third Paradigm. What do we put in this picture.?

The attempt to explain why anything exists is a complete failure.

What is the one very big thing that neither of these can even begin to explain?

Oh- the Universe. Its existence, Its causality.

There is nothing in the second paradigm that can help because it is not emergent. A Universe emergent …??? wait -from what resources, process or supported by what logic? Any precursor is just an additional something we forgot to add to our definition of the universe. So put  it in. Now, our first use of the word Universe was wrong. Put it back in and we are back to square one.

I watched a segment of the TV Curiosity series that offered to show how they can explain the existence of the universe without a prior cause – without God. Of course, they did not mention God, (unfashionable) the Law of Conservation of Energy or The First Law of Thermodynamics.

At the risk of being perceived as not open minded, I immediately braced for SHAZAM ! I started my timer. This magic word does not answer to any analysis or any type of logic or causality. It is how Captain Marvel exploded into his superhero form. A cheap form of Superman’s high gravity evolution story. He just says the word – SHAZAM -. That’s it.

Also, at the set up, as I have seen in similar attempts before, they quickly liquidated the inconvenient existence of time. This is an attempt to foil the obvious, (unavoidable?) question: “what came before?”  They flat-out stated that in this original state – there was no time! How sublime – no minimal tick – so no change – no next moment –so no trigger for next moment – alright it is a strain for me to conceive but I will go with it.  This elimination foils any inquisitive mind to wonder the obvious, annoying  repeating question –  “what came before?”

Oh no they can’t say what I think is coming. Yep – – – “AND THEN”   and then?   did you just say “and then” = SHAZAM! “and then” means in the next or later moment in time. You insisted there is no time in your frozen state, not mine. That is what you specified to avoid any “before” questions . Did you think we forgot?  Is this “and then” a teeny tiny tick of no consequence. Well, actually your final claim, if true, would be the biggest tick ever. It is cheaper than SHAZAM and that was ridiculous.

They even have another word that can excuse anything  – “singularity” as if the use of a word, in itself,  is logic. This eliminates all previous science, logic  and causality.  You cannot and should not deny this paradox and the biggest exception of all. You can not answer the question  – “Why this singular exception” by calling it a “singularity”. A repeat of the essence of the question and a label or identity; it is not logic.

And kwhat about: No time? An inconceivable amount of condensed energy in the timeless state waiting to release our Universe of energy:

Kinetic Energy K.E.=1/2×m×v2 –       v   See v (velocity – displacement per unit time) needs time.

Potential Energy P.E.=m×g×h          See g is acceleration and needs time – twice.

No time = no energy.

It occurs to me that all this is quite unworthy of scientists. It almost seems like they started with a conclusion and worked (desperately?) backwards. I feel I am challenging someone’s religion. The irony is that many of them think they are too intelligent to consider religion.

I will not sum up this presentation. It would bring out an unseemly sarcasm and I strictly avoid that.

What is in the Picture for the Third Paradigm?

Since all the most basic foundational laws of the Universe have no causality or logic for the existence of the Universe, it is logical and true that there is something more.

What other sources are causality-like and could be operative? As a start, I have to give myself some hints, working on instinct. Just as the deductive logic used within the first paradigm is inadequate to explain emergence in the second paradigm – the logic of the first two  paradigms does not work well in dealing with the question raised in the third paradigm, At the start, we  are limited to to comparison using our experience within our Universe. The operative principle would have to include all the information, processes, consciousness and implied intent.

The initial state of the Universe is pregnant with astonishing  possibilities. Within our universe, the  seeming miracles of the heights and levels of functionality comes from  emergence and self organization. This is raised higher by platforms such as life and consciousness. First negatively, by the limits of determinism, and then by a sublime  and  generative  properties that permeates all material creation. It is so much more than a default from the negative case.

In the book The Prime Number Conspiracy there is a reading about mathematical trends  in the frontiers of mathematics, An article  – In Mysterious Pattern, Math and Nature Converge – on page 37.  Various test and analysis of number sequences are expected to increase in randomness but, inexplicably, a pattern emerges in many unrelated areas . Groups of occurrences tend to bunch unexpectedly. this observation, proposed as a principle is called Universality and it appears “when systems that are very complex, consisting of many parts that strongly interact with each other to create a spectrum. ” This is a surprising pattern that appears in many disparate environments – this is why it is called Universality – “Something”. Yes I know this is vague and I do not understand where it comes from. But, it is consistent with the ability of complex system to defy the tendency toward randomness at some point and self-organize.

This is why chaos sets up an inventor’s workbench that gives us structures (galaxies, planets) and platforms (life) that increase functionality and further possibilities.

The categories of three areas of inference that occur to me are information, a generative property and intent. I did not want to use the term pregnant so I used a thesaurus and found “generative”. Sounds right. My use of generative in not just a one-time output at one level, but includes an innate escalation from base to higher and higher levels of new platforms. The output of these platforms unfold higher levels of processes that  generate new processes that create new environments and go from the physical to consciousness and beyond. The deterministic material universe, astronomic bodies, life, cells, multi-cells, an oxygenated planet,  constant re-design to fully populate all ecological niches and domains, sea – land – air, social behavior, consciousness, high culture, art, artifacts, industry, religious culture, philosophy, ethics, humanism, democracy. Lets call this ascendance.

	Information	Generative	Intent
First Paradigm	Position, state, complete detail. Maximum information. At another level- physical laws that provide reductionism as deduced. A Foundation that cannot be contradicted. This is the bare stage. (As in a theater)	Future states are dictated by deterministic causality and physical laws.	This is a foundation that provides a bare stage for the Second Paradigm. The possible  “workings” of the design are preordained – innate.
Second Paradigm	Maximum information at the chaos level, some reduction in structures. Other – Emergent causality – can change outcome in non-linear, unpredictable fashion. We observe a new order that is reductive in information.	Even without prior platforms, self-organization makes a U-turn away from randomness and creates a more organized, dynamic state. Without contradicting determinism, emergence can generate structures at all orders of magnitude, with  minimized energy use to reach equilibrium. At another level – life, other levels, intelligence, culture, etc. The generative property is continuous.	Evolution can expand functionality to exploit ecological niches. At another level – coded processes – the DNA system etc. can become – functionally – a biological inventor. While there is no conscious foresight, the designed and changing purpose of the system is yet a higher level of generating processes and forms. The progress and potential of generation are increased. Ascendance ( admittedly with some detours )as described above. Given the bare theater stage, the epic play emerges on a generative, verdant planet with further emergence of all the players who write their own script.
Third Paradigm	The Third Paradigm is actually the first in chronological order and the causality of the other two. As an input into my insight, I cannot image a causality prior to the first two that does not have all the base information If it were dumb to all that, how does it create  a vessel and processes for that information?	As an input into to my insight, I cannot image a causality above the level of the first two that does not have all the powers of the first two – to cause generation. Could it be at a lower level? Blind or helpless. If it that was so, does it generate a generative universe while limited to inferior powers?	Man has, it seems, compulsively sought the answer to a power beyond the immediate world. Man has always assumed that there was an intent to create a world with us as a target. Consider that most people were right about free will when so many agnostics and atheist believed in exclusive determinism. The ascendance we see is not explainable by the first or second paradigm. They are blind and must follow a plan that was innate. There is every evidence of a plan of ascendance, especially for humanity. We can only address this unavoidable insight by reference back to the third paradigm that had that intent at the beginning.

 

 

 

I see an ascendance in the history of man. I do have faith in man’s vision of a shared, common sense of justice and good, especially when it is based on natural law and this sense is made even more insightful by a progression of movements such as later religions in various forms, the renaissance, humanism. I see an elevated structure rising past early empires that believed the strong should exploit the weak and their gods expected this of warrior cultures. I see a clear progression when I think of “All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.” This view placed individuals with all different beliefs in a social contract to put individual rights over government and to limit government. Universal, unalienable set the stage to work out differences. Can anyone say that this progression has not emerged from  a religious view across mankind as created?  I feel that to progress I have to dig deeper to come to grip with God’s plan for us, individually and as a people.

Additional Topics:

Platforms:

The mechanisms developed by emergence have a higher level of design: Once a planform emerges – there is often another, new range, processes and menu of causality available. Life has its own laws. Look at what new sets of processes became available after life emerged on earth:  RNA,  DNA ( a code set!), first cells, multi-cell simple organisms, plants, animals, memory, association, decision, culture, religion, philosophy, political systems.  Each of these platforms is a construct with new causality. Often they are step-like and each step increases possibilities of new functions.  The elements affecting causality do not have distinct definition or measurable units – mass, displacement, velocity.  We can use measurables by making them up and hoping for a good correlation. The  exact, predictive  outcomes can not be explained by the principles of deductive logic. A system of deductive logic for future prediction can not be verified.

Consider, more closely,  what it means to say life is a platform that has it own rules – “Life has its own laws. Look at what new sets of processes became available after life emerged on earth:  RNA,  DNA ( a code set!)” –  Our DNA/RNA has a code set of four proteins and most do not correspond to the resultant output proteins and other chemicals structures and process control – some of which are expressed in puberty and beyond 12 yrs later. They are a coded formula and have many processes controllers. As a programmer I see how profound and intelligence-like this is. As a systems analyst and programmer, I know a system when I see it. I now see evolution as a system. I know, it uses randomness, but so does a casino and yet there is a system with higher level rules” the house always wins.” Randomness is exploited within bounds. Recent experiments show a gene pool of organisms keeps continuously improving adaptation and optimization to exploit its environment and it is not an asymptote that somewhat levels but keeps improving. – A system. The intrinsic properties of this system is at a way higher level of abstraction then it’s component deterministic causality. Sometimes the changes are marginal. Other times they are revolutionary. A primitive algae oxygenated the entire earth. Life conquered multi-cell complexity, and developed nerve control and eventually consciousness within deterministic limits.

Given the natures of determinism and emergence there is no chance to deny the existence of free will. PS. we use it every day.

Memory to Consciousness

Since the basis of emergence is a negative,  determinism has no solution to go forward  – chaos is a negative to determinism – chaos is an opportunity for emergence. Determinism, while not contradicted, does not continue with a deductively logical foundation for emergence. In order to progress as scientifically as possible you typically have to start in the middle. Inductive logic starts with observation – simply of what we see. This is how I  came to offer a theory oF Dreams  and a theory of hypnotism – – (Other entries in this blog – Why We Dream and What is Hypnotism). Then you use inductive logic applying all the scientific and mathematical tools you can, to describe source causality and resultant causality. As an example: As a physics student, when I was immersed in  determinism, I thought that no one would ever be able to scientifically define consciousness nor its causative source. I was both right – you can not use deterministic logic – and wrong – use deductive logic and start in the middle.

• Start with the fact that the first life forms do exist. – Emergence.
• Primitive life forms, in order to increase in capability needed to store information – memory.
• Memory enables association.
• Association links past input, to outcome.
• A mechanism to change DNA in the direction of better outcome even if it is as crude as discovery by constant changes. This tendency is a fact that is now being studied and measured.
• Association is needed for survival: to avoid or approach.
• Reaction behavior is changed
• Success of new reaction patterns reinforces.
• For any animal, some level of association needs to understand a mental construct such as the physical ability, behavior and, later the personality of a predator.
• For social animals. there is a need for a level of association to develop a complex mental construct of each of our social group’s individual peers.
• The construct of each peer needs  our internal model of their uniqueness, generally, or how they react in any situation in order to progress in our relationship or optimize their pecking order or to interact safely or maximize access to food, sex etc.
• We need to maximize our relationship to them, – to manage how they see us – manipulate?
• At a higher level of using a construct such as the recognition of a unique personality –  in our planning, we can include an internal model of ourselves.  We see the uniqueness and pattern of ourselves – a self aware and self referential level of consciousness.

Once we had the precursor of the ability to recognize the mind model of our primary relationship we can manage our image and planning by having a construct of ourselves. At this point we can examine our consciousness. Consciousness includes the central command of all the brain’s resources both automatic but, uniquely directed – problem solving and at the highest level – improving image and self improvement.

We are not always on an escalator of progress. Is this the down-side of free will? 

I am not a Pollyanna, blind to the latest trend in the last few decades, There is a definite movement to deconstruct religion and to reverse the American liberal ideals. I call the present liberals “Contemporary, Establishment, Pseudo-liberals”. I am not and have never understood peoples selling out themselves to one political party or ideology right or left. The west has been captured by a basket of complexes centered around elites that  control wealth distribution, corporations, political fundraising, media and captured governments and even academia, they all have new and more tools to undo past progress. The mainstream press is gone. The Template is in the book “1984” and the Chinese social scores. In the US all departments and agencies including “Justice?” are both tools of power groups and gone rogue, controlling uneven justice and illegal levels of control. An example of the reversal of the founding fathers vision: In all the charter laws the CIA has no legal role in domestic politics. It is simply and always  illegal. Now along with the Deep State, it is in a partnership, primarily,  with one political party and determining policy while illegally tracking (there are server farms that can be measured in acres.) and abusing power by exchanging both mutual gain and negative pressure at any opportunity.  As an older American with a long history, I can only hope that this too shall pass.

To reply with an email, use: email@thethirdmillennium.com