Do you want to know if all the reality of our universe, our existence, is causatively bound by the strict determinism of natural laws – exclusively?  If strict determinism is the final causality and the future is determined to every finest detail, then  probability, any human decision making, and free will are false illusions.  Every thing of unique importance  to us as humans – love, family, hope religion, belief is false. Strict determinism has been and is – a position of many top people in pure science, philosophy of science, and related fields. If strict determinism is the first paradigm then the good news is that the Second Paradigm explains the world we know exactly as we experience it. Strict Determinism has been successfully challenged by experiments with supporting mathematical predictive models. This is an evaluation of three different ways of looking at these ultimate questions – three paradigms. 

Deductive Logic vs Inductive Logic

By the way, the Strict Determinist never made any inroads into the studies based on emergent causality -Psychology, Consciousness, Biology, Sociology, Ethics etc.  What are the standardized elements? What are the formulas?

There are formulas in areas that have emergent causality that are derived by mathematical technique and back-engineering measurement of what is observed – Inductive Logic – to produce a formula for best curve fit or just correlation . I can make up a list of x,y pairs with no actual causality and submit it to the Curve Fit program and it will yield a selection of curve fits with parameters and I can select the best curve fit offered – eg a parabola vs a normal probability. I can also pick an X factor by random and a y factor by random and compute correlation. Neither of these results has any deductive validity. You can not directly establish causality or have valid concurrence by correlation alone. When there are no standard, defined units there is no deductive validity.

The deterministic, pure science knowledge of causality depends and advances by deductive logic. The causality resulting from emergent agency is supported and advanced by inductive logic. We need to understand the difference in these logical approaches.

1. 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. they 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.

Arguments in deductive logic are either valid or invalid. Invalid arguments are always unsound. Valid arguments are sound only if the premises they are based upon are true.

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false – in any single case. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. All the laws of motion, for example, are the result of deductive logic.

Versus

2. Inductive Reasoning or Inductive Logic – Inductive Logic advances sciences seeking knowledge by applying analysis starting with observation. It may be triggered by a guess or a hunch but it starts with “what do I see”. By using inductive logic these sciences help us understand the principles of causality behind emergent phenomena. Here – we use statistics, correlation and analysis, and where possible, the same tools as pure science. This is most obvious in the behavioral and life sciences: Psychology, Biology, Sociology, Ethics etc.). The difference is there are no defined variables and no formulas. This is noted and valid as a criticism of evolution by Dr. David Berlinsky on U-Tube.

Inductive reasoning, also called induction or bottom-up logic, constructs or evaluates general propositions that are derived from specific examples.

Arguments in inductive reasoning are either strong or weak. Weak arguments are always uncogent. Strong arguments are cogent only if the premises they are based upon are true. In Cultural Anthropology we can analyze the factor of an achievement society vs a ascription society. Using this insight – example –  Modern Capitalism vs Medieval Birthright – we can predict a set of characteristics that transcend many societies across geography and time. This does not come out of deductive logic and is only generally true or valid. Notice there is no exactly defined units and no universally applicable formulas.

 

Paradigms.

My use of “paradigm” in the philosophical, logical, and scientific sense is its use at the highest level of abstraction.

The First Paradigm is Determinism

Determinism: Scientist observe, then postulate formulas for natural states and processes like force of gravitational attractions of two bodies:

eg: F = g[ m1m2] / r2. This is one of Kepler’s laws of motion.

The terms are defined, F = Force, m1, m2 = 2 masses, r = distance -.

It reduces (reductionism) a huge number of trials and future parameters to strict prediction with consistent concurrence.  it, then, is considered a law of motion. It conforms with the rules of Deductive Reasoning (see below) or deductive logic. It is valid and is always true as defined. In fact, to be deductively valid it must be always true.

Strict Determinism or Total Determinism:  From Wikipedia: In the history of science, Laplace’s demon was the first published articulation of  scientific 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 and future values for any given time are entrapped – ie rigidly, exactly predictable. 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 planetary motion and Newton’s Laws of Motion . By the extrapolation of present and expected future discovery of all pure science states and processes, the future of everything can be calculated from the laws like classical mechanics. Strict determinism assumes that there is no other causality.

The theoretical result is a complete, unitary view of a universe that is a machine (“clockwork universe”)that progresses from an early state to one outcome for all future time .  The outcome cannot be altered. In this view all reality viewed across all time – first to last moment – is one frozen reality – it is like one motion picture and there was never any chance of any outcome or any variation in-between. This universe does not allow choice, real chance or any other agency such as free will or independent causality. Free will, chance, probability are all an illusion caused by our lack of knowledge.

 

 

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

The second paradigm is a universe with the reality of causality of the first paradigm: determinism and also- additional causality that is not deterministic. Examples are many and exhibit their own causality over a huge spectrum that was never addressed by determinism because there was never deductive logic (see below) that explained their causative mechanisms:  water going down a drain from a basin, weather with certain conditions approaching chaos – determinism is initially indifferent and then there is the emergence of self organization typically on a much larger scale. eg: hurricane) I will shorten – “emergent self organization from chaos” – to simply – “emergence” for brevity. In this paradigm emergence does not contradict determinism (that would be magic). It is additional causality. The second Paradigm is a combination of the First Paradigm and Emergence. Focus on the fact that these forms of additional causality are just additional causality.  Determinism and emergence are independent and entwined. They do not operate like a two-state light switch that switches to one state and then the other. Even in dominantly deterministic processes there can be a resultant mix of two or more deterministic causal factors with a resultant outcome.

Emergence

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. I dripping faucet may drip deterministically in an exact period. Driven by a higher input it may a random output may emerge. Some are like a one in a octillion long shot when some mix of organic proteins exploded into a replication process.

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

The mixing of many causative factors with a resultant outcome applies to factors that are strictly deterministic with factors that are emergent because of emergence – complexity.  The more we find out about emergence, the more we discover that the two (determinism – emergence -operating at the same time is more common. (Maybe always).

Consider determinism and emergence where emergent complexity has the additional causality of emergent, self organized, output or process that are separate but do not in any way contradict determinism. What are the problems in strict determinism where some processes have outputs that are invalid by the measure of deductive logic?  What is the criteria for exclusive determinism to be logically deemed invalid in these cases?

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

When I was taking Physics 101, I remember learning about Laplace’s conjecture and I thought about wind over water causing waves. The deterministic thermodynamic laws governing water are at the lowest level.  Because they are, initially driven in all directions, approaching randomness. This is not a workable plan for the distribution at some higher level of energy input.

The equilibrium state, if enough external energy is applied (wind), the result, is not a flattened sameness  but may be, for example, be a 50ft height wave pattern.  This may repeat for 100’s of miles. Where did the larger pattern come from? I know at the thermodynamic level there is a chance variance but it does not explain what emerges. First any thermodynamic analysis at this smallest level can only be addressed by probability. Also there is no immediate or scientific causality for a 50ft. amplitude and a 200 ft. period and a three hundred mile reach. Determinism is mixed in. The different scales are in the order of magnitude of 10 to the 30th. The dispersion of energy imbalance is effected with greater efficiency than if the near randomness had persisted. Many years later when I heard about Complexity Theory  and self-ordering systems in the books Chaos and later, Complexity, I had recognition, but no surprise. You see – anyone who wants to analyze deep and follow their own questions may get some insight. In Chaos we see a mathematical model that support chaos as the door to self-ordering systems. Valid papers such as Tien-Yien Li; James A. Yorke
The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 82, No. 10. (Dec., 1975), pp. 985-992. This establishes a mathematical proof that certain processes can output results that vary unpredictably into infinity.

This is a difficult subject to explain so I will refer to my own doubts and readings in places like the book Chaos or the internet presentation  Chaos: The Science of the Butterfly Effect

by Derek Muller  This is a good source to explain the topic.

One of the breakthroughs seems to be that Lorenz discovered how to calculate a phase space simulation that was totally sensitive to input parameters for prediction of weather. the sensitivity to initial conditions is a recurring theme in Chaos Theory. Once again we are talking about sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The discovery of sensitive conditions may have been exhibited by the artifact of limits in the length of input number strings but the essence is that this chaos has the opposite behavior of formulas that are deterministic.

The case against deterministic exclusivity gets stronger in the now obvious cases of chaos/emergence effects. Now there is a new meaning of the butterfly effect. Lorenz’s 3 dimension example of phase space has two attractors resembling the 2 wings of a butterfly and it is inexplicable – and not predictable why the progression is in one wing or the other as it wanders back and forth. Most tellingly, At 6:40 Derek Muller says “In truth, our system will never revisit the same exact state again.”

At this point you have no chance of deterministic, deductively logical or valid predictability.

The case for exclusive determinism gets worse.

Around 7:30 Derek Muller says, although it wanders in arbitrary, dramatically different path for two trials now matter how far you go out – the path would be the same if you 1. had the number in infinite exactness (impossible) and 2 put in the exact same starting conditions. There is a paradox that disputes this because the lines, in reality, are a continuum and no real-life duplication can keyboard in the needed input as the exact length demands a number length that goes to infinity and can have no limit.  Later he concedes this. The exactness required goes to infinity and therefore exceeds all the information in the universe. This contradicts reversibility. It does not seem to be even technically deterministic in the real (limited) world.

The case for exclusive determinism is faulted at its foundations – Kepler’s laws of planetary motions.

At 9:09 in the video Derek reveals that even the motions of our planets are essentially chaotic in the long run. After 10’s of millions of years they are on new paths that are not predictable. Remember this was the basis and considered the best case for strict determinism to be all encompassing.

Just as the existence of all the flaws of strict determinism – it is not able to deal with all reality – this is the “frame” that starts  us to realize there must be the Second Paradigm including emergence. The fact that the Second Paradigm can not explain why anything exists  sets up another “frame”. The measured outcomes and mathematical formulae fill in the details of the “picture”.

 

The Third Paradigm

The inability of either the first or second paradigm to explain the biggest question – why does anything exist – sets the “frame” for the Third Paradigm. 

I watched a segment of the Curiosity series that offered to show how they can explain the existence of the universe without a prior cause. (An example comes to mind – God?) Of course, they did not mention the Law of Conservation of Energy or The First Law of Thermodynamics. They did recruit a moderator with peak credibility: Morgan Freeman who has often played God and is a nice man.

At the risk of being perceived as not open minded, I immediately braced for SHAZAM ! I started my timer. Alright – I was a know-it-all and mentally tapped my mental foot.  This magic word does not answer to any analysis or any type of causality. It is how Captain Marvel exploded into his superhero form. A very cheap form of Superman’s set-up. Just say 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. They flat-out stated that in this original state – there was no time! How sublime – no minimal tickso no change – no next moment –so no trigger for next moment –  Frozen – alright it is a strain for me to conceive.  This elimination foils any inquisitive mind to wonder the obvious, annoying  repeating question – ? what came before? So at first there was a condition of no time. Got it – no tick – no change, don’t you understand – it’s frozen. Stop asking!: “and before that?” …..

Oh no they can’t say what I think is coming. Yep – – – “AND THEN”   and then?   did you say “and then” = SHAZAM! “and then” means in the next or later moment in time. You insisted there is no time 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 would be the biggest tick ever. It is cheaper than SHAZAM.

They even have another word that can excuse anything  – “singularity” and eliminate all previous science and causality. Well – not to me. A word like this is just a transparent diversion.  “How did the vase get broken Brian?”, “only you were  here” – precocious four year old : “It was a singularity” checkmate – there is no more reason to consider – no agency – no  causality. No validity. Is this cheaper than SHAZAM? It does not matter.

An almost 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 needs time.

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

No time = no energy.

It occurs to me that all this is quite unworthy of scientist. It almost seems like they started with a conclusion and worked (desperately?) backwards.

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

 

Progress in Understanding the Causality of Emergent Processes.

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. 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. Primitive life forms, in order to increase in capability needed to store information – memory.
  • Memory enables association.
  • Association links past input, to outcome.
  • Association is needed to avoid or approach.  It is reinforced by the success of new reaction patterns.
  • A complex association needs to understand a mental construct such as a predator or each individual social peer. 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 positioning to maximize access to food, sex etc.
  • We need to maximize our relationship to them, – manipulate? – so in our planning, we must include an internal model of ourselves Voila.

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. All of these steps can be tested using scientific and mathematical methods.

Platforms:

The mechanisms developed by emergence have a higher level of design: Once a planform emerges – there is another new range and menu of causality available. Life has its own laws. Look at what new sets 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 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 – vs  – good, bad, gods message, innate rights, the right philosophy or rules. 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.

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

I am going to post this now because I just keep delaying while I work on it. 

I will continue edits and add conclusions below.

Further Insights and Conclusions – I will add to this ongoing

Consider: there is an isolated, calm tub of water 10 ft in diameter, 4 ft deep  and the 2 inch drain is pulled. The plan for each molecule is the same – to head towards the drain responding to gravity and pressure.  For a ring at the same radii of molecules at the same depth they most all proceed to the same spot at the same pace with the same driving parameters. All should arrive together with the same priority. Anyone who has ever seen a large crowd try to get through a small door knows it will not work.  Deterministic dominant processes have no efficient solution. An  organization is needed and it emerges! I sense all the molecules, as independent agents, are acting like the parts of a massively parallel analog computer.  Paradoxically, this chaotic mess is solved by triggering the emergence of a structure on a larger scale – whirlpool.  Often thermodynamic systems that distribute heat imbalances will reach out to the mathematics of the helix to solve heat distribution problems with a minimized energy solution.

Emergence and information theory

The world we live in is an explosion of a cone of causality (C ?) following an inverse square law to higher and higher divergence from new platforms with all the information from past history from any initial trace. All the information in the universe can not contain the possibilities of the cone of outward causality as it is attenuated. It is not equally recorded in the vastness of the Universe.  In another galaxy there would be very little effect – not equal effect. Is there one atom there that cares? The divergence is greater than any possible convergence, containment from the surrounding deterministic effects.  Exactly when – to infinite time digits – was it determined that you had the first DNA. Record the time when and how the combination of 13 autocatalytic proteins wins the team prize over other combinations. What was the long term (yes millions of years) effects of that timing and that choice. How close is our deterministic science to solving that?  Remember every single particle in the future universe has to be involved. This seems to be the omnipresent butterfly and he has ruined your frozen space-time diorama that is a model of all reality.

 

 

In progress:

  • The essential difference between pure science based on the causality of deterministic formulas supported by strict deductive logic versus the science of causality based on emergence is not generally taught in school science courses until post graduate.
    • Why is this important? if you think both types (“its SCIENCE”) are the same you can not have valid, balanced  judgement in all the fields of biology, behavioral science, philosophy, ethics, religion, climate, evolution and many other areas too numerous to iterate.  The latter are essentially not the same – certain valid as valid deductive proof as deterministic science.
    • When people are declaring the latter causality is unquestioned science they are propagandizing whether they know it or not.
    • When serious people think they are following a higher standard of logic by using strict determinism
  • What makes me think that , at my education level, I have insight into these differences using analysis and new insights and sources?
    • When I was a freshman physics major I was taught how to construct your own thought experiments. When I considered the deterministic forces at the molecular level of water with – initially – only Brownian motion approaching randomness it struck me that as this system is energized by wind power a wave system will develop on a scale 1 x 10^25 times greater than the forces described by determinism.
    • When I read the book “Complexity” by M. Mitchell Waldrop it was not – at the top level – new knowledge but more like explanation and confirmation.
    • If my insight is correct, it does not matter what my credentials are.
  • Consider – “Arguments in inductive reasoning are either strong or weak. Weak arguments are always uncogent. Strong arguments are cogent only if the premises they are based upon are true.”. Emergence based causality are all based on inductive reasoning and the parameters are not strictly defined by the architecture of deductive reasoning in deterministic science. The most of the units of measurement are not strictly definable.
    • Yet scientist in the non-deterministic sciences do achieve progress and learn about causality in their fields, using  scientific methods and math wherever possible and submit findings to be accepted with some level of validity

You can not seek truth in the latter unless you have deep sense of humility and except that the behavioral sciences are not “laws”. it is almost impossible to escape being deeply subjective; they are almost impossible to separate from context and our prior socialization. If you Ignore these limits and play “expert” or are a judgmental ideologue possessing the one true, progressive position, and you stop at a feeling that “its the science” – all of this will cast integrity aside.  You will be a pompous fool.