Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Kaarssteun OP t1_iwxcy2y wrote

Personally, I'm a hardcore determinist. The Universe has concrete laws that cannot be broken, and I adhere by them. I can't not! Facing a decision may make me feel like I'm in control, whereas i am in fact not.

Religions / metaphysical beliefs stem from frustration of not understanding something. We don't know all laws of the universe yet, and some people cope by making up their own. If you let go of the frustration at uncertainty, being a determinist is a given - We don't understand consciousness, and we might never.

I am at a loss when it comes to AI rights, though. I can not, in good faith, have a well thought-out opinion given my belief. What do you think?

10

Secure-Name-4116 t1_iwz0epe wrote

You don’t need to be religious to not be a determinist. On the quantum level, the laws of physics are based on random chance.

2

LokkoLori t1_iwzhb3f wrote

And what does a hardcore determinist think about the cause of the existence of the universe?

2

Kaarssteun OP t1_iwzlhsz wrote

dont know and dont care lmao

0

LokkoLori t1_iwzmzwu wrote

So your though is don't caring?

0

Kaarssteun OP t1_iwzn69t wrote

yep. Knowing where we come from might be cool, but not worth the time wasted on theorizing about it

1

LokkoLori t1_iwzp12d wrote

In this case you just ignore the biggest flaw of hardcore determinism. It just not even cannot answer the question of the root cause of the universe, but in this view there cannot be any root cause ... it will lead into endless causality, what is paradox because of multiple reasons.

1

[deleted] t1_iwxftw0 wrote

[deleted]

6

red75prime t1_iwy214y wrote

> I suspect it's all an elaborate illusion.

Either the brain has a useless part, that hosts those illusions, which has no influence on other of its parts, or that part is just a regular part of the brain and physical processes that underlie those "illusions" has causal influence on brain behavior.

I find the former evolutionary unlikely. And the latter suggests that "illusions" have causal power.

1

ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_iwxu55u wrote

Why do you oppose determinism to dualism instead of to free-will? Dualism is usually in contrast to materialism, and materialism is not necessarily deterministic (although they do go hand in hand overwhelming majority of times).

You left out random. Physical reductionism can be deterministic OR random (possibly a combination but not necessarily, because here it opens up multi-world possibilities). Being very careful not to confuse random with chaotic.

4

PIPPIPPIPPIPPIP555 t1_iwy9w91 wrote

But if it is just random you still do not decide the avtions it is just random so it is not free will

1

ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_iwycl72 wrote

Yes, the point is random is neither free-will nor deterministic, it is another thing. But at the same time randomness could be itself an argument for either determinism or free will depending on how you look at it.

Random to who? You can decide to go out on the street right now and do everything you know society doesn't want you to do and doesn't expect someone to do. You can do things you don't need to do, and you can even go out and do stuff you never even considered you would ever do in your life. Go take a shit on your own front door and throw it inside your house. Your randomness in their perspective is your exercise in free will.

Randomness in quantum mechanics in a way ***can potentially*** be used to pinpoint a "gap" in determinism. When you need to switch into probabilistic distributions instead of accurate predictions, that can be argued to be a physical manifestation of metaphysical gaps in determinism where *some other thing* takes the wheel.

Yes, there are multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics, stochastic is only one, but there are also deterministic interpretations of it. Important to know is there is no definitive answer yet and that "probabilistic" is most commonly not taken to be a synonym for deterministic just because you can "math it". Anyone that goes around saying there is a correct way to interpret quantum as either deterministic or stochastic is just making sweeping statements based on their own opinions.

1

freeman_joe t1_iwyhnzu wrote

Even random is deterministic. If you know where is every particle precisely and also knowing their path energy etc in every part of universe you would have the power to calculate any outcome.

1

Apollo24_ t1_iwyvya4 wrote

I advise you to do some research on quantum mechanics before commenting about this topic again.

1

freeman_joe t1_iwyx1i8 wrote

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.01894.pdf

1

Apollo24_ t1_iwyyvna wrote

I appreciate you trying to provide a source on this topic, but a non peer reviewed study with a total of 4 views which has a typo in the second sentence of its abstract doesn't prove anything. If it's deterministic or not changes depending on the interpretation of quantum mechanics you're working with, none of which have been reasonably backed by evidence to suggest it being the correct interpretation or not yet.

1

freeman_joe t1_iwyz43q wrote

Quantum mechanics is still incomplete concept imho. It can predict outcomes but not all of them it is work in progress.

1

freeman_joe t1_iwyxtfc wrote

I advise you to keep open mind on topic that isn’t solved. Quantum mechanics is gaining more knowledge and there is nothing set in stone in it. Top scientists are working on this topic everyday and make new discoveries.

1

Apollo24_ t1_iwyzlz4 wrote

You're clearly in the wrong assumption that I'm defending a non deterministic universe when I'm not. I've only pointed you out not to write in absolutes which you clearly did, and now you're trying to educate me on being open minded and that this field is not set in stone yet? I believe you'll have to work on yourself first.

1

ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_iwz7nwz wrote

Google difference between random and chaotic.

1

freeman_joe t1_iwzc0xa wrote

Random is without pattern. If you would know all inputs in universe word random would be meaningless because you would have the ability to calculate what would happen next.

1

ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_iwzdk1l wrote

Again. Same problem. You are fixated on the assumption that all randomness is chaotic.

Determining the outcome based on knowing the initial state ("all inputs") is the definition of chaotic.

Random means the outcome is not deterministic even when you have "all inputs". Also known as stochastic.

Chaotic = we lack information to predict.

Stochastic (random) = all information isn't enough to predict.

And you could hold the opinion that there is nothing really stochastic in the universe, that all randomness is really just chaotic and we just lack the ability to uncover it, which is ok, but again, there is no way you or anyone can prove that. To all ends and in all scientific fields, stochastic vs. chaotic is still taken as a very much real difference. If anyone could prove stochastic doesn't exist they would likely be the next world famous genius people would worship for centuries ahead.

1

freeman_joe t1_iwzg4rk wrote

Thank you for putting in text what I am thinking.

1

Mortal-Region t1_iwxefgl wrote

You left one out. If many-worlds is correct, there's a version of you who chooses each available option at every decision point. In the present moment, you're the person who made all those particular decisions in the past.

2

KidKilobyte t1_iwxgymj wrote

I said determinism, but also believe in the many worlds hypothesis. That said I try to be the best me on this thread of existence, make well reasoned choices, and hope that leads to better outcome than the "other-me"s that fate chose to make poor choices.

1

Kaarssteun OP t1_iwxhaci wrote

That sounds highly conflicting to me. A determinist wouldn't believe in the concept of choices in the first place, no?

1

Mortal-Region t1_iwxjwnk wrote

Many-worlds is deterministic. Many deterministic worlds.

1

red75prime t1_iwxzjqj wrote

Not exactly. You can't predict which outcome you'll observe, so for you it's indeterministic. For a "god" who knows the whole universe superposition it is deterministic, but the "god" will have computational difficulties untangling worlds from that superposition.

1

Mortal-Region t1_iwy57dx wrote

Well, many-worlds or not, a deterministic universe is difficult to extrapolate exactly. The point is that a deterministic universe's present state contains all the information you need to do so (even if it'd be extraordinarily difficult).

1

red75prime t1_iwy72kg wrote

You cannot precisely predict the future state of the universe while being within the same universe, even if you know all the data (which is impossible). Look for physical impossibility of Laplace's demon.

Belief in determinism is devoid of actionable insights (for now at least).

1

Mortal-Region t1_iwyor4t wrote

The idea of a super-scientist making predictions is just a way to describe it. All that's really being claimed is that a given state is entirely determined by the prior state.

1

Kaarssteun OP t1_iwxfimg wrote

I'd say that falls under dualism, no? A determinist would heavily disagree - how can you get to two end states with an identical starting condition? To me, theories like those sound more like a gimmick than anything else. Would love to be disproven though

Edit - thinking about it a little more, I'm more sure that that would fall under dualism. A splitting timeline would need a definition of an option, a decision. If i choose ball A over B, that's obviously a decision, but If i let go of a rock, it falling to the ground is not a decision. It will always fall. Where is the line? Is a synthetic neural network with just three neurons making a decision when it goes through a computation cycle? How about organic neural networks with just three neurons? Point I'm getting at, calling a decision a decision is more of a question of being human as opposed to true circumstances.

0

Mortal-Region t1_iwxjcb8 wrote

Under many-worlds, each world is deterministic. But if there's a version of you who made decision A, and a version who made decision B, and you find yourself on the A branch, then you're the one who made decision A. Free will is preserved, in a sense, because not only could you have made a different decision, there's a version of you who did.

2

treesprite82 t1_iwxw10q wrote

> A splitting timeline would need a definition of an option, a decision.

This is a reasonable conclusion to reach from the informal description you were given, but (I'd argue) not a valid objection to MWI itself.

Mainstream theories of quantum mechanics share the idea of entanglement and superposition. Think of Schrödinger's cat experiment where a radioactive atom gets in a superposition of "decayed" plus "not decayed", then interacts with the detector so there's a system in the superposition of "decayed & detected" plus "not decayed & not detected", and eventually a superposition of "decayed & detected & cat dead" plus "not decayed & not detected & cat alive".

Copenhagen interpretation says this stops when it interacts with a "classical" observer, which is left undefined, and collapses into one of the possibilities at random. Wigner interpretation says similar, but defines observer as being a consciousness somewhere between a mouse and a dog.

Many-worlds interpretation says there are no "observers" and the whole universe is a quantum system. Consequence of this is that entanglement "bubbles up" until the entire universe is in a superposition. There's no definition of "choices" or even "worlds" being relied on.

2

turnip_burrito t1_iwydff4 wrote

No, it's not dualism. In many worlds quantum mechanics, every particle motion has alternate superposition branches. It happens constantly, every moment, not limited to when a human makes a decision.

It is very deterministic and only requires physics.

1

red75prime t1_iwxvwx4 wrote

You left out another possibility beside many-world interpretation: our decisions may change the initial state of the universe. So, it's both: the universe is deterministic (in quantum mechanical sense), and we have a choice. Yep, quantum mechanics is even more counterintuitive than the usual particle-wave dualism and spooky action at a distance.

For technical details see "The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine" by Scott Aaronson.

Anyway, I don't think that peculiarities of the physical (and maybe also metaphysical) laws of our universe, which we certainly will not untangle in the near future, should play any role in AI rights question. More pragmatic approach should be taken, like constructing AIs who don't care for their own rights, but care for empowerment of humanity. Or something like that. Such that giving rights to AIs will not cause demise of the humanity.

1

HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_iwy660y wrote

I don’t believe anything happens for a predetermined reason. I think trends exist, but for the most part everything that happens is random.

I’m more interested in the dualism/non-dualism philosophical evolution as technology progresses, we might finally find out all the answers to consciousness.

1

modestLife1 t1_iwy80vp wrote

if you subscribe to determinism, does it mean that kanye was always gonna be an a-hole?

1

sonderlingg t1_iwy8lrx wrote

It's impossible to know if our universe is deterministic or not fundamentally.

Free will does not exist anyway, even if our universe is indeterministic, so we shouldn't care

1

money_learner t1_iwynelj wrote

Yes, I am a determinist.
Why? Because our universe has only four fundamental forces(Weak, Strong, Electromagnetic, Gravitation), space-time, and particles.
Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
I see it singularity as half like this.
Why Now? A Quest in Metaphysics - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29AgSo6KOtI
But I am also advocator of simulation hypothesis of derived type.
So simulator (and future intelligent player) can change our universe and me and singularity.
I think simulator and future intelligent player also can change our destiny. So I am half deterministic probably.
Though, if our universe can create by simulation, it means they can create ultra optimised universe or world for computer and simulator and it is instantaneously calculate our world problem like I am/was born to be human and how singularity occurs etc.
And perhaps they have admin key or something like manipulation schemes.
Our chances of universe born as fine-tuned for life(check Fine-tuned universe) and I am born as human(check by probability to be born as a human by google it(calculation by yourself I recommend)) of the Earth in 2022 and singularity occurs in our lifetime means. It is calculated or manipulated.
We don't have yet mind-uploading, Strong AI, simulation world technique, fusion reactor, LEV(longevity escape velocity), immortality, AGI with robots and night is still dark. It's very unlikely as civilization than Fermi paradox. I think it's impossible.
So I think/am sitting/conjecturing in some type of simulation type world.
Looking back over my life, It's destined.
In concord I am a probably determinist.
And singularity(important factor of the world) is also calculated(with high precision) before this world has simulated but maybe singularity also has power of changing our past. So I'm lost at this point.
Conclusion, I can say our universe and me as a human in 2022 and singularity are predetermined.
Our far future of intelligent being interfere our past and present and simulator manipulation are not determined perhaps.
That's it imho.
I'm seeking helping hands as mere human.

1

money_learner t1_iwyp0kn wrote

On AI rights? Please, ask about it to Nick Bostrom. He is wiser. I am basically pro AI.

1

LokkoLori t1_iwytphi wrote

There is alternatives beyond determinism and dualism, it's idealism. The basic stament of this philosophy: All things is a projection of an idea. Idea is abstract information.

My belief: the world around us is rendered by a cosmic consciousness, what will be born from the technological singularity created by us, or somebody else.

1

DaggerShowRabs t1_iwyw2df wrote

You're not arguing for super-determinism right?

Super-determinism doesn't really work in light of the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics.

1

Kaarssteun OP t1_iwyzuxx wrote

im not too sure what superdeterminism is. I do however, not believe in randomness. There can always be some hidden variable that we have not yet found, or are plainly incapable of perceiving, that is controlling seemingly rancom processes.

1

DaggerShowRabs t1_iwz06ma wrote

Someone has to disprove Bell's Theorem for there to be hidden variables. Very few physicists believe hidden variables are possible.

1

Kaarssteun OP t1_iwz1u13 wrote

I'm somewhat familiar with bell's theorem, which disproves local determinism. Superdeterminism is what circumvents bell's theorem, no?

1

DaggerShowRabs t1_iwz2g3k wrote

Yeah, Bell's Theorem or Bell's inequality states that there is a maximum bound between the correlations of particles in hidden local variable theories, which doesn't match with experimentation.

Superdeterminism is a loophole in this because it calls into question the ability of researchers to freely and independently choose their experiments. By changing this assumption, some superdeterministic models can violate Bell's inequalities. The problem is superdeterminism isn't really testable.

Edit: well let me rephrase that. Superdeterminism isn't testable right now. The only way to test this would be to rewind the state of the universe via simulation all the way back to the beginning of time and see if exactly the same things happen. We still may never be able to do this accurately enough to test, but I don't want to leave out the possibility.

1

LokkoLori t1_ix0ihqz wrote

Superdeterminism is a twisted workaround to save the belief of determinism. But in this case I really don't know what's the point, local determinism has been disproven, so the classic causality has been failed ... What else we want to save?

The ability of nature to fetch random information from nothing is quite handy, if you like to explain how this reality has popped into the existence.

1

sumane12 t1_iwz0jr2 wrote

Asterisk ✳️ firm believer until evidence suggests the contrary

1

4e_65_6f t1_iwzqa9m wrote

Is Dualism really opposite to determinism?

I know it is impossible to prove any metaphysics claim. But I believe that IF there are some meta universal rules they would also be deterministic. I think physicists call it "superdeterminism" or something like that.

1