Darrell Hougen

So, Dragonfly, I would like to know what you think the difference is between predictability and determinism. Is a system, in your view, unpredictable simply because it is impossible to measure the initial conditions with perfect accuracy? Or is there a deeper dichotomy?

Darrell

My problem with the concept of metaphysical randomness is that its context is framed in action-to-action causation. What action-to-action causation means is that the impulse to initiate an entities action must come from outside the entity that acts. The fundamental principle of behaviour for action-to-action causation is: what a thing does is determined by the actions of other things. Metaphysical randomness, then, is an action that is not determined by the actions of other things. This is essentially what is assumed to happen in quantum events.

I'm not sure I understand this. It appears that you are saying that action-to-action causation is necessary for metaphysical randomness but yet that randomness is not caused by the actions of other things. How is that possible? It appears that you are contradicting yourself.

In my view, metaphysical randomness is more fully consistent with an entity-to-action view of causality exactly because a random behavior is a behavior that cannot be predicted from knowledge of the behavior of the other entities with which an object interacts. The behavior comes from the entity itself.

This naturally leads to a question about how such behavior can be consistent with the laws of physics such as conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, etc. But this can be handled if we assume that a particle, for example, transfers some of its momentum and energy to another particle when it changes course.

For example, in the thin slit experiment in which electrons are beamed at a target on the other side of a grating, the electrons can be assumed to transfer some momentum to the grating as they pass through, thereby conserving momentum within the system.

Darrell

In classical (Newtonian) mechanics there is in terms of the fundamental theory no randomness, only determinism. There is theoretically no limit to the accuracy with which we can measure positions and momenta, which would mean that we in theory could increase the accuracy enough to predict the evolution of a highly chaotic system for any given period.

Actually, it turns out that there are some systems that are governed by non-deterministic sets of equations. There are infinitely many solutions at a single point so that it doesn't matter whether infinite accuracy is possible or not. The solution at the singularity cannot be resolved.

In my post, I sort of glided from that observation into an information theoretic argument which is, in some sense, an argument of modern rather than classical physics. However, I would argue that the notion that particles exist with mathematically exact parameters (location, momentum, etc.) and that have perfectly deterministic trajectories violates the law of identity. If we view a particle or system of particles as a system possessing a certain amount of information about its state, then, because it would require an infinite amount of information to give the particles mathematically precise locations and trajectories, the system would be required to possess an infinite amount of some quantity (namely, information) which violates the law of identity.

Now, it could be argued that I am mixing the epistemological with the metaphysical because information content is not really a property of a physical system. However, I would disagree with that assessment. As we know, living in the modern, computer age, physical systems can be used to store and transmit information, e.g., disk drives and communications links. Slightly more broadly, any physical system can be used to store information. Indeed, every physical system stores information about its state.

Some systems store a lot of information about their past states, but are very hard to predict. Other systems are easy to predict, but store little information about their past states. Still other systems are somewhere in between. That is part of Chaos theory. But, in the end, the amount of information that a system is capable of storing is finite. That is a physical fact which is predictable from the law of identity.

On this view then, the classical notion of metaphysical determinism is inconsistent with the law of identity.

Randomness, "metaphysical" or "epistemological", is not a requirement of "free will", however. A mind driven by random events is still a mind determined by something else, out of its control. Now this all has been already extensively discussed on this forum, so perhaps it might be useful to read the old posts before we start to rehash the whole discussion again.

I do not believe that living things, and humans in particular, have some quality that is unexplainable in terms of the fundamental constituent parts of which they are composed. I do believe that this leads to some type of metaphysical dualism. I do not, at this point, have a good explanation of free will, but I do not see how to get there without the use of some notion of metaphysical randomness.

A system is random if there is no strictly mechanistic explanation possible for its behavior.

Darrell

Hi Paul,

I have given this topic a bit of thought, so let me give it a try. This will be brief as I don't have time to write a proper response. Also, I have not read every single entry in its entirety (though I did skim the entire list).

Simply put, randomness (non-determinism) is a fact of existence and it is a requirement of free will (proactive behavior).

To begin, non-determinism is consistent with classical physics. There are some classical physical systems that have non-deterministic solutions. Some physical systems have equations with infinitely many solutions at some point. (Such equations often have a square root, for example).

I had a physics professor (Alfred Hubler) that actually created a non-deterministic device. In it, a ball rolled down a slope of a particular shape in a bath of castor oil. Roughly, there was a downward sloping hill that leveled out at a single point and then sloped downward again. Watching the ball roll down the hill was amusing because it would stop at the level point for an indeterminant amount of time before proceeding down the hill. It sometimes rested for less than a second and sometimes for several seconds.

Now, someone might object that, being an experimental setup, it couldn't perfectly implement the equation which was supposed to govern its behavior so it might actually be deterministic. However, the problem is much deeper than that.

The fact is that any physical system can represent only a finite amount of information at any moment in time and the amount of information it can represent depends upon the "size" of the phase space region through which its trajectories pass. Therefore, if the trajectories of a system pass through a very small region of phase space, information must be lost. But, the trajectories must re-emerge on the other side of the singularity (or near singularity) and must go somewhere. Therefore, information must be added to the system to describe the system parameters. I will assert, for the time being, that the source of the information is randomness.

All physical systems are random to some degree.

Therefore, all physical systems are proactive to some degree --- ever wonder where the wind comes from?

Randomness does not require the injection of energy into the system and, therefore, proactive systems are consistent with the laws of physics such as the conservation of energy.

Living things and humans in particular have evolved to control and make use of this randomness.

As an aside, statisticians have learned that some randomized algorithms are more effective than deterministic algorithms at solving complex problems.

Darrell

Hi Chris, Yes Fullerton is just north of Anaheim (Disneyland) and, more generally, in the Los Angeles area. I also spend quite a bit of time in Colorado.

Thank you all for your warm welcomes and thank you Kat, for fixing my Avatar.

Darrell

BTW, is it supposed to take some time for my photo to become visible?

Thanks.

Darrell

Hi All,

I am a long time Objectivist that has just discovered this forum. It is hard to pinpoint the exact time that I became an Objectivist because it wasn't a sudden occurrence. In fact, I am still becoming an Objectivist in the sense that my philosophy is continuing to mature. However, I first discovered Rand's writings in grad-school in about 1988 - 1989. Before that, I had already created a personal philosophy that was similar to hers (though much less mature) so her writings were a natural fit for me. Still, it took me some time before I was comfortable calling myself an Objectivist. I didn't want to be known as any "-ist."

For many years, I have discussed politics and economics on other forums. Currently, I am a contributer to the Capitalism Magazine forum under the moniker, "drphilosopher." My involvement with such groups goes back to an Objectivism mailing list in which I actually had a few discussions with Chris Mathew Sciabarra and Nathaniel Brandon. However, I have never conversed with Barbara, so I hope that this forum will afford me the opportunity at some point.

At any rate, this appears to be a very fine forum. I have already seen some interesting discussions posted and I hope to read and contribute to them as I have time. Eventually, I would like to collect some of my thoughts and ideas into a book. I am also interested in venturing into Objectivist art, poetry and music.

I look forward to getting to know each of you and hope that we will have many fruitful and spirited discussions.

Darrell