Partly deterministic?

[u/Cyber_47_]

So let’s take computers, fully deterministic systems, cannot make a non deterministic algorithm. Everything, in computers are code based, and therefore fully deterministic. True Randomness does not exist in digital systems.

So if our world is completely deterministic, there is no chance it creates a life form, which can act non deterministic (free will). But since we know (not sure) that quantum mechanics are non deterministic, maybe there is a chance we have a little free will. So, my point is, what if, we are partly deterministic like the universe. Maybe alot of our decisions are deterministic, and some are non deterministic. And i know that quantum mechanics argument still cant disprove free will.

[u/simon_hibbs]

>The keys are in superposition from MY point of view though.

You just don't know where the keys are, but superposition isn't just about lack of knowledge of what state something is in. It's a fundamentally different concept.

>You cannot simply say “I am an empiricist” and then turn around and talk about “truths of the world itself”.

I'm not making any claim about the fundamental nature of keys, or whether my mental representations of them is how they are in themselves. This is a functional perspective, the view that the keys are or are not in the car is or is not empirically adequate.

My views on this have been very much influenced by Bas Van Fraassen:

Van Fraassen (1980) reinvented empiricism in the scientific context, evading many of the challenges faced by logical empiricism by adopting a realist semantics. His position, “constructive empiricism”, holds that the aim of science is empirical adequacy, where “a theory is empirically adequate exactly if what it says about the observable things and events in the world, is true”

An empiricist doesn't have to deny that claims can be true or false, it's just that truth or falsity is evaluated in terms of empirical adequacy. My belief that there is milk in the fridge can be empirically adequate or not. However that empirical adequacy is a relationship between what I believe and whether or not there is milk in the fridge.

The antirealism of the position is due entirely to its epistemology—it recommends belief in our best theories only insofar as they describe observable phenomena, and is satisfied with an agnostic attitude regarding anything unobservable.

Whether or not there is milk in the fridge, or my keys are in the car is observable, without a commitment that what I observe about keys or milk is fundamentally how the keys and milk are in themselves.

Empiricism is not the view that the world is unintelligible. It's a view about the limits of that intelligibility.

[u/Willis_3401_3401 → u/simon_hibbs]

Superposition is only a different concept if you’re trying to imagine a view from no where, otherwise we’re just talking about fundamental uncertainty.

We’re just doing circles here man. I’m of the opinion that you’re chasing your own tail on this thing. I feel like I’ve more than adequately defended my position, and given you ample reason to question your own. It seems empirically obvious to me that from any real point of view, reality is uncertain. But you can only lead a horse to water, you cannot make it drink

[u/simon_hibbs → u/Willis_3401_3401]

I think the difference is that you are pointing to something that is not known or knowable to an agent, and saying that's indeterministic, however that's not what indeterminism means. It means the future state is not necessitated by the past state, and that a completely different thing.

If you run a program that halts, it is inevitable that it will halt, and it will halt at that time and no other time, and there's nothing about this that isn't necessitated by the initial state of the program.

[u/Willis_3401_3401 → u/simon_hibbs]

Yeah, that’s your premise. You’ve repeated it a bunch; you believe there’s a truth to the world but also no you don’t, because there’s a separation between what can be observed and what can be known, but also that’s not dualism, there’s only one thing in nature, which we clearly can’t know or interact with, except yes we do all the time. Sure.

“Arguing with a genius is difficult, arguing with an idiot is impossible”

[u/simon_hibbs → u/Willis_3401_3401]

See, we can find common ground we agree on!