Randomly Seeking Determinism

Alright....I'll probably be spending some time at the motel tomorrow due to having to wait on a critical part to come in at work so I can now engulf myself back into the abyss that is the universal actions. Lol.

From what I gather about much of what you are speaking of, we are basically talking about causal light cones and the magnitude by which they effect other points within the universal field as being a logical argument against determinism. You can correct me as needed if I'm misinterpreting here, but I feel that a visible example of such dynamics is captured within visible light itself as the very magnitude of causality itself fades per the inverse square relationship just as does the image of a distant object being focused to our eye by a telescope. If we imagine the entire universal volume at an early contracted state, then all internal points and states are more symmetrically synchronized or within a closer temporal phase within the whole as all motions go into establishing the external identity/state of the whole with potentially no outside influence unless we acknowledge an ever larger cosmic field which can be left out of this debate. Now as the universal volume expands and structured systems form and gather within the expanding universal light cone, the causal effects of these individaulized systems are reduced per their distance of seperation as distance is internally established. Naturally, at some point the distances will be so great that the causal mechanics of any nonlocallized point will be so faint that it's magnitude is seemingly unimportant to a local systems functioning and the present state of the local system is so far out of sync with the distant system that it is the very past state of the distant system which is contributing ever so slightly to the present state of the local system. Thus, being as information/causality of this sort travels at the speed of light, then the lesser the physical magnitude acting upon a local system from an equal magnitude nonlocal event, the further the distance of seperation both spatially and temporally between the two as the present state of the local system is impacted by an increasingly earlier state of the nonlocal system. This is evident of the image from distant stars arriving at Earth being representative of their past state and the further away the star, the further we are looking into it's past with no way of knowing it's present state at the moment which we turn our telescope towards it until the proper time has past per the distance of seperation to recieve information of such by way of visible light. Yet, even if it takes a huge mirror to reflect the faint images, some residule visible radiation still falls upon the lens with the greater magnitude of such being detectable at an increasing magnitude towards the point of origin.

Could a large enough event at the farthest conceivable distances within the universal volume effect our present state at some point in the future? I would think so, but it would take a relativel amount of time to do so. The same as a catastrophic event within the sun would take a few minutes for us to know it's state and witness it, which at that point would be a past state. Distance establishes that we will never know the present state of any distant system as there's always a time lapse in the conveyance of information. Density also plays a similar role, as the initial interactions which emited the light leaving the surface of the sun often took place at a much earlier time than that indicated by the much lesser distance the light had to travel due to the absorption emission mechanics of stars.

The out of phase temporal aspect isn't as relevant to the determinism debate to me as is the question of the origin of motion itself at the Planck scales as causal temporal phase shifts is conserved by way of shifts of causal magnitude. This only means that mechanical determinism is limited to the speed of light and the allowable magnitude of distance. The greatest confusion in my opinion is creating a paradigm whereby motion is divided inwardly and outwardly, whereby distinguishing between the motions which go towards establishing structure outwardly from the micro scales vs the imposed motions which reverberate inwardly from an event at the macro scales. There are motions which internally establish the ever larger structural systems of a baseball which resonate from the micro scales ouwardly, and then there is the motions imposed inwardly towards these micro scales due to the ball making contact with a bat and having to act accordingly per energy conservation aspects along with trajcetories, etc, whereby distinguishing between the causal mechanics of systems bound by forces e.g. Strong, EM and gravity, and the causal mechanics of those same systems undergoing external forces due to the motions of other various systems, which must be accounted for/ calculated at the deepest of internal scales and resolutions. How we interpret the Planck scales establish the logic by which we must view determinism from my perspective, because if motion is quantized to a spacetime matrix or fabric whereby the smallest of scales undergo discrete motions which aren't causally connected and contributing to the state of a system but rather are motions due to the mere inability and impossibility of being at rest, with only a degree of motion being causally and constructively connected, then determinism dies as a result of mechanical necessity. However, if the FS is continuously connected, whereby there is no underlying PSF and the unity of motion can take place at any scale or resolution whereby disection to a Planck scale field is impossible due to the impossibility of finding any degree of discreteness within a continuous flow, then how are we to distinguish that any aspect of motion or state of the whole wasn't an aspect of the connected whole at all, even if spatial and temporal phase shifts contribute to the magnitude thereof.

I'm not trying to sneak determinism in Lloyd, as I've recently admitted to being agnostic towards the subject as having no definite proof our path of logic to support or deny it's existence. However, It will always take a better argument than implying that we have a multitude of choices at any one moment and our ability to focus on one and act upon it rather than the others disproves determinism in favor of free will as I've explained before, our ability to imagine, rationalize and concieve endless mental possibilities doesn't imply that there is any more than merely one physical path. It's just that with free will, the seeming potiential for various paths seems to disprove the one. While with determinism, the one path must inevitably account for the illusion of the potiential for various others as an aspect of a deeper fundamental mechanics of the bio realm. This isn't a robotic view, but rather an evolving view of the whole which gets increasingly complex at the bio level with it's imaginations, evolutionary aspects, ecosystems, etc. Just as I discussed earlier about the inward and outward motions, thoughts to me are the inward reverberations from the external more macro geo world as their only outward connection to the world is by way of the physical actions they preceed and influence. I know of no scientific evidence of our thoughts alone having the ability to influence any other aspect of this world other than the muscles which our brains are wired too which then influence many physical aspects of this world. This implies to me that the flow here is inward from the macro enviromental aspects whereby being processed to some micro resolution within the accumulative pool of lessons, knowledge, memories, etc, after which reverberating back out by way of physical action to further effect our world or the inward processing of another system. We can't use intelligence as an indicator of free will or having a dependence thereof either if we are to believe in bio evolution because bio evolution is a seemingly intelligent physical process of life taking different shapes and forms as the system appears to 'learn' and work from it's mistakes and successes, yet it has deterministic aspects of a physical algorithm running it's course over the entire spectrum of life and not just the individual (which is often the least important in favor of the species) with no emotion but rather a mere process. If such a system of interaction can have aspects of intelligence and intelligent operation but also have no intelligence overseeing it and can be explained away as a physical process, then why should our systematic methodology of sorting, storing, and evaluating ideas and aspects, which defines an intelligent process be indicative of definate proof against an underlying process which we don't understand completely, due to complete understanding requiring the ability to analyse a thought by way of thinking? My point here being, if there be no higher intelligence, and the entire bio systems interactions as a whole show aspects of intelligence to which we can identify with/to our own intelligence and minds, and the larger system can be explained by mere physical interactions and processes, then why too can't the lesser recursive process within our minds be accomplished by the same means. This is the essence of the religious debates, as a product of intelligence within the mind is to recognize the interactions which define it in other systems as with seeing intelligent design underlying nature, thus some project those aspects contradictive to a process and supportive of an independent entity (which is how we see ourselves) upon those things which reflect our own intelectual processes back at us. Some cannot relinquish themselves to the system anymore than they can acknowledge that intelligence in any and all forms is a product of the system whether within the mind of the individual or the survival and mutation of the species and the system is not a product of intelligence. Thus, you can't prove or disprove a more constituent aspect of a processes such as the existence or lack thereof of deterministic interactions within thought itself by way of the composite outcome of the process, which is to think. But as I've stated, I'm only playing the devils advocate here not to sell you on determinism, but rather to introduce you to the further complexities of proving/disproving such as it isn't as cut and dry as you would have me to believe, at least not from where I stand as I am still agnostic to such things. If you were to swap and declare a fully deterministic system, I would have to bring up points I see against that also, but I would try not to base them off of subjective aspects of highly composite interactions, but rather the before mentioned origin of motion whether localized or nonlocalized. The same aspects can be applied to free will and the mind. Do thoughts discretely originate within the mind with no preceeding influence of any kind needed, similar to the quantization of discrete motion at the PSF or are they a product of external influence coupled with internal chemistry with physical chains of events always preceeding the thought even if in another form of energy? Perhaps they are a continuous flow of interactions with no discrete aspects or origins to identify like a river flowing through our minds whereby displaying the same causal aspects as the lightcone discussion earlier, with memories having magnitudes relative to certain perameters which influence the flow of information which we can never seemingly disconnect from fully, not even while sleeping. I often consider the thinking process as being fluid in nature with no starts, stops or gaps, but only changes in the direction of flow, as the mind drifts from thought to thought to the point that the rest of our body seeks relief from it's relentlessness in an attempt to disconnect if only for a little while as we sleep. You ever tried to actually think of nothing? I'm not sure it's possible.

As to the signal frequency analysis from the other day which I think you said was out of sciences abilities or something, I was only speaking of a frequency counter or simple radio receiver. Consider the doppler shifts of visible radiaton. Now consider two objects of exact physical makeup with one on each side of your direction of travel. Any relativistic shift of color, apparent physical makeup, or any other frequency dependent aspect provides a means to make an objecitve calculation of absolute position and motion by way of a comparison of the frequency dependent changes undergone between the two objects. Such frequency dependent aspects take the form of various types of information within the radio frequencies, thus the same message would be recieved and interpreted differently depending upon it's point of origin. Any situation which effects the frequency of a clock, such as the motions of the gps satelites should be subject to some aspect of this as a clock is merely an oscillator. The effects would still be very small at current acheivable velocities but should be present none the less.