"We must differentiate between local and non-local determinacy as with the state of all points being causal to the point of the future outcome of the entire whole being a product of every point and time of the present, or the mere determinacy of the ability for any local point in the universe being able to replicate the same laws as any other distant point due to homogenous and isotropic mechanics embedded within the fabric of the FS spacetime matrix itself."If you notice, I've carefully broken this sentence up, into its constituent parts__as this is the trickiest part of logical and mathematical processing, ever presented, to understand. This great logical and mathematical puzzle goes all the way back in recorded history, but in its clearest modern form, was first thoroughly discussed between Pascal and Fermat, about probability maths and logics__then Huygens wrote the first real treatise on their probability arguments, as they pertained to real math and logic problems__The very core of free-will's and determinism's arguments.
If you noticed, you wrote about differentiating between local and non-local determinacy, yet you have not distinguished clearly between what is meant by a real difference between local and non-local 'Time' determinacy... This is very difficult to even write about, as it involves the impossible understandings of 'The Asymmetries of Symmetries or Symmetries of Asymmetries' which truly can not be differentiated, at either the local or non-local points, of our 'Frames of References' without infringing upon the definitions of each point, since all state changes are one connected, extended and entangled whole fundamental substance field__It involves 'The Problem of The Problem of No Meaning Possible', at this level, which many logicians and mathematicians do not accept, while others do__which gives us the core of our views of differences__whether it's me and you, or any other two people on Earth, who are going to take the different sides of this 'Absolutely Most Fundamental Pre-Suppositional Position'__until soundly derived axiomatic proofs are given. Now, don't take me wrong here, as I've so often spoken against axioms, but that's because I've never seen 'Fundamental Enough', fully derived axiomatic proofs, yet__It doesn't mean they are not possible. As a matter of fact, I think I may be able to add to the derivation of this fundamental area of 'Axiomatic Proofs'__but, it centers on our differences__you thinking the world is wholly 'Deterministic', as far as I can tell from your writings, and I thinking it's both 'Deterministic' and 'Free-Acting', 'Non-Deterministic', or 'Indeterministic...'
Simply put, iff the world were 'Wholly Deterministic', you should be able to tell me what all past and present points of action, will be doing in the future. Of course, we both know this is entirely impossible, but the point isn't that it's impossible, but rather, why is it impossible...? You may argue it's simply due to lacking information, but I'd argue it's untrue because we do not lack the information__it's simply because certain mathematicians and logicians have not clearly looked at the sound information we do possess. No matter how sound the points of deterministic information(matter's actual motions) are__No matter points, in the past can fully determine matter points, in the future__Due fully to the facts of 'Time and Distance's Origins' of the 'wave-matter points' involved... Iff we are bound to 'Axiomatically Accept' a Universe existing__We are 'Axiomatically' bound by 'The Laws of Physics' to accept it existing for eternity. Iff existing for eternity, the Universe is bound by 'The Laws of Physics' to be 'Infinite', due to the inargueable point of 'Eternity' and 'Infinity' being in 'Logical Contradiction' if not so. By the very 'Laws of Physics' existence, and by the logic we are necessitated to accept these 'Fundamental Axiomatic Facts', or we are creating a logically infinite regress, a contradiction, or a question begging situation, i.e., the snake can not swallow its own tail, and live__only the catepillar and moth, etc., can... Tim, I'm just pointing out some fundamental facts, that major modal logicians and major mathematicians have discovered about the 'Laws of Physics', 'Logic' and 'Math's Necessities', that have been discovered and known, since the `30's and `40's__mainly by Ramsey, Herbrand, Godel, Lukasiewicz, Tarski, Church, Turing and Cohen, plus many others...
Now, as to the points of the past and present 'Deterministically' affecting/effecting the future, or the simple past affecting/effecting the present and future, or the past and present affecting/effecting the present or future__we are locked in a local and non-local time determinacy debate__which can not be settled by viewing the Universe in either a known state of 'Oneness' or 'Manyness'__as this can 'Absolutely' not be known 'Absolutely'__with any amount of positive knowledge__this area is locked in belief and probability theories and facts. Now, this gets back to Pascal and Fermat's debate, then Huygens', Beyes, Laplace, Gauss, Bolzano, Peirce and all the others about the many types of probability maths, logics, laws and mechanical systems__involved... To make this as uncomplicated as possible, yet give you the main overview__There's basically 4 types of interpretations of the 'Probabilities' involved__'Two Subjective Systems' and 'Two Objective Systems...' These four systems are extremely conflated and confused, in all the modern written academic literature, almost no matter where its sources are drawn from__These facts I can not over-state enough, Tim... There's two subjective probability methods, and two objective probability methods, and there has been since the different system debates between Pascal and Fermat, interpreted by Huygens__the more accurate objective system, and that similar system interpreted by Beyes and Laplace__Where Gauss and Peirce, along with the mathematicians and logicians I listed above, are on Huygens side. Anyway, psychology can be purposely interpretively judged from either a subjective probability method, or an objective probability method__and logic can be purposely interpretively judged from either a subjective probability method, or an objective probability method. Now first off, none of these either subjective or objective systems poses a general overall problem, by itself__but when any of these methods are turf-crossed in many authors' works, they do not stipulate 'Exactly' which method is being used and discussed__and herein lies the conflation and confusion problems, at the very heart of all meaning and interpretation problems of probability, or 'Statistical Analysis', 'Probability Analysis' and 'Statistical Mechanics...' The main problem of using 'Psychological Probabilities' is hardly any psychologies distinguish thoroughly between the 'Subjective Analysis' and the 'Objective Analysis' where probability systems are involved__so should be avoided for the most complex of problems, unless it's at least a 51/49 probability mechanics or above, and never the subjective 50/50 analyses, except where pure guessing is needed for initial intuitive and abductive hypothesis theorizing, which must be later checked by the 51/49+ systems. Those logicians and mathematicians using the 'Objective Analyses' systems, more often use the correct Huygens' 51/49+ system, which doesn't get us into the subjective problems of interpretations of information path unknowns. The 'Objective Analysis' can track all the path facts for its systems of relaying its objective truths. I'm not saying you are missing these points Tim, I'm simply mentioning them__as I don't think you may be aware of all this long and very confusing and conflationary history of logical and mathematical interpretations, vs., the psychologically subjective, and even logically subjective__that has the world locked in a massive amount of false facts... What I'm saying is that; "Iff all the facts are processed by the 'Absolutely Objective Analyses' systems, 'Then And Only Then', can the actual 'Axioms' be fully path derived..."
Tim, the reason the deterministic paths of the past or present can not control the present__100%__is the 'Time Factor' of never being possible of such action of all the past actions upon the present or future actions__Due to the simple 'Fact' of 'Location' in 'Different Time Frames' of 'Absolute Fundamental Motion...' We absolutely know, by the necessity of modal logic, that's 1st proto-logical necessity, that 'Iff By The Necessity of The Laws of Physics' the Universe is required to be either 'Created' or 'Eternally Existed'__that 'Creation Is Impossible' by the very 'Laws of Physics' we are axiomatically bound to use. Now, you may think I'm axiomatically stepping beyond what logic and truth systems can know__but, just check out the very necessities of all the fundamental mechanics, in relation to these fundamental 'Laws of Physics', 'Modal Logical Necessities' and 'Non-Contradiction Necessities...' I've been through these arguments thousands of times over the last forty years, and they always come out the same__'Iff we are true and honest to our rational a priori logics, maths and empirical laws and evidential experiences of physics__we can make no other axiomatically derived and determined answers'__The Universe Functions Time-Asymmetrically, Since By Axiomatic Necessity of Being Eternal and Infinite, It's factually too far beyond the speed of light, to fundamentally function any other way... So by the necessity of 'Fundamental FS-Field-Motion', it's absolutely axiomatically required to be 'Time Asymmetrical', and wave-particles traveling in opposint directions, for trillions of years__can never have physical affects and effects resulting in the same deterministic mechanics of any one point in space__to any other point in space__even thought the majority of wave-particles are traveling more within the curvature of local time-frame mechanics__All wave-particles can never be traveling locally determined, due to the c-limits of the limits within the 'Axiomatic Laws of Physics...'
Tim, even within our local time-frame__any deterministic system is always out-of-time, iff simply traveling to the short distance center of our own galaxy, where many wave-particles would be trapped for trillions of years, in our galaxy's neutron star center's massive gravity, otherwise known as a black-hole__Thus creating 'The Black Hole Axiom' of 'No Possible Way of Local Action Being Fully Local Action Caused'__It can't be, if certain wave-particles are being captured by black-holes and taken out of the local action pseudo-symmetry circus. The Universe just isn't symmetrical__It's fully physical-action asymmetrical, by necessity__By the logics, maths, facts, laws and physics__Involved... At the same, as to 'Time', 'The Universe Has The Full Capacity To Be Time Symmetrical'__'At Both The Local and Non-Local Points and Whole'__as 'Time Is An Abstract Event/Occurence, As Well As A Real Physical Progression...' I can understand all the distinct differences Tim, but I'm still not sure if I've explained my thinking well enough for you to understand me, but I've tried...
Lloyd
P.s.
Tim, I've simply tried to get you to explore this 'determinism' 'indeterminacy' more deeply, because it's the true core of all the problems between logicians, mathematicians, psychologists and philosophers__almost since the beginning of time, and imo, the only way to solve it is to dive even deeper into it... You've offered the Planckian Matrix, but I'm trying to show you the limits of logic, reasoning and mathematics__at the very core of Quantum Mechanics...
Btw, been working with my favorite Maine physicist/chemist over the last few months, on these very questions. He and I have boiled it all down to how we process personal judgments, from how we've been programmed from birth, and how we can as adults, use a sortal logic, to prove the core of Universal necessities, and create the new axioms needed to procede further... Also, one of the oldest members of my philosophy group has asked me to school him in how I am processing the logic I'm using in the meetings__and he's 78 years old, and no slouch about logics and maths, as he worked as a scientist and teacher all his life__but he recognizes something different and useful in my method__which is really just a strict adherence to the most sound scientific methods__We've all got it boiled down to the Planckian scales of QM, Logics and Maths__but how we all prove what we 'Know to Be True' can be quite difficult, without inferring false axioms, into the systems of quantification proofs... This line of thinking and rationality of judgments has led us into the fundamental personal belief systems of tribes, and whether and how we process this information either subjectively or objectively__where I'm relating the objective path axioms of our fundamental subjective sub-conscious childhood thinkings to them__which can all be re-processed totally axiomatically objectively__within the sceintific methods I'm using__But, explaining the 'Free-Will Problem' to them is also causing the largest problems, with other members, within the group, thinking opposite to us__but, the three of us main thinkers, think the same__as I've described above__The necessary independence of the Universe's most fundamental actions, due to time-distance separations of points/frame-references and directions/vectors... None of us think it's quite as simple as many of the absolute positivist thinkers, think it is__yet, it's very close__but, the differences allow for 'Free-Will', 'Actionable Values Intelligence' and 'Necessary Axiomatic Intelligence...'
"Quantum limits, limit our rationality; and rational limits, limit our quantum abilities__this must be addressed…" me
--
The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possible premises, and the combined results will be the total actions of the idea.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please let us know your logical, scientific opinions...