Hi Ken, Struan, Roger and Simon (welcome),
I have some comments about the underlying determinism issue which I
think has not been fully appreciated here e.g.
STRUAN:
<<<I would say that the universe is probably deterministic - although
there could be some
degree of randomness - and that humans simply follow that same pattern.
Remember that free will does
not hinge upon randomness as opposed to determinism. If my choices are
governed by random events
then they are no more or less free than if they are determined by
classical cause and effect. >>>
My impression is that Struan and also Ken do not adequately address
uncertainty principal issue, though Struan's example of a man in a
locked room is similar to the famous Shroedinger's Cat scenario.
I must add that Pirsig really slipped up by not taking up the issue in
developing his MoQ. This is a pity, escpecially since his SODV paper
presented in Copenhagen (see MoQ web site) reveals his willingness to
try and grasp deep physical concepts.
There are two important issues:
1. There is no such thing as "objective randomness". Randomness is a
perception of a system in relation to various expectations (context).
This is one point I make in my "Causality" essay. In contrast,
determinism relies on a belief in some absolute, objective deterministic
principals. Determinism and randomness are like oil and water - they
just won't mix. Thus, Struan's mixing of determinism and randomness in
the same sentence is decidedely wierd.
2. Determinism is in opposition to empiricism. Determinism says that the
apple will always fall downwards from the tree because that is
absolutely determined by the laws of physics. On the other hand,
empiricism says that we can only ever observe a small sample of
incidences of apples falling - thus the belief that apples fall is
merely a summary of experience. Apples TEND to fall, but we can never
know for sure about every single apple from now to eternity. Cause vs.
tendency is another issue discussed in my Casuality essay.
There is an important thermodynamics equation that every chemistry
student learns:
deltaG = deltaG_standard - RTlog[substrates]/[products]
"deltaG" is the Gibb's free energy change; when negative, the reaction
of substrates to products is expected to go forward spontaneously with
no need for any external driving force. If deltaG is positive, the
reaction would tend to go backwards. The "deltaG_standard" in the
equation is a constant related to the equilibirum ratio of substrates
and products under "standard" conditions. At equilibrium, the reaction
proceeds neither forwards nor backwards. One never needs to assume to
know if and when a subtrate molecule will transform to product, or the
reverse. However, the aggregate tendencies of the whole population of
molecules may be predicted. Thus the equation means that the reaction
moves to change the ratio of substrate vs. product towards equilibrium.
All this can be summed using non-technical language to give a rather
amusing tautology:
"Things tend to go towards the expected state". That's what the
equation says!
That statement also nicely reconciles the apparent "deterministic" laws
of thermodynamics with the non-deterministic principle of empiricism.
To put this in Human terms, one can say that people tend to behave in
certain expected patterns. You can learn those patterns by watching the
ways people tend to behave, but you may never be able to predict how
each individual person will behave in every circumstance.
Jonathan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:37 BST