The deterministic universe is a theory as much as the big bang. We can’t prove it, but all of the evidence is there. Thinking in binary is me making a point about how our minds interact with the world. If you break down any interaction to its smallest parts, it becomes a simple yes/no, or on/off, we just process it much faster than we think about it in that sense.
oce@jlai.lu 1 week ago
There are various independent reproducible measurements that give weight to the hot big bang theory as opposed to other cosmological theories. Are they any for the deterministic nature of humans?
Quantum physic is not deterministic, for example. While quantum decoherence explains why macro physical systems are deterministic, can we really say it couldn’t play a role in our neurons?
On a slightly different point, quantum bits are not binary, they can represent a continuous superposition of multiple states. Why would our mind be closer to binary computing rather than quantum computing?
chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 1 week ago
We can argue these points all night if you like, but neither of us will get anywhere because we both hold different theories as true.
oce@jlai.lu 1 week ago
I think this is incorrect, it does collapse to definitive state when observed, but the value of the state is probabilistic. We make it deterministic by producing s large number of measurements and deciding on a test on the statistical distribution of all the measurement to get a final value. Maybe our brain also does a test on a statistic of probabilistic measurements, or maybe it doesn’t and depends directly on probabilistic measurements, or a combination of both.
We also lack fully proven equations or complete resolution of equations in fluid dynamics.
I think parsimony is very much based on personal opinion at this point of knowledge.
chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You’re right about quantum measurement—I oversimplified. Individual quantum measurements yield probabilistic outcomes, not deterministic ones. My argument isn’t that quantum systems are deterministic (they’re clearly not at the individual measurement level), but rather that these indeterminacies likely don’t propagate meaningfully to macro-scale neural processing.
The brain operates primarily at scales where quantum effects tend to decohere rapidly. Neural firing involves millions of ions and molecules, creating redundancies that typically wash out quantum uncertainties through a process similar to environmental decoherence. This is why most neuroscientists believe classical physics adequately describes neural computation, despite the underlying quantum nature of reality.
Regarding fluid dynamics and weather systems, you’re correct that our incomplete mathematical models add another layer of uncertainty beyond just initial conditions. Similarly with brain function, we lack complete models of neural dynamics.
I concede that parsimony is somewhat subjective. Different people might find different explanations more “simple” based on their background assumptions. My deterministic view stems from seeing no compelling evidence that neural processes harness quantum randomness in functionally significant ways, unlike systems specifically evolved to do so (like certain photosynthetic proteins or possibly magnetoreception in birds).
The question remains open, and I appreciate the thoughtful pushback. While I lean toward neural determinism based on current evidence, I acknowledge it’s not definitively proven.