The illusion of free will

[Magical Realist]

And perhaps one day someone will explain to you what an ad hominem argument actually is.

'Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments.''

 

[barcelonic]

You are baffling, MR. Truly. What you say here is nothing short of you going into a debate, putting your fingers in your ears and going "blah blah blah! I am not listening! Blah blah blah!"
If you want to dismiss a person's argument you need to first understand it

Tell me about it lol

I find it astonishing that he wants to discuss complex ideas with you when he's not capable of understanding simple ones

 

[Sarkus]

'Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments.''

Not quite.
It is an attack against the man with the specific aim to undermine the credibility of his argument by doing so.
Perhaps you don't see the difference, but it is in fact quite crucial.

An ad hominem attack is: "your arguments are false because you are X."
That is rather different than: "your arguments are false because of [insert rationale], which you might see if you were not X."

The former tries to attack the argument based on something about the person.
The latter merely comments on the person, and that comment at no point is used to undermine the person's argument, which is addressed separately.

See the difference?

Me calling you a hypocrite and a charlatan was not an attempt to undermine your arguments but simply because your behaviour in the posts warranted that conclusion. But that conclusion was in no way used to undermine your arguments, which I had done separately through non-fallacious rationale.
I.e. they were not ad hominems.

 

[Sarkus]

No they would not result from the same things if freewill were illusory. If freewill and decision-making and planning were an illusion, then damaging that part of the brain that allows it wouldn't result in unfree behavioral disorders like OCD and ADHD and addiction. How can you really lose freedom if you never really had it to begin with. Unless you're saying that these disorders are only illusions too and not real losses of freedom. Unfortunately medical science is against you on this one.

No, it's not against me at all. If freewill is not illusory then what they lose are degrees of actual freedom. If freewill is illusory then what they lose are degrees of perceived freedom.
See how the same observations would result in both cases: observed loss of freedom in whatever freewill is - illusory or not.

 

[Magical Realist]

Right, to summarise - and please note the assumptions and how none of them are "freewill is illusory":

Assumptions: - cause and effect hold; - the universe is probabilistically determined (as previously defined for you: same outputs lead to the same probability function of output, but the specific output is random in accordance with the probability function).
Note: a probabilistically determined universe is inherently indeterministic, and that is before you build in chaos theory and the like.

Chaos amplifies the indeterminacy that is hardwired into the universe. A system existing in a state of criticality between determinism and randomness. In a strictly deterministic universe chaos wouldn't exist. Or it would only be an illusion based on our own limited knowledge, which is what you claim.

Argument: - if every event is caused (the first assumption) and behaves according to the nature of the universe (the second assumption) then each event is either determined (if the probability function is such that same input = a single possible output) or at best random within the probability function. At no point within this is there the ability to interject anything that is not likewise also caused and similarly in obeyance of the nature of the universe.

It's not certain that caused events like random systems, chaos systems, or quantum states are following any specific law at all. If they were then predictability of such systems would be a cinch. Reality by and large doesn't behave like that. For example while the behavior of a planet orbiting a star is entirely predictable and lawlike, add one more planet and suddenly you have an enormously complex and unpredictable system. This is the famous Three Body Problem..

To interject anything that is not caused would require something that is uncaused. And the only uncaus
ed things we have knowledge of are random in nature.

This premise contradicts your original premise that everything has a cause. Are you now qualifying that premise by saying random things are uncaused?

You might consider this another assumption.

And a flawed one at that based on your own previous premise.

Thus the only initiator of chains are either random or began with the start of the universe (Big Bang or whatever).

Doesn't follow. We know that at the quantum level states are really inherently undetermined yet still caused. If this is possible at the micro level, what's to keep it from happening at the macro level?

Freewill as we perceive it has our consciousness as something that initiates chains.

But not without preceding causes. I have reasons for the choices I make and numerous preferences predisposing more or less to make one choice over another. I may choose to drink Dr. Pepper rather than Coke, but the fact that this expresses a preference doesn't invalidate the fact that I make this choice.

If we otherwise consider freewill to be merely a feedback loop into a causal chain then this can not be an initiator of the chain but merely one influence (even if a significant one) and already part of the chain. And as previously stated, all links in the chain are either random or behave according to the nature of the universe.

That was a flawed assumption. You say every event is caused and obeys the laws of the universe, and then assume that there are events (random) that are uncaused and that do not obey the laws of the universe. So which is it?

I.e. Our consciousness can not, therefore, be an initiator of actions.

Sure it can, if we reject your premise that it can only be determined or random. We already have examples of undetermined events that are nonetheless caused. Remember how you yourself admitted causes only probablistically determine outcomes? Here you admit the possibility of caused events that nonetheless have a degree of indeterminacy in their outcome.

So here we have consciousness not able to be the initiator, and yet we perceive ourself to be the initiator.

Doesn't follow. Every passively caused event is also an active cause of future events. Otherwise we'd have a break in the chain of causation. A caused event that doesn't cause anything. And that is impossible. That's MY premise, from which only one conclusion can logically be drawn: Consciousness, while itself being caused, is also a cause of future events. Causality is always emerging anew in the present moment. And I'd venture to say that this is the only causality that really is.

The rational conclusion (given the assumptions) is that the perception or ours consciousness being the initiator is just that: a perception.

Your assumptions are both unfounded and contradictory. So this conclusion doesn't follow at all.

 

[Magical Realist]

No, it's not against me at all. If freewill is not illusory then what they lose are degrees of actual freedom. If freewill is illusory then what they lose are degrees of perceived freedom. See how the same observations would result in both cases: observed loss of freedom in whatever freewill is - illusory or not.

So you're saying disorders like ADHD, OCD, and addiction are just illusions of loss of freedom? That's unlikely given the fact that they are known to result from real damage to certain areas of the brain. How could an illusion result from both the functioning part of the brain AND the malfunctioning of that same part?

 

[Magical Realist]

Me calling you a hypocrite and a charlatan was not an attempt to undermine your arguments but simply because your behaviour in the posts warranted that conclusion.

By calling me a charlatan and a hypocrite you allege that I am using deception in how I argue my case. That is undermining my argument by attacking me personally. Noone would buy an argument from someone they assumed was using deception and sophistry.

 

[Sarkus]

By calling me a charlatan and a hypocrite you allege that I am using deception in how I argue my case. That is undermining my argument by attacking me personally. Noone would buy an argument from someone they assumed was using deception and sophistry.

I am indeed calling you a hypocrite and a charlatan, but you'll also note that that does not affect the rationale of my rebuttal of your arguments, and does not undermine the arguments you make. Whether it affects how other people respond to you would be a matter of defamation, but does not make it an ad hominem.

 

[Magical Realist]

I am indeed calling you a hypocrite and a charlatan, but you'll also note that that does not affect the rationale of my rebuttal of your arguments, and does not undermine the arguments you make.

Yes it does. It says I am disingenuously using trickery and deception to make my case instead of logically proving it. Whether it affects how you argue is irrelevant. It affects how all readers of this thread will view any arguments I make or have made. That's ad hominem.

 

[wynn]

Ah, I love free will threads!

The cumulative effect of a free will thread is that it effectively proves that free will exists.

 

[wynn]

It affects how all readers of this thread will view any arguments I make or have made.

Really? You think we're such spineless wusses with no free will?

 

[Sarkus]

Chaos amplifies the indeterminacy that is hardwired into the universe. A system existing in a state of criticality between determinism and randomness. In a strictly deterministic universe chaos wouldn't exist. Or it would only be an illusion based on our own limited knowledge, which is what you claim.

Why do you think chaos would not exist in a strictly deterministic universe? Chaos is merely where a slight change in starting conditions leads to significant difference in the output. This could be the case in any system, whether deterministic or not. Why do you think otherwise, when almost all literature on the subject of chaos is with regard deterministic systems?
A chaotic system therefore is no indication whatsoever of whether a system is deterministic or not, and can not therefore be used as evidence for either.
And there would be no illusion: it would be chaotic. Sure, a chaotic system is unpredictable in the long-term, but this is no indication of deterministic or not.
I think you are confusing indeterminacy with mere unpredictability.

It's not certain that caused events like random systems, chaos systems, or quantum states are following any specific law at all. If they were then predictability of such systems would be a cinch. Reality by and large doesn't behave like that. For example while the behavior of a planet orbiting a star is entirely predictable and lawlike, add one more planet and suddenly you have an enormously complex and unpredictable system. This is the famous Three Body Problem:

I find this confusing: you say that you don't think it's certain that chaotic systems are following any specific law at all, and then you raise the 3-body problem which, even if modelled in a computer (where the laws are clearly defined and deterministic) you end up with a chaotic system.
There is no issue with predictability within a computer that knows the precise starting conditions, but in reality it is not possible - hence we end up with unpredictability, even in a deterministic process. Imagine the computer model of the 3-body problem where you only get the starting conditions 99.9% accurate... you will find it quickly unpredictable... and chaotic.
So I'm really not sure what point you were thinking of making here with that example.
As for quantum states (and randomness) - this could either be genuine randomness or a case of hidden variables. But either way, randomness can still be predictable probabilistically... e.g. we know an individual radioactive atom will decay on a random basis, but we know that if there is a group of them that half are likely to decay within their known half-life. We know if we roll a die that the randomness means it could land on any face, but it is still a randomness confined within a probability function.

This premise contradicts your original premise that everything has a cause. Are you now qualifying that premise by saying random things are uncaused?

No, I am qualifying it by saying that the only things that are uncaused are random.
I could have included this premise at the start, but I only put it in once the need to mention it arose.
One could, however, perhaps say that random things are uncaused... or at least the cause of the actual output is unknown (aka hidden variables). E.g. what causes the radioactive decay of a single atom? One could argue that it is caused to do so (but the causal chain up to that point is hidden), or one could argue that it the decay is uncaused. But it doesn't make any difference to the argument which you do.

And a flawed one at that based on your own previous premise.

How is this flawed? It is merely a qualification of a previous assumption.

Doesn't follow. We know that at the quantum level states are really inherently undetermined yet still caused. If this is possible at the micro level, what's to keep it from happening at the macro level?

This is a non sequitor, MR. You say it "doesn't follow" yet what follows has no bearing on what I had written. You'll have to explain your criticism here in more detail.

But not without preceding causes. I have reasons for the choices I make and numerous preferences predisposing more or less to make one choice over another. I may choose to drink Dr. Pepper rather than Coke, but the fact that this expresses a preference doesn't invalidate the fact that I make this choice.

But it does speak to whether the "choice" is actually genuine or merely a perception.

That was a flawed assumption. You say every event is caused and obeys the laws of the universe, and then assume that there are events (random) that are uncaused and that do not obey the laws of the universe. So which is it?

I have not said that random events are necessarily uncaused, nor have I said that they do not obey the laws of the universe. I have said that uncaused events are random, and they still do obey the laws of the universe. The laws just allow (as far as we can tell, whether through hidden variables or other means) for that randomness.

Sure it can, if we reject your premise that it can only be determined or random. We already have examples of undetermined events that are nonetheless caused. Remember how you yourself admitted causes only probablistically determine outcomes? Here you admit the possibility of caused events that nonetheless have a degree of indeterminacy in their outcome.

I'm baffled, MR: you're arguing to reject the premise by highlighting a case that is already incorporated within the premise. So yes, I admit the possibility of caused events that are inherently indeterminate (through probabilistic determinism), and that these caused events are not determined but random (within their probability function). So you point out a cause that is random, and then want to use it to reject a premise that states causes to be either determined or random.
So what are you actually trying to argue here, MR? I'm baffled.

Doesn't follow. Every passively caused event is also an active cause of future events. Otherwise we'd have a break in the chain of causation. A caused event that doesn't cause anything. And that is impossible.

What do you mean by "passively/actively caused" and how does it differ to merely "caused"? Otherwise this is another non-sequitor on your part.
Where does my argument result in a break in the chain? And where does it result in caused events not themselves being a future cause? Where are you picking up these unjustified conclusions?

That's my premise, from which only one conclusion can logically be drawn: Consciousness, while itself being caused, is also a cause of future events. Causality is always emerging anew in the present moment. And I'd venture to say that this is the only causality that really is.

What is your premise? And how does it result in a freewill that is anything other than a perception?

Your assumptions are both unfounded and contradictory. So this conclusion doesn't follow at all.

You have not shown them to be contradictory, and as for being unfounded, science supports them (at least so far).

 

[Sarkus]

Ah, I love free will threads!

The cumulative effect of a free will thread is that it effectively proves that free will exists.

At least that's how we perceive it.

 

[Magical Realist]

Why do you think chaos would not exist in a strictly deterministic universe? Chaos is merely where a slight change in starting conditions leads to significant difference in the output. This could be the case in any system, whether deterministic or not. Why do you think otherwise, when almost all literature on the subject of chaos is with regard deterministic systems?

No..the meaning of the term determinate chaos does mean that it is really predetermined in its initial state. It means the chaos springs from the determinacy itself. This would not occur in a deterministic universe where everything is predictable and predetermined. There is actual indeterminacy in the chaotic system itself that arises out of increased determination by initial conditions and is not just random. It literally becomes impossible to predict because it is so sensitive to initial conditions that measurement, even it could measure those initial conditions, would itself change the system. Here's a description of it from Wiki:

Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. This was summarised by Edward Lorenz as follows:[5]

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

A chaotic system therefore is no indication whatsoever of whether a system is deterministic or not, and can not therefore be used as evidence for either.

Wrong. Chaotic systems are inherently unpredictable and chaotic. You do know what chaotic means? As in defying any determinate order?

And there would be no illusion: it would be chaotic. Sure, a chaotic system is unpredictable in the long-term, but this is no indication of deterministic or not.
I think you are confusing indeterminacy with mere unpredictability.

No I'm not. The chaotic system really is more indeterminate in principle because of sensitivity to more and more minute aberrations and fluctuations. Such indeterminacy would not arise in a determinate universe. The system would continue to behave exactly as it did before, in perfect linear fashion.

I find this confusing: you say that you don't think it's certain that chaotic systems are following any specific law at all, and then you raise the 3-body problem which, even if modelled in a computer (where the laws are clearly defined and deterministic) you end up with a chaotic system.
There is no issue with predictability within a computer that knows the precise starting conditions, but in reality it is not possible - hence we end up with unpredictability, even in a deterministic process. Imagine the computer model of the 3-body problem where you only get the starting conditions 99.9% accurate... you will find it quickly unpredictable... and chaotic.

What laws are a 3 body system following then? I haven't gotten the press release on that yet. I'm posting this now but will continue to edit it for a while so as not to lose it.

As for quantum states (and randomness) - this could either be genuine randomness or a case of hidden variables. But either way, randomness can still be predictable probabilistically... e.g. we know an individual radioactive atom will decay on a random basis, but we know that if there is a group of them that half are likely to decay within their known half-life. We know if we roll a die that the randomness means it could land on any face, but it is still a randomness confined within a probability function.

No..quantum indeterminacy isn't randomness. It is more fundamental than that. Like Heisenburg's principle of Indeterminacy. The act of measuring actually changes the state of the system. This is indeterminacy at a far more fundamental level than mere randomness. It is an ontological state of actually being undecided, as in Schrodinger's cat.

No, I am qualifying it by saying that the only things that are uncaused are random.
I could have included this premise at the start, but I only put it in once the need to mention it arose.

Actually you're entirely changing the premise that "everything is caused" to "some things are caused and some things are uncaused." How convenient. So where do you derive this premise that some things are uncaused? Random event may be indeterminate but they are still caused. Your premise that certain events are uncaused is flawed imo. There are no events that are uncaused.

One could, however, perhaps say that random things are uncaused... or at least the cause of the actual output is unknown (aka hidden variables). E.g. what causes the radioactive decay of a single atom? One could argue that it is caused to do so (but the causal chain up to that point is hidden), or one could argue that it the decay is uncaused. But it doesn't make any difference to the argument which you do.

It makes all the difference. Either it's caused but we just don't know the cause, or it is not caused at all by anything. I disagree with the latter. Randomness is simply one of many examples of causes that undetermined in regards to their outcome. Chaotic indeterminacy and quantum indeterminacy would be two others.

How is this flawed? It is merely a qualification of a previous assumption.

You can't qualify a premise with a premise that says the exact opposite. Your premise WAS everything has a cause. Then you add another premise, that there are uncaused events and that they are random. That's not a qualification of anything. It is contradiction of the first premise by the second premise. So which is it? Everything is caused except uncaused things? Is that your new premise?

This is a non sequitor, MR. You say it "doesn't follow" yet what follows has no bearing on what I had written. You'll have to explain your criticism here in more detail.
But it does speak to whether the "choice" is actually genuine or merely a perception.

You said an intiator of action, by which I suppose you mean an indeterminate agent, has to be either random or at the Big Bang. I pointed out that quantum states are examples of indeterminate states that neither uncaused/random nor at the big bang. So this conclusion does not follow.

I have not said that random events are necessarily uncaused, nor have I said that they do not obey the laws of the universe. I have said that uncaused events are random, and they still do obey the laws of the universe.

That's not how you stated it. Here's what you actually said:

And as previously stated, all links in the chain are either random or behave according to the nature of the universe.

Either random or behave according to the nature of the universe. IOW, random events do not behave according the laws of universe. Which is false. We have the laws of probability for instance.

The laws just allow (as far as we can tell, whether through hidden variables or other means) for that randomness.

You distinguished events that are random from events that behave according to the nature of the universe. What did you mean by that?

I'm baffled, MR: you're arguing to reject the premise by highlighting a case that is already incorporated within the premise. So yes, I admit the possibility of caused events that are inherently indeterminate (through probabilistic determinism), and that these caused events are not determined but random (within their probability function).

LOL! So let me get this straight. All events are caused. But uncaused events are random. Now caused events are random. But random events could be uncaused or caused, and it makes no difference either way. What's the problem here? Are you losing track of all the premises you are having to reintroduce into your theory just to justify the conclusion?

So you point out a cause that is random, and then want to use it to reject a premise that states causes to be either determined or random.
So what are you actually trying to argue here, MR? I'm baffled.

Not random, by your own definition of uncaused being random. I'm talking about caused indeterminate events. These would by your own terminology not be random since they are caused. Thus by your own theory you allow for the existence of a third class of events: caused therefore nonrandom but nevertheless undetermined events. Sounds like a good description conscious freewill to me.

What do you mean by "passively/actively caused" and how does it differ to merely "caused"? Otherwise this is another non-sequitor on your part.

I'm simply saying that every event that is caused is also a cause. That's my premise. Therefore, since consciousness itself is caused, it must also be able to cause future events. B follows A. Remember that?

Where does my argument result in a break in the chain? And where does it result in caused events not themselves being a future cause? Where are you picking up these unjustified conclusions?

Your new updated premise is that all events are caused, except when they're random or uncaused. So right there you break the chain by saying there are uncaused events. There can be no relay of causation from caused events to random events.

What is your premise? And how does it result in a freewill that is anything other than a perception?

Already stated. And it entails that since consciousness is caused, it must itself cause. Thus the causal agency of consciousness on the future and its own brain processes.

You have not shown them to be contradictory, and as for being unfounded, science supports them (at least so far).

Yes I did. The statements "every event has a cause" and "uncaused events are random" ARE contradictory. IOW, they cannot both be true. You're going to have do away with one of these. Qualifying one of them will do you no good here

 

[Sarkus]

No..the meaning of the term determinate chaos does mean that it is really predetermined in its initial state. It means the chaos springs from the determinacy itself. This would not occur in a deterministic universe where everything is predictable and predetermined. There is actual indeterminacy in the chaotic system itself that arises out of increased determination by initial conditions and is not just random. It literally becomes impossible to predict because it is so sensitive to initial conditions that measurement, even it could measure those initial conditions, would itself change the system. Here's a description of it from Wiki:

You continue to baffle me, MR. You seem to be saying that once a system is chaotic it becomes indeterminate? Yet the quotes you use argue my case for me:
Let me highlight for you: "This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved."
What could be clearer than this?
Wait, you do realise that if the universe is deterministic then that excludes the possibility of indeterminism, and vice versa? If the universe is deterministic, and you have a chaotic system, the universe doesn't suddenly switch to being indeterministic.
The chaos is due to sensitivity, and any unpredictability is due to the inability to measure the initial condition precisely.
There need be no indeterminism, merely unpredictability due to the lack of necessary precision.
But the system remains deterministic.
And as that quote from Lorenz even states: "Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future." I.e. when we can't accurately measure the present, the future is unpredictable.

So how do you get from "This happens even though these systems are deterministic..." (from Wiki) to your conclusion "This would not occur in a deterministic universe..."?

Wrong. Chaotic systems are inherently unpredictable and chaotic. You do know what chaotic means? As in defying any determinate order?

No it doesn't mean that, and no they are not inherently unpredictable - only practically so.
Chaotic systems, quite simply, are dynamic systems that are highly sensitive to starting conditions.
The unpredictability is due to the inability to accurately know the starting conditions.
But if you could measure the starting conditions perfectly, and you knew the deterministic laws that govern the system, the chaotic system would be predictable.
That is what Lorenz's quote meant.

No I'm not. The chaotic system really is more indeterminate in principle because of sensitivity to more and more minute aberrations and fluctuations. Such indeterminacy would not arise in a determinate universe. The system would continue to behave exactly as it did before, in perfect linear fashion.

As asked above: you do realise that indeterminism does not arise from strict determinism? That they are mutually exclusive? So if, as you quoted from wiki, the chaotic system arises from determinism... how do you start concluding that the chaotic system is now indeterministic? The universe doesn't suddenly swap from being deterministic to indeterministic.
So if both an indeterministic and deterministic universe can lead to a chaotic system, how do you conclude that the chaos in a system means that it is governed by indeterminism??
That's why I'm asking if you're confusing the two, because in a deterministic universe you can have chaos and unpredictability, but you do not have indeterminism by definition of saying that the universe is deterministic.
Likewise if the universe is indeterministic, you can have chaos and unpredictability, but you do not suddenly have determinism.
Sure, in an indeterministic universe you could have a system that is sufficiently deterministic in practice, but the universe would be indeterministic by definition.

What laws are a 3 body system following then? I haven't gotten the press release on that yet. I'm posting this now but will continue to edit it for a while so as not to lose it.

The usual problem (I believe) refers to celestial bodies, so three bodies orbiting each other.
When it is modelled (and shown to be chaotic) it is merely mass and the law of gravity that are used, and orbital mechanics (which follow from gravity).

No..quantum indeterminacy isn't randomness. It is more fundamental than that. Like Heisenburg's principle of Indeterminacy.

Presumably you mean his Uncertainty principle - whereby it seems necessary that we can't measure everything about a physical system? The indeterminacy itself isn't random, but the apparent output from that indeterminacy is (within the probability function) because we are unable to predict it. Einstein thought this was because of hidden variables. Others disagree. The jury (I think) is still out.

I await the rest of your response.

 

[Magical Realist]

Wait, you do realise that if the universe is deterministic then that excludes the possibility of indeterminism, and vice versa?

Wait, you do realize the distinction between a chaotically determinate system, and one that in fact causes an indeterminate outcome, and a strictly determinate universe, or one where such would be impossible? Wiki once again:

"In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable."

 

[Quantum Quack]

MR, I believe you have a significant point! [How significant though I am not yet sure... still thinking on it.]
Possibly an example of determinate yet unpredictable:

A number sequence taken from Pi
09749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412737245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305488204665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185480744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491298336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051320005681271452635608277857713427577896091736371787214684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099605187072113499999983729780499510597317328160963185950244594553469083026425223082533446850352619311881...

and not even chaotic too I might add. [Possibly "ordered chaos" may be better ]

Pi delivers digits that can not be predicted within the sequence from one digit to the next [examples bolded]
yet Pi is fully determined as a complete sequence of digits.

Extended: take the digit 8 any where in the sequence and attempt to predict the 5th number that occurs after that 8.... Can't be done yet it is fully determined by Pi.

 

[Magical Realist]

MR, I believe you have a significant point! [How significant though I am not yet sure... still thinking on it.]
Possibly an example of determinate yet unpredictable:


and not even chaotic too I might add. [Possibly "ordered chaos" may be better ]

Pi delivers digits that can not be predicted within the sequence from one digit to the next [examples bolded]
yet Pi is fully determined as a complete sequence of digits.

Extended: take the digit 8 any where in the sequence and attempt to predict the 5th number that occurs after that 8.... Can't be done yet it is fully determined by Pi.

Good point! This is also the case for prime numbers, which while obviously being predetermined in some mathematical sense, show no known pattern or order in their sequence. There is no equation known for predicting the next prime number! This is yet another example of this grey zone between determination and randomness which can exist in our universe. With chaotic systems you have this too, which is why that is all based on math too. IOW, the unpredictability is a real and objective part of reality. It isn't based on hidden factors.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Good point! This is also the case for prime numbers, which while obviously being predetermined in some mathematical sense, show no known pattern or order in their sequence. There is no equation known for predicting the next prime number! This is yet another example of this grey zone between determination and randomness which can exist in our universe. With chaotic systems you have this too, which is why that is all based on math too. IOW, the unpredictability is a real and objective part of reality. It isn't based on hidden factors.

An interesting consideration is that Pi in particular is also derived to allow us to mimic the circle, sphere, ball etc, which would have to make it one of the most phenomenological "abstraction mimics" we have when dealing with 2 & 3 dimensional space.
So yes, I agree, deterministic unpredictability could be considered as an objective reality of this universes structure and function. Deterministic unpredictability sounds awfully like the music improvisations of Jazz musicians.

 

[Magical Realist]

An interesting consideration is that Pi in particular is also derived to allow us to mimic the circle, sphere, ball etc, which would have to make it one of the most phenomenological "abstraction mimics" we have when dealing with 2 & 3 dimensional space.
So yes, I agree, deterministic unpredictability could be considered as an objective reality of this universes structure and function. Deterministic unpredictability sounds awfully like the music improvisations of Jazz musicians.

Another example of the objective indeterminacy of chaotic systems are called fractals. These are self-similar patterns created by certain iterations of equations--basically feeding the product back into the equation. This will produce beautiful infinitely branching patterns that, while appearing similar, will never repeat. Infinite novelty and unpredictability yet exquisite order and structure from a simple equation. Deterministic chaos at its best!