Nondeterminism Determined: Automaton or Autonomous?

I've been spending an inordinate amount of time over at Scott's blog lately, because that is where most of the conversation is taking place. The "conversation" is an attempt to find a mutually agreeable rational path between materialism and suernaturalism. We are currently in the grip of determinism, and whether it can be considered a lock-down on reality. So here are some challenges that determinism must face, if it is the only truth and materialism is the only reality.

A contributor, "beelzebub" as he self-appellates, has joined the fray and makes the claim that there are nondeterministic state machines. His point is that nondeterminism can always be reduced to determinism. My response to him follows his comment:

[Beelz] said,
"In fact regular expressions are usually conceived nondeterministically and then converted to deterministic machines."

[My response]:
How would regular expressions be determined deterministically?

Conversion to determinism is not a particularly convincing argument. Conversion from determinism to nondeterminism, coupled with empirical verification, repeatability, and falsifiability coupled with empirical non-falsification would be compelling.

Do you have examples of this?

February 28, 2008 7:01 AM

The conversion from nondeterminism to determinism is a no-brainer. Every human-designed object is an example of this, and especially so in the realm of computing electronics. It might even be considered an entropic event. Machines commonly make other machines these days. But machines do not, in and of themselves, invent machines.

But is there a case, even one, where a deterministic device converted itself to a nondeterministic device? Or has any deterministic "thing" (i.e. an instruction processor) converted itself into a nondeterministic, discerning, decision-maker; automaton to autonomous?

The promise of nondeterministic machines fails the test of "becoming". It is not possible for a deterministic being to confer nondeterminism on another entity. Call it entropy, call it law of sufficient cause, call it Fred; it does not happen any where in nature.(*)

Let's get one thing straight. Determinism means that the entity which is deterministic can do only what it is made to do, through instructions from somewhere else. It cannot, by definition, create its own instruction set. It has no volition. It has no free will. It is locked onto behaviors that it does not and cannot control. Totally locked; completely locked. If any proponent of determinism tries to deny this, then the discussion devolves into deceptive word-play, and is not worth pursuing from that point forward.

Since the deterministic entity is merely an instruction processor, processing instructions not derived by itself, then is it likely to produce a nondeterministic output? Or invent a nondeterministic entity? If there is thought to be a likelihood, then the empirical data must be presented to prove it. And can it be falsified? No, it cannot because it is not possible to prove the negative of this proposition. So the proposition is not empirical, it is metaphysical, and since it is claimed as a proposition of materialism, then it is FALSE.

Now if partial nondeterminism is ruled out, and it is, and if the conversion upward from determinism to nondeterminism is ruled out, and it is, then where does nondeterminism come from?

Exactly. This is the point where it becomes necessary for the materialist to deny that nondeterminism exists at all... and that becomes the final downfall.

Because if an automaton declares that autonomy does not exist, where is the credibility for such a statement. After all, an automaton cannot be expected to make its own discerning decisions; it is programmed to respond only in a pre-established manner, without reflection, without any hint of meaning, just an intellectually blind response. This is the complete disconnect for the theory that nondeterminism doesn't exist. The proponent of determinism makes the proposition using the hidden presupposition that he, himself, is nondeterministic, and is quite able to use discernment to make nondeterministic decisions... one of which is that nondeterminism doesn't exist. This is a classical self-referential self-denying paradox. For the determinist amongst us, a paradox is logical death to the proposition that exhibits it. The denial of nondeterminism is FALSE; moreover, nondeterminism is shown to exist by virtue of the denial itself, which could not have occured if the proponent were actually deterministic.

By now we have ascertained that nondeterminism cannot derive from determinism, and that nondeterminism does, in fact, exist. So on to the final question:

What is the source of nondeterminism?

Now it is your turn.

(*)The claim that nondeterminism "evolved" as the need for autonomy demanded its existence, is so hollow that it rings. There is no proof, empirical or otherwise that this occured. The claim cannot falsified for the same reason that it cannot be empirically proven: it is a Just So Story Fallacy; therefore, the claim is metaphysical by definition, and fictional by inspection. It is FALSE.