The Prediction Paradox

[Robert Arvay]

Here is a puzzle that, as far as I know, has never before been presented.  Can you solve it?

 

In a deterministic universe, it should be possible, in principle, to predict the future course of events.  Furthermore, if such a prediction were made, it would itself be made because deterministic cause-and-effect forced it to be made.  Moreover, the prediction might be correct, insofar as it was based on the inevitable outcome of the past chain of cause-and-effect.  Herein, a paradox could arise.  The very act of making the prediction could itself cause the prediction to not occur, even though based on determinism, it was correct and inevitable. 

 

However, if the prediction were accurate, it would have to predict that the prediction itself would render the prediction inaccurate.

 

Therefore, because of this possible paradox, it must be concluded that a predictable determinism cannot exist.

 

Can a correct prediction, based in determinism, predict that the prediction itself will alter what it predicted, making it incorrect?

-

-

-

[Mike Katz]

I don't understand at all. In a deterministic universe, the prediction MUST have been made. Whether it's a correct prediction or not, it's making was predetermined. Hence it can't change the actual event. It might have contributed to determining whether the event occurs, but then it was always going to do so.

Mike

[Charles Coon]

Mike...How about this consideration:  Determinism is based on Cause and Effect, which is the

dualistic assumption of relativist thinking.  When duality departs, as in Consciousness, the

old deterministic paradigm also departs.....    ?  CC

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/87c61a17-2fa0-4f9f-9fbd-12c87337893b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mike Katz]

Hi Charles

I'm not arguing for or against determinism. I was just looking the logic of Robert's paradox, and I can't see that there is a paradox.

On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 1:59:57 PM UTC-5, Charles Coon wrote:

Mike...How about this consideration:  Determinism is based on Cause and Effect, which is the

dualistic assumption of relativist thinking.  When duality departs, as in Consciousness, the

old deterministic paradigm also departs.....    ?  CC

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 8:23 AM Mike Katz <michaeld...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't understand at all. In a deterministic universe, the prediction MUST have been made. Whether it's a correct prediction or not, it's making was predetermined. Hence it can't change the actual event. It might have contributed to determining whether the event occurs, but then it was always going to do so.

Mike

On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 10:58:48 PM UTC-5, Robert Arvay wrote:

Here is a puzzle that, as far as I know, has never before been presented.  Can you solve it?

 

In a deterministic universe, it should be possible, in principle, to predict the future course of events.  Furthermore, if such a prediction were made, it would itself be made because deterministic cause-and-effect forced it to be made.  Moreover, the prediction might be correct, insofar as it was based on the inevitable outcome of the past chain of cause-and-effect.  Herein, a paradox could arise.  The very act of making the prediction could itself cause the prediction to not occur, even though based on determinism, it was correct and inevitable. 

 

However, if the prediction were accurate, it would have to predict that the prediction itself would render the prediction inaccurate.

 

Therefore, because of this possible paradox, it must be concluded that a predictable determinism cannot exist.

 

Can a correct prediction, based in determinism, predict that the prediction itself will alter what it predicted, making it incorrect?

-

-

-

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Robert Arvay]

Good point, Mike;

The subtlety here is that cause-and-effect are immutable, but can a prediction, factor in itself?

A real world example occurred after actuaries began predicting holiday highway fatalities,

if I recall, it was an upcoming labor day weekend, in the 1960s. 

When the prediction was made, the prevailing reaction was that no one could foresee the future,

not with any precision.  But after the weekend deaths were totaled, the prediction turned out to be

accurate to within an astonishingly narrow margin, I think off by less than ten deaths. 

Suddenly, actuarial science had gained great public stature.

The following year, the prediction was made again, slightly more than the preceding year.

But this time, the actual deaths were significantly lower than predicted.  Lower by far.

The actuaries scratched their heads, until it was realized that, because of the great publicity,

the public had believed the prediction the second year.  Believing it caused people to drive

more carefully, which reduced the level of fatalities.

After that year, the effect of predicting deaths had less impact, and trends returned to "normal."

The "crocodile paradox" (not a real-world event) is a similar example to the prediction paradox,

in which a prediction can cause itself not to be fulfilled, but the non-fulfillment then causes it to be fulfilled,

then back-and-forth, thus the paradox.

In electronics there is a circuit called the astable multi-vibrator, in which actuating one relay

causes it to activate a second relay, in which circuit only one relay can be activated--so that

there is a continual alternation between the two relays.

Editing the original question, then, we have:

Can a . . . prediction. . .  predict that the prediction itself will alter what it predicted, thereby invalidating the prediction?

[Mike Katz]

Hi Robert

No. In a fully deterministic view, there is just everything that happened. Those actuaries had no choice, they predicted, there was a result, and some people read the prediction and listened.

You can't, in a deterministic universe, ask what would have happened if, because if could not have happened. What happens happens (including the prediction) and it couldn't have happened any other way.

Mike

[Lou Gold]

Mike and Robert,

I'm wondering if you are debating the difference between a deterministic universe and a probabilistic one?

On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 10:58:48 PM UTC-5, Robert Arvay wrote:

[Ben Iscatus]

Surely it's probabilistic. When you toss a coin a million times, you can't individually predict heads or tails each time but statistically it will be close to 500,000 heads and 500,000 tails. And you will guess right about 500,000 times. Probably ;-)

[Jeff Falzone]

If you can perfectly predict all events, it seems there will be a class that is unaffected by your predictions and therefore doesn't fall into contradiction, like predicting which team will win a sport (as long as you don't announce it)... 

And it seems there will necessarily be a class of predictions which falls into contradiction because by necessity the prediction is changing the outcome and, therefore, not right. This class would probably include various sub-categories. 

I'm not sure what any of this would have to say about the notion of determination per se. I just listened to a lecture about how we can know there are really 'things' like tables and chairs. It was fun and interesting. Yet, that debate seems to always come down to various factions that simply keep redefining their terms and criteria as the present new challenges. 

I remember reading a fairly thrilling description of why if everything was purely deterministic there would be no way at all to know if something was true or false. I only remember a faint hum of the reasoning :) 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/f7a36d85-f5b7-4d1f-bc8b-d8fc531df755%40googlegroups.com.

[Robert Arvay]

As I said before, your point is valid,

but there is a subtlety that easily escapes attention.

The crocodile paradox is one of them.

While I am not arguing for a deterministic universe

(quite the opposite)

determinism says that, in principle, everything is predictable.

However, in practice, it would not be possible, because a prediction

produces its own causation, a factor which the prediction could not

take into account.

If it did take it into account, then it would have to account for the fact

that the prediction might make itself false.

It might help to consider the thought experiment of an external

observer to a deterministic universe (say, us, observing one).

The very act of observing would interfere with the chain of cause-and-effect.

Again, Mike, your point is valid, on a practical level,

but the metaphysical principle remains.

The eye cannot see itself.

= = = = =

[Mike Katz]

Hello

Picking up from your and the other comments, perhaps our definitions are different.

I take a FULLY deterministic (and material) view to mean that at the point of the big bang, or whatever, everything that happens subsequently is already decided. If one stood out of this, as you suggest, which also means out of time, you would see a vast history from beginning to end, in space and in time, all fixed.

There is no deviation possible.

There is also no consciousness to make a prediction. Consciousness is just the workings of the particles in the universe. It may seem we can predict, but we can't. What we think we are predicting is / was just as inevitable as the rest of the universe. It's unconscious, the result of movement and interactions between particles.

I assume a probabilistic materialism would say that because of quantum / uncertainty issues, things could go one way or another in the history of the universe, therefore a prediction might change something. I just can't see that, because in a fully materialistic universe there's no consciousness, therefore there's no prediction. You could just as well say that a butterfly flapping its wings in South America causes a storm in Europe. That may well be true, statistically, but again, it was unconscious. So is a "prediction" in a universe without consciousness.

Bernardo makes the VERY valid point that materialism is so built into us, and so illusory, that it's hard to understand just how deeply difficult it is to look at everything in a non-materialistic way. The illusion is complete. A word like "prediction" implies consciousness. If there's no consciousness, there's no prediction - all there is, is movement and interaction of particles.

A so-called chess-playing computer, for example, is NOT playing chess. It's a computer program, albeit self-learning, that simulates an activity that we call "playing chess". On the outside, it produces moves that are valid. These days, it produces better moves than we can. In a materialistic world, however, it IS playing chess, because we too are just running a complex program called "playing chess".

Another example, a hand-crafted item of furniture, as opposed to a factory built one. If consciousness exists, we can say how artistic and graceful the hand-made one is. We can appreciate the craft of the design and building of the item. In a materialistic world without consciousness, both are the same. It's just that one is produced by a more complex program, which knows what other programs react favourably to.

Mike

[Dana Lomas]

One might be surprised to discover that Kirby Surprise (I kid you not) has given some deep scientific thought to the topic of synchroncity and apparent prediction ... Check it out here

On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 10:58:48 PM UTC-5, Robert Arvay wrote:

[Mark Tetzner]

Interesting, about to explore. Here is another link.

http://skeptiko.com/kirby-surprise-synchronicity-is-real/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99On-39UcIg

[Daryl Anderson]

Robert - a fascinating question.

Eric Wargo, in his new and thought-provoking book "Time Loops" seems to say that one cannot predict an event (actually he is more focused on precognition so he would say, I think, that one "cannot be precognitively aware of an event", but such awareness would have to precede prediction) if the awareness is such that one could use it to alter the event. Thus the awareness itself will be blurred or imagistic such that it is ambiguous. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Wargo's blog, thenightshirt.com/ shows the development of his ideas, albeit blogwise-backward, and is quite a fascinating read.

Some other thoughts/questions:

One can, of course, predict the future movement of the famous billiard balls. If I strike the cue ball in such a manner it will strike the 8-ball which will move in this fashion. Choosing to not make the shot cannot be said to have negated the effect since a conscious element has been added to the causal chain. This conscious element seems to be a primary challenge point for determinism.

Lou's point about probabilistic predictions opens into the whole matter of quantum reality,  in which one can not predict where the electron is but only predict where it may be and with what degree of likelihood. Is this prediction anymore ? It seems like the probabilistic schema would allow us to escape the apparent bifurcation of a prediction which either does-or-doesn't happen by "predicting" that both may happen.

d.

On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 10:58:48 PM UTC-5, Robert Arvay wrote: