Determinism Doesn't Mean What You Think

Lapace's Demon:

According to determinism, if someone (the demon) knows the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, their past and future values for any given time are entailed; they can be calculated from the laws of classical mechanics

This notion makes sense in terms of the intellectual victories classical mechanics had won in Lapace's day.  Also, it is probably intuitive in terms of the materialistic worldview held by those who wants to be able to say respectable things at parties [1].  Lapace's Demon, however, is not the consensus of mathematicians and physicists.  In the book Infinite Powers Strogatz writes

When a system is nonlinear, its behavior can be impossible to forecast with formulas, even though that behavior is completely determined.  In other words, determinism does not imply predictability. pg 280

[Update: it has come to my attention that the above reads as those I am dismissing determinism.  That was not my intention.  Instead, I am arguing against Lapace's Demon.  I imagine the universe is deterministic.  The emergent properties of it, however, are not all predictable even with complete information.]

I thought about giving this piece the title " Determinism Doesn't Mean What They Want You to Think."  I have noticed that those most desirous to push the notion of determinism, whether they be Marxists or Scott Adams (aka "the Dilbert guy") or the like, are trying to pull a bait-and-switch, or, if challenged, a motte and bailey. The goal is to use the idea of Lapace's Demon (which isn't even true!) as the stronghold/ motte, and then switch out to the bailey of their pet idea, some simplistic, usually mono-variable, understanding of social reality.  Dilbert guy's mono-variable was con artistry.  Humans are just "moist robots" and you just need to figure out the who are the master con artists; they will always win.

This pushing of a mono-variable might work in the world of selling ideas in the short run, but it doesn't jive with actual rigor.  Again, from Strogatz

. . . all of biology is nonlinear; so is sociology.  That's why the soft sciences are hard -- and the last to be mathematized.  Because of nonlinearity, there's nothing soft about them. pg 280

Huge swathes of reality are irreducibly complex [2] --  even more things that cannot be understood at a human level of IQ.  On the bright side, that leaves always more to explore, to wonder at, and be surprised by.

But always be suspicious of those who argue for determinism.  They probably just want to trip on power.  Certainly don't be in a vulnerable position around such people. . .  Just because we agree there isn't free will doesn't mean THEY can predict what is going to happen.  In any remotely free social set up, I have functional free will from the perspective of outside human observers.


===

[1] I know that reads sarcastic, but I'm not saying there is anything wrong with respectability per se -- I actually try to be respectable enough in social settings -- but it is a psycho-social motivation that shapes beliefs more than a deep investigation of the subjects.  Cp. Crony Beliefs.  If you believe in materialism, your reasons probably have not been deeply investigated.  That does not mean the belief is incorrect, rather it has not been examined.

[2] Ie absent some computer working in another dimension, using more computing power than our entire plane of reality could provide.  So yeah, someone in Silicon Valley is working on it.