Editing Ontology:Q2228

<includeonly><onlyinclude>{{HueEntity|I=S1|Q=22,28|sum=1|quilt=1|ply=1
|class={{{class|field_mdem}}} manual flag|PPPA2={{{1|}}}|ins={{{3|}}}|sense={{{2|}}}  <!-- three braces: changeable arguments -->
 | PPPA = {{label|{{{lang|}}}
   | en  = determinism
   | ja  = 必然論 }}
 | field = {{label|{{{lang|}}}
   | en  = physics
   | ja  = 数学 }}
|numbersign = 404
|CL = [[C:meta-Marxist terms]] |CQ = [[C:meta-Marxism ontology]]
|enddfn=1}}</onlyinclude></includeonly>{{ArticleTitle|determinism (physics) - STM / S1 / Q22,28|NoContents=y}}{{HueNumberPreview|E=Q2228}}<!--
duplication hint:  copy or update fake Item from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN|Q22,28]] -->

== Core characteristics ==

<dl class="wikitable hue">
{{HueClaim |P=item type| {{Template:S1}} }}
{{HueRoster|EP=PPPA/L|lang=en| {{E:Q2228}} | [[E:determinism (physics)]] }}
{{HueRoster|EP=PPPA|lang=en| determinism (mathematics) | [[E:necessity (mathematics)|necessity (mathematics)]] | [[E:lambda-calculus determinism|lambda-calculus determinism]] | lambda calculus style determinism | mathematical function determinism | necessity (process of individual things being determined by laws of behavior and surrounding conditions) }}
{{HueRoster|EP=P42| -- }}
{{HueRoster|EP=P42/BB| -- }}  <!-- en: shares thematic block -->
{{HueRoster|EP=P34| -- }}
{{HueRoster|EP=P4| -- }}  <!-- en: case of -->
</dl>

== Wavebuilder combinations ==

<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">
{{WaveBuildNone| -- | -- | -- }}  <!-- en: Along With, Produces  ??  ?? -->
</dl>

=== Wavebuilder characterizations ===

<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three">
{{WaveRoute| -- | -- | -- }}  <!-- en: From  ??  ?? -->
</dl>

== [[User:Reversedragon/FirstNineThousand/900|Prototype]] notes ==

<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">
</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="22,28" value="2228" data-dimension="S">lambda-calculus determinism  ->  for some weird reason people always assume that determinism equals Calvinism, where there is one set of conditions that lead to a single ending, rather than determinism itself being the path from a million initial conditions to a million associated endings. this is the intuitive definition of determinism if you've studied enough Newtonian mechanics: if a ball and a ramp start in one particular position they end up in one particular place but it always depends on what position they started in which is not necessarily controllable by an experimenter in the context of daily life. if you start with this definition of determinism you see it is no existential threat to a bunch of individuals floating around making decisions and having some set of processes they struggle to describe and label as Free Will; if determinism is discovered and people become "robots" then no aspect of human experience has been lost.<br />
said another way: determinism is when there is an uncontrollable variable "x", similar to a person, or an unknown quantity of water, or a tennis ball of unknown mass, but you know what the "x" object is going to do even if you don't know exactly how. x goes into the lambda-calculus style function, and it pops out some wide array of possibilities based on the wide array of possibilities that go in — a graph of stuff looking like a curve or a filled shape or a volume, not a single point, describing the outcome. the presence of two objects "x" and "y" doesn't change this, it just creates a 3d graph z = f(x,y) containing a bounded cube of possibilities rather than a bounded square. the top thing to ask people who want to deny "cube determinism" is, do you want people to be able to infinitely deny that there is a possibility they will have to stop being racist, or would you be okay with the possibility of a world where them choosing to stop being racist is inevitable? if that possibility or the possibility of finding it inside the bounded cube sounds good to you, certainly that doesn't make "cube determinism" a known fact about reality, but it does mean you should investigate it.

</li><li class="field_mdem" data-qid="22,28" value="2228" data-dimension="S">必然論 [https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%BF%85%E7%84%B6%E8%AB%96-610884]  ->  so apparently in the Japanese language it's more common to use the word "necessity" for this than "determinism". do I pick my words weirdly? I know for sure I do, but I also know that across English language texts people will use like five totally different words from different academic departments to say the same thing. I don't think you can ever get around the difficulty of differentiating underlying concepts with words by picking "more correct words".<br />
必然論 (数学) + special relativity / 特殊相対論 = relativistic determinism

</li></ol>

== Background ==

== Usage notes ==

<!--
== References ==

for notes   group="n"
<references>
<ref name="dialogue">"Article". Author, I.B. (1952). {{book|Journal}}; [example.com].</ref>
</references>
-->

<!-- == Aliases / Labels / More languages == -->
{{E:Q22,28/PPPA}}


[[Category:Hue-format fake Items]]  <!-- page ends here.  TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming
redirects:   [[Ontology:Q2228]]
TTS-unfriendly, search-friendly numbers:   Q2228 -->