document_title: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

question_text: who is the youngest current justice sitting on the supreme court

text: Current justices of the Supreme Court[edit]

text: There are currently nine justices serving on the Supreme Court; listed in order of seniority, they are:

text: John Roberts,Chief Justicesince September 29, 2005Age 7004232860000000000♠63[12]

text:
Clarence Thomas,Associate Justicesince October 23, 1991Age 7004256950000000000♠70[13]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Associate Justicesince August 10, 1993Age 7004312740000000000♠85[14]

Stephen Breyer,Associate Justicesince August 3, 1994Age 7004292950000000000♠80[15]

Samuel Alito,Associate Justicesince January 31, 2006Age 7004250480000000000♠68[16]

text:
Sonia Sotomayor,Associate Justicesince August 8, 2009Age 7004235020000000000♠64[17]

Elena Kagan,Associate Justicesince August 7, 2010Age 7004213680000000000♠58[18]

Neil Gorsuch,Associate Justicesince April 10, 2017Age 7004186890000000000♠51[19]

Brett Kavanaugh,Associate Justicesince October 6, 2018Age 7004196170000000000♠53[20]

text: All justices of the Supreme Court[edit]

text: Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, 114 persons have served on the Court. The length of service on the Court for the 105 non-incumbent justices ranges from William O. Douglas's 36 years, 211 days to the 163-day tenure of Thomas Johnson. As of October 29, 2018, the length of service for the nine incumbent justices ranges from Clarence Thomas' 7003986800000000000♠27 years, 6 days to Brett Kavanaugh's 7001230000000000000♠23 days. Five individuals were confirmed for associate justice, and later appointed chief justice separately: John Rutledge,[a] Edward Douglass White,[b] Charles Evans Hughes,[a] Harlan F. Stone,[b] and William Rehnquist.[b] While listed twice, each of them has been assigned only one index number. The justices of the Supreme Court are:[21][22]

text:
Justice

State[c]

Position

Replacing

Date confirmed(Vote)

Tenure

Tenure length[d]

Appointed by

1

John Jay(1745–1829)

NY

ChiefJustice

New seat

September 26, 1789(Acclamation)

October 19, 1789–June 29, 1795(Resigned)

7003207900000000000♠5 years, 253 days

George Washington

2

John Rutledge(1739–1800)

SC

AssociateJustice

New seat

September 26, 1789(Acclamation)

February 15, 1790–March 4, 1791(Resigned)

7002382000000000000♠1 year, 17 days

3

William Cushing(1732–1810)

MA

AssociateJustice

New seat

September 26, 1789(Acclamation)

February 2, 1790–September 13, 1810(Died)

7003752700000000000♠20 years, 223 days

4

James Wilson(1742–1798)

PA

AssociateJustice

New seat

September 26, 1789(Acclamation)

October 5, 1789–August 21, 1798(Died)

7003324200000000000♠8 years, 320 days

5

John Blair(1732–1800)

VA

AssociateJustice

New seat

September 26, 1789(Acclamation)

February 2, 1790–October 25, 1795(Resigned)

7003209100000000000♠5 years, 265 days

6

James Iredell(1751–1799)

NC

AssociateJustice

New seat

February 10, 1790(Acclamation)

May 12, 1790–October 20, 1799(Died)

7003344800000000000♠9 years, 161 days

7

Thomas Johnson(1732–1819)

MD

AssociateJustice

J. Rutledge

November 7, 1791(Acclamation)

August 6, 1792[e]–January 16, 1793(Resigned)

7002163000000000000♠163 days

8

William Paterson(1745–1806)

NJ

AssociateJustice

T. Johnson

March 4, 1793(Acclamation)

March 11, 1793–September 8, 1806(Died)

7003492800000000000♠13 years, 181 days

2

John Rutledge(1739–1800)

SC

ChiefJustice

Jay

December 15, 1795(10–14)[f]

August 12, 1795[e]–December 28, 1795(Resigned, nomination having been rejected)

7002138000000000000♠138 days

9

Samuel Chase[g](1741–1811)

MD

AssociateJustice

Blair

January 27, 1796(Acclamation)

February 4, 1796–June 19, 1811(Died)

7003561300000000000♠15 years, 135 days

10

Oliver Ellsworth(1745–1807)

CT

ChiefJustice

J. Rutledge

March 4, 1796(21–1)

March 8, 1796–December 15, 1800(Resigned)

7003174200000000000♠4 years, 282 days

11

Bushrod Washington(1762–1829)

VA

AssociateJustice

Wilson

December 20, 1798(Acclamation)

November 9, 1798[e]–November 26, 1829(Died)

7004113390000000000♠31 years, 17 days

John Adams

12

Alfred Moore(1755–1810)

NC

AssociateJustice

Iredell

December 9, 1799(Acclamation)

April 21, 1800–January 26, 1804(Resigned)

7003137500000000000♠3 years, 280 days

13

John Marshall(1755–1835)

VA

ChiefJustice

Ellsworth

January 27, 1801(Acclamation)

February 4, 1801–July 6, 1835(Died)

7004125700000000000♠34 years, 152 days

14

William Johnson(1771–1834)

SC

AssociateJustice

Moore

March 24, 1804(Acclamation)

May 7, 1804–August 4, 1834(Died)

7004110460000000000♠30 years, 89 days

Thomas Jefferson

15

Henry Brockholst Livingston(1757–1823)

NY

AssociateJustice

Paterson

December 17, 1806(Acclamation)

January 20, 1807–March 18, 1823(Died)

7003590100000000000♠16 years, 57 days

16

Thomas Todd(1765–1826)

KY

AssociateJustice

New seat

March 2, 1807(Acclamation)

March 3, 1807–February 7, 1826(Died)

7003691600000000000♠18 years, 341 days

17

Gabriel Duvall(1752–1844)

MD

AssociateJustice

S. Chase

November 18, 1811(Acclamation)

November 23, 1811–January 12, 1835(Resigned)

7003845100000000000♠23 years, 50 days

James Madison

18

Joseph Story(1779–1845)

MA

AssociateJustice

Cushing

November 18, 1811(Acclamation)

February 3, 1812–September 10, 1845(Died)

7004122730000000000♠33 years, 219 days

19

Smith Thompson(1768–1843)

NY

AssociateJustice

Livingston

December 9, 1823(Acclamation)

September 1, 1823[e]–December 18, 1843(Died)

7003741300000000000♠20 years, 108 days

James Monroe

20

Robert Trimble(1776–1828)

KY

AssociateJustice

Todd

May 9, 1826(25–5)

June 16, 1826–August 25, 1828(Died)

7002801000000000000♠2 years, 70 days

John Quincy Adams

21

John McLean(1785–1861)

OH

AssociateJustice

Trimble

March 7, 1829(Acclamation)

January 11, 1830–April 4, 1861(Died)

7004114060000000000♠31 years, 83 days

Andrew Jackson

22

Henry Baldwin(1780–1844)

PA

AssociateJustice

Washington

January 6, 1830(41–2)

January 18, 1830–April 21, 1844(Died)

7003520700000000000♠14 years, 94 days

23

James Moore Wayne(1790–1867)

GA

AssociateJustice

W. Johnson

January 9, 1835(Acclamation)

January 14, 1835–July 5, 1867(Died)

7004118600000000000♠32 years, 172 days

24

Roger B. Taney(1777–1864)

MD

ChiefJustice

J. Marshall

March 15, 1836(29–15)

March 28, 1836–October 12, 1864(Died)

7004104250000000000♠28 years, 198 days

25

Philip Pendleton Barbour(1783–1841)

VA

AssociateJustice

Duvall

March 15, 1836(30–11)

May 12, 1836–February 25, 1841(Died)

7003175000000000000♠4 years, 289 days

26

John Catron(1786–1865)

TN

AssociateJustice

New seat

March 8, 1837(28–15)

May 1, 1837–May 30, 1865(Died)

7004102560000000000♠28 years, 29 days

27

John McKinley(1780–1852)

AL

AssociateJustice

New seat

September 25, 1837(Acclamation)

January 9, 1838–July 19, 1852(Died)

7003530500000000000♠14 years, 192 days

Martin Van Buren

28

Peter Vivian Daniel(1784–1860)

VA

AssociateJustice

Barbour

March 2, 1841(25–5)

January 10, 1842–May 31, 1860(Died)

7003671600000000000♠18 years, 142 days

29

Samuel Nelson(1792–1873)

NY

AssociateJustice

Thompson

February 14, 1845(Acclamation)

February 27, 1845–November 28, 1872(Retired)

7004101360000000000♠27 years, 275 days

John Tyler

30

Levi Woodbury(1789–1851)

NH

AssociateJustice

Story

January 31, 1846(Acclamation)

September 23, 1845[e]–September 4, 1851(Died)

7003217200000000000♠5 years, 346 days

James K. Polk

31

Robert Cooper Grier(1794–1870)

PA

AssociateJustice

Baldwin

August 4, 1846(Acclamation)

August 10, 1846–January 31, 1870(Retired)

7003857500000000000♠23 years, 174 days

32

Benjamin Robbins Curtis(1809–1874)

MA

AssociateJustice

Woodbury

December 20, 1851(Acclamation)

October 10, 1851[e]–September 30, 1857(Resigned)

7003218200000000000♠5 years, 355 days

Millard Fillmore

33

John Archibald Campbell(1811–1889)

AL

AssociateJustice

McKinley

March 22, 1853(Acclamation)

April 11, 1853–April 30, 1861(Resigned)

7003294100000000000♠8 years, 19 days

Franklin Pierce

34

Nathan Clifford(1803–1881)

ME

AssociateJustice

Curtis

January 12, 1858(26–23)

January 21, 1858–July 25, 1881(Died)

7003858600000000000♠23 years, 185 days

James Buchanan

35

Noah Haynes Swayne(1804–1884)

OH

AssociateJustice

McLean

January 24, 1862(38–1)

January 27, 1862–January 24, 1881(Retired)

7003693700000000000♠18 years, 363 days

Abraham Lincoln

36

Samuel Freeman Miller(1816–1890)

IA

AssociateJustice

Daniel

July 16, 1862(Acclamation)

July 21, 1862–October 13, 1890(Died)

7004103110000000000♠28 years, 84 days

37

David Davis(1815–1886)

IL

AssociateJustice

Campbell

December 8, 1862(Acclamation)

December 10, 1862[e]–March 4, 1877(Resigned)

7003519800000000000♠14 years, 84 days

38

Stephen Johnson Field(1816–1899)

CA

AssociateJustice

New seat

March 10, 1863(Acclamation)

May 10, 1863–December 1, 1897(Retired)

7004126240000000000♠34 years, 205 days

39

Salmon P. Chase(1808–1873)

OH

ChiefJustice

Taney

December 6, 1864(Acclamation)

December 15, 1864–May 7, 1873(Died)

7003306500000000000♠8 years, 143 days

40

William Strong(1808–1895)

PA

AssociateJustice

Grier

February 18, 1870(No vote recorded)

March 14, 1870–December 14, 1880(Retired)

7003392800000000000♠10 years, 275 days

Ulysses S. Grant

41

Joseph Philo Bradley(1813–1892)

NJ

AssociateJustice

New seat

March 21, 1870(46–9)

March 23, 1870–January 22, 1892(Died)

7003797500000000000♠21 years, 305 days

42

Ward Hunt(1810–1886)

NY

AssociateJustice

Nelson

December 11, 1872(Acclamation)

January 9, 1873–January 27, 1882(Retired)

7003330500000000000♠9 years, 18 days

43

Morrison Waite(1816–1888)

OH

ChiefJustice

S. P. Chase

January 21, 1874(63–0)

March 4, 1874–March 23, 1888(Died)

7003513300000000000♠14 years, 19 days

44

John Marshall Harlan(1833–1911)

KY

AssociateJustice

Davis

November 29, 1877(Acclamation)

December 10, 1877–October 14, 1911(Died)

7004123600000000000♠33 years, 308 days

Rutherford B. Hayes

45

William Burnham Woods(1824–1887)

GA

AssociateJustice

Strong

December 21, 1880(39–8)

January 5, 1881–May 14, 1887(Died)

7003232000000000000♠6 years, 129 days

46

Stanley Matthews(1824–1889)

OH

AssociateJustice

Swayne

May 12, 1881(24–23)

May 17, 1881–March 22, 1889(Died)

7003286600000000000♠7 years, 309 days

James Garfield

47

Horace Gray(1828–1902)

MA

AssociateJustice

Clifford

December 20, 1881(51–5)

January 9, 1882–September 15, 1902(Died)

7003755300000000000♠20 years, 249 days

Chester A. Arthur

48

Samuel Blatchford(1820–1893)

NY

AssociateJustice

Hunt

March 22, 1882(Acclamation)

April 3, 1882–July 7, 1893(Died)

7003411300000000000♠11 years, 95 days

49

Lucius QuintusCincinnatus Lamar II(1825–1893)

MS

AssociateJustice

Woods

January 16, 1888(32–28)

January 18, 1888–January 23, 1893(Died)

7003183200000000000♠5 years, 5 days

Grover Cleveland

50

Melville Fuller(1833–1910)

IL

ChiefJustice

Waite

July 20, 1888(41–20)

October 8, 1888–July 4, 1910(Died)

7003793800000000000♠21 years, 269 days

51

David Josiah Brewer(1837–1910)

KS

AssociateJustice

Matthews

December 18, 1889(53–11)

January 6, 1890–March 28, 1910(Died)

7003738500000000000♠20 years, 81 days

Benjamin Harrison

52

Henry Billings Brown(1836–1913)

MI

AssociateJustice

Miller

December 29, 1890(Acclamation)

January 5, 1891–May 28, 1906(Retired)

7003598600000000000♠16 years, 143 days

53

George Shiras, Jr.(1832–1924)

PA

AssociateJustice

Bradley

July 26, 1892(Acclamation)

October 10, 1892–February 23, 1903(Retired)

7003378700000000000♠10 years, 136 days

54

Howell Edmunds Jackson(1832–1895)

TN

AssociateJustice

L. Lamar

February 18, 1893(Acclamation)

March 4, 1893–August 8, 1895(Died)

7002887000000000000♠2 years, 157 days

55

Edward Douglass White(1845–1921)

LA

AssociateJustice

Blatchford

February 19, 1894(Acclamation)

March 12, 1894–December 18, 1910(Continued as chief justice)

7003612400000000000♠16 years, 281 days

Grover Cleveland

56

Rufus Wheeler Peckham(1838–1909)

NY

AssociateJustice

H. Jackson

December 9, 1895(Acclamation)

January 6, 1896–October 24, 1909(Died)

7003503900000000000♠13 years, 291 days

57

Joseph McKenna(1843–1926)

CA

AssociateJustice[h]

Field

January 21, 1898(Acclamation)

January 26, 1898–January 5, 1925(Retired)

7003984000000000000♠26 years, 345 days

William McKinley

58

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.(1841–1935)

MA

AssociateJustice[i]

Gray

December 4, 1902(Acclamation)

December 8, 1902–January 12, 1932(Retired)

7004106270000000000♠29 years, 35 days

Theodore Roosevelt

59

William R. Day(1849–1923)

OH

AssociateJustice

Shiras

February 23, 1903(Acclamation)

March 2, 1903–November 13, 1922(Retired)

7003719600000000000♠19 years, 256 days

60

William Henry Moody(1853–1917)

MA

AssociateJustice

Brown

December 12, 1906(Acclamation)

December 17, 1906–November 20, 1910(Retired)

7003143400000000000♠3 years, 338 days

61

Horace Harmon Lurton(1844–1914)

TN

AssociateJustice

Peckham

December 20, 1909(Acclamation)

January 3, 1910–July 12, 1914(Died)

7003166500000000000♠4 years, 204 days

William Howard Taft

62

Charles Evans Hughes(1862–1948)

NY

AssociateJustice

Brewer

May 2, 1910(Acclamation)

October 10, 1910–June 10, 1916(Resigned)

7003207000000000000♠5 years, 244 days

55

Edward Douglass White(1845–1921)

LA

ChiefJustice

Fuller

December 12, 1910(Acclamation)

December 19, 1910–May 19, 1921(Died)

7003380400000000000♠10 years, 151 days

63

Willis Van Devanter(1859–1941)

WY

AssociateJustice

E. D. White

December 15, 1910(Acclamation)

January 3, 1911[j]–June 2, 1937(Retired)

7003964700000000000♠26 years, 150 days

64

Joseph Rucker Lamar(1857–1916)

GA

AssociateJustice

Moody

December 15, 1910(Acclamation)

January 3, 1911[j]–January 2, 1916(Died)

7003182500000000000♠4 years, 364 days

65

Mahlon Pitney(1858–1924)

NJ

AssociateJustice

J. Harlan

March 13, 1912(50–26)

March 18, 1912–December 31, 1922(Resigned)

7003394000000000000♠10 years, 288 days

66

James Clark McReynolds(1862–1946)

TN

AssociateJustice

Lurton

August 29, 1914(44–6)

October 12, 1914–January 31, 1941(Retired)

7003960800000000000♠26 years, 111 days

Woodrow Wilson

67

Louis Brandeis(1856–1941)

KY

AssociateJustice

J. Lamar

June 1, 1916(47–22)

June 5, 1916–February 13, 1939(Retired)

7003828800000000000♠22 years, 253 days

68

John Hessin Clarke(1857–1945)

OH

AssociateJustice

Hughes

July 24, 1916(Acclamation)

October 9, 1916–September 18, 1922(Retired)

7003217000000000000♠5 years, 344 days

69

William Howard Taft(1857–1930)

CT

ChiefJustice

E. D. White

June 30, 1921(Acclamation)

July 11, 1921–February 3, 1930(Retired)

7003312900000000000♠8 years, 207 days

Warren G. Harding

70

George Sutherland(1862–1942)

UT

AssociateJustice

Clarke

September 5, 1922(Acclamation)

October 2, 1922–January 17, 1938(Retired)

7003558600000000000♠15 years, 107 days

71

Pierce Butler(1866–1939)

MN

AssociateJustice

Day

December 21, 1922(61–8)

January 2, 1923–November 16, 1939(Died)

7003616200000000000♠16 years, 318 days

72

Edward Terry Sanford(1865–1930)

TN

AssociateJustice

Pitney

January 29, 1923(Acclamation)

February 19, 1923–March 8, 1930(Died)

7003257400000000000♠7 years, 17 days

73

Harlan F. Stone(1872–1946)

NY

AssociateJustice[k]

McKenna

February 5, 1925(71–6)

March 2, 1925–July 2, 1941(Continued as chief justice)

7003596600000000000♠16 years, 122 days

Calvin Coolidge

62

Charles Evans Hughes(1862–1948)

NY

ChiefJustice

Taft

February 13, 1930(52–26)

February 24, 1930–June 30, 1941(Retired)

7003414400000000000♠11 years, 126 days

Herbert Hoover

74

Owen Josephus Roberts(1875–1955)

PA

AssociateJustice

Sanford

May 20, 1930(Acclamation)

June 2, 1930–July 31, 1945(Resigned)

7003553800000000000♠15 years, 59 days

75

Benjamin N. Cardozo(1870–1938)

NY

AssociateJustice

Holmes

February 24, 1932(Acclamation)

March 14, 1932–July 9, 1938(Died)

7003230800000000000♠6 years, 117 days

76

Hugo Black(1886–1971)

AL

AssociateJustice[l]

Van Devanter

August 17, 1937(63–16)

August 19, 1937–September 17, 1971(Retired)

7004124470000000000♠34 years, 29 days

Franklin D. Roosevelt

77

Stanley Forman Reed(1884–1980)

KY

AssociateJustice

Sutherland

January 25, 1938(Acclamation)

January 31, 1938–February 25, 1957(Retired)

7003696500000000000♠19 years, 25 days

78

Felix Frankfurter(1882–1965)

MA

AssociateJustice

Cardozo

January 17, 1939(Acclamation)

January 30, 1939–August 28, 1962(Retired)

7003861100000000000♠23 years, 210 days

79

William O. Douglas(1898–1980)

CT

AssociateJustice

Brandeis

April 4, 1939(62–4)

April 17, 1939–November 12, 1975(Retired)

7004133600000000000♠36 years, 211 days

80

Frank Murphy(1890–1949)

MI

AssociateJustice

Butler

January 16, 1940(Acclamation)

February 5, 1940–July 19, 1949(Died)

7003345200000000000♠9 years, 164 days

73

Harlan F. Stone(1872–1946)

NY

ChiefJustice

Hughes

June 27, 1941(Acclamation)

July 3, 1941–April 22, 1946 (Died)

7003175400000000000♠4 years, 293 days

81

James F. Byrnes(1882–1972)

SC

AssociateJustice

McReynolds

June 12, 1941(Acclamation)

July 8, 1941–October 3, 1942(Resigned)

7002452000000000000♠1 year, 87 days

82

Robert H. Jackson(1892–1954)

NY

AssociateJustice

Stone

July 7, 1941(Acclamation)

July 11, 1941–October 9, 1954(Died)

7003483800000000000♠13 years, 90 days

83

Wiley Blount Rutledge(1894–1949)

IA

AssociateJustice

Byrnes

February 8, 1943(Acclamation)

February 15, 1943–September 10, 1949(Died)

7003239900000000000♠6 years, 207 days

84

Harold Hitz Burton(1888–1964)

OH

AssociateJustice

O. Roberts

September 19, 1945(Acclamation)

October 1, 1945–October 13, 1958(Retired)

7003476000000000000♠13 years, 12 days

Harry S. Truman

85

Fred M. Vinson(1890–1953)

KY

ChiefJustice

Stone

June 20, 1946(Acclamation)

June 24, 1946–September 8, 1953 (Died)

7003263300000000000♠7 years, 76 days

86

Tom C. Clark(1899–1977)

TX

AssociateJustice

Murphy

August 18, 1949(73–8)

August 24, 1949–June 12, 1967(Retired)

7003650100000000000♠17 years, 292 days

87

Sherman Minton(1890–1965)

IN

AssociateJustice

W. Rutledge

October 4, 1949(48–16)

October 12, 1949–October 15, 1956(Retired)

7003256000000000000♠7 years, 3 days

88

Earl Warren(1891–1974)

CA

ChiefJustice

Vinson

March 1, 1954(Acclamation)

October 5, 1953[e]–June 23, 1969(Retired)

7003574000000000000♠15 years, 261 days

Dwight D. Eisenhower

89

John Marshall Harlan II(1899–1971)

NY

AssociateJustice

R. Jackson

March 16, 1955(71–11)

March 28, 1955–September 23, 1971(Retired)

7003602300000000000♠16 years, 179 days

90

William J. Brennan(1906–1997)

NJ

AssociateJustice

Minton

March 19, 1957(Acclamation)

October 16, 1956[e]–July 20, 1990(Retired)

7004123300000000000♠33 years, 277 days

91

Charles Evans Whittaker(1901–1973)

MO

AssociateJustice

Reed

March 19, 1957(Acclamation)

March 25, 1957–March 31, 1962(Resigned)

7003183200000000000♠5 years, 6 days

92

Potter Stewart(1915–1985)

OH

AssociateJustice

Burton

May 5, 1959(70–17)

October 14, 1958[e]–July 3, 1981(Retired)

7003829800000000000♠22 years, 262 days

93

Byron White(1917–2002)

CO

AssociateJustice

Whittaker

April 11, 1962(Acclamation)

April 16, 1962–June 28, 1993(Retired)

7004113960000000000♠31 years, 73 days

John F. Kennedy

94

Arthur Goldberg(1908–1990)

IL

AssociateJustice

Frankfurter

September 25, 1962(Acclamation)

October 1, 1962–July 25, 1965(Resigned)

7003103100000000000♠2 years, 300 days

95

Abe Fortas(1910–1982)

TN

AssociateJustice

Goldberg

August 11, 1965(Acclamation)

October 4, 1965–May 14, 1969(Resigned)

7003131800000000000♠3 years, 222 days

Lyndon B. Johnson

96

Thurgood Marshall(1908–1993)

NY

AssociateJustice

Clark

August 30, 1967(69–11)

October 2, 1967–October 1, 1991(Retired)

7003876500000000000♠23 years, 364 days

97

Warren E. Burger(1907–1995)

VA

ChiefJustice

Warren

June 9, 1969(74–3)

June 23, 1969–September 26, 1986(Retired)

7003630400000000000♠17 years, 95 days

Richard Nixon

98

Harry Blackmun(1908–1999)

MN

AssociateJustice

Fortas

May 12, 1970(94–0)

June 9, 1970–August 3, 1994(Retired)

7003882100000000000♠24 years, 55 days

99

Lewis F. Powell Jr.(1907–1998)

VA

AssociateJustice

Black

December 6, 1971(89–1)

January 7, 1972[m]–June 26, 1987(Retired)

7003564900000000000♠15 years, 170 days

100

William Rehnquist(1924–2005)

AZ

AssociateJustice

J. Harlan II

December 10, 1971(68–26)

January 7, 1972[m]–September 26, 1986(Continued as chief justice)

7003537600000000000♠14 years, 262 days

101

John Paul Stevens(born 1920)

IL

AssociateJustice[n]

Douglas

December 17, 1975(98–0)

December 19, 1975–June 29, 2010(Retired)

7004126110000000000♠34 years, 192 days

Gerald Ford

102

Sandra Day O'Connor(born 1930)

AZ

AssociateJustice

Stewart

September 21, 1981(99–0)

September 25, 1981–January 31, 2006(Retired)

7003889400000000000♠24 years, 128 days

Ronald Reagan

100

William Rehnquist(1924–2005)

VA

ChiefJustice

Burger

September 17, 1986(65–33)

September 26, 1986–September 3, 2005(Died)

7003691700000000000♠18 years, 342 days

103

Antonin Scalia(1936–2016)

VA

AssociateJustice

Rehnquist

September 17, 1986(98–0)

September 26, 1986–February 13, 2016(Died)

7004107320000000000♠29 years, 140 days

104

Anthony Kennedy(born 1936)

CA

AssociateJustice

Powell

February 3, 1988(97–0)

February 18, 1988–July 31, 2018(Retired)

7004111210000000000♠30 years, 163 days

105

David Souter(born 1939)

NH

AssociateJustice

Brennan

October 2, 1990(90–9)

October 9, 1990–June 29, 2009(Retired)

7003683800000000000♠18 years, 263 days

George H. W. Bush

106

Clarence Thomas(born 1948)

GA

AssociateJustice

T. Marshall

October 15, 1991(52–48)

October 23, 1991–Incumbent

7003986800000000000♠27 years, 6 days[o]

107

Ruth Bader Ginsburg(born 1933)

NY

AssociateJustice

B. White

August 3, 1993(96–3)

August 10, 1993–Incumbent

7003921100000000000♠25 years, 80 days[o]

Bill Clinton

108

Stephen Breyer(born 1938)

MA

AssociateJustice

Blackmun

July 29, 1994(87–9)

August 3, 1994–Incumbent

7003885300000000000♠24 years, 87 days[o]

109

John Roberts(born 1955)

MD

ChiefJustice

Rehnquist

September 29, 2005(78–22)

September 29, 2005–Incumbent

7003477800000000000♠13 years, 30 days[o]

George W. Bush

110

Samuel Alito(born 1950)

NJ

AssociateJustice

O'Connor

January 31, 2006(58–42)

January 31, 2006–Incumbent

7003465400000000000♠12 years, 271 days[o]

111

Sonia Sotomayor(born 1954)

NY

AssociateJustice

Souter

August 6, 2009(68–31)

August 8, 2009–Incumbent

7003336900000000000♠9 years, 82 days[o]

Barack Obama

112

Elena Kagan(born 1960)

MA

AssociateJustice

Stevens

August 5, 2010(63–37)

August 7, 2010–Incumbent

7003300500000000000♠8 years, 83 days[o]

113

Neil Gorsuch(born 1967)

CO

AssociateJustice

Scalia

April 7, 2017(54–45)

April 10, 2017–Incumbent

7002567000000000000♠1 year, 202 days[o]

Donald Trump

114

Brett Kavanaugh(born 1965)

MD

AssociateJustice

Kennedy

October 6, 2018(50–48)

October 6, 2018–Incumbent

7001230000000000000♠23 days[o]

Justice

State[c]

Position

Replacing

Date confirmed(Vote)

Tenure

Tenure length

Appointed by

text: Notes[edit]

text:
^ Jump up to: a b Served on the Supreme Court twice, first as associate justice, and then, after a period of years off the Court, as chief justice.

^ Jump up to: a b c Elevated from associate justice to chief justice while serving on the Supreme Court. Such appointments are subject to a separate confirmation process.

^ Jump up to: a b State of residence at the time of appointment. For example, in 1971, Rehnquist was appointed from Arizona, but in 1986, when elevated to chief justice, he was appointed from Virginia.[23]

Jump up ^ The start date given for each justice is the day he or she took the prescribed judicial oath of office, with the end date being the date of the justice's death, resignation, or retirement.[22]

^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Recess appointment

Jump up ^ This was the first Supreme Court nomination to be rejected by the Senate. Rutledge remains the only "recess appointed" justice not to be subsequently confirmed by the Senate.

Jump up ^ Was impeached, but not convicted, and remained in office.

Jump up ^ Acted as chief justice under 36 Stat. 1152, May 19 – July 11, 1921.

Jump up ^ Acted as chief justice under 36 Stat. 1152, February 3–24, 1930.

^ Jump up to: a b While Willis Van Devanter and Joseph Rucker Lamar were sworn in as associate justice on the same date, their seniority (precedence) on the Supreme Court was determined by the seniority of their commissions—Van Devanter received and accepted his first—in accordance with XIII Rev. Stat. 9 § 674.

Jump up ^ Acted as chief justice under 36 Stat. 1152, June 30 – July 3, 1941.

Jump up ^ Acted as chief justice under 36 Stat. 1152, April 22 – June 24, 1946, and again, under 62 Stat. 869, September 8 – October 5, 1953.

^ Jump up to: a b While  Lewis Powell and William Rehnqust were sworn in as associate justice on the same date, their seniority (precedence) on the Supreme Court was determined by the seniority of their commissions—Powell received and accepted his first—in accordance with 62 Stat. 869.

Jump up ^ Acted as chief justice under 62 Stat. 869, September 3–29, 2005.

^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i As of October 29, 2018.

text: Timeline of justices[edit]

text: This graphical timeline depicts the progression of the justices on the Supreme Court. Information regarding each justice's predecessors, successors and fellow justices, as well as their tenure on the court can be gleaned (and comparisons between justices drawn) from it. Additionally, The progression of presidents, along with the number of justices each nominated, is shown at the top of the timeline to give a more detailed historical context. There are no formal names or numbers for the individual seats of the associate justices, which are listed in the table below simply by number. Note that, due to the several changes in the size of the Court since 1789, two of the seats chronicled—"5" and "7"—have been abolished, both as a result of the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866.


document_title: Determinism

question_text: one version of determinsm from eastern philosophy is known as what

root

text: Determinism

text: Varieties[edit]

text: "Determinism" may commonly refer to any of the following viewpoints:

tag: p

text:
Causal determinism is "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature".[4] However, causal determinism is a broad enough term to consider that "one's deliberations, choices, and actions will often be necessary links in the causal chain that brings something about. In other words, even though our deliberations, choices, and actions are themselves determined like everything else, it is still the case, according to causal determinism, that the occurrence or existence of yet other things depends upon our deliberating, choosing and acting in a certain way".[5] Causal determinism proposes that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. The relation between events may not be specified, nor the origin of that universe. Causal determinists believe that there is nothing in the universe that is uncaused or self-caused. Historical determinism (a sort of path dependence) can also be synonymous with causal determinism. Causal determinism has also been considered more generally as the idea that everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions.[6] In the case of nomological determinism, these conditions are considered events also, implying that the future is determined completely by preceding events—a combination of prior states of the universe and the laws of nature.[4] Yet they can also be considered metaphysical of origin (such as in the case of theological determinism).[5]
 Nomological determinism is the most common form of causal determinism. It is the notion that the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid natural laws, that every occurrence results inevitably from prior events. Nomological determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon.[7] Nomological determinism is sometimes called 'scientific' determinism, although that is a misnomer. Physical determinism is generally used synonymously with nomological determinism (its opposite being physical indeterminism).
Necessitarianism is closely related to the causal determinism described above. It is a metaphysical principle that denies all mere possibility; there is exactly one way for the world to be. Leucippus claimed there were no uncaused events, and that everything occurs for a reason and by necessity.[8]
Predeterminism is the idea that all events are determined in advance.[9][10] The concept of predeterminism is often argued by invoking causal determinism, implying that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. In the case of predeterminism, this chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes of this pre-established chain. Predeterminism can be used to mean such pre-established causal determinism, in which case it is categorised as a specific type of determinism.[9][11] It can also be used interchangeably with causal determinism—in the context of its capacity to determine future events.[9][12] Despite this, predeterminism is often considered as independent of causal determinism.[13][14] The term predeterminism is also frequently used in the context of biology and hereditary, in which case it represents a form of biological determinism.[15]
Fatalism is normally distinguished from "determinism",[16] as a form of teleological determinism. Fatalism is the idea that everything is fated to happen, so that humans have no control over their future. Fate has arbitrary power, and need not follow any causal or otherwise deterministic laws.[6] Types of fatalism include hard theological determinism and the idea of predestination, where there is a God who determines all that humans will do. This may be accomplished either by knowing their actions in advance, via some form of omniscience[17] or by decreeing their actions in advance.[18]
Theological determinism is a form of determinism which states that all events that happen are pre-ordained, or predestined to happen, by a monotheistic deity, or that they are destined to occur given its omniscience. Two forms of theological determinism exist, here referenced as strong and weak theological determinism.[19] The first one, strong theological determinism, is based on the concept of a creator deity dictating all events in history: "everything that happens has been predestined to happen by an omniscient, omnipotent divinity".[20] The second form, weak theological determinism, is based on the concept of divine foreknowledge—"because God's omniscience is perfect, what God knows about the future will inevitably happen, which means, consequently, that the future is already fixed".[21] There exist slight variations on the above categorisation. Some claim that theological determinism requires predestination of all events and outcomes by the divinity (i.e. they do not classify the weaker version as 'theological determinism' unless libertarian free will is assumed to be denied as a consequence), or that the weaker version does not constitute 'theological determinism' at all.[22] With respect to free will, "theological determinism is the thesis that God exists and has infallible knowledge of all true propositions including propositions about our future actions", more minimal criteria designed to encapsulate all forms of theological determinism.[23] Theological determinism can also be seen as a form of causal determinism, in which the antecedent conditions are the nature and will of God.[5]
Logical determinism or Determinateness is the notion that all propositions, whether about the past, present, or future, are either true or false. Note that one can support causal determinism without necessarily supporting logical determinism and vice versa (depending on one's views on the nature of time, but also randomness). The problem of free will is especially salient now with logical determinism: how can choices be free, given that propositions about the future already have a truth value in the present (i.e. it is already determined as either true or false)? This is referred to as the problem of future contingents.  Adequate determinism focuses on the fact that, even without a full understanding of microscopic physics, we can predict the distribution of 1000 coin tosses.
Often synonymous with logical determinism are the ideas behind spatio-temporal determinism or eternalism: the view of special relativity. J. J. C. Smart, a proponent of this view, uses the term "tenselessness" to describe the simultaneous existence of past, present, and future. In physics, the "block universe" of Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein assumes that time is a fourth dimension (like the three spatial dimensions). In other words, all the other parts of time are real, like the city blocks up and down a street, although the order in which they appear depends on the driver (see Rietdijk–Putnam argument).
Adequate determinism is the idea that quantum indeterminacy can be ignored for most macroscopic events. This is because of quantum decoherence. Random quantum events "average out" in the limit of large numbers of particles (where the laws of quantum mechanics asymptotically approach the laws of classical mechanics).[24] Stephen Hawking explains a similar idea: he says that the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is one of determined probabilities. That is, quantum effects rarely alter the predictions of classical mechanics, which are quite accurate (albeit still not perfectly certain) at larger scales.[25] Something as large as an animal cell, then, would be "adequately determined" (even in light of quantum indeterminacy).
The many-worlds interpretation accepts the linear causal sets of sequential events with adequate consistency yet also suggests constant forking of causal chains creating "multiple universes" to account for multiple outcomes from single events.[26]  Meaning the causal set of events leading to the present are all valid yet appear as a singular linear time stream within a much broader unseen conic probability field of other outcomes that "split off" from the locally observed timeline.  Under this model causal sets are still "consistent" yet not exclusive to singular iterated outcomes.  The interpretation side steps the exclusive retrospective causal chain problem of "could not have done otherwise" by suggesting "the other outcome does exist" in a set of parallel universe time streams that split off when the action occurred.  This theory is sometimes described with the example of agent based choices but more involved models argue that recursive causal splitting occurs with all particle wave functions at play.[27]  This model is highly contested with multiple objections from the scientific community.

tag: ul

text: Philosophical connections[edit]

text: With nature/nurture controversy[edit]

text: Although some of the above forms of determinism concern human behaviors and cognition, others frame themselves as an answer to the debate on nature and nurture. They will suggest that one factor will entirely determine behavior. As scientific understanding has grown, however, the strongest versions of these theories have been widely rejected as a single-cause fallacy.[28]

text: In other words, the modern deterministic theories attempt to explain how the interaction of both nature and nurture is entirely predictable. The concept of heritability has been helpful in making this distinction.

text: Biological determinism, sometimes called genetic determinism, is the idea that each of human behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by human genetic nature.

text: Behaviorism involves the idea that all behavior can be traced to specific causes—either environmental or reflexive. John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner developed this nurture-focused determinism.

text: Cultural determinism or social determinism is the nurture-focused theory that the culture in which we are raised determines who we are.

text: Environmental determinism, also known as climatic or geographical determinism, proposes that the physical environment, rather than social conditions, determines culture. Supporters of environmental determinism often[quantify] also support Behavioral determinism. Key proponents of this notion have included Ellen Churchill Semple, Ellsworth Huntington, Thomas Griffith Taylor and possibly Jared Diamond, although his status as an environmental determinist is debated.[29]

text: With particular factors[edit]

text: Other 'deterministic' theories actually seek only to highlight the importance of a particular factor in predicting the future. These theories often use the factor as a sort of guide or constraint on the future. They need not suppose that complete knowledge of that one factor would allow us to make perfect predictions.

text: Psychological determinism can mean that humans must act according to reason, but it can also be synonymous with some sort of Psychological egoism. The latter is the view that humans will always act according to their perceived best interest.

text: Linguistic determinism claims that our language determines (at least limits) the things we can think and say and thus know. The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis argues that individuals experience the world based on the grammatical structures they habitually use.

text: Economic determinism is the theory which attributes primacy to the economic structure over politics in the development of human history. It is associated with the dialectical materialism of Karl Marx.

text: Technological determinism is a reductionist theory that presumes that a society's technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values.

text: With free will[edit]

text: Philosophers have debated both the truth of determinism, and the truth of free will. This creates the four possible positions in the figure. Compatibilism refers to the view that free will is, in some sense, compatible with determinism. The three incompatibilist positions, on the other hand, deny this possibility. The hard incompatibilists hold that both determinism and free will do not exist, the libertarianists that determinism does not hold, and free will might exist, and the hard determinists that determinism does hold and free will does not exist.

text: The standard argument against free will, according to philosopher J. J. C. Smart focuses on the implications of determinism for 'free will'.[30] However, he suggests free will is denied whether determinism is true or not. On one hand, if determinism is true, all our actions are predicted and we are assumed not to be free; on the other hand, if determinism is false, our actions are presumed to be random and as such we do not seem free because we had no part in controlling what happened.

text: In his book, The Moral Landscape, author and neuroscientist Sam Harris also argues against free will. He offers one thought experiment where a mad scientist represents determinism. In Harris' example, the mad scientist uses a machine to control all the desires, and thus all the behavior, of a particular human. Harris believes that it is no longer as tempting, in this case, to say the victim has "free will". Harris says nothing changes if the machine controls desires at random - the victim still seems to lack free will. Harris then argues that we are also the victims of such unpredictable desires (but due to the unconscious machinations of our brain, rather than those of a mad scientist). Based on this introspection, he writes "This discloses the real mystery of free will: if our experience is compatible with its utter absence, how can we say that we see any evidence for it in the first place?"[31] adding that "Whether they are predictable or not, we do not cause our causes."[32] That is, he believes there is compelling evidence of absence of free will.

text: With the soul[edit]

text: Some determinists argue that materialism does not present a complete understanding of the universe, because while it can describe determinate interactions among material things, it ignores the minds or souls of conscious beings.

text: A number of positions can be delineated:

text:
Immaterial souls are all that exist (Idealism).
Immaterial souls exist and exert a non-deterministic causal influence on bodies. (Traditional free-will, interactionist dualism).[33][34]
Immaterial souls exist, but are part of deterministic framework.
Immaterial souls exist, but exert no causal influence, free or determined (epiphenomenalism, occasionalism)
Immaterial souls do not exist — there is no mind-body dichotomy, and there is a Materialistic explanation for intuitions to the contrary.

tag: ol

text: With ethics and morality[edit]

text: Another topic of debate is the implication that Determinism has on morality. Hard determinism (a belief in determinism, and not free will) is particularly criticized for seeming to make traditional moral judgments impossible. Some philosophers, however, find this an acceptable conclusion.

text: Philosopher and incompatibilist Peter van Inwagen introduces this thesis as such:

text: Argument that Free Will is Required for Moral Judgments

text:
The moral judgment that you shouldn't have done X implies that you should have done something else instead
That you should have done something else instead implies that there was something else for you to do
That there was something else for you to do implies that you could have done something else
That you could have done something else implies that you have free will
If you don't have free will to have done other than X we cannot make the moral judgment that you shouldn't have done X.[35]

text: However, a compatibilist might have an issue with Inwagen's process because one can not change the past like his arguments center around. A compatibilist who centers around plans for the future might posit:

text:
The moral judgment that you should not have done X implies that you can do something else instead
That you can do something else instead implies that there is something else for you to do
That there is something else for you to do implies that you can do something else
That you can do something else implies that you have free will for planning future recourse
If you have free will to do other than X we can make the moral judgment that you should do other than X, and punishing you as a responsible party for having done X that you know you should not have done can help you remember to not do X in the future.

text: History[edit]

text: Determinism has been established by the Greek philosophers, during the 7th and 6th centuries BC by the Presocratics Heraclitus, Leucippus and mainly by the Stoics with the universal causal determinism and Aristotle. Some of the main philosophers who have dealt with this issue are Marcus Aurelius, Omar Khayyám, Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, David Hume, Baron d'Holbach (Paul Heinrich Dietrich), Pierre-Simon Laplace, Arthur Schopenhauer, William James, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Ralph Waldo Emerson and, more recently, John Searle, Sam Harris, Ted Honderich, and Daniel Dennett.

text: Mecca Chiesa notes that the probabilistic or selectionistic determinism of B.F. Skinner comprised a wholly separate conception of determinism that was not mechanistic at all. Mechanistic determinism assumes that every event has an unbroken chain of prior occurrences, but a selectionistic or probabilistic model does not.[36][37]

text: Western tradition[edit]

text: In the West, some elements of determinism have been expressed in Greece from the 6th century BC by the Presocratics Heraclitus[38]  and Leucippus.[39] The first full-fledged notion of determinism appears to originate with the Stoics, as part of their theory of universal causal determinism.[40] The resulting philosophical debates, which involved the confluence of elements of Aristotelian Ethics with Stoic psychology, led in the 1st-3rd centuries CE in the works of Alexander of Aphrodisias to the first recorded Western debate over determinism and freedom,[41] an issue that is known in theology as the paradox of free will. The writings of Epictetus as well as Middle Platonist and early Christian thought were instrumental in this development.[42] The Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides said of the deterministic implications of an omniscient god:[43] "Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God's knowledge would be imperfect.…"[44]

text: Determinism in the West is often associated with Newtonian physics, which depicts the physical matter of the universe as operating according to a set of fixed, knowable laws. The "billiard ball" hypothesis, a product of Newtonian physics, argues that once the initial conditions of the universe have been established, the rest of the history of the universe follows inevitably. If it were actually possible to have complete knowledge of physical matter and all of the laws governing that matter at any one time, then it would be theoretically possible to compute the time and place of every event that will ever occur (Laplace's demon). In this sense, the basic particles of the universe operate in the same fashion as the rolling balls on a billiard table, moving and striking each other in predictable ways to produce predictable results.

text: Whether or not it is all-encompassing in so doing, Newtonian mechanics deals only with caused events, e.g.: If an object begins in a known position and is hit dead on by an object with some known velocity, then it will be pushed straight toward another predictable point. If it goes somewhere else, the Newtonians argue, one must question one's measurements of the original position of the object, the exact direction of the striking object, gravitational or other fields that were inadvertently ignored, etc. Then, they maintain, repeated experiments and improvements in accuracy will always bring one's observations closer to the theoretically predicted results. When dealing with situations on an ordinary human scale, Newtonian physics has been so enormously successful that it has no competition. But it fails spectacularly as velocities become some substantial fraction of the speed of light and when interactions at the atomic scale are studied. Before the discovery of quantum effects and other challenges to Newtonian physics, "uncertainty" was always a term that applied to the accuracy of human knowledge about causes and effects, and not to the causes and effects themselves.

text: Newtonian mechanics as well as any following physical theories are results of observations and experiments, and so they describe "how it all works" within a tolerance. However, old western scientists believed if there are any logical connections found between an observed cause and effect, there must be also some absolute natural laws behind. Belief in perfect natural laws driving everything, instead of just describing what we should expect, led to searching for a set of universal simple laws that rule the world. This movement significantly encouraged deterministic views in western philosophy,[45] as well as the related theological views of Classical Pantheism.

text: Eastern tradition[edit]

text: This section  possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (December 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag: table

text: The idea that the entire universe is a deterministic system has been articulated in both Eastern and non-Eastern religion, philosophy, and literature.

text: In I Ching and Philosophical Taoism, the ebb and flow of favorable and unfavorable conditions suggests the path of least resistance is effortless (see wu wei).

text: In the philosophical schools of India, the concept of precise and continual effect of laws of Karma on the existence of all sentient beings is analogous to western deterministic concept. Karma is the concept of "action" or "deed" in Indian religions. It is understood as that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect (i.e., the cycle called saṃsāra) originating in ancient India and treated in Hindu, Jain, and Sikh. Karma is considered predetermined and deterministic in the universe, and in combination with the decisions (free will) of living beings, accumulates to determine futuristic situations that the living being encounters. See Karma in Hinduism.[citation needed]

text: Modern scientific perspective[edit]

text: Generative processes[edit]

text: Although it was once thought by scientists that any indeterminism in quantum mechanics occurred at too small a scale to influence biological or neurological systems, there is indication that nervous systems are influenced by quantum indeterminism due to chaos theory[citation needed]. It is unclear what implications this has for the problem of free will given various possible reactions to the problem in the first place.[46] Many biologists don't grant determinism: Christof Koch argues against it, and in favour of libertarian free will, by making arguments based on generative processes (emergence).[47] Other proponents of emergentist or generative philosophy, cognitive sciences and evolutionary psychology, argue that a certain form of determinism (not necessarily causal) is true.[48][49][50][51] They suggest instead that an illusion of free will is experienced due to the generation of infinite behaviour from the interaction of finite-deterministic set of rules and parameters. Thus the unpredictability of the emerging behaviour from deterministic processes leads to a perception of free will, even though free will as an ontological entity does not exist.[48][49][50][51] Certain experiments looking at the neuroscience of free will can be said to support this possibility.[citation needed]

text: As an illustration, the strategy board-games chess and Go have rigorous rules in which no information (such as cards' face-values) is hidden from either player and no random events (such as dice-rolling) happen within the game. Yet, chess and especially Go with its extremely simple deterministic rules, can still have an extremely large number of unpredictable moves. When chess is simplified to 7 or fewer pieces, however, there are endgame tables available which dictate which moves to play to achieve a perfect game.  The implication of this is that given a less complex environment (with the original 32 pieces reduced to 7 or fewer pieces), a perfectly predictable game of chess is possible to achieve.  In this scenario, the winning player would be able to announce a checkmate happening in at most a given number of moves assuming a perfect defense by the losing player, or fewer moves if the defending player chooses sub-optimal moves as the game progresses into its inevitable, predicted conclusion. By this analogy, it is suggested, the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate nearly infinite and practically unpredictable behavioural responses. In theory, if all these events could be accounted for, and there were a known way to evaluate these events, the seemingly unpredictable behaviour would become predictable.[48][49][50][51] Another hands-on example of generative processes is John Horton Conway's playable Game of Life.[52] Nassim Taleb is wary of such models, and coined the term "ludic fallacy".

text: Compatibility with the existence of science[edit]

text: Certain philosophers of science argue that while causal determinism in which everything including the brain/mind is subject to the laws of causality is compatible with minds capable of science, fatalism and predestination is not. These philosophers make the distinction that causal determinism means that each step is determined by the step before and therefore allows sensory input from observational data to determine what conclusions the brain reaches, while fatalism in which the steps between do not connect an initial cause to the results would make it impossible for observational data to correct false hypotheses. This is often combined with the argument that if the brain had fixed views and the arguments were mere after-constructs with no causal effect on the conclusions, science would have been impossible and the use of arguments would have been a meaningless waste of energy with no persuasive effect on brains with fixed views.[53]

text: Mathematical models[edit]

text: Many mathematical models of physical systems are deterministic. This is true of most models involving differential equations (notably, those measuring rate of change over time). Mathematical models that are not deterministic because they involve randomness are called stochastic. Because of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, some deterministic models may appear to behave non-deterministically; in such cases, a deterministic interpretation of the model may not be useful due to numerical instability and a finite amount of precision in measurement. Such considerations can motivate the consideration of a stochastic model even though the underlying system is governed by deterministic equations.[54][55][56]

text: Quantum mechanics and classical physics[edit]

text: Day-to-day physics[edit]

text: Since the beginning of the 20th century, quantum mechanics—the physics of the extremely small—has revealed previously concealed aspects of events. Before that, Newtonian physics—the physics of everyday life—dominated. Taken in isolation (rather than as an approximation to quantum mechanics), Newtonian physics depicts a universe in which objects move in perfectly determined ways. At the scale where humans exist and interact with the universe, Newtonian mechanics remain useful, and make relatively accurate predictions (e.g. calculating the trajectory of a bullet). But whereas in theory, absolute knowledge of the forces accelerating a bullet would produce an absolutely accurate prediction of its path, modern quantum mechanics casts reasonable doubt on this main thesis of determinism.

text: Relevant is the fact that certainty is never absolute in practice (and not just because of David Hume's problem of induction). The equations of Newtonian mechanics can exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions. This is an example of the butterfly effect, which is one of the subjects of chaos theory. The idea is that something even as small as a butterfly could cause a chain reaction leading to a hurricane years later. Consequently, even a very small error in knowledge of initial conditions can result in arbitrarily large deviations from predicted behavior. Chaos theory thus explains why it may be practically impossible to predict real life, whether determinism is true or false. On the other hand, the issue may not be so much about human abilities to predict or attain certainty as much as it is the nature of reality itself. For that, a closer, scientific look at nature is necessary.

text: Quantum realm[edit]

text: Quantum physics works differently in many ways from Newtonian physics. Physicist Aaron D. O'Connell explains that understanding our universe, at such small scales as atoms, requires a different logic than day-to-day life does. O'Connell does not deny that it is all interconnected: the scale of human existence ultimately does emerge from the quantum scale. O'Connell argues that we must simply use different models and constructs when dealing with the quantum world.[57] Quantum mechanics is the product of a careful application of the scientific method, logic and empiricism. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is frequently confused with the observer effect. The uncertainty principle actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the accuracy in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose accuracy in measuring the other. "These uncertainty relations give us that measure of freedom from the limitations of classical concepts which is necessary for a consistent description of atomic processes."[58]

text: This is where statistical mechanics come into play, and where physicists begin to require rather unintuitive mental models: A particle's path simply cannot be exactly specified in its full quantum description. "Path" is a classical, practical attribute in our every day life, but one which quantum particles do not meaningfully possess. The probabilities discovered in quantum mechanics do nevertheless arise from measurement (of the perceived path of the particle). As Stephen Hawking explains, the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities.[59] In some cases, a quantum particle may indeed trace an exact path, and the probability of finding the particles in that path is one (certain to be true). In fact, as far as prediction goes, the quantum development is at least as predictable as the classical motion, but the key is that it describes wave functions that cannot be easily expressed in ordinary language. As far as the thesis of determinism is concerned, these probabilities, at least, are quite determined. These findings from quantum mechanics have found many applications, and allow us to build transistors and lasers. Put another way: personal computers, Blu-ray players and the internet all work because humankind discovered the determined probabilities of the quantum world.[60] None of that should be taken to imply that other aspects of quantum mechanics are not still up for debate.

text: On the topic of predictable probabilities, the double-slit experiments are a popular example. Photons are fired one-by-one through a double-slit apparatus at a distant screen. Curiously, they do not arrive at any single point, nor even the two points lined up with the slits (the way you might expect of bullets fired by a fixed gun at a distant target). Instead, the light arrives in varying concentrations at widely separated points, and the distribution of its collisions with the target can be calculated reliably. In that sense the behavior of light in this apparatus is deterministic, but there is no way to predict where in the resulting interference pattern any individual photon will make its contribution (although, there may be ways to use weak measurement to acquire more information without violating the Uncertainty principle).

text: Some (including Albert Einstein) argue that our inability to predict any more than probabilities is simply due to ignorance.[61] The idea is that, beyond the conditions and laws we can observe or deduce, there are also hidden factors or "hidden variables" that determine absolutely in which order photons reach the detector screen. They argue that the course of the universe is absolutely determined, but that humans are screened from knowledge of the determinative factors. So, they say, it only appears that things proceed in a merely probabilistically determinative way. In actuality, they proceed in an absolutely deterministic way.

text: John S. Bell criticized Einstein's work in his famous Bell's Theorem which proved that quantum mechanics can make statistical predictions which would be violated if local hidden variables really existed. There have been a number of experiments to verify such predictions, and so far they do not appear to be violated. Better and better tests continue to verify the result, including the 2015 "Loophole Free Test" that plugged all known sources of error and the 2017 "Cosmic Bell Test" that based the experiment cosmic data streaming from different directions toward the Earth, precluding the possibility the sources of data could have had prior interactions. However, it is possible to augment quantum mechanics with non-local hidden variables to achieve a deterministic theory that is in agreement with experiment.[62] An example is the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. Bohm's Interpretation, though, violates special relativity and it is highly controversial whether or not it can be reconciled without giving up on determinism.

text: More advanced variations on these arguments include Quantum contextuality, by Bell, Simon B. Kochen and Ernst Specker in which argues that hidden variable theories cannot be "sensible," which here means that the values of the hidden variables inherently depend on the devices used to measure them.

text: This debate is relevant because it is easy to imagine specific situations in which the arrival of an electron at a screen at a certain point and time would trigger one event, whereas its arrival at another point would trigger an entirely different event (e.g. see Schrödinger's cat - a thought experiment used as part of a deeper debate).

text: Thus, quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism of classical, Newtonian physics in so far as reality does not seem to be absolutely determined. This was the subject of the famous Bohr–Einstein debates between Einstein and Niels Bohr and there is still no consensus.[63][64]

text: Adequate determinism (see Varieties, above) is the reason that Stephen Hawking calls Libertarian free will "just an illusion".[59] see Free will for further discussions on this topic.

text: Other matters of quantum determinism[edit]

text: This section is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (November 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: All uranium found on earth is thought to have been synthesized during a supernova explosion that occurred roughly 5 billion years ago. Even before the laws of quantum mechanics were developed to their present level, the radioactivity of such elements has posed a challenge to determinism due to its unpredictability. One gram of uranium-238, a commonly occurring radioactive substance, contains some 2.5 x 1021 atoms. Each of these atoms are identical and indistinguishable according to all tests known to modern science. Yet about 12600 times a second, one of the atoms in that gram will decay, giving off an alpha particle. The challenge for determinism is to explain why and when decay occurs, since it does not seem to depend on external stimulus. Indeed, no extant theory of physics makes testable predictions of exactly when any given atom will decay. At best scientists can discover determined probabilities in the form of the element's half life.

text: The time dependent Schrödinger equation gives the first time derivative of the quantum state. That is, it explicitly and uniquely predicts the development of the wave function with time.

text: So if the wave function itself is reality (rather than probability of classical coordinates), then the unitary evolution of the wave function in quantum mechanics, can be said to be deterministic. But the unitary evolution of the wave function is not the entirety of quantum mechanics.

text: Asserting that quantum mechanics is deterministic by treating the wave function itself as reality might be thought to imply a single wave function for the entire universe, starting at the origin of the universe. Such a "wave function of everything" would carry the probabilities of not just the world we know, but every other possible world that could have evolved. For example, large voids in the distributions of galaxies are believed by many cosmologists to have originated in quantum fluctuations during the big bang. (See cosmic inflation, primordial fluctuations and large-scale structure of the cosmos.)

text: However, neither the posited reality nor the proven and extraordinary accuracy of the wave function and quantum mechanics at small scales can imply or reasonably suggest the existence of a single wave function for the entire universe. Quantum mechanics breaks down wherever gravity becomes significant, because nothing in the wave function, or in quantum mechanics, predicts anything at all about gravity. And this is obviously of great importance on larger scales.

text: Gravity is thought of as a large-scale force, with a longer reach than any other. But gravity becomes significant even at masses that are tiny compared to the mass of the universe.

text: A wave function the size of the universe might successfully model a universe with no gravity. Our universe, with gravity, is vastly different from that which is predicted by quantum mechanics alone. To forget this is a colossal error.

text: Objective collapse theories, which involve a dynamic (and non-deterministic) collapse of the wave function (e.g. Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory, Penrose interpretation, or causal fermion systems) avoid these absurdities. The theory of causal fermion systems for example, is able to unify quantum mechanics, general relativity and quantum field theory, via a more fundamental theory which is non-linear, but gives rise to the linear behaviour of the wave function and also gives rise to the non-linear, non-deterministic, wave-function collapse. These theories suggest that a deeper understanding of the theory underlying quantum mechanics shows the universe is indeed non-deterministic at a fundamental level.


document_title: Bo (Lost Girl)

question_text: who does bo end up with in lost girl season 5

text: Bo (Lost Girl)

text: Biography[edit]

text: Childhood and early years[edit]

text: Bo is a succubus who grew up in an adopted human family, unaware of her non-human nature and of the Fae world she descended from. In "Raging Fae", she told Kenzi that she began to feel "different" when she entered puberty and didn't know she was not normal until she accidentally killed her high school boyfriend by draining his life energy during her first sexual activity. When she told her parents what had happened, they broke the news to Bo that she had been adopted. Not knowing what she was and what she had done, Bo hated herself and ran away from home, exchanging her previous life for one without family or friends, moving from place to place and assuming a false identity whenever she killed again.

text: Powers[edit]

text: As a succubus, she can seduce and manipulate both humans and Fae with the touch of her skin; and has the power to absorb the life force (the "chi", or Qi) of humans and Fae by drawing it out through their mouths. She feeds and heals from oral chi intake, and chi absorbed from the sexual energy created with males or females. At first she could not feed without killing her sexual partners; but with Lauren's help Bo learned to control her sexual drive and chi-drawing powers so that she could have sex with both Fae and humans without injuring or killing them. Although Fae are stronger than humans and can better endure her feeding on them, they are not immune from being drained. Without self-control Bo can render them comatose or dead. In "(Dis)Members Only", Dyson's chi is drained by Bo's succubus birth mother, Aife, and Bo brings him back to life by transferring some of her own life energy into him.

text: Relationships[edit]

text: Kenzi[edit]

text: A young human woman who becomes Bo’s best friend and sidekick after Bo saved her from a rapist who had surreptitiously drugged her with a "roofie" in her drink. A pickpocket and scam artist with a long rap sheet, she can speak Russian fluently, possesses excellent street-smarts, and has family connections in organized crime. Kenzi ran away from home and lived on the streets and underground for a long time before meeting Bo. During the "trial" by the local Fae leaders to choose alignment with either the Light or Dark, Bo chose to side with humanity after Kenzi risked her life to discover where Bo had been taken by force and what they were doing to her, and called out to Bo to help her break out of a spell she had been put under during the trial. Kenzi suggested to Bo that she should take advantage of her bewitching powers and neutrality to become a private investigator, with her as partner. She was declared Bo's "property" and pet to allow her to participate within Fae society. Kenzi does not care about fae politics.

text: Dyson[edit]

text: A Wolf-Shapeshifter and homicide detective in the human police force. He is over 1,500 years old, very strong, possesses a sharp sense of smell, and is acutely knowledgeable about Fae politics. A member of the Light Fae, his true allegiance is to Trick rather than The Ash. He fell in love with Bo while under orders from Trick to keep an eye on her, and is best friends with Hale, his Light Fae detective partner. In the Season One finale, he involuntarily sacrificed his love for Bo when he offered his wolf to the Norn in return for her giving Bo the strength to defeat her maniacal mother, Aife; but the Norn, who demanded his wolf the first time he supplicated her intervention, realized that his wolf was no longer what he valued most and instead took Dyson's love for Bo and ability to love anyone else again; leaving him with the memory of their relationship but unable to feel his passion for her. He has since made efforts to remain friends with Bo, which was initially awkward when Bo couldn't understand why he had become distant. After being reunited with his old love, Ciara, they began a relationship which was hampered by Dyson's reluctance to reveal his encounter with the Norn and what he had lost in the exchange; however, he eventually admitted to her that he had offered his wolf but it had cost him his being able to love anyone. His ability to love was restored by the Norn after Kenzi threatened to mutilate and cut down her Ancient Tree with a chainsaw. It is revealed in Season 5 that he has a son named Mark. He is scornful of humans

text: Dr. Lauren Lewis[edit]

text: A Human owned by the Ash as his property, she serves as a doctor and scientist for the Light Fae. She was seduced by Bo during their first meeting and hence fell in love with her. She has extensive knowledge of the different types of Fae and their abilities. In the first season, she helped Bo learn how to control her powers so that she could have sex with both Fae and humans without hurting or killing them. It is later revealed that she had a human girlfriend, Nadia, who had fallen into a coma five years earlier after contracting a mysterious virus while in the Congo with her. In exchange for her servitude, The Ash offered Lauren access to the Light Fae's laboratory and resources to find a cure for Nadia's condition. Lauren learned from Lachlan in "Masks" that she was tricked by the previous Ash: he ordered a Dark Fae Shaman to curse Nadia into a coma to insure that Lauren would do everything in her power to find an antidote to the fever that was killing Fae, and then pulled her into the Light clan's fold. After Bo (unbeknownst to Lauren) removed the curse, Lauren and Nadia reunited; but their relationship was soon shattered when it was revealed that Nadia had been infected by the Garuda and he could control her mind and body. Bo was forced to kill Nadia when she threatened Lauren's life leaving Lauren devastated. Grieving, Lauren seeks comfort in Bo and the two grow closer emotionally. In the Season 2 finale, Lauren relinquishes her chance for freedom from the Light Fae to stay with Bo, despite encouragement from Dyson to leave while she can.

text: In "Caged Fae", Bo asks Lauren to be together in a committed relationship. However, in "Delinquents", Tamsin visits Lauren to furtively carry out one of her mercenary tasks, and intentionally provokes Lauren by telling her that she and Bo kissed without Bo feeding from her (not knowing that the kiss was caused by Trick and Stella touching the Dawning invitation machine at the moment they shared a first kiss in "Fae-ge Against The Machine", which made the machine spark, and propelled Tamsin towards Bo to kiss her). Overwhelmed by the all the stress and loss she had experienced, and feeling inadequate in satisfying Bo's succubus nature, Lauren tells Bo that she needs to take a "break" from the relationship. As time passes, however, Bo becomes concerned that it might not be a temporary separation. In "Adventures In Fae-bysitting", a part of Lauren's past is disclosed and we learn that her real name is Karen Beattie and that she is a fugitive wanted by the International Criminal Offences and Criminal Intelligence Bureau. In addition to English she is also fluent in Spanish, French and Swahili. In "Those Who Wander" Lauren feigns being through with Bo in the presence of Dr. Isaac Taft and rejects her to protect Bo, and herself, from him. After this encounter, Bo and Lauren go their separate ways. Lauren then sabotages Taft's plan to extract Dyson's DNA and transfer the cells into him so as to become a Wolf-Shapeshifter, and turns Taft into a human/Cabbit hybrid instead, making him an easy kill for Dyson. She goes missing thereafter. (The conversation that she and Dyson had during a phone call in "Sleeping Beauty School" showed that Dyson was aware of Lauren's motives for subjecting him to the deceptive procedure.) In "Turn to Stone", Lauren reveals to Crystal that she has a brother, they had been inseparable, and decided together "to change the world", but their cause had turned into blowing up pipelines. Lauren knew how to build pipe bombs and made them for her brother to position; however, one location was supposed to have been deserted but wasn't, and eleven people were killed in the explosion. This led Lauren (Karen Beattie) to go on the run, change her identity, and keep running ever since. Lauren confesses that not a day goes by that she doesn't hate herself for what happened. (By the details in the ICOCIB wanted poster, the incident occurred in 1998, when Lauren was 17 or 18 years old.) In "Let the Dark Times Roll", Bo and Lauren are reunited at a Dark Fae party after the passage of a month, during which Lauren's memory of Bo was removed by The Wanderer. They jump into each other's arms and kiss passionately. Lauren told Bo that she had fled for her life after the Una Mens began to kill humans. The Dark Fae (i.e. The Morrigan) came looking for her, offering refuge, protection, and freedom to come and go as she pleased in exchange for working for the clan. When Bo tells Lauren that she can offer her protection by claiming her, Lauren turns her down. After being owned by The Ash for over five years, Lauren doesn't want to be owned by anyone, even Bo. Bo walks away, stunned and bewildered by Lauren's response. In "Dark Horse", Bo and Lauren reconciled after Bo saved Lauren from Massimo. Lauren saw that Bo was wearing the necklace gift from Lauren she had found in "Turn to Stone". When a defiant Lauren tells Bo that she's not afraid of the Fae, Bo admiringly told her, "You really are Dark"; to which Lauren replied, "No, Bo. I'm yours." Bo starts to leave, but turns around and walks back to Lauren and kisses her.

text: At the start of Season 5, Bo and Lauren have remained good friends, putting behind their previous tensions. In Big in Japan, when Bo felt that she was alone, following Kenzi's departure, Lauren was among those who reassured Bo that she would never be alone, because she stole her heart. In Here Comes the Night, Bo and Lauren made love again since their breakup in Season 3. They were seen by Tamsin, who had initiated a sexual relationship with Bo and thought the two were now "girlfriends". When Bo realized their 'friends with benefits' had been misunderstood she told Tamsin that she did love her, but not in a romantic way. In "End of Faes", Tamsin told Bo that it didn't matter where her body was, because her heart will always be with Lauren; that she and Lauren will always be a couple, even when they were not. Afterwards, Bo stopped Lauren to talk about what happened between them the day before and told her, "There's always going to be a reason for us not to be together. And I don't want to put this off any longer." Bewildered, Lauren simply says, "Oh, Boy." Bo asks, "'Oh, Boy', No. Or 'Oh, Boy', Yes?" Tamsin later tells Lauren that she and Bo should get back together. Tamsin told Lauren "I entered the game and I lost. That's life. The best woman won. I'm over it. You should be, too." Later, Bo, Lauren and Dyson are searching for Mark, Dyson's son. Bo had to leave to find one of the Ancient Fae, Iris, while Lauren and Dyson search for Mark, but before they went different ways, Lauren tells Bo, "Oh, Boy, Yes"; letting her know that she, too, wanted to resume their relationship. In "Rise", as the series comes to an end, Lauren tells Bo that she wants to spend the rest of her life with her, acknowledging mistakes that she would never make again. Both admit their relationship is messy and complicated, but after Lauren assures Bo that she is willing to weather the inevitable complications of their lives, Bo, gladdened, accepts her proposal. They embrace and kiss, this time forever.

text: Fitzpatrick "Trick" McCorrigan[edit]

text: The bartender and owner of the only Fae pub in town, The Dal Riata, which is neutral ground where Light and Dark Fae can freely socialize and find sanctuary. Trick is very powerful: he is a Blood Sage and can alter fate by writing it with his blood. Once known as the Blood King, he forced the truce and wrote the decrees that ended the war between Light and Dark Fae; and though few are now aware of his former position in the Fae hierarchy, he is on equal terms with the Fae Elders. Compared to other Fae, who have contempt for humans, he is tolerant and often fond of humans, even trading away his most prized possession to help save Kenzi's life after she was infected with a lethal Fae virus. He respects Lauren and when necessary seeks her opinion and expertise with matters involving Fae. Trick is extremely reluctant to use his blood powers as it can have unforeseen consequences; for example, his writing a culmination where Aife’s maternal instincts emerge and stop her from hurting and killing Bo not only left him weakened and wounded from the loss of blood, but also signaled his whereabouts to an ancient enemy of the Fae, the Garuda. Near the end of the second season, it was revealed that Trick is Bo's maternal grandfather.

text: Hale Santiago[edit]

text: A Siren and Dyson's colleague as another Light Fae undercover agent in the human police force. He can pacify, control, and kill humans and Fae alike with his whistling; in addition, he can cure pain and heal wounds with it. He is the son of the leader of one of the three most powerful Light Fae clans, the Clan Zamora, but despite his family's high social status he disdains their social contacts and makes his own way in life (although Bo and Kenzi used his contacts when they needed to infiltrate a high-class Fae event). Hale is good friends with Kenzi, with an undercurrent of mutual attraction gradually developing between them. He helped save Kenzi's life by using his siren's whistle to cauterize her wound in the Season Two finale. In the third season, he became the acting Ash after Lachlan's death.


document_title: Oliver (surname)

question_text: where does the last name oliver originate from

text: Oliver (surname)

text: Oliver is a surname derived from the   Old French personal name Olivier. The Oliver surname seems to be French Norman in origin.  The Scottish Oliver family was a sept of the Scotland Highlands' powerful Clan Fraser of Lovat.

text: People[edit]

text:
Top
0–9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

text: A[edit]

text:
Adam Oliver (1823–1882), Canadian businessman-politician
Al Oliver (born 1946), baseball player
Alan Oliver, English sports journalist
Allen J. Oliver (1903–1953), New York state senator
Andrew Oliver (1706–1774), Massachusetts merchant and public official
Alexander Oliver (1744–1828), American soldier
Anton Oliver (born 1975), New Zealand rugby player

text: B[edit]

text:
Barret Oliver (born 1973), American actor
Bernard M. Oliver (1919–1995), eminent American scientist and SETI advocate
Bob Oliver (born 1943), baseball player
Brian Oliver (disambiguation), multiple people

text: C[edit]

text:
Carl Oliver (born 1969), Bahamian sprinter and Olympic medallist
Catriona Oliver (born 1980), Australian Olympic rower
Chad Oliver (1928–1993), science-fiction novelist
Christian Oliver (born 1972), German actor
Craig Oliver (disambiguation), multiple people
Craig Oliver (born 1969), Downing Street Director of Communications and former BBC media executive

text: D[edit]

text:
Dale Oliver (born 1970), American composer
Damien Oliver (born 1972), Australian jockey
Daniel Oliver (1830–1916), British botanist
Darren Oliver (born 1970), baseball pitcher
David Oliver (actor) (1962–1992), American actor
David Oliver (athlete), American athlete
Dean Oliver (basketball) (born 1978)
Dean Oliver (footballer) (born 1987), player for Sheffield United
Deanna Oliver, American actress
Donald Oliver (born 1938), Canadian Senator

text: E[edit]

text: Edna May Oliver (1883–1942), American character actress

text: F[edit]

text:
Farquhar Oliver (1904–1989), Canadian politician
Francis Wall Oliver (1864–1951), British botanist
Frank Oliver (politician) (1853–1933), Canadian politician
Frank Oliver (rugby union) (born 1948), New Zealand rugby player
Frank A. Oliver (1883–1968), New York Congressman
Frank L. Oliver (1922-2018), Pennsylvania politician

text: G[edit]

text:
Gene Oliver (1913–2007), American catcher and first baseman in Major League Baseball.
Geoffrey Oliver (1898–1980), British admiral
George Borg Olivier (1911-1980), Maltese Prime Minister
George Guy Oliver (1878-1932), American Film Actor
George T. Oliver (1848–1919), American lawyer, publisher, and Republican party politician
Glynis Oliver, artist and colorist in the comics industry

text: H[edit]

text:
Harry Oliver (1888–1973), American humorist
Harry Oliver (ice hockey) (1898–1985), Canadian
Henry Francis Oliver (1865–1965), Admiral of the Fleet, Royal Naval officer

text: I[edit]

text:
Ian Oliver, former chief police officer, now an international consultant for the United Nations
Isaac Oliver (c. 1565–1617) French-born English portrait miniature painter

text: J[edit]

text:
Jack Edward Oliver (1942–2007), British cartoonist
Jackie Oliver (born 1942), Formula One driver
James Harrison Oliver (1857–1928), a Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy
James Michael Yorrick Oliver, Lord Mayor of London from 2001 to 2002
Jamie Oliver, (born 1975), British celebrity chef
Jamie Oliver (musician), of Lostprophets
Jimmy Oliver (born 1969), basketball player
Joe Oliver (baseball player) (born 1965), catcher
Joe "King" Oliver (1885–1938). African-American jazz musician and bandleader
John Oliver (British Columbia politician) and farmer in British Columbia, Canada
John Oliver (comedian), British political comedian
John Ertle Oliver, (1923–2011), American scientist (aka Jack Oliver)
Jools Oliver; née Juliette Norton, wife of British celebrity chef Jamie Oliver
Joseph Oliver (mayor), mayor of Toronto 1908–1909
Joe Oliver (rugby league), English rugby league footballer of the 1920s and 1930s
Jovan Oliver (ca. 1310–1356), Serbian nobleman and autonomous ruler
Juan García Oliver (1901–1980), Spanish Anarcho-syndicalist revolutionary

text: L[edit]

text:
Laureen Oliver, New York political activist
Laurence Olivier (1907-1989), Actor

text: M[edit]

text:
Martin Oliver (disambiguation)
Mary Oliver (born 1936), American poet
Meg Oliver (born 1970), TV news anchor
Melvin Oliver (born 1983), football player
Michael Oliver (Carleton president), (1925–2004) Canadian academic leader
Michael Oliver (actor), American actor
Michael Oliver (footballer), Scottish football player and manager
Michael Oliver (Lord Mayor), Lord Mayor of London (2001–2002)
Michael Oliver (real estate), founder of the Republic of Minerva
Michael Oliver (writer, broadcaster) (1937–2002)

text: N[edit]

text:
Nancy Oliver (born 1955), American playwright and screenwriter
Nate Oliver, American baseball player
Neil Oliver, Scottish historian
Neil Oliver (footballer), English footballer
Nicole Oliver, Canadian actress
Norman Oliver, rugby league footballer of the 1960s

text: O[edit]

text: Oliver (singer) (1945–2000), American pop singer (né William Oliver Swofford)

text: P[edit]

text:
Pam Oliver (born 1961), American sportscaster
Paul Oliver (1927–2017), British architectural historian
Paul Ambrose Oliver (1830–1912), American Civil War Union general and Medal of Honor recipient
Peter Oliver (painter) (1594–1648), English miniaturist painter
Peter Raymond Oliver (1921–2007), Law Lord

text: R[edit]

text:
Robert Don Oliver (1895–1980), British naval officer
R. W. Oliver, the first chancellor of the University of Kansas
Rachel Oliver, New Zealand international football (soccer) player
Raymond Oliver (1909–1990), Parisian restaurateur
Reggie Oliver (born 1952), English playwright
Revilo P. Oliver (1908–1994), American professor, conspiracy theorist and white supremacist
Richard Martin fitz Oliver, actually Richard Martyn (c. 1602–1648), Irish politician
Robert Oliver (disambiguation)
Roland Oliver (born 1923), professor of African history

text: S[edit]

text:
Sally Oliver (born 1983), English actress
Sheila Y. Oliver (born 1952), New Jersey legislator
Simon Oliver, British comic book writer
Solomon Oliver Jr. (born 1947), United States federal judge
Stephen Oliver (Jr), pseudonym of English writer William Andrew Chatto (1799–1864)
Sir Stephen Oliver (born 1938), retired British judge
Stephen Oliver (1941–2008), American actor
Stephen Oliver (1950–92), British composer
Stephen Oliver (born 1948), retired Anglican bishop
Professor Stephen Oliver, British biologist and biochemist
Steven Oliver (born 1971), former Australian rules footballer
Susan Oliver (1932–90), American actress and aviator, noted for appearing in Star Trek
Sy Oliver (1910–1988), American jazz arranger, trumpeter, composer, singer and bandleader

text: T[edit]

text:
Tom Oliver (born 1938), Australian actor
Thomas Oliver (Canadian politician) (1821–80), Canadian businessman and political figure
Thomas Oliver (Lieutenant Governor) (1733–1815), the last Lieutenant-Governor of Massachusetts
Tony Oliver (born 1958), American voice actor
Troy Oliver, musician-songwriter

text: V[edit]

text:
Vaughan Oliver (born 1957), British graphic designer
Vic Oliver (1898–1964), Austrian actor-comedian; Winston Churchill's son-in-law

text: W[edit]

text:
W. H. Oliver (born 1925), New Zealand poet-historian
Walter Oliver (1883–1957), New Zealander ornithologist
William Oliver (disambiguation), multiple people
Winslow Oliver (born 1973), National Football League running back