Determinism vs Non-determinism

[Royce]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/determinism

de•ter•min•ism (d -tûr m -n z m) n.
The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Determinism_versus_indeterminism

Determinism holds that each state of affairs is necessitated (determined) by the states of affairs that preceded it, an extension of cause and effect. Indeterminism holds this proposition to be incorrect, and that there are events which are not entirely determined by previous states of affairs. The idea of determinism is sometimes illustrated by the story of Laplace's demon, who knows all the facts about the past and present and all the natural laws that govern our world, and uses this knowledge to foresee the future, down to every detail.

As anyone who has read many of my threads or posts knows I believe in a non-deterministic universe for both logical scientific reasons and religious reasons. I do not understand why so many here seem to believe or profess to believe in determinism. Is it taught in college now-a-days as an accepted fact? Is is a requirement of the physicalist/atheist view point?

Please indicate your choice and then give your personal reasons for that choice. I am really interested and curious in what all of you think and believe and why?

[moving finger]

de•ter•min•ism (d -tûr m -n z m) n.
The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Determinism holds that each state of affairs is necessitated (determined) by the states of affairs that preceded it, an extension of cause and effect.
Firstly, thank you for offering very clear definitions!
Unfortunately I do not agree with your chosen definition of determinism - it implicitly assumes a temporal dimension in which "past" events cause "future" events, however it may be the case that past, present and future all co-exist in some timeless, self-consistent reality (in such a case it is just as true to say that "the future causes the past" as it is to say "the past causes the future").
With this clarification, I firmly place myself on the "I believe in determinism" bandwagon.
:smile:
MF

[Tournesol]

however it may be the case that past, present and future all co-exist in some timeless, self-consistent reality (in such a case it is just as true to say that "the future causes the past" as it is to say "the past causes the future").

Or just as untrue. Aruably, causality requires time to make sense.

With this clarification, I firmly place myself on the "I believe in determinism" bandwagon.


You surely don't think d-ism is an implication of atemporality?

[moving finger]

Hi again Tournesol
Or just as untrue.
With respect, the thread is not about what we can argue is or is not true, it is about “what do you believe?”. I would argue the truth or falsity of indeterminism vs determinism is beyond our epistemic horizon, therefore it does indeed come down simply to “belief”.
Aruably, causality requires time to make sense.
And causality is arguably a macroscopic illusion.
Which is why I do not think of determinism in terms of causality, but rather in terms of self-consistent (timeless) histories.
You surely don't think d-ism is an implication of atemporality?
I never said that.
I said :
With this clarification, I firmly place myself on the "I believe in determinism" bandwagon.
In other words, I believe in determinism but not necessarily the determinism as defined by Royce above.
Always good to exchange ideas with you,
MF

[moving finger]

I do not understand why so many here seem to believe or profess to believe in determinism.
:rofl: - similarly I do not understand why some here seem to believe or profess to believe in indeterminism, when determinism seems to me to be eminently more logical and rational.
:smile:
MF

[Q_Goest]

I'd prefer not to state "beliefs" as opposed to simply accepting that we can't be sure either way. So far, hidden variable theories seem to have been disproved, though I understand there's a class of hidden variable theories which may actually be possible.

Question: Isn't reductionism and determinism the same thing? Is proving one to be false also proving the other to be false? What's the difference?

[moving finger]

I'd prefer not to state "beliefs" as opposed to simply accepting that we can't be sure either way. So far, hidden variable theories seem to have been disproved, though I understand there's a class of hidden variable theories which may actually be possible.
That is correct.
In fact the results of entanglement experiments show that no "local reality" theory can be correct - hidden variables or no hidden variables. So whatever reality is, it is non-local.
There is no evidence showing that non-local hidden variables theories are necessarily incorrect, therefore if (as you say) you prefer not to state beliefs then by voting in this poll you have (with respect) just erred......(because the brutal truth is that neither determinism nor indeterminism can be shown to be false.....)

Question: Isn't reductionism and determinism the same thing?
No.

Is proving one to be false also proving the other to be false?
No.

What's the difference?
Reductionism is the belief that everything about a system can be explained by reducing the system to its parts. Reductionism cannot account for emergent properties or emergent behaviour in complex systems. It has nothing directly to do with determinism per se.

MF

[Royce]

:rofl: - similarly I do not understand why some here seem to believe or profess to believe in indeterminism, when determinism seems to me to be eminently more logical and rational.
:smile:
MF

As I have said in a few threads and post, I believe that chance and chaos play a significant role in our universe, world and lives. The Uncertainty Principle, QED, sexual reproduction and the chaos of weather and climate patterns all support this position IMHO.

I also am a firm believer of Free Will which is not possible or allowed for in a strongly determinant Universe.

So far as I have been able to deduct the basis for most determinant beliefs is cause and effect.

[moving finger]

I believe that chance and chaos play a significant role in our universe, world and lives. The Uncertainty Principle, QED, sexual reproduction and the chaos of weather and climate patterns all support this position IMHO.

Please allow me to answer to each one of these.

The Uncertainty Principle
This principle places a limit on what we can KNOW about reality, it identifies an epistemic horizon, beyond which science is unable to proceed. This is the basis of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, which basically says that it is meaningless to ask "what really happens?" in (for example) the 2-slit experiment, because we can never know "what really happens". All we can ever know is what we measure, and what we measure is limited by the Uncertainty Principle (UP). However, NONE of this (and certainly not the UP) necessarily implies that reality is intrinsically indeterministic - it may be the case that it is deterministic (see Non-Local Hidden Variables theories) - we simply do not know.

QED
Can be viewed as a purely deterministic interpretation. I see no evidence for indeterminism here? Or perhaps you can elaborate.

Sexual Reproduction
With respect – I am not sure what you are trying to suggest here. Are you suggesting that sexual reproduction is an indeterministic process? On what basis? Do you have any evidence for this? As far as I am aware, sexual reproduction can be explained and understood scientifically on purely deterministic grounds.

Chaos
Chaos is a feature of a deterministic system – it has nothing to do with indeterminism per se. Chaos arises purely from the sensitive dependence of some deterministic systems on initial conditions. Or do you have any evidence that chaos arises necessarily from indeterminism? Perhaps you can share that with us?

In conclusion, therefore, there is no evidence in any of the above for the presence of indeterminism.

I also am a firm believer of Free Will which is not possible or allowed for in a strongly determinant Universe.
Can you explain exactly what you mean by Free Will (ie define the concept), and then explain how you think the introduction of indeterminism endows this kind of Free Will on an otherwise deterministic agent? (I have had may discussions on here about this subject, and I have never seen it done).

So far as I have been able to deduct the basis for most determinant beliefs is cause and effect.
Then you are incorrect in my case. My reason for belief in determinism is via Occam’s Razor – in other words I see no reason for invoking the hypothesis of any element of indeterminism in an otherwise deterministic world because I cannot see how indeterminism explains any feature of our universe.

With respect, I suspect many people cling on to a belief in indeterminism because they think that the following argument is rational :

“free will is incompatible with determinism – I believe that I have free will – therefore the world cannot be deterministic”.

This presupposes (a) that the free will they think they have actually exists, and (b) that indeterminism can somehow endow this kind of free will. But can anyone follow this through rationally and logically?

As always, With Respect

MF

[Q_Goest]

Reductionism is the belief that everything about a system can be explained by reducing the system to its parts.
I'd agree with your definition of reductionism. To expand a bit, reductionism assumes causal relationships exist and the mechanisms involved in those relationships produce a deterministic outcome. Alternatively, one could say in the broad sense of the word, one could have an indeterminate outcome from some given mechanism, but reducing any phenomenon to it's most fundamental level, the level of atoms and electrons, should essentially give us a deterministic model. I suppose one could say that reductionism is untrue but determinism still holds though I have trouble seeing how because if something is deterministic it implies causal relationships exist which can be reduced to the interaction of the various parts of the system.
Reductionism cannot account for emergent properties or emergent behaviour in complex systems.
If reductionism can't account for "emergent properties" (I'd disagree for the most part) then what is being done in science to determine what is producing these emergent properties? Generally, reductionism is widely accepted and thought to be sufficient to give us a TOE. Emergent properties are simply what we percieve from the complex interaction of fundamental particles of matter and energy. Can you suggest a physical phenomenon that can't be found to emerge from the interaction of matter and energy at some fundamental level?

[moving finger]

I'd agree with your definition of reductionism. To expand a bit, reductionism assumes causal relationships exist and the mechanisms involved in those relationships produce a deterministic outcome.
I would dispute that reductionism necessarily assumes determinism - such a state of affairs would imply that reductionism and indeterminism are incompatible. Why should this be the case? It is quite conceivable (imho) that someone could believe in both indeterminism and reductionism.
Alternatively, one could say in the broad sense of the word, one could have an indeterminate outcome from some given mechanism, but reducing any phenomenon to it's most fundamental level, the level of atoms and electrons, should essentially give us a deterministic model.
Alternatively, one could have an indeterministic outcome at the most fundamental level (isn’t this what indeterminists believe?)
I suppose one could say that reductionism is untrue but determinism still holds though I have trouble seeing how because if something is deterministic it implies causal relationships exist which can be reduced to the interaction of the various parts of the system.
With respect, this is the same problem of understanding that many reductionists have – they cannot see how it may not be possible to explain everything in reductionist terms. To a reductionist, “the whole” must always equate to “the sum of the parts”. But in reality there are cases where “the whole” is more than simply “the sum of the parts”.
An analogy is in order here, to clarify my point. There exists a "University of Oxford" (UK), but try (in the best reductionist tradition) to identify exactly what is the essence of the University of Oxford by looking in finer and finer detail, try to identify exactly where in space the University of Oxford is situated, try to point out the precise spatial coordinates to anyone, and you will fail. It is possible (via reductionism) to identify some of the components of the university – the various colleges, the libraries, the faculty, the students, etc etc, but look as hard as we might and we cannot identify anything that is the essence of the university.
Does this mean the University of Oxford does not exist? No.
Does this mean the University of Oxford exists but is actually located in another dimension or another world? No.
What it DOES mean is that the University of Oxford is not a single physical object, it is instead the emergent institution to which the various colleges, libraries and museums of Oxford University belong. We lose sight of the University of Oxford by trying to break it down into smaller and smaller parts.

Any attempt to equate the University of Oxford with a discrete physical object is an example of what the philosopher Gilbert Ryle calls a category error – thinking of the University in terms of the same kind of thing as the physical colleges that comprise the University. But the University is not that kind of thing at all, there is no single physical place or thing that you can point to and say “that is the University”. The University cannot be identified by reductionism alone, it is instead the emergent institution to which all of these physical components belong.
If reductionism can't account for "emergent properties" (I'd disagree for the most part) then what is being done in science to determine what is producing these emergent properties? Generally, reductionism is widely accepted and thought to be sufficient to give us a TOE.
And for every leading scientist you can cite who believes that reductionism can provide a ToE, I can cite one who thinks differently.
Imho there is an epistemic horizon defined by quantum uncertainty – it is in principle impossible for us to probe beyond this horizon. This means it will be in principle impossible to experimentally falsify any hypothesis (including a ToE) which purports to explain physics beyond this horizon.
Emergent properties are simply what we percieve from the complex interaction of fundamental particles of matter and energy. Can you suggest a physical phenomenon that can't be found to emerge from the interaction of matter and energy at some fundamental level?
But that is my whole point – emergent phenomena (by definition) DO emerge from interactions at a fundamantal level, but that does not mean they can be understood in their entirety by simple reductionist approaches.
Try, by breaking down the brain into smaller and smaller components, to explain how consciousness emerges from the interaction of matter and energy.

MF

[Q_Goest]

I would dispute that reductionism necessarily assumes determinism … It is quite conceivable (imho) that someone could believe in both indeterminism and reductionism.
Yes, I fully agree with that. I tried to point out that an alternative view could include indeterminism with reductionism, though I've noticed that arguing QM is indeterminate in the Physics forums will result in a rash of those who will point out fields and tensors and such things I've not delved into in order to point out how such terms as indeterminate can't necessarily be used. It seems even the terms determinate and indeterminate need refining for very picky philosophers. <smile>

Regarding the University of Oxford and similar ideas. Suggesting such things are emergent as philosophers often do I think misses the point entirely. The university consists of buildings and people, land and space in general. All of the matter and energy that makes up that volume of space called "Oxford" and all of the volume around it is under the sway of natural laws (whatever that means). The "idea" that the university has "emerged" out of anything is false, IMHO. Nothing has physically emerged, the idea of something being there which is more than the sum of the parts is only an idea. And an idea (to a computationalist/reductionist) is nothing but a configuration of neurons in a person's brain. So the emergent "Oxford University" can only "emerge" when neurons in a brain configure themselves to allow an idea to come about. That idea can only be defined in terms of other ideas, so the entire concept of "Oxford University" is only an idea that can be defined or undefined (ill-defined) by ideas. So how do ideas come about? From the configuration of neurons. But then again, the neurons can also be 'reduced'. I don't have to find or locate the volume of space called "Oxford University" because the entire concept is only contained in a pattern of atoms and molecules which make up the neurons that interact inside my brain.

MF, I agree with you that emergent phenomena can occur that are more than the sum of the individual parts, and there ARE physicists who would agree with that (most notably Laughlin) despite what I said earlier. But I don't think the line of reasoning typically used by philosophers can logically prove it. I think one has to come up with a logical test to show that a phenomenon occurs which can not be reduced to the interaction of it's constituent parts. The University of Oxford does not define a pheonomenon in the true sense of the word, it's an idea. A phenomenon would be a physical occurance which can come about that has to rely on something other than the fundamental interaction of it's constituent parts.

[Royce]

Please allow me to answer to each one of these.

The Uncertainty Principle
This principle places a limit on what we can KNOW about reality, it identifies an epistemic horizon, beyond which science is unable to proceed. This is the basis of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, , which basically says that it is meaningless to ask "what really happens?" in (for example) the 2-slit experiment, because we can never know "what really happens". All we can ever know is what we measure, and what we measure is limited by the Uncertainty Principle (UP). However, NONE of this (and certainly not the UP) necessarily implies that reality is intrinsically indeterministic - it may be the case that it is deterministic (see Non-Local Hidden Variables theories) - we simply do not know.

We have been over all this before; but, why not again and why not here?

The Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is but one interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle and not the only one nor the most modern.


Quantum uncertainty is "ontic" in the sense it is not really about what we can learn. But in quantum mechanics what "IS" depends completely on the interaction of a classical wave function with something that projects the wave state into a real value. "Something" is often but not always identified as an observer. So in this sense quantum ontology depends partly on epistemology. But within this constraint, uncertainty is as ontic as anything in QM. is a fundamental rule of QM and doesn't come out of experimental limitation but out of the basic math of QM.
From thread 05-16-2005 post #9 "A Case for an Indeterministic Universe"

QED[/B]
Can be viewed as a purely deterministic interpretation. I see no evidence for indeterminism here? Or perhaps you can elaborate.

The motion or bath of an electron moving from point A to point B will take any and all possible paths. It is impossible to know which one it may take. We can only calculate the Sum of Histories which approximate a probability curve. (This is not a direct quote but my paraphrasing of what I had in mind.


Sexual Reproduction
With respect – I am not sure what you are trying to suggest here. Are you suggesting that sexual reproduction is an indeterministic process? On what basis? Do you have any evidence for this? As far as I am aware, sexual reproduction can be explained and understood scientifically on purely deterministic grounds.

Many plants especially trees release their pollen to be carried by the wind to land and hopefully fertilize the female seeds of a differ plant or tree of the same species. Many lower marine animals such as oysters and coral release both their sperm and eggs to float in the water and be fertilized randomly.
Mammals release millions of sperm cells every time they mate and only one of those sperm will fertilize whichever egg it is the first to reach. These are all random events.

Chaos
Chaos is a feature of a deterministic system – it has nothing to do with indeterminism per se. Chaos arises purely from the sensitive dependence of some deterministic systems on initial conditions. Or do you have any evidence that chaos arises necessarily from indeterminism? Perhaps you can share that with us?

Chaos is the antithesis of determinism. Chaotic eddies will form randomly at random times throughout any system of moving fluid.

[QUO(TE]In conclusion, therefore, there is no evidence in any of the above for the presence of indeterminism.[/QUOTE]

There is no evidence only because you refuse to admit the possibility of anything to be random chance and therefore must be deterministic even in the face of numerous facts, truths and scientific findings, principles and understanding.


Can you explain exactly what you mean by Free Will (ie define the concept), and then explain how you think the introduction of indeterminism endows this kind of Free Will on an otherwise deterministic agent? (I have had may discussions on here about this subject, and I have never seen it done).

Once again:


Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.


free will
in humans, the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints. Free will is denied by those who espouse any of various forms of determinism.


I do not think that indeterminism endows anything onto anything. I said that it allows the possibility of free will. I do not agree that any agent is completely deterministic.

Then you are incorrect in my case. My reason for belief in determinism is via Occam’s Razor – in other words I see no reason for invoking the hypothesis of any element of indeterminism in an otherwise deterministic world because I cannot see how indeterminism explains any feature of our universe.

You have already decided the the world is deterministic by the highlighted statement in the quote above. "My reason for belief in determinism...I see no reason...in an otherwise deterministic world." This is circular reasoning and not logical. Your mind is made up and you can and will rationalize it any and every way possible including illogical thinking dispute any and all evidence refuting your firm belief.

With respect, I suspect many people cling on to a belief in indeterminism because they think that the following argument is rational :

“free will is incompatible with determinism – I believe that I have free will – therefore the world cannot be deterministic”.

This presupposes (a) that the free will they think they have actually exists, and (b) that indeterminism can somehow endow this kind of free will. But can anyone follow this through rationally and logically?

You are accusing me and others of doing exactly what you are doing, as I showed above. I gave here and other threads and posts my logical reasons for believing in indeterminism, that chance and randomness play a significant role in the physical universe. I have given sources and quotes but none of that makes any difference because you mind is made up. So be it. Mine is too about some things. You have yet, in at least 3 different threads, to explain why or how you think that the universe is deterministic.

[moving finger]

It is quite conceivable (imho) that someone could believe in both indeterminism and reductionism.
Yes, I fully agree with that.

Thank you. Since we seem to agree that reductionism is compatible both with a belief in determinism and with a belief in indeterminism then I think we can move on – to steer this thread into a deeper discussion of reductionism per se would, with respect, take us off-topic.

Regards

MF

[moving finger]

Hi Royce
The Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is but one interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle and not the only one nor the most modern.
I would dispute that CI is a true interpretation (in the full sense of the word interpretation). CI places limits on our epistemic horizon. Any other hypothesis which tries to suggest “what is really going on” beyond that epistemic horizon is (according to scientific principles, and according to CI) pure speculation, metaphysical and unscientific.

Quantum uncertainty is "ontic" in the sense it is not really about what we can learn.
With respect, this is a matter of opinion, not fact. In my book, quantum uncertainty is merely epistemic, not ontic, and I would challenge anyone to prove this view wrong.

But in quantum mechanics what "IS" depends completely on the interaction of a classical wave function with something that projects the wave state into a real value.
Has anyone “seen” a classical wave function? The wave function is a mathematical construct generated to allow us to try and get a handle on what is “really” going on, but at the quantum level the macro-level analogies of “waves” and “particles” are just that – analogies. Nobody “knows” what is going on, and anyone who does claim to “know” is (with respect) a charlatan.

So in this sense quantum ontology depends partly on epistemology.
With respect, this is "back to front". To say that an ontology (ie the way things really are) depends on an epistemology (ie the way we see them) is just downright ridiculous.
It would be correct to say that the observer can never know the ontic properties, to an observer everything is epistemic (which is what CI says).

uncertainty is as ontic as anything in QM. is a fundamental rule of QM and doesn't come out of experimental limitation but out of the basic math of QM.
Epistemic uncertainty “comes out of” the dualism necessarily imposed by “observer” and “observed”. There is no getting away from this dualism. Classical physics assumes a passive observer, and in the quantum limit this assumption is invalid, and this is the source of epistemic uncertainty. But epistemic uncertainty does not necessarily imply ontic indeterminism. Ontic indeterminsim has never been, and never can be, unequivocally demonstrated.

QED
Can be viewed as a purely deterministic interpretation. I see no evidence for indeterminism here? Or perhaps you can elaborate.

The motion or bath of an electron moving from point A to point B will take any and all possible paths. It is impossible to know which one it may take.
We have a non-sequitur here. You say the electron “will” take any and all possible paths, and yet you also say it is impossible to know “which one” it may take.
With respect, if it takes “all possible paths” then it is meaningless to ask “which one does it take?”.
Apart from this, “impossible to know” literally implies at the most only epistemic uncertainty, it does not necessarily imply ontic indeterminism.
We can only calculate the Sum of Histories which approximate a probability curve
This is the way that we calculate (ie the maths), it says nothing about what is “really going on”.
Many plants especially trees release their pollen to be carried by the wind to land and hopefully fertilize the female seeds of a differ plant or tree of the same species. Many lower marine animals such as oysters and coral release both their sperm and eggs to float in the water and be fertilized randomly.
Mammals release millions of sperm cells every time they mate and only one of those sperm will fertilize whichever egg it is the first to reach. These are all random events.
Implicit in your claim is the assumption that the everyday English term “random” means the same to you as the word “indeterministic” means to a physicist or a logician. If I throw a pair of dice, I might say the outcome of that throwing is “random”, but that does not mean that I think it is indeterministic. I can pick a “random” card from a deck, but that does not mean that I think it is an indeterministic choice. When I play roulette, I might say the ball selects numbers at “random”, but that does not mean it is indeterministic. What most people actually mean when they use the term “random” in everyday language is related to an epistemic property of the process – we actually mean “I cannot predict what will happen, therefore to all intents and purposes the process is random”. But that does not necessarily mean that the process is ontically random (ie truly indeterministic).
If you are still unconvinced – a classic example is the “random number generator” in a computer. To all intents and purposes, it produces random numbers (generally we are unable to predict what numbers will be produced) – but in actual fact the computer RNG is behaving completely deterministically – if you reset the RNG it will then generate the same sequence of random numbers all over again.

Chaos
Chaos is a feature of a deterministic system – it has nothing to do with indeterminism per se. Chaos arises purely from the sensitive dependence of some deterministic systems on initial conditions. Or do you have any evidence that chaos arises necessarily from indeterminism? Perhaps you can share that with us?
Chaos is the antithesis of determinism.
With respect, is this just your opinon or have you learned this from somewhere?
Read any good up-to-date scientific text on chaos theory and I think you will find that not one has any need to introduce the hypothesis of indeterminism to explain what is going on in chaotic systems. Or can you refer me to one that does?
Chaotic eddies will form randomly at random times throughout any system of moving fluid.
Again I suspect you are using the colloquial (everyday) meaning of “random” here, which is an epistemic term. Yes, I agree that chaotic systems are (epistemically) unpredictable. But this is due to extreme sensitivity on initial conditions, and has nothing to do with indeterminism.
you refuse to admit the possibility of anything to be random chance and therefore must be deterministic even in the face of numerous facts, truths and scientific findings, principles and understanding.
I “refuse to admit” nothing, but I will not accept illogical or unsubstantiated claims. I will accept genuine evidence of ontic indeterminism if you can show me any. But (as I have explained above) nothing you have shown “requires” indeterminism in order to be explained. Belief in indeterminsim is therefore imho a matter of faith, not one of science.
I do not think that indeterminism endows anything onto anything. I said that it allows the possibility of free will.
By “endow” I do mean “allows the possibility of”, in the sense that “without indeterminism there would be no free will, with indeterminism there is free will”.
Would you agree with this?
The problem is, I have never seen anyone successfully demonstrate and successfully defend how this relationshp works (ie exactly how it is that free will arises from indeterminism)
You have already decided the the world is deterministic by the highlighted statement in the quote above. "My reason for belief in determinism...I see no reason...in an otherwise deterministic world." This is circular reasoning and not logical.
With respect, my position is quite logical.
One must start with the premise EITHER that the world is completely deterministic, OR that it is not. (which is equivalent to saying EITHER the world contains no indeterminism, or it does).
Which one you choose is a matter of faith.
If you start with the belief that everything in the world is deterministic, one can then ask “does determinism explain everything that I see in the world, from an epistemic point of view?” My answer is yes.
Then we could ask “would adding an indeterministic element help me to explain things any better?”. My answer is no.
If you start with the alternative belief that there is indeterminsim in the world then you can arrive at the same conclusion (ie it fits the facts).
So what do we have? EITHER one can believe that the world is 100% deterministic, with no indeterminism, OR one can believe that the world is apparently largely deterministic, but with some indeterminism. Both philosophies fit the facts. Occam’s razor would say that the former (being the simpler) is the preferred philosophy.
Your mind is made up and you can and will rationalize it any and every way possible including illogical thinking dispute any and all evidence refuting your firm belief.
I could say the same about you. In my case, my mind is in fact “not made up”, but I can defend my beliefs using rational logic. Can you?
I gave here and other threads and posts my logical reasons for believing in indeterminism, that chance and randomness play a significant role in the physical universe.
And I have refuted all of your claims.
I have given sources and quotes but none of that makes any difference because you mind is made up.
I disagree that “my mind is made up”. I am willing to continue a rational debate on the subject. I am open to continued rational argument. Are you?
You have yet ……. to explain why or how you think that the universe is deterministic.
I have explained above. I would be interested to see how you respond.
With respect,
MF

[Royce]

If determinism is to hold, the world, the universe, must be wholly deterministic.

If it can be shown to occur within the world any random non-deterministic event then the world is not wholly deterministic and determinism does not hold and cannot then be the case.

case 1.
The fair roll of a fair die (one of a pair of dice) will result in one of six numbered faces of the die ending face up. It can be calculated that the probability of any one of the six numbers coming up is 1 in 6. Given any number of rolls it will be shown that this is true and that all of the numbers have an equal probability of coming up. It is impossible to predict or determine which number will come up in any one roll of the die. This is by definition (see Merriam Webster On line) a random i. e. non-deterministic occurrence.

case 2.
In radio-active decay of an unstable isotope it cannot be predicted nor determined when any given nucleus will decay. The best that can be calculated is the half-life of an isotope in which over the given amount of time one half of the nuclei will decay; however, it cannot be determined when or if any individual nucleus will decay over any given time period. This is also a random event.

Since it has been show that random, non-determinate events do occur in the world, universe, I conclude that the world is not wholly deterministic and that therefore determinism does not hold and is not the case.

[Q_Goest]

Royce, to be fair, what MF said about the dice being determinate is true. How a die rolls and jumps across a table and how it interacts with the aerodynamic drag as it flies through the air, is defined by classical mechanics. One can show how forces on a die make it do what it does, right down to determining what number it should land on. Given a sufficiently powerful computer, accurate input and perfect modeling, a computer should in principal be able to calculate exactly which number a given throw of a die ends up on right down to where it lands on the table. The "random" element referred to in the dictionary does not mean it is indeterminate, but chaotic. It's behavior is actually not easily calculable because it is "chaotic" and small deviations from any given interaction between the die and the table can result in large differences in what number the die lands on. That's what chaotic means.

On the other hand, your example of radioactive decay is, by present day physics, defined as indeterminate as far as I know. The scientific community I would say has generally accepted that this is a truly indeterminate process. MF can easily point to the possibility though that a non-local hidden variable theory could exist and thus make that a deterministic process and that hasn't been totally ruled out. But from the perspective of existing scientific theory, I believe the general consensus is that radioactive decay, among other quantum phenomena, is a truly indeterminate process.

[Royce]

Royce, to be fair, what MF said about the dice being determinate is true. How a die rolls and jumps across a table and how it interacts with the aerodynamic drag as it flies through the air, is defined by classical mechanics.

It is physically impossible to recreate a fair roll of any fair dice or die to be able to predict significantly beyond a 1:6 probability even if a precise machine were made to throw the die. It just can't be done. There are too many variables even in principle. If I would accept the possibility in principle then it would not be defined as a fair rolls.

The "random" element referred to in the dictionary does not mean it is indeterminate, but chaotic. It's behavior is actually not easily calculable because it is "chaotic" and small deviations from any given interaction between the die and the table can result in large differences in what number the die lands on. That's what chaotic means.

But it is not a chaotic test it is a probability, chance, test. The odds of any number coming up can be and are accurately calculated and Las Vegas makes millions doing it honestly and fairly.

On the other hand, your example of radioactive decay is, by present day physics, defined as indeterminate as far as I know. The scientific community I would say has generally accepted that this is a truly indeterminate process.

Thank you for that much anyway. One case is all I need of show that the world is not wholly determinate.

MF can easily point to the possibility though that a non-local hidden variable theory could exist and thus make that a deterministic process and that hasn't been totally ruled out. But from the perspective of existing scientific theory, I believe the general consensus is that radioactive decay, among other quantum phenomena, is a truly indeterminate process.

And I can just as easily point out that God or the Devil or Little Green Men made made it happen. If he can show me a non-local hidden variable which most Quantum theorist deny then I will retract that case and think of another case which he won't accept either invoking some kind of magic or other illogical reason that it is determinate.:devil: :wink:

Again, thanks

[moving finger]

Hi Royce
If determinism is to hold, the world, the universe, must be wholly deterministic.
If it can be shown to occur within the world any random non-deterministic event then the world is not wholly deterministic and determinism does not hold and cannot then be the case.
I agree (assuming that your definition of "random" is such that random is synonymous with "indeterministic")
case 1.
The fair roll of a fair die (one of a pair of dice) will result in one of six numbered faces of the die ending face up. It can be calculated that the probability of any one of the six numbers coming up is 1 in 6. Given any number of rolls it will be shown that this is true and that all of the numbers have an equal probability of coming up.
This is true in the case of a perfect die, yes.
It is impossible to predict or determine which number will come up in any one roll of the die. This is by definition (see Merriam Webster On line) a random i. e. non-deterministic occurrence.
With respect, this confuses the definition of "indeterministic" with that of "indeterminable".
"impossible to predict or determine" is an epistemic property - it says there is a limit to our ability to predict, there is a limit to our knowledge. It does NOT say that the underlying process (the ontology) is indeterministic. Indeterminable (an epistemic property) is not the same as indeterministic (an ontic property).
It follows that to show any process is indeterminable does not allow us to conclude that the same process is necessarily indeterministic.
case 2.
In radio-active decay of an unstable isotope it cannot be predicted nor determined when any given nucleus will decay. The best that can be calculated is the half-life of an isotope in which over the given amount of time one half of the nuclei will decay; however, it cannot be determined when or if any individual nucleus will decay over any given time period. This is also a random event.
Again, this is an example of an indeterminable event (radioactive decay). The same argument applies as above, this does not necessarily imply an indeterministic process.
Since it has been show that random, non-determinate events do occur in the world, universe, I conclude that the world is not wholly deterministic and that therefore determinism does not hold and is not the case.
I have highlighted the terms in the above where the confusion occurs. One cannot assume that our observation of non-determinate events (limits to our epistemic ability) necessarily implies an indeterministic world (an ontic property). I would humbly claim that there is no proof that the world is in any way ontically indeterministic (another way of saying this - ontic determinism has not so far been falsified)
If you remain unconvinced, let me give you another couple of examples to illustrate the difference between epistemically indeterminable and ontically indeterministic :

Random Cards
I take a card "at random" from a deck of cards. I have no idea in advance what the value of the card will be - therefore from my perspective the value on the card is "indeterminable" (until I have picked it and looked at it). Would you say that this implies the value on the card is also "indeterministic" (until I have picked it and looked at it)?

Computer RNG
Most modern computers contain a random number generator (RNG). The RNG operates completely deterministically, but if I do not know the precise algorithm of the RNG then I am unable to predict what numbers it will produce. The output of the RNG is therefore, from my perspective, "indeterminable". Would you say that this implies the RNG is also "indeterministic"?
As always, with respect
MF

[moving finger]

MF can easily point to the possibility though that a non-local hidden variable theory could exist and thus make that a deterministic process and that hasn't been totally ruled out.
Dang! you took the words right out of my mouth :smile:
from the perspective of existing scientific theory, I believe the general consensus is that radioactive decay, among other quantum phenomena, is a truly indeterminate process.

I suspect Niels Bohr, the founding father of the Copenhagen Interpretation, might have answered this way :
"All we can say about quantum processes is what we can measure - what we can measure is limited by our epistemic horizon - therefore it makes no sense to ask "what is really going on" - because what is really going on is beyond our epistemic horizon and the question cannot be answered.
Whether the world is (at its core) deterministic or indeterministic is then (strictly speaking) a question that cannot be answered (just like asking "which way did the electron go" in the 2-slit experiment in the absence of observation), therefore meaningless."

(with apologies to Niels)

Therefore I humbly suggest that the correct scientific answer to the question "is the world fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic" is "we cannot answer the question". Any scientist who says he believes in either determinism or indeterminism is then (with respect) taking a leap of faith, not one of science.

May your God go with you

MF

[moving finger]

Royce, to be fair, what MF said about the dice being determinate is true. How a die rolls and jumps across a table and how it interacts with the aerodynamic drag as it flies through the air, is defined by classical mechanics.
It is physically impossible to recreate a fair roll of any fair dice or die to be able to predict significantly beyond a 1:6 probability even if a precise machine were made to throw the die. It just can't be done. There are too many variables even in principle. If I would accept the possibility in principle then it would not be defined as a fair rolls.
With respect, Royce, this confuses the meanings of many different terms. Something can be predictable “in principle”, but not “in practice”, hence would still be (epistemically) unpredictable.
A chaotic system is based on a deterministic process which is impossible to predict even in principle, because of the extreme sensitivity to intial conditions. But even though a chaotic system is impossible to predict (an epistemic quality), it is nevertheless still a deterministic one (an ontic quality). You don’t have to believe me – read up about chaos theory in any good modern textbook.
The "random" element referred to in the dictionary does not mean it is indeterminate, but chaotic. It's behavior is actually not easily calculable because it is "chaotic" and small deviations from any given interaction between the die and the table can result in large differences in what number the die lands on. That's what chaotic means.
But it is not a chaotic test it is a probability, chance, test. The odds of any number coming up can be and are accurately calculated and Las Vegas makes millions doing it honestly and fairly.
Yes, and chaotic systems are “honestly and fairly unpredictable”, yet they are still 100% deterministic. One must be very careful when mixing up terms like “random”, “chaotic”, “unpredictable” and “indeterministic” – in everyday “common” usage many of these terms may be somewhat interchangable, but in science they are not – each has a very unique meaning.
On the other hand, your example of radioactive decay is, by present day physics, defined as indeterminate as far as I know. The scientific community I would say has generally accepted that this is a truly indeterminate process.
Thank you for that much anyway. One case is all I need of show that the world is not wholly determinate.
Let’s not be so hasty - Please see my separate reply (above) on this point
And I can just as easily point out that God or the Devil or Little Green Men made made it happen. If he can show me a non-local hidden variable which most Quantum theorist deny then I will retract that case and think of another case which he won't accept either invoking some kind of magic or other illogical reason that it is determinate.
Many eminent and respectable scientists believe in God, but with respect I don’t think bringing the concept of God into a scientific debate is a good idea.
Science proceeds on the basis of advancing (falsifiable) hypotheses to explain observations, and then performing experiments to either validate or falsify the hypothesis. The hypothesis of non-local hidden variables is compatible with everything we know about the world, therefore fits the observations. If you or anyone else can come up with an experimental result which shows that such an hypothesis is false then I would be the first to reject it. Until then, it stands as a scientifically acceptable hypothesis.
(as an aside – ANY hypothesis which purports to explain “what is really going on” beyond the epistemic limit of CI is unfalsifiable hence unscientific – but this applies to ALL theories that attempt to explain what is "really" going on, not just non-local hidden variables theories).
On the comment “most Quantum theorists deny……" - with respect, the day that scientific truth becomes democratically decided is the day I will hang up my test tubes.

May your God go with you

MF

[Royce]

I agree (assuming that your definition of "random" is such that random is synonymous with "indeterministic")

Hi, MF.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: 2random
Function: adjective
2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence <random processes> b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence.


If this definition is synonymous with your definition of indeterministic, okay.
I don't think that it is but that's just my opinion.

With respect, this confuses the definition of "indeterministic" with that of "indeterminable".
"impossible to predict or determine" is an epistemic property - it says there is a limit to our ability to predict, there is a limit to our knowledge. It does NOT say that the underlying process (the ontology) is indeterministic. Indeterminable (an epistemic property) is not the same as indeterministic (an ontic property).
It follows that to show any process is indeterminable does not allow us to conclude that the same process is necessarily indeterministic.

Yes I agree. It was a bad choice of words. I did not realize that I had done that until you pointed it out. However, the fair roll of a fair die or dice is ontologically indeterministic or random by the definition above. A simple test will show that. Roll a die 100-1,000 times and plot the results. Each number has an equal chance of coming up and if the test is done fairly with a fair die they will come up an equal or nearly equal number of times. Since it is an true ontological random occurrence it is also epistemic in that we can't know or predict which number will come up on any one roll.

Again, this is an example of an indeterminable event (radioactive decay). The same argument applies as above, this does not necessarily imply an indeterministic process.

I disagree. Can you support your claim that it is indeterminable and not indeterministic; that it is that we can know but that it is deterministic and not a random events that is indeterministic, ontological.

I have to go now I will return later to address the rest of your comments.

[Q_Goest]

Royce said: However, the fair roll of a fair die or dice is ontologically indeterministic or random by the definition above.
Yes, it seems like an indeterministic mechanism, but it's not really. I'll give you a reason and an example. What happens when a die or any object impacts another object is defined by classical physics, and is in principal reducible to the individual events (the bounces and impacts as well as the air resistance). These events are governed by the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. These two laws along with the laws used for aerodynamic affects can very accurately determine what a die does as it bounces across a table. What happens to a die is reducible to what happens (events) during its trek across the table. If it wasn't reducible to those events, then one must claim there are other "indeterminate" processes that are operating on the die as it moves. For example, one must claim that if it impacts the table, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum are somehow adjusted randomly for any given impact, so that instead of obeying those laws and bouncing back according to them, the die must bounce back in defiance of those laws. So far, no one has shown the laws of energy and momentum conservation have been violated, so there is no reason to believe a die does not obey these laws. Similarly for aerodynamic laws, the Navier Stokes equations for example, may not be easily calculable and they may even be uncalculable in principal, but that is not an indication that the laws are indeterminate. The die "knows" what to do and it does it in accordance with those laws of physics.

Now an example: The example I'll give is based on a very interesting documentary recently run on the History Channel called "Breaking Vegas". In that show, they did a piece on Doyne Farmer and Norman Packard. Here's a short description:
Nobody can predict where the ball will fall on the roulette wheel -- or can they? That was the goal of Doyne Farmer and Norman Packard, childhood friends and physics geeks who embarked in 1975 to deconstruct the physics behind the motion of a roulette ball, and build a miniature computer system that could predict the outcome of a roulette game. The project soon became an out-of-control obsession, consuming a whole commune of brilliant hippie-physicists, and ultimately ended in a landmark contribution to modern-day Chaos Theory. Interviews with Doyne Farmer and Norman Packard take viewers deep into the ambitious and adrenaline-filled adventure.
So essentially what they did was to come up with a computer program that could quickly calculate where a roulette ball would land (to a very high degree of accuracy) as soon as the ball was in motion. It used input from the person watching the game and would quickly calculate a number to bet on. The person would then put their bet on that number before the roulette ball dropped into play. Apparantly they won huge amounts of money before they got discovered.

You may also want to read the Stanford entry on Causal Determinism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/), specifically section 3.3 regarding "Determinism and Chaos". Here they use a billiard table for an example and show that such systems that appear to be random are actually chaotic and deterministic.

[moving finger]

Hello Royce
If this definition is synonymous with your definition of indeterministic, okay. I don't think that it is but that's just my opinion.
The definition seems to me to define random as being synonymous with “indeterministic”, if we assume “probability of occurrence” is talking about an ontic property (reality) and not an epistemic probability (our knowledge of reality).
The important thing is that if we define “random” = “indeterministic” then we must be very careful how we use the word random from now on (it would be misleading to then use random to describe epistemic rather than ontic properties). Again, this all comes down to the rather sloppy way that we all (myself included) tend to use the English language in everyday speech.
Yes I agree. It was a bad choice of words. I did not realize that I had done that until you pointed it out. However, the fair roll of a fair die or dice is ontologically indeterministic or random by the definition above. A simple test will show that. Roll a die 100-1,000 times and plot the results. Each number has an equal chance of coming up and if the test is done fairly with a fair die they will come up an equal or nearly equal number of times.
With respect, if I perform this experimment then what is actually happening here is that I am “measuring” the outcome of the rolls of the die – and quantum mechanics tells us quite clearly that the process of measurement can never tell us how the world “really is”, it can only ever tell us “what we can measure about the world”. Our measurements are epistemic. We have no way of deriving truly ontic information from our epistemic measurements.
Since it is an true ontological random occurrence it is also epistemic in that we can't know or predict which number will come up on any one roll.
Sorry, but (as explained above) we cannot conclude from this that the “randomness” is ontic, the most we can ever conclude is that it is epistemic.
I can sense that you are not convinced. Please do read again the examples I gave earlier of the deck of cards, and of the RNG.
In the case of the deck of cards then each card has a 1/52 chance of being chosen. I can repeat the experiment as many times as I like and (just like the roll of the die above) it will “appear” to me that the cards are truly random. It is not possible for me to determine in advance what card I will choose. The values are indeterminable. But all of these things are epistemic properties (the appearance of randomness, the inability to determine in advance). From the results of my experiment, can I say anything about the ontic properties of the values on the cards? Are the values truly indeterministic, or is it just my lack of knowledge that prevents me from knowing the value of each card in advance? What do you think?
In the case of the RNG then each number generated has the same chance of being produced as any other number. I can run the RNG as long as I like and (as long as I do not reset it) it will “appear” to me that the numbers are truly random. It is not possible for me to determine in advance what number will be produced. The numbers are indeterminable. But all of these things are epistemic properties (the appearance of randomness, the inability to determine in advance). From the results of my experiment, can I say anything about the ontic properties of the RNG? Is the RNG truly indeterministic, or is it just my lack of knowledge that prevents me from knowing numbers in advance? What do you think?
Can you support your claim that it is indeterminable and not indeterministic; that it is that we can know but that it is deterministic and not a random events that is indeterministic, ontological.
Sorry, but I am not claiming that radioactive decay is NOT indeterministic. I am saying it is “not necessarily indeterministic”, which is not the same thing. I am claiming that “we have no way of knowing” whether it is indeterministic or not – hence to believe it is either deterministic or indeterministic is a leap of faith, not of science. My preference (but that is simply my belief) is to believe that everything is deterministic unless or until we can prove it otherwise, because that philosophy seems (to me) to fit better with Occam’s Razor.

With respect

MF

[Tournesol]

My preference (but that is simply my belief) is to believe that everything is deterministic unless or until we can prove it otherwise, because that philosophy seems (to me) to fit better with Occam’s Razor.

Surely it is against Occam's razor to multiply entities by supposing the existence of undetectable causes.

[moving finger]

Surely it is against Occam's razor to multiply entities by supposing the existence of undetectable causes.
With respect, I do not "suppose the existence of undetectable causes".

It follows quite logically from the dualism implied in "observer" and "observed" that there must be a limit to our epistemic ability, there must be an epistemic horizon, because the process of observation always entangles "observer" and "observed". In other words, in the final analysis there is no such thing as a truly objective measurement or observation. It follows from this that the nature of ultimate reality must always be unknown and unknowable.

Is the photon a particle or a wave? The usual answer is : It depends on how we measure it.

What this means is that the character of the photon that we observe depends on the process of observation.

In the absence of any measurement, which slit does the photon go through in the 2-slit experiment? In the absence of measurement, the question is meaningless.

MF

[Royce]

Yes, it seems like an indeterministic mechanism, but it's not really. I'll give you a reason and an example. What happens when a die or any object impacts another object is defined by classical physics, and is in principal reducible to the individual events (the bounces and impacts as well as the air resistance). These events are governed by the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. These two laws along with the laws used for aerodynamic affects can very accurately determine what a die does as it bounces across a table. What happens to a die is reducible to what happens (events) during its trek across the table. If it wasn't reducible to those events, then one must claim there are other "indeterminate" processes that are operating on the die as it moves.

The way that dice or a die is fairly rolled is that they/it is placed in a cup or closed hand and shaken for a non-determined amount of time, force and method then thrown with a non-determined force,direction and trajectory onto a table or board where they are usually required to bounce of of a back board before coming to a rest. This is what they have to do in every crap game in a casino. The bounce off of a backboard is not always required outside of a casino.

You may apply all of the physics reductionism that you want but unless you know before hand the exact orientation of the dice at release and the exact force direction and trajectory and the exact texture of the material on which they land and roll at that exact spot the results of the roll or rolls cannot be predicted which any accuracy beyond that of chance.

As far as the roulette wheel is concerned I watched the same program. They rigged up a computer hidden on their bodies. With a team of about 5 people they found that they could predict which quadrant of the wheel the ball would land in about 3 out of 4 times. It required that they time the rotation of the ball around the wheel before it fell down into the wheel itself. This gave them a target area of 9 numbers in each quadrant. Even this was remarkable and they won hundreds of thousands before they were finally caught.

My point is that is if we know the characteristics and history of the device, the starting conditions and the velocity, direction and trajectory of the objects then yes we can predict the results to a greater accuracy than probability; but this is not a fair test of probability nor non-deterministic
systems. Given perfect dice and surfaces or wheels and balls and with unknown starting conditions the events are non-deterministic. Even with practical devices and objects given a fair event it is not significantly deterministic.

It is not that we cannot know it is that it is unknowable, random, non-deterministic.

[Divisionbyzer0]

I'm not coming from a tradition of (or a well-versed readings of) analytic philosophy here, but I dispute with the definition by determinism as stated at the begining of the thread by Royce-- there are other varients. Particularly, there are the fatalistic, pre-existing, pre-set time, totality varients. One could name these varients "block universe" or "tenseless time" determinisms.

If I state that:

(I) "the future is 'existing', has 'existed', and will perpetually 'exist' (along with 'past' and 'present') in a static state"

am I saying something fundamentally different than

(II) "everything currently happening, everything that has happened, and everything that will happen, but has not yet, is a complete function of the past?"

???

There are similarities, but I believe fundamental differences in the two statements, yet I'd maintain that both are deterministic paradigms. If (I) is the case then where would that leave randomness-- could we imagine (I) holding good but still admitting randomness? Would randomness then merely be a kind of in principle unknowability? With (I) I can see maintaining unpredictability/unknowability with complete determinability.

[moving finger]

The way that dice or a die is fairly rolled is that they/it is placed in a cup or closed hand and shaken for a non-determined amount of time, force and method then thrown with a non-determined force,direction and trajectory onto a table or board where they are usually required to bounce of of a back board before coming to a rest. This is what they have to do in every crap game in a casino. The bounce off of a backboard is not always required outside of a casino.
You may apply all of the physics reductionism that you want but unless you know before hand the exact orientation of the dice at release and the exact force direction and trajectory and the exact texture of the material on which they land and roll at that exact spot the results of the roll or rolls cannot be predicted which any accuracy beyond that of chance.
Agreed. But all this shows is that our predictive ability is limited by our prior knowledge of the system. This is all purely epistemic indeterminability. It says nothing about the ontology of the scenario, which could still be purely deterministic.
As far as the roulette wheel is concerned I watched the same program. They rigged up a computer hidden on their bodies. With a team of about 5 people they found that they could predict which quadrant of the wheel the ball would land in about 3 out of 4 times. It required that they time the rotation of the ball around the wheel before it fell down into the wheel itself. This gave them a target area of 9 numbers in each quadrant. Even this was remarkable and they won hundreds of thousands before they were finally caught.
My point is that is if we know the characteristics and history of the device, the starting conditions and the velocity, direction and trajectory of the objects then yes we can predict the results to a greater accuracy than probability; but this is not a fair test of probability nor non-deterministic
systems. Given perfect dice and surfaces or wheels and balls and with unknown starting conditions the events are non-deterministic.
Where is your evidence that "the events are non-deterministic"? With respect, there is no such evidence. The events may indeed be "non-determinable", but as I have pointed out many times already "non-determinable" does not necessarily imply "non-deterministic".
Royce - did you read and understand the examples I gave of the random draw of a card, and the computer RNG? How do you respond to these?
It is not that we cannot know it is that it is unknowable, random, non-deterministic.
Where is your evidence that it is genuinely and necessarily "non-deterministic", and not just "non-determinable"? Without evidence, this simply boils down to belief, not science.

With respect,

MF

[El Hombre Invisible]

My point is that is if we know the characteristics and history of the device, the starting conditions and the velocity, direction and trajectory of the objects then yes we can predict the results to a greater accuracy than probability; but this is not a fair test of probability nor non-deterministic
systems. Given perfect dice and surfaces or wheels and balls and with unknown starting conditions the events are non-deterministic. Even with practical devices and objects given a fair event it is not significantly deterministic.
It is not that we cannot know it is that it is unknowable, random, non-deterministic.
I think what, in a crowded, foggy nutshell, MF is trying to tell you is that you are mixing indeterminism and unpredictability in one catch-all term, and so while what you are saying is true with respect to 'determining' and 'predicting' outcomes in the way you are using the words, the two have distinct and different definitions in scientific terminology. This thread is about determinism, not predictability, as per the agreed scientific definitions. It is misunderstandings such as this one between you and MF that justify the boringly strict agreement on the definitions of such words.

Non-deterministic systems evolve in such a way that no amount of prior information will tell you what the outcome will be with 100% certainty, even in principal. Contrary to MF's belief, QM yields indeterminacy as in, for example, Young's experiment. It is impossible to determine with 100% certainty where exactly a given particle will strike the screen, no matter how much prior information you have. (Of course, there are deterministic interpretations of QM also.)

Unpredictable systems evolve in such a way that if you knew the exact initial conditions and rules, you can predict the outcome with 100% certainty, but the slightest error in your initial conditions or rules will yield outcomes different to those expected. In chaotic systems, these initial errors can produce drastically different results. Nonetheless, they are deterministic. Indeed, it is the determinism that makes it chaotic.

Systems that are not deterministic cannot, by definition, possibly be chaotic.

[Royce]

Agreed. But all this shows is that our predictive ability is limited by our prior knowledge of the system. This is all purely epistemic indeterminability. It says nothing about the ontology of the scenario, which could still be purely deterministic.

Yes, we can look at it that way; however, since prior conditions are ontologically unknowable as they are randomized by the shaking or shuffling of the objects then the results too are ontologically unknowable. "Ontologically unknowable" implies randomness and an indeterministic event.

Where is your evidence that "the events are non-deterministic"? With respect, there is no such evidence. The events may indeed be "non-determinable", but as I have pointed out many times already "non-determinable" does not necessarily imply "non-deterministic".

I can ask the same of you. Where is you evidence that the events are deterministic and not indeterministic? If an event is ontologically unknowable it is then also epistemologically unknowable but that does not exclude "ontologically unknowable." It stems, IMO, on the belief that EVERYTHING is physically reducible or that reality is atemporal and the future is already determined, existent, already known.

Royce - did you read and understand the examples I gave of the random draw of a card, and the computer RNG? How do you respond to these?

Yes I read it and meant to get back to it but was busy and distracted by other post's. My apologies.

Random draw of a card:

If the deck of cards is fairly shuffled, then prior to your drawing a card the results of the intended event is ontologically unknowable, truly random. Once you draw the card the probability wavew is collapse from 1:52 to 1:1 but now the card is ontologically knowable, but epistemologically unknowable. Schrodinger IMO would say that it is in a non-determinable state as is his cat before being observed. The actual value of the card could be determined by looking at the face of the card or by looking at the faces of the remaining cards and determining which one is missing. Once you look at the face of the card it is then known both ontologically and epistemologically.

In any event since prior to drawing the card I hold that the result is ontologically knowable, there is no possible way that the value of the card that you are about to pick can be knowable or determined, it is purely a random chance event with each card value having an equal 1:52 chance of being drawn.

In the physical world in which we live and experience where time is sequential and cause proceeds effect temporally then this is an ontologically unknowable, random example and thus indeterministic. If you hold that reality is atemporal including the physical world and that all is known including the future then we as physical beings still cannot know and it is physically unknowable to us unless we have a direct tie in with the omnicicent god head. Since this is unproveable, you can supply no evidence that this is true, only that it is your belief that it is true and as yop say of my position "this is not science but belief.

As this is the philosophy section of the Forums, beliefs are acceptable just as opinions are. And, all of my posts are my opinions and beliefs and in no way are intended to be taken as scientific fact. I reserve the right to disagree and/or question and/ or refute any opinions posted in this Philosophy forum.
(There selfAdjoint, am I cover now?)

Computer RNG:
Most modern computers contain a random number generator (RNG). The RNG operates completely deterministically, but if I do not know the precise algorithm of the RNG then I am unable to predict what numbers it will produce. The output of the RNG is therefore, from my perspective, "indeterminable". Would you say that this implies the RNG is also "indeterministic"?

To the best of my knowledge a truely randon number generator has not yet been developed. They are much more nearly so than even a few years ago, but as I understand it not yet truly random. I do not believe that any thing man made can be truly random in principle.

That said, if it were truly random then by definition it would be indeterministic AND indeterminable.

Doing a search on indeterminism (trying to determine if the proper term is indeterminism or non-determinism.), I found the following link and page.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/philo/indeterm.htm

Indeterminism
________________________________________
"If we imagine an intellect which at any given moment knew all the forces that animate Nature and the mutual positions of the beings that comprise it -- if this intellect were vast enough to submit its data to analysis -- could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the univese ant that of the lightest atom. For such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes" -- Pierre-Simon Laplace (Philosophical essays on probability)
________________________________________
Introduction
What is the nature of chance and indeterminism? I think many people have a false image of what random chance really is. To most people everything has a cause, and something happening uncaused may seem impossible and even absurd. The determinist position is that if one could set up two cases with the exact same set of circumstances we would get exactly the same result; or as Laplace's famous quote above indicates, that the future is embraced in the present. For the determinist, indeterminism is not fundamental, but lies only in our physical limitations to acquire complete knowledge of systems; if we could rewind history back to the big bang, the universe would evolve exactly the same way it has done today.
For natural reasons such an experiment is impossible to conduct, but determinism can be investigated indirectly. If the future was imbedded in the past, no new information would be introduced in the world, for all information would be contained in previous information. In this essay I will try to show that the determinist position is wrong -- that indeterminism is a fundamental quality of nature. "Noise" in the quantum world is amplified through dynamic processes and produces genuine new information at the expense of entropy.
The butterfly effect
When meterologist Edward Lorenz in 1961 made computer simulations on weather, he discovered what, in meterology, is now called the butterfly effect (the general expression in chaos theory is "Sensitive dependence on initial conditions"). It had been known previous to that, but not considered an important principle of science. To make a shortcut in his job, Lorenz typed in values from halfways on a previous run of the computer program, and discovered that the patterns of the two runs grew further and further apart until they showed no similarity whatsoever. He soon found out that the difference was not due to any error with the computer, but because he had typed in the rounded values of the printout instead of the more precise values used by the program (Gleick, 1987).
What the experiment showed was that, in non-linear systems, small differences of the initial condition will give rise to large differences in later stages. It is called the butterfly effect because, at least theoretically, it implies that a stroke of the wing of a butterfly could be the cause a hurricane. This effect is the reason why the weather is impossible to estimate with high accuracy for more than about three days and impossible to estimate at all after the fifth day. The reason for this is that the system gets so complicated that it in a limited amount of time has an infinite amount of possible states (or in mathematical language, infinite grades of freedom). No matter how fast computers we would ever use, it would still be impossible to calculate the future states before they happened (Davies, 1987). It can be mathematically showed that it is still possible to calculate the future state, but reality works faster than the simulation so it would be a prediction in second place (Davies, 1987).
Another reason why it is impossible to calculate the future before it happens is that we would have to know the initial figures, to give the computer program, with an infinite amount of decimals -- we would have to have infinite information of the system, an impossibility unless you are omniscient -- and since humans are not omniscient it is impossible to know the exact numbers to use. First because it is theoretically impossible to store a number with infinite precision in a computer (or indeed in any physical container), secondly since it is impossible to measure them, and thirdly because you would have to know the exact position and momentum of every particle and beam of energy in the whole universe to get exact values for any other quantum of matter. This was expressed before Lorentz, by Jules Henri Poincaré in Science et methode, in 1909:
"A very small cause which escapes our notice determines a considerable effect that we cannot fail to see, and then we then say the effect is due to chance. If we exactly knew the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. But even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secrets for us, we could still know the situation approxiamative. If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with the same grade of approximation, that is all we require, and we sould say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by the laws. But it is not always so; It may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produces very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Predictions become impossible, we stand before a random phenomenon." (Gleick, 1987)
This impredictability of non-linear systems creates information. Since each new observation is a new bit, the system is a continous source of information.
Linear systems are exceptions
The butterfly effect is common in non-linear systems, but aren't linear systems in majority? No, in school students are taught mostly about linear systems, and non-linear systems are simplified into linear systems to be soluble; but actually, in nature, linear systems are exceptions and non-linear systems are fundamental. This has made the mathematician Stanislaw Ulam remark that calling chaos nonlinear science is like calling zoology "the study of non-elephant animals" (Gleick, 1987).
Quantum fluctuation
But since it can be showed mathematically that the future of a chaotic system is determined by the present, doesn't that imply that there is determinism? Does not the new information appear deterministically? Yes, the butterfly gives rise to what is called "deterministic chaos", but once again ponder the issue of the infinite amount of decimals. To know the present with certainity one would have to know the exact position of every particle and beam of energy in the whole universe.
If we would try to do so, we would have to investigate every object in smaller and smaller scale. First we would have to investigate the molecules, and then the atoms, electrons, photons, quarks and so on down to the smallest parts. When one tries to measure the exact position and momentum of a very small particle there is a huge problem -- Heisenberg's uncertainity principle.
Werner von Heisenberg deduced in 1927 that the product of the uncertainities of position and momentum equals Planck's constant divided by 4 (about 5.273 10-35 Js) [Where,  is the greek letter Pi]. Since the mass of large objects, such as tennis balls, is so big compared to Planck's constant we never see the effects of this in daily life, but in the thermodynamic world it is a very important factor making it impossible to calculate position and momentum with any accuracy for quantum particles, since the error in some instances will be larger than the measured quantity itself. It is possible to get a good estimation of momentum at the expence of position or the other way around, but never of both at the same time. For the same reason it is impossible to estimate the total energy of an object in a finite time span.
But isn't Heisenberg's uncertainity principle only a way of saying that our instruments cannot be made with the precision necessary to measure particles this small? Isn't it so that the error rises when we interfere with the investigated object so we change its momentum and position? Again no, most physics textbooks describe it this way, but it has been showed by quantum physics that particles don't even posess a distinct momentum and position. It is the reality behind Heisenberg's uncertainity principle that gives rise to phenomena like the second law of thermodynamics and Brownian movement, because it makes particles move randomly in a "theormodynamic dance". Some events, such as radioactive decay, happen by pure chance -- uncaused. There is, of course, a cause why a radioactive atom decays since it is energetically and statistically favoured to do so, but there is no way to explain why it happens at a certain time. This seemed Albert Einstein so absurd that he exclaimed the famous words "God does not play dice".
Einstein thought that a better model than quantum physics would develop, and proposed an experiment (The EPR, or Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky experiment. See Physics and Ultimate reality (1995)) that would prove that it was a false theory. Some years after his death physicists' instruments were good enough to carry out the experiment and it turned out at Einstein's disadvantage (Davies, 1983, 1987). So all evidence show, that for small objects there is no true distinction between wave and particle nature. This, in turn, makes complete knowledge of the position and momentum of any object impossible, and shows that indeterminism is a fundamental quality of nature.
Summary
I have here shown that Quantum particles give rise to small fluctuations which are amplified in a process known as the butterfly effect. This process creates information from entropy and consolidates the indeterminist position. Chaos theory and, particulary, Quantum physics have made the Laplacian "World Spirit" impossible.
References
1. Paul Davies "God and the new physics" (1983)
2. Paul Davies "The cosmic blueprint" (1987)
3. James Gleick "CHAOS - Making a new science" (1987)
4. PHYSICS AND ULTIMATE REALITY a debate between Kevin Solway and Paul Davies
Books I will read which probably will appear in the reference list afterwards
1. I don't know the author Does God Play Dice?
2. John Gribbin "In search of Schrödinger's cat"
Other views
1. Chad Docterman's Essay on Determinism
________________________________________
Back to Fredrik Bendz' homepage
________________________________________
Last update: February 17, 1998
© Fredrik Bendz
S-mail : here
E-mail :
Bottom of Form

[moving finger]

I'm not coming from a tradition of (or a well-versed readings of) analytic philosophy here, but I dispute with the definition by determinism as stated at the begining of the thread by Royce-- there are other varients. Particularly, there are the fatalistic, pre-existing, pre-set time, totality varients. One could name these varients "block universe" or "tenseless time" determinisms.
If I state that:
(I) "the future is 'existing', has 'existed', and will perpetually 'exist' (along with 'past' and 'present') in a static state"
am I saying something fundamentally different than
(II) "everything currently happening, everything that has happened, and everything that will happen, but has not yet, is a complete function of the past?"
This is similar to my original objection to Royce's definition of determinism. See post #2 in this thread.
The “Block universe” view is equivalent to saying that it is just as true to suggest "the future causes the past" as it is to say "the past causes the future".
There are similarities, but I believe fundamental differences in the two statements, yet I'd maintain that both are deterministic paradigms.
Agreed. Statement (II) implicitly assumes a scenario where an “arrow of time” determines future events from past events, but not necessarily vice versa. This means that every state of the universe has a unique future, but it is not necessarily the case that every state of the universe has a unique past. A universe where there are multiple possible pasts converging into fewer and fewer futures would be compatible with such a scenario.
The Block universe, on the other hand, is compatible with statement (I), and implies that every state of the universe has both a unique past and a unique future.
If (I) is the case then where would that leave randomness-- could we imagine (I) holding good but still admitting randomness? Would randomness then merely be a kind of in principle unknowability? With (I) I can see maintaining unpredictability/unknowability with complete determinability.
If by “randomness” you mean “ontic indeterminsim” then I do not see how you arrive at this conclusion. If the past and future already exist in a static state (as (I) implies), how then can anything be ontically indeterministic? Can you elucidate?
MF

[Royce]

El Hombre Invisible, I agree with everything you say; however, the previous few post refer back to my statement that if it can be shown that even one occurrence of a truly random event, an ontologically unknowable and unpredictable event can occur then the world, universe, cannot we wholly deterministic. I gave two examples that in my opinion were indeterministic and MF argues that they are deterministic and only epistemologically unknowable.

You seem to agree with my examples. Do you, therefore, agree with my conclusion that the world is indeterministc?

[Royce]

MF, I attempted to post a reply to your last few questions as well as a continuation of the my interrupted previous response, however it got dumped and I lost it all and was unable to retrieve it to try to submit it again. My apologies. I will retry later to respond. I'm too disgusted and frustrated right now.

[El Hombre Invisible]

El Hombre Invisible, I agree with everything you say; however, the previous few post refer back to my statement that if it can be shown that even one occurrence of a truly random event, an ontologically unknowable and unpredictable event can occur then the world, universe, cannot we wholly deterministic. I gave two examples that in my opinion were indeterministic and MF argues that they are deterministic and only epistemologically unknowable.
You seem to agree with my examples. Do you, therefore, agree with my conclusion that the world is indeterministc?
I agree with your conclusion, just not all of your reasoning. Chaotic systems do not evolve randomly, only unpredictably.

'Randomness' should be as equally rigorously defined as 'determinism' and 'predictability'. There's a huge difference between the roll of a die (which is to most useful intents and purposes random, and yet in truth is deterministic) and the radioactive decay of an atom, which (unless there are some hidden or undiscovered variables at work) is truly random and non-deterministic.

It truly is impossible, with any amount of information, to tell exactly when a given atom will decay (as far as I know). However, the roll of a die is subject only to Newtonian mechanics - it is an example of complexity, not randomness. Complexity and chaos are also frequent bedfellows, but simple chaotic systems show they are not one and the same.

If you stick to truly non-deterministic processes, your argument is imho sound and your conclusion follows naturally from your logical assumption that, should any natural process be shown to be non-deterministic (which it has), we live in a Universe of indeterminism (which we do).

[moving finger]

Hi Royce
Your last post was a very long one, to do it justice I need to tackle it in stages.
Here is stage 1.
Agreed. But all this shows is that our predictive ability is limited by our prior knowledge of the system. This is all purely epistemic indeterminability. It says nothing about the ontology of the scenario, which could still be purely deterministic.
Yes, we can look at it that way; however, since prior conditions are ontologically unknowable as they are randomized by the shaking or shuffling of the objects then the results too are ontologically unknowable. "Ontologically unknowable" implies randomness and an indeterministic event.
I am not sure what you mean by “ontologically unknowable”.
Ontology is about “what is”, it is about “reality”. If you are saying that some things are in principle unknowable (I assume this is what you mean by “ontologically unknowable”), then this is basically what I am saying with my phrase “epistemic horizon”. There is a limit to what we can know about reality. And whether the world is fundamentally indeterministic or not is beyond that epistemic horizon – we simply do not know. This is what I have been saying all along.
ALL of the results of ALL experiments, including QM, are consistent BOTH with a world which is indeterministic at the quantum level, AND with a world which is determinsitic at the quantum level (the determinism could be via non-local hidden variables, but we cannot see the determinism because it is beyond our epistemic horizon).
There is NO experiment which has ever been carried out (nor do I think any experiment can ever be carried out) which allows us to falsify EITHER the hypothesis “the world is indeterministic” OR the hypothesis “the world is deterministic but we simply cannot see the determinism”.
Where is your evidence that "the events are non-deterministic"? With respect, there is no such evidence. The events may indeed be "non-determinable", but as I have pointed out many times already "non-determinable" does not necessarily imply "non-deterministic".
I can ask the same of you. Where is you evidence that the events are deterministic and not indeterministic?
With respect, I have repeated many times, Royce, that my belief in a deterministic world is simply a matter of faith. I have explained why in this thread. The question “determinism vs indeterminsim” is not one that can be answered by science. I admit that. Will you?
If an event is ontologically unknowable
I am still confused by your phrase “ontologically unknowable”.
What “is” is ontic.
What we “know” or “can know” is epistemic.
Royce - did you read and understand the examples I gave of the random draw of a card, and the computer RNG? How do you respond to these?
Yes I read it and meant to get back to it but was busy and distracted by other post's. My apologies.
Random draw of a card:
If the deck of cards is fairly shuffled, then prior to your drawing a card the results of the intended event is ontologically unknowable, truly random.
That phrase “ontologically unknowable” again. The value on the card that you draw is “epistemically unknown” or “epistemically indeterminable” until you look at the card, but ontically the value is very much determined at all stages – there is no point in time when the value on the card is ontically indeterministic. Whatever card you pick, the value on that card always was the value on that card, there was nothing indeterministic about it. The only “random element” in this case is due to our lack of advance knowledge; the value of the card is indeterminable (before we look at the card) (this is an epistemic property) but the value on the card is not indeterministic at any stage (this is an ontic property).
Once you draw the card the probability wavew is collapse from 1:52 to 1:1 but now the card is ontologically knowable, but epistemologically unknowable. Schrodinger IMO would say that it is in a non-determinable state as is his cat before being observed.
??????
Are you suggesting that the value on the card is genuinely (ontically) indeterministic until someone looks at it?
Your reference to Schroedinger is interesting. Schroedinger refused to accept that the world was inherently indeterministic, like Einstein he believed in an underlying reality. He invented his famous cat paradox to show how ridiculous some of the possible interpretations of quantum mechanics are (such as the implication that the cat can be both dead and alive at the same time).
The actual value of the card could be determined by looking at the face of the card or by looking at the faces of the remaining cards and determining which one is missing. Once you look at the face of the card it is then known both ontologically and epistemologically.
With respect, it seems from your argument that you misunderstand the meaning of “ontic”. Once again, ontic is about “what is”, it is about the underlying reality. The value on a macroscopic playing card exists whether we look at the card or not, it does not suddenly “collapse” from some quantum indeterminism at the moment we look at it (or do you believe otherwise?).
The value on the card is an ontic property.
Whether or not we know the value on the card is an epistemic property.
I’ll take a look at the rest of your post later….
May your God go with you.
MF

[moving finger]

MF argues that they are deterministic and only epistemologically unknowable.
With respect, to clarify my position :

I am NOT arguing that the world is necessarily deterministic (though I believe it is).

I AM arguing that THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN KNOW whether the world is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic. imho no experiment has been carried out, or could be carried out, which would falsify either one or the other. This is the whole point of my epistemic horizon argument.

Whether one believes in a deterministic or indeterministic world is thus a matter of faith, not of science.

May your God go with you

MF

[moving finger]

the radioactive decay of an atom, which (unless there are some hidden or undiscovered variables at work) is truly random and non-deterministic.
Exactly correct. I am glad that you said "unless there are some hidden or undiscovered variables at work".
The fact is that we just don’t know..
It truly is impossible, with any amount of information, to tell exactly when a given atom will decay (as far as I know).
Agreed. But all this tells us is that there is an epistemic horizon. Just because “it is impossible to tell” does not necessarily imply that it is “ ontically indeterministic”.
Once again, with emphasis, EPISTEMICALLY INDETERMINABLE is NOT the same as ONTICALLY INDETERMINISTIC, and the presence of the former cannot be used to infer the truth of the latter.
should any natural process be shown to be non-deterministic (which it has), we live in a Universe of indeterminism (which we do).
Exactly which process has been shown to be (ontically) non-deterministic?
(You acknowledge above that there could be “hidden or undiscovered variables at work”).

May your God go with you

MF

[Tournesol]

Hi again Tournesol
With respect, the thread is not about what we can argue is or is not true, it is about “what do you believe?”.
Philosophu is about what you can argue
I would argue the truth or falsity of indeterminism vs determinism is beyond our epistemic horizon, therefore it does indeed come down simply to “belief”.
Suppose out science was so perfect we could pedict the result of any experiement
with 100% accurary. Would that not be evidence for determinism ?
And causality is arguably a macroscopic illusion.
Can you argue it ?
Which is why I do not think of determinism in terms of causality, but rather in terms of self-consistent (timeless) histories.
Think in terms of self-consistency if you like -- but why call it
determinism ? The whole history of the term is tied to causal necessitation.

In other words, I believe in determinism but not necessarily the determinism as defined by Royce above.

Well, I believe in unicorns. I just don't define them as having horns.

[Royce]

Main Entry: on·to·log·i·cal
Pronunciation: "än-t&l-'ä-ji-k&l
Function: adjective
1 : of or relating to ontology
2 : relating to or based upon being or existence
- on·to·log·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Main Entry: epis·te·mol·o·gy
Pronunciation: i-"pis-t&-'mä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek epistEmE knowledge, from epistanai to understand, know, from epi- + histanai to cause to stand -- more at STAND
: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity
- epis·te·mo·log·i·cal /-m&-'lä-ji-k&l/ adjective
- epis·te·mo·log·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb
- epis·te·mol·o·gist /-'mä-l&-jist/ noun

Ontologically unknowable - Cannot be known in reality, unknowable,
random, indeterministic in principle and in fact.

epistemological unknowable - Can be known in reality but is unknownable to
us at this time.

I seem to be coming to the conclusion that we are "separated by a common language."

I AM arguing that THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN KNOW whether the world is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic. imho no experiment has been carried out, or could be carried out, which would falsify either one or the other. This is the whole point of my epistemic horizon argument.

Are you saying then that you don't accept not only my examples but also my argument? If that is so then I believe our argument is also indeterminable, no conclusion or consensus can be made.

I and others think that I have shown that there are indeterministic events in reality and therefore the universe is not wholly deterministic. I am satisfied with that but that is not necessary proof of anything nor scientific. That I believe and hold the opinion that the world is indeterministic should be obvious by now just as you believe the opposite and that we cannot know for sure which it really is. Again I can live with this. What more can be said?
I have said all that I can say to support my opinion any more would be just repeating myself which I do to much of already.

[El Hombre Invisible]

Exactly correct. I am glad that you said "unless there are some hidden or undiscovered variables at work".
The fact is that we just don’t know..
Agreed. But all this tells us is that there is an epistemic horizon. Just because “it is impossible to tell” does not necessarily imply that it is “ ontically indeterministic”.
Once again, with emphasis, EPISTEMICALLY INDETERMINABLE is NOT the same as ONTICALLY INDETERMINISTIC, and the presence of the former cannot be used to infer the truth of the latter.
The reason is that, if we accept the possibility that there may be processes that seem non-determistic but actual have as yet undiscovered mechanisms governing their behaviour in a deterministic way, then by the same token we have to accept the possibility that there are, in the real world, process that seem deterministic but are, in actual fact, indeterministic.
Exactly which process has been shown to be (ontically) non-deterministic?
(You acknowledge above that there could be “hidden or undiscovered variables at work”).
May your God go with you
MF
True, there may be as yet undiscovered mechanisms governing process that seem non-deterministic but are in fact deterministic. But by the same token there may be as yet undiscovered non-deterministic processes. The end result is that the hypotheses cancel and leave us with what we know now.

This poll asks whether we think the Universe is deterministic or not. An undiscovered process cannot inform our decision, since we do not know its nature. Therefore we have to assume in order to answer the question that the current description of natural law is correct, and since this contains non-deterministic processes, the Universe is non-deterministic in nature.

Hypothesising undiscovered processes is fine - I'm not arguing - but going down that road means you cannot answer the question (which is why I did not vote). To ask the question suggests an answer is required, and out of the options given (assuming you care and don't vote 3), the only choice that can be informed by current scientific thinking is the one that goes for indetermism.

[Divisionbyzer0]

What are those processes which you feel are non-deterministic?

[moving finger]

Hi again Tournesol
Philosophu is about what you can argue
Most of the "arguments" against determinism posted in this thread have been put forward as "scientific arguments" against determinism. My statement to the effect that it is fruitless to argue on a subject which is metaphysical was based on my implicit assumption that I was referring to scientific arguments.
Strictly you are correct. Even though the question being addressed in this topic is not scientific, we may still argue the issue metaphysically.
Can you offer any metaphysical arguments for or against determinism?
Suppose out science was so perfect we could pedict the result of any experiement with 100% accurary. Would that not be evidence for determinism ?
The question assumes something which is false (that we can predict everything perfectly).. The question (as it relates to the real world) is therefore meaningless.
It is a little like asking “suppose that we know that unicorns exist, would that be evidence that unicorns exist”?
The obvious and uninteresting answer to this is “yes, of course”, but nevertheless the question does not relate to the real world.
And causality is arguably a macroscopic illusion.
Can you argue it ?
Yes. IF I believed (a matter of faith) the world is indeterministic at the quantum level then I could interpret the results of QM as implying that there is no cause and effect at the quantum level, and what we see at the macro level is purely the result of statistics. However, I do NOT believe the world is indeterministic at the quantum level.
Think in terms of self-consistency if you like -- but why call it
determinism ? The whole history of the term is tied to causal necessitation.
“Necessitation” if you like.
The term “causal” usually carries with it an implied one-way temporal aspect (whether it is defined that way or not, this is the way many people think of causation, and the way that Royce has used the term in his definition), such that “the past causes the future”. I do not see the world in such one-way temporal terms.
In other words, I believe in determinism but not necessarily the determinism as defined by Royce above.
Well, I believe in unicorns. I just don't define them as having horns.
With respect, Tournesol, it seems to me that you are being rather flippant here (not the quality of remark that I have come to expect from you).
Can you rationalise and justify your statement, as I did mine, as follows :
(Royce’s definition) implicitly assumes a temporal dimension in which "past" events cause "future" events, however it may be the case that past, present and future all co-exist in some timeless, self-consistent reality (in such a case it is just as true to say that "the future causes the past" as it is to say "the past causes the future").?
MF

[moving finger]

Ontologically unknowable - Cannot be known in reality, unknowable,
random, indeterministic in principle and in fact.
It seems to me that in using this phrase what you mean is something like “if the truth or falsity of a statement about the world is ontologically unknowable then this means it is impossible for an agent to know whether the statement is either true or false”, would this be a correct interpretation of your phrase?
Are you saying then that you don't accept not only my examples but also my argument?
Your argument is based on the false premise that we can in principle “know reality”. Hence I do not accept this premise.
QM (exemplified by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Bohr’s principle of complementarity, and the more recently discovered property of entanglement) says that this premise is false – ask anyone who understands QM.
If that is so then I believe our argument is also indeterminable, no conclusion or consensus can be made.
As long as someone continues to insist that we can know reality (which goes against what QM teaches us) then yes, this argument is interminable.
I and others think that I have shown that there are indeterministic events in reality and therefore the universe is not wholly deterministic.
All of the examples you and others have given I have refuted.
I welcome (from anyone) an “example” of ontic indeterminism which I cannot refute.
Do you still claim that chaos is a necessarily ontically indeterminsitic process?
Do you still claim that sexual reproduction is a necessarily ontically indeterministic process?
This leaves QM. Let’s go over this again. The classical example of “QM indeterminism” that most people like to give is “radioactive decay”.
What we can say for sure about radioactive decay is that it APPEARS TO BE RANDOM. This is an epistemic property. But there is NO EXPERIMENT we can ever carry out which would allow us to decide unequivocally whether or not radioactive decay is REALLY RANDOM (an ontic property). There may be non-local hidden variables at work (which would make it a deterministic process), and such a possibility HAS NOT BEEN RULED OUT NOR CAN BE RULED OUT by experiment.
Thus (as I have been saying all along in this thread) whether or not one believes in determinism or indeterminism is a matter of faith, not of science.
I am satisfied with that but that is not necessary proof of anything nor scientific. That I believe and hold the opinion that the world is indeterministic should be obvious by now just as you believe the opposite and that we cannot know for sure which it really is. Again I can live with this. What more can be said?
This is what I have been saying all along!!!!! We agree!!!!!!

May your God go with you

MF

[moving finger]

there may be as yet undiscovered mechanisms governing process that seem non-deterministic but are in fact deterministic. But by the same token there may be as yet undiscovered non-deterministic processes. The end result is that the hypotheses cancel and leave us with what we know now.
“What we know now” is that “we do not know if the world is determinsitic or indeterministic”.
One cannot use the observation that the world “apperas to be random” to correctly infer that it is indeed random. The apparent (observed) randomness may be simply a limitation of our knowledge about the world, not a real feature of the world.

This poll asks whether we think the Universe is deterministic or not. An undiscovered process cannot inform our decision, since we do not know its nature. Therefore we have to assume in order to answer the question that the current description of natural law is correct, and since this contains non-deterministic processes, the Universe is non-deterministic in nature.
I disagree. The CORRECT SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATION of what we have measured so far about our universe is simply that “we do not know if it is ontically deterministic or indeterministic”.

If one wishes to believe that our world is ontically indeterministic then one is doing so as a matter of faith; this is NOT an interpretation which necessarily follows given the accepted rules of science.

Hypothesising undiscovered processes is fine - I'm not arguing - but going down that road means you cannot answer the question (which is why I did not vote). To ask the question suggests an answer is required, and out of the options given (assuming you care and don't vote 3), the only choice that can be informed by current scientific thinking is the one that goes for indetermism.
Incorrect, for the reasons I have given above.
The correct scientific view is that the question cannot be answered.
You have admitted as much yourself above.

Let me paraphrase your own argument, to show you where the error lies :

One of your premises : "there may be as yet undiscovered mechanisms governing process that seem non-deterministic but are in fact deterministic" acknowledges that the world MAY BE deterministic.

Your argument then seems to be "but since we cannot observe this determinism, since the world APPEARS to us to be indeterministic, then it follows that the world IS indeterministic".

Using the same "logic", would you also argue that "a tree falling in a forest where no agent hears it makes no noise"?

(if you cannot see the analogy, let me explain. If no agent hears the tree falling, how can we know that the tree makes a noise? If we do not know that the tree makes a noise then (following the same logic you use with respect to determinism) we must necessarily conclude that the tree does not in fact make a noise......)

May your God go with you

MF

[El Hombre Invisible]

“What we know now” is that “we do not know if the world is determinsitic or indeterministic”.
One cannot use the observation that the world “apperas to be random” to correctly infer that it is indeed random. The apparent (observed) randomness may be simply a limitation of our knowledge about the world, not a real feature of the world.
I disagree. The CORRECT SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATION of what we have measured so far about our universe is simply that “we do not know if it is ontically deterministic or indeterministic”.
If one wishes to believe that our world is ontically indeterministic then one is doing so as a matter of faith; this is NOT an interpretation which necessarily follows given the accepted rules of science.
Incorrect, for the reasons I have given above.
The correct scientific view is that the question cannot be answered.
You have admitted as much yourself above.
Let me paraphrase your own argument, to show you where the error lies :
One of your premises : "there may be as yet undiscovered mechanisms governing process that seem non-deterministic but are in fact deterministic" acknowledges that the world MAY BE deterministic.
Your argument then seems to be "but since we cannot observe this determinism, since the world APPEARS to us to be indeterministic, then it follows that the world IS indeterministic".
Using the same "logic", would you also argue that "a tree falling in a forest where no agent hears it makes no noise"?

No, what I said was that if you are to choose either 'deterministic' or 'non-deterministic' as an answer, i.e. if you are to answer the question at all, the only logical answer is 'non-deterministic'. It is not useful to answer every question about current scientific understanding with "we don't know" (unless we really don't have a clue). The caveat that any answer is subject to future scientific discovery goes without saying, which is why we don't say it.

[Royce]

It seems to me that in using this phrase what you mean is something like “if the truth or falsity of a statement about the world is ontologically unknowable then this means it is impossible for an agent to know whether the statement is either true or false”, would this be a correct interpretation of your phrase?

Yes, but that is not the way I intended. I had in mind real uncaused, random events. That is as simple as I can make it.

Your argument is based on the false premise that we can in principle “know reality”. Hence I do not accept this premise.
QM (exemplified by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Bohr’s principle of complementarity, and the more recently discovered property of entanglement) says that this premise is false – ask anyone who understands QM.

It has been said (by Feynman, I think, among others) that no one understands QM and if they think that they do they don't know QM.
If you do not except that we can know reality are you saying that it, reality is ontologically unknowable or epistemologically unknowable? If reality is hidden from us, which the latter implies, then why and how can we make scientific statements with such verifiable accuracy and predictions that can be verified?

All of the examples you and others have given I have refuted.
I welcome (from anyone) an “example” of ontic indeterminism which I cannot refute.

I disagree, You have refuted nothing. You have only refused to accept anything as indeterministic or ontological. You repeatedly say the everything I and others say is epistemological. In my opinion, you confuse the issue. If something is unknowable in reality it is ontologically unknowable. If something is knowable in reality but unknown or unknowable to us then it is epistemologically unknown or unknowable. If something is unknowable in reality is is also unknowable to us but that does not make it epistemologically unknowable to the exclusion of being ontologically unknowable.

Do you still claim that chaos is a necessarily ontically indeterministic process?

I know very little about chaos theory and therefore have stayed away from it. It just seems to me that semantically "deterministic chaos" has to be an oxymoron. This has nothing to do with the theory of which I am totally ignorant, just the words themselves.

Do you still claim that sexual reproduction is a necessarily ontically indeterministic process?

It is an example of randomness in nature, the world. If one assumes an intentional intelligent design, at least in nature, then it is intentional induced randomness in order to insure a good mix of genes. If one does not or cannot accept this assumption then it still accomplishes the same thing, a good mix of genes. This randomness is real and actually exists in the world and thus the universe.

This leaves QM. Let’s go over this again. The classical example of “QM indeterminism” that most people like to give is “radioactive decay”.
What we can say for sure about radioactive decay is that it APPEARS TO BE RANDOM. This is an epistemic property. But there is NO EXPERIMENT we can ever carry out which would allow us to decide unequivocally whether or not radioactive decay is REALLY RANDOM (an ontic property). There may be non-local hidden variables at work (which would make it a deterministic process), and such a possibility HAS NOT BEEN RULED OUT NOR CAN BE RULED OUT by experiment.

Invoking non-local hidden variables is the same and me invoking God or magic or Little Green Men or the proverbial Pink Unicorn. It is a meaningless statement the proves and refutes nothing unless you can show an example of one. If I said that the world is deterministic because God made it that way I would be tarred and feathered and thrown out on my bum. Likewise, I will not accept you saying that the world is deterministic because non-local unknown variables may be involved to make it so. That is pure BULL S___T!

Thus (as I have been saying all along in this thread) whether or not one believes in determinism or indeterminism is a matter of faith, not of science.

I agree with the exception that I believe that I have some logic to support my belief and thus it is not just a matter of blind faith.

This is what I have been saying all along!!!!! We agree!!!!!!

I would rather say that as it cannot be known with absolute certainty, we agree to disagree.


May your God go with you

MF

And with you and all of us.

[El Hombre Invisible]

I know very little about chaos theory and therefore have stayed away from it. It just seems to me that semantically "deterministic chaos" has to be an oxymoron. This has nothing to do with the theory of which I am totally ignorant, just the words themselves.

Which is why it pays to adhere to the universally accepted definitions of such words. A simple quadratic map can yield chaotic results: i.e. results that diverge dramatically when negligible but definite differences between starting values are input. Nonetheless, such maps are inarguably deterministic: whatever value you put in, you will get a definite answer after X iterations.

You defined determinism and indeterminism accurately in your poll. Sticking to processes that truly fit the bill (pending, for MF's sake, the discovery of underlying deterministic mechanisms in such processes), what is your opinion of your poll now?

It is more interesting IMHO to consider the extent of indeterminism on the Universe as a whole. You cannot accurately predict exactly how many radioactive atoms will decay after X units of time, but pragmatically speaking it is a predictable process (assuming there are enough atoms in the sample). The thing that interests me, and I think pretty much everyone, is: if such processes are fundementally non-deterministic, where does the predictability come from?

If deterministic chaos seems an oxymoron, predictable indeterminism must seem more so.

[moving finger]

Hi Royce
Second instalment
Most modern computers contain a random number generator (RNG). The RNG operates completely deterministically, but if I do not know the precise algorithm of the RNG then I am unable to predict what numbers it will produce. The output of the RNG is therefore, from my perspective, "indeterminable". Would you say that this implies the RNG is also "indeterministic"?
To the best of my knowledge a truely randon number generator has not yet been developed. They are much more nearly so than even a few years ago, but as I understand it not yet truly random. I do not believe that any thing man made can be truly random in principle.
Firstly, how do you define “truly random” in this case? Epistemically random, or ontically random?
If you mean epistemically, then existing computer RNGs ARE epistemically random (assuming that the user does not know the algorithm, which is normally the case).
If you mean ontically, then I would say this is the whole crux of our debate – one can never KNOW for sure if something is ontically random or not! How would you find out?
The whole point of the RNG example is that the RNG is epistemically random. Do you agree that it is possible to have an epistemically random RNG? (To ensure we both understand what this means it means simply this : An epistemically random RNG is an RNG which APPEARS to produce random numbers; it is in practice not possible for us to predict what numbers it will produce, but it NEED NOT be ontically random).
We can show that the epistemically random RNG is IN FACT not ontically random by resetting the RNG, and starting it again. In this case, we will find that it produces EXACTLY THE SAME numbers that it did before. In other words, it is behaving deterministically.
But there is no way that we could have KNOWN that it was behaving deterministically in the absence of resetting it. In other words, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL whether the apparent randomness was merely epistemic (a result of our limited knowledge) or truly ontically indeterministic.
The butterfly effect
………
ALL of this (absolutely ALL of it) can be explained in terms of 100% deterministic chaos. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR INDETERMINISM AT WORK HERE. If you believe there is then please do point it out.
(even the original author refers to deterministic chaos in his explanation)
Quantum fluctuation
…… it has been showed by quantum physics that particles don't even posess a distinct momentum and position.
I dispute this statement (that it has been “showed” (showed?)…. that “particles do not possess a distinct momentum and position”). Please produce the evidence. All that has been "showed" (sic) is that the momentum and position cannot both be measured accurately at the same time - these two properties are what Bohr referred to as complementary properties. But as I have pointed out again and again and again, "what we can measure" is not synonymous with "what is".
There is, of course, a cause why a radioactive atom decays …….. there is no way to explain why it happens at a certain time.
“There is no way to explain” is a direct indication of our epistemic horizon (our inability to explain) – it does NOT necessarily imply ontic indeterminism.
…….. This, in turn, makes complete knowledge of the position and momentum of any object impossible, and shows that indeterminism is a fundamental quality of nature.
Incorrect conclusion! I have highlighted the important word in the above - knowledge. The author explicitly refers to the fact that complete knowledge is impossible, and then INCORRECTLY infers from this that the universe is indeterministic! This is incorrect logic at its most basic. Our inability to KNOW the reality of the world is an epistemic property, it simply shows that the world is INDETERMINABLE, it DOES NOT show that the world is necessarily INDETERMINISTIC.
There is a difference!!!!!
Summary
I have here shown that Quantum particles give rise to small fluctuations which are amplified in a process known as the butterfly effect. This process creates information from entropy and consolidates the indeterminist position. Chaos theory and, particulary, Quantum physics have made the Laplacian "World Spirit" impossible.
The author confuses two very different phenomena – chaos and QM. This confusion alone is enough to cast doubt on the author’s credibility.
Chaos IS deterministic (read any good textbook on chaos). There is absolutely NO evidence from chaos that the world is ontically indeterministic.
QM shows that the world is epistemically indeterminable, but it is WRONG to conclude from this that the world is necessarily ontically indeterministic.
How many times have I repeated this in this thread?

The inference “epistemically indeterminable implies ontically indeterministic” is FALSE.

‘nuff said!

May your God go with you

MF

[Tournesol]

Most of the "arguments" against determinism posted in this thread have been put forward as "scientific arguments" against determinism. My statement to the effect that it is fruitless to argue on a subject which is metaphysical was based on my implicit assumption that I was referring to scientific arguments.
Strictly you are correct. Even though the question being addressed in this topic is not scientific, we may still argue the issue metaphysically.
Can you offer any metaphysical arguments for or against determinism?


http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/det_darwin.html#randomness


Suppose out science was so perfect we could pedict the result of any experiement with 100% accurary. Would that not be evidence for determinism ?


The question assumes something which is false (that we can predict everything perfectly).. The question (as it relates to the real world) is therefore meaningless.




Suppose out science was so perfect we could predict the result of any experiement with 99% accuracy. Could we not infer
determinism from that (as indeed we did during the heyday of
Newtonian physics)


It is a little like asking “suppose that we know that unicorns exist, would that be evidence that unicorns exist”?
The obvious and uninteresting answer to this is “yes, of course”, but nevertheless the question does not relate to the real world.




No, it's like asking "how do we know unicorns do (not) exist -- what is the
evidence for (against) unicorns".


Note that the questions a) "Is it possible to discover the truth of falsehood of determinism" and
b) "is determinism actally true" are two different questions. You are arguing
as though the falsehood of b) implied the falsehood of a).




And causality is arguably a macroscopic illusion.


Can you argue it ?



Yes. IF I believed (a matter of faith) the world is indeterministic at the quantum level then I could interpret the results of QM as implying that there is no cause and effect at the quantum level, and what we see at the macro level is purely the result of statistics. However, I do NOT believe the world is indeterministic at the quantum level.



Verbal confusion: you seem to be treating "causality" and "determinism" as
synonyms. I think you can still have forms of causality (probablistic
causality,
necessary causes) in the absence of strict determinism.



Think in terms of self-consistency if you like -- but why call it
determinism ? The whole history of the term is tied to causal necessitation.



The term “causal” usually carries with it an implied one-way temporal aspect (whether it is defined that way or not, this is the way many people think of causation, and the way that Royce has used the term in his definition), such that “the past causes the future”. I do not see the world in such one-way temporal terms.



if you see the world in a different way, why describe it with a traditional
term (used, confusingly, in a non-traditinal way).

And why don't your complaints about meaningfulness apply to your own theory:
is your consistent-theories approach testable ?


In other words, I believe in determinism but not necessarily the determinism as defined by Royce above.


It may not even be determinism as defined by anybody anywhere except your
self.



Well, I believe in unicorns. I just don't define them as having horns.


With respect, Tournesol, it seems to me that you are being rather flippant here (not the quality of remark that I have come to expect from you).
Can you rationalise and justify your statement, as I did mine, as follows :



Originally Posted by moving finger
(Royce’s definition) implicitly assumes a temporal dimension in which "past" events cause "future" events, however it may be the case that past, present and future all co-exist in some timeless, self-consistent reality (in such a case it is just as true to say that "the future causes the past" as it is to say "the past causes the future").?



I'll repeat my original complaint: you havn't shown why we shouldn't level
down istead of level up --say that the past doesn't cause the future and
the future doesn't cause the past. If everything is all just timelessly there, why
would it need to to be caused ?

[moving finger]

if you are to choose either 'deterministic' or 'non-deterministic' as an answer, i.e. if you are to answer the question at all, the only logical answer is 'non-deterministic'.
Why? You are saying the world is necessarily non-deterministic because nobody can see the determinism?
Using the same logic I could claim that a tree falling in a forest makes no noise if there is nobody there to hear it.
Why? The falling tree is necessarily soundless because there is nobody to hear the noise.
The same logic applies.
I hope you can see that this logic is incorrect.
The caveat that any answer is subject to future scientific discovery goes without saying, which is why we don't say it.
The whole point is that it is impossible in principle ever to falsify either determinism or indeterminism. Whichever one you choose to believe in, it can never be falsified scientifically. For this reason the question is metaphysical; for this reason the question is scientifically meaningless; for this reason one's belief is simply a matter of faith.
MF

[Tournesol]

Firstly, how do you define “truly random” in this case? Epistemically random, or ontically random?
If you mean epistemically, then existing computer RNGs ARE epistemically random (assuming that the user does not know the algorithm, which is normally the case).
If you mean ontically, then I would say this is the whole crux of our debate – one can never KNOW for sure if something is ontically random or not! How would you find out?
If you equate knowledge with absolute certainty, you can't.
If you equate it with the best available hypothesis, as science does,
you can. (Where "best" leans heavily on Occam's razor)
I dispute this statement (that it has been “showed” (showed?)…. that “particles do not possess a distinct momentum and position”). Please produce the evidence. All that has been "showed" (sic) is that the momentum and position cannot both be measured accurately at the same time - these two properties are what Bohr referred to as complementary properties. But as I have pointed out again and again and again, "what we can measure" is not synonymous with "what is".
The best (ie simplest) hypothesis is that the x & p cannot be simultansoulsy measured because they don't exist (this is also born out by wave
mechanics; if photons really are bundles of waves, ontologically,
they should not have a simultaneous well-defined x & p).
Deterministic hypotheses (in terms of hidden variables) are possible,
but are more complex, and thus do not consitute scientific knwoledge in the sense explained above.
“There is no way to explain” is a direct indication of our epistemic horizon (our inability to explain) – it does NOT necessarily imply ontic indeterminism.
Incorrect conclusion! I have highlighted the important word in the above - knowledge. The author explicitly refers to the fact that complete knowledge is impossible, and then INCORRECTLY infers from this that the universe is indeterministic! This is incorrect logic at its most basic. Our inability to KNOW the reality of the world is an epistemic property, it simply shows that the world is INDETERMINABLE, it DOES NOT show that the world is necessarily INDETERMINISTIC.
There is a difference!!!!!
The world is indeterminable when knowledge=certainty.
The world is indeterministic when knowledge=best hypothesis.
The author confuses two very different phenomena – chaos and QM. This confusion alone is enough to cast doubt on the author’s credibility.
Chaos IS deterministic (read any good textbook on chaos). There is absolutely NO evidence from chaos that the world is ontically indeterministic.
QM shows that the world is epistemically indeterminable, but it is WRONG to conclude from this that the world is necessarily ontically indeterministic.

It's wronger to conclude that it is deterministic.

[...edit...]

This leaves QM. Let’s go over this again. The classical example of “QM indeterminism” that most people like to give is “radioactive decay”.
What we can say for sure about radioactive decay is that it APPEARS TO BE RANDOM. This is an epistemic property. But there is NO EXPERIMENT we can ever carry out which would allow us to decide unequivocally whether or not radioactive decay is REALLY RANDOM (an ontic property). There may be non-local hidden variables at work (which would make it a deterministic process), and such a possibility HAS NOT BEEN RULED OUT NOR CAN BE RULED OUT by experiment.

1) Local hidden variables have been ruled out by the Aspect experiment.

2) HV theories can be ruled out by Occam's razor.

[Tournesol]

To the best of my knowledge a truely randon number generator has not yet been developed. They are much more nearly so than even a few years ago, but as I understand it not yet truly random

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/

[El Hombre Invisible]

Hi Royce
I dispute this statement (that it has been “showed” (showed?)…. that “particles do not possess a distinct momentum and position”). Please produce the evidence. All that has been "showed" (sic) is that the momentum and position cannot both be measured accurately at the same time - these two properties are what Bohr referred to as complementary properties. But as I have pointed out again and again and again, "what we can measure" is not synonymous with "what is".
...
Incorrect conclusion! I have highlighted the important word in the above - knowledge. The author explicitly refers to the fact that complete knowledge is impossible, and then INCORRECTLY infers from this that the universe is indeterministic! This is incorrect logic at its most basic. Our inability to KNOW the reality of the world is an epistemic property, it simply shows that the world is INDETERMINABLE, it DOES NOT show that the world is necessarily INDETERMINISTIC.

You slightly misrepresent the HUP, I think, but in a common way. It is not just a case that the exact momentum and exact position cannot be known simultaneously: the particle itself cannot (currently) be described in those terms. The best model we have for predicting the results of experiments is one in which the particle does not have exact position and momentum at any given time, whether we ask about them or not.

So, again, to counter your hypothesis that those properties may be real and so determine the result of the measurement, it may also be true that those properties do not even exist at all except in a measurement. That leaves us with current scientific understanding and so again, if you are to ask whether QM is deterministic or not (and any other answer is ignored), we have to go with the answer that best fits our best model (with the usual unspoken caveat) - that it is not deterministic.


There is absolutely NO evidence from chaos that the world is ontically indeterministic.

Further than that, I think you may say if a system is non-deterministic, it is not chaotic.

[Tournesol]

Why? You are saying the world is necessarily non-deterministic because nobody can see the determinism? Using the same logic I could claim that a tree falling in a forest makes no noise if there is nobody there to hear it.

Actually, the logic is: "there is not a hippopotamus in this room because
no-one can see a hippopotamus in this room ."


I hope you can see that this logic is incorrect.
The whole point is that it is impossible in principle ever to falsify either determinism or indeterminism.

Using standards of verification much higher than thopse usally employed in science.

Whichever one you choose to believe in, it can never be falsified scientifically.

Yes it can, because science includes Occam's razor which rules out
hidden causes/variables.

[El Hombre Invisible]

Why? You are saying the world is necessarily non-deterministic because nobody can see the determinism?

Again, that's not what I said. My post leaves open the option to not answer the question, hence the qualification: if you are to answer that the Universe is deterministic or non-deterministic...

It's a process of elimination. If you answer the question you can only do so using current scientific models. Since this includes non-deterministic processes, you cannot answer 'it is deterministic'. You are forced to answer either 'it is not deterministic' or 'we don't know'. The former is correct with the afore-mentioned caveat. The latter would seem to be more correct, but utterly useless in scientific/philosophical debate, since you can give that answer to anything and get nowhere.


Using the same logic I could claim that a tree falling in a forest makes no noise if there is nobody there to hear it.
Why? The falling tree is necessarily soundless because there is nobody to hear the noise.
The same logic applies.
I hope you can see that this logic is incorrect.

This 'riddle' is a matter of defining words, nothing else. Now we understand how sound propagates, we may define sound as either being the longitudinal wave through air, or the interpretation of it by something capable of detecting it. The latter is more sensible because we already have the words 'sound wave' to define the former, so your answer is correct, but does not make any counter-argument.


The whole point is that it is impossible in principle ever to falsify either determinism or indeterminism. Whichever one you choose to believe in, it can never be falsified scientifically. For this reason the question is metaphysical; for this reason the question is scientifically meaningless; for this reason one's belief is simply a matter of faith.

Faith suggests the choice to believe in something. This is not mutually exclusive with accepting or rejecting a scientific principal. As I said earlier, I accept that some processes are not deterministic as a scientific principal, but do not have to put any faith in it. Also, it is not true that we cannot in principal falsify determinism or indeterminism. For instance, prior to the knowledge bequeathed to us by Newton, the roll of a die will have been thought to be indeterministic. Now we think it to be deterministic because we have more fundemental knowledge. We may acquire even more fundemental knowledge one way or the other. We cannot spell the end of this journey of discovery here and now, so you cannot claim either are non-falsifiable.

Also, this applies to individual process only. So long as there is one process that can be shown to be non-deterministic, the Universe is non-deterministic. You don't falsify indeterminism, you falsify determinism.

[Q_Goest]

Seems there are 2 thoughts being argued here:

1) Quantum events such as radioactive decay may be deterministic given non-local hidden variable theories, thus the universe may be governed by deterministic processes. The point to be made in this case is that such theories are "beyond our epistemic horizon and the question cannot be answered" today and in fact may never be knowable. This lack of knowledge doesn't mean the universe ISN'T deterministic, only that we don't yet know and it could be.

2) Quantum events such as the classic radioactive decay presently appear to be indeterminate, so we should accept this until otherwise shown false.

Seems to me there's little purpose in arguing either of these two points since there is no immediate answer to the issue. One can conclude that both of these views are 'faith based' if you will.

Regardless of which view you hold, I would ask why you want to hold that view? What good does it do? In order for either case to be of value, you must determine what can logically be deduced if we hold that assumption to be true. It seems to me the best thing to do is to see what might logically be concluded given we start with one assumption or the other. If we assume everything is deterministic for example, we can conclude "free will" is also deterministic though that doesn't get us too far either but at least that's an example. So if the conclusion we reach can tell us something about the initial assumptions, great! If not, then arguing the point seems like only so much self stimulation.

[moving finger]

It seems to me that in using this phrase what you mean is something like “if the truth or falsity of a statement about the world is ontologically unknowable then this means it is impossible for an agent to know whether the statement is either true or false”, would this be a correct interpretation of your phrase?
Yes, but that is not the way I intended. I had in mind real uncaused, random events. That is as simple as I can make it.
What you have just described is ontic indeterminism. If “real uncaused random events” are possible then the world is ontically indeterministic, regardless of our knowledge about the world.
I see no reason to use the phrase “ontologically unknowable” rather than simply saying “unknowable” (this is in fact an oxymoron – ontology has nothing necessarily to do with our knowledge about the world, which is in fact epistemology).
We need to be very careful to distiguish between “reality” (the way the world is) and our “knowledge of reality”. Reality may not always be what we think it is.
It has been said (by Feynman, I think, among others) that no one understands QM and if they think that they do they don't know QM.
What Feynman was referring to here (imho) was EXACTLY what I am saying – there is a limit to our knowledge, we can measure whatever we like, but we simply do not and cannot know the underlying reality. Period.
If you do not except that we can know reality are you saying that it, reality is ontologically unknowable or epistemologically unknowable?
What I am saying is that I believe that reality is unknowable.
Again, the phrase “ontologically unknowable” seems to me like an oxymoron.
We can make as many measurments as we like, but there will always be a limit to our knowledge. Our knowledge is an epistemic property of the world, hence my claim that there is an epistemic horizon. Ontic properties (the way the world really is) are not necessarily associated with any knowledge (hence my claim that ontologically unknowable is an oxymoron).
If reality is hidden from us, which the latter implies, then why and how can we make scientific statements with such verifiable accuracy and predictions that can be verified?
There is a limit to all measurements – this is EXACTLY what QM tells us (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle). There is a limit to our knowledge of the world. There is an epistemic horizon. (these are all ways of saying the same thing). Thus it follows that we can NEVER know the total truth about the world, we can never know reality – all we ever know is what we measure.
You have refuted nothing.
Oh good grief! Please read post #9 of this thread once again. You gave 4 “examples of evidence” that the world is indeterministic. I showed why not a single one of these can be considered as definitive evidence that the world is necessarily indeterministic.
You have only refused to accept anything as indeterministic or ontological.
I have shown that it is incorrect to infer the truth of ontic indeterminism from epistemic indeterminability. This is a fact.
You repeatedly say the everything I and others say is epistemological.
By definition (check your definitions) everything we know about the world IS epistemological! That is exactly what epistemological means.
In my opinion, you confuse the issue. If something is unknowable in reality it is ontologically unknowable.
Again, this (ontologically unknowable) is an oxymoron. An ontic property is a property of the world, it does not rely on or require anyone to “know” anything about it.
If something is unknowable then it is simply “unknowable”.
The ultimate reality of the world is unknowable.
If something is knowable in reality but unknown or unknowable to us then it is epistemologically unknown or unknowable.
Is this your definition of these phrases? (I do not mean the word “epistemologically”, I mean the phrase “epistemologically unknowable”).
If something IS unknowable then by definition it is “epistemologically unknowable” (this is a non-sequitur, because epistemology is about what we know). Therefore to say that something is “epistemologically unknowable” is to say nothing more than to say it is “unknowable” (for the same reason, “ontologically knowable” is an oxymoron).
If something is unknowable in reality is is also unknowable to us but that does not make it epistemologically unknowable to the exclusion of being ontologically unknowable.
Can I please ask if anyone else reading this thread understands the meaning of the above sentence? If so, can you please explain it to me?
It just seems to me that semantically "deterministic chaos" has to be an oxymoron. This has nothing to do with the theory of which I am totally ignorant, just the words themselves.
Then with respect, read up about chaos. It is not what you seem to think it is, I assure you. It is a deterministic process.
If one assumes an intentional intelligent design, at least in nature, then it is intentional induced randomness in order to insure a good mix of genes. If one does not or cannot accept this assumption then it still accomplishes the same thing, a good mix of genes. This randomness is real and actually exists in the world and thus the universe.
Why would epistemic indeterminability not work just as well? Why need it necessarily be ontic indeterminism?
Invoking non-local hidden variables …….. is pure BULL S___T!
Which christmas cracker did you read this one from?
With respect, I suggest you read up about non-local hidden variables theories.

You are right to claim that I can never prove the world is deterministic, just as you can never prove that it is fundamentally indeterministic. This is my whole point.

The truth is that nobody knows, and nobody ever can know, whether the world is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic.

So why do you continue to insist that it is indeterministic?

It is purely a matter of faith.

May your God go with you

MF

[moving finger]

if you are to choose either 'deterministic' or 'non-deterministic' as an answer, i.e. if you are to answer the question at all, the only logical answer is 'non-deterministic'.
This a good example of " argumentum ad ignorantiam", which means "arguing from ignorance" I do not mean any disrespect here, El Hombre - this is an accepted term in logical argumentation (see http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html).
"Argumentum ad ignorantiam" basically means the argument under consideration is a fallacy because it is argued that something must be true simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific principle.)

My position all along has been that neither determinism nor indeterminism can be shown to be true (or false), therefore (following argumentum ad ignorantiam) it is illogical to conclude that either one is true (or false), therefore whether we believe one or the other is a matter of faith, not one of either science or logic.

With respect

MF

[Tournesol]

With respect, I do not "suppose the existence of undetectable causes".

It follows quite logically from the dualism implied in "observer" and "observed" that there must be a limit to our epistemic ability, there must be an epistemic horizon, because the process of observation always entangles "observer" and "observed". In other words, in the final analysis there is no such thing as a truly objective measurement or observation. It follows from this that the nature of ultimate reality must always be unknown and unknowable.

Then you are an agnostic about (in)determinism ? But you are not,
you keep saying you are a determinist.

Basically, you are juggling 3 claims, each of which is incomaptible with the
others

1) agnosticism -- we just don't know
2) conventional determinism (eg hidden-variables QM)
3) some weird theory of atemporal determinism.

[moving finger]

Actually, the logic is: "there is not a hippopotamus in this room because no-one can see a hippopotamus in this room ."
Actually the logic (in the case of QM) is “we are all blind, we cannot see a hippopotamus, therefore there is no hippopotamus”.
The argument is false due to "argumentum ad ignorantiam" (arguing something is true simply because it has not been proven that it is false, or that it is false simply because it has not been proven to be true).

The whole point is that it is impossible in principle ever to falsify either determinism or indeterminism.
Using standards of verification much higher than thopse usally employed in science.
Using scientific standards

science includes Occam's razor which rules out hidden causes/variables.
Occam’s razor does not falsify any hypotheses

MF

[moving finger]

Firstly, how do you define “truly random” in this case? Epistemically random, or ontically random?
If you mean epistemically, then existing computer RNGs ARE epistemically random (assuming that the user does not know the algorithm, which is normally the case).
If you mean ontically, then I would say this is the whole crux of our debate – one can never KNOW for sure if something is ontically random or not! How would you find out?
If you equate knowledge with absolute certainty, you can't.
If you equate it with the best available hypothesis, as science does, you can. (Where "best" leans heavily on Occam's razor)
Is that what your argument in favour of indeterminism boils down to, Occam’s razor?
I can equally well argue that Occams’ razor favours determinism. Appealing to Occam’s razor does not falsify any hypothesis.
The simple fact is that we do not know whether the world is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic. To suggest that the world is necessarily indeterministic simply because there is no evidence to the contrary is the logical equivalent of “argumentum ad ignorantiam” (arguing based on ignorance), which is fallacious.
The best (ie simplest) hypothesis is that the x & p cannot be simultansoulsy measured because they don't exist (this is also born out by wave mechanics; if photons really are bundles of waves, ontologically, they should not have a simultaneous well-defined x & p).
In the case of a “wave”, it is not the case that specific values of momentum and position “do not exist”, it is rather that the concept of simultaneous momentum and position (particle concepts) are meaningless when applied to a wave. Therefore to ask the question “what is the momentum and position of this wave” is a meaningless question.
Incidentally, Schroedinger’s wave equation is completely deterministic, there is absolutely no indeterminism involved in his wave mechanics.
Deterministic hypotheses (in terms of hidden variables) are possible, but are more complex, and thus do not consitute scientific knwoledge in the sense explained above.
Since when does a hypothesis “constitute scientific knowledge” simply by virtue of its being simple?
An hypothesis that fits the facts is a valid hypothesis.
Both the hypothesis of “indeterminism” and the hypothesis of “determinism” fit the facts, but neither can be falsified, thus both hypotheses could be classified as metaphysical. There is no legitimate scientific or logical basis for ruling out either hypothesis.
The world is indeterministic when knowledge=best hypothesis.
Ontic indeterminism has nothing necessarily to do with knowledge.
QM shows that the world is epistemically indeterminable, but it is WRONG to conclude from this that the world is necessarily ontically indeterministic.
It's wronger to conclude that it is deterministic.
“wronger”? That is a curious expression. Perhaps if I had said “it is false to conclude from this that the world is necessarily ontically indeterministic” you would have replied
“It's falser to conclude that it is deterministic”?
Quite apart from this - I have not concluded the world is deterministic. Read my posts again.
This leaves QM. Let’s go over this again. The classical example of “QM indeterminism” that most people like to give is “radioactive decay”.
What we can say for sure about radioactive decay is that it APPEARS TO BE RANDOM. This is an epistemic property. But there is NO EXPERIMENT we can ever carry out which would allow us to decide unequivocally whether or not radioactive decay is REALLY RANDOM (an ontic property). There may be non-local hidden variables at work (which would make it a deterministic process), and such a possibility HAS NOT BEEN RULED OUT NOR CAN BE RULED OUT by experiment.
1) Local hidden variables have been ruled out by the Aspect experiment.
ALL local theories are ruled out by the Aspect experiment. Watever the world is, it is non-local. But read my statement again – I said “There may be non-local hidden variables at work (which would make it a deterministic process), and such a possibility HAS NOT BEEN RULED OUT NOR CAN BE RULED OUT by experiment.”
.
2) HV theories can be ruled out by Occam's razor.
I could equally argue that indeterminism can be “ruled out” by Occam’s razor. As already pointed out, Occam’s razor does not falsify hypotheses.
Is this what your argument for ontic indeterminism boils down to? Occam’s razor?
With respect
MF

[moving finger]

You slightly misrepresent the HUP, I think, but in a common way. It is not just a case that the exact momentum and exact position cannot be known simultaneously: the particle itself cannot (currently) be described in those terms.
What particle? You slightly misrepresent the meaning of QM, I think, but in a common way. When we picture the world in terms of either discrete particles or of waves when thinking of quantum objects we are trying to impose our macroscopic concepts onto the quantum world. But quantum objects do not simply behave like classical particles, neither do they behave like classical waves. The best we can do is to suggest that they can possess particle-like or wave-like aspects, depending on how we try to measure them.
The best model we have for predicting the results of experiments is one in which the particle does not have exact position and momentum at any given time, whether we ask about them or not.
The best model we have for predicting results is one in which quantum objects can possess particle-like or wave-like aspects, depending on how we try to measure them. To ask a question like “what is the position and momentum of this wave?” is obviously a meaningless question.
So, again, to counter your hypothesis that those properties may be real and so determine the result of the measurement, it may also be true that those properties do not even exist at all except in a measurement.
Agreed. Either interpretation “may” be correct. That is the whole point.
That leaves us with current scientific understanding and so again, if you are to ask whether QM is deterministic or not (and any other answer is ignored), we have to go with the answer that best fits our best model (with the usual unspoken caveat) - that it is not deterministic.
This is, once again, “argumentum ad ignorantiam”, which is fallacious. It is fallacious to conclude that something is true simply because we cannot prove it false (or to conclude it is false simply because we cannot prove it true).
I think you may say if a system is non-deterministic, it is not chaotic.
How does this follow?
With respect
MF

[moving finger]

Suppose out science was so perfect we could predict the result of any experiement with 99% accuracy. Could we not infer determinism from that (as indeed we did during the heyday of Newtonian physics)
The only scientific basis for ruling out indeterminism is to falsify the hypothesis that “there exist one or more indeterministic processes”.
Newtonian physics did not “scientifically rule out indeterminism” so much as simply “assume determinism” (which is not the same thing). (Even then, because not everything could be explained, Newton conceded that God might be needed to intervene every now and again to keep the deterministic clockwork universe running smoothly)
it's like asking "how do we know unicorns do (not) exist -- what is the evidence for (against) unicorns".
This is not the type of question you originally asked.
Note that the questions a) "Is it possible to discover the truth of falsehood of determinism" and b) "is determinism actally true" are two different questions. You are arguing as though the falsehood of b) implied the falsehood of a).
Then you misunderstand my position.
Let me explain.
I am arguing that a) is false (ie it is NOT possible to discover the truth or falsehood of determinism).
It then follows from this that it is impossible to answer b).
you seem to be treating "causality" and "determinism" as synonyms. I think you can still have forms of causality (probablistic causality, necessary causes) in the absence of strict determinism.
I do not treat causality and determinism as synonyms. I am specifically addressing deterministic causality in my post, because determinism is what this thread is all about. If you wish to discuss other forms of causality maybe another thread would be appropriate.
The term “causal” usually carries with it an implied one-way temporal aspect (whether it is defined that way or not, this is the way many people think of causation, and the way that Royce has used the term in his definition), such that “the past causes the future”. I do not see the world in such one-way temporal terms.
if you see the world in a different way, why describe it with a traditional term (used, confusingly, in a non-traditinal way).
Terms are tools. Providing I define what I mean by the tools that I use, I can use whatever tools I wish. To claim that I use a tool in a non-traditional way is a matter of opinion. Do you have something meaningful to say here, or (with respect) are you being argumentative just for the sake of it?
And why don't your complaints about meaningfulness apply to your own theory:is your consistent-theories approach testable ?
I am lost here. What complaints are you referring to?
In other words, I believe in determinism but not necessarily the determinism as defined by Royce above.
It may not even be determinism as defined by anybody anywhere except yourself.
What relevance does this have to the discussion? Again, do you have something meaningful to say here, or (with respect) are you being argumentative just for the sake of it?
I'll repeat my original complaint: you havn't shown why we shouldn't level down istead of level up --say that the past doesn't cause the future and
the future doesn't cause the past. If everything is all just timelessly there, why
would it need to to be caused ?
I did not say anything needs to be caused. I said “it is just as true to to say that the future causes the past as it is to say the past causes the future", to illustrate that this is the subjective perspective that many people take – that “X causes Y”. This is an interpretation that some (including Royce) may place on it. I never said this was my interpretation.
MF

[moving finger]

It's a process of elimination. If you answer the question you can only do so using current scientific models. Since this includes non-deterministic processes, you cannot answer 'it is deterministic'.
There are also models which are purely deterministic, therefore using your own logic (from above) it follows that you also cannot answer “it is indeterministic”.
Scientifically we cannot rule out determinism. Neither can we rule out indeterminism. Therefore all we can conclude (logically and scientifically) is that we do not know. Period.
You may claim that “this gets us nowhere” – but with respect that is not my problem, and it is not Nature’s problem. It is not Nature’s obligation to behave as we wish.
If Nature is such that “we simply do not, and cannot, know” then, with respect, we better learn to live with it.
it is not true that we cannot in principal falsify determinism or indeterminism. For instance, prior to the knowledge bequeathed to us by Newton, the roll of a die will have been thought to be indeterministic. Now we think it to be deterministic because we have more fundemental knowledge. We may acquire even more fundemental knowledge one way or the other. We cannot spell the end of this journey of discovery here and now, so you cannot claim either are non-falsifiable.
This is the illusion afforded by the classical paradigm – that we can always probe deeper and deeper, to smaller and smaller dimensions, and always find an unequivocal answer. QM teaches us that the classical paradigm is a mere approximation, and (ultimately) false. There is a LIMIT to our knowledge of reality, because in the final analysis we are a part of that reality. This is the whole basis of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (HUP), which has no parallel in classical physics, but is part of the bedrock of QM. There is already an end of the journey – our epistemic horizon ends at the HUP.
You don't falsify indeterminism, you falsify determinism.
For any given process, one can hypothesise that the process is either determinsitic or indeterministic. One can then attempt to falsify the hypothesis. This is scientific method.
The problem is that the scientific method fails at the epistemic horizon. For quantum processes, there is simply no way that the hypothesis “this process is indeterministic” can be falsified, and equally there is no way that the hypothesis “this process is deterministic” can be falsified.
MF

[moving finger]

Seems there are 2 thoughts being argued here:
1) Quantum events such as radioactive decay may be deterministic given non-local hidden variable theories, thus the universe may be governed by deterministic processes. The point to be made in this case is that such theories are "beyond our epistemic horizon and the question cannot be answered" today and in fact may never be knowable. This lack of knowledge doesn't mean the universe ISN'T deterministic, only that we don't yet know and it could be.
Exactly correct. Unfortunately some readers then commit the logical error of " argumentum ad ignorantiam" - arguing from ignorance - by assuming that determinism must therefore be false simply because it cannot be proven true. This is fallacious. The correct logical and scientific conclusion is that we simply do not know whether determinism is true or not (which is the same as saying that we do not know whether indeterminism is false or not).
2) Quantum events such as the classic radioactive decay presently appear to be indeterminate, so we should accept this until otherwise shown false.
This is logically fallacious. It is again an example of "argumentum ad ignorantiam" - assuming that indeterminism is necessarily true because we cannot show it to be false. This is a classical logical error.
.......arguing the point seems like only so much self stimulation.
Isn't that what philosophy is all about? :smile:

To be more serious - I think what we can (and should) learn from this is what I have been saying all along - that the world we live in has an epistemic horizon (characterised by the HUP) - that we can NEVER know reality beyond that horizon, and any question we ask about the reality beyond that horizon (such as is the world fundamentally deterministic or not?) is unanswerable, hence unscientific, hence metaphysical. If we could at least agree on this then we might have achieved something!

MF

[Tournesol]

Actually the logic (in the case of QM) is “we are all blind, we cannot see a hippopotamus, therefore there is no hippopotamus”.

If "we are all blind" is supposed to mean "quantum indeterminism is entirely
epistemic" that is conentious and question-begging.

The argument is false due to "argumentum ad ignorantiam" (arguing something is true simply because it has not been proven that it is false, or that it is false simply because it has not been proven to be true).

The argument is that lack of ontological causes is the simplest (Occams'
razor) explanation for epistemic unpredictability.

Occam’s razor does not falsify any hypotheses

Given that there is a potential infinity of hypotheses which are compatible with
(equivalently: not falsified by) the data , some further means is needed
to arrive at the "best" hypothesis. No, O's R is not falsification; but falsification alone cannot do the job.

[Tournesol]

Is that what your argument in favour of indeterminism boils down to, Occam’s razor?
I can equally well argue that Occams’ razor favours determinism. Appealing to Occam’s razor does not falsify any hypothesis.
The simple fact is that we do not know whether the world is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic. To suggest that the world is necessarily indeterministic

I didn't say necessarily.

simply because there is no evidence to the contrary is

I didn't say that either. I said ontological indeterminism is the best explanation for epistemic unpredicabiltiy, by O's R.

In the case of a “wave”, it is not the case that specific values of momentum and position “do not exist”, it is rather that the concept of simultaneous momentum and position (particle concepts) are meaningless when applied to a wave. Therefore to ask the question “what is the momentum and position of this wave” is a meaningless question.

That is a difference that doesn't make a difference. To show that
the HUP is merely epistemic, you have to show that the wave-function
description is false in spite of the fact that it works extremely well.

No, the WF description is not necessarily true, but it is the best current explanation.

Incidentally, Schroedinger’s wave equation is completely deterministic, there is absolutely no indeterminism involved in his wave mechanics.

I know.
It is mathematically deterministic. To infer ontological determinism
from it is to assume the MW theory.

Since when does a hypothesis “constitute scientific knowledge” simply by virtue of its being simple?

William of Ockham died in 1349.

An hypothesis that fits the facts is a valid hypothesis.
Both the hypothesis of “indeterminism” and the hypothesis of “determinism” fit the facts, but neither can be falsified, thus both hypotheses could be classified as metaphysical. There is no legitimate scientific or logical basis for ruling out either hypothesis.

O's R is the basis fpr saying that one hypothesis is better than
another. Better does no mean "necessarily true".


“wronger”? That is a curious expression. Perhaps if I had said “it is false to conclude from this that the world is necessarily ontically indeterministic” you would have replied
“It's falser to conclude that it is deterministic”?


Yes. scientific knowledge comes in degrees. The chief source of your confusion is this obsession with absolutes "necessarily".

The world is not necessarily deterministic or indeterministic. Nonetheless, indeterminism
is the simpler, truer , more plausible hypothesis.

Quite apart from this - I have not concluded the world is deterministic. Read my posts again.

You claimed that determinism, not indeterminism, was supported by O's R.

ALL local theories are ruled out by the Aspect experiment. Watever the world is, it is non-local. But read my statement again – I said “There may be non-local hidden variables at work (which would make it a deterministic process), and such a possibility HAS NOT BEEN RULED OUT NOR CAN BE RULED OUT by experiment.”.

True as stated, but you seem to think this is a positive arguemnt in favour of determinism. It isn't.

I could equally argue that indeterminism can be “ruled out” by Occam’s razor.

That's twice you've made that claim: are you going to support it?

As already pointed out, Occam’s razor does not falsify hypotheses.

As I have explained, that is true but irrelevant.

Is this what your argument for ontic indeterminism boils down to? Occam’s razor?

Yes. It's better than nowt.

[moving finger]

If "we are all blind" is supposed to mean "quantum indeterminism is entirely epistemic" that is conentious and question-begging.
It means “there is an epistemic horizon beyond which it is impossible to see”. That epistemic horizon is characterised by the HUP.
I am not a sympathiser of Bohr, but he was right in his teaching that any speculation as to what is “really going on” is just that – speculation. All we can ever know is what we measure, we can never know “reality”.
In other words, we are blind to what is “really going on” at the quantum level. But it would be fallacious to conclude that our inability to falsify indeterminism necessarily means the world is indeterministic.

No, O's R is not falsification; but falsification alone cannot do the job.
If we agree that Occam's razor is the only basis for deciding the question determinism vs indeterminism then I am happy with that conclusion.

With respect

MF

[Royce]

Which is why it pays to adhere to the universally accepted definitions of such words. A simple quadratic map can yield chaotic results: i.e. results that diverge dramatically when negligible but definite differences between starting values are input. Nonetheless, such maps are inarguably deterministic: whatever value you put in, you will get a definite answer after X iterations.

Yes, I agree with all that you say. However if the inputs are random and unknowable then the results are indeterministic. This is why, as I'm sure you know, that I think the Uncertainty Principle plays a significant role in making the universe indeterministic.

You defined determinism and indeterminism accurately in your poll. Sticking to processes that truly fit the bill (pending, for MF's sake, the discovery of underlying deterministic mechanisms in such processes), what is your opinion of your poll now?

I'm not sure of the point of your question. I think the poll is still a valid inquiry; but a little disappointed that more people haven't responded and no one has really said why they believe as they do.

It is more interesting IMHO to consider the extent of indeterminism on the Universe as a whole. You cannot accurately predict exactly how many radioactive atoms will decay after X units of time, but pragmatically speaking it is a predictable process (assuming there are enough atoms in the sample). The thing that interests me, and I think pretty much everyone, is: if such processes are fundamentally non-deterministic, where does the predictability come from?

Statistics. But then "There are liars, and then damn liars, there there are statisticians." I think Mark Twain said that.

If deterministic chaos seems an oxymoron, predictable indeterminism must seem more so.

Yeah it does; but all that I'm saying is that the universe is not wholly deterministic, that while cause and effect do play a major role in determining the outcome of many or most events, there is still an element or uncertainty and randomness in the universe. Enough at least to allow for freewill and some degree of indeterminism. What would be the point of creating a universe that is totally deterministic? Of course those who are bent on denying any form of creation are all but force to believe exclusively in cause and effect, reductionism and determinism. They are determined to make the universe deterministic just as I am determined to make it indeterministic

[Royce]

Hi Royce
Second installment

Firstly, how do you define “truly random” in this case? Epistemically random, or ontically random?

I would have thought by now that that was obvious and the word truly was added only to add emphasis. If something is random it must be ontologically so. I cannot imagine anything that could be epistemologically random and not ontologically random.




If you mean epistemically, then existing computer RNGs ARE epistemically random (assuming that the user does not know the algorithm, which is normally the case).

If the algorithm is knowable then the results are not random either epistemologically or ontologically. Again if something is random then it must be ontologically random and the term epistemologically random has no meaning. While they are big words and I know that you like using them I don't think that you have a really good understanding of there meaning and implication.

If you mean ontically, then I would say this is the whole crux of our debate – one can never KNOW for sure if something is ontically random or not! How would you find out?

I don't know. Possibly a mathematician would be able to prove something is random but I doubt it.

The whole point of the RNG example is that the RNG is epistemically random. Do you agree that it is possible to have an epistemically random RNG? (To ensure we both understand what this means it means simply this : An epistemically random RNG is an RNG which APPEARS to produce random numbers; it is in practice not possible for us to predict what numbers it will produce, but it NEED NOT be ontically random).

I understand what you are saying. I just don't think that your choice of word is very good. "epistemically random" has no real meaning. Just as RNG is a misnomer. They ain't random but for all practical purposes they are nearly so and can be used under most circumstances in place of random numbers.
(as an example but completely aside, back in the 286 computer days of MSDOS prior to MS WINDOWS there were a number of very simple games such as card games that asked the player to pick a number 1-9999 to seed the RNG. I wrote a card shuffling program in BASIC to attach to these programs using the RNG to "randomly" select the card value and place it in a "random" position it the deck data base file. Even if you had the program shuffle the deck 7 times, if you used the same number to seed the RNG you got the same deck. I think that at that time they (MS) simply used the decimal places of Pi and the seed number was just where the RNG started in the chain.)

I dispute this statement (that it has been “showed” (showed?)…. that “particles do not possess a distinct momentum and position”). Please produce the evidence.

Electrons have a significant wave function and as such have no definite position as in a point particle which is is not. One of the main findings of Quantum Physics is that there is no such thing as a point particle. As far a no definite momentum I have read this before in other Quantum works but have no good understanding of it. I'm still trying to figure out how a massless photon can have momentum


All that has been "showed" (sic) is that the momentum and position cannot both be measured accurately at the same time - these two properties are what Bohr referred to as complementary properties. But as I have pointed out again and again and again, "what we can measure" is not synonymous with "what is".

I agree with all that you say except that it is a theoretical fact that they cannot be measured at the same time ontologically not just epistemologically.
If you would read more modern works on QM and someone other than Bohr you would find out more about what QM is. Of course I only know what I have read, but a number of different PHD physicist authors have all said the same thing. Don't put your faith is an undergraduate physics text. They all lie a lot for simplicity and understanding's sake

Incorrect conclusion! I have highlighted the important word in the above - knowledge. The author explicitly refers to the fact that complete knowledge is impossible, and then INCORRECTLY infers from this that the universe is indeterministic! This is incorrect logic at its most basic. Our inability to KNOW the reality of the world is an epistemic property, it simply shows that the world is INDETERMINABLE, it DOES NOT show that the world is necessarily INDETERMINISTIC.
There is a difference!!!!!

Funny, I read "complete knowledge is impossible" as ontologically impossible as in unknowable. Which is the same thing that I am saying. Even in Chaos theory the results are predictable only it all of the variable inputs are known,
If the inputs are unknowable (ontologically unknowable) the the results are indeterministic.

[Royce]

If not, then arguing the point seems like only so much self stimulation.

Finally an accurate, usable definition of Philosophy

[moving finger]

If something is random it must be ontologically so. I cannot imagine anything that could be epistemologically random and not ontologically random.
Hmmmm. If Royce says “this computer APPEARS to be behaving randomly” then Royce is making an epistemic judgement – a judgement about what Royce can see/know/understand.
The statement “I cannot imagine anything that could be epistemologically random and not ontologically random” would imply that if Royce sees a computer which APPEARS to be behaving randomly (epistemic) then it is necessarily always the case that the computer IS INDEED behaving randomly (ontic).
In other words, epistemic randomness would always imply ontic randomness. In other words, Royce could by definition never be mistaken in his opinion of the computer’s behaviour.
Is this the case?
if something is random then it must be ontologically random and the term epistemologically random has no meaning.
Hmmmmm. Chaotic systems are in fact perfect examples of epistemically random and ontically deterministic systems. It is impossible to KNOW (epistemic) how a chaotic system will evolve, and yet they are truly deterministic (thus they are not ontically random).
While they are big words and I know that you like using them I don't think that you have a really good understanding of there meaning and implication.
With respect, if you believe I have demonstrated a misunderstanding of these concepts then please do point this out. I am not proud, I willingly accept constructive criticsim.
Please understand, I do not use these words “because they are big” or “because I am trying to impress”, but simply because they express in the most concise possible way the key issues that are at stake here – the way the world REALLY IS (ontology) and what we KNOW about the world (epistemology).
What we know does not always correspond to the way the world really is.
I don't know. Possibly a mathematician would be able to prove something is random but I doubt it.
“I don’t know” expresses your epistemic perspective. The point I am trying to make is that, in the final analysis, all we have is what we “know”, but none of us has access to reality.
The whole point of the RNG example is that the RNG is epistemically random. Do you agree that it is possible to have an epistemically random RNG? (To ensure we both understand what this means it means simply this : An epistemically random RNG is an RNG which APPEARS to produce random numbers; it is in practice not possible for us to predict what numbers it will produce, but it NEED NOT be ontically random).
I understand what you are saying. I just don't think that your choice of word is very good. "epistemically random" has no real meaning. Just as RNG is a misnomer
Epistemic encapsulates “what we know or can know”. I’m not sure how one can conclude that this “has no meaning”. Think again of the “deterministic chaos” example.
They ain't random but for all practical purposes they are nearly so and can be used under most circumstances in place of random numbers.
(as an example but completely aside, back in the 286 computer days of MSDOS prior to MS WINDOWS there were a number of very simple games such as card games that asked the player to pick a number 1-9999 to seed the RNG. I wrote a card shuffling program in BASIC to attach to these programs using the RNG to "randomly" select the card value and place it in a "random" position it the deck data base file. Even if you had the program shuffle the deck 7 times, if you used the same number to seed the RNG you got the same deck. I think that at that time they (MS) simply used the decimal places of Pi and the seed number was just where the RNG started in the chain.)
Yes, this is exactly correct! The point is – if one did not know the “seed”” then one could not predict the numbers that would be generated. This is a PERFECT example of “epistemic randomness” – the inability to predict simply because we have insufficient knowledge. I hope you can see that the RNG was not “ontically random” – in other words it was still operating deterministically – if you provide it with the same seed then it produces the same sequence of numbers – hence was behaving deterministically.
Electrons have a significant wave function and as such have no definite position as in a point particle which is is not. One of the main findings of Quantum Physics is that there is no such thing as a point particle.
I agree completely. The problem with the concept of “point particles” is that we are trying to impose our macroscopic concepts onto the quantum world. There is no reason to believe that “point particles” exist in the quantum world.
As far a no definite momentum I have read this before in other Quantum works but have no good understanding of it. I'm still trying to figure out how a massless photon can have momentum
The same way that a massless photon can have energy. The “massless” aspect is related to the “rest mass” – the theoretical mass when the entity is not moving (which is impossible for a photon – but maybe this encapsulates the whole problem with quantum physics). The energy and momentum of a photon arise from the kinetic energy of the phorton.
I agree with all that you say except that it is a theoretical fact that they cannot be measured at the same time ontologically not just epistemologically.
I agree they cannot be measured at the same time. I think you and I are actually very close to agreement. Epistemology is all about measurement.
If you would read more modern works on QM and someone other than Bohr you would find out more about what QM is.
Thank you for the advice
Of course I only know what I have read, but a number of different PHD physicist authors have all said the same thing. Don't put your faith is an undergraduate physics text. They all lie a lot for simplicity and understanding's sake
I agree completely.
I read "complete knowledge is impossible" as ontologically impossible as in unknowable.
“complete knowledge is impossible” would correspond to : epistemology is at best an approximation to ontology.
Which is the same thing that I am saying. Even in Chaos theory the results are predictable only it all of the variable inputs are known,
Yes – the point is that it is impossible to know the “variable inputs” with sufficient accuracy – hence the results are always inaccurate.
If the inputs are unknowable (ontologically unknowable) the the results are indeterministic.
In chaos theory the inputs are epistemically unknowable to the required degree of precision – this is what gives rise to indeterministic results.
May your God go with you
MF

[moving finger]

I said ontological indeterminism is the best explanation for epistemic unpredicabiltiy, by O's R.
OK, sounds cool (not that I agree of course)
To show that the HUP is merely epistemic, you have to show that the wave-function description is false in spite of the fact that it works extremely well.
I have never suggested the wave function description is false. The wave function in fact evolves completely deterministically! The HUP is not synonymous with the wave function.
Schroedinger’s wave equation is completely deterministic, there is absolutely no indeterminism involved in his wave mechanics.
To infer ontological determinism from it is to assume the MW theory.
Non-local hidden variables does not assume MW.
William of Ockham died in 1349.
Sorry to hear that. We all do, I guess.
O's R is the basis fpr saying that one hypothesis is better than another. Better does no mean "necessarily true".
Agreed. O’s R is open to interpretation.
scientific knowledge comes in degrees..
Logic does not come in degress, unless one disputes the law of the excluded middle.
The world is not necessarily deterministic or indeterministic.
Thus one DOES dispute the law of the excluded middle?
What would one propose as an alternative to either deterministic or indeterministic?
You claimed that determinism, not indeterminism, was supported by O's R.
That is my “belief”, just as your own belief supports indeterminism. Belief does not equate with logical proof.
ALL local theories are ruled out by the Aspect experiment. Watever the world is, it is non-local. But read my statement again – I said “There may be non-local hidden variables at work (which would make it a deterministic process), and such a possibility HAS NOT BEEN RULED OUT NOR CAN BE RULED OUT by experiment.”
you seem to think this is a positive arguemnt in favour of determinism.
With respect, where did I say that? In fact I think it is an argument in favour of “we do not know”
I could equally argue that indeterminism can be “ruled out” by Occam’s razor.
That's twice you've made that claim: are you going to support it?
Sure. At the macroscopic level, everything we measure is supported by the concept of cause and effect – determinism. No evidence for any indeterminsim at this level. When we get to the quantum level, we reach an epistemic horizon where we can no longer see reality – we can no longer see the determinism. Some may interpret this to mean that “determinism has suddenly and magically disappeared” – but this would require a new paradigm where determinism is suddenly and mysteriously replaced by indeterminism – this requires invoking new concepts and multiplying possibilities – much more simple to assume that determinism exists at ALL levels……QED
Is this what your argument for ontic indeterminism boils down to? Occam’s razor?
Yes. It's better than nowt.
Aye, but it’s what we’re both left with, innit?
G’day
MF

[El Hombre Invisible]

This a good example of " argumentum ad ignorantiam", which means "arguing from ignorance"

I agree, your argument does arise from ignorance. Specifically, you seem to be ignoring the thing you think you are arguing against. Despite the fact I keep telling you I conclude neither that the Universe is deterministic, nor that it is not, you keep telling me that this indeed is my argument. Perhaps reading what you are replying to would be a good idea before you begin typing.


My position all along has been that neither determinism nor indeterminism can be shown to be true (or false), therefore (following argumentum ad ignorantiam) it is illogical to conclude that either one is true (or false), therefore whether we believe one or the other is a matter of faith, not one of either science or logic.

Beyond the ignorance of what you are actually arguing about, you seem to be also ignorant of the fact that you are giving a very old, very overused, very pointless argument. "We do not really know, so we cannot really say." Well, I addressed this point several times and the fact that you are still regurgitating this as an argument means you are either not reading anyone's posts but your own or you really cannot grasp basic English. Or basic logic. I will try one more time for the sake of God-only-knows-what to explain to you once more.

Nobody claims to 'know' something like this. Nobody claims to 'know' how the strong interaction is mediated. Nobody claims to 'know' how gravity is caused. However, it slows communication and debate down interminably if everyone has to utter words like "pending, of course, the future discovery of some scientific principal that proves/disproves X, Y or Z" at the end of every point. It would be annoying. In fact, you are demonstrating quite effectively how annoying it is.

The OP is not asking for absolute, God-like knowledge. Nor is it asking for beliefs. It asks for appraisals of accepted scientific notions. They might turn out wrong, just like EVERYTHING we know might turn out wrong. What do you want to do - stop teaching physics in school because - hey, we don't know if some of this stuff might get disproved one day?!? Grow up, mate. Everyone knows the argument. Everyone has heard it a million times before. We continue on the basis that accepted scientific notions are true pending such future discoveries. We don't NEED to reiterate this everytime we say or type a sentence. We don't NEED to answer every question with "I don't know" just in case our answer conflicts with some unknowable future discovery. It is not "argumentum ad ignorantiam" - it is done IN FULL AWARENESS that any current understanding may or will be outdated some day.

Now... have I at the very least made myself clear? Because that's going to be the last time I explain why your argument is pointless and irritating.

What particle? You slightly misrepresent the meaning of QM, I think, but in a common way.

Okay, you've tried to be cocky, but this is either ignorant or nonsense. They're still referred to as 'particles', or 'quantum particles' even in QM.

There are also models which are purely deterministic, therefore using your own logic (from above) it follows that you also cannot answer “it is indeterministic”.

Okay, now you've blown too big a whole in your own argument. You only need one non-determinstic process in an otherwise deterministic Universe to have a non-deterministic Universe. A single process will do the trick. So no - showing a process to be deterministic does not show the Universe to be deterministic. However, showing one process to be NON-deterministic DOES show the Universe to be non-deterministic. If you cannot grasp this very simple concept you are fighting a losing battle.


Scientifically we cannot rule out determinism. Neither can we rule out indeterminism. Therefore all we can conclude (logically and scientifically) is that we do not know. Period.

Addressed earlier. Can be said about anything and is not science, however true it might be.


You may claim that “this gets us nowhere” – but with respect that is not my problem, and it is not Nature’s problem. It is not Nature’s obligation to behave as we wish.

No, it is not your problem. It is OUR problem since we have to listen to you yack on about it as if you're the first person to ever notice this. As true as your statement may be, it has no philosophical or scientific worth here.


If Nature is such that “we simply do not, and cannot, know” then, with respect, we better learn to live with it.

But since we do not know whether Nature is that way about a given process, your suggestion is irrelevant. We do not know for sure what we cannot know for sure, so again your argument has no application and no place in this discussion.


The problem is that the scientific method fails at the epistemic horizon. For quantum processes, there is simply no way that the hypothesis “this process is indeterministic” can be falsified, and equally there is no way that the hypothesis “this process is deterministic” can be falsified.
MF
Do you know what an atom is? Do you know why it is called an atom? It means "indivisible", because it was thought that these particles were the most fundemental. It transpires they are not - the are comprimised of more "indivisible" particles, except some of those aren't "indivisible" either. And yet we still call the atom the atom and we all know what it means. This is yet another area under which you are mistaken: terminology.

The processes that we now call 'non-deterministic' may all, at some future point, be shown to be deterministic in principal, even if this has no practical advantage. Nonetheless, there will still be a requirement to distinguish such processes from other processes that we currently call 'deterministic'. Like the atom, the underlying truth may change, but the word and it's definition-by-applicability will remain.

I'm done on this thread. I don't think, MF, you are making a good argument. In fact I think you are more likely using this thread as an opportunity to get an unrelated matter off your chest - that we cannot truly know anything for sure. This thread is about determinism and indeterminism, it is not about epistimology, so your continued insistance on using this thread to sound off on this matter smacks of thread hi-jacking.

As I said: we UNDERSTAND your argument. Everyone had heard it many, many, many times before. We are all familiar with it. Everyone except you seems to understand that it goes without saying. So come up with something new and on-topic and stop trying to turn this thread into something it was not meant to be.

[Royce]

El Hombre Invisible, thank you and me too until and unless someone else comes up with a reasonable response.

[moving finger]

I keep telling you I conclude neither that the Universe is deterministic, nor that it is not
See post #44 :
if you are to answer the question at all, the only logical answer is 'non-deterministic'.
…..
It is not useful to answer ……… with "we don't know"
And post #54
if you are to ask whether QM is deterministic or not (and any other answer is ignored), we have to go with the answer that best fits our best model (with the usual unspoken caveat) - that it is not deterministic.
If you do NOT (despite the quotes above) think the universe is non-deterministic, perhaps you would enlighten us and tell us what you DO think. Or is that a secret? Clearly you do not think “we don’t know” is acceptable. Neither do you think “the universe is deterministic” is acceptable. Then what is?
Or perhaps your answer is “I choose not to answer the question”?
Please do enlighten us.
Beyond the ignorance of what you are actually arguing about, you seem to be also ignorant of the fact that you are giving a very old, very overused, very pointless argument.
Let’s try to keep the discussion civil shall we? The above remarks are offensive and unnecssary, please do refrain from such childish behaviour. You betray your own low intelligence by resorting to such behaviour.
It would be annoying. In fact, you are demonstrating quite effectively how annoying it is.
With respect, I am equally annoyed by condescending and arrogant attitudes along the lines of “I know better than you, you are ignorant, so just shut up and believe what I am saying and let that be an end to it”.
The OP is not asking for absolute, God-like knowledge. Nor is it asking for beliefs. It asks for appraisals of accepted scientific notions.
And I have been giving such rational appraisals. You seem not to agree with what I am saying, but that is beside the point. You have every right to put forward your own opinion.
Grow up, mate.
Stop being so utterly childish yourself! If you are unable to discuss ideas rationally without resorting to personal insult then that reflects very badly on yourself. Grow up!
Everyone knows the argument. Everyone has heard it a million times before.
How arrogant of you that you seem to think you speak for “everyone”
We continue on the basis that accepted scientific notions are true pending such future discoveries. We don't NEED to reiterate this everytime we say or type a sentence.
With respect : There are those on this forum who INSIST that indeterminsim has been shown to be true. I refute that. If you are saying that I have no right to refute that, then please explain why, rather than resorting to insulting language.
Now... have I at the very least made myself clear? Because that's going to be the last time I explain why your argument is pointless and irritating.
You have made it clear that you have nothing useful to say apart from throwing out stupid and childish personal insults. Shame on you. If this is all you can do, and you are irritated by rational argument, perhaps you should not be here in the first place.
MF

[moving finger]

What particle? You slightly misrepresent the meaning of QM, I think, but in a common way.
Okay, you've tried to be cocky,
I have not “tried to be cocky” – I have responded to your post in exactly the same manner of your own preceding post, which was ::
You slightly misrepresent the HUP, I think, but in a common way.
Is this being cocky? It seems you are easily offended.
this is either ignorant or nonsense. They're still referred to as 'particles', or 'quantum particles' even in QM.
Now you are perhaps betraying your own ignorance of QM.
There are also models which are purely deterministic, therefore using your own logic (from above) it follows that you also cannot answer “it is indeterministic”.
Okay, now you've blown too big a whole in your own argument. You only need one non-determinstic process in an otherwise deterministic Universe to have a non-deterministic Universe. A single process will do the trick. So no - showing a process to be deterministic does not show the Universe to be deterministic.
I never said that it did. Perhaps you can’t read?
I said “There are also models which are purely deterministic, therefore …….. you also cannot answer “it is indeterministic”.”
Which part of this says that the universe is deterministic?
However, showing one process to be NON-deterministic DOES show the Universe to be non-deterministic. If you cannot grasp this very simple concept you are fighting a losing battle.
If you cannot read and understand English you are wasting your time and mine.
It has not been shown that any process is non-deterministic. Period.
Scientifically we cannot rule out determinism. Neither can we rule out indeterminism. Therefore all we can conclude (logically and scientifically) is that we do not know. Period.
Addressed earlier. Can be said about anything and is not science, however true it might be.
The basis of science is to proceed on the falsification of hypotheses.
Because of the HUP, the hypothesis “the world is indeterministic” is not falsifiable – this makes it unscientific.
Similarly the hypothesis “the world is deterministic” is also not falsifiable – this makes it unscientific.
The most science can say about the world beyond the HUP is that it appears to be indeterministic, but there is NO WAY we can test it, and no way we can know. Period.
It is OUR problem since we have to listen to you yack on about it as if you're the first person to ever notice this.
This infantile comment is not worthy of an intelligent reply.
We do not know for sure what we cannot know for sure, so again your argument has no application and no place in this discussion.
Feel free to engage in metaphysical speculation about what might or might not be possible beyond the bounds of our current scientific knowledge, but do not insult science by calling it science.
This is yet another area under which you are mistaken: terminology.
Give an example of my mistaken teminology. (oh, and this is from the person who thinks quantum objects are particles?)
As I said, feel free to engage in metaphysical speculation about what might or might not be possible beyond the bounds of our current scientific knowledge, but do not insult science by calling it science.
I'm done on this thread. I don't think, MF, you are making a good argument.
With respect, you are making no argument at all – your position seems to be “let’s forget about rational argument, let’s just throw out personal insults instead”
This thread is about determinism and indeterminism, it is not about epistimology, so your continued insistance on using this thread to sound off on this matter smacks of thread hi-jacking.
Oh I see, so the great know-it-all El Hombre Invisible decrees that a debate on determinism vs indeterminism has nothing at all to do with epistemology?
As I said: we UNDERSTAND your argument. Everyone had heard it many, many, many times before. We are all familiar with it.
again the arrogance to assume that you speak for everyone. i am amazed anyone can be so thoroughly arrogant. despite your assurances, there are still those on here who continue to argue that it has been shown that the world is indeterministic….. proving that you are indeed mistaken
With Respect
MF

[Q_Goest]

2 cents :grumpy: : One of the hallmarks of this board is that the folks here generally uphold a higher level of respect for others. People will listen if you're genuine and considerate but you'll loose them if you debate using brute force. (was that $ .02?) :confused:

[moving finger]

2 cents :grumpy: : One of the hallmarks of this board is that the folks here generally uphold a higher level of respect for others. People will listen if you're genuine and considerate but you'll loose them if you debate using brute force. (was that $ .02?) :confused:
You can have my 2 cents for that. I agree completely with what you said.

I apologise to El Hombre if my last posts were somewhat emotive - in my defence I was simply replying to what appeared to me to be arrogant and offensive remarks directed to me in his/her own posts.

There is no need for arrogance, no need for insults, no need for offensive remarks. These tactics tend to be the resort of the few who have run out of rational argument.

nuff said

MF

[moving finger]

Question : The poll results look weird. It shows 53.33% for and 53.33% against - is that just my display or is something not right?

anybody know what's going on?

perhaps the polling software is behaving indeterministically? :smile:

MF

[Tournesol]

It means “there is an epistemic horizon beyond which it is impossible to see”. That epistemic horizon is characterised by the HUP.
I am not a sympathiser of Bohr, but he was right in his teaching that any speculation as to what is “really going on” is just that – speculation. All we can ever know is what we measure, we can never know “reality”.
In other words, we are blind to what is “really going on” at the quantum level. But it would be fallacious to conclude that our inability to falsify indeterminism necessarily means the world is indeterministic.

As usual, that argument would suggest that we have no scientific knowledge
about anything. As ever, it remains the case that indeterminism is the best
current hypothesis even if it isn't "necessarily" true.



If we agree that Occam's razor is the only basis for deciding the question determinism vs indeterminism then I am happy with that conclusion.

The conclusion that indeterminism, while not "necessarily" true,
is the best hypothesis?

[moving finger]

it remains the case that indeterminism is the best
current hypothesis even if it isn't "necessarily" true.
I won't argue with the conclusion that indeterminism is not necessarily true - but the "best current hypothesis" is pure metaphysical speculation and imho a matter of subjective opinion

The conclusion that indeterminism, while not "necessarily" true,
is the best hypothesis?
see above (and the way I voted in the poll)

:smile:

MF

[Tournesol]

I won't argue with the conclusion that indeterminism is not necessarily true - but the "best current hypothesis" is pure metaphysical speculation and imho a matter of subjective opinion

No, it is based on Occam's rzor.


see above (and the way I voted in the poll)

All I can see is a bunch of insults and wrangling.

[Royce]

While nothing is known with absolute certainty we can and do use the knowledge and logic at hand to come to tentative conclusions that are usable and accurate to enable us to change the world we live in.

I think that it has been successfully shown the the Universe is not wholly deterministic at lease within the present limits of our knowledge.

I still have yet to see anyone post their reason for believing that the Universe is deterministic.

[moving finger]

No, it is based on Occam's razor.

I can argue just the opposite from Occam's razor - that the simplest explanaion is "it's determinism all the way down", there is no "magical boundary" at which a new paradigm of indeterminism takes over.

MF

[moving finger]

I think that it has been successfully shown the the Universe is not wholly deterministic at lease within the present limits of our knowledge.

With respect, it has not been "shown the universe is not wholly deterministic".

All that has been shown is that "we do not know if the universe is deterministic or indeterministic" - the question has NOT been answered one way or the other according to strict scientific principles.

There are both workable deterministic and workable indeterministic hypotheses which explain everything we know about the world - neither has been ruled out by experiment.

I still have yet to see anyone post their reason for believing that the Universe is deterministic.

It is the same as the reason why some believe the world is indeterministic - it is purely a matter of belief/faith, not one that science has answered.

Or do you perhaps have another reason for believing it is indeterministic?

MF

[Tournesol]

I can argue just the opposite from Occam's razor - that the simplest explanaion is "it's determinism all the way down", there is no "magical boundary" at which a new paradigm of indeterminism takes over.
MF

But the macroscopic world isn't uniformly deterministic.
And we can explain how macroscopic determinism arises
naturally from microscopic indeterminism -- no additional
metaphysical posits are required.

[Royce]

With respect, it has not been "shown the universe is not wholly deterministic".

I and others have given examples with ample support that there are random events occurring in both the macro and micro scales of the universe. To the best of our present knowledge these examples are truly random and thus the universe is not wholly deterministic.

You have not accepted those examples as true examples of randomness but have not shown any support for your claims nor shown what makes the universe deterministic. What property of the universe determines everything that happens? Is it cause and effect? Then we end up with the First Cause or Uncaused Cause argument which is unanswerable and does not account for the random events that we sited. Occam's Razor applies equally well to both sides of the argument. However, I believe that and indeterministic universe is the simplest and least complicated, which Occam's Razor demands, because it is not calling for nor requires an unknown cause.

There are both workable deterministic and workable indeterministic hypotheses which explain everything we know about the world - neither has been ruled out by experiment.

This is simply not true. Experiments in Quantum physics, and radioactive decay show that there are random events that are not and cannot be deterministic to the best of our present knowledge. If you call forth unknown non-local entanglements for example you then are violating Occam's razor yourself while claiming that it makes determinism the best bet.

[moving finger]

But the macroscopic world isn't uniformly deterministic.
Where is your evidence for the suggestion that the world isn't uniformly ONTICALLY deterministic?

MF

[Tournesol]

Where is your evidence for the suggestion that the world isn't uniformly ONTICALLY deterministic?

MF

Lack of macroscopic predictability

Lack of microscopic predictability.

[Tournesol]

P.S I didn't say "necessarily"

[moving finger]

I and others have given examples with ample support that there are random events occurring in both the macro and micro scales of the universe.
With respect, examples have been provided of “epistemic indeterminability”. Epistemic indeterminability does NOT necessarily imply ontic indeterminism. I trust by now that you understand the difference.

To the best of our present knowledge these examples are truly random and thus the universe is not wholly deterministic.
To the best of our knowledge these examples are examples of epistemic indeterminability; epistemic indeterminability is not synonymous with ontic indeterminism; and thus we really have no idea whether the universe is wholly deterministic or not.

You have not accepted those examples as true examples of randomness but have not shown any support for your claims nor shown what makes the universe deterministic.
I have never claimed that the universe IS deterministic. My claim all along has been “we have no way of knowing”, and whether one believes the universe is deterministic or not is a matter of FAITH and not of SCIENCE.

What property of the universe determines everything that happens? Is it cause and effect? Then we end up with the First Cause or Uncaused Cause argument which is unanswerable and does not account for the random events that we sited.
There is no “first cause” in a deterministic but unbounded spacetime

Occam's Razor applies equally well to both sides of the argument. However, I believe that and indeterministic universe is the simplest and least complicated, which Occam's Razor demands, because it is not calling for nor requires an unknown cause.
“you believe” is fine. I believe just the opposite – that the simplest solution is “everything is deterministic” – and there is no first cause because an unbounded spacetime requires no first cause. Which is also fine.

There are both workable deterministic and workable indeterministic hypotheses which explain everything we know about the world - neither has been ruled out by experiment.
This is simply not true. Experiments in Quantum physics, and radioactive decay show that there are random events that are not and cannot be deterministic to the best of our present knowledge.
Here you are plainly mistaken. It is NOT POSSIBLE to show by experiment either that the world is ultimately deterministic, or that it is indeterministic. The HUP places a limit on what we can know about the world – whether the world is deterministic or not is BEYOND the HUP.

If you call forth unknown non-local entanglements for example you then are violating Occam's razor yourself while claiming that it makes determinism the best bet.
Is this any worse than calling forth unknown indeterminism?

(BTW – if you study QM closely you will find that the world IS non-local, and it IS entangled – whether or not it is deterministic)

MF

[moving finger]

Lack of macroscopic predictability
Lack of microscopic predictability.
oh dear oh dear oh dear.

you still confuse predictability (an epistemic property) with deterministic (an ontic property)? No wonder you are confused

MF

[Tournesol]

oh dear oh dear oh dear.
you still confuse predictability (an epistemic property) with deterministic (an ontic property)? No wonder you are confused
MF
Lack of ontic determinism is the simoplest explanantion for lackof epistemic predictability. Lack of ontic determinism is nonetheless not necessarily true..but what did I say ?

[Tournesol]

I have never claimed that the universe IS deterministic. My claim all along has been “we have no way of knowing”, and whether one believes the universe is deterministic or not is a matter of FAITH and not of SCIENCE.
There is a middle way between Faith and Necessary Truth: best explanation.

[moving finger]

Lack of ontic determinism is the simoplest explanantion for lackof epistemic predictability. Lack of ontic determinism is nonetheless not necessarily true..but what did I say ?
HUP is the simplest explanation for lack of epistemic predictability. And we understand why the HUP exists, which makes it an even better explanation. Ontic indeterminism is simply not necessary to explain anything.

MF

[moving finger]

There is a middle way between Faith and Necessary Truth: best explanation.
Yep - and the best explanation is determinism all the way down :smile:

MF

[Tournesol]

HUP is the simplest explanation for lack of epistemic predictability. And we understand why the HUP exists, which makes it an even better explanation. Ontic indeterminism is simply not necessary to explain anything.
MF

You think that HUP is something different from indeterminism ?
You think HUP is purely epistemic ?

[Royce]

Tournesol, I really cannot follow MF's line of thinking. Its like we're talking two different languages where words mean the opposite in the other.
If something is unknowable and unpredictable, truly random, then how can that support a deterministic universe view? To me it means the opposite, the Universe cannot be deterministic. Am I missing something or confused?