How so? Just because you don't know what could cause such a correlation doesn't mean the correlation would always be there just because it is there when tested. Maybe an event that causes the particles to become entangled radiates a mind control wave to the experimenters but only at times where...
Having looked up where it was brought up, Super-determinism is not a special case of determinism at all and is actually a fairly simple fourth assumption.
Such a term shouldn't even be used to describe this possibility, it is actually a whole other assumption that is unrelated to the other 3...
Yeah... Has to be one or the other lol...
Anyways the natural laws and our ideas related to them are two different things. An important distinction to make especially when dealing with concepts like infinity.
You can remove ambiguity by using a special type of definition that refers to the...
That doesn't really address what I have just shown which is the limits of induction limits your ability to recognize all of your assumptions for precisely what they are.
In a *formal proof* all uncertainty is relegated to the premises. It could be wrong, but only if the premises are wrong...
I have an aversion to sorting through 2 page arguments that might end up not saying anything new anyways but I will go back and do so when I have time because you are an honest debater and took the time to write it. First though I wanted to comment on the Cracker scenario.
You are right...
If a person asks this question, they are likely to be interested in whether or not Quantum Mechanics disproves Determinism. As Thomas points out, it does no such thing. Any claim to the contrary is an argument from ignorance. We are not throwing out determinism because some people don't...
But our concept of time depends on the order in which we observe things which depends on the speed of light.
Consider the following perfectly acceptable under current beliefs thought experiment. Bob is blind and on a 500 ft/second train car with an open side door. He passes a man aiming a...
Then you missed the point of my question. I am not talking about a strictly classical die. I am talking about a dice in which present and future events affect past events.
The three assumptions are very wide sweeping and therefore I suppose it could be argued that they encompass a large number of other possible assumptions. However proof by negation still isn't proof or logic at all. I will say what I mean in a minute but...
Why would non locality in this one...
The labels and belief sets related to it are invented, the relations are discovered.
Thus it is mostly discovered in my opinion. It is really just a subset of deductive reasoning anyways to which the same question and answer applies.
Two questions about Bell that relate to things that I learned in philosophy and subsequently make it difficult to understand Bell's claims.
First, Bell says he has 3 assumptions and that one of them failed because his inequality was violated.
I gathered that proof by negation was invalid in...
In defense of Thomas's claim, I ask a question. Is there any way to replicate the interference pattern situation with a classical random situation by manipulating the passage of time.
For example, if you roll a dice that is designed such that it hitting the side of the table now will...