Is the Universe Governed by Determinism or Indeterminism?

[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 truly 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 continuous 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 beginning 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 truly 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 possesses 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 possesses 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 truly 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 possesses 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 fundamental knowledge. We may acquire even more fundamental 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.