Is the Universe Governed by Determinism or Indeterminism?

[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 possesses 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 possesses 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 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.

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?

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 possesses 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 : 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?)

 

[moving finger]

2 cents : 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?)

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?

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)



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