Is the Universe Governed by Determinism or Indeterminism?

[Tournesol]

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

MF

Lack of macroscopic predictability

Lack of microscopic predictability.

 

[Tournesol]

P.S I didn't say "necessarily"

 

[moving finger]

I and others have given examples with ample support that there are random events occurring in both the macro and micro scales of the universe.

With respect, examples have been provided of “epistemic indeterminability”. Epistemic indeterminability does NOT necessarily imply ontic indeterminism. I trust by now that you understand the difference.

To the best of our present knowledge these examples are truly random and thus the universe is not wholly deterministic.

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

You have not accepted those examples as true examples of randomness but have not shown any support for your claims nor shown what makes the universe deterministic.

I have never claimed that the universe IS deterministic. My claim all along has been “we have no way of knowing”, and whether one believes the universe is deterministic or not is a matter of FAITH and not of SCIENCE.

What property of the universe determines everything that happens? Is it cause and effect? Then we end up with the First Cause or Uncaused Cause argument which is unanswerable and does not account for the random events that we sited.

There is no “first cause” in a deterministic but unbounded spacetime

Occam's Razor applies equally well to both sides of the argument. However, I believe that and indeterministic universe is the simplest and least complicated, which Occam's Razor demands, because it is not calling for nor requires an unknown cause.

“you believe” is fine. I believe just the opposite – that the simplest solution is “everything is deterministic” – and there is no first cause because an unbounded spacetime requires no first cause. Which is also fine.

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

This is simply not true. Experiments in Quantum physics, and radioactive decay show that there are random events that are not and cannot be deterministic to the best of our present knowledge.

Here you are plainly mistaken. It is NOT POSSIBLE to show by experiment either that the world is ultimately deterministic, or that it is indeterministic. The HUP places a limit on what we can know about the world – whether the world is deterministic or not is BEYOND the HUP.

If you call forth unknown non-local entanglements for example you then are violating Occam's razor yourself while claiming that it makes determinism the best bet.

Is this any worse than calling forth unknown indeterminism?

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

MF

 

[moving finger]

Lack of macroscopic predictability
Lack of microscopic predictability.

oh dear oh dear oh dear.

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

MF

 

[Tournesol]

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

Lack of ontic determinism is the simoplest explanantion for lackof epistemic predictability. Lack of ontic determinism is nonetheless not necessarily true..but what did I say ?

 

[Tournesol]

I have never claimed that the universe IS deterministic. My claim all along has been “we have no way of knowing”, and whether one believes the universe is deterministic or not is a matter of FAITH and not of SCIENCE.

There is a middle way between Faith and Necessary Truth: best explanation.

 

[moving finger]

Lack of ontic determinism is the simoplest explanantion for lackof epistemic predictability. Lack of ontic determinism is nonetheless not necessarily true..but what did I say ?

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

MF

 

[moving finger]

There is a middle way between Faith and Necessary Truth: best explanation.

Yep - and the best explanation is determinism all the way down

MF

 

[Tournesol]

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

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

 

[Royce]

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