Is the Universe Governed by Determinism or Indeterminism?

[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.

 

[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