determinism or indeterminism

[VandD]

 

 

"Causation in the old sense no longer has any place in theoretical physics"

Block universe doesn't need 'causation'. An event exists in 4D spacetime until it is discovered/read by an observer's reference frame.

[studiot]

Block universe doesn't need 'causation'. An event exists in 4D spacetime until it is discovered/read by an observer's reference frame.

 

So you agree with what I have been saying consistently in this and other threads then.

 

 

studiot posts # 2 and 7

However you have correctly picked up that I am challenging your assertion that everything has a cause, though I do agree that you cannot have determinism without causation.

[Almighty]

I did a debate about this topic on atheist forum a few months ago and it was really wonderful thread. Please read everyones statement.

<removal of link by mod>

Edited September 21, 2016 by imatfaal
link off site

[studiot]

I did a debate about this topic on atheist forum a few months ago and it was really wonderful thread. Please read everyones statement.

 

<removal of link by mod>

 

Apart from bending the rules here for no reasonable justification that I can see, my only comment is that the site you linked to reminds me of those radio and tv shows where the 'mein genial host' insults guests who are only there to be insulted.

 

go well

Edited September 21, 2016 by imatfaal
removal of link offsite in quote

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Don't make posts for the single purpose of advertising other websites.

 

do not respond to this moderation

 

[Itoero]

I showed a cause, but to be deterministic the cause must always lead to the result.

In this case it did not so there was a cause, but it was not deterministic as I said.

When a cause does not lead to a result then it's not the cause that determines that effect. Then there is another cause that leads to the result.

Having or buying whisky is not the cause for drinking whisky, it enables you to drink whisky.

If you need to get up early the next day then that can be the cause for not drinking whisky.

If you can't digest alcohol, then that's the cause why you will never drink whisky.

If you have a whisky glass then that probably determines in which glass you will drink whisky.

If you have ice cubes in your freezer the that determines if you put ice in your whisky.

The ice cube tray you have determines the size and shape of the ice cubes you use.

[Almighty]

 

Apart from bending the rules here for no reasonable justification that I can see, my only comment is that the site you linked to reminds me of those radio and tv shows where the 'mein genial host' insults guests who are only there to be insulted.

 

go well

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Don't make posts for the single purpose of advertising other websites.

 

do not respond to this moderation

 

I posted that link because i found this amazingly coincident to my thread. These are the few highlights

 

links to utter crap removed by moderator - this is a science discussion forum!

Edited September 22, 2016 by Phi for All
multiple links removed that violated an earlier modnote

[Almighty]

 

I posted that link because i found this amazingly coincident to my thread. These are the few highlights

 

links to utter crap removed by moderator - this is a science discussion forum!

I didn't post any links. I posted arguments against determinism according to quantum theory.. So what do you mean by "links to utter crap" & " this is a science discussion forum!"

[ydoaPs]

!

Moderator Note

"Do not respond to this moderation" means do not respond to this moderation. Any dispute over moderation is to be done in PMs with the staff.

[MikeyC777]

All things have a prior cause, but that includes completely random events. So we can not determine the future as we do not know what the future random events might be. Even the universe arising from nothing had a cause, a completely random event where something arose from nothing.

[Itoero]

All things have a prior cause, but that includes completely random events. So we can not determine the future as we do not know what the future random events might be. Even the universe arising from nothing had a cause, a completely random event where something arose from nothing.

Imo we call an event random when there are to many causes or when the main cause is open for interpretation or simply not known.

[ozwi]

Strangely, no-one has mentioned Bohm.

Little doubt the over-whelming professional view today would be that we live in an indeterministic world because QM appears to be inherently indeterministic.

However, despite Von Neumann claiming to have proved that a hidden variables-based deterministic universe was impossible, he was shown (by David Bohm) to be wrong. Bohm was furthermore able to actually develop a hidden variables deterministic model that was consistent with all the experimental findings of QM. This 'Bohmian mechanics' (BM) model has been criticised on various grounds but as far as I know it remains a possible model. I think that it may make some predictions that are in conflict with the Copenhagen model/interpretation (& the others) but testing this would require precision that is not likely to be available in the foreseeable future.

There are various possibilities. eg I understand there is a version of BM that is inherently indeterministic. Of course, the deterministic models cannot be used in practice to predict the future with any useful precision (see chaos theory, etc etc).

My final thought is that the jury is out on this intriguing quesion of determinism - & seems likely to remain out for some time to come!

[Eise]

Are you rather a determinist or indeterminist?

 

I am a determinist. I consider everything as cause and effect. An indeterministic effect has a cause, which makes the process deterministic.

 

Determinism is the belief that events are caused by things that happened prior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

 

Indeterminism is the belief that events are not caused by things that happened prior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism

 

You cannot just believe or not believe in determinism, and then declare yourself determinist or indeterminist, like it is some kind of religion. It is a fact that the individual events as we measure them in QM cannot be predicted. We even know that there are no local causes determining what we will measure. So there is not not left much room for determinism in QM, except Bohm.

 

In chaos theory events are determined, and can in principle be predicted, however we quickly loose practical predictability, because we should know the beginning conditions in a precision we are not capable of.

 

Further I have no idea what an indeterministic effect is: this is a contradiction in terms, like a married bachelor.

 

And then the concepts of 'determinism' and 'causation' have strong connections, but one does not necessary follow from the other.

 

Too be short: your thinking is an utter chaos.

[Memammal]

It is a fact that the individual events as we measure them in QM cannot be predicted. We even know that there are no local causes determining what we will measure. So there is not not left much room for determinism in QM, except Bohm.

 

In chaos theory events are determined, and can in principle be predicted, however we quickly loose practical predictability, because we should know the beginning conditions in a precision we are not capable of.

Are you implying determinism = predictability and indeterminism = uncertainty? Could a seemingly uncertain (or seemingly random) outcome not be deterministic?

 

* EDIT * [i am deleting rest of this post as it has already been dealt with]

Edited October 27, 2016 by Memammal

[Itoero]

You cannot just believe or not believe in determinism, and then declare yourself determinist or indeterminist, like it is some kind of religion. It is a fact that the individual events as we measure them in QM cannot be predicted. We even know that there are no local causes determining what we will measure. So there is not not left much room for determinism in QM, except Bohm.

Not knowing the cause is not evidence for the absence of a cause.

 

Further I have no idea what an indeterministic effect is: this is a contradiction in terms, like a married bachelor.

Aren't quantum effects often called indeterministic effects?

Effects without a cause...that's what indeterminism is all about.

 

And then the concepts of 'determinism' and 'causation' have strong connections, but one does not necessary follow from the other.

If you look into the real meaning of those words then determinism is just the belief in causality. I suppose you don't agree with this. Can you then give an example of a deterministic effect without a cause?

[Eise]

Not knowing the cause is not evidence for the absence of a cause.

 

Of course. But experimental proof that some events cannot be (locally) caused, is knowing that there are no such causes.

 

Aren't quantum effects often called indeterministic effects?

Effects without a cause...that's what indeterminism is all about.

 

You mean events without a cause. But it is in the meaning of the word 'effect' that it is an effect of something: a cause. So nobody calls quantum effects indeterministic effects.

 

If you look into the real meaning of those words then determinism is just the belief in causality. I suppose you don't agree with this. Can you then give an example of a deterministic effect without a cause?

 

No. Determinism is the belief that there is only one way the world unfolds. This belief is older than just causal determinism, e.g. in certain religions. So it can be divine providence. And as I said, an effect always has a cause. But some events are not caused.

Are you implying determinism = predictability and indeterminism = uncertainty? Could a seemingly uncertain (or seemingly random) outcome not be deterministic?

 

Your word 'seemingly' says everything.

 

I only wanted to say that determinism implies the possibility of prediction. But not a certainty.

[Itoero]

Of course. But experimental proof that some events cannot be (locally) caused, is knowing that there are no such causes.

Can you show that experimental proof?

 

You mean events without a cause. But it is in the meaning of the word 'effect' that it is an effect of something: a cause. So nobody calls quantum effects indeterministic effects.

The words 'effect' and 'event' don't have an absolute definition. Depending on the observation/interpretation you can call something to be an effect or event.

 

No. Determinism is the belief that there is only one way the world unfolds. This belief is older than just causal determinism, e.g. in certain religions. So it can be divine providence. And as I said, an effect always has a cause. But some events are not caused.

Determinism is an emergent property. Causal determinism is determinism.

This is the Wikipedia definition of determinism:

"Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event."

Another way of saying this:

"Determinism is the philosophical position that for every effect there exist causes that could cause no other effect."

[studiot]

Now appearing on centre court eisa v itoero

 

30 love to Eise I think so +1 there for a combination of well phrased posts.

[Eise]

Can you show that experimental proof?

 

Yes. All kinds of Bell type experiments.

 

The words 'effect' and 'event' don't have an absolute definition. Depending on the observation/interpretation you can call something to be an effect or event.

 

Of course they are not absolutely defined. But it makes sense to agree on exact definitions, so that we know what we are trying to say each other. And thereby it is not a bad practice to use definitions that are as close as possible to the daily use. Causality uses to be described as the law of cause and effect. When there are no causes, or we do not know them, or are not interested in, one better uses event.

 

If you want to philosophise without being precise you are lost from the beginning.

 

Determinism is an emergent property. Causal determinism is determinism.

This is the Wikipedia definition of determinism:

"Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event."

Another way of saying this:

"Determinism is the philosophical position that for every effect there exist causes that could cause no other effect."

 

No. Determinism is the position that everything is determined, whatever way. Causal determinism is the form of determinism that comes along with physics, or one can say is a naturalistic form of determinism.

 

Another question is if the world is determined. The most usual interpretation of QM says it isn't. Still another question is if that matters for daily life. E.g. in the free will discussion, a majority of philosophers assumes that for all practical purposes we are determined, but that this fact does not oppose a correct definition of free will, i.e. most philosophers are compatibilists. Even more philosophers agree that fatalism and determinism are not the same and that the first does not follow from the second.

 

So in the end, I do not understand why you started this thread.

[studiot]

 

eise

No. Determinism is the position that everything is determined, whatever way. Causal determinism is the form of determinism that comes along with physics, or one can say is a naturalistic form of determinism.

 

Hey you should explain determinism to those embroiled in the blockhead, sorry block universe threads. +1

 

Or perhaps that is bad advice as it might get you embroiled as well.

[Memammal]

Hey you should explain determinism to those embroiled in the blockhead, sorry block universe threads. +1

 

Or perhaps that is bad advice as it might get you embroiled as well.

 

Good comment, studiot. This topic dovetails quite nicely into the various block universe "discussions". I enjoyed this thread, especially the latter part thereof. It would seem that one of the issues that is lacking in some of the other threads was also nicely picked up by Eise here:

 

But it makes sense to agree on exact definitions, so that we know what we are trying to say each other. And thereby it is not a bad practice to use definitions that are as close as possible to the daily use.

[Itoero]

Yes. All kinds of Bell type experiments.

Bell's Theorem states that the predictions of quantum mechanics, concerning correlations, being inconsistent with Bell's inequality, cannot be reproduced by any local hidden variable theory...this does not disprove nonlocal hidden variable theories, like you mentioned.

The Broglie-Bohm is such a nonlocal hidden variables theory....a causal interpretation...a deterministic theory.

 

What those experiments show is that our knowledge of physics comes short to explain the correlation and that quantum theory is very incomplete.

The absence of a cause is definitely not proven and is something you can't prove.

 

 

No. Determinism is the position that everything is determined, whatever way. Causal determinism is the form of determinism that comes along with physics, or one can say is a naturalistic form of determinism.

The Broglie-Bohm theory is a causal interpretation and is called a deterministic theory.

When everything is determined and there is only one way the world unfolds then everything is cause and effect.

Another question is if the world is determined. The most usual interpretation of QM says it isn't. Still another question is if that matters for daily life. E.g. in the free will discussion, a majority of philosophers assumes that for all practical purposes we are determined, but that this fact does not oppose a correct definition of free will, i.e. most philosophers are compatibilists. Even more philosophers agree that fatalism and determinism are not the same and that the first does not follow from the second.

 

So in the end, I do not understand why you started this thread.

My interpretation of QM tells me QM is to incomplete to make such a claim.

It depends what you consider to be free will. If free will is the ability to make a causally disconnected choice between different possible courses of action then I don't think free will exists.

Natural selection/survival of the fittest works through cause and effect.

 

I started this thread because I want to know if people are deterministic or indeterministic and why.

[Tim88]

Bell's Theorem states that the predictions of quantum mechanics, concerning correlations, being inconsistent with Bell's inequality, cannot be reproduced by any local hidden variable theory...this does not disprove nonlocal hidden variable theories, like you mentioned.

The Broglie-Bohm is such a nonlocal hidden variables theory....a causal interpretation...a deterministic theory.

 

What those experiments show is that our knowledge of physics comes short to explain the correlation and that quantum theory is very incomplete.

The absence of a cause is definitely not proven and is something you can't prove.

[..] I started this thread because I want to know if people are deterministic or indeterministic and why.

 

Right. On top of that, even Bell's Theorem has a difficult time; every now and then new papers appear in which theoretical local hidden variables reproduce the predictions of QM, just like the real Bell experiments that could be scrutinized. Regretfully many (maybe most real Bell experiments are not open to verification due to absence of the data.

 

I have no strong opinion if there is indeterminism in the world. Generally physics appears to function with cause and effect. However some processes look truly random. As a result I simply don't know if we have a free will or not.

Can such a thing be proven?

Edited November 1, 2016 by Tim88

[Eise]

Bell's Theorem states that the predictions of quantum mechanics, concerning correlations, being inconsistent with Bell's inequality, cannot be reproduced by any local hidden variable theory...this does not disprove nonlocal hidden variable theories, like you mentioned.

The Broglie-Bohm is such a nonlocal hidden variables theory....a causal interpretation...a deterministic theory.

 

Yes, it is deterministic, but at the cost of loss of any locality. Local events have causes by all particles in the universe, independent of distance. That is a high price. And practically, a difference with statistical predictions cannot be made, because it is impossible to know the causal influence of all the particles in the universe. So with Bohm you are theoretically right, but practically not. Do not forget: Bohm and Copenhagen are empirically equivalent.

 

What those experiments show is that our knowledge of physics comes short to explain the correlation and that quantum theory is very incomplete.

The absence of a cause is definitely not proven and is something you can't prove.

 

OK, the methodological hammer: you cannot prove there is a cause, especially because Bohm and Copenhagen are empirically equivalent.

 

 

The Broglie-Bohm theory is a causal interpretation and is called a deterministic theory.

When everything is determined and there is only one way the world unfolds then everything is cause and effect.

 

If you think about causal determinism, then of course. But it is much of a tautology. In causal determinism per definition every event has a cause. But before you can state that everything has a cause, you have to prove it. But even with Bohm you are not able to empirically prove it, because it is methodologically impossible.

 

 

My interpretation of QM tells me QM is to incomplete to make such a claim.

 

Ah, you are a well known QM-physicist! Can you explain to the specialist here why QM is incomplete? Einstein thought so too, so you are in good company. Pity enough, the practical experiment based on his EPR idea showed he was not right.

 

 

 

It depends what you consider to be free will. If free will is the ability to make a causally disconnected choice between different possible courses of action then I don't think free will exists.

 

Yes. But that is not what I think free will is. To give my idea in one single slogan: we are free to do what we want, but not to want what we want. So there is no conflict with determinism. Look up compatibilism if you want to know more.

 

I started this thread because I want to know if people are deterministic or indeterministic and why.

 

For all practical purposes, I consider people as determined, and most people have free will. But again you are unclear in your question. There are two interpretations of your question:

 

1. Are people determined?

2. Do you believe people are determined?

 

So I assume you wanted to know if people here in the forum are determinists, i.e.believe that determinism is true.

 

I still don't know if another question resonates in the background: if people are hard-determinists, i.e believe that we have no free will because the world is determined, and determinism and free will contradict each other.

 

The first thing in philosophy is to learn to ask meaningful and clear questions.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Eise

[studiot]

 

eise post#49

The first thing in philosophy is to learn to ask meaningful and clear questions.

 

 

Here is the catch.

 

The religious fraternity have a advantage over the scientific ones that believe in absolute determinism.

 

If you believe that every event has a cause then you cannot believe in the big bang since you cannot answer the question what caused the first event unless there was no first event.

 

If you are religious you have an explanation for creation.

 

I am not religious.