determinism or indeterminism

[Itoero]

It makes quite a few predictions, actually. A prediction is not "telling us something that will happen in the future." Scientific predictions are parameters that we should expect any new evidence to fall within. If you discover new evidence, or run an experiment that generates results, which does not fall within the expected range of values set by the theory, then you either need to modify the theory to account for the new information or abandon it in favor of a theory that better explains all of the available evidence should one present itself.

 

Evolutionary theory guides our expectations about what we should and shouldn't find in the fossil record. What DNA comparisons should be able to tell us about the inter-relatedness of different species. How DNA can be used to trace population changes and migrations back through time. How different structures in different species, both some with similar purposes and some with very different purposes, should have arisen from the same source in an ancestral organism and the been adapted to different circumstances, which directs us to look for common developmental pathways. It guides out thinking on how pathogens develop new symptoms, transmission vectors and immunities to anti-biopics or vaccines.

 

Huge swathes of the healthcare industry and pretty much all of modern biology are predicated on the predictions made by evolutionary theory.

 

The fact that you don't know what those predictions are does not mean they do not exist.

That's true, Evolution theory was a bad example. I mean that a theory can be a description of an event that happened in the past.

[dimreepr]

Evolution theory was a bad example.

 

Ok then, give us a good example.

[Itoero]

What you fail to understand is that the empirically proven knowledge of physicists is that not any theory (already thought of or not) that contains local variables, hidden or not, can replicate the predictions of QM. It simply is not the case that some ideas, pet- or good theories, were falsified by Bell's theorem: any theory with local variables is ruled out definitely.

 

Do you understand this? And if so, why do you still hold to the opposite?

That was not what I meant. A 'theory' is a word that can be used to describe many things.

A scientific theory is just one kind of theory.

 

The theories concerning local hidden variables were disproven, not the hidden variables.

I agree with Bell's theorem but I don't agree with the absence of local hidden variables.

I have many reasons. It's not just because indeterminism is hard to imagine.

[Eise]

That was not what I meant. A 'theory' is a word that can be used to describe many things.

A scientific theory is just one kind of theory.

 

Here you are again. If you want to philosophise, you must use your terms clearly. As you are posting in science forums, you can expect that people think about a scientific theory. I criticised you weeks ago already for ambiguous use of words ('effect'). If you want to have a discussion about a viewpoint of yours, then you must present it clearly.

 

The theories concerning local hidden variables were disproven, not the hidden variables.

I agree with Bell's theorem but I don't agree with the absence of local hidden variables.

I have many reasons. It's not just because indeterminism is hard to imagine.

 

'The theories' are obvious just opinions of people. Well, whatever people may think about local (hidden) variables, they are wrong: because science has proven that there are no local hidden variables.

 

You cannot agree with Bell's theorem, and say that there are local hidden variables. This idea is scientifically proven wrong.

 

If you have any other reasons, bring them in. It does not bring much if you just say something like that, and then keep silent about it.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Eise

[Itoero]

Ok then, give us a good example.

The primordial soup theory of Oparin-Haldane. It's a description of an event that probably happened. It does not have predictions...I think.

[dimreepr]

The primordial soup theory of Oparin-Haldane. It's a description of an event that probably happened. It does not have predictions...I think.

 

 

You should look up the difference between theory and hypothesis.

[studiot]

 

itoero

That's true, Evolution theory was a bad example. I mean that a theory can be a description of an event that happened in the past.

 

To help you a little since you are at last acknowledging other points of view

 

One very powerful technique for testing any theory or hypothesis is that of hindcasting.

 

In other words take known previous conditions with known prior outcomes and apply the hypothesis to see if it successfully predicts the known outcome.

[Delta1212]

The primordial soup theory of Oparin-Haldane. It's a description of an event that probably happened. It does not have predictions...I think.

As dimreepr strongly implied, that is not a theory. That is a hypothesis. They are quite different things.

[Itoero]

As dimreepr strongly implied, that is not a theory. That is a hypothesis. They are quite different things.

Not all theories are scientific.

You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

Here you are again. If you want to philosophise, you must use your terms clearly. As you are posting in science forums, you can expect that people think about a scientific theory. I criticised you weeks ago already for ambiguous use of words ('effect'). If you want to have a discussion about a viewpoint of yours, then you must present it clearly.

That's not just my viewpoint. A theory is not necessary scientific, that's just one kind of theory.

 

'The theories' are obvious just opinions of people. Well, whatever people may think about local (hidden) variables, they are wrong: because science has proven that there are no local hidden variables.

 

You cannot agree with Bell's theorem, and say that there are local hidden variables. This idea is scientifically proven wrong.

 

If you have any other reasons, bring them in. It does not bring much if you just say something like that, and then keep silent about it.

-You can define fundamental particles based on their spin. If their spin is not caused by a hidden reality then the spin is not adjusted to the properties of a specific fundamental particle. If the 1/2 spin of a neutrino is not caused by any property of the neutrino then the spin s completely random and we should not be able to define particles, based on their spin.

The fact that there is order in the universe, points to a hidden reality.

 

-The reason for there not to be local hidden variables is because it seems impossible, based on the experiments/inequalities. Why do you think our logic can explain a world we have zero knowledge from?

[dimreepr]

This from your link

 

A theory can be normative (or prescriptive),^{[1][page needed]} meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards". A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.^[2]:46

 

 

 

The fact that there is order in the universe, points to a hidden reality.

 

 

Since a lot of the order in the universe is explainable, why can't it just be reality?

Edited December 3, 2016 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

This from your link

 

A theory can be normative (or prescriptive),[1][page needed] meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards". A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[2]:46

OK but the body of knowledge is not necessary scientifically proven.

 

 

 

 

Since a lot of the order in the universe is explainable, why can't it just be reality?

Because no-one knows whether the indeterminism is reality or just a property that arises when our logic and science shoots short.

There can be indeterminism in a deterministic system but only if the indeterminism is controlled, which imo makes it not real indeterminism.

[dimreepr]

OK but the body of knowledge is not necessary scientifically proven.

 

That's kind of the point.

 

Because no-one knows whether the indeterminism is reality or just a property that arises when our logic and science shoots short.

There can be indeterminism in a deterministic system but only if the indeterminism is controlled, which imo makes it not real indeterminism.

 

 

By whom?

[Itoero]

That's kind of the point.

I thought the idea inhere was that a theory needs to be scientific?

 

By whom?

Indeterminism can be controlled in a deterministic system but not by a person.

[Eise]

That's not just my viewpoint. A theory is not necessary scientific, that's just one kind of theory.

 

Of course. I did not say such a thing. I said that you can expect that when posting on a science forum people interpret 'theory' as 'scientific theory'. And so that you should be clear in your language.

 

-You can define fundamental particles based on their spin. If their spin is not caused by a hidden reality then the spin is not adjusted to the properties of a specific fundamental particle. If the 1/2 spin of a neutrino is not caused by any property of the neutrino then the spin s completely random and we should not be able to define particles, based on their spin.

 

Take an electron as example: measuring the spin of individual neutrinos is notoriously difficult, as measuring neutrinos itself is already extremely difficult.

 

The point is that we know that the absolute value of the spin of an electron is always 1/2. But dependent on the circumstances we will find different directions. If we measured it before in the up direction, and it was +1/2, then we know we will measure +1/2 again if we do it again in the up direction. But if we measure it exactly 90⁰ left, we will have no idea what we will measure. Chance of +1/2 is 50%. So in that case it really is completely random. And the Bell theorem shows that there are no properties of the electron that will determine if the value will be +1/2 or -1/2. So any local variable theory is doomed to fail.

 

The fact that there is order in the universe, points to a hidden reality.

 

There is order in the universe. QM predicts very precisely in which limits there is a bit of randomness. I still don't understand why you conclude from 'a bit of randomness' to 'no order at all'.

 

-The reason for there not to be local hidden variables is because it seems impossible, based on the experiments/inequalities. Why do you think our logic can explain a world we have zero knowledge from?

 

I have no idea what you are asking. So to guess a little: we have a lot more knowledge than zero. But there are some limits in the domain of QM, and we know exactly what these limits are.

[studiot]

Never mind Bells.

 

Determinancy is mathematically untenable as follows.

 

Consider an assembly of exactly 1,000,000 atoms of a radioactive substance with a half life of exactly 1 year.

 

At t = exactly one year count the number of atoms.

 

How many will there be (exactly)?

 

If physics is determinate then this question should have an exact answer.

 

Experimentally we do not observe this.

We observe a statistical spread of answers.

 

But mathematically there is worse.

 

Suppose instead of a million atoms we stared out with 1,000,001.

Now what will the one year count reveal, since you can't cut an atom in half?

[Itoero]

Of course. I did not say such a thing. I said that you can expect that when posting on a science forum people interpret 'theory' as 'scientific theory'. And so that you should be clear in your language.

On a science forum it's important that people know the difference. This is the Philosophy sub forum...ever heard of a philosophical theory?

If you had any understanding you would not ask for the names of the local hidden variable theories.

 

 

Take an electron as example: measuring the spin of individual neutrinos is notoriously difficult, as measuring neutrinos itself is already extremely difficult.

 

The point is that we know that the absolute value of the spin of an electron is always 1/2. But dependent on the circumstances we will find different directions. If we measured it before in the up direction, and it was +1/2, then we know we will measure +1/2 again if we do it again in the up direction. But if we measure it exactly 90⁰ left, we will have no idea what we will measure. Chance of +1/2 is 50%. So in that case it really is completely random. And the Bell theorem shows that there are no properties of the electron that will determine if the value will be +1/2 or -1/2. So any local variable theory is doomed to fail.

No. The theorem shows that there are no properties that we know of that will determine the value. You can't disprove a hidden reality. I don't understand why you can't understand this.

 

 

There is order in the universe. QM predicts very precisely in which limits there is a bit of randomness. I still don't understand why you conclude from 'a bit of randomness' to 'no order at all'.

Again...There can be indeterminism (like the behavior of fundamental particles) but only when it's controlled. If it's not controlled then there wouldn't be any order.

 

I have no idea what you are asking. So to guess a little: we have a lot more knowledge than zero. But there are some limits in the domain of QM, and we know exactly what these limits are.

We have zero knowledge concerning the cause for the forming of fundamental particles.

 

Never mind Bells.

 

Determinancy is mathematically untenable as follows.

 

Consider an assembly of exactly 1,000,000 atoms of a radioactive substance with a half life of exactly 1 year.

 

At t = exactly one year count the number of atoms.

 

How many will there be (exactly)?

 

If physics is determinate then this question should have an exact answer.

 

Experimentally we do not observe this.

We observe a statistical spread of answers.

 

But mathematically there is worse.

 

Suppose instead of a million atoms we stared out with 1,000,001.

Now what will the one year count reveal, since you can't cut an atom in half?

If something seems to happen random based on experiments then that just means it seems random in those experiments...

Photons hitting polarization filter are reflected, or passing through.

 

50% from billions of photons per second is passing through,

50% from billions of photons per second is reflected.

 

If you shoot one photon, you can't predict if it's going to be reflected or not but the 50% is determined. This is imo only possible if a hidden reality controlls seemingly random properties.

[studiot]

 

If something seems to happen random based on experiments then that just means it seems random in those experiments...

Photons hitting polarization filter are reflected, or passing through.

 

50% from billions of photons per second is passing through,

50% from billions of photons per second is reflected.

 

If you shoot one photon, you can't predict if it's going to be reflected or not but the 50% is determined. This is imo only possible if a hidden reality controlls seemingly random properties.

 

 

We have progress at last.

 

But don't forget that in the entire universe we only need one single non deterministic subject or event to disprove determinism.

 

So please don't change the example I gave, but discuss it.

 

Of course it is based on the simple fact that you cannot divide an odd whole number exactly in half using only whole numbers.

 

There need be nothing random about it at all.

 

There are more complicated examples in physics of non deterministic events.

 

These are based on taking any physical law that uses an average, whether the driving agent is random or not.

 

For instance if I measure the pressure at a small enough area of container wall to be less than the strike zone of a gas molecule

What pressure will I record?

 

This is a perfectly feasible experiment these days, well within our technology today.

[Mordred]

 

For instance if I measure the pressure at a small enough area of container wall to be less than the strike zone of a gas molecule

What pressure will I record?

 

This is a perfectly feasible experiment these days, well within our technology today.

Good example I even have to think about that one. +1

[Eise]

On a science forum it's important that people know the difference. This is the Philosophy sub forum...ever heard of a philosophical theory?

If you had any understanding you would not ask for the names of the local hidden variable theories.

 

Of course I ask for it. Because I want to clarify what you mean. For you obviously 'theory' means 'any opinion somebody has'. I know about a lot of thoughts and thought constructs that are called 'theories'. But we need to clarify what you mean with it. (And of course, as academic philosopher, I know what philosophical theories are). I am also pretty good in recognising unsubstantiated ideas, and distinguish them from empirically justified ideas.

 

No. The theorem shows that there are no properties that we know of that will determine the value. You can't disprove a hidden reality. I don't understand why you can't understand this.

 

This is just plain wrong. I won't discuss this with you anymore. You can only convince me by linking to reliable sources. But I already know. No physicist will agree with you. Ask here. Enough physicists around.

 

Again...There can be indeterminism (like the behavior of fundamental particles) but only when it's controlled. If it's not controlled then there wouldn't be any order.

 

'Controlled randomness' is an oxymoron. The only two possibilities I know of are 'pseudo randomness' and 'real randomness': latter category is the domain of QM.

 

We have zero knowledge concerning the cause for the forming of fundamental particles.

 

That is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing if there is real randomness. And exotic interpretations of QM aside (Bohm's implicate order, or Everett's many worlds interpretation), there are QM events that are really random. Your unsubstantiated idea has no roots in actual physics.

 

If you shoot one photon, you can't predict if it's going to be reflected or not but the 50% is determined. This is imo only possible if a hidden reality controlls seemingly random properties.

 

Made the important abbreviation bold. Your opinion contradicts experiment.

[Itoero]

We have progress at last.

 

But don't forget that in the entire universe we only need one single non deterministic subject or event to disprove determinism.

That's true but you can never proof the absence of something unknown. You can't scientifically proof indeterminism. That's why the inequalities disprove only our theories about local hidden variables. Those theories are a product of our knowledge of physics. The theorem basically states that our knowledge about physics can't explain the cause for quantum effects.

 

So please don't change the example I gave, but discuss it.

If the moment an atom like carbon-14 decays is completely random, then there is no reason an atom decays in a time frame that's observable for us. The decay can start in 1 second or in 10^(+∞)years...

we can statistically say, with a very high accuracy, that after 5,730 years half of all the original carbon-14 atoms will have decayed, while the rest still remain...a half-life would not exist if the moment an atom starts to decay is completely random. If you have 1000000 carbon-14 atoms then it's extremely unlikely that even a single atom decays within 5,730 years if nothing causes the decay.

 

 

For instance if I measure the pressure at a small enough area of container wall to be less than the strike zone of a gas molecule

What pressure will I record?

 

This is a perfectly feasible experiment these days, well within our technology today.

I don't understand the question:) Can you give a link to such an experiment?

[studiot]

That's true but you can never proof the absence of something unknown. You can't scientifically proof indeterminism. That's why the inequalities disprove only our theories about local hidden variables. Those theories are a product of our knowledge of physics. The theorem basically states that our knowledge about physics can't explain the cause for quantum effects.

 

 

 

I specifically ruled out Bells or other quantum theory in my discussion so why are you linking it to anything I said?

 

 

Studiot post#140

Never mind Bells.

 

Determinancy is mathematically untenable as follows.

 

I already made it as clear as I possibly can that is this not a quantum or statistical statement.

 

Perhaps I should have said it is an arithmetic issue.

 

If a process is deterministic then it is possible to determine the outcome of that process.

 

This is philosophy, pure and simple.

 

So I gave you a counterexample where you can demonstrate arithmetically the fact that the outcome can be deterministic or it may be impossible for the outcome to be deterministic, according to whether the process starts with an even or odd number of indivisible units.

 

I chose radioactivity, since it is a commonly known process known as a first order process.

First order processes are very common in Nature.

Would you prefer an example from Pharmacokinetics?

 

I actually don't know why you are arguing about this since it supports your proposition.

 

 

If the moment an atom like carbon-14 decays is completely random, then there is no reason an atom decays in a time frame that's observable for us. The decay can start in 1 second or in 10^(+∞)years...

we can statistically say, with a very high accuracy, that after 5,730 years half of all the original carbon-14 atoms will have decayed, while the rest still remain...a half-life would not exist if the moment an atom starts to decay is completely random. If you have 1000000 carbon-14 atoms then it's extremely unlikely that even a single atom decays within 5,730 years if nothing causes the decay.

 

 

 

Yes indeed there is also a statistical effect at work here.

 

But there is no statistical example that will yield exactly half an odd number of indivisible units.

 

 

 

I don't understand the question:) Can you give a link to such an experiment?

 

I can only explain this if you understand how pressure is generated in the first place.

 

Pressure is a mechanical property that is the result of momentum exchange between the (indivisible) molecules of a fluid and its container.

 

This is definitely a property with a statistical basis that is not amenable to mechanics applied in regions smaller than the molecules.

 

 

If you like I am putting forward a third way that proposes nature to be more complicated than the original question allows.

 

 

If you are to ask the simple question

 

"Are all process deterministic or non deterministic at some level"

 

You must accept the responsibility of showing that the qualities 'deterministic' and 'non deterministic' form disjoint sets that are comprehensive in covering all qualities.

Edited December 7, 2016 by studiot

[Itoero]

I specifically ruled out Bells or other quantum theory in my discussion so why are you linking it to anything I said?

I drag in Bell again because you made the statement that you only need one single non deterministic subject or event to disprove determinism. You can never proof an event to be indeterministic. You can only prove or disprove deterministic theories. That's what bell's theorem shows, it disproves theories concerning hidden variables it does not prove the complete absence of hidden variables.

 

I already made it as clear as I possibly can that is this not a quantum or statistical statement.

 

Perhaps I should have said it is an arithmetic issue.

 

If a process is deterministic then it is possible to determine the outcome of that process.

 

This is philosophy, pure and simple.

 

So I gave you a counterexample where you can demonstrate arithmetically the fact that the outcome can be deterministic or it may be impossible for the outcome to be deterministic, according to whether the process starts with an even or odd number of indivisible units.

 

I chose radioactivity, since it is a commonly known process known as a first order process.

First order processes are very common in Nature.

Would you prefer an example from Pharmacokinetics?

-Determinism being mathematically untenable does no prove anything. Why do you think the probabilistic math explains definite reality?

Through 1000s of years, we evolved/developed an intuition and language/math to deal with a Newtonian world...we have a Newtonian brain if you will. We have simply the wrong tools (atm)to make valid assumptions concerning the cause of quantum effects.

-A process being deterministic does not mean you can determine the outcome.

It enables you to determine the outcome when you have sufficient knowledge concerning the process.

 

Yes indeed there is also a statistical effect at work here.

 

But there is no statistical example that will yield exactly half an odd number of indivisible units.

-Can you plz answer the following?

"we can statistically say, with a very high accuracy, that after 5,730 years half of all the original carbon-14 atoms will have decayed, while the rest still remain...a half-life would not exist if the moment an atom starts to decay is completely random or indeterministic. If the moment is random then the decay can start in 1 second or in 10^(+∞)years..."

 

-That shows that math has limits. It's how we observe/interpret/understand things, but it has no influence on physical reality.

 

I can only explain this if you understand how pressure is generated in the first place.

 

Pressure is a mechanical property that is the result of momentum exchange between the (indivisible) molecules of a fluid and its container.

 

This is definitely a property with a statistical basis that is not amenable to mechanics applied in regions smaller than the molecules.

 

 

If you like I am putting forward a third way that proposes nature to be more complicated than the original question allows.

 

 

If you are to ask the simple question

 

"Are all process deterministic or non deterministic at some level"

 

You must accept the responsibility of showing that the qualities 'deterministic' and 'non deterministic' form disjoint sets that are comprehensive in covering all qualities.

All processes are deterministic. Something non deterministic is not subject to the rules of its reality.

[studiot]

I drag in Bell again because you made the statement that you only need one single non deterministic subject or event to disprove determinism. You can never proof an event to be indeterministic. You can only prove or disprove deterministic theories. That's what bell's theorem shows, it disproves theories concerning hidden variables it does not prove the complete absence of hidden variables.

 

 

 

This is quite illogical and unphilosophical.

 

One proven counterexample is sufficient to disprove any proposition.

 

 

 

-A process being deterministic does not mean you can determine the outcome.

It enables you to determine the outcome when you have sufficient knowledge concerning the process.

 

Of course it does not mean that you (or anyone else) can determine it.

It means that the process is capable of being determined.

If I can prove that it is not capable of being determined then it follows that the process is not determinate.

And I have proven just this with dividing an odd number in half.

 

-That shows that math has limits. It's how we observe/interpret/understand things, but it has no influence on physical reality.

 

That's a ridiculous statement.

 

Of course maths (our maths in particular) cannot do everything we ask of it.

 

 

 

All processes are deterministic. Something non deterministic is not subject to the rules of its reality.

 

 

Prove it please.

[Itoero]

Can you plz answer the following?

"we can statistically say, with a very high accuracy, that after 5,730 years half of all the original carbon-14 atoms will have decayed, while the rest still remain...a half-life would not exist if the moment an atom starts to decay is completely random or indeterministic. If the moment is random then the decay can start in 1 second or in 10^(+∞)years..."

 

-Determinism being mathematically untenable does not prove anything. Why do you think the probabilistic math explains definite reality?

Through 1000s of years, we evolved/developed an intuition and language/math to deal with a Newtonian world...we have a Newtonian brain if you will. We have simply the wrong tools (atm)to make valid assumptions concerning the cause of quantum effects.

[Itoero]

Prove it please.

It depends what you consider proof. I take radioactivity as example.

We created the rule that +/- 50% carbon-14 decays within 5,730 years.

If this process is indeterministic and nothing defines the moment it starts to decay then the process is not subject to the rules(half-life) we set up.