Determinism and quantum mechanics

If your interest doesn't fit anywhere else, leave it here.
panacea
Posts: 989
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

Again you're assuming the technology we have now is all that there is, if it's still open to reality being deterministic it's just a matter of our limitations, not reality's, in time different technology and methods of measurement may be available. In science we rather say we can't find something out yet than attach superstitions like gods (which have no cause, that's why it's superstitious, same as ghosts, all superstitions have this in common, you go back far enough and there is supposed to not be a CAUSE) or random phenomenon to be the ultimate answer.

That's why to understand reality the best way we can do so at the present is to apply tests to the levels of reality we can understand the best, this is the Newtonian level.
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

Come on panacea, had you read any of my post ??? I'm getting really tired about this. How can I have a discussion width you in this manner... ?
Please use at least some quotes..
Again you're assuming the technology we have now is all that there is, if it's still open to reality being deterministic it's just a matter of our limitations, not reality's, in time different technology and methods of measurement may be available.
1. I'm not assuming this. Why do you think I assume this?
2. I said this before two post ago I think: of course determinsm can be true,
A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth", but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.
3. It's not my theory, I'm just telling you what theories in quantum mechanics tell us.
4. I'm putting forward my thought the no hidden variable theorem can't go hand in hand width determinism.
What do you think about this theorem ?
And what do you think about the rest of my last two posts... ?
In science we rather say we can't find something out yet than attach superstitions like gods (which have no cause, that's why it's superstitious, same as ghosts, all superstitions have this in common, you go back far enough and there is supposed to not be a CAUSE) or random phenomenon to be the ultimate answer.
Please read this link in my last post, and you'll found out this is not the case...
panacea
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

I read it, there was nothing showing that it wasn't the case... Saying something is there and that I should find it is great, but it's not there.

We can go back and forth 'it's there' 'it isn't' until we die - the burden of proof is on you if you believe that page has something disproving my statement. I believe google has information on a lot of things, I don't expect anyone to go and find stuff I'm talking about that I found on google by posting google.com, I learn what I'm talking about until I can explain it myself.
panacea
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

The main reason I didn't reply to your other 'information' is because I found it unworthy and a dead-end, stuff like this...
Is creatonism disproven ? I thought it is never proven nor disproven.
Determinsm keeps getting disproven over and over again by science..
You're kidding right? Dinosaurs, evolution, etc. The fatal flaw in creationism is that it can't explain any more than cause and effect can, it's superficial and superstitous. Basically all creatonism ideas have this in common, 'in the beginning everything was set up by a creator'. Then room for evolution, cause and effect, etc, is left open to make creationism plausible. The problem with this is reality is exactly the same without the creator, it's fluff, since there is still just as much mystery to where we came from when we ask the question 'what created the creator?'

Well....

Another creator?

'What created him'?

This is what superstition does, it tries to evade causes, and simply hope that people will stop asking for one.

And your comments about einstein, acting like he is some kind of idol or source is a huge mistake in your reasoning, many 'brilliant' minds have agreed and disagreed over many many things, it really has no relevance what their personal beliefs where at different times in their life, as if towards the end of their life they were more in touch with reality or more lenient to believe in room for something more than plain death. There's tons of factors which is why no respectable thinker uses 'Einsteins rollercoasting thoughts toward the end of his life' to substantiate his point.
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

You say "in science we rather say we can't find something out yet than saying random phenomenon is the ultimate answer"

In this page I think it is made clear that the general consensus in science is that nature of quantum mechanics is statistical.

Edit:
Well, I was more interested in things like:
Are you aware that this believe that electrons act deterministic is probably based on superstitious arguments like: "I have the feeling that this make sense".. And your faith that such a feeling represent reality ..
And logical fallacies as: "Many event is causally determined by a previous event", so electron must act deterministic
But about your post...
The fatal flaw in creationism is that it can't explain any more than cause and effect can
The fatal law in your reasoning is your faith that everything can be explained by cause and effect...
And further, you didn't disprove creationism. If I remember correctly Stephen Hawking had a theory creationism could be possible.

About einstein, my point is that he spent a great deal of his life to prove the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, and didn't succeed.
There's tons of factors which is why no respectable thinker uses 'Einsteins rollercoasting thoughts toward the end of his life' to substantiate his point.
Never heard of this, but I thought he agreed with quantum mechanics more in his 50's than in his last days...
panacea
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

That page clearly does show that quantum mechanics can behave in a statistical manner, it does not show that quantum mechanics nature is statistical, - no more than a billion roulette wheels spinning at once and producing seemingly random string of results proves that things on the Newtonian level is random, all it shows is our limited capacity to understand, identify, and compute all the data.

Perhaps it will be easier to understand if you ask the question 'why' things appear to behave statistically? You already know what stops it from behaving statistically (direct observation), so you know that things do effect the phenomenon. And here's what it all comes down to, the kicker, the separation from science to superstition, 'what makes the statistical phenomenon give different results?'

If you say, it's pure randomness, it's the end, that's all, there's no cause, explanation, or anything - there is only randomness, you've just engaged in superstition just like creationism. Okay, what made it act random? (same as what created the creator?)

Do you know? Do you realize that whatever makes it act random or statistically is the cause, and that it will actually be a series of causes since it has a series of results (no two identical causes in the same situation can cause different effects, or it will again create 'non cause').

That's why it's not science to say that 'randomness' is a trait and it's the end, because it's the same as saying 'creationism' is the end and a fact of the universe - it doesn't answer anything, it's fluff. I'll keep asking the question, what created the creator, and what causes the randomness, until you give up the superstition and revert back to science, trying to discover with emerging technologies the nature of things, including the laws of physics, gravity, electron behavior, etc, back through their causes until we understand it all, if we can.

I don't know if you'll ever understand my point of view, the fact remains that no matter how reality really is, it can never be proven to human minds, it simply has to be functional, workable, for us to do what we are here to do, survive and thrive in ever more complex and learned manners. I'm sorry, but pure chaos and randomness simply isn't workable, even if it exists in yours or other people who call themselves scientists minds. There's nothing we can do with it, it's a useless idea except as a stepping stone to understand its causes and effects, which is the only thing that is workable in relation to us.
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

That page clearly does show that quantum mechanics can behave in a statistical manner, it does not show that quantum mechanics nature is statistical
Well, that's correct. But that was not your statement. Your statement was that in science there can't be something as a statistical nature, and that page shows that the majority of physicist believe in the statistical nature of quantum mechanics.
Do you know? Do you realize that whatever makes it act random or statistically is the cause, and that it will actually be a series of causes since it has a series of results (no two identical causes in the same situation can cause different effects, or it will again create 'non cause').
I realize.
That's why it's not science to say that 'randomness' is a trait and it's the end, because it's the same as saying 'creationism' is the end and a fact of the universe - it doesn't answer anything, it's fluff. I'll keep asking the question, what created the creator, and what causes the randomness, until you give up the superstition and revert back to science, trying to discover with emerging technologies the nature of things, including the laws of physics, gravity, electron behavior, etc, back through their causes until we understand it all, if we can.
Okay, this is intresting, what you are basicly saying is that you will always ask the question "why?", and that there is always an answer to this question, right?
We might can find width the technology we have at the moment, but at least nature knows the answer.

You even want the question "why?" to the laws of physics.
Why is the speed of light constant ? Why does the speed of light has the speed it has? Why is energy conserved ? Etc. etc.

But do you realize that if we always find an satisfying answer to the question "why?", we will always be able to ask a new question!
Right ?
And if we are always able to ask a new question, we can ask infinite many question! And then we won't be able to understand it all, and so you'll never succeed in your goal...

Instead of what you are claiming, in physics we think that there are some fundamental laws of nature, and of course we can ask the "why are these laws as they are ?", but we can only give an answer like "the universe just works in this way.. ".
We can't prove something is a fundamental law, or even that a fundamental law is true. But if these laws wouldn't exist physics would make no sense... Just as without axioms math doesn't make sense.

I hope you agree width me, that there are fundamental laws of nature. And now my question, why couldn't a fundamental law defnies a probability function ? As far as I can see, it's just a dogma, that this impossible, it's easy to mathematically describe such a behaviour. I don't see any reason why this impossible, except that you seem to have much faith in determinism.
panacea
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

But do you realize that if we always find an satisfying answer to the question "why?", we will always be able to ask a new question!
Right ?
It will be this way for a very long time, because there is much out there and we are so primitive, can't even get over violent resolve yet or take care of our starving populations or manage population for that matter. We just got here, all of modern mans time here is like a speck of a speck of a speck and on and on of time in as far as we can date back. That is what science is all about though, the never-ending 'why' until we have such an understanding of the universe that we can explain everything - and while cause and effect can explain effects and even causes once you analyze their own causes, 'randomness' or 'chaos' theories don't explain anything but a lack of insight into what is really going on behind the curtain pulled over our primitive eyes. It's not my faith in determinism that keeps me from believing in superstition, it's logic. Logic is a really good friend to have, and it can even help children to understand very complex subjects such as the nature of reality. For instance, something in nature cannot come from nothing, it cannot be without a cause or, what dictates what has a cause and what doesn't?

You can either say 'everything doesn't have a cause it just appears that way' then why are things so systematic and predictable on our level?

Or you can say 'most big things have a cause but when you get to the quantum world they don't' so what's causing this little phenomenon - what's stopping the 'non cause, random behavior' from encompassing everything, if it has no cause it must be unlimited and we shouldn't be able to recognize ourselves second-by-second because we're changing randomly, or it was designed to have limitations, or there are causes for these limitations, so what caused the designer to design it this way, or what causes these limitations to hold randomness in controlled areas? All of these questions are similar to the creationism idea, they can explain something but raise more fluff questions than explanation without them..

So now, hopefully you can understand that, 99.999% of everything we know of acts systematically that we can agree on, and that systematic functions, like direct observation, and the fact that we aren't constantly morphing and having sporadic fluctuations in reality which means that systematic nature of the universe controls the electron probability phenomenon from manifesting on bigger scales, etc, all establish restrictions on this supposed 'randomness trait'. Anyone who realizes this can see how ridiculous it is to hold onto the belief that it is really random, when it's controlled and restricted without debate by everything around it, and the universe has always been shown to be interconnected, not isolated from itself in its laws.

And as far as I can tell, in the double slit experiment they can make electrons basically do two phenomena in two different ways, I have yet to see an experiment where electrons go in all directions randomly and sometimes act like Frisbees denying the laws of physics etc like a true random case of something would. Basically they came out with two outcomes and don't understand all the variables that affects these outcomes then call the two specific effects (wave vs line) a case for true chaos/randomness?

Next time they should show how statistically, sometimes electrons will circle the room, sometimes they will stay still, etc, instead of go through the slit and then I'll start to question again whether randomness can exist.

Your reply about science being flawed in that in can never give absolute truths is correct because our minds are open to perception, we have senses which interpret the universe in limited and distorted ways, that is why there will always be a pattern like the wave gradient in what we believe is true - at least with our current brain 'hardware'. But this doesn't mean we should accept superstitions like gods or chaos theories as these are not workable ideas, we can't influence them like we can cause and effect to create vehicles, improved farming methods, peaceful societies, etc.

The answer I have to the question of why a fundamental law can't exist of a probability function - there can be, humans are open to mistakes so if the entire scientific community establishes it as a law then of course it's possible. It doesn't mean that it really is, and the logic I've already given shows that it cannot be, as if randomness were a fundamental law we would all be in big trouble since nothing can contain it. If something can contain and control pure randomness's effect then it's not random anymore, it's controlled by causes and this makes effects.
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

It will be this way for a very long time, because there is much out there and we are so primitive, can't even get over violent resolve yet or take care of our starving populations or manage population for that matter. We just got here, all of modern mans time here is like a speck of a speck of a speck and on and on of time in as far as we can date back. That is what science is all about though, the never-ending 'why' until we have such an understanding of the universe that we can explain everything
...? I think you don't understand what I mean. You are talking about the never-ending 'why' until we can explain everything.
But if we can always answer the question why, there will not be no "until we can explain everything", because we can always ask a new question "why?" that we have to explain.

For example:

Why is the speed of light constant ?
If we are able to answer this. Than it must be something like, well it's a logical consequence of theorem A and B.
Why is theorem A true ?
Well this is a logical consequence of theorem C.
Why is theorem C true ?
Well this is a logical consequence of theorem D.
and so on and on

as you can see, IF we can always answer the question why, it will truly be the 'never-ending why'. Do you agree ?
You can't say "until we can explain everything"... because the question "why?" is never ending!
Do you understand this ?

So if you want to understand everything, you must give up the idea that we always can answer the question why.
You are talking about logic, right ? Have you studied logic ? Do you realize that you can only use logic if you have a starting point, some axioms, but you'll never be able to logically explain this starting point, those axioms!
Unlike theorems, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow (otherwise they would be classified as theorems). (from wikipedia)

We can only say that these starting point, these axioms, seem to be the fundamental laws of physics. That the universe just act in this way. We can't explain why these laws are as they are, and if we can, than new laws will arise which we can't explain logically.
It's not my faith in determinism that keeps me from believing in superstition, it's logic.
Did you study logic? Ever heard of quantum logic ? Quantum mechanics are in no way in contradiction width logic.
Basically they came out with two outcomes and don't understand all the variables that affects these outcomes then call the two specific effects (wave vs line) a case for true chaos/randomness?
The no hidden variables theorem tells us that ehm... there are no hidden variables, and quantum mechanics is complete. I would say, try to disprove it..
and the logic I've already given shows that it cannot be, as if randomness were a fundamental law we would all be in big trouble since nothing can contain it. If something can contain and control pure randomness's effect then it's not random anymore, it's controlled by causes and this makes effects.
Why can nothing contain it ? I don't understand this. But if you really can prove randomness can't be a fundamental law, you must surely write an scientific paper about it, because many scientist will be interested.
panacea
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

...? I think you don't understand what I mean. You are talking about the never-ending 'why' until we can explain everything.
But if we can always answer the question why, there will not be no "until we can explain everything", because we can always ask a new question "why?" that we have to explain.

For example:

Why is the speed of light constant ?
If we are able to answer this. Than it must be something like, well it's a logical consequence of theorem A and B.
Why is theorem A true ?
Well this is a logical consequence of theorem C.
Why is theorem C true ?
Well this is a logical consequence of theorem D.
and so on and on

as you can see, IF we can always answer the question why, it will truly be the 'never-ending why'. Do you agree ?
You can't say "until we can explain everything"... because the question "why?" is never ending!
Do you understand this ?
Yes, there is still much out there to ask 'why' about, and it will never end for a human being as there simply isn't the answers yet and there isn't enough lifespan to stop asking, that doesn't mean the 'whys' are infinite as eventually they all become interconnected and you can understand the full reality that affects us, outside of that (whatever caused this system of reality) we can never know for sure as it's outside our means of testing, that will be the end of 'why' for the backtrack of causes (doesn't mean we should make up a superstitious answer) but there will always be more 'why' created as the universe develops more sophisticated things (imagine a future being creating a new invention, we can then ask 'why' this works - it doesn't end but that doesn't mean it's infinite going back in the cause-effect relationship, it's only infinite going forward as more effects are created by old causes and these new effects become new causes for even newer effects.


The rest of your post is just ridiculous 'did you study' and pointing out that there are labels on things with the word logic at the end, it doesn't make something more logical than another, basically anything, even superstitions, have some degree of logic. "Well there must be a creator because I can create things it's logical to assume that someone else created me" it's logic, it's also faulty logic in this universe as we have more sound logic instead of it...

Randomness is not predictable and has no cause, so that's why it can't be contained. If you can contain randomness it's not random, it obeys physics, that means it behaves predictably since physical laws are predictable.
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

Panacaea, I asked you if you studied logic, because I assumed you must have studied at least a bit, because you are talking like you know something about it and also in other topics I heard you talking about deductive reasoning etc..

But if I read your posts, it seems that you don't understand the basic ideas of logic, such as, that logic consequences follow from axioms..
You are basicly saying that if we can explain everything, there are no axioms, but this impossible... because without starting point we can't make any logical consequences...
If you had studied logic, this was the first you would learn.

While I tried to explain this idea to you, you don't seem to get it. Any maybe I´m not good in explaining it.
So I suggest you should study logic first, before you are talking about it in this way..

Statements you make are in contradict with logic.
For example: "that doesn't mean the 'whys' are infinite as eventually they all become interconnected and you can understand the full reality that affects us"
This statement implies that if we understand everything we don't need axioms. Which is in contradict width logic...

If the rules of logic are true, than in every theory in physics (even the theory of everything) there must be some fundamental laws which we can't logically explain.
We seem not to agree about this, but I don't want to have a discussion about this here. We can have a discussion about if the rules of logic are true in other topic if you want.
If you don't believe this statement, I suggest you study logic first.
"Well there must be a creator because I can create things it's logical to assume that someone else created me" it's logic
"I must be created" isn't in anyway logical consequence of "I can create things".
It isn't logical to assume "that someone else created me", it's possible that something goes in the same manner...

I'm talking about logic used in science! Not about the the feeling that something is logical or something like that. I hope you are talking about the same!
Randomness is not predictable and has no cause, so that's why it can't be contained.
I still don't understand this, maybe it's because of a langauage barrier, I don't understand "contained", what do you mean width this ? In what do you want to contain randomness ?
panacea
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

Panacaea, I asked you if you studied logic, because I assumed you must have studied at least a bit, because you are talking like you know something about it and also in other topics I heard you talking about deductive reasoning etc..
As I said before this is a ridiculous notion, the logic itself is what should be in question not the persons 'illusion' of what they know. It's like your asking for background information when there is absolutely no way to determine the truth in a persons views by this method in this case, since I'm not a plumber trying to fix your toilet, in which case background information would be helpful in evaluating if the information I tell you is sound.
But if I read your posts, it seems that you don't understand the basic ideas of logic, such as, that logic consequences follow from axioms..
You are basicly saying that if we can explain everything, there are no axioms, but this impossible... because without starting point we can't make any logical consequences...
If you had studied logic, this was the first you would learn.
When we understand everything that affects us, all truths will fit in like a puzzle piece, the other puzzle pieces will be a 'check system' to make sure that the puzzle piece (the information) fits and is not untrue. This is how you get rid of axioms even if you begin with them. If you keep getting tons of axioms and no checking system, you're engaging in superstition. The most holistic, all encompassing, and logically interconnected theory of the universe is cause and effect. Everything we know of, even the double slit experiment, supports the idea of cause and effect because we have never found anything that acts without the signs of a cause and effect relationship. For example, the double slit experiment - if you directly observe (cause A) you get one effect, if you indirectly observe (cause B), you get another effect. You cannot say that simply not directly observing means the electrons are acting spontaneously on their own, since you're not experimenting in a void. There is other things all around the electrons - and when you remove your direct observation these things are still there. So until you can isolate electrons from all of these other variables, there is absolutely no reason to say they are acting on their own without causes and creating a statistical probability effect from pure randomness.
If the rules of logic are true, than in every theory in physics (even the theory of everything) there must be some fundamental laws which we can't logically explain.
This is a ridiculous statement if I ever heard one, logic is a tool to understand and reason, it's not something pretending to be without flaw and without room for improvement, unlike gods and all these 'we found the final answer' loons believing that 'random electrons' is the ultimate finding. I mean, who in their right mind says that we can constantly question everything, even gravity, the speed of light, etc, but then assumes that his findings about the quantum world are totally explored?

Things we can't logically explain, is why we keep using science to understand things. If this statement was untrue, then we would have logical explanations for everything, and we would be done. Obviously this is not the case, the statement is as retarded as saying 'well if you don't know everything, then your idea is flawed'. This is obvious, it doesn't need to be stated lol, everyones ideas are flawed and need improving because none of us know everything - some just have a better idea and understanding than others, and not in all areas. For example Einstein might have known a lot and might have been right about somethings, it doesn't make his opinion about the next thing any more valid, only if his logic is continuous is that true. For example I know doctors who will say something smart and logical about stress causing illness, then say 'but on the other hand, faith is the most important part of health', they have two very different lines of logic here, and one is obviously more backed by science than the other.
I still don't understand this, maybe it's because of a langauage barrier, I don't understand "contained", what do you mean width this ? In what do you want to contain randomness ?
Contained means controlled from expanding. If randomness were really random, it wouldn't be random for only electrons and only in certain areas. It's hard to talk about and understand the concept of randomness because it's actually a faulty concept for a deeper underlying concept of 'complexity'.
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

I want to make my point clear again:

You once made a topic that augmentation matters. You say that this is a scientific forum, and statements should be backed up width logic (deductive reasoning) and emperical evidence.
This is your statement, let's call it statement A:
All events are causally determined by previous events.

1. There is no emperical evidence suggesting that all events are causally determined.
2. You haven't showed that this statement (or in that case: theorem) is a consequence of deductive reasoning.

And don't say that this statement is logical. If you think so, you haven't showed us. In science we use formal logic system such as first-order logic to show width deductive reasoning that something is true. You haven't done this. And I'm quite sure you aren't able.

And as long as you are not able to deliver emperical evidence. As long as you aren't able to show that this statement is a consequence of deductive reasoning, you are really not able to refute my point that:

Statement B: There is no scientific reason to believe that determinsm is true.

So don't try to deny my point with arguments that it could be true, because this is clearly not a scientific reasons to believe it. And please don't use the logical fallacies such as that many events are caused by a previous event so every event must be caused by a previous event...
You can only refute my point when you show me that there are scientific reasons to believe your statement is true, which means show me: emperical evidence or show it's a consequence of deductive reasoning.

As I said before, it can be philosophical intresting. I find this a philosophical intresting topic and I'm not going to say that such things don't belong on this forum. I'm only saying that it isn't scientific, and I didn't want to make such a big deal about this. I don't find it bad that a statement isn't based on science, but for some reasons it seems like you find it bad that you believe in something which hasn't a scientific basis.

If I'm correct you are defending this statement:
Statement C: There is no scientific reason to believe determinsm is false

Width many arguments you are trying to show there is no scientific reason to believe determinsm isn't true. But even if you are able convince me that nowadays science is wrong, that quantum theory is incomplete, that there are hidden variabels. Even if you are able to convince the whole scientific community about this, and this is really important, than that doesn't mean that there is scientific reason to believe determinsm is true! It only shows that there is no scientific reason to believe it isn't true.
You understand this?

So, we could skip the discussion about the truth value of statement C for an moment, because even if you are able to convince me, it would't affect the truth value of statement B . It's interesting, but let's first agree about statement B, I would say one discussion at a time.

Do you agree width statement B? If not, please give me empirical evidence or show me that determinism is a consequence of deductive reasoning, if you can't give me this, please agree that you don't have any scientific arguments to believe in determinism. I mean even Einstein, (sorry if you irritate about this), who really believed in determinism, didn't claim he had any scientific arguments to believe in determinism, but he just said he had the faith that: "God does not play dice".
panacea
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

Kasper wrote: You once made a topic that augmentation matters.
I don't think I made it with that title did I? I don't even know what augmentation could mean in that reference.

Augment or augmentation may refer to:
Augment (linguistics), a syllable added to the beginning of the word in certain Indo-European languages
Augmentation (heraldry), heraldic modifications
Augmentation (music), the musical technique of lengthening or widening of rhythm or interval
Augmentation (obstetrics), the process by which the first &/or second stages of an already established labour is accelerated or potentiated by deliberate and artificial means.
Augmentation (psychiatry), the combination of two or more drugs to achieve better treatment results
Augmentation ideal, in mathematics, an ideal in a group ring
Breast augmentation
Synaptic augmentation, a form of short term synaptic plasticity
Augmented cognition
Augmented matrix, in mathematics, a matrix formed by placing two other matrices side-by-side
Augmented reality
NLS (computer system), a hypertext system derived from Douglas Engelbart's oNLine System, renamed "Augment" by Tymshare
Nanotechnological augmentations, a feature in the computer game Deus Ex and its spiritual successor Project: Snowblind (renamed "biomods" in its sequel, Deus Ex: Invisible War)

I searched and searched and couldn't find a meaning for this word 'augmentation' that fits your statement?
What topic are you referring to?
You say that this is a scientific forum, and statements should be backed up width logic (deductive reasoning) and emperical evidence.
Yes, true.
This is your statement, let's call it statement A:
All events are causally determined by previous events.

1. There is no emperical evidence suggesting that all events are causally determined.
2. You haven't showed that this statement (or in that case: theorem) is a consequence of deductive reasoning.
Emperical evidence would be hitting a baseball with a baseball bat and seeing the ball fly in a trajectory determined by the force and angle of the swing of the bat. This is evidenced everywhere (the television turns on because I press the button on the remote, the remote turns the tv on because it sends a wireless signal to the tv reciever, etc). Cause and effect is everywhere, there is nowhere it has been shown not to be. The few experiments people get confused over, like the double slit experiment, still show that select few effects happen in select circumstances - not random events. Also, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle simply shows that things can't be known by us simultaneouslyto a high precision, not that things are without a cause. So, while not everything in the universe appears to support cause and effect immediately, almost everything does, and nothing supports any other notion. If you say that being uncertain of something suggests that there is no cause to it, then you're fooling yourself, it suggests nothing, it's nil.

Here's some relevant deductive reasoning off the top of my head:

If something can come into existence that doesn't have a cause, not even a cause to tell it when or where to come into existence, then everything will be everywhere at all times.
Everything is not everywhere at all times as you are in a different place than me, and we are each in one shifting place at all times.
Therefore, everything in the universe has a cause.

In my opinion you're over thinking the whole thing, which is also the mistake of many of the 'brilliant' minds you reference. All these complex names and 'phenomena' are our limited understanding of the cause-effect relationship of things, which is great because brilliant minds need to figure these relationships out, and test them to be true just in case, but really cause-effect is so fundamental and is in front of your face so constantly that it almost sounds too easy to explain at first.
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

First, of all I suffer from dyslexia. I try my best, I clearly meant argumentation matters...
Emperical evidence would be hitting a baseball with a baseball bat and seeing the ball fly in a trajectory determined by the force and angle of the swing of the bat. This is evidenced everywhere (the television turns on because I press the button on the remote, the remote turns the tv on because it sends a wireless signal to the tv reciever, etc). Cause and effect is everywhere, there is nowhere it has been shown not to be. The few experiments people get confused over, like the double slit experiment, still show that select few effects happen in select circumstances - not random events.
Okay, I already expected this one of course. And I already said this before.

You are of course right that there is tremendous empirical evidence that many events are causally determined by previous events.
But this is not empirical evidence for determinism! Why ?

Because than this statement must be true:
IF many events are caused by a previous event THEN every event is caused by a previous event

You can easily see that this is a logical fallacy, this is really basic logic. It's the same that this statement isn't true:
IF many people are white, then all people must be white.
You agree about this ? This is a logical fallacy, right ?

Although you've found empirical evidence, it's not empirical evidence for determinism. It's only evidence that many things behave deterministically.
If something can come into existence that doesn't have a cause, not even a cause to tell it when or where to come into existence, then everything will be everywhere at all times.
Logical fallacy...
If something can come into existence without cause, than that something can be everywhere at all times.
The first statement was false. and the rest of your theory doesn't make sense anymore...

Sorry both are logical fallacies, and you clearly haven't refuted my statement:
Statement B: There is no scientific reason to believe that determinism is true.

But you can try again if you want... or agree with it of course.
Post Reply