there are multiple deterministic interpretations of qm too so we can keep the beauty of determinism anyway. — flannel jesus

I'm flummoxed as to why you or anyone would find deteminism beautiful. But then, you just said that physics is 'determined by subjective requirements'.....

you just said that physics is 'determined by subjective requirements'..... — Wayfarer

You put those words in quotes as if I literally said them, but I didn't say them.

I'm flummoxed as to why you or anyone would find deteminism beautiful — Wayfarer

Order. In a deterministic system, every event has its place in the system, every event has a clear explanation and follows from the way the system is. In an indeterministic system, there's chaos because "stuff just happens". There's nothing particularly beautiful about "stuff just happening", compared to the beauty of patterns and order. And you don't have to accept that, of course, it's not some kind of scientific fact that that's what beauty is. I'm not telling you you need to believe that, just saying why I do.

there are multiple deterministic interpretations of qm too so we can keep the beauty of determinism anyway. — flannel jesus

As a matter of free choice!

I didn't say them. — flannel jesus

That was what I took this to mean:

I think a surprising amount of physics is based on abstract, apparently-subjective judgements of physicists. — flannel jesus

In a deterministic system, every event has its place in the system, every event has a clear explanation and follows from the way the system is. In an indeterministic system, there's chaos because "stuff just happens". — flannel jesus

But as I’ve said, it’s not an all-or-nothing proposition. As I said already, if the PSR says that everything happens for a reason, that reason might be something like the boundary conditions of a system, or the lawful structure that constrains the range of outcomes—not necessarily a single, fully specified event that had to happen and no other. Like, something will fall down, not up, but where it falls might still contain an all-important element of chance.

In other words, the reason why something happens might be that even though a system is lawful, it might still be open-ended, rather than strictly deterministic. There is sufficient reason why some outcomes are possible and others are not, but that doesn't mean every outcome is rigidly predetermined. Otherwise how could novelty ever enter the picture? How could anything happen?

Otherwise how could novelty ever enter the picture? — Wayfarer

Novelty is relative. As long as you couldn't predict it, it's novel - and you can't predict reality perfectly no matter how deterministic it is. You can predict certain low -complexity events, like the approximate location a bomb will land of you launch it at a particular angle with a particular amount of force, but you can't predict the future of a brain faster than the brain can do something that might surprise you, even if the processes in the brain are effectively macroscopically deterministic.

I found this connection come up again in a podcast I listen to. Within Reason, latest episode, debunking arguments for god with Graham Oppy.

They bring up the principle of sufficient reason and also determinism separately multiple times, but Alex OConnor makes the connection clear-ish here:

if you take my view, which is that for things to have a sufficient reason, they essentially must, like if P is a sufficient reason for Q, that's the same thing as saying that P entails Q, you know, that you can't have P and not have Q follow it.

https://podscripts.co/podcasts/within-reason/137-debunking-arguments-for-god-graham-oppy

So he's kinda getting at here what I think the connection is - if everything has a sufficient reason, then for every thing Q there exists some P that entails Q, and you can't have P without Q following it. That sounds like determinism to me. (I'm temporarily ignoring the infinite regress there, in the fact that every P is also a Q that needs its own P - they do discuss the inherent regress in the podcast if you want to listen)

This is the kind of train of thought that makes me think the principle of sufficient reason, if taken to its logical conclusion, implies determinism.

Without listening to the podcast, if P is a sufficient reason for Q, is the same thing as saying that P entails Q, then every truth is the sufficient reason for every other truth. A somewhat explosive result.

If P and if Q then P entails Q.

Somewhat explosive.