On to the extent that it is determined that everything happens.

Now, such a philosophy truly sits between the absurd and the worthless. Welcome to scientific determinism.

Some outcomes are mutually exclusive. Yes every outcome can occur under determinism - but not at the same time.

Some outcomes are mutually exclusive. — Purple Pond

Some interpretations of QM, have that every outcome can be equally valid.

Some interpretations of QM, have that every outcome can be equally valid. — Posty McPostface

You are speaking of the super-fantastical Many-Worlds interpretation which indisputably reveals how far into the super-natural world science willingly travesl to preserve determinism. God is unbelievable but a super-universe of infinite wolds that is continuously growing at an infinite rate is quite plausible? I leave it to the reader as to which story is more fantastical, God or the MW Interpretation?

Just a simple question, seemingly. — Posty McPostface

I don't understand the question.

Some interpretations of QM, have that every outcome can be equally valid. — Posty McPostface

Only outcomes that are compatible with the laws of physics are permissible. Also, if an outcome is the result of rational deliberation, it is not clear that more than one outcome occurs..

You are speaking of the super-fantastical Many-Worlds interpretation which indisputably reveals how far into the super-natural world science willingly travesl to preserve determinism. God is unbelievable but a super-universe of infinite wolds that is continuously growing at an infinite rate is quite plausible? I leave it to the reader as to which story is more fantastical, God or the MW Interpretation? — Rich

The old argument from personal incredulity. Or perhaps more accurately, the argument from ignorance?

Anyway, the earth is not flat and it's not turtles all the way down.

No, it just displays how far into the fantastical science will go in order to satisfy its Desiree for a deterministic world. I mean what can be more incredible than the Many World theory. And by the way, precisely which one of the infinite worlds are you referring to?

No, it just displays how far into the fantastical science will go in order to satisfy its Desiree for a deterministic world. I mean what can be more incredible than the Many World theory. And by the way, precisely which one of the infinite worlds are you referring to? — Rich

E pur si muove

If you could construct a coherent criticism, rather than a visceral reaction to the scale of reality revealed to us by our best theories, then that would be interesting. Why bother being so scathing about something you don't understand?

What can I help elucidate about the question? Basically, does determinism make sense in infinitary systems?

Is the MWI, infinitary?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Have you heard of the Many Worlds Interpretations? If so, then my question is geared towards it in asking if it makes sense to call something deterministic if every possible outcome is realized in such a universe. I hope that makes sense.

No, it doesn't.

"In such a universe" - what universe? You mentioned interpretations, plural. Are you thinking of some particular interpretation?

And why would determinism not makes sense?

Really, why do you start a thread if you can't even express your thought in a few coherent sentences?

I don't understand what's the issue either. Maybe let me restate the question. Does determinism apply to a situation where all outcomes can and are realized?

MWI would be a trade-off. You get to save wavefunction determinism at the expense of causal localism. So every possibility gets actualised. But in a way that then makes no difference as there is no interaction between these outcomes. They all happen. And none of them make a difference to each other.

The phrase, throwing out the baby with the bathwater, comes to mind.

On the whole, the principle of locality seems more important to metaphysics than the preservation of determinism. The reality of chance - as in wavefunction collapse - is after all the world as we experience it. And it would be nice to keep all the causes of the world within the one world, not just abandon causality because we haven't yet got a final theory of the quantum.

I don't understand what's the issue either. Maybe let me restate the question. Does determinism apply to a situation where all outcomes can and are realized? — Posty McPostface

In a deterministic universe every possible outcome can and is realized (in its time), since every event realizes the only outcome that is possible at the moment when it happens.

Does this answer your question?

Do you even have any clear idea about what you are asking? I get a strong impression that you don't.

Do you even have any clear idea about what you are asking? I get a strong impression that you don't. — SophistiCat

Forgive my incoherent question if that is what it seems like. I'm just an amateur interested in some physics and quantum mechanics.

Forgive my incoherent question if that is what it seems like. I'm just an amateur interested in some physics and quantum mechanics. — Posty McPostface

Perhaps you can give a specific example of what you mean by your question. What do you mean by every outcome being realized? A traffic light realizes every possibility at different times, namely red, green, and yellow. And it's deterministic, being operated by a centralized computer run by a city's traffic engineers. Is that what you mean?

Part of my issue is that I don't understand the conception of time in the MWI. If someone could clarify that I might to be able to clarify the confusion.

Hah! Quantum mechanics still presumes Newtonian backdrop time. That's the problem. The apparent reversibility of the wavefunction physics is the reason why the irreversibility of an event, a collapse of the wavefunction, doesn't compute.

So QM imports the determinism of mechanics because it imports time as a global backdrop dimension with a basic symmetry of direction. If things look the same going forwards or backwards, then the theory can't say anything else than the future was always completely determined.

MWI tries to fix this by grafting on statistical mechanics to the QM formalism. But this only buries the issue even deeper under the reversible mechanics of thermodynamics. You still need an "observer" to break the symmetry of the maths being used.

MWI is a modern mysticism. It avoids the fundamental issue that a mechanical notion of time creates. When QM gets replaced by a fuller theory of quantum gravity, time is going to have to be a properly emergent feature like space. Instead of time and energy being connected by the uncertainty principle in the current kluge fashion, it will have to be cashed out properly like location and momentum uncertainty.

Perhaps you can give a specific example of what you mean by your question. What do you mean by every outcome being realized? A traffic light realizes every possibility at different times, namely red, green, and yellow. — fishfry

These are not all possibilities. There are literally an infinite possibilities. When describing the nature of the universe over must be very precise and about simplicities as one does for practical purposes.

I'm talking about the fantastical story called MWI, a desperate attempt to save determinism. Does the story appeal to you? I mean an infinite number of worlds growing infinitely every moment? Should we consider this possibility before we consider God?

These are not all possibilities. There are literally an infinite possibilities. When describing the nature of the universe over must be very precise and about simplicities as one does for practical purposes. — Rich

Can you explain what I'm missing about the basic operation of a traffic light?

Can you explain what I'm missing about the basic operation of a traffic light? — fishfry

Does the fact we can make machines mean that nature is mechanical?

Does the fact we can make machines mean that nature is mechanical? — apokrisis

What?

Think about all possibilities.

What? — fishfry

Unless you want to claim nature is literally a finite state machine, then what you’re missing is that is what you appear to be claiming.

Unless you want to claim nature is literally a finite state machine, then what you’re missing is that is what you appear to be claiming. — apokrisis

It's impossible for me to respond to a comment that's so far from anything I said that it appears to be directed at someone or something else. I have no idea what you're talking about.

OP was puzzled as to why people are unclear about his question. I suggested that he supply a specific example. I gave the simplistic example of a traffic light that has three possible output states and achieves them all.

@Rich suggested that I "consider all possibilities." What does that mean? And you ask if I'm suggesting nature is an FSA. When did I say that? Your reading comprehension is awful.

What happens to causality in that form of interpreting QM?