Who is clinging to these old ideas of perfect predictability? Anybody who knows their mathematics, never mind their physics? — noAxioms

Determinists? You know, all those who believe that everything is fated ever since the Big Bang blew its top.

In any case, science is quite clear, there is no determinism though it doesn't stop scientists and educators from perpetuating the belief. Where do you think the OP got the belief from?

Materialists-Determinists who view themselves as objective scientists seem to have a very difficult time with their faith. — Rich

I'm don't consider myself a materialist or determinist. I was when I was young because I love physics and that's what I thought it said, but I was wrong. Physics doesn't have anything to say about free will.

Materialist-Determinist is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one. Science does not depend on the stance, even if some scientists hold the stance in faith, as you do whatever yours might be. — noAxioms

Exactly.

Determinists? You know, all those who believe that everything is fated ever since the Big Bang blew its top. — Rich

They don't claim predictability though, and your arguments are against that perceived claim of predictability.

In any case, science is quite clear, there is no determinism though it doesn't stop scientists and educators from perpetuating the belief.

What 'clear' evidence have you against the determinism aspect? The fact that we can't predict things (trivial, isolated systems for instance)?
For that matter, what evidence is laid out there FOR determinism, that it would be perpetuated as fact as you say is done?

They don't claim predictability though, and your arguments are against that perceived claim of predictability. — noAxioms

I guess if everything is unpredictable then there is zero evidence to support determinism. Anyone can believe what they want though. It just becomes a matter of faith, which is what I said. Determinists simply have a very strong belief that everything is determined. This isn't even philosophy. It is flat out religious in nature, which is fine with me. Determinist dogma is that everything is fated. For further reference, please Google Calvinism.

There are no Laws. There are some equations that roughly approximate physical conditions for non-living matter. And as science understands the behavior of matter it all probabilistic, which hopefully answers the OP.

I guess if everything is unpredictable then there is zero evidence to support determinism. — Rich

And you repeat the mistake again.
Determinism makes no claim of predictability, and lack of predictability is zero evidence against determinism. Is that the 'quite clear' evidence against it?

It just becomes a matter of faith, — Rich

If the evidence was as clear as you claim, it would not be a matter of faith, but rather a matter of holding a belief in a position inconsistent with evidence.

And as science understands the behavior of matter it all probabilistic, which hopefully answers the OP. — Rich

It does answer the OP, but the OP wasn't about determinism. I'm saying that your dragging that into the conversation was irrelevant to the subject at hand.

And you repeat the mistake again.
Determinism makes no claim of predictability, and lack of predictability is zero evidence against determinism. Is that the 'quite clear' evidence against it? — noAxioms

The standard determinism story (and all if it is just a story) is that if everything is known coupled with the mythical Laws of Nature then everything can be known. The problem, as the story goes, is that it just soooooo complicated, we can't predict - but it is all fated. As such, determinists must revert to blind faith in their story because there is nothing too support their story. I don't care what Determinists believe. Faith is everywhere in abundance. I just don't know what materialists-determinists have such a problem admitting to their faith.

Now, to answer the OP, the probabilistic universe is baked in to quantum physics. As for determinism, there is zero evidence to support it, so don't try looking for any. Stripped of any evidence whatever, if you are a determinist, you are one based on your faith in the story that everything is fated, just as others have faith in God. One can choose either as they wish. All one needs is very strong beliefs.

The standard determinism story (and all if it is just a story) is that if everything is known coupled with the musical Laws of Nature then everything can be known. — Rich

It is trivial to disprove such epistemology even given a simpler natural law that is not probabilistic. Determinism is not a claim of what can be known.

as for determinism zero evidence to support it. — Rich

No proof perhaps, but zero evidence is a pathetic claim. There is in fact quite a bit of evidence for both sides of the debate. You seem to have chosen a side and justify that bias by refusing to acknowledge existence of evidence to the contrary. Cherry picking is always a good way to bolster your biases, but it sucks as a method for real discovery. Embrace contrary evidence and win past it. Hiding from it only demonstrates that you fear to face it.

If you are a determinist, — Rich

Haven't stated my position. Not sure if I have one,
You have a stated faith in God. I suppose that usually necessitates a non-deterministic stance, but said stance is then backed by the faith, not by any evidence.

No proof perhaps, but zero evidence is a pathetic claim. There is in fact quite a bit of evidence for both sides of the debate — noAxioms

Fine, then give some evidence for determinism. Do so without being in conflict with quantum physics.

@Rich
@noAxioms
@TheMadFool
@MikeL
@fdrake
@mcdoodle
@T Clark

This discussion was deleted accidentally and has now been restored. Please feel free to continue.

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with what you say, but that doesn't seem like the question you were asking in the OP and the one I thought I was answering. — T Clark

Sorry, can't cover all the bases at one go. Anyway, the point is quantum phenomena manifest, at the human scale, deterministically (you said so and I agree).

So, chance is not an objective aspect of the world at our level of existence. It's just a good way of approximating complex deterministic causation.

Natural law is derived from QM, not the other way around. — noAxioms

You mean, for example, we can derive the laws of motion from QM principles? This is interesting but doesn't really damage my position.

At the macro-scale, the world is regular i.e. follows fixed inviolable laws and we live in that world. So, chance, even if it's a feature of the atomic scale, isn't an objective property of the world we can see, hear and feel.

There is no way to choose among valid interpretations, so the typical course of action is to choose based on what you want to be true. — noAxioms

I thought for a choice to hold the math has to make sense.

This strikes me as uncertainty. — mcdoodle

One thing I didn't mention was human, actually life. The mind is, like it or not, a chemical reaction and I see a place for QM to manifest its probabilistic character. However, you already know, minds affect other minds through fixed, definable laws. For instance, if I insult x, x feels hurt and this is a general law, making reactions predictable; in fact, I think, this predictability (requires general principles or laws) is the basis of our social dynamics. So, again, we see that QM and chance doesn't manifest in the world of humans probabilistically.

Fine, then give some evidence for determinism. — Rich

The primary one that drove Einstein which is relativity of simultaneity. There seems to be no ontological status difference between different times of a given object. Is it possible that Napoleon of 1781 does not become emperor and die 40 years later? Quantum theory is oddly mute on this point.
To say that 'it could have happened differently' is very interpretative language and implies that things can be put back into a not-yet-happened state, in violation of the ontological status consistency suggested by Einstein's work.

Of the three more major interpretations of QM, two (hidden variables, no-collapse) are deterministic. But this is evidence only of consistency, not direct evidence for or against determinism.

On a less scientific and more philosophical front: A non-deterministic universe seems in need of creation, meaning it is a byproduct of a larger universe in which it was created, and thus not really a universe at all, but just another object/process among other things. That's a circular inconsistency that is too often dismissed by asserting that is against the rules to question the logical consistency of the parent universe.

You mean, for example, we can derive the laws of motion from QM principles? — TheMadFool

Yes.

I thought for a choice to hold the math has to make sense.

The math makes sense in all of them, else they'd not be valid interpretations, but rather disproved hypotheses.

The primary one that drove Einstein which is relativity of simultaneity. There seems to be no ontological status difference between different times of a given object. — noAxioms

Without getting into the nature of time, there is nothing in Relatively, either Special or General that supports determinism. If it did, it would contradict QM. Relativity is just transformation equations between frames of reference and a way to imagine gravity which may or may not have ontological relevance. Time in Special and General are defined differently. Nothing there about determinism. Einstein spent his whole life trying to bring determinism into QM and failed. Despite this, we have these kind of threads. QM reigns and it is probabilistic. Zero determinism.

Whether reality is random or not doesn't have depend solely on the realism of the wavefunction or derived probabilities. There are plenty of examples of stochastic phenomena on usual Newtonian length scales. Even within Newtonian mechanics This is an example of an indeterminate Newtonian system (one with a free constant).** It is strange to say that predictions from physical laws imply reality is deterministic when there are also stochastic processes which provide excellent predictions (so reality is stochastic? If one is a valid argument so is the other). Also models of some phenomena are intrinsically random. I provided a large list of such things in my previous post in the thread.

Stochastic phenomena like regression to the mean are commonplace. It occurs in the relationship of child height to parent height - more generally for many quantitative traits. It also occurs in the performance of individuals in repeated tasks (like practicing something complicated).

When physicists see if an experiment is consistent with a theory, they also assume their data comes from a random process and see if the best fitting model is within error bounds of the (a?) theoretical solution.

edit: * indeterminate in this sense isn't the same as randomness.

One thing I didn't mention was human, actually life. The mind is, like it or not, a chemical reaction and I see a place for QM to manifest its probabilistic character. However, you already know, minds affect other minds through fixed, definable laws. For instance, if I insult x, x feels hurt and this is a general law, making reactions predictable; in fact, I think, this predictability (requires general principles or laws) is the basis of our social dynamics. So, again, we see that QM and chance doesn't manifest in the world of humans probabilistically. — TheMadFool

Well, obviously, if you have written the book that explains how the general law of insults works, please link me to it. (Indeed I'm surprised I haven't already heard of it as it would be a trail-blazing work) Otherwise I'm going to carry on thinking this is all empty assertion. You believe in determinism, therefore you assert that everything in sight is deterministic; but there are no working models for what might happen next. Indeed the people I know best act with remarkable unpredictability: how can this be? Probably it's just an unscientific weakness in me.

Indeed the people I know best act with remarkable unpredictability — mcdoodle

As I said, unpredictability is (they say) a feature of the quantum world. I'm willing to accept this for humans and living organisms because the brain is a chemical factory and quantum laws will apply to it. However, two people, x and y, aren't connected chemically are they? Indeed an intent and subsequent action may have quantum origins but the effect is macro-scale (the world we see, hear and feel) and this world is deterministic.

You can't disagree on this. Our whole lives are predicated on predictability. Don't we plan our actions? Planning would be pointless if the world weren't predictable.

an intent and subsequent action may have quantum origins but the effect is macro-scale (the world we see, hear and feel) and this world is deterministic. — TheMadFool

People often say this. They can't, however, model it.

Planning would be pointless if the world weren't predictable. — TheMadFool

On the contrary: if the world were predictable, there would be no need to plan.

QM reigns and it is probabilistic. Zero determinism. — Rich

Probabilistic is not undetermined. For that matter, determined does not mean determinable.

an intent and subsequent action may have quantum origins but the effect is macro-scale (the world we see, hear and feel) and this world is deterministic.
— TheMadFool

People often say this. They can't, however, model it.

Planning would be pointless if the world weren't predictable.
— TheMadFool

On the contrary: if the world were predictable, there would be no need to plan. — mcdoodle

Agree with TMF here, sort of. The world is for the most part predictable, but that does not in any way imply deterministic.

Planning would indeed be pointless of the world were not predictable. No point in planning if there is zero idea of what's to come. Most life forms are evolved to be excellent predictors despite the imperfect nature of any prediction made. I draw breath not because it benefits me, but I predict it will benefit me in 15 seconds.

If the world were no predictable, planning would be pointless I would think.

Probabilistic is not undetermined. For that matter, determined does not mean determinable. — noAxioms

Probabilistic is not determined. That is why we used different words. There is zero support for determinism. You and the OP late looking for some hidden variables that are deterministic. There aren't any, there never has been, and there never will be because the mind is the agency that chooses.

However, everyone harbors faith. There is no reason that you shouldn't have your own. One can believe in God or Determinism, it doesn't bother matter to me. I never object to faith. It is an aspect of human nature. What I object to are all of the materialists to try to foist their faith on others under the cover of some pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. I'm not interested in parlor games of who can out linguistic who. I am only interested in the nature of nature.

According to the "many worlds" interpretation of the Schrodinger wave function, a "true" random outcome(i.e. a quantum one) is only subjectively real - because a clone doesn't know she is a clone living in a cloned world. The overall reality is that all the possible outcomes generate multiple worlds.

Whether this is true or not, it is at least a feasible justification for a supra-form of determinism, given the apparent randomness of quantum events.

Psychologically, determinism doesn't bother me because I know it is irrelevant to my life...

The universe hasn't changed in terms of physical laws since animal life emerged. This means there are properties or processes that allow the fuzzy quantum soup to produce macroscopic phenomena without animal life. This would be impossible without the interaction of a quantum system with another system also inducing a measurement. This is understood as a map from a probability distribution to an observation from it. Nothing requires consciousness. If it required consciousness conscious life couldn't've arisen. Bizarre quantum vitalism is just as vulnerable to arche-fossils as any idealism.

Not that this tangential matter implies anything about the actuality of chance. Randomness in the territory rather than the map.

The universe hasn't changed in terms of physical laws since animal life emerged. — fdrake

We have no evidence of this one way or another. What we do know is that our observations and understanding of nature are in constant flux.

This means there are properties or processes that allow the fuzzy quantum soup to produce macroscopic phenomena without animal life.

Again, there is no evidence one way or another. Depending upon one's view of matter and life, it is possible to arrive at different conclusions. I prefer to vote life (mind) as fundamental and matter some sort of debris of life.
— fdrake

Nothing requires consciousness — fdrake

No evidence one way or another. What we can say is if it is not consciously observed it is inaccessible, and I am using consciousness and observation with the widest possible meaning.

If it required consciousness conscious life couldn't've arisen. — fdrake

Consciousness does not arise. It is fundamental. It is the beginning.

Bizarre quantum vitalism is just as vulnerable to arche-fossils as any idealism. — fdrake

Nothing bizarre at all. The subtle wave movements manifesting as quanta is consciousness at work and making choices, even weaving different substantiality of matter. This was known thousands of years ago, though QM does provide some probabilistic equations that describe the habits of consciousness.

Artists embrace life. Unfortunately scientists, because of their own viewpoint, prefer to deny it. They are really missing out on a lot, but it is their life not mine.

There is absolutely evidence that the laws of physics haven't changed since before animal life emerged. For one, the theory of red-shifts makes predictions about entities older than animal life. You can also find an example in every single compound in the world

Having the scope of observation include all possible interpretations of it includes interpretations which do not have consciousness as a prerequisite. Insofar as they include the necessity of consciousness for quantum systems taking determinate values, they are consistent with your position. Insofar as they don't, they are not. Ionic and covalent bonding for example is well within the quantum length scale (compounds can diffract) and both are prerequisites for presence of carbon based life. Both require quantitative shifts in wavefunctions and eventually a merger to the wavefunction of the compound. When the electrons are shared they are measured.

Quantum mechanics demonstrably was not known thousands of years ago. There is no evidence that consciousness is necessary for quantisation. Another confusion is that you seem to believe quantisation is generated by observation - it is not. Quantisation describes the propensity for many quantities on the quantum scale (angular momentum, photon emission energy, spin etc) to take values on a discrete rather than continuous spectrum. This occurs before any probability calculation can arise.

You are misinformed on basic properties of quantum systems despite wanting others to 'read up' on them to attain your level of knowledge. Let's try to constrain the discussion.

1) The formation of covalent and ionic bonds requires measurement. This occurs prior to the advent of our consciousness. Therefore our consciousness is not required for wavefunction collapse.

2) There is evidence for the laws of physics applying before the advent of consciousness. Red shift in light makes accurate statements about the ancient light coming to our planet. A simple calculation demonstrates this. The radius of the observable universe divided by the speed of light gives the oldest photons that 'come to our shores' so to speak an age of 46.5 billion years. Roughly 10 times the age of the Earth, nevermind the time elapsed since the advent of animal life.

There is absolutely evidence that the laws of physics haven't changed since before animal life emerged. — fdrake

Really? Well, I guess one believes what one wishes to believe. I don't recall any written observations from 100 million years ago to compare with. Can you remind me when the red shift was first observed and recorded? I must have missed something in my readings. I really prefer concrete when discussing specific scientific descriptive equations.

Having the scope of observation include all possible interpretations of it includes interpretations which do not have consciousness as a prerequisite — fdrake

Interpretations require consciousness.

As for the rest of your post, thanks for sharing your opinions and ideas. I find them very creative.
You are blessed with a very imaginative mind. Good for you!

1) There are no written records of [the fact that X influences Y].
2) There are no written records of [the fact that X influences Y] before time t.

3)There is no evidence that X influences Y.

t must be after now in order for 2 to imply 3 in some way. t = now is however sufficient for there to be written records when discussing these issues. So your argument is invalid. Perhaps you would have already found this information contradicting your views if you were looking for articles that have already been written?

OK. Thanks. I think we are done with your academic parlor game. Save it for someone who can truly appreciate it.

I forgot to address 'interpretations require consciousness'. This is in the context of whether consciousness is required for observation/measurement. You said 'observation in the widest sense', so this can include interpretations of observation /measurement which do not require consciousness. It is a moot point that communicating these ideas requires us both to be conscious human beings with a common language. Completely irrelevant to whether observation/measurement requires consciousness.

I have addressed everything you've posted in response to me. You have consistently ignored any evidence or arguments I have presented against your position. You even didn't engage when I made two linked examples to engage my arguments through (red shift and the age of the light it describes). This elusive behaviour is paired with your propensity to respond to small sub-phrases and offer single line refutations with little to no reasoning in them.

I am surprised you don't take your position seriously enough to address major flaws in it.

Your attempt to dismiss what I've said with generalised statements about your world view has not gone unnoticed, nor has your similar elusive, goal-post moving behaviour with other posters in the thread. This leads me to believe that you are playing a game to preserve your worldview after your arguments have taken a critique you don't know how to address.

I would be happy if you proved me wrong and we had a discussion about the behaviour of red-shift I said and what it implies for your position.

so this can include interpretations of observation /measurement which do not require consciousness. — fdrake

As I said you are blessed with an extraordinary imagination.

You have provided zero evidence (not surprising) but loads of opinions which I already thanked you for. I would suggest you continue your parlor game with someone who enjoys it.