Who is clinging to these old ideas of perfect predictability? Anybody who knows their mathematics, never mind their physics? — noAxioms
Materialists-Determinists who view themselves as objective scientists seem to have a very difficult time with their faith. — Rich
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
They don't claim predictability though, and your arguments are against that perceived claim of predictability.Determinists? You know, all those who believe that everything is fated ever since the Big Bang blew its top. — Rich
What 'clear' evidence have you against the determinism aspect? The fact that we can't predict things (trivial, isolated systems for instance)?In any case, science is quite clear, there is no determinism though it doesn't stop scientists and educators from perpetuating the belief.
They don't claim predictability though, and your arguments are against that perceived claim of predictability. — noAxioms
And you repeat the mistake again.I guess if everything is unpredictable then there is zero evidence to support determinism. — 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.It just becomes a matter of faith, — 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 as science understands the behavior of matter it all probabilistic, which hopefully answers the OP. — 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? — noAxioms
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.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
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.as for determinism zero evidence to support it. — Rich
Haven't stated my position. Not sure if I have one,If you are a determinist, — Rich
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
Natural law is derived from QM, not the other way around. — noAxioms
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
This strikes me as uncertainty. — mcdoodle
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.Fine, then give some evidence for determinism. — Rich
Yes.You mean, for example, we can derive the laws of motion from QM principles? — TheMadFool
The math makes sense in all of them, else they'd not be valid interpretations, but rather disproved hypotheses.I thought for a choice to hold the math has to make sense.
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
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
Indeed the people I know best act with remarkable unpredictability — mcdoodle
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
Planning would be pointless if the world weren't predictable. — TheMadFool
Probabilistic is not undetermined. For that matter, determined does not mean determinable.QM reigns and it is probabilistic. Zero determinism. — Rich
Agree with TMF here, sort of. The world is for the most part predictable, but that does not in any way imply deterministic.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
Probabilistic is not undetermined. For that matter, determined does not mean determinable. — noAxioms
The universe hasn't changed in terms of physical laws since animal life emerged. — fdrake
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
Consciousness does not arise. It is fundamental. It is the beginning.If it required consciousness conscious life couldn't've arisen. — fdrake
Bizarre quantum vitalism is just as vulnerable to arche-fossils as any idealism. — fdrake
There is absolutely evidence that the laws of physics haven't changed since before animal life emerged. — fdrake
Having the scope of observation include all possible interpretations of it includes interpretations which do not have consciousness as a prerequisite — fdrake
so this can include interpretations of observation /measurement which do not require consciousness. — fdrake
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.