Determinism is a fact of the universe it does not have an opinion. It's true whether you believe it or not. — charleton

Does science talk about discovering true facts or arriving at the most broadly based unfalsified beliefs?

You are adopting an absolutist position on determinism as a known metaphysical fact. And it is no longer even a reasonable metaphysical belief, given quantum indeterminacy and the measurement issue in general.

It claims everything is already determined. — Rich

That sounds like fatalism, which is not the same thing as determinism.

That sounds like fatalism, which is not the same thing as determinism. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A difference in taste, that is all. Both render life meaningless. Luckily, despite academic indoctrination, most people simply ignore it though since if it lingers with the mantra, "it is the fault of dna".

A difference in taste, that is all. — Rich

Determinism says that B is an effect of A; nothing more, nothing less. A could have never happened and we would not have B. Something else could have happened, and some other effect could have resulted.

Fatalism, on the other hand, says that nothing different could have happened. Everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen is set in stone.

There is no version of determinism that is verifiable or falsifiable (that I'm aware of).

Quantum entanglement doesn't rule out every possibility or knowledge gap that a determinist can posit might be the case (see; non-local hidden quantum variables for instance (or specifically, don't ;) ).

Material/empirical science relies on the presumption that things are consistently causal in such a way that knowing enough about the rules and current state of a system allows us to make reliable predictions about future states, and for almost everything this assumption has been most fruitful. Quantum physics however is currently stuck on the fact that certain qualities or arrangements of systems of fundamental particles cannot be known, measured, or observed, and so this gives rise to a definite limit on our ability to make accurate or comprehensive predictions at quantum scales, but it doesn't prove that some events are "undetermined" in the hard sense.

Determinism says that B is an effect of A; nothing more, nothing less — WISDOMfromPO-MO

While there are as many flavors of Determinism as there are flavors of Christianity (for exactly the same reasons), it is so-named name because it is meant to describe a deterministic existence. Pretty dismal and I hope most people understand it is a completely fabricated myth.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/determinism.html

"Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs."

There's no such thing as magic. — charleton

You're the one who mentioned it, so that doesn't answer my point.

Determinism is a fact of the universe it does not have an opinion. It's true whether you believe it or not. — charleton

So you believe.

Why do you assume it does? It was merely meant to be an example of what might be true. — BlueBanana

Thank you for re-asserting my intention. I sometimes wonder if I'm typing in a different language from the extent to which my comments get misinterpreted. It's reassuring that at least some people, on some occasions, understand them.

Nope. I do not have to hold a belief for determinism to be true. I just have to wake up every morning and note that the sun has not turned into a melon

You believe magic, I get it. But how do you think it works?

Quantum indeterminism, which you do not understand relies on a deterministic universe too.
Quantum phenomena are predictably unpredictable; like the fall of a dice. But observation of the dice is not enough to be able to predict the outcome with each throw. But when you know what all the causative factors are you can make a dice throwing machine that helps you score more predictably.
None of this invalidates determinism in any way. It just means we do not yet have all the information necessary to predict 'stochastic' events.

You believe magic, I get it. — charleton

Apparently you don't get it because I do not believe in magic.

Nope. I do not have to hold a belief for determinism to be true. I just have to wake up every morning and note that the sun has not turned into a melon — charleton

That's a strawman, indeterminism in no way implies those kinds of events happening.

What are your arguments for not believing in determinisn again? That you dislike its implications?

None of this invalidates determinism in any way. It just means we do not yet have all the information necessary to predict 'stochastic' events — charleton

Hmm. To say that events are predictably unpredictable, as a wavefunction does, is merely to say they are constrained rather than determined. You can be certain of your uncertainty. And if that uncertainty is irreducible, then absolute determinism is a dead duck.

But relative determinism, or a degree of constraint, is still a useful thing to have. Just because absolute determinism fails, not all is lost.

The problem is, the Schrodinger Equation is empirically verified using ensembles of particles across independent and identical trials. So for the verificationist the meaning of the Schrodinger Equation is statistical and has no meaningful definition in terms of an individual particle.

The question "is the behaviour of this particle essentially determined or random?" is meaningless.

One can at best ask "can experimental outcomes on a collection of particles in similar circumstances to these test particles be used-to-determine how these test particles are likely to behave in terms of population averages"?

If the answer is yes, then what we have is a statement which says that the behaviour of some particles are useful-in-determining how other particles will behave. What we don't have are universal statements of determinism which are meaningless.

What are your arguments for not believing in determinisn again? That you dislike its implications? — BlueBanana

It makes no sense at all from any perspective. There is not one statement about Determinism that can withstand any scrutiny.

How about this: if you went back in time without affecting anything in that time, there's no reason to assume something would happen differently.

There is certainly no way to go back in time so there is no reason to think about what could have happened. It is as we are observing it and changing it with our Minds. We call this evolution.

What is missing from our culture is the sense of being and our active involvement in change. We are all involved. Nothing is determined by "something else". Our minds are creating it via our chosen actions.

So a thought experiment is not an argument anymore because it's impossible?

Determinism is a fact of the universe it does not have an opinion. It's true whether you believe it or not.
— charleton

So you believe. — BlueBanana

The fact of determinism is knowledge. Knowledge is contingent on evidence; in this case inductive evidence. When you come up with some inductive information that contradicts determinism I'll be happy to assess it.
Until then I know determinism works. I have no need of belief.

sun has not turned into a melon
— charleton

That's a strawman, indeterminism in no way implies those kinds of events happening. — BlueBanana

I'm sorry to have to inform you but it does imply that.
Every day to go and expect your car to start you are relying on determinism. And if he fails to start then you rely on determinism to find a solution, such as you forgot to put petrol in it; or you need to change a spark plug.

So a thought experiment is not an argument anymore because it's impossible? — BlueBanana

Sci find is just not part of my particular way of practicing philosophy. I prefer to look at patterns and c patterns that others bring to my attention. For example, the minds of people making choices of all sorts for different reasons are patterns that I've observed. I have never observed anyone going back in time, not even in my dreams, so it is difficult to make anything if it, other than it is another excellent example of the creative potential of Mind. Yes, that it is!

Knowledge is contingent on evidence; in this case inductive evidence. — charleton

You only have that evience about non-conscious objects. You can't apply those conclusions to include people.

I'm sorry to have to inform you but it does imply that.
Every day to go and expect your car to start you are relying on determinism. And if he fails to start then you rely on determinism to find a solution, such as you forgot to put petrol in it; or you need to change a spark plug. — charleton

Indeterminism does not imply that causality never exists or isn't appliable to some things or situations.

You're arguing against rejection of causality in that comment. For example a view that events have causes that determine the probabilities of their outcomes can to an extent be interpreted to be causalitistic.

Furthermore, that comment, even if it was valid, would not answer my comment. An identical course of people's actions in an individual situation does not imply they share a view that leads to those actions. But even if that did, it would not be support of any sort for your absurd claim that indeterminism would lead to the Sun transforming into a melon.

So you have no opinion at all on what would happen in the case an observer was able to travel backwards in time?

Every day to go and expect your car to start you are relying on determinism. And if he fails to start then you rely on determinism to find a solution, such as you forgot to put petrol in it; or you need to change a spark plug. — charleton

So when a radioactive atom decays, are you saying that was determined by a cause? Something suddenly made its decay more probable, nay inescapable, in that moment rather than - as inductively confirmed in the study of these things - that the decay probability does not vary with time? The chance was constant, therefore the determinism was - measurably - zero?

So you have no opinion at all on what would happen in the case an observer was able to travel backwards in time? — BlueBanana

Philosophically no. As I said, I look for patterns. Similarities within differences and differences within similarities. And from this, I build new patterns which explain more and give me a new understanding. For me, new observations by myself or others are golden.

But you can, based on those patterns, make expectations and generalizations?

But you can, based on those patterns, make expectations and generalizations? — BlueBanana

Yes, in this case I can have a high expectation that time travel in real duration is not possible.