All absudities we can come up with rely for their absurdity on the contrast with the real world as we experience it. But if that world is not actually deterministic then of course a non-deterministic world looks exactly like our world. — Echarmion
But who are we asking? Ourselves. Are we an unbiased observer? There doesn't seem to be a reason to think that our brains are somehow designed to answer the question. — Echarmion
These criteria seem to come from nowhere and go nowhere. I didn't ask about any of that. I asked you to imagine an experiment that could disprove determinism. And you have failed to do so. — Olivier5
Any experiment that fulfils those criteria would suffice — Kenosha Kid
For example some cheating could well be at play. — Olivier5
Through gritted teeth... all relevant information — Kenosha Kid
You are not God, are you? — Olivier5
Can you explain this in more detail? Why would a non-deterministic world appear like ours? Why would a non-deterministic world "appear" at all? — Kenosha Kid
We are inclined towards determinism because the universe seems deterministic, not the other way around. — Kenosha Kid
To simplify it means that in a casino, a player who beats the odds repeatedly by more than 10% should be looked at very closely, cause something is askew in his stats. — Olivier5
One has to know the true laws of nature in order to know if they are determinist of not. — Olivier5
Otherwise you're only testing an hypothethis, which you can reject if the experience fail, without rejecting determinism. Because another determinist hypothesis may still work. — Olivier5
So... Did you find that magical experiment yet? — Olivier5
I'll take that as a no. — Olivier5
Why would random fluctuations in the wave function — Echarmion
Prima facie, the way the universe actually appears to work is absurd, at least to our everyday notions. — Echarmion
Doesn't that show that what appears to be a determined, "mechanical" apparatus can turn out to be anything but? — Echarmion
That proves that the universe isn't so random as to prevent these kinds of predictions — Echarmion
But we know that not every attribute of every organism is actually selected for. — Echarmion
We don't check these against an objective reference point somewhere. It's only when new information does not fit the pattern at all that we re-evaluate and then only to find a new solution that is "good enough". — Echarmion
In this sense Popper was outdated by theories that do not care about truth but about usefulness or buisiness values. — Heiko
People... usually know that everything has it's place. This is why there is not too much arguing about maths being a "sure" basis for empirical science. Even if the content can only be described via probabilities it is simply not true thatBut people who do not care about truth don't usually succeed very long. — Olivier5
you'd either have to say there is no certainty about nothing or consider metaphysics.Everything is that trivial in the end: it's about probabilities, always. There is no full certainty about much. — Olivier5
I do consider metaphysics, I don't discard them. Every body got some metaphysics or another. Mine is that the universe is open, evolutive, not predetermined, and thus that time is not redundant, and that we can be free.you'd either have to say there is no certainty about nothing or consider metaphysics. — Heiko
There are no random fluctuations in the wavefunction. In even the probabilistic interpretations of QM the wavefunction evolves deterministically under a wave equation until measurement. — Kenosha Kid
But what you're talking about here is Popper's indeterminacy of the gaps. This presumably fundamental randomness of the universe is weirdly constrained to whatever our peak technological capability ends up being. — Kenosha Kid
Such as? — Kenosha Kid
But we do have consensus. A non-deterministic theory of nature not only had to explain why you experience the same phenomena under identical circumstances, but why everyone else does so too. So far, no one has reported that a ball on an inclined plane had a 50/50 chance of rolling up. — Kenosha Kid
Isn't that essentially Einstein's argument of the hidden mechanics? There is no evidence, right now, that the uncertainty can be resolved. — Echarmion
Lots of organs are weird and inefficient. The human eyeball is a common example, as are various vestigial limbs found in species. — Echarmion
Again this isn't "proof". I obviously have no idea how the universe " really" works. — Echarmion
complicated and dubious one — Kenosha Kid
It's not complicated to abandon an hypothesis, especially when it makes no pragmatic difference whatsoever. — Olivier5
No, I'm French. — Olivier5
In no situation can we possibly know all relevant information about a case, and even if by miracle we did know everything relevant about a case, we couldn't be sure of it. — Olivier5
We can never measure anything exactly, there's always a margin of error. — Olivier5
We can never be sure that any of our scientific theories is true. — Olivier5
The first two conditions will never be met. The third one would require infinite energy and time so it will never happen... None of these conditions will ever apply in our human lives. So much so that determinists appeal to various demons in their demonstrations, like the Laplace's demon. — Olivier5
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.