The significance of this is that probabilties are an admission that we have multiple outcomes for no apparent cause. — Gary Enfield

This is the faulty logic, or rather, the incorrect observation, or incorrect interpretation of theory, that you use as a premis for your thesis.

If this were true, I would both be a man and a woman, as well as a tree branch, a 35.3 cubic foot space and Zimbabwe's national debt. My leg would be all: a leg, an arm, a kidney, a stone in the park, and a carburetor. Maybe even a Louis IVX prophylactic as well.

But my leg is my leg, and not all those other things.

There are no multiple outcomes of any causational event. There is just one effect of each causational event.

You can figure out the rest of how this mistake renders your theory wrong.

Dear 'God Must Be An Atheist'

Your beliefs are clearly Materialist/Determinist and that is fine, but they are not the only beliefs.

As long as there are scientifically proven examples which challenge this philosophy then open-minded people have the right to consider other possibilities.

There are many such examples in science - indeed, you need look no further than every time science deploys probabilities in its mathematics. Your assumption that all answers must be found as a 'hidden variable' (ie. something within Matter/Energy that we have not yet discovered), is fine too, but as shown above, it is not the only possibility.

I am surprised by the ridiculous arguments you presented (eg. that you can be both a man and a woman), .... which scientific mathematical formula suggested them? None. I also think that you have missed the core logic too, because probabilities do not apply to objects. They only apply to events.

What you cannot say is that the logic I presented is flawed. The basic logic is undeniable. That is why science uses probabilities - to recognise different outcomes when it has no explanation. This reasoning has been successfully defended on many occasions. Your only option is to prefer one of the three explanations.

I would be interested to know which of the options other people prefer, and why.

The question we should ask is - what does this apparent lack of cause represent? — Gary Enfield

The assumption that there's some sub-level to reality that is more fundamental, and that macroscopic, causal effects are the consequence of random quantum phenomena, I think is mistaken.

I posit that the nature of reality is causal and focused at the macroscopic level; such that QM is essentially, the science of the frayed edge of reality. Quantum objects exhibit strange behaviours as a consequence of lacking existential properties conferred on matter at the causal focus.

That so, causality is universal, but quantum objects are so small - they are variously effected by existential forces. Quantum objects actually have velocity but not location. They pass through both slits at the same time, or rather, don't quite pass through either - being, not entirely here nor there.

Mathematicians can only give a probability that an object is in a particular place, or travelling at a particular velocity - because it has in fact, not been determined. It's not an epistemic problem; it's the frayed edge of reality, on a scale so small that existence bleeds into nothingness.

Now do not get me wrong - the use of probabilities in these circumstances applies the best tool that we have available, but by failing to provide an true single outcome, this type of mathematics becomes a description rather than an explanation. — Gary Enfield

This is called 'the measurement problem': wavefunction evolve deterministically according to the many-body Dirac equation, but those wavefunctions correspond to multiple measurement outcomes. Which outcome... uh... comes out is probabilistic.

But...

The question we should ask is - what does this apparent lack of cause represent? — Gary Enfield

Quantum mechanics *is* backwards deterministic, that is: the cause of a measurement is fully determined by the outcome. It's the other way round that's problematic: the effect is not predictable.

Is it just a hidden cause - ie. a factor within Matter/Energy that we have yet to discover?
Could it be factors that lie outside the realm of our physical Matter/Energy - ie. a different type of stuff that could interact with it to preserve causality?
Or could it be that there is true randomness and spontaneity in the Universe? — Gary Enfield

There are other options.
1. Multiverse-type realities in which all possible outcomes are actual outcomes (e.g. the many worlds interpretation).
2. No causal arrow of time, such as was discussed here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9391/determinism-reversibility-decoherence-and-transaction/p7
3. Quantum mechanics is an approximation to a more fundamental theory that applies only at statistical scales.

Hi Counterpunch and Kenosha Kid

Thanks for your well considered responses.
I was beginning to get worried that this subject, which is a fundamental underpinning to most philosophical debates, would not be taken seriously.

I will respond to you individually below…. and apologies that I am still learning how to use the site and still haven’t seen how to use quotes.

Hi Counterpunch

Like you, I believe that strict causality underpins the vast majority of the physical environment – at least at the level we occupy.

My question is whether it can cover everything? If it does cover everything then the Determinist viewpoint is correct, and nothing can ever change the inevitable sequence of events that will unfold… and that gives me pause to consider, because instinctively I do not feel that we are all acting out an inevitable script.

If life, or indeed anything else, has any opportunity to change the course of the future, it must break strict causality – even if It is to a very limited degree (to avoid chaos).

Die hard Determinists say that we really are acting-out an inevitable script, and that the illusion of free will, (ie. our ability to not follow an inevitable path), is just because people confuse their flawed ability to predict the future with the underlying inevitability of physical matter,( ie.we cannot always know everything at play in any given scenario).

I personally believe that the universe does have a limited ability to change course, and not just follow an inevitable script. If this is correct – and I am still wanting to explore the possibilities one way or the other – then some ability to break the mould must exist, even if the touch points between the inevitability of Matter/Energy and this other capability, are quite small, (thereby limiting the opportunity for chaos).

When you say:-

“Quantum objects exhibit strange behaviours as a consequence of lacking existential properties conferred on matter at the causal focus.”

I’m not sure what that means. What do you regard as ‘the causal focus’?

I can understand the suggestion that if the universe of Matter/Energy has either formed certain rules, or just abides by those rules as imposed from somewhere, then anything which emerges within the universe that doesn’t have a full structure may somehow be made to conform to ‘our norm’, if it is to survive in our realm. But is that what you meant?

In terms of strict science, I think it is incorrect to say that sub-atomic particles have velocity but no location. Heisenberg said that we can measure one or the other but not both at the same time, because our only ability to measure these things will inevitably pump more energy into them – thereby changing them. He did not say that those factors didn’t exist.

Equally, you are presuming what is happening in the dual slit experiments. There are many theories. None are proven, and many directly challenge the evidence of how things operate everywhere else in reality, (eg. wave/particle duality), which makes people suspicious of them.

I do not challenge the use of probabilities. I endorse it. But I do ask that we see probabilities for what they, are and resist the temptation to draw conclusions from a false premise – that they explain something, when they don’t.

Probabilities give us a description, and rarely if ever, give us an explanation, (see my response to Kenosha Kid below).

In our ordinary lives we see deterministic explanations for events that have multiple outcomes because we see additional factors that will perfectly explain each result using specific individual scientific laws. That is not true at the quantum level, or in scenarios of prime origin, or life, etc.

Now do not get me wrong - the use of probabilities in these circumstances applies the best tool that we have available, but by failing to provide an true single outcome, this type of mathematics becomes a description rather than an explanation. — Gary Enfield

QM probabilities mean that given initial conditions and laws of nature it is impossible to derive (and thus predict) a single future outcome. Nature may still be deterministic in the sense that all possible outcomes happen with certainty (we just observe one of them and the probabilities express their frequencies) and even that they already exist if time is just a kind of space, a timeless mathematical structure.

Hi Kenosha Kid

As you acknowledge, I do not object to the use of probabilities, because they are the best tool that we have, but I think we both now recognise that there are limits to how far they can be used.

In his books, Finipolscie makes one point that I did not refer to, but which you have… that we might derive some deterministic rules from the range of probabilities observed. Thinking about it, it’s a good point…. if only having limited use. (So let’s add it to the list).

The way that he put it is that : if the pattern of outcomes from experimentation gives us a very limited range of possibilities, then the very fact that there is such a limited set of options suggests that some underlying rule is probably in operation. Conversely, if the range of outcomes is very wide, then it is much less likely that a discernible pattern or rule will emerge, and therefore it may be more likely to be evidence of true randomness or spontaneity.

The point that we have to recognise in relation to Quantum Mechanics is that nobody can directly see what is happening, or be sure of all the influences at play. We only have the technology to detect after effects of experiments, and not directly observe in real time - because of the Heisenberg principle.

So the difficulty in your ‘backwards deterministic’ argument is that it is very easy to draw the wrong conclusion by looking backwards in time, for a cause – because you may not be aware of all the factors at play in any scenario. If you are a true materialist, then you must suppose that there are hidden variables/unknown factors that account for the differences in outcome.

Yet, as mentioned already in my 3 original options – we can look for causes that lie outside the parameters of our model, (ie. outside Matter/Energy), but only if there is evidence to suggest that such factors are necessary.

I am personally not persuaded that anything can mess with Time, and if it were truly possible to change the sequence of causal events in that way, the rest of existence would be in deep trouble. We should also be able to see lots more evidence of this ‘lack of causality’ at the level of existence we occupy…. but we don’t.

There are much more simple explanations which don’t require us to change our general perception of reality that much.

To tackle your other main suggestion, Max Tegmark came up with his Multiverse Theory because he was unable to resolve some of the fundamentals of the creation debate in any other mathematical way. But his Multiverse theory, (possibly achieved through hidden dimensions), essentially gives us hidden influences outside the realm of our Matter/Energy…. one of my original 3 options.

As further evidence for that option, we might consider the findings of various Double Slit experiments. The lingering point here is less about the light and dark pattern, but, as Finipolscie points out, the remarkable width of the pattern.

Due to the results from the single photon or electron experiments, (including the Quantum Eraser experiments), we have two basic potential scenarios. Either
- the photons/electrons stay as a single particle all the way through the slit – in which case we have to determine how they might interact to form the pattern; or
- people have argued that each particle turns into a wave as it senses the approach of one or two slits, then interfering with itself, before re-combining on the other side screen to form a single dot particle again, (known as wave particle duality – and requiring these particles to have sufficient knowledge of what is about to happen, to adjust its state of being).

As you may be aware from my other posts, I feel that the concept of wave particle duality contradicts every other thing that we know about Matter/Energy behaviour, and has no real evidence to justify it, other than there being very few other theoretical ways to explain what is happening.

But there ARE other simpler conceptual ways to do so.

Finipolscie’s suggestion was that the width of the pattern is the key to this. It is always many times wider than the double slits in the screen. He then points out that in every other scenario in nature, waves are generated when an object (like a ship in water, or a train through air) passes through a pool of some other stuff.

If we run with that scenario, we can see that if a photon or electron were to cause a wave as it passed through another type of stuff, (say the elusive ‘Dark Energy’ that must be everywhere, if it exists at all), then the particle could stay as a particle, riding the troughs of the wave and still get deposited in a light/dark pattern, (because of those waves), onto the wall/detector beyond. In this scenario it would be the hidden pool of stuff that causes the pattern and the distribution of the particles, and this would preserve all of the other known characteristics of Matter/Energy that we come to expect. It is the simplest explanation that I have come across, and has no other challenge than identifying the ‘hidden pool’... not a small one I admit, but far less demanding than a Multiverse in my opinion.

This is just one of the range of scenarios that Finipolscie lays out, leaving people to make up their own mind.

I personally reject certain options if my experience and knowledge says that those would cause more problems than they solve. I am also inclined to the belief that the simplest and most straightforward options are generally the most likely to be correct. However, the argument is not settled yet.

Quantum mechanics *is* backwards deterministic, that is: the cause of a measurement is fully determined by the outcome. It's the other way round that's problematic: the effect is not predictable. — Kenosha Kid

Are you suggesting A) that the outcome/effect can *ontologically* determine its cause(s)? Or only B) that we can at times *epistemologically* determine cause(s) by the outcomes/effects that are observed?

If (A) - if the effect ontologically determines its cause - by what means can the notions of cause and effect retain their cogency?

I find that, here, the cause becomes synonymous to the effect just as the effect becomes synonymous to the cause. For a cause is that which determines its respective effect.

As an aside, in notions of retrocausality (regardless of their validity) this relation between cause and effect is preserved (wherein the cause determines the effect), only that they are taken to occur backwards via some universalized background of time - such that the effect is temporally antecedent to its cause.

I was beginning to get worried that this subject, which is a fundamental underpinning to most philosophical debates, would not be taken seriously. — Gary Enfield

To be honest, your post is rife with misconceptions. Right from the start:

The Laws of Physics and Chemistry are formulated through the use of traditional mathematics that provide only one specific outcome for any precise starting point/cause. — Gary Enfield

One can perhaps get such an impression from high school science classes, but that is because they cover very basic material, and probability is taught little if at all at that stage. In reality there are plenty of probabilistic relationships and equations in physics, chemistry and other sciences.

Yet in recent years younger scientists have tried to argue that true randomness does exist in the world due to the findings of Quantum Mechanics. — Gary Enfield

Uh, younger scientists? You mean like Heisenberg and Bohr? Just how old are you? :lol:

Seriously though, fundamental physicists do seem to favor determinism. Take so-called black hole information paradox: the reason it is thought of as a paradox is that loss of information implies indeterminism - the kind of indeterminism that doesn't go away in a suitable interpretation of quantum mechanics, because it violates QM's fundamental unitarity.

But I am not sure that that attitude generalizes across sciences - even across all of physics, of which fundamental physics is a rather small niche.


For philosophers who have tackled causality and explanation, probability is not necessarily problematic. Indeed, some theories of causation are explicitly probabilistic: the basic idea is that causes raise the probability of their effects. One well-known modern development of that idea with practical applications is causal Bayesian network.

Are you suggesting A) that the outcome/effect can *ontologically* determine its cause(s)? Or only B) that we can at times *epistemologically* determine cause(s) by the outcomes/effects that are observed? — javra

B.

Are you suggesting A) that the outcome/effect can *ontologically* determine its cause(s)? Or only B) that we can at times *epistemologically* determine cause(s) by the outcomes/effects that are observed?

If (A) - if the effect ontologically determines its cause - by what means can the notions of cause and effect retain their cogency? — javra

Given an effect (state of the world at time t) and laws of nature, the cause (state of the world at time t-1) can be *logically* derived. That may include both ontological and epistemic determination. The difference between the cause and the effect is given by the arrow of time (causes precede effects), which is the result of the second law of thermodynamics.

Are you suggesting A) that the outcome/effect can *ontologically* determine its cause(s)? Or only B) that we can at times *epistemologically* determine cause(s) by the outcomes/effects that are observed? — javra

That said: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9391/determinism-reversibility-decoherence-and-transaction

Hello Gary,

Some quick tips on how to use he forum. If you move your mouse to where it says "7 hours ago" - bottom left of a post you wish to respond to, a little curly arrow will pop up. Hit that, and it will 'reply' - by inserting hypertext in the text box.

The person will then get a notification of your reply - and probably respond quicker than 7 hours ago!

To quote something:

Thanks for your well considered responses. — Gary Enfield

Like so, highlight the text you wish to quote, and click on the quote button that pops up!

Again, this will be magically transported to the text box below.

Welcome to the forum!

“Quantum objects exhibit strange behaviours as a consequence of lacking existential properties conferred on matter at the causal focus.” — counterpunch

I’m not sure what that means. What do you regard as ‘the causal focus’? — Gary Enfield

At the macroscopic level - where we live, and stuff is made out of atoms, and events can be described in terms of cause and effect - I posit, that there's a nexus of forces - gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong interactions, acting on things at the atom plus scale, and conferring existential properties: mass, location, velocity etc.

Below the sub-atomic scale, those forces have less, or no effect on quantum objects - and so existential properties are not conferred, and quantum phenomena exhibit strange behaviours, like passing through both slits at the same time. Causality pertains universally, but quantum objects are so small - they are only partially effected.

There are 16 fundamental particles known, and proof of my theory, I imagine, would be had from examining how the four forces interact with different kinds of particle. I cannot do the math!

Are you aware of other challenges to Determinism - like chaos theory? Have you seen a video of a double jointed pendulum? I'll Bing it:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube%2c+double+jointed+endulum&view=detail&mid=B40D889E34DF3DF0B3A9B40D889E34DF3DF0B3A9&FORM=VIRE

Causality and randomness!

Given an effect (state of the world at time t) and laws of nature, the cause (state of the world at time t-1) can be *logically* derived. That may include both ontological and epistemic determination. — litewave

Its a very unique way of defining both effects and causes as "states of the world". A billiard ball's motion as cause for another billiard ball's motion as effect is not "a state of the world at time t" unless one equates the billiard ball's motion at time t to the state of the world at time t - which we don't do in practice.

But more to the point, to logically derive a cause is to epistemically determine what the cause was. To be clear about what you're saying, are you by the underlined sentence affirming that logically deriving what a particular cause was is - or at least can be - what determines (sets the limits or boundaries of) the given cause's occurrence ontologically? In other words, are you saying that our reckoning what the cause was is of itself what ontologically determines the cause's occurrence - such that an observed effect is ontologically uncaused up until the time we logically determine what its cause was?

Please keep in mind that I'm not affirming what I take causality to be but am only interested in clarifying what it is that you've stated causality to be.

That said: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9391/determinism-reversibility-decoherence-and-transaction — Kenosha Kid

You might have been better served pointing me to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser - something I've been acquainted with almost since the time of the first experiment. As it is, the wiki article is a shorter read than the thread you've linked to and, it seems to me after skimming the thread, more to the point here addressed.

All the same, the issue I was asking about regarded what causation is - its nature of being - which is an a priori, metaphysical issue that gets applied to a posteriori, empirical observations of the physical. Even Hume made ontological, i.e. metaphysical, commitments in defining what causality is prior to affirming that our knowledge of what causes what cannot be deductively obtained, but can only be inductive. Seeing how QM is a posteriori, I find that referencing QM does not address the a priori issue of causality I've previously asked about.

You might have been better served pointing me to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser - something I've been acquainted with almost since the time of the first experiment. As it is, the wiki article is a shorter read than the thread you've linked to and, it seems to me after skimming the thread, more to the point here addressed. — javra

I think you might have taken a different point than I intended. The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics is what I had in mind, wherein physical events such as emissions are triggered in part by future events (in this case absorption).

Seeing how QM is a posteriori, I find that referencing QM does not address the a priori issue of causality I've previously asked about. — javra

You asked me about my response to Gary's OP. Whatever you might have been discussing beforehand or since is irrelevant to that. It's not all about you, dude :rofl:

Hi Counterpunch

Thanks for the tutorial on how to use some of the features. I'm still experimenting!

Re: your comments, you have an interesting viewpoint in relation to how the effects of forces may impart characteristics on objects passing through them. I can see the general idea which has existed for some time, (though effected in different ways), but I wonder if this has already been investigated and found to be unpersuasive?

Causality pertains universally, but quantum objects are so small - they are only partially effected. — counterpunch

Even if the generality were correct, I don't see how you could partially affect causality, even at the sub-atomic level.

Hi Litewave

As I mentioned to Kenosha Kid, in relation to your quote below, while it may be possible to guess some ways in which a result has been achieved, you could rarely be certain.

Given an effect (state of the world at time t) and laws of nature, the cause (state of the world at time t-1) can be *logically* derived. — litewave

If you cannot be sure of all the active factors at play before any outcome, you can only guess as to the true combination of causes that may have produced a particular result. As a simple example:-

Looking back in time, there could be many ways to achieve the result "2" but only one will be correct.

Hi Sophisticat

My comment was about the principles of science which have achieved the status of Laws.

In reality there are plenty of probabilistic relationships and equations in physics, chemistry and other sciences. — SophistiCat

I don't deny this, and the use of probabilities in applied science is well known even in schools. They cover scenarios where events happen in uncontrolled conditions, but they still use Laws which I understood to be formulated on a deterministic basis.... which is why the senior scientists that I have heard lecturing default to a deterministic viewpoint, even if they acknowledge the experimental results show multiple outcomes for the factors they are monitoring.

The assumptions which those men have made are that there will ultimately be shown to be hidden variables within Matter/Energy that will ultimately explain the results. But that is a belief not a fact. Equally, belief in true randomness and spontaneity (as I defined earlier) is a belief not a fact. We can only look for evidence and then honestly recognise how far that evidence can take us.

In terms of the quip about age, Heisenberg and Bohr weren't that old when they made their suggestions, even if they would have reached very old age by now had they still been alive! They certainly came into conflict with the older EPR trio!

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I can't argue because I'm stuck at the hypothesis stage, but at least you seem to have understood it, and that ain't nothin!

Just to clarify though, do you believe it's been investigated and found to be unpersuasive? And if so, could you point me in the right direction?

Because I thought, in my infinite ignorance - that the confusion was the consequence of a false assumption carried into QM unexamined, that if you keep taking something apart - you find out what it's made of - which wouldn't be the case if the fundamental seat of reality is here, at the macroscopic level - and QM is the frayed edge and just bleeds into the void.

Even if the generality were correct, I don't see how you could partially affect causality, even at the sub-atomic level. — Gary Enfield

Nor do I, really, to be honest - but I'm trying to explain EPR, double slit, quantum tunnelling and so on - these weird quantum behaviours, in terms of a causal reality. And to be fair, on the surface of things - the idea that quantum objects are too small to be effected by gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, or only partially effected, doesn't seem any madder than supposing spooky action at a distance!

Hi Counterpunch

Like you, I think we are all hypothesising because there are no proven answers.

Objects either have to carry an intrinsic set of characteristics that make them what they are and how they operate, or that profile is imposed on them by some sort of 'Framework of Existence' as Finipolscie terms it. The forces of nature may be part of this, but I read somewhere that there are 6 key parameters which also set the strength and other characteristics of the existence we occupy.

Changes to the settings on any of those 6, (which from memory extends to the number of dimensions, etc), would radically change how nature is perceived and operates. Conceptually it is hard to see how any of those settings could emerge from physical characteristics. The logic I have seen is that it must work the other way round - ie. the settings must either come first and be imposed; or simply be a balance of other factors in some unknown way.

I can't point you to any research that has tested your theory, but because the general idea has been around for a while then I just wondered why someone wouldn't have explored it before... and if they did, is that why it hasn't taken off? I don't know.

Chaos Theory, as I understand it, is still deterministic, and applies the same Laws of Science, but is really just covering-off the issue of predictability as opposed to the underlying reality.

All of the awkward experimental results must ultimately be explained, and then reconciled with perceptions of origin and life. Did you see Finipolscie's explanation of the Dual Slit experiment that I tried to outline earlier, to Kenosha Kid? It avoids all of the major problems in terms of particles becoming waves, and then recombining; as well as the timing issues brought about by the Quantum Eraser experiments. We would only have to look for the other stuff implied by the theory - which could be 'Dark Energy' - as identified as a theoretical additional substance by scientists in the field of cosmology.

Who knows?

But at the core of all this speculation we keep coming back to the fundamentals of strict causality because that is one of the few solid observations about nature that can act as a reliable yardstick with which to assess experimental findings. That is why the loophole free Bell Test experiments were so important.

That is why the loophole free Bell Test experiments were so important. — Gary Enfield

Bell's inequality can be explained with Bohmian Mechanics. You have a 3n-dimensional (n elementary particles) quantum potential, which is non-local. If you move one particle, it immediately affects all the others through the quantum potential.

It is like walking on a landscape. If you walk to the west, the slope can change in the north-south direction. In classical mechanics, the (for example) z-axes of the particles are parallel, in quantum mechanics they are perpendicular to each other. Thus are the formulas.

Finipolscie is apparently a pseudonym, and that makes it impossible to judge his scientific credentials. Also, he's floating the idea of awareness in molecules. See here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10007/awareness-in-molecules/p1

This all seems very Teilhard Du Chardin to me; an interesting writer to read, but wildly speculative, and not to be taken entirely seriously. ...say I, while nonetheless advancing my own amateur hour crackpot theory.

No worries. I'll keep looking. Dinner time. Logging off!

Looking back in time, there could be many ways to achieve the result "2" but only one will be correct. — Gary Enfield

That's epistemology for you: if you lack data, you lack certainty. Causality isn't special in this regard.

But if you know the final state of something and you have all information about the environment it evolved in, in principle the initial state is exactly knowable. Yes, there are other ways to get to that final state, but they will in principle be discernable through interaction with the environment.

Its a very unique way of defining both effects and causes as "states of the world". A billiard ball's motion as cause for another billiard ball's motion as effect is not "a state of the world at time t" unless one equates the billiard ball's motion at time t to the state of the world at time t - which we don't do in practice. — javra

Yes, in everyday life we just say that one ball caused another ball to move but this couldn't happen without the world in which it happened, which includes space, time, distribution of matter in space and time, and laws of physics (which are regularities in the distribution of matter in space and time). So the whole world caused the second ball to move, but in practice we can predict the causal effect fairly accurately while neglecting much of the world and just considering the two billiard balls, their immediate environment and laws of physics.

But more to the point, to logically derive a cause is to epistemically determine what the cause was. To be clear about what you're saying, are you by the underlined sentence affirming that logically deriving what a particular cause was is - or at least can be - what determines (sets the limits or boundaries of) the given cause's occurrence ontologically? — javra

My unstated assumption was that the world has a logical structure. That just means that every object in the world is what it is and is not what it is not (law of identity or non-contradiction) and every object is a collection of objects (non-composite objects being empty collections). The structure of every such world is described by pure set theory, which is a foundational theory for all mathematics. So, if the world has a logical structure, our logical derivation of causes from effects (or in classical determinism also effects from causes) is a description of the structure of the world. Our description (an epistemic determination) does not ontologically determine causes from effects; it just states how causes are ontologically determined from effects in the structure of the world.

I don't deny this, and the use of probabilities in applied science is well known even in schools. They cover scenarios where events happen in uncontrolled conditions, but they still use Laws which I understood to be formulated on a deterministic basis.... which is why the senior scientists that I have heard lecturing default to a deterministic viewpoint, even if they acknowledge the experimental results show multiple outcomes for the factors they are monitoring. — Gary Enfield

Historically, Law nomenclature has been used to refer to important regularities that can be formulated in a single statement or equation. You will find such laws both in fundamental physics and in applied sciences. And within that context a law can express a fundamental feature of a theory (e.g. Newton's laws of motion) or a phenomenological relationship (e.g. Hooke's law). Laws can be either deterministic (Maxwell's laws) or probabilistic (Boltzmann's distribution law).

You asked me about my response to Gary's OP. Whatever you might have been discussing beforehand or since is irrelevant to that. It's not all about you, dude :rofl: — Kenosha Kid

Well, dude, I asked you about what on Earth your statement of backwards determinacy was supposed to mean in terms of causation. Making my two posts to you mostly about you. The vacuousness of you sending me to read your entire thread on QM as a followup reply seems to be lost on you, righteous one. But you’re not one to be bothered with explaining your extraordinary statements on a philosophy forum; in this case, that of quantum causes being fully determined by their effects; fine, got it.



Thanks for clarifying that.

Well, dude, I asked you about what on Earth your statement of backwards determinacy was supposed to mean in terms of causation. Making my two posts to you mostly about you. The vacuousness of you sending me to read your entire thread on QM as a followup reply seems to be lost on you, righteous one. But you’re not one to be bothered with explaining your extraordinary statements on a philosophy forum; in this case, that of quantum causes being fully determined by their effects; fine, got it. — javra

Bull. I answered your question quickly and unambiguously. The link was not by means of an explanation for that (hence "That said..."), it was just in case you were interested. If you're not, okay. But to complain after the fact that my original post to another user didn't address a question you were asking (presumably someone else) is just bizarre. I have no idea what's going on in your head and no inclination to find out.