However there is now a century of detailed experimentation which shows that those Laws cannot (yet) be applied to all circumstances to achieve a single outcome. — Gary Enfield

In quantum mechanics it is not possible to derive a single outcome from a given cause but it is possible to derive a single cause from a given outcome. At least that's how I understood Kenosha Kid's claim that QM is backwards deterministic.

Determinism can be true only if everything has a cause but the belief that everything has a cause is based on inductive reasoning but inductive reasoning falls short of the the level of certainty required to keep determinism afloat. All Europeans believed that all swans were white until Australia happened, proving my point about the flaw in inductive reasoning.

Chaos theory isn't really about disorder. Chaotic systems are completely deterministic, but extremely sensitive to their initial state and any perturbations. If gravity, for instance, was chaotic, an object of 1 gram might happily rest on the surface of the earth while one of .99999999 gram might be catapulted toward the sun. — Kenosha Kid

Gravity is chaotic!

Gravity is chaotic! — SophistiCat

Do you mean unstable?

In quantum mechanics it is not possible to derive a single outcome from a given cause but it is possible to derive a single cause from a given outcome. At least that's how I understood Kenosha Kid's claim that QM is backwards deterministic. — litewave

There is another issue, often ignored, about determinism. And that is, determinism is actualism. This is simply a misunderstanding. We can talk about determinism in a phenomenon without having to prove its actuality. The maximum speed of a curve on a roadway is provided to avoid skidding. The sharpness of the road affects how fast you can drive without skidding -- not skidding is the point here. Our cause is sound because skidding does not happen.

Hopefully I'm making sense here, if not, it's my limitation in ability to explain, not the example, so if anyone can expound on this, I'd appreciate it.

Gravitating many-body systems are chaotic in the technical sense.

Gravitating many-body systems are chaotic in the technical sense. — SophistiCat

I didn't know this.

I didn't know that . — Gary Enfield

It comes from the horses mouth, and he is also promising a mathematical theory of emotion! So that should be interesting.

The road that you are heading down was first explored by Verela and Maturana in the seventies. They are part of the Santiago school of cognition. They form the embodied or holistic movement, which uses a systems theory logic. A current advocate is Fritjof Capra, his pearl of wisdom is ; "cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state". Their term for what is happening is autopoisis. A recent variation of what they started would be Neil Theise, and his self organizing universe, which uses complexity theory logic. I came across all this by noticing that human consciousness is entirely a form of self organization, where every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization.


This whole thing is best understood from a complexity theory perspective, where disparate elements when combined can form a synergy that gives rise to emergent function or properties not present in any of the elements individually. This is best illustrated when amino acids of different shape, size , and charge are combined to form proteins that have emergent function.


This pattern of combination giving rise to synergetic emergence is illustrated in atoms when combined forming molecules , in molecules when combined forming amino acids, in amino acids forming cellular proteins, in cellular proteins forming cells, in cells combined forming organs, in organs combined forming bodies, in bodies combined forming communities. At each of these levels there exists a system of self organization. Human consciousness results from and is embedded in all of this, as a system of self organization. Specifically human consciousness relates to extracellular self organization.


All of this is caused by a goldilocks pocket of order in the universe. So the cause of consciousness extends beyond the complex biological organism to a pocket of order outside the system. The pocket of order forms a field that percolates and can self organize, and form molecules, and this may start the whole process ( this is my own speculation ).
A "goldilocks" rocky planet with water, and a sun in the just the right position is helpful, but its the order that causes more ordered states, in my opinion. A determinism with a slight element of randomness seems to be at play, and interrelational evolution is taking place, where molecules are more stable then atoms, and so on.

This video is an excellent overview of complexity theory.

Hi litewave

In quantum mechanics it is not possible to derive a single outcome from a given cause but it is possible to derive a single cause from a given outcome. — litewave

I'm not sure that's correct, because if it were, we would be able to have laws that precisely define what happens in each circumstance, and I don't believe that we do.

As far as I'm aware, there are many aspects of QM, (and indeed, some within the level of reality that we occupy), where no known cause can account for the outcome. We need look no further than the Double Slit experiments to know that.

Some people choose to believe that determinism applies everywhere, which is fine, but it doesn't mean they the rest have to accept it until they can prove their case.

Hi TMF (sorry I find it uncomfortable to use your web name)

Determinism can be true only if everything has a cause but the belief that everything has a cause is based on inductive reasoning but inductive reasoning falls short of the the level of certainty required to keep determinism afloat. — TheMadFool

I understand what you say, but I think that it's entirely possible for objects that are deterministic to exist in a broader environment that is chaotic, (and possibly vice-versa).

The broader question is what non-determinism represents (as per the 3 options in the op).

Hi Pop

Thanks for the pointer to these authors.
Because I have a lot on my plate at the moment I won't be able to follow through with them in the short term, but I will at some point!

For this reason I can only comment on what you said.

A current advocate is Fritjof Capra, his pearl of wisdom is ; "cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state". — Pop

Perhaps it's just the way that you phrased it, but while cognition may occur as a reaction to a disturbance, that doesn't mean that we have an explanation of what cognition is, (any more than we know how self-organisation is achieved).

If something stands out as unusual we first acknowledge that it does occur, and then have to specify why it seem to represent something different, at its most basic functional level. One way to identify difference is through an apparent breach of either deterministic principles or scientific Laws. Another way is to see at what level of existence the effect seems to apply to.

Gisin's experiments across Lake Geneva to demonstrate that entanglement was real, and that the seemingly impossible connections between particles communicated at over 10,000 times the speed of light, is a case in point, by seemingly breaking several Laws and Principles. Science cannot now deny the reality of these events and it has simply accepted that this is now a reality without explanation - but any explanation is now likely to include some unknown additional factor because in a scientific world dominated by matter/energy these is no conceivable way for this to happen, (and the communication does produce real-world effects). In this case, the maths can only work by assuming a missing hidden factor to produce the effect in some unknown way.

Perhaps a simpler example would be the invention of 'Dark Energy' to plug a logical gap in observed stellar activity. However, once again, we have a hidden invented variable to make the maths work.

For your example, you returned to the theme of consciousness and awareness, and we are all familiar with the power of our brains, which employ trillions of cells. There can be speculation that computer-like processing might occur at a lower/smaller level of existence if multiple connections can be formed in the alternate circumstances, but where we can show that complex activity is happening at the most miniscule scale, below where it should be possible, then that is another way to demonstrate a new/different capability.

I think we can all acknowledge that perfect circumstances with almost impossible odds might arise once purely by chance - but those conditions then have to be exploited by something that can take advantage of them - whether that is our planet in the Goldilocks zone, or the formation of the first living cell. The difficulties to this type of thinking arise where the impossible odds have to occur more than once in the same place for a supposed miracle to emerge by this means alone.... another way to demonstrate an unusual capability.

My point is that we should try to be more specific about the capability we are puzzled by, before we can say whether it is produced 'from within', or is a consequences of influences around any particular phenomenon.

When trying to identify such a factor(s) we can only follow a logical chain of known capability and see where it breaks down - but it will generally be where we see the use of probabilities.

LaPlace's style of physical determinism was torpedoed by the uncertainty principle. That’s the short version.

Dear Wayfarer

I'm really not sure of the point you are trying to make?

At face value, your comment is misplaced as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not comment on the presence or absence of determinism/materialism. It merely states that there is a measurement problem in one particular circumstance - where it is necessary to determine the precise speed, location and mass of a single sub-atomic particle at any point in time. It says that you can do some measurements accurately but not all, as the act of measurement would change one or more of the parameters.

That is all it says, so it can apply whether or not a circumstance demonstrates the presence or absence of determinism.

From a determinist/materialist viewpoint, there can still only be one outcome from any single event, but if that example requires accuracy in all 3 measurements of a single particle, you won't be able to verify all of those aspects. However most, and probably all of the examples I have quoted do not refer to this circumstance. So the Uncertainty Principle would not apply.

If you take the non-determinist viewpoint, Heisenberg's Principle would make evidence of spontaneity or randomness less reliable if the circumstances were founded on all 3 measurements of a single particle -
but again, the examples are not based on this.

If your only point is that the Uncertainty Principle can very occasionally introduce a requirement to use probabilities - then fine, but it will only reflect one factor at play - a hidden variable. It does not argue for or against the determinism or non-determinist effects that may underpin any scenario.

At face value, your comment is misplaced as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not comment on the presence or absence of determinism/materialism. It merely states that there is a measurement problem in one particular circumstance - where it is necessary to determine the precise speed, location and mass of a single sub-atomic particle at any point in time. It says that you can do some measurements accurately but not all, as the act of measurement would change one or more of the parameters.

That is all it says, so it can apply whether or not a circumstance demonstrates the presence or absence of determinism. — Gary Enfield

Of course it does. The whole point about physical determinism, is that the rules which govern the motions of atoms govern all else. It is a lineage that comes from the early atomists - Democritus, Lucretius, and others, revived by the French philosophes of the Enlightenment. ‘All I see are bodies in motion’, says D’Holbach. You can draw a straight line from there to today’s materialism.

You may recall the notion of LaPlace’s daemon. LaPlace, as you will know, was ‘France’s Newton’, the originator of many modern concepts of cosmology and statistical science and all-around genius. His ‘demon’ was described thus:

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

I think that is as succinct a statement of determinism as you’re likely to find.

Just as Newton’s laws accurately describe the motions of bodies from the celestial to the mundane, so here the presumption is that perfect knowledge of laws of that kind will provide perfect foreknowledge of the future movements of everything in the Universe.

But the ‘uncertainty principle’ applies to just those purportedly fundamental constituents of reality - those very ‘items’ which LaPlace assumes nature is ‘composed’ from. It completely torpedoes that notion of determinism, holes it beneath the water line. Einstein was very unhappy about quantum physics. He fervently believed that science ought to provide certain knowledge of objects independent of any role for the observer.

One of the useful books I read about this was David Lindley’s ‘Uncertainty: Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg and the Battle for the Soul of Science’. This is not a fringe book or quantum mysticism. The cover blurb says:

Werner Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” challenged centuries of scientific understanding, placed him in direct opposition to Albert Einstein, and put Niels Bohr in the middle of one of the most heated debates in scientific history. Heisenberg’s theorem stated that there were physical limits to what we could know about sub-atomic particles; this “uncertainty” would have shocking implications.

Ask yourself why a book about this subject would have that sub-title.

Bohr, in due course, lectured the confident positivists of the Vienna Circle in the 1950’s, but was dismayed by their polite applause at the end of his lecture. ‘If you’re not shocked by quantum physics’, he told them, ‘you haven’t understood it’. (This anecdote was relayed by Heisenberg.)

So - I suggest you do some more reading on this subject. That book I mentioned is a good one, also Manjit Kumar’s Quantum. Passages from Heisenberg’s Physics and Philosophy are readily available online.

The meaning of all this, and the ontological status of the probability wave, are among the outstanding philosophical problems left by the 20th century. Your sanguine assurances of ‘nothing to see here’ conveys an absence of insight into that.

and that the seemingly impossible connections between particles communicated at over 10,000 times the speed of light, is a case in point, by seemingly breaking several Laws and Principles. Science cannot now deny the reality of these events and it has simply accepted that this is now a reality without explanation — Gary Enfield

QM, as with the rest of physics, respects the light speed limit. It follows from time dilation, which is fact rather then theory. What we are seeing here is a new phenomenon rather then communication.

Bell himself proposed Superdeterminism as an explanation:
"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the 'decision' by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already 'knows' what that measurement, and its outcome, will be."

Who, other then theoretical physicists, would be ready to accept superdeterminism? :sad:

LaPlace's style of physical determinism was torpedoed by the uncertainty principle. That’s the short version. — Wayfarer

I think this is overreach. I remain very impressed with a statement by a Caltech professor ( I cannot remember his name) who stated that what we are seeing at the quantum level is not behavior associated with materials - suggesting a new category is in order. Quanta, when combined together, becomes a molecule, and the rules of QM no longer apply, the rules of CM do. It would seem materials emerge from the synergetic self organization of quanta - this would be how complexity theory could account for what we are seeing. Of course, as you say, all of this is yet to be fully understood.

Manjit Kumar’s Quantum was a very enjoyable book. I wonder what those Copenhagen guys would have put together if they had systems and complexity theory at their disposal. I imagine something very similar to Neil Theise's self organizing universe.

Tychism (Greek: τύχη, lit. 'chance') is a thesis proposed by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce that holds that absolute chance, or indeterminism, is a real factor operative in the universe. This doctrine forms a central part of Peirce's comprehensive evolutionary cosmology. It may be considered both the direct opposite of Albert Einstein's oft quoted dictum that: "God does not play dice with the universe" and an early philosophical anticipation of Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

In an article published in The Monist for January, 1891, I endeavored to show what ideas ought to form the warp of a system of philosophy, and particularly emphasized that of absolute chance. In the number of April, 1892, I argued further in favor of that way of thinking, which it will be convenient to christen tychism (from tyché, chance). A serious student of philosophy will be in no haste to accept or reject this doctrine; but he will see in it one of the chief attitudes which speculative thought may take, feeling that it is not for an individual, nor for an age, to pronounce upon a fundamental question of philosophy. That is a task for a whole era to work out. I have begun by showing that tychism must give birth to an evolutionary cosmology, in which all the regularities of nature and of mind are regarded as products of growth, and to a Schelling-fashioned idealism which holds matter to be mere specialized and partially deadened mind. - C.S. Peirce, "The Law of Mind", 1892.[2] — Wikipedia

Hi Waferer

Sadly, I cannot see how your replies clarify what your point is. Perhaps you could say it more clearly or directly? In saying this...

That is all it says, so it can apply whether or not a circumstance demonstrates the presence or absence of determinism.
— Gary Enfield

Of course it does. — Wayfarer

... you seem to begin by admitting that the Uncertainty Principle has no impact on assessing the issue of whether determinism or non-determinism applies in any circumstance, because it is an entirely separate issue. Yet later you said...

But the ‘uncertainty principle’ applies to just those purportedly fundamental constituents of reality - those very ‘items’ which LaPlace assumes nature is ‘composed’ from. It completely torpedoes that notion of determinism, holes it beneath the water line. — Wayfarer

No it doesn't - for the clear reasons that I stated before:-
Just because the Laws of Physics & Chemistry cannot predict 100% what some sub-atomic particles will do, it does not mean that the underlying reality of existence is either deterministic, non-deterministic, or a combination of the two. The Uncertainty Principle is merely a comment on our ability to predict.

When commenting on LaPlace you said....

I think that is as succinct a statement of determinism as you’re likely to find. — Wayfarer

Let me tell you that Thomas Acquinas said it a lot more succinctly in his Cosmological Argument centuries earlier, and he used it to try to prove the existence of God, by making God the only thing able to spontaneously start existence.... the breaking of determinism through spontaneity.

You also said

The whole point about physical determinism, is that the rules which govern the motions of atoms govern all else. — Wayfarer

That is a simple statement of a belief without evidence... because it implies that determinism applies to everything everywhere - whereas the Laws of Physics only seem to apply determinism in certain specific circumstances.... which exclude those which apply probabilities.

Hi Pop

QM, as with the rest of physics, respects the light speed limit. It follows from time dilation, which is fact rather then theory. What we are seeing here is a new phenomenon rather then communication. — Pop

To be precise, this will not be a new phenomenon as we do not have the ability to alter nature. All we have revealed, at best, is a capability that had not been witnessed before, and which does seem to break our previously assumed limits. Assumptions can be wrong.

Equally, if the method of such experiments is to affect one of the paired particles in order to prompt a near instant and opposite effect in the other paired particle, I do not see how this can avoid being labelled as a communication.

If Gisin's faster than light experiment is evidence of other capabilities beyond Matter/Energy, (as we know & currently define it), then it falls into the 2nd category of possibilities that I stated in my OP - to bring potentially non-deterministic factors back within the deterministic fold using an external influence. But equally, these experiments do not disprove spontaneity or randomness.

All that any of us can do is to be honest and acknowledge the possibilities either way, because in the many key examples that exist, there is no deterministic explanation.

I return to the principle I quoted earlier.... that if an unexplained effect can be repeated with either a single predicted outcome or a very limited set of potential outcomes, we are more likely to find a deterministic cause at some stage - even if it/they lie outside Matter/Energy.

But those circumstances/experiments which produce a broad and very varied set of potential outcomes, are where we are more likely to find evidence of something non-deterministic.

Sadly, I cannot see how your replies clarify what your point is. Perhaps you could say it more clearly or directly? In saying this...

That is all it says, so it can apply whether or not a circumstance demonstrates the presence or absence of determinism.
— Gary Enfield

Of course it does.
— Wayfarer — Gary Enfield

When I said 'of course it does', I meant 'Heisenberg's discovery of uncertainty tends to undermine the causal determinism that is implied LaPlace's 'daemon', on the grounds that this model presumes that cause and effect can be predicted with absolute precision, whereas the uncertainty principle undercuts that.'

You already noted in your OP

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

Someone points out that these scientists include Bohr and Heisenberg, who were the founders of QM. There does seem to be a truly unpredictable element according to them, which is what caused Einstein to grumble about God playing dice.

Just because the Laws of Physics & Chemistry cannot predict 100% what some sub-atomic particles will do, it does not mean that the underlying reality of existence is either deterministic, non-deterministic, or a combination of the two. The Uncertainty Principle is merely a comment on our ability to predict. — Gary Enfield

But that is a contested point. It is called the 'epistemic intepretation', as I understand it. There are other interpretations which claim that that there really is no existent particle designated as an electron until the measurement is made. That is what all the bafflement about the 'collapse of the probability wave'.

the Laws of Physics only seem to apply determinism in certain specific circumstances. — Gary Enfield

The laws of physics are held to be the fundamental laws of the whole Universe by physicalism, with everything else being derived from, or supervening, on them. And physicalism is a very influential attitude.

Hi Wayfarer
We seem to be talking at cross purposes here, despite you quoting me....

Just because the Laws of Physics & Chemistry cannot predict 100% what some sub-atomic particles will do, it does not mean that the underlying reality of existence is either deterministic, non-deterministic, or a combination of the two. The Uncertainty Principle is merely a comment on our ability to predict.
— Gary Enfield

But that is a contested point. It is called the 'epistemic intepretation', as I understand it. There are other interpretations which claim that that there really is no existent particle designated as an electron until the measurement is made. That is what all the bafflement about the 'collapse of the probability wave'. — Wayfarer

While there may be doubt about whether the underlying nature of things is entirely deterministic, or only partially so, there is no dispute about what I said - the Uncertainty Principle is only about measurement and our ability to precisely predict in certain circumstances.

There will be questions over the presence of determinism or non-determinism in any event, but they lie at a different level to the Uncertainty Principle. That is all I was saying.

When you said...

The laws of physics are held to be the fundamental laws of the whole Universe by physicalism, with everything else being derived from, or supervening, on them. And physicalism is a very influential attitude. — Wayfarer

I do not deny that materialism is a very powerful voice in the world of science, but it is not the only voice. It is defended by those who want it to be true... and I have no problem with the truth, if it is proven to be so. But in this case the belief hasn't been proven. So such views remain a faith/opinion like all others.

As Finipolscie pointed out, it is a big ask for materialists to ask everyone to deny all the experiences of their lives (and everyone else's throughout history) in order to justify a materialist belief/faith when everyone's day to day experiences are of non-inevitable acts by living beings.

On such a major point we have the right to demand that materialists prove their case before we abandon our entire life's experiences and accept the consequences of an existence where we are supposedly acting out an inevitable script in everything we think and do.

The announcement today from CERN about the discovery of a new, previously undetected, force in nature, exerting a mysterious influence of unknown origin - could be the first evidence of the missing factor that could explain everything we have been talking about!

The announcement today from CERN about the discovery of a new, previously undetected, force in nature, exerting a mysterious influence of unknown origin - could be the... — Gary Enfield

...latest data error from the giant white elephant!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z-jU8k4wA8

Counterpunch -

I see that you are resorting to a 2019 clip by a disgruntled scientist whose only comment is that he believes that CERN is looking in the wrong place - while ignoring the discovery of the Higgs Boson, as well as the current discovery - neither of which seen to be being challenged by the scientific community....

I am not resorting to anything. It is my opinion - seemingly shared by others. My reasons for describing the LHC as a giant white elephant are slightly different, but have something in common with what was said.

I think the entire field of quantum mechanics is misconceived - and the comments made support my view. I do not believe there is anything "fundamental" to find. I think the fundamental seat of reality is causal - and that quantum mechanics is the science of the frayed edge of reality, were something bleeds into nothing.

See third comment on page one of this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/495006

I haven't overlooked anything. After the "discovery" of the Big Hose On - the greatest achievement of this trillion dollar scientific instrument is cooking weasel!

That money would have been better spent on something practical - like drilling for magma, to provide the world with limitless amounts of clean energy. Instead, they're fiddling the data while the world burns! For shame, science!