You are the observer. Can you tell the difference between tables X andY based on the outcomes of the dice roll? — TheMadFool
Maybe not. There are tests of randomness but I don't think they are that useful, they can spot something that is deterministic if it makes no effort to use randomness from the results. Reasonably random results adhere to a distribution that can be detected using the Chi-square test for example.
But I don't think its that interesting to consider if you can be tricked or not. — Paul S
The indeterminism we encounter in our lives could be divine mischief/deception. — TheMadFool
My question
Do you believe the universe is inherently deterministic or indeterministic (and why)?
(Do you believe God/the universe/your chosen deity plays dice?) — Paul S
I suggest more close reading and study of the Ethics, III & IV (Preface), because your suggestion here is clearly mistaken. "Whence evil" for Spinoza? Human psychology (proximally); not onto(theo)logy (ultimately). Summary.... a deus deceptor isn't ruled out by evil, in fact even the Spinozist godis susceptible to a deus deceptor interpretation. After all, whence all the evil? — TheMadFool
For Spinoza, Descartes' "deus deceptor" (i.e. uncertainty, non-necessity) is merely an inadequate idea – a deity/demon which 'transcends' nature (i.e. cartesian dual / second substance, or substance 'beyond' substance) – among natura naturata (i.e human modes) and not immanent to – is not necessitated by – natura naturans. Einstein reads Spinoza correctly in so far as he does so sub specie aeternitatus; however, he fails to discern, or accept, that the sub specie durationis reading of Deus, sive Natura also could be simultaneously true as Spinoza argues, and thus Einstein misinterprets time as merely "a persistent illusion" (contra Spinoza).Surely if Einstein assumes a god that he believes doesn't play dice, that god must be the cause of all the evil - a deus deceptor seemstoo plausible to ignore.
From the moment you receive the dice in your hands to the moment the dice have stopped rolling, what aspects of the event are indeterministic? — Paul S
Sound deterministic to me.It is impossible to tell at this stage of science if existence is deterministic because perturbing a system in order to measure it changes the state of the system. — Enrique
Then you're not flipping it.I then flip the coin, i.e., transform it into a superposition of heads-up and heads-down. — Andrew M
He was never a atheist. He was considered a form of theist, he would have seen the deception as God like.I daresay his much-publicized atheism — TheMadFool
It came in the form of premonitions for me, when I was in danger.Personally, I have experienced these, including precognitive dreams — Jack Cummins
You're making the assumption that the human brain and nervous system is deterministic.As a matter of fact, we can't really help thinking this way. As a matter of fact, reasoning is deterministic. Reasons determine conclusions — Harry Hindu
I might have to read up on that,David Bohm (re: hidden variables) would make a career of attempting to correct, or extend, 'einsteinian determinism' ... almost in spinozist fashion. — 180 Proof
On one hand, it is deterministic in the sense that everything that will ever happen already exists and cannot change. On the other hand, if QM is right, it is indeterministic in the sense that it is not possible to logically derive a single outcome from initial conditions and laws of physics (laws of physics being regularities in the structure of spacetime and distribution of matter in it), which means that a single future state cannot be predicted from past states. — litewave
Consider the butterfly-effect: The smallest of effects can lead to the greatest of consequences (covid-19 for example). — shawtuse
If many-worlds interpretation of QM is right, it is deterministic in the sense that it is possible to predict all future states from past states (since all possible outcomes are realized) but indeterministic in the sense that it is not possible to predict the single future state that we will observe (since all the other possible future states are realized in parallel worlds which cannot interact with each other and we cannot predict in which world we will end up). — litewave
Future states may be predicted from past states. Take the position of the Earth in relation to the Sun for example. Every 365 days, the Earth is back to the starting point in its orbit. The position of Mars may be predicted and a rocket ship may be sent there! However, things like how a woman might react to any given situation, may not be predicted with accuracy! — Present awareness
Not exactly, the Sun is moving in orbit around the galaxy, and up and down through the galactic plane like a revolving frill. — Paul S
No way, then, to "determine." — tim wood
So it's the definition of determinism that's lacking here. — tim wood
Twice asked, twice evaded.So it's the definition of determinism that's lacking here.
— tim wood
You can look it up. — Paul S
Why not? — Andrew M
I'm using the below definitions.Well, there you have it. Is that you meant? — tim wood
From this site I count thirteen different determinisms. Which is either twelve or thirteen too many. Unless determinism itself is a many and if that's the case, why only thirteen? The question here, as with any abstract idea, is not "what is it?" And that because in itself it is not anything at all. Instead, it is, "what do I say it is, and why, does that work and how useful is it?" And as usually happens, the act of assigning meaning, if it's any good, eliminates problems via clarity.
Quantum phenomena are not random, they're stochastic. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Under the "many worlds" hypothesis, where in all possible quantum outcomes occur in an ever dividing set of universes, I suppose we sink back into a more deterministic system, since the output of possible new universes is determined by what comes before. — Count Timothy von Icarus
With that in mind, quibbling over the randomness of particles just doesn't seem that big a deal. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The device is flipping it. You can make a deterministic device to flip something, at least deterministic at the macro level, so then it's just a question of the determinism or lack of with the coin, and it's environment. Can you make it land in the same place to the namometer? That would be more of a challenge, regardless of how the flipper is and the smoothness of the surface, the polish of the coin etc? But to just make it land on heads is not too difficult, even more a human, with the right discipline and conditions for the experiment. But it's questionable whether humans are deterministic to do it with the same accuracy as a machine can. — Paul S
I don't really distinguish between practical and theoretical. But what is proven is then in the realm of experimental physics in that case.I don't see the question of your OP as merely a practical one — Andrew M
I wasnt talking about the nervous system and brain. I was talking about reasoning.You're making the assumption that the human brain and nervous system is deterministic. — Paul S
Here you are providing reasons as to why something is impossible or possible. So it seems that what is possible or not is determined by some prior set of circumstances.It's just that its obviously impossible for us to set the conditions for both pendulums to be in the exact state and trace the exact same path. It will never happen. — Paul S
We have not proven whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic or not. But if any of it is indeterministic then it all is, if you get me, because if you have a chain of events in a system that is deterministic but for one part, then the overall outcome is indeterministic. That's what I'm trying to get at. — Paul S
Above is an example of Born's statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein would have argued that no matter which point is selected, even if its not in the largest (most probable) area, there is still some other underlying deterministic reason why this value would emerge beyond just a throw of the dice, whereas Born would say it was part randomly selected. It's the probability amplitude that made Einstein uncomfortable. — Paul S
Everytime you make an argument about how things are for everyone, even if they disagree with you, and provide reasons for those arguements you are supporting the idea of determinism. — Harry Hindu
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.