Regularity (habitual actions) should be confused with determinism. Nothing has ever been shown to be precisely deterministic. They tried, and then came Quantum uncertainty. — MondoR

Quantum uncertainty is not arbitrary non-determinism. It just changes deterministic induction with statistical induction, but it is not the same as lack of any predictive utility. Also, everyone who claims non-predictability appears to hang on QM, which appears to me to not be the core of your objection. Are you saying that QM non-determinism is your primary argument against predictability?

Also, things have been shown to have been sufficiently large-scale deterministic to extract value from the predictive behavior. We didn't predict and fail, we predicted and succeeded. That is why we are still here. This is known factual history. We can't claim that this will remain true at the large scale in the future, but the account of our past experience is set in stone and it shows that the world lends itself to prediction. Even if for small-scale phenomenon requires us to adapt from complete determinacy to evaluation of expectations and standard deviations, and risk assessment, we still assume that we will extract value from our predictions, based on anecdotal experience from the past (where it indeed worked.)

And indeterminism makes enormous claims. Like the idea that things can happen for no reason. — khaled

No such claim is made. Choices are made for many reasons, but there are choices. I can eat breakfast or skip it.

There MWI interpretation. Try to grasp the exorbitance that Determinists have had to reach in order to justify determinism in an infinite number of universes. Yes, new universes are created for every quantum event. Yet, even stretching to the infinite universes, our Universe, the one we live in, remains probabilistic. Let the Gods live in their Universes (Heaven?) and we live in ours.

If we start doubting the exhaustiveness of our observations, we are not going to make any progress. A — simeonz

By this precept, the indeterminist nature of the universe is proven by the double slit experiment.

Absurdism claims that the universe does not conform to analytical comprehension. — simeonz

I agree that it does not NECESSARILY conform to OUR analytical comprehension. That's an assumption that it does. But even if it is a false assumption, it does not mean the universe is ontologically absurd. It just looks that way to us.

There MWI interpretation. Try to grasp the exorbitance that Determinists have had to reach in order to justify determinism in an infinite number of universes. Yes, new universes are created for every quantum event. Yet, even stretching to the infinite universes, our Universe, the one we live in, remains probabilistic. Let the Gods live in their Universes (Heaven?) and we live in ours. — MondoR

I want again to stress that physics does not and cannot claim anything about determinism at the global scale of the entire universe. It only deals with epistemics concerning isolated systems, which are the result of spatial separation and observation of small vicinity of an object in a small amount of time. Therefore, there may be no coin toss involved at all. Maybe it is all scripted, and particle interactions register the various outcomes with frequency that conforms to a probabilistic model, but in reality there is nothing arbitrary. It is not possible to predict the outcome from the available local information. I am not convinced that we need multiple words to explain QM. We only need the mathematics that describes the regularity in the relations between prior and posterior conditions. For all we know, it may all be scripted. Or it might not be.

Quantum uncertainty is not arbitrary non-determinism. It just changes deterministic induction with statistical induction, but it is not the same as lack of any predictive utility. — simeonz

Predictive utility is not to be confused with exact deterministic precision. The equations get the job done to the required approximate precision. I'm fact, Newtons' are still good enough for most purposes. The outcome and actual precision of each event is undiscoverable. It's just his enough. And from this Determinism built this story about everything that occurs in the Universe can be prodicted with exactitude, even the choices were make. Isn't this outlandish?!

By this precept, the indeterminist nature of the universe is proven by the double slit experiment. — Olivier5

Please, check my next to last response. I don't mean to be impolite, but I don't want to double post it.
"Quantum uncertainty is not arbitrary non-determinism. ...
..."

I agree that it does not NECESSARILY conform to OUR analytical comprehension. That's an assumption that it does. But even if it is a false assumption, it does not mean the universe is ontologically absurd. It just looks that way to us. — Olivier5

Could you elaborate. I understand that ontology is not epistemics, but absurdity is about human logic. What do you mean by the "logic of the deity". Not that I object, but how do you discern it from "chaos of the deity".

This is a false equivalence. — InPitzotl

Nope. All sorts of funny competing hypotheses are consistent with the facts, including that of invisible flying unicorns. But quite often, one of them competing hypotheses is simpler than the others... and it's often the one that assumes the less.

There is no such thing as natural laws in science. — MondoR

I agree. However, for better or worse the term Scientific Law is in general use. The overview in the Wikipedia article does a pretty good job of clarifying the situation, but it is easy to mix up "natural law" and "scientific law".

Yes, science makes no claims regarding MWI, but scientists (humans), when asked, believe it!! Why then can't people believe in heaven and gods, if scientists believe in an infinite number of Universes, some of which, no doubt, house super-gods. Scientists adopted their own mythical realm of fantasy when they adopted MWI to save Determinism.

I agree. However, for better or worse the term Scientific Law is in general use. The overview in the Wikipedia article does a pretty good job of clarifying the situation, but it is easy to mix up "natural law" and "scientific law". — EricH

Clarity is required. There are the Schrodinger Equations, the Laws of Thermodynamics, General and Special Relatively, which can be applied for specific predictive purposes. This is different from creating a whole ontology based upon the utility value of these equations.

And from this Determinism built this story about everything that occurs in the Universe can be prodicted with exactitude, even the choices were make. Isn't this outlandish?! — MondoR

I agree that this would be outlandish. At least in the sense of local prediction, we know now that this cannot be done. Globally, as I said, non-determinism and determinism are indistinguishable, but locally we cannot make fully accurate predictions at any scale, and the quality of prediction worsens for mircoscopic events.

What I was arguing initially is, that this doesn't make sense for the free will argument, because the neural processes are too macroscopic to be qualitatively determined by this non-determinism. Even if a single synapse could be affected and a neuron would arbitrarily fire every now and then, the human brain is so vastly meshed that I doubt if such occurrences would have sufficient psychological impact to affect our perception of moral accountability. I also argued, that even if those processes were somehow key, I still don't think that morality rests on a coin toss anyhow.

I actually agree with the reply: .

What I was arguing initially is, that this doesn't make sense for the free will argument, because the neural processes are too macroscopic to be qualitatively determined by this non-determinism. — simeonz

The nature of consciousness and mind is an open question for philosophy as long as no attempt is made to quash it with pseudo-science such as determinism.

@Olivier5

I apologize if I translated your suggestion of hidden ontology as theistic inaccurately. In either case, if you could elaborate what you mean, when you have the time, I would be able to respond better. Because I fail to understand what reason means as a more general concept, beyond human comprehension.
How is it different from lack of reason altogether? Because, as it stands, It is difficult to discern something tangible from something intangible, even if it may be just a speculation on our part.

The nature of consciousness and mind is an open question for philosophy as long as no attempt is made to quash it with pseudo-science such as determinism. — MondoR

If non-determinism at the scale of the brain function is negligible, this will be pertinent to those views that rest freedom on non-determinism. In the same way in which apparent Newtonian determinism is pertinent to a bridge engineer or a plane manufacturer.

If non-determinism at the scale of the brain function is negligible, this will be pertinent to those views that rest freedom on non-determinism. In the same way in which apparent Newtonian determinism is pertinent to a bridge engineer or a plane manufacturer. — simeonz

They is no reason to limit anything to there brain any longer. The Gut-brain axis bidirectional communication is accepted by biological science.

They is no reason to limit anything to there brain any longer. The Gut-brain axis bidirectional communication is accepted by biological science. — MondoR

I realize that. There is also the extended mind thesis. But I still claim that resting free will on non-determinism via QM implies that the standard deviation to the brain process outcome caused through quantum interactions is significant.

Edit: In other words, I am not sure if that changes our picture in relation to non-determinism.

I realize that. There is also the extended mind hypothesis. But I still claim that resting free will on non-determinism via QM implies that the standard deviation to the brain process outcome caused through quantum interactions is significant. — simeonz

QM and the Gut-brain axis can be used as new insights. The actual impact of coordinated quantum events is something to explore.

QM and the Gut-brain axis can be used as new insights. The actual impact of coordinated quantum events is something to explore. — MondoR

I actually agree. By coordinated quantum events, am I mistaken that you probably mean quantum entanglement? In either case, we can explore them, but making hard statements about their relation with free will is stretching the power of such conjecture. And as I said, I am still unsure that we need it at all. Tossing dices and having will, even if the dices provides a measure of state independence, I think need not be equated.

I don't mean to be impolite, but I don't want to double post it. — simeonz

You may wish to be coherent. You can't say something and then its opposite.

You may wish to be coherent. You can't say something and then its opposite. — Olivier5

Are you suggesting that some of my previous posts are contradicting?

That's correct.

I didn't think so.

:smile:
Could you be just a tad bit more specific?

All sorts of funny competing hypotheses are consistent with the facts, including that of invisible flying unicorns. But quite often, one of them competing hypotheses is simpler than the others... and it's often the one that assumes the less. — Olivier5

Yes, Oliver5, it is a false equivalence.

• Invisible (<- assumed property) flying (<- assumed property) unicorn (<- assumed beast).
• Schrodinger's Equation (<- evidential) + Born Rule (<- presumed)
• Schrodinger's Equation (<- evidential)

You're rationalizing it this way, best I can tell:

• Schrodinger's Equation (<- evidential) + Born Rule (<- presumed)
• Schrodinger's Equation (<- evidential) + infinite numbers of worlds

...but those worlds, again, are already there. They come from that SE part; if you haven't measured exactly where the particle is, there's an amplitude for all possible paths. The Born Rule, as an ontic premise, is positing in addition that there's a process whereby, at some undetermined point, a bunch of those worlds disappear.

I fail to understand what reason means as a more general concept, beyond human comprehension. — simeonz

Why would there be only one form of reason? Just because we are born with a particular form of reason doesn't mean it is the only one. Our human reason is likely the result of our Darwinian history. Other animal species could conceivably operate under slightly different logics for instance. Even within the human species, the form of reason applied at national, state level is different from individual humans' logic. Raison d'État is much more shrewd, ambiguous and machiavellian than normal human reason.

Why would there be only one form of reason? Just because we are born with a particular form of reason doesn't mean it is the only one. — Olivier5

Yes, but the point is, while we don't have to limit ourselves to our experience, we still must have some restraint to our concept's meaning to evaluate them in our discussion. If we call anything and everything reason, then I agree that absurdism will be reasonable, because that is precisely the definition of absurdity. But then again, I think we are ending with one useless word in the vocabulary. You must have something else in mind, I suspect, to compel you to propose that reason for absurd reality exists beyond our comprehension. Could you elaborate any of its qualities, even if you can't define it?

You must have something else in mind, I suspect, to compel you to propose that reason for absurd reality exists beyond our comprehension. Could you elaborate any of its qualities, even if you can't define it? — simeonz

You call it absurd, I don't. I'm just saying that human beings are contingent. They could never had appeared, or be different than they are. Therefore their reason, our reason, which has at least some natural, evolutionary basis, could also be different. It's at least possible that it be contingent. Otherwise what? God gave us the Eternal Logos? Or did we get it by eating a forbidden fruit?

Do you think for instance that a race of cogent aliens would follow exactly our logic, and reason exactly the way we do? Or do you think their reason might have blind spots that we don't have, or vice-versa, that they could access realms of reason that we can only dream of?

Have you considered that quite a few among this infinite number of invisible universes posited by the MWI may contain at least one unicorn, and that these unicorns would then be invisible to us?

Have you considered that quite a few among this infinite number of invisible universes posited by the MWI may contain at least one unicorn, and that these unicorns would then be invisible to us? — Olivier5

Sure, one of those worlds may contain a unicorn, but it would have to be shown that it does to meaningfully discuss it; same with the flying. As for the invisibility part, that sounds like an amphiboly. I've never seen my liver either, but I don't think I can call it invisible based on that.

Could you be just a tad bit more specific? — simeonz

First you said:

What I mean by factual indeterminism is the experience, or at least the conjecture, that more than one possible outcome can arise from a given circumstance.

You also implied that this should be testable empirically.

Then you said:

The universe of QM is not just non-deterministic, but probabilistic,

Then you implied that the double-slit experiment doesn't prove indeterminism.

I find all this rather conflicting.