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?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
If we start doubting the exhaustiveness of our observations, we are not going to make any progress. A — simeonz
Absurdism claims that the universe does not conform to analytical comprehension. — simeonz
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.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
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
Please, check my next to last response. I don't mean to be impolite, but I don't want to double post it.By this precept, the indeterminist nature of the universe is proven by the double slit experiment. — 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".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
This is a false equivalence. — InPitzotl
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". — EricH
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.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
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
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.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. — simeonz
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 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
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.QM and the Gut-brain axis can be used as new insights. The actual impact of coordinated quantum events is something to explore. — MondoR
Yes, Oliver5, it is a false equivalence.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
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. — Olivier5
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
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.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
Could you be just a tad bit more specific? — simeonz
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.
The universe of QM is not just non-deterministic, but probabilistic,
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.