I never said that I endorse full-blown determinism. I'm agnostic towards determinism being true; the answer is irrelevant to me in so far as I only care about responsibility.

My personal view is that determinism and probability are not necessarily incompatible and are aspects of something more fundamental.

Based upon my own studies, there is plenty of room in all theories for either determinism (i.e. yes, everything is determined we just don't how) or free wiil/choice (i.e., I feel like I am making choices all the time). Given that either model is just a belief based upon some inner drive to believe such (there is no way to falsify either view), then I take the position that it is unnecessarily constraining to eliminate either alternative. As of now, it appears to me that there is far more evidence that I am makes choices than I am not, I'll just follow this line of inquiry until I reach a dead end. So far I haven't. On the contrary, the path of a creative consciousness that is constantly evolving is quite refreshing and invigorating.

Thank you.

Thank you. I went through that article and it seems to say determinism entails zero randomness. For instance,


"... how can we decide which of the following two hypotheses is true?

• The system is governed by genuinely stochastic, indeterministic laws (or by no laws at all), i.e., its apparent randomness is in fact real randomness.
• The system is governed by underlying deterministic laws, but is chaotic."

The dichotomy of those hypotheses seems to imply that indeterminism entails true randomness, whereas determinism implies psuedorandomness

Thank you. If there is zero randomness in the universe, then the quartz crystal clock provides psuedorandomness

Thank you.

I believe this is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of room for a universe that is not chaotic, but rather habitual, and still creating/making choices. Such a description would be precisely what we observe. For example, electron orbits are proscribed, but where exactly the election will be observed is probabilistic within the constraints. This is neither random not deterministic.

There is no reason to simplify possibilities to two when there are so many others to consider.

I believe the dichotomy is true, depending on our definition of "chaos." I.e., the universe is either deterministic or not deterministic. If the universe is deterministic, then the "randomness" we observe is chaotic in the sense that the "randomness" is actually psuedorandomness.

I am not convinced.
I suspect that something deeper is going on that gives rise to the impression of a dichotomy.

Of course I am not smart enough to describe how that could be I am just going on intuition.
I don't believe fundamentally that there is a conflict between determinism and true randomness I believe these are probably two sides of the same coin.
I admit I could be totally wrong and a TOE may come along and establish that only one or the other can be the case in reality.

If did not have the third option that both can coexist without mutual exclusion then I would bet on determinism being the case.

The question is whether a non-deterministic universe necessarily chaotic. There are ways to account for a universe that is non-deterministic, has conscious choice, yet still orderly (any model has to account for the self-organizing characteristics of line). Bohm provided one such possibility as did Bergson.

For some reason,Tom does not seem to believe that quantum mechanics is probabilistic. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I've already explained:

1. Bohmian mechanics is deterministic
2. All Everettian Interpretations are deterministic e.g.
2.1 Many Worlds
2.2 Many Minds
2.3 Multiverse (very interesting)
3. Copenhagen is agnostic on determinism since it is not a theory of reality, it is purely epistemic.
3.1 Consistent Histories is modern Copenhagen - see above
4. Superdeterministic theory of 't Hooft is deterministic.
5. Modal Interpretations (this surprised me)
6. Transactional Interpretation

It should also be noted that QED is a time-reversible theory - the very definition of determinism.

The ONLY* stochastic theory of Reality ever proposed is the state vector collapse theory of von Neumann, which dominated thought and teaching of QM from mid-20th century onwards. This theory ADDS state vector collapse to unitary QM.

*OK, so GRW theory is another stochastic theory. It takes quantum mechanics and ADDS an explicitly STOCHASTIC element. This theory is fringe and doesn't work.

Right now, the ONLY realist theory that agrees with ALL the results of QM is Many Worlds.

The question is whether a non-deterministic universe necessarily chaotic. — Rich

For any dynamical system to be chaotic, it is necessarily deterministic, by definition.

But if our known fundamental laws were deterministic, and they had been tested to destruction, then might we be advised to take what they say about reality seriously?

And by the way, our known laws are deterministic. — tom

I already take what fundamental laws say seriously. When they are tested they are tested under certain conditions, often in a ceteris paribus situation, with certain other matters being held to be in suspense. Their determinism only holds 100% in the scientific imagination: in real world situations it's just too hard to make other stuff hold still for long enough.

That's just my philosophy of science, which is borrowed from Cartwright Dupre and Hacking. I think of it as always presuming our ontology is provisional, subject to the next disproof. In that sense I can make it fit with Popper's views too. But obviously its origin goes back to my disposition and experience.

Having gone back to college to study philosophy, I've come to realise mine is a highly empiricist view. I've spent a lifetime as an arty-fart, and good creative artists are more like engineers than theoreticians. We make something work to the best of our abilities, and this will involve testing creations to destruction if possible. We think perfectly-understood systems are pipe-dreams. There's always a nagging range of error, just waiting for the next clever invention.

If we have a bunch of good reasons for believing determinism to be true and no good reasons to believe determinism false, then we can justifiably believe determinism to be true. — Chany

I don't know how I would arrive at that bunch of good reasons though. It seems to me I am always likely to meet a bright spark who'll say:

'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'

What would be my good reason not to expect such a person any moment? My experience of human life over rather a large number of years has led me to expect the unexpected.

I think I've already explained: — tom

All you have explained is that our attempts to understand (interpret) QM (which is inherently probabilistic) proceed through deterministic models. That is not surprising, because this is the only means we have for understanding the physical world, through deterministic "laws". What you don't seem to recognize is that QM is inherently probabilistic, and therefore cannot be properly understood through deterministic laws. Instead of accepting this reality, you seem insistent on claiming that QM is not probabilistic, and through this false premise you create compatibility between QM and deterministic interpretation.