Determinism or what?

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

Determinism or what?

Postby scientificphilosophe on July 24th, 2017, 10:46 am 

In reading the book 'Our Existence Part 1 : The Nature and Origin of Physical Reality' a number of key points were made relating to Determinism and the principle of Causality which rule our perception of Matter/Energy.

More specifically, it proposed that the principle always requires a prior cause and that from one precise set of starting circumstances, there can only be one outcome. The theory of Determinism/Causality therefore explains why our existence shows a general stability but with modest and largely predictable change - which is fine if it is entirely true, even in the case of prime origin and all other perceived start points.

The book then went on to define the opposites of 'Cause & Effect' as :
Spontaneity - without prior cause
Randomness - with more than one possible outcome from exactly the same starting position

Talk of 'randomness' or 'spontaneity' in the quantum environment can either be seen as 'unpredictablility' because we don't know all the factors involved, or true randomness. My interpretation has been that science generally follows the former avenue because it cannot rationalize true randomness or spontaneity. To poach some of the the author's examples :

1. Big Bang theory either points to a start point which would be spontaneous, or an explosion that was part of a never-ending bang-crunch process... except of course that it must have ended - requiring a spontaneous change to an otherwise eternal process. Stephen Hawking also advocated a form of spontaneous origin in his book 'The Grand Design'.

2. When faced with evidence of the sustained acceleration in the expansion of the Universe we invented 'Dark Energy' but when we then found evidence to suggest that it only began 5 or 6 billion years ago, there must have been a true start point from factors outside the known universe. Is this evidence of spontaneity or do we invent new dimensions as well?

3. Various experiments in the quantum world from the dual slit and quantum eraser experiments onwards have suggested a degree of randomness which has either been attributed to unknown factors or have prompted extreme theories such as 'wave/particle duality' to keep old principles alive.

4. The old/traditional arguments for randomness and spontaneity were to show that Thought can act in spontaneous or random ways that cannot be explained by matter/energy.

There is no basis on which to logically explain (rather than describe) true spontaneity or randomness because logic is based in Determinism, but as with other things, if there is evidence for such effects we either have to disprove the evidence with causal mechanisms or we have to potentially accept the possibility.

As you can never really prove the absence of something, especially when it is undefined, will determinism and non-determinism always remain matters of faith?

Are there any real world examples of true spontaneity or randomness (rather than unpredictability) that you find persuasive?
scientificphilosophe
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Mar 2017
DragonFly liked this post


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby DragonFly on July 25th, 2017, 8:10 pm 

I am also reading it; just started.

It seems that if spontantaeity from 'Nothing' is possible, then this possibility of happening is a way/capability that is indeed an eternal something that must ever be available to act; thus one didn't really have an absolute 'Nothing'; plus, I would further deduce that there has to be an Eternal Basis since 'Nothing' cannot be, or even be meant, nor exist in even small amounts such as spacers between things, this indicating a field continuum or adjacent monads.

We can go on to figure what the Eternal might be, given no point for any selected design to be able to be imparted to it.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2163
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby uninfinite on July 25th, 2017, 11:01 pm 

I think randomness is an accepted concept in science; when it is termed 'irreducible complexity' - it describes an emergent chaotic state arising from causal processes, like the weather, or ocean currents, or air turbulence. Once I saw a video, I think staged in San Francisco, where thousands of rubber balls were dropped down one of their famously steep roads. Astonishing video - but it demonstrates a chaotic phenomena arising from purely causal factors. Does this satisfy your definition, or not?
uninfinite
Member
 
Posts: 217
Joined: 16 Apr 2016
Blog: View Blog (1)


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby scientificphilosophe on July 29th, 2017, 10:23 am 

uninfinite » July 26th, 2017, 4:01 am wrote:Once I saw a video, I think staged in San Francisco, where thousands of rubber balls were dropped down one of their famously steep roads. Astonishing video - but it demonstrates a chaotic phenomena arising from purely causal factors. Does this satisfy your definition, or not?



Hi uninfinite
Although I haven't seen the video, my interpretation is that it wouldn't satisfy the definition of true randomness, because imperfections in the surface of the road, or gusts of wind etc. are all factors that shape the opening position to make each outcome unique. Determinism can therefore claim that a one-for-one correlation is still present - because each outcome is governed by a unique starting position.
In other words, your video would display something unpredictable, not truly random.

If you read the book you'll see why it is so hard to find examples of undisputed randomness or spontaneity, but the author does find some candidates.

As he points out, if you can find even a single example of undisputed spontaneity or randomness then we have to re-interpret all of the other potential examples which are shrouded in doubt... because even a single example should be impossible according to Determinism.
scientificphilosophe
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Mar 2017


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby Braininvat on July 29th, 2017, 11:52 am 

Some quantum theorists consider certain events, like a single beta decay, to be acausal. I have some doubts about that, though I can agree that, from the observer perspective, a beta decay seems random and without any discernible mechanism that would provide a causal account (why this particular nucleus? and why now?) of that particular event. What candidate does the author of the book select? (and, brief moderator aside: please cite author, as well as title, when you mention a book or paper)
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5600
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby BadgerJelly on July 29th, 2017, 12:11 pm 

Are there any real world examples of true spontaneity or randomness (rather than unpredictability) that you find persuasive?


Does this question make sense? Does any question make sense? If it does then figure out what questions can be approached and what questions cannot.

If you don't think any question can make sense then you've got a problem.

Examples I find "persuasive"? I find a great many things persuasive. If I cannot predict something that would be "evidence". It is evidence of one of two things (which are almost the same thing!),

1) I am ignorant of methods to predict X.

2) I am witnessing the "randomness" of nature.

The second point is of no particular use to me so I opt for the former and assume that if I keep looking I may be able to predict things tomorrow I could not have predicted previously without my possible new found methodology.

Also, in cognitive terms it seems pretty clear that I must establish certain terms of polarity. I understand the concept of "order" and I know it by way of the term "disorder", and by these I use further terms of "predictable" and "unpredictable".

When it comes to cosmology the same thing crops up time and again. The concept we simply know of only by distanced association. The concept of "entropy". This when considered alongside ideas of "symmetry" becomes a rather bizarre consideration.

When it comes to time we simply are not able to reflect on anything "prior" to time. If we are in some fashion cognitively capable of having some kind of "knowledge" beyond time, then we most certainly won't be able to talk about it in a causally based language and by human temporal means.

Limitation seems pretty necessary for the grounding of any kind of knowledge. If the kind of knowledge we are exploring moves beyond its grounding it becomes merely gibberish.

To come back to the question posed:

Are there any real world examples of true spontaneity or randomness (rather than unpredictability) that you find persuasive?


I cannot answer this succinctly without first addressing what you would consider a real worldly example. If I could show you an example of randomness or spontaneity it would be merely opinion and quite possibly not very persuasive in your mind.

All that said I would have to say the appearance of nature laws is "spontaneous"/"random". If you wish to define "spontaneity" as completely absent of structure though I would argue you are asking an absurd question (although an interesting absurdity it most definitely is!)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4316
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby scientificphilosophe on July 29th, 2017, 12:14 pm 

The author is C.Finipolscie.
I have no idea what he would or would not select.
scientificphilosophe
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Mar 2017


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby DragonFly on July 29th, 2017, 1:57 pm 

It would seem that if something spontaneous happens, it must first be possible for it to happen, but, then, does the 'possibility/potential' for it itself have a beginning or must it be eternal?
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2163
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby Dave_C on July 30th, 2017, 9:11 am 

My understanding - the Heisenburg uncertainty principal reflects the intrinsic impossibility of measuring particles precisely, even in principal. Nature prohibits you from measuring both position and momentum - the more accurately you measure one, the less you know about the other. That lack of ability to measure is not due to our inability to measure accurately but is an intrinsic feature of nature at this level.
More here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/com ... cessitate/

An example from the dual slit experiment: When shining a monochromatic light through the dual slits we obtain an interference pattern. Even when we fire these photons one at a time, they will create an interference pattern. Although there is a statistical probability of finding a photon at any given location on the screen, the location that each individual photo impacts is truly random.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzbKb59my3U
User avatar
Dave_C
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 08 Jun 2014
Location: Allentown
dandelion liked this post


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby scientificphilosophe on July 30th, 2017, 8:14 pm 

Dave_C » July 30th, 2017, 2:11 pm wrote:An example from the dual slit experiment: When shining a monochromatic light through the dual slits we obtain an interference pattern. Even when we fire these photons one at a time, they will create an interference pattern. Although there is a statistical probability of finding a photon at any given location on the screen, the location that each individual photo impacts is truly random.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzbKb59my3U


There are various suggested possibilities for resolving the Dual Slit experiment, but we don't know which of them may be correct (if any). Determinists can argue the case for a Causal outcome (rather than a random one) on the following grounds:-

If you believe that photons/electrons remain as particles, then Determinism would say that the location of a particle would be entirely predictable if we knew the factors involved and the starting position/direction of travel... but we don't.

If you believe that the photons transition into a wave and then crystallize back into a particle at the moment of detection then the underlying process will presumably be more complex, but the fact that we always get the same types of pattern in the same circumstances indicates that this isn't truly random - we just can't see what's going on in order to make an accurate prediction for each particle... or so so Determinism would presumably argue.

Heisenberg was also dealing with predictability and accuracy, he wasn't (to my mind) suggesting that the mechanisms being described were non-causal or truly random.

Of course, there may indeed be randomness at work, but I don't think these examples prove it.
scientificphilosophe
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Mar 2017


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby scientificphilosophe on July 30th, 2017, 8:56 pm 

Hi DragonFly

Your point seems to be exploring the possible characteristics of spontaneity/randomness rather than finding new examples of it – but if I understand you correctly you seem to be asking whether a prime origin based in true spontaneous creation would require a capability that is eternal, or whether that capability could also have a beginning. Is that right?

I suppose that begs the question of whether a capability has to represent ‘something’?

If it is something then we are, by implication, back into a partially deterministic regime, and I would agree that ‘infinite potential’ would also have to be eternal... but could true spontaneity represent the absence of limitations/rules?

Could it simply be the case that a state of absolute nothingness (without anything present to control events) would naturally allow anything to happen without cause? Put another way, could the presence of ‘something’ be the only way to impose limitations/rules/structure?

Of course, all of this presumes that true spontaneity and randomness are real. Do you have any other examples to demonstrate that they exist/occur?
scientificphilosophe
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Mar 2017


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby scientificphilosophe on July 30th, 2017, 9:11 pm 

BadgerJelly » July 29th, 2017, 5:11 pm wrote:I cannot answer this succinctly without first addressing what you would consider a real worldly example. If I could show you an example of randomness or spontaneity it would be merely opinion and quite possibly not very persuasive in your mind.

All that said I would have to say the appearance of nature laws is "spontaneous"/"random". If you wish to define "spontaneity" as completely absent of structure though I would argue you are asking an absurd question (although an interesting absurdity it most definitely is!)


Hi BadgerJelly

I am looking for potential examples backed by evidence, and which do not have obvious explanations based on Determinists principles. Those examples could be partially logical/theoretical, but based on some findings - like the start of the acceleration of the Universe some 8bn years after the Big Bang.

To my mind, spontaneity doesn't have to lack structure in its outcome, and as the author points out, it may occur alongside things that already exist, but if we follow the definitions above, the spontaneous element must have no prior cause and in the event of spontaneous creation, the additional elements created must be additional to the pot of existence prior to the moment of creation.

I do quite like your example of the emergence of the natural laws - presumably after the Big Bang event.
scientificphilosophe
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Mar 2017


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby DragonFly on July 30th, 2017, 11:42 pm 

scientificphilosophe » July 30th, 2017, 7:56 pm wrote:Hi DragonFly

Your point seems to be exploring the possible characteristics of spontaneity/randomness rather than finding new examples of it – but if I understand you correctly you seem to be asking whether a prime origin based in true spontaneous creation would requires a capability that is eternal, or whether that capability could also have a beginning. Is that right?


Yes, an eternal possibility, for what's impossible can never happen; however, all things may be possible.

I doubt that true spontaneous events happen without any capability to allow them, for the outcome would be specific without there having been any correlated specific design, although there is wiggle room to still say that the entire nature of these events comes into being without input. This, though, suggest that they should be happening all the time, and perhaps we don't see most of them because they are mostly minuscule,

scientificphilosophe » July 30th, 2017, 7:56 pm wrote:I suppose that begs the question of whether a capability has to represent ‘something’?


Well, it does beg to the larger question of the nature of Potential, but 'Potential' should count as as something, for without it the event may not be possible.

scientificphilosophe » July 30th, 2017, 7:56 pm wrote:If it is something then we are, by implication, back into a partially deterministic regime, and I would agree that ‘infinite potential’ would also have to be eternal... but could true spontaneity represent the absence of limitations/rules?


Again, though, we could wiggle it all to be that anything goes, a la Wheeler's "Law of no laws".

scientificphilosophe » July 30th, 2017, 7:56 pm wrote:Could it simply be the case that a state of absolute nothingness (without anything present to control events) would naturally allow anything to happen without cause?


No, a state of 'Nothing' cannot be; it has no state; no arena; no anything; it can't exist. Existence has no contrast class. So it is that I deduce an eternal something has to be.

I'd guess that the eternal basis is everything, either all at once, if not in time, or eventually, if in time. 'Everything' may not be as great as one first thinks it is, for it has an information content of zero, like Borges' fabled Library of Everything. In principle, 'Everything' would equal 'Nothing'.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2163
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby scientificphilosophe on July 31st, 2017, 8:13 am 

DragonFly » July 31st, 2017, 4:42 am wrote:
scientificphilosophe » July 30th, 2017, 7:56 pm wrote:
No, a state of 'Nothing' cannot be; it has no state; no arena; no anything; it can't exist. Existence has no contrast class. So it is that I deduce an eternal something has to be.


Hi DragonFly

Your point about whether absolute nothingness can have a 'state' seems to be a discussion about definitions, (and to me, it is possible that 'zero' can be seen as part of the range of possibilities, and that it does contrast with something).

However I feel the underlying question is whether a 'spontaneous creation event' could happen in absolute nothingness... and we simply don't know. But within the range of possibilities isn't it surely an option?
scientificphilosophe
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Mar 2017


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby DragonFly on July 31st, 2017, 1:56 pm 

If an apparently spontaneous creation event happens of 'Nothing', then I'd think that its possibility precedes it, as a something, and so 'Nothing' wasn't really a 'Nothing'; however, we can't know All for sure.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2163
Joined: 04 Aug 2012
Braininvat liked this post


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby scientificphilosophe on August 4th, 2017, 3:40 am 

I have a lot of sympathy with the idea of potential being something, but that view is based in the requirements of determinism, and partly dependent on definitions of what we mean by 'potential'.

It may well be true, but again, those who believe in true spontaneity will take the opposite (non-determinist) view and we have no way to prove things one way or another.

I don't think we can say more on this, so can I ask whether you/anyone has any other examples of true spontaneity or randomness?
scientificphilosophe
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Mar 2017


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby hyksos on August 7th, 2017, 2:12 am 

Dave_C » July 30th, 2017, 5:11 pm wrote: That lack of ability to measure is not due to our inability to measure accurately but is an intrinsic feature of nature at this level.


scientificphilosophe » July 31st, 2017, 4:14 am wrote:but the fact that we always get the same types of pattern in the same circumstances indicates that this isn't truly random - we just can't see what's going on in order to make an accurate prediction for each particle... or so so Determinism would presumably argue.


I've never seen a more flagrant example of two people talking right past each other.

The position that goes : "Just give science some more time, and eventually they will uncover the little objective gears that are in a particular state and give rise to the illusions of quantum mechanics at larger scales." <-- this has a name in physics. It is called a Hidden Variable Theory.

I don't think this is the right thread to re-hash the entire history of hidden variable theories and entanglement. There are multiple, large threads on this forum, where the subject was already beaten to death.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby scientificphilosophe on August 10th, 2017, 3:56 am 

Hi Hyksos

I’m sorry, but I am not entirely clear about what you are saying in your post.

Both Dave_C and I are trying to illustrate the different viewpoints in relation to the presence or absence of spontaneity or randomness. This was not a discussion about hidden variables per-se.

Dave_C is arguing that the hits on a screen from one or other of the double slit experiments, (conducted with single photons/electrons), equate to randomness because it could be interpreted that those individual hits are not just unpredictable but also potentially truly random – according to the definition provided – ie. that it may illustrate that more than one hit position is possible from a given precise start point/conditions.

I presented the counter argument on behalf of the determinist viewpoint, which assumes that close tracking of a particle must eventually reveal a causal impact that makes only one outcome possible, and also that predictable patterns indicate causal influences.

The two key points which I had hoped Dave_C would come back at me on are:
• whether the precise tracing of individual particles could actually demonstrate more than one possible end position on the screen/detector? Is the determinist assumption valid? While it may be true that in our normal experience, causal effects will always be identified for all particle-based experiments if it is argued that particles transform into waves, does the argument still hold true? In other words, is there a consistency between some of the proposed solutions and the principle of causality?

It is hard to see how the experiment could be conducted to demonstrate that exactly the same conditions could produce a different outcome, so should both possibilities be deemed equally likely until an experiment is conducted along these lines?

• whether consistent patterns in the outputs does indeed imply a causal effect? For randomness to be demonstrated then we just need to show that two versions of the same pattern are possible – say, perhaps, slightly offset from each other. It is not necessary (per the definition) to require a totally different pattern. Randomness may occur in just one parameter. It doesn’t have to be total. The difficulty again lies in proving that two outcomes are possible from exactly the same start point – ie. the absence of other causal factors to produce the offset or other effect.


In this respect we each have to judge the likelihood of the outcome being down to causal or truly random factors. That seems a matter of faith as neither side can prove their case using the experiments conducted so far... and in this respect the emphasis presumably has to turn to other examples which can better demonstrate whether spontaneity or randomness is possible.

People on this site have not yet ventured into the area of Thought to provide such examples, but as a taster, the author of the book I mentioned used the example of ending a deliberate pause in conversation – which has to originate in the mind of the person conversing, and could be of indeterminate length of their choosing.

If you can demonstrate any example of true randomness, then it is possible and must be factored into our explanations of existence, which may be based in other things than matter/energy which is not deemed capable of spontaneity or randomness.
scientificphilosophe
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Mar 2017


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby bangstrom on August 10th, 2017, 6:46 am 

The entire quantum world appears to be spontaneous. Quantum tunneling is one such example and radioactive decay is another. The spontaneity of the quantum world may creep into the macro world in subtle ways but too subtle to track their origin.

Spontaneity at the quantum level enables stability at the macro level. The stars, for example, are not hot enough to fuse hydrogen into helium (otherwise stars would explode like a hydrogen bomb) but quantum tunneling enables a tiny fraction of the hydrogen isotopes to fuse at a lower temperature than normally possible and in a controlled manner.

I find reason to think the world is totally deterministic but quantum randomness gives me reason to suspect that it is not.

I find the oriental concept of Yin and Yang to be the equivalent to Cause & Effect. Oriental cultures tend to go to extremes with their application of Yin and Yang just as westerners go to extremes with Cause and Effect but I find the two to be largely the same and equally valid from a scientific perspective. Cause and effect appears to be a linear way of understanding events 1,2,3 while yin and yang considers events as a mutual interaction of opposites and I find the symmetry and inclusiveness of the latter appealing.

For this reason, I find it disturbing to find that one scientific explanation satisfies one view but not the other and that one view is the expanding universe. With yin and yang, you can’t have expansion without contraction so, if the universe is expanding, what is contracting?
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 317
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby Dave_C on August 10th, 2017, 7:50 pm 

Hi sp,
I wonder who Christophe Finipolscie is? I've done some searching on his name and the best I can come up with is that he's written the book you refer to, but that's all. His name doesn't appear in Google Scholar so I gather he's not a published physicist or scientist of any kind:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... 9&as_sdtp=

I assume from what little I've found, that he's not a physicist, though he's likely a very intelligent individual. The problem I have is that without some background, we should be skeptical of his proposals when they run counter to what is generally agreed upon today. And that's exactly what you're saying Christophe is claiming.

When I was in engineering school 30 years ago (I don't claim any expertise in the subject), my physics course taught us that hidden variable theories had been essentially ruled out. We would need a hidden variable theory of some sort to have the kind of determinism Christophe is apparently claiming. If you feel his book has some sort of validity above and beyond that of popular science, then Christophe should have at the very least, numerous references in his book which he's cited as evidence for some sort of theory that supports his argument for determinism.

So I guess I have to ask, what if any, references does he cite that indicate there is at least some small collection of theoretical physicists out there who are proposing a change to the standard paradigm? If he has some, please post those references. I think it would be more beneficial to discuss the actual work being done by published physicists. I personally wouldn't give Christophe any credit without some backing from those who actually study the subject.

Best regards,
Dave.
User avatar
Dave_C
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 08 Jun 2014
Location: Allentown


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby hyksos on August 12th, 2017, 12:51 am 

If you can demonstrate any example of true randomness, then it is possible and must be factored into our explanations of existence, which may be based in other things than matter/energy which is not deemed capable of spontaneity or randomness.

Modern physics most clearly deems matter and energy as being capable of spontaneity and randomness.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby hyksos on August 12th, 2017, 1:10 am 

If you can demonstrate any example of true randomness

This is easy. A system which has been cooled to absolute zero, still has a residual 'heat' that is not due to being knocked around by heat coming from the outside.


So where does this residual heat derive from? Our best physical theories says that it derives from wiggling that results from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This means that "thermal fluctuations" are independent of "quantum fluctuations". Such systems have been observed to do this in several magnetic metallic solids.

Is this stuff real? Yes. Here is an example of melting the magnetism in a dimerized quantum antiferromagnet.

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v10/n5/abs/nphys2902.html?foxtrotcallback=true

Here is example of quantum phase transitions in a Ising ferromagnet.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=physicsskomski

The key part of the paper which should not be overlooked :
The Ising quantum chain in a transverse magnetic field is a conceptually simple model with a nontrivial quantum phase transition (QPT). In contrast to Curie transitions, such quantum transitions occur at zero temperature and involve exotic quantum states rather than critical fluctuations of thermodynamic origin.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby scientificphilosophe on September 2nd, 2017, 7:04 pm 

Hi Dave_C

Have you read the book?

I don't know of any direct evidence to say whether Mr.Finipolscie is a physicist or not, but unless there is something to prove your suggestion I think you are presuming a lot to say that he has not studied the subject. He presents a lot of facts, gives references in the notes, and apparently has a lot of reviewers from within the scientific community. What more is needed?

The author is not intent on presenting a counter view. If I have given that impression then apologies. He presents all opinions from the established view to the less well known. He points out the strengths and weaknesses of each perspective and adopts a neutral position. I was fascinated to finally find a book that has presented some of the alternatives - some of which I already knew.

I am not aware that any of the facts he presents is in dispute, so it is either sound logic or it isn't. I think it is entirely appropriate for everyone to be skeptical about every view. They all have to prove themselves

On your other point, there have been a lot of scientific findings in the last 30 years or so.
When scientists dream up new types of theoretical stuff such as Dark Energy, they are indeed re-opening the debate into hidden variables etc.

Kind regards
scientificphilosophe
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Mar 2017


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby scientificphilosophe on September 2nd, 2017, 7:10 pm 

Modern physics most clearly deems matter and energy as being capable of spontaneity and randomness.


I have to disagree with this.
Many scientists refer to randomness in a loose way, meaning 'unpredictable'.
They do not use the strict interpretation, and I have seen a few articles by senior scientists chastising them for their loose use of language as it undermines the principles of causality.

Causality remains the bedrock of science, even if some people are beginning to be swayed by the counter evidence - but we do need to be careful about the terminology.
scientificphilosophe
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Mar 2017


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby scientificphilosophe on September 2nd, 2017, 7:19 pm 

Hi Hyksos

A system which has been cooled to absolute zero, still has a residual 'heat' that is not due to being knocked around by heat coming from the outside.


While I truly I welcome all examples of true randomness, my concern with the above comment is that absolute zero is a temperature marker. I didn't think it meant the absence of all heat, because I do not believe that we have any means with which to remove all heat.

I'd really like to know how all heat can be guaranteed to be removed from a sample.

Beyond this, are you saying that heat spontaneously emerges within the sample?
scientificphilosophe
Member
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 29 Mar 2017


Re: Determinism or what?

Postby hyksos on September 9th, 2017, 11:40 pm 

They do not use the strict interpretation, and I have seen a few articles by senior scientists chastising them for their loose use of language as it undermines the principles of causality.

It does not undermine the principles of causality. Instead, quantum randomness undermines something called the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

So what really bothers us on an ontological level is whether events happen for no reason at all.

It is very hard to wrap your mind around and even harder to stomach emotionally. Albert Einstein himself rejected it. In a letter to Max Born, he wrote:

Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He(God) does not throw dice


I rejected it myself for many years. Much later, I eventually succumbed under the weight of the evidence. Here is another thread on this topic : viewtopic.php?f=2&t=33307
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: 28 Nov 2014



Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests