Determinism and quantum mechanics

[panacea]

People have varying definitions of what is scientific, you don't believe so, you believe your definition is the only one that makes sense.

Well, let's state it this way. I've learned this definition at university. And I read at everywhere on the internet:
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

If you have learned on other definition of what is scientific, tell me.

I've seen many different definitions, you can go to the google search link I posted earlier. The definition you found is logical and makes sense especially in relation to what we are talking about, the thing in question is when you say 'well obviously, this definition proves you wrong'. I say the same thing, that the definition shows you to be at fault. As you can see we both interpret the definition, even with the same words, differently, and I'm sure we both feel strongly about this, as if no other interpretation could be realistic.

[Kasper]

I've seen many different definitions, you can go to the google search link I posted earlier. The definition you found is logical and makes sense especially in relation to what we are talking about, the thing in question is when you say 'well obviously, this definition proves you wrong'. I say the same thing, that the definition shows you to be at fault. As you can see we both interpret the definition, even with the same words, differently, and I'm sure we both feel strongly about this, as if no other interpretation could be realistic.

I don't say that width this definition it proves determinism to be false. I only claim that we have scientific reasons to believe determinism is false.
But as I said many times, we could skip this discussion for an moment, and first finish the discussion, is there scientific reason to believe determinism is true ?

I say, I haven't ever seen any scientific reason. And you claim you can give me. But I think that the scientific arguments you give me don't show determinism is true. But only that many events are deterministic.

This is where we disagree. And maybe we'll never agree. But I want to point out, that if you are right. If you have scientific arguments than and this important, you are the first scientist ever.
So again why don't you publish it ?

What is important to understand is that we still can have a debate about determinism even if there is no scientific reason to believe it's true.
We could have a philosophical discussion about determinism and we also could have a discussion about if there is scientific reason to believe determinism is false. Right ?
And that's were debates rage on across the internet about this, and also in science there is much debate about this.

But they are different discussions, you agree ?

[panacea]

I say, I haven't ever seen any scientific reason. And you claim you can give me. But I think that the scientific arguments you give me don't show determinism is true. But only that many events are deterministic.

I've already given scientific reasons in various posts in this thread with long examples and explanations, you just didn't spot them because you don't believe they are scientific reasons. How much simpler can I say it?

By the standards you show me I need to meet, nothing can be shown to be true, while this is rational and logical to some extent, it's not very logical - we might as well give up and say that anything goes in this kind of 'I need absolute proof not overwhelming evidence' stance.

This is where we disagree. And maybe we'll never agree. But I want to point out, that if you are right. If you have scientific arguments than and this important, you are the first scientist ever.
So again why don't you publish it ?

I have no idea what got you into this line of thinking, it's not only irrelevant and ridiculous to me, it's totally biased based on your idea of what is a scientific argument, what is important, and whether or not you think determinism hasn't been shown by overwhelming evidence already. I believe it has, I'm not the first to point this out, it will never be pointed out to convince all humans because all we have for anything in the universe is evidence and varying amounts of it, no absolute proof of anything. Which is why making superstitious claims not based on overwhelming (or great amounts) of evidence, just a few effects on limited experiments in limited fields, is not logical and goes against the mountain of evidence pointing to another theory (determinism). It's not a question of what could be right, but what is probably right, since 'could be right' can never be known for sure, we cannot know anything for sure, we use what we have to figure out the most probable answer in a completely systematic and perfect universe. That's how probability ties into it, it's a limitation, trait, etc, whatever you want to call it, but it's not the end of the story, because there is always order, without it a universe would be too chaotic to support life for more than a split second. And you can't just say well theres a lot of order but a little bit of chaos, since whatever is telling the chaos how much it can manifest in the universe is a rule or limitation, and chaos by definition doesn't have these variables controlling it.

This is what I've said like 10 times now, it seems you won't rest until you can make me say it again in a different way, continually making logical fallacies about what I've said, reading it wrong, etc, and knowing that I'll correct you.

It appears you're hung up somewhere about whether there's reasons for determinism is true, the reasons are all around you as the cause-effect relationship evidence is in everything in the universe. Theres things we haven't explained whether or not they share the cause-effect relationship, but none of these things have been shown to have a probability or uncertainty that is the foundation - it's just as far as we can see for now. If there was so much randomness and probable phenomenon that it outweighed the gazillions of examples of cause-effect then you'd have a reason to believe in something else.

[Kasper]

By the standards you show me I need to meet, nothing can be shown to be true, while this is rational and logical to some extent, it's not very logical - we might as well give up and say that anything goes in this kind of 'I need absolute proof not overwhelming evidence' stance.

This is why I've suggested to you to study the logic we use in physics/math. You use logic in the sense we use it in our everyday life. Not in the sense we use it in physics or math.
In physics we take some axioms and take logical consequences from those axioms.
You can't say, this is to "some extend" a logical consequence of this axiom. Or in my interpretation this is a logical consequence.
This is just not how we work in physics. In physics we obey the rules of logic. Not the feeling that something is logical.

Now, the beauty of this is, that we can prove something. Of course, nothing can shown to be absolutely true.
But what we try in physics, is to set up a theory which shows something is true, if we assume some axioms are true.
We can also take logical consequences from empirical evidence etc. And using tools as deductive reasoning from some axioms, or deductive reasoning from some empirical evidence, we can try to conclude things.

1. Width your overwhelming evidence you can't conclude using deductive reasoning that all events are caused by previous events.
2. You didn't set up a theory from some (self-evident) axioms which conclude all events are caused by previous events.

Agree ?

The reasons are all around you as the cause-effect relationship evidence is in everything in the universe. Theres things we haven't explained whether or not they share the cause-effect relationship, but none of these things have been shown to have a probability or uncertainty that is the foundation.

That's right. If we haven't shown whether something does or does not has cause-effect relationship, than we can't conclude it must be probabilistic.
But if we have shown cause-effect relationship, we also can't conclude it must 100% deterministic. There could also be a partly probabilistic nature.
Agree?

The only thing we know about this, is that how more we research an event how more we are able to predict it, but that doesn't mean that in the end, we can predict everything. Or that it is 100% internal deterministic.

[panacea]

By the standards you show me I need to meet, nothing can be shown to be true, while this is rational and logical to some extent, it's not very logical - we might as well give up and say that anything goes in this kind of 'I need absolute proof not overwhelming evidence' stance.

This is why I've suggested to you to study the logic we use in physics/math. You use logic in the sense we use it in our everyday life. Not in the sense we use it in physics or math. I use both, so incorrect.
In physics we take some axioms and take logical consequences from those axioms.
You can't say, this is to "some extend" a logical consequence of this axiom. Or in my interpretation this is a logical consequence. Give me an example of someone not doing this. People first have to assume that to some extent, they can find a truthful answer to something to even suggest one, so it totally debunks this notion.
This is just not how we work in physics. In physics we obey the rules of logic. Not the feeling that something is logical. I don't use the feeling that something is logical either. Unfortunately you can't tell me what the rules of logic are without interpreting them in your own manner to mean whatever you think they mean, so you're not all 'obeying the same rules of logic' or there wouldn't be different opinions from different physicists, duh.

Now, the beauty of this is, that we can prove something. Of course, nothing can shown to be absolutely true. You just contradicted yourself...... But this is actually in agreement with what I was saying, that although nothing can be shown to be absolutely true, we trust the most overwhelming evidence we have and call it proof what it leads to, this is determinism, as you can see by the mountain of evidence for it compared to the few exceptions and objections of unclear radical experiments which only postulate questions to the nature of the universe and don't show any evidence for anything challenging cause-effect nature of the universe. If 51% of experiments seemed to work in probability format, then it would be assumed to be proved by overwhelming evidence compared to 49% of anything else. Fortunately the universe shows itself to be deterministic so that when I build a bike the same way 2,000 times I never get a giraffe or some random wave-looking bike that are spotted across a 3d space.
But what we try in physics, is to set up a theory which shows something is true, if we assume some axioms are true.
We can also take logical consequences from empirical evidence etc. And using tools as deductive reasoning from some axioms, or deductive reasoning from some empirical evidence, we can try to conclude things. Sure can, and 99% of these conclusions are deterministic in nature, the other exceptions don't show any conclusions that anything is non-deterministic, only that something else could be - there simply isn't enough evidence to challenge determinism.

1. Width your overwhelming evidence you can't conclude using deductive reasoning that all events are caused by previous events. No we use overwhelming evidence to assume this, as an assumption is only as good as the evidence behind it - again, absolute truths are far fetched fiction, but we need a working assumption of reality in order to move forward. As I said before, there is flaws in every truth, or else we wouldn't need to learn and discover any more.
2. You didn't set up a theory from some (self-evident) axioms which conclude all events are caused by previous events.
No idea what you're talking about here, all theories have axioms, but no I didn't use axioms that are synonymous with the conclusion...
Agree ?

The reasons are all around you as the cause-effect relationship evidence is in everything in the universe. Theres things we haven't explained whether or not they share the cause-effect relationship, but none of these things have been shown to have a probability or uncertainty that is the foundation.

That's right. If we haven't shown whether something does or does not has cause-effect relationship, than we can't conclude it must be probabilistic.
But if we have shown cause-effect relationship, we also can't conclude it must 100% deterministic. There could also be a partly probabilistic nature.
Agree? YES!!! Could be that isn't what overwhelming evidence suggests though, and this evidence is all we have to figure out the universe. It would be like looking at a picture of a circle, you run all kinds of tests, and they still suggest it's a circle. You do this 100,000 times until one time, it suggests it could be something that isn't a circle (but doesn't say what). Which would you believe if your life depended on it. that it was a circle or hexagon? (keep in mind it could just as likely be a octagon or a square as a hexagon, but someone just suggested that it was a hexagon, which is the equivalent to your idea that reality is part probabilistic and part deterministic (circle merged with square is closer to hexagon than either alone, all this time NOTHING showed that it was a hexagon, only said it COULD not be a circle, so it could be any shape besides a circle, what are you willing to bet? see how irrational it is to believe in anything but a circle in this case?) That is why we trust the overwhelming evidence to be true when we try to function in the world, because it is the feedback we have received from our tests against aspects of the universe.

The only thing we know about this, is that how more we research an event how more we are able to predict it, but that doesn't mean that in the end, we can predict everything. Or that it is 100% internal deterministic.

See paragraph above

[RRM]

Panacea, please use the quotes properly,
thank you.

[Kasper]

I took a little break of this discussion, because it was driving me mad clearly.

This is why I've suggested to you to study the logic we use in physics/math. You use logic in the sense we use it in our everyday life. Not in the sense we use it in physics or math.
I use both, so incorrect.
Show me that you use both. Show me that you even know which logic is used in physics and math. Ok, I admit, you tried it a couple of times, but width much logical fallacies... Ok, and once you proved that there couldn't exist a particle width some special properties.. But nothing to do width determinism.


I don't use the feeling that something is logical either. Unfortunately you can't tell me what the rules of logic are without interpreting them in your own manner to mean whatever you think they mean, so you're not all 'obeying the same rules of logic' or there wouldn't be different opinions from different physicists, duh.
... Please tell me, why are you talking like you know something about physics, as it is very clear, you didn't spend much time studying it. Physicist don't have different opinions because they all make up their own rules of logic.... Absolutely crap. There are much other reasons why they can have different opinions...

Now, the beauty of this is, that we can prove something. Of course, nothing can shown to be absolutely true. You just contradicted yourself...... But this is actually in agreement with what I was saying, that although nothing can be shown to be absolutely true, we trust the most overwhelming evidence we have and call it proof what it leads to
If something is a logical consequence of this overwhelming evidence. Yes, you are right. We call it proof.
If someone has the feeling that this leads to something. No, we don't call this proof.
If someone sets up his own rules of logic which leads to something, ehm... nope, no proof.
If someone uses the rules of logic we use in physics, but makes some mistakes... Ehm... what do you think ?


Okay, but if you want to stop this discussion, that is for me okay. It's not making my life any happier.

First I thought that you just wouldn't admit that you haven't given scientific reason to believe determinism must be true.
Now, I see, I was probably wrong, and you really believe that you have given scientific reasons...
I can only say, that I think that if you had studied logic, math, physics and quantum mechanics. You will see you haven't. (At least not given in this discussion).
You might still believe in determinism. There are enough physicist who believe in this.
But those physicist are claiming that there is not scientific reason to believe determinism must be false. Which is an other, more interesting discussion.
The reason why they believe determinism is true, is usually something like: that they are just convinced that god* doesn't play dice

*Using god as a sort of synonym for 'the laws of nature'

[RRM]

Kasper, please use the quotes properly,
Thank you.

[panacea]

I don't know what to tell you Kasper, everything I say you think is unreasonable, fallacious, and stupid, even if it's not.
The discussion can go nowhere because all you can say is that I need to study more.... lol.

You just keep pretending to ask for reasons of what I'm saying when it's already there, it's like if you gave me scientific reasons for something, I say you didn't, you say you did, I say show me proof!, you say you did, I say you didn't, on and on... It's getting nowhere.

'god doesn't play with dice' is not a reason for believing in determinism, it's just a saying. The reason most people believe in determinism if they do is because of overwhelming evidence that the universe acts this way, usually (9 times out of 10) people are raised to believe in some superstitious dogma like gods, ghosts, free will, etc, and it's very hard for them to let go of this belief structure which they think gives them happy butterfly feelings that the universe is some magical wonderland built just for them.

Since you're not contributing anything to the discussion, just saying that I need to study more and other nonsense, then I have nothing meaningful to reply to.

[panacea]

Hey look I found another way to say it that you can call flawed

Just realize that everything around you acts in cause-effect manner, if it didn't you wouldn't rely on your body, on gravity, on laws of physics, etc. Sure, you were able to find one anomaly that suggests something else, again it's insane to think that anomalies are the truth and the overwhelming evidence is false, as no one can know this for sure and being humans, we must weigh our options. It seems you just chose whatever you like most, since you arrived at this conclusion and it's personal to you now. It's ironic that all of our intelligence is based on reasoning, logic, physics, math, etc, which all work systemically and are cause-effect themselves, yet your idea of the universe is one with statistical probabilities without a reason. It's a perfect example of a flawed argument, since it's not based on reason, which is where the term reasoning comes from.

Reason is a mental faculty or ability found in humans, that is able to generate non-intuitive conclusions from assumptions or premises. It is amongst other things the means by which rational beings propose specific reasons, or explanations of cause and effect. Therefore, in contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies (a belief, phenomenon or behaviour).[1] The practice of reason is also the way that human beings exercise the capacity for self-determination and freedom by criticizing and transforming their beliefs, traditions, practices and institutions.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason


I don't expect you to understand it, but the simple reason for most of human error is belief in superstition, things that strive from cause-effect, or beliefs which don't take into account enough variables of a cause-effect relationship. Like when someone gets mad at someone else for murdering their wife - is this reasonable? The other person had no free will, and neither does the victim who gets mad, but the question is why does the person get mad, even if they didn't see it happen? Other animals don't get mad if they didn't see it happen, so why do humans? Because we are taught, usually without realizing it, that when someone does something like that, that they are bad people. Of course this property of a bad person is totally superstitious, as it represents no substance except some behavior that society doesn't like, tolerate, or understand. The real culprit of course is whatever made the murderer become that way - monetary system, a society built on suffering of the poor, a troubled kid who had a bad upbringing and nobody noticed because very few people care, overpopulation contributing to these factors, the list goes on and on. But you don't see murder family victims pushing for global peace, excessive birth control, and other preventive measures for crime because they didn't reason the cause-effect relationship out very much, their emotions got in the way and cut them off. This is exactly what happens when people are raised to believe in other superstitions and someone challenges that by showing that almost everything we know of is shown to work predictably and systemically, with no room for superstition or inherent chaos - they get emotionally unsettled because it seems like a cold existence, so most people of course would rather believe in something completely nonsensical like a flying bearded god-man in heaven who has angels or whatever allah is about with the whole 99 virgins.

[Kasper]

Sure, you were able to find one anomaly that suggests something else, again it's insane to think that anomalies are the truth and the overwhelming evidence is false

You believe that your conclusion about this overwhelming evidence is true, while your conclusion is not a logical consequence of this evidence.
One anomaly?? You should say: physicist set up a theory which is used for the last 60 years, a logical consequence of this theory is that external determinism is false.
And you say it's insane to think this is true... ?

just saying that I need to study more and other nonsense

Do you find studying nonsense ?
Or do you want to claim that you have studied logic, physics, quantum mechanics etc. ?

And besides this, there is an cause and an effect.
Cause: shoot electrons at a wall behind a double split, effect: an interference pattern at the wall.
The problem is that you can't make the exact predictions that you need for determinism.