Where's the proof for determinism? All ive gotten from anyone is theoretical evidence and DUDE CAUSALITY LMAO...

Where's the proof for determinism? All ive gotten from anyone is theoretical evidence and DUDE CAUSALITY LMAO. How did science adapt such a bold claim without any cold hard proof?

By the way im past the Muh Free Will phase, so this isn't so much reactionary as it is a genuine "when whaddya think bout this /skye/?

There's no "proof" for determinism, if you want humans to come up with proof for a metaphysical idea before you accept it then you'll probably never be satisfied and you're not worth discussing these ideas with.

Cold hard proof isn't really possible because we exist in the universe only as a set of senses which can intake a limited amount of information about the universe. But, when we observe what we can about gravity and electromagnetism they both appear to be able to be modeled deterministicaly, same goes for 99% of the rest of the physics we observe. This is why it seems more rational to accept determinism.

You don't really pose any arguments as to why we shouldn't continue the chain of causality back to the origins of the universe. Many people point out that lots of quantum mechanics appear to us to be non-deterministic. I have a lot of problems with people using quantum mechanics as good evidence for a non-deterministic universe though. I'm not sure if that's what you (or anyone else) is getting at so I'm not going to say why I think it's batshit unless someone wants an elaboration.

Actually id like to hear your elaboration on quantum indeterminacy, if you'd care to explain

Man, Veeky Forums is my new favorite board. Determinism? Metaphysical discussions? On a Friday?

Yes, please. And there's no /x/ nonsense to go with it.

indeterminacy=/=uncertainty

but HOW

determinism implies that for every event/change of state must necessarily be a cause, and in this way I don't find assertions of quantum indeterminacy credible, as external conditions can be, of course, considered a cause, or the subjects action for the sake of observation.
say we have a "thing" that just exists, now we put it in conditions under which be can observe it go wiggly-woogly.
what did cause a "thing" go wiggly-woogly? conditions, of course (or maybe a method of gathering the evidence, like we bombard it with particles which make it do this)

uncertainty is in fact an inherent property of wave-like systems, which in some sense boils down to fourier series
now, fourier analysis is by no means indeterministic, just as anything explained by laws and principles [which determine the properties]

p.s. uncertainty principle is not identical to observer's effect

The universe isn't deterministic.
You can't ever say anything is certain in quantum mechanics, you can only assign probabilities to making a certain measurement.

You can absolutely say things are certain in quantum mechanics. The vast majority of useful applications of quantum mechanics rely on the absolute certainty inherent in an eigenstate

>universe isn't deterministic
>events occur for no cause
[citation needed]

I think there comes a point where what we can observe about the universe becomes limited simply by our inability to extract information from what we are trying to observe.
Many scientists believe that quarks are the smallest component of matter, that they are almost point-like entities. I think that there is a problem with this type of thinking because it is egocentric, let me explain.
In space, inside a grid of 100 square units, you can choose to look at one square inside that grid, and inside that smaller square is again 100 additional squares of smaller units. Say we as humans are able to only "zoom in" 30 times before shit starts going haywire and what we know about physics stops working and it becomes impossible for us to observe anything more (at planck length, gravity & electromagnetism stop making sense and quantum mechanics takes over).
Do you think it's rational then to say that this 30th zoom is an inherent limit of the universe?
I would argue that it is our limitations as observers, not the universes. Arguing that the limit of human comprehending and observation is also the limit of the universe is the same logic which creationists use for their belief of God.

It's also the same thinking which scientists use to define particle physics itself as non deterministic, as opposed to our limited interpretation of it. Basically saying,
"chemicals are composed of atoms, atoms are composed of particles, particles are composed of quarks, and then it definitely stops there and there is nothing else."

To an observer who's perceivable limit of the universe stops before electromagnetism, then the behavior of fridge magnets would appear probabilistic.

This metaphysical shit is hard to explain but let me know what you think about that take.

I could kiss (You)

>quantum mechanics entails indeterminism

When will this meme end? The Copenhagen interpretation is not universally accepted, you know?

>probabilistic ergo indeterministic
isn't probability measure assigned to a dependancy of an unknown number of variables for the sake of simplicity?

>Arguing that the limit of human comprehending and observation is also the limit of the universe is the same logic which creationists use for their belief of God.

creationist here, explain.

This.
Why do people think the Universe isn't determined again?

New poster, but I think I understand this.

Science has limitations in what things we can know (if we can really know anything) because there are limitations to our observations. And it doesn't make sense to say absence of evidence is evidence for absence.

I was sort of debating something like this with a friend about psychology. Humans can be seen as a type of complex
System, and the more complex the system, the more difficult it is to use science to learn any truths about that system, because it is harder to reduce it to its parts and make observations about those parts.

The limits on science come from our limitations in observation and reductionism, which is apparent when trying to glean truths on things like free will, determinism, even psychology. Am I making sense?

To me, yes. I don't know if that means anything, though, but I understood both and your post.

because on --god forgive me-- quantum scales the wave-like properties start to show up with their essential properties( )

and then the people a chain like this:
>uncertainty>probability>indeterminacy>free willy
by extrapolating quantum phenomena to scales on which the wave properties do not reveal themselves (aka quantum woo)

>free willy
I like you.

Take your pedophile cartoons to

science itself studies causal relationships and them only. this is the whole point of it
therefore "scientific" assertions of universe's indeterminacy, i.e. disobedience to the causal law, make no sense because if universe IS indeterministic, why the hell are we studying it, implying the causal law doesn't apply to it

You're literally repeating what Einstein thought of QM.
He was wrong and so are you.

Give it up MWI-fags, your interpretation isn't really deterministic either. Can you make predictions about results of experiments? Then it's not deterministic. And don't tell me there's another universe somewhere where your prediction was right.

We know that humans have been bestowed the ability to understand the relationship between cause and effect, that is, we know causality a priori, and we know in the application of our knowledge of causality along with the application of our knowledge of past experiences that in many cases we can make accurate predictions of the future, but we are completely uncertain of whether the future has already been determined or perhaps that if one is to have knowledge of all experience whether they could with certainty predict the future (this is the meaning of the question of determinism). My proof for free will is that, while we do have the ability to predict the future in some cases, the prediction is never as strong as the certainty we feel when we make a decision (enact our will freely), that is, we have more certainty of our free actions (as instructed by our will) than we do of our predictions for the future, therefore our will is necessarily unrestrained by any wholly determinate law.

Trump is shit

>Can you make predictions about results of experiments? Then it's not deterministic.
Thats-not-what-deterministic-means.jpg

>Where's the proof for determinism?

There isn't any proof, it's basically just implied by assumptions and logical deductions.

Determinism IS real, but it's sort of like the weather in it's complexity; any attempt to predict something of sufficient complexity will ultimately change the outcome.

So, perfect determinism is only achievable by being able to observe and plot ALL particles and energy in a given system with perfect accuracy, without altering what you are observing.

So, short answer:

Determinism is TECHNICALLY accurate, but impossible for ALL practical purposes.

(Correction)
>Determinism is TECHNICALLY accurate, but impossible for ALL practical purposes.

Re-guarding something as complex as free will, mind you.

Ballistics is pretty damn deterministic.