Andrew Ryan
One Who Chooses
My my, to think I've become such an overnight celebrity.
As far as your specific contention (about the claim that "lack of evidence means there is no evidence"😉 goes, I can't comment until you elaborate. Are you complaining about the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle? I assure you that has mountains of evidence supporting it.
It's my fault for being sloppy I suppose. First, the specific theory I strongly dislike and object to on personal grounds is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. I'm certainly not the first to do so. But my real problem with it is the adherence to indeterminism. It basically concludes that because determining factors could not be detected in say, the double-slit experiment and the behavior was erratic, the behavior must be necessarily indeterministic. This is akin to saying "just because I can't understand the data on this alien database it must not be present".
Am I going to pretend like I understand the theory from A to Z? No. I may be missing some critical component. But I've already stated that I'm arguing from my own limited viewpoint on the subject, so I'll accept being wrong if someone can properly demonstrate it.
My entire argument is that if Copenhagen interpretation is true, then it stands to reason that scientific theory as we know it should be abolished, simply because it is an application of determinist scientific laws. And that just doesn't seem sensible, to throw out that methodology simply because we can't view the hidden variables.
This requires substantiation. Could you give an example of something about QM that is in doubt because it "baffles" scientists?
This isn't necessarily my argument, but I'll answer your question all the same.
The entirety of QM is in doubt by a lot of scientist. I'm not saying that they doubt its existence, because that would be stupid. No, I'm saying that the how behind observations at the quantum level is very split. There are many different approaches to the how of it, and unlike something as defined as momentum, gravity, or chemical absorption - quantum physics lacks enough information to be concluded by a majority. The Copenhagen interpretation is based on the same evidence as the Many-worlds interpretation or the Bohm interpretation.
Are scientists baffled? Yes. Does this mean some theories on quantum mechanics are not absolute. Yes. That seems to be pretty straight-forward.
There is nothing magical in QM, except insofar as human intuition is poorly optimized for the quantum scale. I don't know if you've read any Dawkins, but he describes human awareness as taking place in "middle world."
If you followed me a bit more closely, you might have seen that I've never disputed this. My deterministic stance is rooted in the fact that even though not directly observable, variables which effect things at a level which explain quantum mechanics operates have never been conclusively ruled out. Determinism applies on a macroscopic level and it is the basis for scientific theory. That's my entire point. Interpretations of quantum events do not eliminate that foundation simply because they remain unexplained. No one would argue that bacteria was never present simply because it was unable to be detected in previous eras.
You'll have to point me toward where it was, exactly, that Determinism became "established."
Perhaps you're not aware of how ingrained it is in scientific theory. When conducting an experiment to explain natural events, what do you look for? When you see a soccer player kicking a ball, do you see indeterministic forces which lead to the ball being randomly moved forward to an undetermined location? Or do you see the causal agent in the soccer player who exists according to pre-determined principles who applies a tried and true manner of motion which in turn kicks the ball in a general area?
If you looked at all scientific theories under the lens of "determinism is not true", you could not conclude anything because you could not identify any causal agents which would in turn validate your theory. An indeterministic theory would look like "the ball moved by chance" or spontaneity caused the ball to move.
Determinism, however, is clear. Why did the ball come down? Gravity. Not chance.
For the next individual:
Determinism states that all future events a determined by present condition and have to occur because said conditions exist. That theory rules out any kind of "free will", because actions of human beings would, in logic of the theory, also be caused by certain conditions. Obviously nobody follows that theory in a strict fashion, provided that we still put legal offenders into jail instead of blaming a serial killers bad childhood for his actions and leave him be.
Society doesn't operate on hard determinist rules because no society could operate that way, clearly. But just because it fails the social test does not mean it's untrue. Ethical egoism is certainly true, even if it could never be a social system.
Likewise the opposite of determinism (indeterminism) also has its foundament in science. Thermodynamics feature a lot of probabilistic laws. The point with quantum mechanics is, that they can only make probabilistic statements about future events.
But what causes these theories to be probabilistic in nature? Lack of evidence, obviously. If you knew all the variables, you could predict the dice roll, correct?
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, it's merely a symptom of the limited scope of humanity. Indeterminist say "we have not found any reasons to believe in determinism"; I say "you have not reached the threshold of absolute knowledge yet, keep digging".
Just to make it clear. Even strict followers of determinism don't question quantum mechanics, they simply explain the results different than other people do. This is more a philosophical question than anything else. It doesn't touch the quantum mechanics or the results their use generates - it's a matter of interpretation.
If you understand this, then we're obviously on the same page here. Even though I advocate Determinism, I do not say quantum mechanics is not a practical science. I do say that some interpretations are suspect because they accept lack of evidence as conclusive evidence. I feel that's a reasonable stance for anyone who is lacking absolute knowledge.
And the last person:
I have a question if you're going to follow this logic. Let's say that G-d exists (for argument's sake and I'm Jewish). G-d knows everything you're going to do and every choice you're going to make, so does that introduce determinism? Or the fact that G-d knowing what choice you're going to make has no bearing on you having the free will to make that choice?
Let's break this down:
1. If we assume God is all knowing and all powerful, it stands to reason he directly controls the means to your future.
2. If the above is true, then it stands to reason your future is determined by the intents of God. After all, he created you.
3. Since God can account for all the variables, he writes the rules. Like a chess game, even though your life may seem to be irreducibly complex and random, all of the actions were within the scope of what God had intended.
Ergo, determinism is real if God does indeed write the rules. You have no free will.