to claim atomistic determinism is correct is premature. While it appears there will be a unifying theory, our current ability to measure things at sub atomic levels (while accurate) does not necessarily indicate that there is no variance in how a cause produces effect. I've heard quantum physicists talk about electron "jumps" being 100% random, not just our inability to measure it.
I'm certainly not making the argument for free will, but to say that universal principals of cause and effect prove determinism lacks a unification theory that allows us to make predictions about sub atomic particle movement.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
...this response is, well, probably true. Just based on the fact that the vast majority of the population isn't atheist. But your reasons for him coming to such a conclusion seem wildly self-affirming....
Anyway, I don't feel like straying too far from the topic. Determinism. It is correct. Anyone care to debate?
biscuits
First prove that the future exists.
Originally posted by inimalistBig Rip via dark energy?
we cannot say for certain that something won't happen to change the current projections.
Originally posted by Mindship
Big Rip via dark energy?
That was a great read. Too bad the person who came up with the idea lacked the ability to create a more badass name for his theory. Big Rip..? Common..I mean seriously?
Originally posted by inimalist
to claim atomistic determinism is correct is premature. While it appears there will be a unifying theory, our current ability to measure things at sub atomic levels (while accurate) does not necessarily indicate that there is no variance in how a cause produces effect. I've heard quantum physicists talk about electron "jumps" being 100% random, not just our inability to measure it.I'm certainly not making the argument for free will, but to say that universal principals of cause and effect prove determinism lacks a unification theory that allows us to make predictions about sub atomic particle movement.
Even if such things were determined to be totally random, it wouldn't validate commonly accepted concepts of free will, especially since the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics has been either roundly debunked (my opinion), or at the very least we've been given equally as logical alternatives to it that don't involve human interaction/choice affecting quantum superpositions.
And M-theorists might even say that it may seem random, but all possible outcomes of superpositions are reconciled, just in different universes, and within those universes whichever outcome happened is consistent with with the deterministic nature of the rest of that universe.
So I'll agree with you that we can't know for sure, but won't concede my position that determinism is the most logical and likely method of our existence. And religious definitions of free will are still inconsistent with anything resembling reason.