Many physicists even in the modern day tend to be bothered by the indeterminism within quantum mechanics. When they see the probabilistic patterns that lie at the heart of the world, they seek a deterministic cause that would get rid of those probabilities. Many physicists also seek a theory of e...
Or maybe it comes from disbelief in true randomness. When you toss a coin, there is no true randomness involved (to a significant degree, at least). A powerful machine that would scan your brain activity, predict the environmental factors such as wind, etc. would be able to predict the result of the coin toss. So, the intuition is the same for smaller scale systems. "And its next state can be B, C, or D with a probability of 1/3." - the premise violates determinism, does not it?
@rus9384 Let’s suppose that the universe is deterministic. What causes the universe to operate under one law instead of another? Why is Force = mass * acceleration and not something else? Presumably no reason. If we can accept those things to happen for no reason, why can’t we accept that A led to B instead of C for no reason?
"Presumably no reason" - So there is no reason for anything, right? Can just expect that if you fall out of window, might fly like a bird? But the observation disagrees with that.
I was just using "mass * acceleration" as an example. You have a mass, there is a force of gravity, so if you fall out of window, there will be an acceleration towards the source of the gravitational force. So, there is an empirical reason to believe "Force = mass * acceleration". And there is also a reason to believe it is deterministic: there is a guarantee that you will fall onto the surface if you are not there already. So, I am not sure what fallacy are you talking about?
@rus9384 True randomness is not about predictability, it is the opposite of pseudo-randomness. This means that truly random outcomes are not decided by anyone. Coin toss results are truly random as they are not decided by anyone.
Is this what you're getting at "because we can always ask 'why' for any particular physical law, therefore all physical laws lack explanatory power"? And then wondering why scientists bother with deterministic models since they are still always subject to someone asking "but why?"
As I understand this question now, it contains the non-sequitur between seeking deterministic models and something about the fact that no scientific model will ever be complete. Two points that don't really have any relationship to one another. So it could use some refinement and clarification. The whole second paragraph really adds nothing to it. Is there some specific philosphical issue that this comes up in,, or is it the OP just speculating on idle what-ifs without any structure or framework?
@PerttiRuismäki But there would be someone tossing it, a human or some machine. That means, they are involved in the process and if you know their algorithm and current state and you have infinite computational resources, you can predict how they will toss it.
@rus9384 Predictability is not the point. Both truly random and pseudo-random outcomes are unpredictable. You cannot predict human actions at all, there is no algorithm. And the coin tosser person doesn't know how to toss to get tails. Even if he knew, he couldn't perform the toss with sufficient accuracy.
@PerttiRuismäki "You cannot predict human actions at all, there is no algorithm." Physicalists would disagree. They would just state it's too complex to be practically predictable.
@rus9384 They cannot disagree with facts. There is no algorithm, no parameters, not even a theory. Even the mechanics of a coin toss are unpredictable (with sufficient accuracy) even in theory. Probabilistic events are unknowable until they can be observed.
@PerttiRuismäki This assumes they are probabilistic. Again, there is no evidence a coin toss is probabilistic rather than deterministic but we just don't know how to predict it.
@rus9384 Of course they are probabilistic. Everything is. A "deterministic coin toss" is an oxymoron. In a deterministic system there are no alternative possibilities, everything happens with absolute accuracy and certainty.
@PerttiRuismäki Okay, a simple thought experiment. I ask you to guess in which of my hands a coin is. I know it in advance, therefore it is deterministic. You don't know it, therefore determinism is not sufficient for knowledge.
@rus9384 Your thought experiment makes no sense. There is no concept of knowledge in determinism. When everything is determined by prior events, then nothing is determined by knowledge.
@PerttiRuismäki And how is there a concept of knowledge in probabilism? If anything, determinism vs. probabilism seems tangential to the concept of knowledge (and as such, both might or might not have a concept of knowledge).
Summary of the 2nd paragraph: it might be the case that a state of the world A can lead to states B, C, or D with equal probability, or it might be that A inevitably leads to B. Ok. So what?
Summary of the 3rd paragraph: determinism means that everything is pre-determined. Yes. So what?
"Many physicists even in the modern day tend to be bothered by the indeterminism within quantum mechanics" -- citation needed. Modern-day physicists are one of the few groups that I expect generally to not be bothered by quantum indeterminism.
I take this to be about the concept often encapsulated in the Einstein quote "God does not play dice" and the continuing debates around Bell's theorem. In my estimation that the belief that world must be deterministic is a pretty fringe idea in Physics now. The idea that a non-deterministic universe is not yet proven is more mainstream.
Hold up are you the John Bollinger? @JohnBollinger
@JohnBollinger Einstein for one. And I said that many physicists are bothered by it, not all. For one, more than 40-50% of physicists believe in a deterministic interpretation of QM
The John Bollinger, @Baby_philosopher? Probably not. I am well enough known in some circles, but not so much that I would expect to receive the definite article.
@Baby_philosopher, I know well Einstein's famous "God does not play dice with the universe" remark. But he has been dead for nearly 70 years, and the remark is older than that. He is not a modern-day physicist. As for "more than 40-50% of physicists believe in a deterministic interpretation of QM", again, citation needed. By which I mean exactly that. I don't have personal knowledge to the contrary, but I find the assertion doubtful.
Discussion on question by Baby_philos…
Discussion on question by Baby_philos…