Determinism vs. Contingency

[NowAgnostic]

And I agree entirely: we’ll never know for sure if all events are determined or not, or which events are even possible until they happen, for that matter.

OK, so you agree we can never know for sure if determinism is true then. By “possible” you are only referring to events that might follow in the future from our current configuration in this world.

But this takes us back to what I said in post #2: For as long as the veracity of determinism is pending, the veracity of (most of) modality is pending.

This does not follow. Determinism does not imply this world is the only possible one.

If determinism is true, and every state is a result of a prior one, there must be an infinite regress back in the past. But it doesn’t follow that this infinite regress is the only logically possible one. I can give you a simple example.

Let’s imagine classifying world-states by integers, and that the rule for going from one state to the next is adding by 2. Clearly there are two possible sets of infinite regresses - one with even integers, the other with odd. Now there’s no way to get to an “odd” state if we’re in an “even” world, so “odd” states are “impossible” in that sense - in the sense of worlds accessible from our own. However, the “odd” world is still “possible” in the modal sense of “logical possibility”. Modal logicians can thus talk about a pink unicorn, or solar system with 100 planets, etc., being “logically possible”.

Possibility is still a useful concept for predictions, but we can never be sure which events are possible and which are not until they’ve already occurred, and even then we only truly know the event is possible under identical circumstances (meaning that the event may never be possible again under circumstances that vary even slightly). It’s all just one big question mark.

I would agree. We’re not sure which events are possible given the current configuration of the world.

 

[NowAgnostic]

The Copenhagen interpretations (Einstein, Schrodinger,…) never accepted any uncaused anything.

Einstein was not a proponent of the Copenhagen interpretation.

They explicitly stated that the QM concerns were strictly about probability, not reality. QM is applied statistics, no more than that.

That is not the Copenhagen interpretation. Read about interpretations of QM here.

And the Big Bang “singularity” idea was abandon quite some time ago. A singularity is a physical impossibility. Einstein’s equations when extrapolated to infinitude imply a singularity so they thought for a while such might be the case. But it was realized that those equations do not apply at such extremes.

Well, a singularity is a not a physical impossibility if “all” the matter-energy in the universe is a total of zero, which physics confirms it is - and zero matter-energy is concentrated at a single point. This is a very interesting point though which I’ve considered starting a new thread on.

And time did not begin with the Big Bang.

Indeed not. Time can’t “begin” - there can be nothing before time.

 

[Hosh]

And just how to you know that?

The aforementioned Uncertainty Principle.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The aforementioned Uncertainty Principle.

OH. A scientist said it. I see. How could one argue with a true prophet.

 

[Hosh]

And how do you know singularities cant exist? did you see it? can you see it? since your way ahead of me perhaps you could tell me what the big bang was and what the ultimate fate of our universe is… we are at a point in physics where we realize the most important questions can not be answered with anything but glorified philosophy supported by circumstantial evidence.

 

[James_S_Saint]

And how do you know singularities cant exist? did you see it? can you see it? since your way ahead of me perhaps you could tell me what the big bang was and what the ultimate fate of our universe is… we are at a point in physics where we realize the most important questions can not be answered with anything but glorified philosophy supported by circumstantial evidence.

You presume to know “we”.

I’m guessing that you didn’t see the recent entanglement experiment designed to disprove the uncertainty principle. It succeeded. The uncertainty principle proclaimed that one cannot know the state of a photon because it would require destructive observation which would alter that state. The entanglement experiment used a parallel photon and observed the twin so as to deduce the original without interfering with it. The sciencism spin doctors took over so as to save face just as they have for the past 150 years, but I saw the actual hand written lab report, so their spinning had no effect on me other than to further prove how underhanded sciencism witchdoctors are willing to be. The mere proposal that one cannot know something is highly dubious all on its own and very unlikely to ever be true other than in regards to volume of information or timing.

The questions you ask are very much a part of a book I am writing. The explanation is long, thus the need for a book rather than a mere thesis.

Science has accepted for some time now that the Big Bang was never a singularity and more recently has accepted that it wasn’t really the beginning of the universe either, but merely a stage that the universe went through. But with or without Science, one can know such things through the accurate use of logic. The fact that very many people misuse logic and reasoning hardly means that accurate use is impossible.

In my book, I begin with no assumptions, a “void” and explain how it is that anything could ever come to exist. After that, I show that what came to exist has no alternative but to behave in specific ways. From looking at the only possible behavior, I show how it is that radiation and light form. From there, how particles form and gravity and other physics properties are realized. From there how it is that the Big Bang ever took place and exactly what it was, what it had to be because there truly was no logical alternative. Step by step, carefully verifying that all possible options are considered without prejudice. That is what being Holy is about, always considering the whole, the All, the Holy. From such a perspective, all things can be known. Just as your ancient prophets have told you.

 

[Hosh]

You presume to know “we”.

I’m guessing that you didn’t see the recent entanglement experiment designed to disprove the uncertainty principle. It succeeded. The uncertainty principle proclaimed that one cannot know the state of a photon because it would require destructive observation which would alter that state. The entanglement experiment used a parallel photon and observed the twin so as to deduce the original without interfering with it. The sciencism spin doctors took over so as to save face just as they have for the past 150 years, but I saw the actual hand written lab report, so their spinning had no effect on me other than to further prove how underhanded sciencism witchdoctors are willing to be. The mere proposal that one cannot know something is highly dubious all on its own and very unlikely to ever be true other than in regards to volume of information or timing.

The questions you ask are very much a part of a book I am writing. The explanation is long, thus the need for a book rather than a mere thesis.

Science has accepted for some time now that the Big Bang was never a singularity and more recently has accepted that it wasn’t really the beginning of the universe either, but merely a stage that the universe went through. But with or without Science, one can know such things through the accurate use of logic. The fact that very many people misuse logic and reasoning hardly means that accurate use is impossible.

In my book, I begin with no assumptions, a “void” and explain how it is that anything could ever come to exist. After that, I show that what came to exist has no alternative but to behave in specific ways. From looking at the only possible behavior, I show how it is that radiation and light form. From there, how particles form and gravity and other physics properties are realized. From there how it is that the Big Bang ever took place and exactly what it was, what it had to be because there truly was no logical alternative. Step by step, carefully verifying that all possible options are considered without prejudice. That is what being Holy is about, always considering the whole, the All, the Holy. From such a perspective, all things can be known. Just as your ancient prophets have told you.

Its not even worth it with you. Good luck with the book.

 

[Oreoracle]

NowAgnostic,

Being only a sophomore in high school, I am currently very ignorant about quantum mechanics, and my grasp of metaphysical terminology is less than desirable. Could you summarize the differences between “logical possibility,” “metaphysical possibility,” and “epistemic possibility?” I believe that “logically possible” simply means that a thing is coherent and not self-contradictory, but I’m not certain.

Anyway, we can agree that the randomness of an event cannot be proven definitively, but I can’t truly say whether a belief in such is justified until I know more about quantum mechanics. But as you know, science will adopt ideas for their utility and economy in theories. If our topic is metaphysical truth, however, scientific standards of justification (which are apparently subject to consensus) may be a bit lax for the issue at hand, don’t you think? I would rather all possibilities of causes be exhausted before we make claims of randomness, but seeing as we don’t know for sure what causes would produce such effects to begin with, I hardly see how these claims can be justified. We don’t even know what possibilities ought to be exhausted.

 

[NowAgnostic]

NowAgnostic,

Being only a sophomore in high school, I am currently very ignorant about quantum mechanics, and my grasp of metaphysical terminology is less than desirable. Could you summarize the differences between “logical possibility,” “metaphysical possibility,” and “epistemic possibility?” I believe that “logically possible” simply means that a thing is coherent and not self-contradictory, but I’m not certain.

That’s basically correct. Metaphysicians have additional constraints on what can and cannot be, and while we can argue over who is correct and who is not, assuming we knew the right metaphysical constraints, we would have metaphysically possible entities. Epistemic possibility means things we can can conceive of. They may however be metaphysically or logically impossible (e.g. they entail a contradiction we aren’t aware of). For instance, before we learned geometry we could conceive of a triangle (in Euclidean space) with angles summing to 190 degrees.

Anyway, we can agree that the randomness of an event cannot be proven definitively, but I can’t truly say whether a belief in such is justified until I know more about quantum mechanics.

Fair enough, but then study the article I linked to on interpretations of QM and decide for yourself and don’t just assume it isn’t.

But as you know, science will adopt ideas for their utility and economy in theories. If our topic is metaphysical truth, however, scientific standards of justification (which are apparently subject to consensus) may be a bit lax for the issue at hand, don’t you think?

I’m not sure our topic is metaphysical truth. In the first place, you are using scientific standards of justification (e.g. induction) yourself to conclude a high likelihood of determinism.

Now the question is, are you saying:

1. All (logically and metaphysically) possible universes are deterministic. In that case determinism is a metaphysical claim. But you can’t argue from what we see in our universe to prove that. Determinism doesn’t imply that our universe is the only possible one, as I showed from the example with even and odd integers.

or

1. Not all possible universes are deterministic, it just so happens contingently that our universe happens to be a deterministic one. In this case determinism isn’t a metaphysical claim.

I would rather all possibilities of causes be exhausted before we make claims of randomness, but seeing as we don’t know for sure what causes would produce such effects to begin with, I hardly see how these claims can be justified. We don’t even know what possibilities ought to be exhausted.

All physical possibilities of causes have been exhausted. Read about the history of QM. Local hidden variables have been disproven. It’s all about the interpretation of QM, which itself is the most empirically verified theory in all of science.

 

[Oreoracle]

That’s basically correct. Metaphysicians have additional constraints on what can and cannot be, and while we can argue over who is correct and who is not, assuming we knew the right metaphysical constraints, we would have metaphysically possible entities.

What does “metaphysically possible” mean? I’ve been reading about metaphysics over the past few months but I haven’t read a single definition of this term yet.

Fair enough, but then study the article I linked to on interpretations of QM and decide for yourself and don’t just assume it isn’t.

At this point, I think I’m siding with the instrumentalists on this one. Quantum theories seem to be useful for making predictions, but I don’t see them as being true.

You may think this is a bit facetious, but I truly don’t see how someone could claim that particles can spontaneously appear but deny that toasters can spontaneously appear. Once we posit that something can come from nothing, we’re pretty much left at a dead end, aren’t we? I mean, does it truly make sense to start placing limitations on nothingness by saying things can only spontaneously appear (from nothing) on the micro-level? Why not the macro-level? In fact, if enough random events occur on the micro-level, then they will surely accumulate to produce larger changes, thus creating random events on the macro-level. Accepting micro-randomness but not macro-randomness is as foolish as accepting micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. Enough small changes will produce large changes.

And if I’m right about this, then we have other problems as well. Since many claims in quantum mechanics defy logical laws, and applying logical laws is how we make inferences and come to understandings, then quantum events are unintelligible even if quantum theory provides a true account of events. A photon being in two places at once and a thing coming from nothing don’t make sense however you look at them, even if they truely occur. The scientific method is based on the assumption that the natural world is intelligible. This appears to be true, and it is why we have theories to explain phenomena. But regarding random events, no theories are possible, as an unintelligible event (a thing coming from nothing) cannot be explained. And if these random events can accumulate to produce larger and more significant events, then the effort to explain becomes all the more difficult, if not impossible.

1. Not all possible universes are deterministic, it just so happens contingently that our universe happens to be a deterministic one. In this case determinism isn’t a metaphysical claim.

This is probably closer to my position, but it’s still off. “Possible universes” are mental constructs, and determinism denies the relevance of such. The universe could only have been different in your mind. Accepting determinism as the condition of a possible universe is contradictory because there are no other possible universes in the determinist world view.

All physical possibilities of causes have been exhausted. Read about the history of QM. Local hidden variables have been disproven. It’s all about the interpretation of QM, which itself is the most empirically verified theory in all of science.

Why is it that other theories aren’t called “interpretations” of events as well? I mean, that’s what they are, but we never call them that. It’s almost like scientists are less certain of quantum mechanics than they are with theories regarding the behavior of objects on the macro-level. Could it be?

 

[NowAgnostic]

What does “metaphysically possible” mean? I’ve been reading about metaphysics over the past few months but I haven’t read a single definition of this term yet.

Well, try good old wikipedia:

Metaphysical possibility

Philosophers ponder the properties that objects have independently of those dictated by scientific laws. For example, it might be metaphysically necessary, as some have thought, that all thinking beings have bodies and can experience the passage of time, or that God exists (or does not). Saul Kripke has argued that every person necessarily has the parents they do have: anyone with different parents would not be the same person.[2]

Metaphysical possibility is generally thought to be more restricting than bare logical possibility (i.e., fewer things are metaphysically possible than are logically possible). Its exact relation to physical possibility is a matter of some dispute. Philosophers also disagree over whether metaphysical truths are necessary merely “by definition”, or whether they reflect some underlying deep facts about the world, or something else entirely.

At this point, I think I’m siding with the instrumentalists on this one. Quantum theories seem to be useful for making predictions, but I don’t see them as being true.

You may side with whoever you like, but it doesn’t refute the claim there is a rational justification for believing events are ontologically random.

You may think this is a bit facetious, but I truly don’t see how someone could claim that particles can spontaneously appear but deny that toasters can spontaneously appear.

Once we posit that something can come from nothing, we’re pretty much left at a dead end, aren’t we? I mean, does it truly make sense to start placing limitations on nothingness by saying things can only spontaneously appear (from nothing) on the micro-level? Why not the macro-level? In fact, if enough random events occur on the micro-level, then they will surely accumulate to produce larger changes, thus creating random events on the macro-level. Accepting micro-randomness but not macro-randomness is as foolish as accepting micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. Enough small changes will produce large changes.

In theory, a virtual toaster could spontaneously appear - however, the likelihood of such a thing occurring (with all the virtual particles in all the right locations) is astronomically against. And then, even if it did, from the Heisenberg uncertainty relation (Delta E Delta t > hbar/2) the time window of opportunity we have to actually observe is also infinitesimally small.

You are right that things at the macro-level are not absolutely deterministic. However, because they are the result of the average of a large, large number of random quantum events, the uncertainties involves are infinitesimal.

And if I’m right about this, then we have other problems as well. Since many claims in quantum mechanics defy logical laws, and applying logical laws is how we make inferences and come to understandings, then quantum events are unintelligible even if quantum theory provides a true account of events.

Which claims defy logical laws?

A photon being in two places at once and a thing coming from nothing don’t make sense however you look at them, even if they truely occur.

Quantum mechanics makes no such claims. The quantum vacuum isn’t “nothing”. And neither the Copenhagen, nor the Bohm, interpretation claim that a photon is in two places “at once”.

The scientific method is based on the assumption that the natural world is intelligible. This appears to be true, and it is why we have theories to explain phenomena. But regarding random events, no theories are possible, as an unintelligible event (a thing coming from nothing) cannot be explained.

I would state that as an uncaused event cannot be ultimately explained. With which I agree.

And if these random events can accumulate to produce larger and more significant events, then the effort to explain becomes all the more difficult, if not impossible.

But the very, very large number of random events averaging out makes it possible to develop theories at the macro-level, which are going to be empirically verified to a very high degree of accuracy.

So you can have unintelligibility and randomness at the micro-level yet apparent intelligibility and order at the macro-level. What this shows is that the inference that the apparent order observed at the macro-level implies ultimate intelligibility of the universe, is false.

Accepting determinism as the condition of a possible universe is contradictory because there are no other possible universes in the determinist world view.

That is not true, as I have already shown. Determinism does not imply modal collapse.

Why is it that other theories aren’t called “interpretations” of events as well? I mean, that’s what they are, but we never call them that.

All scientific theories are information theories. They are an attempt to categorize the empirical data with less information than is actually in the data - and in so doing, they can make predictions about what data to expect in the future.

It’s almost like scientists are less certain of quantum mechanics than they are with theories regarding the behavior of objects on the macro-level. Could it be?

No. Quantum mechanics is the most experimentally verified theory in all of science (at least quantum electrodynamics, whose predictions have been verified to an incredible degree of accuracy).

 

[proteus]

No one will ever know! It drives me nuts that people say so faithfully that “random and unfathomable events happen”. Its called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for a reason. All the rest that you may or may not have heard may make a lot of other theories work, and everything else fit into place, but its still fundamentally unknowable. Einstein could have been doing better things with the last 20 years of his life.

You are operating under the assumption that we will never find a way to circumvent the uncertainty principle. And, according to your argument, you can’t possibly know the future.

My question to Oreoracle is this: Where then, if the universe is somehow a determinate entity, does God and free will fit in?