Can't handle that idea huh?

Well, you're in good company. Einstein couldn't handle it either.

Bohr finally convinced me that is must be true.

And once accepted it makes things far easier to understand.

I held out for the longest time too.

But now that I see what Bohr was saying I don't know why I fought against it for so long. It actaully makes far more sense.

Determinism isn't even an inviting concept if you stop and think about it. Unless a person is feeling extremely guilty about something and is looking for an excuse to not be responsible. Then determinism could be quite inviting I guess.

I've come to grips with randomness and indeterminism and find it to be quite appealing. Without it I would be fated to live a life where I have no ability to choose.

How could choice be possible in a world that is completely predetermined?

Can you offer an explanation for that?

Or do you simply accept that there is no such thing as free will?

There is a way.

I'm all eyes.

Anytime you're ready. I'd like to hear the scenario.

Is it safe to say "I don't know"?

I remember the last time I said such a thing, I was chewed out for 20 posts afterwords

At least that is one of the most honest answers one can get about a great many questions philosophers, scientists, and other creative genius come up with.

It just seems like a thread killer though and maybe the reason no one ever says it on any of the political, religion, philosophy or science threads.

I am not a fatalist James...

Indeterminism is not acausal.

Well, you've totally lost me Michael.

Your sentence doesn't make any sense to me at all.

You say, "Indeterminism is not acausal"

To me, this sentence just appears to be denying the very meaning of the term "Indeterminism".

I just now looked up the following definitions on the web to see if maybe I was misinterpreting these words, but so far all the definitions I've found reflect the same meanings that I already had in my mind.

From the web:

"Indeterminism is a philosophical position that maintains that some form of determinism is incorrect: that there are events which do not correspond with determinism (and therefore are either uncaused, or caused in a manner that the corresponding form of determinism does not allow)"

Here's another one:

"Indeterminism - a philosophical position that things are not deterministic and are driven by, or contain, randomness"

Here's a definition of "Acasual"

"Acausal - without cause; a random event."

So your statement "Indeterminism is not acausal" seems to just be denying the very meaning of the term "Indeterminism" as far as I can see.

I'm at a loss to understand what you're trying to say. Your sentence simply doesn't make any sense to me based on my understanding of the words you are using. It just looks like a contradiction in terms to me.

Not meant to be an argument. I just don't understand your sentence. It just appears to me to be a denial of the very meaning of the term "Indeterminism".

Maybe it is one of those "To be or not to be" or "to present or not present that is the risk" type of replies??

Everything has a reason some say...

Well here, have some mash potatoes.

No cause required. Consider them to be a totally random table pass. Someone picked them up and started passing them around the table and didn't even take any for themselves. However, if it turns out to be the dishwashing person then we may have found the hidden variable.



Gravy?

We can predict the randomness in QM with probability, and as been already noted, it has not been wrong yet! Probability is governed by laws. Therefore, indeterminism in QM is also governed by the laws of probability. Those laws are logical and contain a degree of certainty. Cause and effect laws apply to probability. Probability governs the solutions of QM.

So to deny cause and effect in lieu of absolute randomness is erroneous, especially knowing that that very conclusion had it's path of 'discovery' paved through logic and reason.

That is what Feynman was referring to in the earlier quote I used, and that is what I agree with.

What does that mean?

I don't think James is denying cause and effect or implying "absolute" randomness.

That would be chaos.

I did not get that impression anyway.

What you say about the laws of probability is totally incorrect. The mathematical laws of probability only work if the data is random to begin with. That's a prerequisite condition.

That's what they are based on.

We must also keep in mind that the laws that govern our daily macro-sized life are still Newtonian, because the mass of light shining upon us has no measurable effect upon the certainty of our speed, position, nor trajectory.

If it were absolutely random, there would be no way to consistently predict the solutions.

Yes I am.



No randomness and chaos are not the same thing.

This is probably why everyone find randomness so repulsive, they think randomness means chaos.

I've tired to explain this using dice as an example so many times but no one seems to get it.

I'll try one more time.

If you roll a pair of dice and you get a 2 through 12 or any whole number in between, then this was random.

If you roll a pair of dice and you get zero or 13 or the word "batman" THAT's chaos!

People have the totally wrong idea in thinking that with quantum mechanics anything goes.

That's totally wrong.

What can happen is as predetermined as rolling a pair of dice. Only certain things can happen. But within that level of pre-determinism precisely what number comes up is random.

So randomness is not the same thing as chaos.

It's also predetermined within "boundaries".

In other words, the probability distributions are predetermined by the immediate environment.

In other words, if you try the "single-slit" experiment you will always get no diffraction pattern 100% of the time. If you try the "double slit" experiment you will always get a diffraction 100% of the time.

The results of these experiments are 100% predetermined every time. 100% determined probability patterns. It's not the least bit "chaotic".

But if you try to follow around individual photos you'll find that they individually behave randomly yet within their probability distributions.

So you could say that it is 100% predetermined that things must stay within their probability distributions. Yet, they are free to do so randomly.

It's not the least bit chaotic, it's just random.

There's HUGE difference between chaos and randomness.

If photons behaved chaotically you'd sometimes get diffraction patters during "single-slit" experiments. But then NEVER happens.

No chaos permitted.

Only randomness.

Thes are totally different concepts.

Dependent origination: that any phenomenon 'exists' only because of the ‘existence’ of other phenomena in a complex web of cause and effect covering time past, present and future. Because all things are thus conditioned and transient (anicca), they have no real independent identity (anatta).

Rejection of the infallibility of accepted scripture: Teachings should not be accepted unless they are borne out by our experience and are praised by the wise.

Anicca (Sanskrit: anitya): That all things are impermanent.

Dukkha (Sanskrit: duḥkha): That all beings suffer from all situations due to unclear mind.

Anatta (Sanskrit: anātman): That the perception of a constant "self" is an illusion.



These are from the Buddhist belief system(philosophy)Sort of sounds like some things I have seen JB often sayI think Jeanniebean may be a buddha

Okay here is the scenario. Mind you, I don't subscribe to it, but here it is.

Can you imagine a many worlds, multidimensional universe? If you can, imagine infinite paths through this universe that are probabilities or "time lines" to different probabilities.

For the mind, probabilities exist from the point of the present (now) in relation to the observer or the thing that decides. All probabilities in the path of the observer are equal and lead to all other probabilities, each having infinite probabilities every quantum unite along the path.

They (probabilities) all exist within the 'mind' of the multiverse and each path taken has infinite numbers of predetermined outcomes depending upon other observers interactions and choices. (Mind you, this a huge amount of predetermined probabilities.) Everything is already in place in the mind of the universal multiverse for the operation of movement of observers through all of the infinite probabilities-- and that does not change. The paths are there, and the outcomes are there waiting to be chosen, and all the laws of cause and effect are in effect throughout for some purpose which is meant to benefit the body of the whole.

From the perspective of the observer or the decision maker, he has free will to choose any path at any quantum unit of his personal time line and anything could happen along the way due to other observers making decisions... but those are also probabilities that ALREADY exist within the mind of the multiverse whose outcomes are predetermined.

Okay now freeze everything moving and take a look at all the infinite choices an observer has. With infinite choices, it would seem the observer at this point had "free will." Even a single proton has infinite choices and would seem to have "free will." But at that moment all existing probabilities are equal and the structure is in tact with the laws of cause and effect for the benefit of the body of the whole.

Everything is predetermined on the macro scale. It only appears that things are random. We have so many choices through the multivers it appears to be free will and so many outcomes are possible it appears to be random.

True... But you can get a narrow range of solutions and then apply physical laws that we know to be true within that range.

Indeterminism is not acausal, neither is probability law.

While it may not be Newtonian in a sense, it is still very much causally consistent, we just do not know exactly what causes the collapse of the wave function, nor when or where a photon will be emitted by an exited atom. That is what Feynman is referring to in the quote which James likes to use so often regarding not 'knowing'.



I am ok not knowing that as well...

Gosh! Do you guys ever sleep? It is 4 A.M. over here in the East Coast??

Maybe you are all computer programmed computers that act like humans answering difficult philosophical questions with no "direct" end of absolute solutions?

Well I am human and am off to sleep.

Have a great night and good luck on the logic you add on today