🚀 go-pugleaf

I think you misunderstand what "deterministic" means.

It has nothing to do with a lack of causality.  A non-deterministic universe
simply means that while your day to day life might seem simple enough, you
simply can't predict what happens over time.

Either that or you're practicing up on sophist philosophy.

--
"S D Rodrian" <sdr@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:bf7b874e.0111201803.84c1e88@posting.google.com...
> FDA <armingaud@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:<3BFA94DE.F764559D@noos.fr>...
> > SDR a �crit :
> >
> > > Yes it is! EVERYTHING in a "deterministic universe"
> > > has been DETERMINED from its beginning, and its beginnings
> > > PRE-determine() its EVERYTHING. Simple as that.
> >
> > Simple as a definition, in fact, because this is just the definition of
> > what can be called a deterministic universe. However, this does not
> > answer the question "do we live in such a universe ?".
>
> If "you" didn't it wouldn't be possible for "you" to go from
> wherever the Hell you're coming from... to your conclusion
> however inane! [But, hey: Have fun! No ties can bind to reality
> those who are determined to disconnect with reality.]
>
> In fact, such a non sequitur universe could NEVER go ANYWHERE
> for the simple reason that "going" needs travel a deterministic
> path "from here to there" (or, no progress, just a jumping
> here & there, helter skelter all about, back & forth... with
> no possibility of there ever being a record of its course, of
> course): Indeterminism = non sequitur
>
> > Quantic indetermination suggests that no.
>
> But sanity demands that yes: The assumption of indeterminism
> under ANY and ALL guises excludes sanity itself in the absolute:
>
> To repeat myself (which I love to do)... There "are" indeed many
> "experiments" which "suggest" uncaused effects. The problem with
> ALL these "experiments" is that the "experimenters" NEVER quite
> can know HOW unpredictability was produced! [Do you see the problem:
> IF they know HOW it was produced... that, by definition, would
> remove any notion that there was any "change" at all involved with
> their work!] Therefore the assumption of indeterminism MUST forever
> remain a mere assumption, or it itself becomes the proof positive
> of determinism!
>
> Ignorance always makes the indeterminism claimants propose a "little
> kingdom" where indeterminism rules... invisible and impossible to test
> (and prove, of course). Quantum mechanics is probability theory, NOT
> the vindication of indeterminism you believe it to be (the sucesses
> of quantum theory's predictions come from sound preparation coupled
> with relentless work, or... a reduction of the "chance component" down
> to its barest minimum). You need to realize that quantum theory is a
> method for producing knowledge (reducing the haystack to the point). [sic]
> Increasing ignorance (increasing the "chance component") NEVER makes
> quantum mechanics work better! What more is there to say about this?!
>
> And so I stand by my old mantra: KNOWLEDGE ALWAYS PROVES DETERMINISM
> ... ALWAYS! [This means that "they" will always assume indeterminism
> from imperfect knowledge... or, as it's more commonly called in the
> vernacular: IGNORANCE.]
>
> ALWAYS USE YOUR BRAIN. Or, if you know your limitations:
> ALWAYS USE THE BRAINS OF SOMEBODY WHO'S GOT SOME.
>
> > Except of course if we accept
> > Everett's theory that all possible futures do occur whenever any
> > question is asked about the universe. In such a case, what is determined
> > is the set of all possible outcomes of a given event. What does not seem
> > to be determined in which branch of it "we" (whatever that may mean)
> > will be present after the event. You will certainly agree that it does
> > not change much of the problem.
>
> I highly recommend that you devote your time to reading Dr. Seuss
> (The Cat In The Hat: You'll love it. And it won't mess up your mind
> any more than it's already been messed up by the reading you've been
> doing up to now. Who knows, maybe it'll even allow you to clear away
> the cobwebs and come up with a clear, concrete thought one day.)
>
> Good luck, sincerely,
>
> S D Rodrian
> poems.sdrodrian.com
> physics.sdrodrian.com