(July 18, 2013 at 11:03 am)little_monkey Wrote:All the things you mentioned are (I believe) falsifiable. You could come up with evidence that would disprove them. But how would you disprove determinism? You wouldn't-- you'd say, "Oh, science had ____ wrong, so it's impossible to make meaningful predictions. We must look for a new theory." At no point in this process does modifying the philosophical basis of determinism come into the question.(July 17, 2013 at 11:42 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Basically, you are stating determinism as a brute fact, aka begging the question, since this thread is ABOUT whether determinism is true.
Evolution by common descent isn't a direct observation either, but it is far and away the best explanation of the total sum of all relevant observations concerning the theory of evolution.
Quarks aren't directly observed, but it is far and away the best explanation of the Standard model in regard to hadrons and mesons.
Quantum states are vectors in a Hilbert Space isn't a direct observation, but it is far and away the best hypothesis on which Quantum Mechanics is founded on.
You need to brush up on what is a hypothesis, a theory, and supporting evidence.
Given access to only 1 timeframe, and therefore no way to repeat the state of any system exactly, how WOULD you disprove the "hypothesis" of determinism? What experiment would you propose to show that the future is malleable, rather than set in stone, or that it is not?
