Determinism Is Self Defeating

[The Grand Nudger]

Why does it matter? Because if even one particle in the universe behaves in a non-deterministic way, then all the rest may be affected.

Sure, it's possible that things we are unable to measure - or things we are unaware of behave in a non-deterministic way. If there were such a thing then it could affect things that did. We could even imagine a scenario in which even though the rock "fell", all the "stuff" that makes up the rock and all of the other things that stuff might be doing are non-deterministic.

We don't have much in the way of reasons to assume this though - whereas that rock is still falling.

Your examples of "adequate" and "true" determinism are not contradictory to each other as the positions of fatalism, predeterminism, and determinism are. One is more elaborate than the other but both could be true simultaneously in the case of the rock. Lets apply this same measuring stick to non-determinism of whatever stripe anyway.

"Adequate" non-determinism is simply when we are unable to predict in theory or practice. There are many such things and few would argue against them. To show "true" non-determinism you would have to show that given t - there was no cause sufficient to force t+1 - for any of the smallest particles and behaviors. In other words - the rock couldn't even fall reliably. I don't think you'd like this requirement. Mostly because the rock falling, under your metrics - defeats a non-deterministic claim. I, personally, wouldn't use such metrics for either claim. Lets have fun with another one.

"Adequate": a-unicornism is simply the position that we can't find any unicorns on the ground. We've looked, they aren't there, few would argue. To show "True" a-unicornism you would have to show that all variables for the location of the unicorn are devoid of unicorns.

Now, beyond the mechanics of how we might craft our position there are some other problems. For example. If so much as adequate determinism holds (the rock falls) then non-deterministic this and that's are not having the kind of effect that you would hope for in your example of what one non-deterministic thing can do to affect a deterministic system. For example...lets say one of those variables you invoked about the rock actually was non-deterministic.....the rock is still behaving in a deterministic way when it falls. Both adequates (yours and mine) can be true simultaneously. The discussion then becomes one of how much power or weight we might assign to any non-deterministic thing in affecting deterministic behaviors (which is where we begin to flirt with fatalism - and also the point at which predeterminism becomes irreconcilable). All of this, mind you, is under the assumption that there actually is some non-deterministic thing flitting about alongside deterministic things. Neither position is the default for any given object or behavior so saying -you can't show that it's "x" doesn't make a case for "y" - of course. We'd have to line up some "adeqautely" deterministic things alongside some "adequately" non-deterministic things and see how it all pans out (as I don't imagine either of us are stumping for a "true" position of -anything- under such metrics.....