determinism versus indeterminism

[josef rosenkranz]

I think that modern science and philosophy are so tightly linked that you can barely separate them as different branches.
Anyway you can not separate physical events from causality because each event hapens within space-time coordinates being always a link
in a chain of previous timely and posterior timely events.
The current event is always the effect of a multitude of previous events and the cause of a multitude of posterior events.
There can not be a physical event born out of nothing and it can not disappear in nothing.(Except the God allmighty who does not exist).

The current scientific view is that the Casimir effect is an example of an uncaused event.

Does that mean that we have here a deterministic relation?
Obviously -yes, but only to be satisfactory for a technician and not for a scientist.
The scientst will measure all three parametres with increasingly accurate apparatuses and he will find that the results are always slightly different.
The cause of it can be that the voltage fluctuates prmanently for an indefinite number of reasons and so does the resistence as a result of influence of the ambient temperature or humidity or changes in the strucure of it's material during the repeated experiment.
The scientist will therefore rewrite the simple law of Ohm to a more complex one related to a certain number of external conditions.
Now repeating the experiment for a big number of times he will obtain a statistical result which has at it's core the determinisic values derived from Ohms basic law and at it's margins, the more experiments he has performed the more indeterministic values.
If the scientist will try to measure the three paremetres down to the level of subatomical particles he will be trapped in the uncertainity principle.
This was a simple experiment but more of such experiments can be imagined in every domain of science especially in byology where al laws ,even the most basical ones are of a statisical structure.
I think that I have made myself a little bit clearer when speaking about the duality of determinism and indeterminism.
I see the importance of recognition of this aspect as a law of nature for the benefit of atheism for reasons I have already expressed in previos threads.

The philosopher takes it yet a step further and stumbles on the Problem Of Induction so rightly identified by David Hume as a critical issue in our thinking. The philosopher would say that the results of previous experiments in no way logically guarantee the outcome of the next experiment. It is not an absolute but a probable. Hume couldn't fix this shortcoming and nobody has ever found a way out of it. That the sun has risen every day for millions of years is not an absolute guarantee that it will rise tomorrow. Essentially there are two methods of reasoning deduction and induction. Only strict deductive logic can yield absolute results and only in the sense that given that the assumptions are true and the deduction is sound, the conclusion is absolute. Empirical science heavily leans on inductive methods, as does your Ohm Law, and therefore can't give absolute results.

The problems we are dicussing here have many angles to be looked at
one of them being deduction and induction.
I think that when repeating an experiment based on a scientific law and one obtains the same results within a frame of conventional limits, one can call the law as deterministic and the results as deductive.
If one searches beyond these frames and/or beyond a certain number of repetitions the results might begin to deviate from the previous values
which blur the deduction and are following more and more indeterministic.
Of course ,as you say,that if the sun rises every day for millions of years there is no guarrantee that it will rise tomorrow but this is just what I said meaning that beyond a certain number of repetitions the law of the Earth cycling around the Sun will lose its deterministic characteristic.
Does that conclusion change from a scientific point of view the law of the Earth cycling around the Sun? -Of course not.
My conclusion is that most of scientific laws are statistical laws characterized by both deterministic and indeterministic results ,depending on the accuracy of measurement and the number of effectuated experiments which are supposed to proof the rightness of the law.

I have not heard about the uncaused Casimir effect but I consider that our knowledge of the Universe is still limited so that effects not explained to day might find a cause to morrow.For instance we know next to nothing about the dark matter,about antimatter and about other may be crucial issues.There are more than sure issues which we don't know that we don't know.