determinism versus indeterminism

[Purple Rabbit]

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.

The problem of induction is much more fundamental than you assume here. You cannot deduce in any absolute way (like in deductive mathematics) conclude from past events behaviour for future events. The latter does not follow sufficient and necessarily from the former. The law is not deductive. This problem is at a much more basic level than that the sun stops rising everyday as a result of a special situation stopping the earth rotation. It means the rule is not a result from deductive logic. You can call it inductive reasoning but you cannot at any time call it deductive reasoning. The law of nature, all laws of nature, are inductive laws, they unsubstantiated assume that behaviour from the past can be extrapolated into the future.

Does that conclusion change from a scientific point of view the law of the Earth cycling around the Sun? -Of course not.

Yes it does. It follows that no law of nature can said to be absolute in a logical sense.

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.

There are fundamental limits to the accuracy which with we can measure things. These fundamental limits are central in quantum mechanics. Infinite accuracy does not exist.

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.

Again this effect according to the current scientific view is not due to lack of knowledge but fundamental to nature. Of course you can always assume that a random event has some unknown underlying determined cause, but all indications are that this is not the case with the Casimir effect. It is important to note however that no fundamental laws of nature, like that of energy conservation, are violated by it. That's because in the Casimir effect a short lived particle anti-particle pair is formed.