Determinism

[Caecilian]

---

EvF, you don't seem to register anything I've posted here.

To be clear about where I stand:

1) I haven't stated that you defend determinism, nor am I attacking you on such a position

2) I disagree whith you that "one possible future" is necessarily implied in both the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy version and Wiki version of the definition of causal determinism.

3) You ascribe to another definition of causal determinism (that of Dennett) and use an argument from authority to argue that you have the "real" definition: "and Dennett knows the definition of determinism!!"

4) I have given you an example of a fully deterministic scenario in a strict mathematical sense that does not imply "one possible future". This shows that:

a) both mainstream science and mainstream philosophy use a more strict definition of causal determinism that nonetheless makes fewer assumptions than the one you are proposing

b) Dennett's definition fails to take into account the possibility of multiple futures in combination with fully deterministic laws of nature

5) You haven't responded even once on my EMW counter example

6) You are in denial about the fact that you are makking an argument, while you at the same time are argumenting that "one possible future" is implied in all quoted definitions we have considered here.

Please continue on this road you're taking, but whatever it is, it will not be mine.

---

Just to try to simplify/ clarify things a little:

Causal determinism is what it says it is. Its the doctrine that all phenomena are caused. In a Newtonian universe this would imply that the future is pre-determined (that there is only one future). However, we do not live in a Newtonian Universe.

QM has a number of possible interpretations. Two of the best known are the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation. If the Copenhagen Interpretation is correct, then microphysics is stochastic rather than determinant, and causal determinism is straightforwardly wrong. If the Many Worlds Interpretation is correct, then the universe is determinant, but there is more than one possible future.

In both cases, 'one possible future' is incorrect, but in the many worlds version causal determinism still holds.