determinism versus indeterminism

[Purple Rabbit]

There is a most essential difference between our both views about the problem.
You exclude random based on ,I would say,hypotetical presumption that all laws of nature are causal linked between them.You affirm contrary to every ones deep feelings that there is no free will.

I didn't exclude randomness from nature. I gave an example (Casimir) of a phenomenon that to the best of current scientifc knowledge is purely random in nature. It is not clear to me what you mean by "that all laws of nature are causal linked between them", and I don't recognize it as any presumption I would have made. Do you mean that I presume that gravity is causally linked to for instance to the electromagnetic force? Please elaborate on this.

Furthermore I also regret that from deterministic laws of nature it follows that free will, in the sense that man can intervene in causality and decide which action to take, does not exist. But that is the dilemma caused by deterministic laws. It is known as the problem of free will. Neurophysiological experiments done by (among others) Libet indicate that the brain activity associated with the preparation for movement starts a quarter of a second before the person being tested reports having decided to move (see for instance Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett, p 230).

Only that you can by no means present a complete system of equations which shall demonstrate ,not the fall of the meteorite or the free will which are most complicated things, but even a more simpler task as for instance the correct meteo prediction which no one, even with the most sophisticated computers, is able to solve.

Imho and if I understand you correctly, you are confusing 1) the laws of nature and 2) the ability of man to capture the laws of nature in arbitrarily precise prediction models. (2) is not what the philosophical issue on determinism versus indeterminism is about. At hand is the question whether free will exists given the deterministic nature of the laws of nature. The question is a philosophical one that abstracts from the abilities of man to construct precise models.

I don't deny the objective existence of the laws of nature but I say the following:
1) The Heisenberg uncertainity principle ,which was extended by Stephen Hawking from the sub atomic domain to that of Black holes,add to that the "genetic drift" and other examples, could be marginalized from the general picture of laws of nature or on the contrary could be located in the center of it.Scientist are still debating about it without a final conclusion.

Quantummechanical uncertainty does not provide a mechanism to intervene in causality. You can place it at the center of things or not, that does not change the outcome: uncertainty forms no basis for causal intervention by intelligent agents.

2)The famous physicist Lord Kelvin said that if you have a theory which you can express in measurable units and numbers then you know something about it but if not then your knowledge of the problem is poor and unsatisfactory.
I say, as paraphrase to it,that if you have a finite number of equations to solve a physical existing parameter then you can demonstrate it's causality.But if you are not able to compound such a system due to an indefinable number of parameters,of an indefinable multitude, then your causal proof is poor and unsatisfactory.

What is your point with this? This is about the ability of man to construct precise models. It is not about the fundamental issue of determinism.

3) I have brought in other posts examples of indefinite numbers used as concrete definitions in basical mathemathics.

Again I feel this is about mathematical capabilities of man, ot about fundamental determinism of nature. Also indefinition in mathematical models does not add up to free will.

4)Every physical law expressed as a mathemathic formula has its conventional limits so that if you try to deepen the law beyond those
limits you most probable will be trapped in uncertainity .

ditto

5) Every statistical law has by definition two areas : one at the core which expresses a certain law and the other at it's margins where the law becommes more and more blurred till to indefinition i.e.indeterminism.

Question: is a statistical law causal or correlative in nature?