determinism versus indeterminism

[josef rosenkranz]

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.

PR Hi
So you don't exclude randomness from nature or if you'll permit me to rephrase your statement you accept randomness as a part of laws of nature.
Now making a little step further I would ask, do you see randomness (synonim to indeterminism) as a marginal ,neglectable part of nature
or has it a major role within the general picture of natural laws known to man?
In my opinion randomness and casuality have an almost identical weight in the laws of nature.
Let me explain what I meant when I said that laws of nature are causal linked between them.
Every event taking place in the coordinates of time/space has always on the axis of time an event which preceed and an other which succeed,
linked between them according to a multitude of physical laws.No event is born out of nothing (except God who does not exist).
Now the problem is if we can affirm that there exists two sucessive events which are linked by an absolute causal law or that the causal link is flawed by randomness.
If you know of such an absolute causal law please speak up and I shall be happy to have learned something new.
In my opinion each physical law has a limited conventional validity where it is causal and beyond those limits it becomes more and more indeterministic.

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).
\

Here I must vehemently be in discordance with you because what you say about the inexistence of the possibility of man to intervene in the future sounds close to the proof of the existence of the immuable Destiny which is borderline to the belief in God.
Sorry PR take no offense

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.

Here I can not but agree with you about the inability of man to construct precise models.
The problem is where from stems this inability.
Is it because of the limits of our knowledge about the laws of nature,or is it an inherent unsolvable possibility?
To say that in the future, as our knowledge of nature is going to be developed beyond our imagination, it will enable man to construct absolute precise models is nothing but speculative way of thinking.
The contrary seems more reasonable that due to a number beyond of limits definable parameters,a precise model is theorethically not obtainable nevermind the amount of our knowledge of nature.
This inability is just another expression of indeterminism which lies on the core of it.

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.

ditto

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.

Sorry I never linked free will to mathematics only to indefinite numbers

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?

As I said every statistical law has this dual aspect of causality within conventional limits and indeterministic the more you go beyond those limits.

---

Purple Rabbit Hi
I am sorry that my latest reply to you, posted some minutes ago is unclear because my answers to different quotations by you appear on white background instead of yellow background.
I still don't know the right procedure of how to insert answers between quotations and have asked Adrian to instruct me on this matter.
I'm confident that you have sufficient perspicacity to locate my answers
even if they are on white background.