## ‘God does not play dice’

Next
• 135
Einstein viewed nature as ultimately intelligible. To paraphrase Einstein, the Born rule works, 'but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one.'"

Exactly.
• 90

No, but I find Many Worlds the most philosophically interesting.

From a practical standpoint, I highly doubt we will approach anything like a "Grand Theory of Everything." I appreciate the positivist project from a pragmatic standpoint. It's damn useful, and the answers science gives are interesting. However, I'm definitely not a follower of Dewey and the pragmatists in terms of my epistemology.

I suppose there are other ways to think of determinism. "Reality" in any sense can't exist without understanding. You need something having some sort of experience. As Sausser said: "a one word language is impossible." You need differentiation to have meaning. It's a pretty redundant statement, but I think it gets to an essential point about the basis of what has to exist for anything to be said to exist. You need an interpreter in there to provide differentiation. So you could say the universe is determined by the very loose requirements of meaning.
• 11.3k
Regarding what is 'made' - there's a fundamental idea in pre-modern philosophy, which seems to have been lost in the transition to modernity. That is the concept - if a concept it is - of 'the uncreated' or 'unmade'. It is found in e.g. neo-platonic philosophy, in the form of Plotinus'to hen, but is also found in Buddhism. The general drift is the distinction between the fabricated, compound, created and the unfabricated, simple and uncreated.

Such ideas are naturally associated with religious doctrines, but that is mainly because of the way that Christian doctrine absorbed Greek philosophy through the early Greek-speaking theologians.

Atomism tended to identify 'the unmade' with the purported indivisible and imperishable constituents of manifold phenomena, a view ultimately derived from Democritus. But now the status of the atom is itself in doubt, constituted as they are by the ever more elusive minutiae of mathematical physics or conceived in terms of 'excitations of fields'.

So I wonder if modernity has lost sight of the question of what is made, constituted or conditioned and of how it is derived from what is uncreated. I think by seeking to trace the chain of material causation backwards through its evolution there is an attempt to arrive at some primordial state, but whether this can be subject of conceptual analysis is an elusive point. Mysticism tends to arrive at an understanding of ‘the unborn’ through means other than the conceptual i.e. ‘non-conceptual wisdom’, which is not even on the map, as far as Western philosophy is concerned.

You need an interpreter in there to provide differentiation. So you could say the universe is determined by the very loose requirements of meaning.

:clap: Bravo, a succinct statement of a fundamental truth.
• 135
From a practical standpoint, I highly doubt we will approach anything like a "Grand Theory of Everything."

I don't really like the pursuit of a theory of everything. I don't feel we are in any way enlightened enough as a species to be there and I'd be a bit disappointed if the bar was set that low.

I really like the question of determinism vs indeterminism though.

No, but I find Many Worlds the most philosophically interesting.

I mentioned it to a friend out of boredom years ago, someone who ordinarily wouldn't have had any interest. I then explained why it's not really outlandish and why in fact some Physicists have no choice really but to give it credit since it is deterministic and a solid theory as these theories go, since so many Physicists are hellbent on rejecting indeterminism.

Anyway, I found she was intrigued by it because she just liked the idea that there was some version out there that made all the right moves, which I found entertaining. It's interesting that quantum mechanics throws such conundrums that you are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place if you just want the universe as conventional as Science once imagined it to be.

But for determinism to be correct, it does appear from a Physics standpoint, that the universe is either such that we either have no genuine free will (which doesn't make any real sense to me) / or at least that our free will is just a one possible combination of an unfathomably large set of possibilities that we live through, which as you know is what Many worlds gets at, maybe many minds too.

And for indeterminism to rule, many would argue that we would have to be living in some kind of simulation anyway, God's simulation as I see it.

I never liked Many Worlds at first, thinking of it as a bit twilight zone but there is of course more to it and it deals with the determinism problem better than any other deterministic theory I would argue.

You need differentiation to have meaning. It's a pretty redundant statement, but I think it gets to an essential point about the basis of what has to exist for anything to be said to exist.

That's a good point and something I think of sometimes too.
• 135
Regarding what is 'made' - there's a fundamental idea in pre-modern philosophy, which seems to have been lost in the transition to modernity. That is the concept - if a concept it is - of 'the uncreated' or 'unmade'. It is found in e.g. neo-platonic philosophy, in the form of Plotinus'to hen, but is also found in Buddhism. The general drift is the distinction between the fabricated, compound, created and the unfabricated, simple and uncreated.

Maybe it's time it made a comeback then, since we know now that we can create matter from photons.

So I wonder if modernity has lost sight of the question of what is made

Modernity has lost sight of a lot of things.
• 11.3k
Maybe it's time it made a comeback then, since we know now that we can create matter from photons.

'The uncreated' is not necessarily any kind of particle or object. But as we're so used to construing everything in terms of particles and objects, we don't know how else to think about it.

It's interesting that quantum mechanics throws such conundrums that you are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place if you just want the universe as conventional as Science once imagined it to be.

There's a saying that 'desperate problems call for desperate remedies'. So what is the desperate problem that the many-worlds solution is a remedy for? I asked this question on Physics Forum and there was neither clarity nor unanimity in the responses I received.

Suffice to say that the problem that Everett's interpretation sets out to solve is that of the 'collapse of the wave function'. And that problem is that in quantum physics, the sub-atomic object has no definite location until it is measured by the observer; it is represented only by a range of possibilities, but it can't be said to exist apart from as a range of probabilities until it is observed. Meaning that the observer now has to be regarded as part of the experiment, which collapses not only the wave function, but the supposed absolute separation between observing subject and observed object, which, in turn, undermines the fundamental tenet of realism, which is the mind-independence of the object of investigation. That is the problem in a nutshell.

So Everett's bizarre thought experiment suggests that this collapse never occurs at all, which requires that there be as many worlds as there are observers. And even though it sounds bizarre, it attracts a lot of people because it suggests a kind of 'sliding doors' picture of the world, where all kinds of alternative realities can play out. It's intuitively conformable with sci fi memes.

Somewhere in all the possible worlds you’re skipping about in a luxury yacht, while I’m chained, terrified, to the bow, gasping through mouthfuls of seawater. Somewhere your band of riders burned my village to the ground, and you’re drinking a toast to the gods from my jewel-encrusted skull. You can want all of this, and there’s no need to feel guilty: it could happen, so it happened; that’s all. — Sam Kriss

The Multiverse is Rotting Culture
• 135
'The uncreated' is not necessarily any kind of particle or object. But as we're so used to construing everything in terms of particles and objects, we don't know how else to think about it.

I think that's true. I would agree but the creation of matter from light may be part of it.

That is the problem in a nutshell.

Looks about right. How would you refute the Ensemble interpretation?

, or even further the Copenhagen interpretation. I would be curious to get your take on it, since I lean towards those interpretations (for now) especially the former. Though the latter might be a better one to refute for interest sake, as ensemble makes less assumptions.

It's intuitively conformable with sci fi memes.

For me it's intuitive for the reason you mentioned before - No need for a collapsing wave function.
On the determinism side, it is the best looking theory in my view. It just feels a bit ghostly - an interference pattern caused by parallel realities as it were. And yet, why not? It might just be that way. It's less outlandish than other theories I have seen that attempt to fudge away indeterminacy, that's for sure.
• 11.3k
The ‘Copenhagen interpretation’, an expression coined by Heisenberg in his Physics and Philosophy, seems sound to me, as far as I can understand it, which may not be very well.

I think Everett’s interpretation is preposterous. I often refer back to this column https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hugh-everett-biography/
• 4k
Everytime you make an argument about how things are for everyone, even if they disagree with you, and provide reasons for those arguements you are supporting the idea of determinism.
— Harry Hindu

That's not what determinism at all, is as I understand it.

Determinism is the philosophical view that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes.
Reasons are causes. Conclusions are events. Conclusions are determined by your reasons. Seems like it fits perfectly with how you understand determinism.
• 135

To be fair insanity has befallen on those working heavily in fields on the question of determinism, quantum mechanics and infinity. The latter has certainly driven some mathematicians stark raving mad.
• 105

I see the math symbols and my brain freezes. Hah. In any case, I think the question is quite interesting and can be tackled in numerous ways, as has been done.

Speaking very broadly, we have this innate structure or tendency to look for causal interactions, X being necessary for Y to occur, or emerge or whatever. Some knowledgeable in physics propose Everett's Many World hypothesis, there is determination, as the collapse happens in other universes. We have Loop Quantum Gravity, which I don't understand and then String Theory, which I understand least of all.

In many cases determinism is saved - putting aside the Copenhagen interpretation - or is looked for. As a "mysterian" myself, I tend to favor the view that we simply lack the cognitive capacity to know if the universe is deterministic or not. It's entirely possible that any of these theories gets vindicated or a new one comes in that shows us that determinism is maintained.

Maybe. But I don't think this proves much. Why? Because we have, to some extent, free will. Some may say that this is impossible, because physics. Yeah ok. I'm sorry, particles, atoms and anything else found in the subatomic world play no role in freedom: clearly new complexity emerges.

Can anyone begin to outline how light waves manifest themselves as colours in the world? It's not possible. Yet we see them, clearly: red, blue, green, yellow etc. Some may deny it, but that's like saying 2+2=5.

The same with freedom. If the basic constituents of the universe were called something else and had different properties maybe we wouldn't exist or maybe another life form might arise. It doesn't matter. The universe already had the potential for choice in it, beyond a certain level of complexity.

So is the universe deterministic at bottom? I don't know how this makes sense given that we are here to ask these questions. Shouldn't the universe simply stay at the level of elementary particles, given determinism? In any case, I think we don't have the capacity to know any clear answer to this question.
• 135
Some knowledgeable in physics propose Everett's Many World hypothesis, there is determination, as the collapse happens in other universes.

There is no collapse in Many Worlds, which is one of the benefits out forward by proponents. All outcomes happen.
Why? Because we have, to some extent, free will.

A deterministic theory Many Worlds implies no free will. You play out your life in this reality. You have no real control. Any alternate decision couldn't have been made in this reality and is in one of the other of many worlds.

Yeah ok. I'm sorry, particles, atoms and anything else found in the subatomic world play no role in freedom: clearly new complexity emerges.

Our brains are based on all these particles and atoms, photons, electrical signals etc. soul outside of what we would call the human soul, if they behave deterministically, then we are deterministic.

Maybe our connection with our spirit gives us our indeterminism, in that we have to accept some connection to the universe to be indeterministic. We lost that connection and we become deterministic like glorified automatons.

Can anyone begin to outline how light waves manifest themselves as colours in the world?

Different frequencies of light produce different colours.

In any case, I think we don't have the capacity to know any clear answer to this question.

Maybe not.
• 105

I don't know how to quote properly here yet. So thanks for correcting my Many Worlds explanation, I should've looked it up instead of relying on my memory. It's appreciated.

Let's adopt Many Worlds then. Sure. Other me's can and actually do every possible action, within the framework allowed by our bodies. In this world I raise my left arm, in another world "I" raise my left arm, in yet another "I" raises both arms, etc. But in this world, the only one available to me, I can't do these things simultaneously. Since I don't know about the other me's, nor can they influence me (if I understand Sean Carroll's version), how am I not free?

"...if they behave deterministically, then we are deterministic" That's the argument I don't follow. Why? Do particles have reasons, goals or motives in any intelligible sense? Particles themselves are not happy, ugly or painful, yet we can be happy, we see pain, we see the ugly and the beautiful. We can say these things about manifest objects, but not particles.

"Different frequencies of light produce colours"

Yes. Is there anything *in* the light frequencies that are colourful? No. Colours are produced by frequencies of light interacting with our mind/brains, and maybe other things we aren't cognizant of, but that doesn't explain the experience of seeing a blue ocean or a red rose. At least, I don't see it as an explanation that makes sense. It happens yes, but it doesn't make sense.

But if you tend to side with eliminitavists like Dennett or the Churchlands, that's a whole different story.
• 4k
To be fair insanity has befallen on those working heavily in fields on the question of determinism, quantum mechanics and infinity. The latter has certainly driven some mathematicians stark raving mad.
No. Insanity has befallen on you as you have exhibited a tendency to be intellectually dishonest and inconsistent in your venture to prove determinism to be false.

All you have done is provide reasons for indeterminism to be the case, but all you have shown is that this reasons determine whether or not indeterminism to be the case. In effect, indeterminism is a paradox.
• 135
I don't know how to quote properly here yet.

Just highlight it or select the text you want, a little small quote button will appear, click on it.

Or you can just type it like this:

[quote]Just highlight it or select the text you want, a little small quote button will appear, click on it.  [quote]


Since I don't know about the other me's, nor can they influence me (if I understand Sean Carroll's version), how am I not free?

Because another branch breaks off every time you make a decision based on your apparent free will, you live in the reality of one frame (for lack of a better word) at a time in Many Worlds. But Many worlds is not a theory I support. It's too speculative and it just seems inefficient, like the universe would be wasting a lot of energy recording events that are so unlikely that it seems pointless, but maybe that's just me. I've said before in other posts, and I maintain that doing away with indeterminism in theories seems to introduce outlandish fudge. If people cannot accept the consequence of an indeterminant universe (the likelihood that )

It's interesting and its popular with proponents of determinism.

We can say these things about manifest objects, but not particles.

We can say exactly that about these objects. If a particle behaves deterministically, we do not say it has no free will. We say it behaves deterministically - the result of its actions are predetermined the moment its makes an action. If the universe is deterministic, then there is an unbroken chain of events that lead to that particles behavior and all others leading all the way back to some big bang if there was one, and since we are composed of these things, we would also adhere to these laws and everything we do not would be linked back to the past. Many people don't believe they have a soul , that they are simply the sum of their parts and in an indeterministic universe, they see themselves as deterministic beings.

Indeterministic theories say that there is interference or intervention into the outcome of the particles action so that the particle at any one time behaves spontaneously in its action, there are no copies of the universe. There is just one, and (with the Copenhagen interpretation) only once the action has completed, does the probability wave function collapse and the outcome of the particle's action manifests itself. (At lease most indeterministic theories imply wave function collapse, some have other explanations like an unseen pilot wave as seen in Bohmian mechanics / Pilot wave theory - another interesting theory that is gaining popularity).

Colours are produced by frequencies of light interacting with our mind/brains, and maybe other things we aren't cognizant of
Yeah, pretty much, but the color is arbitrary. We may have evolved our visual system to integrate into this world. In that case, factors like the luminosity and spectrum given off by the sun might have played a role in our evolution deciding that the the very thin slice of visible light we perceive is all we needed. Gamma rays are not as ever present in our lives so perhaps we didn't need to evolve to detect them .We evolved a a sense of physical touch and perceive temperature from nervous system already, so perhaps we didn't need to evolve to see infrared, i.e. there wa not need for us to evolve to see infrared light or visualize heat sources.

But if you tend to side with eliminitavists like Dennett or the Churchlands, that's a whole different story.

I don't side with any one Philosopher on all things, but I will say from what I know of eliminitavism, they are right on that I think. Abstract thought is just that - the creative fabrication of abstraction. It is not true reality. It is just a part of who we are / how we evolved.

Some schools of Buddhism believe nostalgia is abstract, that we create it ourselves. We don't really feel it, we project or abstract it out of an emotional association with positive memories. The emotion we felt at the time is real, and the memory is real, but the emotion we feel when we conjure it into our memory is abstract, which might be why we don't feel the same way when we conjure it, its almost like tricking our minds into feeling happy about it. I can't remember which Buddhist text it came from but when I read it, I felt it might be the case. But that's my view.
• 135
No. Insanity has befallen on you as you have exhibited a tendency to be intellectually dishonest and inconsistent in your venture to prove determinism to be false.

You had exhibited that you didn't understand what it meant in the first place, which was a bit intellectually lazy of you.

You seem to be upset that I called you out on not knowing what you were talking about.

In effect, indeterminism is a paradox.

I'll give you credit for reminding me of this

I'm not saying I'm comfortable about the indeterministic argument for quantum mechanics. It is what is is I guess.

I believe our human sprit makes us indeterministic, but not in a way that can be explained by underlying physical observable nature.

This is why I lean towards the ensemble interpretation The Copenhagen interpretation may go a bit too far in that it introduces paradoxes.

In the end, this is a hard argument to resolve anyway. We are all unique in our own way and have our own subjective interpretation.

I'll just state my final position. The ensemble interpretation is the only theory I can get behind right now as it is agnostic about the question of determinism vs indeterminism.

Copenhagen is indeterministic which I can tell you do not favor.
Many Worlds is deterministic.
• 105
We can say exactly that about these objects. If a particle behaves deterministically, we do not say it has no free will. We say it behaves deterministically - the result of its actions are predetermined the moment its makes an action.

Ah, I see. Yes we do, you're right, but it's probably not the correct use of these words "determined", "free" and so on, as it incorporates human elements into the universe. If the universe were deterministic, it would be misleading to say "The universe has no choice or lacks freedom." But this is just word play on my part.

Yeah, pretty much, but the color is arbitrary.

Perhaps. But I don't think it's too controversial to say that this arbitrary aspect of colour is the most important things for people, it's part of what makes our experience of the world rich, irrespective of how
they are instantiated in nature.

I don't side with any one Philosopher on all things, but I will say from what I know of eliminitavism, they are right on that I think. Abstract thought is just that - the creative fabrication of abstraction. It is not true reality.

Then our disagreement is plain and perhaps irreconcilable. Reality is an honorific word. We don't say that's the real deal or the real truth meaning that there are two kinds of deals or two kinds of truth, we are just using the word "real" to emphasize something.

Science, if the theories are on track, aims to tell us how the world is mind-independently. That's different from saying the manifest image is an illusion, it's a representation. And this in turn is different from saying that science tells us how the world is "in itself" - I don't think science achieves that. But that last point is debatable.

I suspect the topic of consciousness and illusion will get us stuck.
• 135
Reality is an honorific word. We don't say that's the real deal or the real truth meaning that there are two kinds of deals or two kinds of truth, we are just using the word "real" to emphasize something.

But is it not right and humble to honor reality? Without instruments we, whether by design or evolution, only perceive a thin slice of the reality around us, not a mind those things beyond our ability to yet perceive, or those things that may forever be beyond our horizon. We are only human. We can deceive ourselves by thinking we are beyond reality, when the contrary may be more accurate.

Measurement, when done right is a Philosophers tool. But ultimately, yes, it's just a tool. And it can only take us so far.

But I don't think it's too controversial to say that this arbitrary aspect of color is the most important things for people, it's part of what makes our experience of the world rich, irrespective of how
they are instantiated in nature.

I agree. But the world would still be beautiful if the spectrum was shifted a bit to the right towards UV, more detail in flowers etc. that we cannot see now. I was just making the point that the colors are labels we put on things solidly in the middle of certain chunks of the spectrum. You won't see too many diagrams with A labelled as cyan and B labelled as Blue because it could be confusing. But in truth, there are no colors. We abstract them as a part of the full visible spectrum. We quantize them when, strangely enough they may not even be truly quantizable. In principle there exists infinitely many distinct spectral colors
• 105
But is it not right and humble to honor reality? Without instruments we, whether by design or evolution, only perceive a thin slice of the reality around us, not a mind those things beyond our ability to yet perceive, or those things that may forever be beyond our horizon. We are only human. We can deceive ourselves by thinking we are beyond reality, when the contrary may be more accurate.

I think it makes sense to be proud of, and be humbled by, what science has achieved. Whether you are speaking about any part of physics or astronomy or anything else, it's remarkable we have achieved this much, given who we are. On the other hand, we can only appraise or appreciate physics or astronomy, within the context of the world we experience.

If it were not for our conceptions of "strange", "massive", "puzzling", "beautiful", "elegant" and so forth, science would be meaningless: just a set of numbers on a piece of paper or a computer screen.

But in truth, there are no colors. We abstract them as a part of the full visible spectrum. We quantize them when, strangely enough they may not even be truly quantizable.

I mean, I think it depends on what you take "just" to imply. Sure, we can only see a portion of the colours we can detect with our instruments and knowledge. Yes, what we call "red", might be "blue" for me and "like blood" for you. That's not pertinent to our appreciation of colours. Whatever the word "cyan" represents to you, to me is the most beautiful colour, one that I would be quite sad if it disappeared.

Likewise with music. You can say sound is "just" acoustic waves. They "just" happen to be pleasant to us. It's "auditory cheesecake" as Pinker called it. But if that's what you say to yourself when you listen to your favorite song, then we have very different conceptions of what reality encompasses, mind-independent or not.
• 135

I don't have a problem with anything you wrote. I'm not saying I have a problem with abstract thought. It's a part of who we are. I was just pointing out that it is just that, abstraction. Yes, it is beautiful, as a petal that comes from a flower - the flower being humanity.
• 105

That's interesting. I don't intend to sound polemical, I'm actually curious, what would you mean by "concrete"?
• 135
"concrete"

I never used that word.
• 4k
You had exhibited that you didn't understand what it meant in the first place, which was a bit intellectually lazy of you.

You seem to be upset that I called you out on not knowing what you were talking about.
I exhibited no such thing. You exhibited a misunderstanding of what I was saying. So I had to show you that my explanation fit your definition of determinism - a definition that I agree with. You didn't respond to that - hence your intellectual dishonesty.

I'm not saying I'm comfortable about the indeterministic argument for quantum mechanics. It is what is is I guess.
What is the indeterministic argument for QM? Again, if a theory is providing reasons for some observation, then the theory is deterministic.
• 135
I exhibited no such thing.

You did !

You exhibited a misunderstanding of what I was saying.
Your definition, as I recall it, was fallacious, but I don't want to over dwell on it. I'm not that pedantic
I don't think so!

What is the indeterministic argument for QM? Again, if a theory is providing reasons for some observation, then the theory is deterministic.

I think you're conflating 2 different arguments.

Indeterminism can be composed of partly deterministic parts. I don't see a logical fallacy in that.
• 4k
Your definition, as I recall it, was fallacious, but I don't want to over dwell on it. I'm not that pedantic
I don't think so!

I used your definition. Are you paying attention?

Indeterminism can be composed of partly deterministic parts. I don't see a logical fallacy in that.
I do.

We have not proven whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic or not.But if any of it is indeterministic then it all is, if you get me, because if you have a chain of events in a system that is deterministic but for one part, then the overall outcome is indeterministic. That's what I'm trying to get at.
If any of it is indeterministic then it all is, right? There would be no deterministic parts if any of it was indeterministic.

You obviously are not paying attention. You can't even remember what you wrote.
• 135

Indeterminism can be composed of partly deterministic parts. I don't see a logical fallacy in that.
— Paul S
I do.

Ok,

Well let's say (sorry I had a toke) I stack a big group of deterministic tiles (let's just say I conceded and that's what they are) and I know that for this deterministic tile, it will hit the next deterministic tile and it will fall etc. I can put just one non deterministic tile in the group of tiles, that may or may not fall, and if you replay knocking these tiles down as dominoes over many times, you will have a very non deterministic outcome overall!, when you add up all these different results.
• 4k
Ok,

Well let's say (sorry I had a toke) I stack a big group of deterministic tiles (let's just say I conceded and that's what they are) and I know that for this deterministic tile, it will hit the next deterministic tile and it will fall etc. I can put just one non deterministic tile in the group of tiles, that may or may not fall, and if you replay knocking these tiles down as dominoes over many times, you will have a very non deterministic outcome overall!, when you add up all these different results.
All you have done here is show that each instance in time is unique, yet similar to other instances in time. Each state-of-affairs is determined by prior states-of-affairs, its just that each state-of-affairs is unique and not the same as other states-of-affairs, yet they can be similar enough to be predictable, depending on what we are focusing our attention on.

It's not that the world is non-deterministic. It is deterministic as each state-of-affairs is determined by prior states. Our ignorance of all the intricate details of each state-of-affairs can lead us to believe that some state is not deterministic, but it is simpy our ignorace of the difference between some known state-of-affairs in the past and the state-of-affairs in the future that we are trying to predict that is similar, yet slightly different in some relevent way to the one in the past that makes our prediction fail.

Indeterminism isn't some real aspect of reality. It is only an idea in the minds of humans that has no reality beyond the minds of humans. It is an idea that stems from our ignorant view of reality.
• 135
It's not that the world is non-deterministic. It is deterministic as each state-of-affairs is determined by prior states.

That's not proven.

Indeterminism isn't some real aspect of reality. It is only an idea in the minds of humans that has no reality beyond the minds of humans. It is an idea that stems from our ignorant view of reality.

Neither is that.
Either case is essentially coming form a partially "ignorant view of reality". We simply don't know.

If on the other hand, you are making a point that, for you, in your opinion, which is not necessarily at all based in fact, that the question of determinism vs indeterminism is not of fundamental importance, then that is your opinion.

I don't think there's any more minimalist a term to conceive of, than this as an expression of the fundamental truth of the workings of the universe and our place in it.
• 4k

Ok, explain what what an indeterministic event would look like. What does it actually mean for some event to be indeterministic? All you will be able to do is provide reasons/causes for some event to be indeterministic and you would then be head-deep in contradictions and paradoxes - that the indeterministic event was actually determined by some prior set of circumstances. Try it.
• 135

I can just repost with

"Ok, explain what what a deterministic event would look like. What does it actually mean for some event to be deterministic? All you will be able to do is provide reasons/causes for some event to be deterministic and you would then be head-deep in contradictions and paradoxes. Try it."

Go ahead, and I'll let you know how it too throws up apparent paradoxes.
Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal