Throughout her article, Anscombe states that the laws of nature are deterministic, not that nature is deterministic, e.g., "It ought not to have mattered whether the laws of nature were or were not deterministic". — RussellA

Notice that the quote does not support your contention?

It may well be that given Anscombe's particular usage of the word deterministic, her argument is logical and her conclusion sound

However, the general reader who believes that they know the common usage of the word deterministic may find her argument unclear.

In such a case, where the author uses a word in a way that is different to common usage, then the author should explain what they mean by the word at the beginning of their article. — RussellA

It's questionable whether using a word in an unusual way produces a sound argument. For the sake of a logical argument, one can define a word in any way the person wants. But a definition ought to be taken as a premise. And a false definition is a false premise.

It's questionable whether using a word in an unusual way produces a sound argument. — Metaphysician Undercover

...like, maybe, when you insist that 2+2 is not the same as 4, despite the protests of all around you.

So our beliefs are determined by evidence? If not, then what determines what you believe? If I asked you why you believe in something, wouldn't you provide me reasons for what you believe, and those reasons would determine what you believe, no? — Harry Hindu

In general? Who knows. Someone may or may not become convinced of this or that due to some evidence, and change their minds later. Formation of belief is hardly some trivial well-understood thing. And sometimes this or that is wrong, other times (hopefully) right.

OK, so the evidence as I see it, indicates that rocks are deterministic, and human beings are not. It appears to me that mosquitoes are not deterministic either. Nor do plants appear to be deterministic. So I think that inanimate things are deterministic, and living things are not. Do you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover

Rocks are predictable, as in they don't get up and walk away? :D By the way ...

Perfect predictability implies strict determinism, but lack of predictability does not necessarily imply lack of determinism. Limitations on predictability could be caused by factors such as a lack of information or excessive complexity.

That leaves blow around in autumn is fairly predictable, their exact paths not so much, and similarly for mosquitoes. Findings like planetary orbits and quantumatics are better examples.

The so-called observer effect or problem in QM has nothing specifically to do with the idea that the microphysical is indeterministic, other than the fact that both ideas occur in QM. — Janus

Sure it does. It explains how observations impact the outcomes of the microphysical (ie collapsing the wave function).

Why consciouness, of all things? — Olivier5

Because we are talking about consciousness when talking about making observations and measurements.

It may well be that given Anscombe's particular usage of the word deterministic, her argument is logical and her conclusion sound

However, the general reader who believes that they know the common usage of the word deterministic may find her argument unclear.

In such a case, where the author uses a word in a way that is different to common usage, then the author should explain what they mean by the word at the beginning of their article.
— RussellA

It's questionable whether using a word in an unusual way produces a sound argument. For the sake of a logical argument, one can define a word in any way the person wants. But a definition ought to be taken as a premise. And a false definition is a false premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree. If Anscombe is, as I believe, using the word "deterministic" in an unusual way, then that certainly casts doubt on her conclusion that "the laws being deterministic does not tell us whether "determinism" is true".

Anscombe follows that particular sentence with "for them to be deterministic is for them, together with the description of the situation, to entail unique results...."

Anscombe may well mean that a closed system is deterministic if given a situation plus the laws of nature there will be a unique result, but she wrote that for a closed system if given a situation plus deterministic laws of nature there will be a unique result

If deterministic has one meaning, then either the closed system is deterministic or the laws of nature are deterministic, it cannot be both.

The problem for the reader is in judging what Anscombe means by the word "deterministic", when what she means may be different to what she has written.

Sure it does. It explains how observations impact the outcomes of the microphysical (ie collapsing the wave function). — Harry Hindu

There are many interpretations of the so-called collapse of the wave function, for example 'Decoherence' is one that does not involve consciousness if I am not mistaken.

I don't pretend to understand much of Quantum theory. My point was that the observer problem has no direct bearing on the issue of whether microphysical processes are caused or uncaused.

If you have knowledge to back up your claim that it does have such a bearing then you should be able to explain what that bearing consists in.

Hi Banno!
I can barely understand all of this. Is this one of the biggest changes from those earlier mechanics to classical mechanics we spoke about?

That causality shouldn't even be a principle anymore? This is all very in depth and I can sort of understand it but not in any way put it into words..sadly.

I'm still thinking it through, too. One of the features of philosophical discourse is pushing notions such as causation beyond breaking point. Causation will not support the arguments for the existence of god we were discussing elsewhere.

The notion that the universe is determined fails. — Banno

To prove non determinism it is sufficient to show that mind transcends determinism. If that were the case a mind can choose to do something - like move a stone - now the stone has been influenced by a non deterministic factor.

Because they enter a breaking point?

Apart from God, Don't all theories of mind fall apart if even causality doesn't apply anymore? Or am I misunderstanding? Would there be a possible world in which a kettle on a stove will not heat up?

It's as if my mind is unable to compute such a thing!

I don't see that what has been said in this thread rules out cause and effect.

Then I misunderstand. My bad.

Why consciouness, of all things?
— Olivier5
Because we are talking about consciousness when talking about making observations and measurements. — Harry Hindu

This doesn't mean consciousness has some magic pan-universe powers. It's only a tool we are using.

This doesn't mean consciousness has some magic pan-universe powers. It's only a tool we are using. — Olivier5

I didn't say or even imply that. Consciousness is a local interaction, not magical and not universal.

What reasons do you have to believe that a proper theory of consciousness would unite QM and the rest of physics?

The universe isn't divided into a macro and micro dimensions. The macro and micro are actually different views of the same thing. Consciousness is what divides the world into views - the macro and micro. So by explaining consciousness, we can explain why there appears to be a divide when there actually isn't. The divide is more of a product of consciousness than what consciousness is viewing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/coming-to-grips-with-the-implications-of-quantum-mechanics/

Meh!

~~

(Not a bump - accidental post instead of copying to another thread.)

I have another Anscombe article! Inevitability both a joy and a frustration. This one is Causality and Determination. — Banno

It seems so interesting. Thank you for refreshing and sharing it again months later. I will give it a read :up:

Cheers. Enjoy.

Oddly, in the picture of the Galton box, I see the exact opposite of your conclusion:

The notion that the universe is determined fails. — Banno

The experiment itself relies on the fact that steel balls, poured into the apparatus, will fall through into the bins at the bottom - rather than float away, or turn into a vase of petunias, or something. Further, every trial produces much the same result. Note, the distribution is mirrored left to right - consistent with gravitation toward the centre of the earth, and factors conspiring to push a few balls to the far left and far right. Inability to determine the path of any particular ball - is in my view, the wrong question from which to draw a conclusion. I wholly accept that, with regard to any one ball, determining its path and end point, is irreducibly complex. But the results show several consistencies; such that irreducible complexity is occurring within an overall deterministic framework.