Determinism

[Kevin Beal]

Determinism vs indeterminism is also a false dichotomy, just FYI.

In all the debates on determinism that I've had the definition of determinism is changed half-way through to be more inclusive. It starts out as the assertion that free will violates the law of physics in some way that is never actually explained (and thus a true dichotomy) and then when logical problems are pointed out they retreat into this completely unfalsifiable proposition like theRobin is talking about.

Just btw, physics doesn't say: instance 1 occurs and then instance 2 out of instance 1. Physics is "The branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy." Physics looks at particular instances with concern to the entities' properties, and not some generalized "event 1" => "event 2". Physics couldn't make any sense of that. One property that rabbits have is that they move of their own volition. One property that humans have is that they exercise free will. There is in reality no inconsistency with regard to physics.

JanC, have you checked out the debates on determinism that Stef has had beyond this one part of the sunday show? 

What I always find with people who say that Stef's position on free will is wrong is that they don't know what it is or understand it at all. They also tend to have a really difficult time with UPB and science in general. Something to pay special attention to is the self detonating argument and it will start making more sense. I should know, I used to be a determinist.

If I'm wrong and you do understand Stef's position, then make his argument here now. 

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.

[JanC]

JanC, have you checked out the debates on determinism that Stef has had beyond this one part of the sunday show?

I may have missed one or two, but I believe I've seen most of them, including his introduction video's and the debate he had with 3 determinists. So I didn't just barge into this debate.

Anyway, thanks for the video's. I'll be checking them out at a later time, because I'm away for a few days.

Cheers man!

[masonman]

I have a very general question relating to determinism, because the free will-determinism debate has not been something I have been hugely interested in. Personally I think it is true that with enough variables, with enough measured data, you could predict anything that occurs in the universe with certainty. So if you could take in and interpret all of the brain signals of a single human in a 1 second time frame, you could accurately predict what decisions/emotions/etc. he would feel in the next moment. If you stood next to a tree and, as a leaf fell, in a split second, you measured air density, wind direction and speed (in a large several mile region around the leaf), the mass and surface area and geometric shape of the leaf, and hundreds (possibly thousands) of other variables, you could say EXACTLY where that leaf would land, what side it would land on, what direction it would be pointing, you could know everything that would happen next.

Does this make me a determinist?

[Kevin Beal]

More information would be needed.

Also this is actually an incorrect assumption that we can gather all the necessary variables. Not only is there indeterminism in quantum mechanics, but also in plain ol' vanilla physics (i.e. same state, different result).

Also it depends on what you mean by a variable since if "what somebody will choose" is a variable then that's perfectly consistent with a free will position, it's just that you couldn't possibly account for that variable with any certainty. That would make you psychic.

[Metric]

 

I'm a bit curious what exactly you find intersting about this debate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Determinism (the theory that people couldn't have made a different choice) is by definition not verifyfialbe or falsifiable, so it's not possible to ever prove or disprove it, making it in essence no different from any other myth that people want to believe in despite evidence.

And in the absence of even the possibility of verification, I find it hard to see what is so intersting about debating it. We might as well debate the lore of Lord of the Rings, if you know what I mean.

Which is also why the question of motivation comes up and why the psycholgical or emotional question is probably the most relevant one if you want to get anywhere with the question of why you (or people in general) tend towards determinism.

I hope that makes some sense

 

First of all, I think you made a really excellent point in the other thread -- I was gone for a few days, so I didn't get to respond before the thread was locked (and no one else bothered).  The question was more or less "how would you tell the difference between a human and an android with a deterministic computer which simulates all the processes in a human brain?"  And I agree that this point pretty much closes the book on arguments from human behavior, if nobody can even imagine distinguishing the two possibilities.

I will also address the question you raise in this post, namely what *I personally* find interesting about the subject.  I am a physicist, and so have general interest regarding the way the universe works.  And determinism is a major component of physics, which is why I found it so surprising to see philosophers making these meta-arguments about arguments and thinking they've proved something about the way the universe works, which is very counter to the state of experimental science -- as far as I'm aware, this form of argument has never ever been successfully used in physics to conclusively demonstrate anything whatsoever about the working of the universe, and it's pretty easy to see why.

Incidentally, I went to a philosophy lecture a few weeks ago on the subject of "time travel" (not a physics lecture, but philosophy).  During the talk, three philosphical camps regarding the nature of time were presented, one called "the presentists" who argue that the past and future do not exist, and therefore that time travel can't really exist.  So I asked what the reaction of the presentists would be if one were able to actually construct a basic time machine that could transport a single particle through time.  And her answer was basically that she'd never actually known a philosopher to change their position based on emperical data -- that it would be more likely that the "presentist position" would simply adapt to account for the existence of time machines.  It appears to me that this debate is a special case of this -- no matter how much science supports deterministic time evolution, the somewhat nebulous "philosopher definition" of free will will be adapted to it.

[Guest darkskyabove]

I am beginning to think that this argument of determinism vs. free-will is an apples vs. oranges debate.

 

Determinism should probably be re-stated as causal relationship: If A (a certain set of conditions exist), then B (a specific outcome will ensue). This definition seems more in keeping with the scientific method: test-ability, falsify-ability, etc. Use of the term determinism contains an anthropomorphic bias, as "to determine" implies making a choice about different possibilities. More to the point, it implies predetermination for human action, which is not testable, nor falsifiable. Finally, it invites non-relevant comparisons between human action and physical and chemical facts.

Free-will should be re-stated as will. There is ample evidence, and common sense would concur, that humans are subject to make decisions based upon a host of predispositions: education, experience, bias, peer-pressure, etc., etc., etc. To say that the will is totally free seems a stretch of wishful thinking.

So, what does that leave? Causal relationships and the exercise of will.

Do causal relationships exist? That's an obvious yes, unless one has been living in a cave for the last hundreds of years.

Do humans exercise will? This is the key. Those that advocate definitive causal relationship between any decision and the history of the decider have to explain why someone could make a choice contrary to their predispositions. And they must explain creativity. Where an idea, completely unforeseen, appears with no correlation to the past.

To be fair, I accept causal relationships as a fact; even quantum mechanics does not eliminate causality, it only makes it more complicated.

But I exercise will. For any theory to be acceptable, it must be universal. That is the hurdle for "determinists": prove that my exercise of will is static, explained by all the hidden variables, and causal linkages to physics and chemistry. Good luck!

[RestoringGuy]

Determinism should probably be re-stated as causal relationship: If A (a certain set of conditions exist), then B (a specific outcome will ensue). This definition seems more in keeping with the scientific method: test-ability, falsify-ability, etc. Use of the term determinism contains an anthropomorphic bias, as "to determine" implies making a choice about different possibilities. More to the point, it implies predetermination for human action, which is not testable, nor falsifiable. Finally, it invites non-relevant comparisons between human action and physical and chemical facts.

Free-will should be re-stated as will. There is ample evidence, and common sense would concur, that humans are subject to make decisions based upon a host of predispositions: education, experience, bias, peer-pressure, etc., etc., etc. To say that the will is totally free seems a stretch of wishful thinking.

So, what does that leave? Causal relationships and the exercise of will.

Why cannot freedom be caused by indeterminacy of matter?   I think the scientific method only gives us a probability that some outcome will ensue.  Even a chemical reaction described by some exact equation will happen in reality with some random variation in reaction speed.  Sometimes my next action will be determined, but when enough time passes and my neurons are affected slightly by random events (subatomic) then I argue that my next action becomes free.  While this can happen with non-living matter, that is differently only by degree of how many outcomes are considered to be likely.  When I am affected randomly, my brain is able to think of actions that I do not have to manifest in terms muscular output.  Like a chess-playing computer, the brain can "try out" some outcomes and then we have a filtering process.   Combine that filtering idea with random events, and we call it "free will".

[Kevin Beal]

If determinism is simply the pointing out that the universe is causal and one result necessarily follows from another then that's disproven by the simple presence of indeterminacy (which is well established). Physics doesn't say anything about causality. Physics describes very particular properties of matter and energy in a causal universe.

If determinism is the claim that free will doesn't describe anything real and is simply an illusion (including Sam Harris's illusion that it's an illusion) even if there is indeterminacy in the same way that rocks don't have free will, then please somebody make that case with reference to Stef's argument against determinism. 

I haven't read everyone's posts, but it would seem that no determinists are willing to do that. If your not willing to do that, then please consider the possibility that it's psychologically motivated. Here is some recommended listening:

Determinism: The Family Back Story

Determinism pt 666

Free Will, Determinism and Self Knowledge pt 1

Free Will, Determinism and Self Knowledge pt 2

Free Will, Determinism and Self Knowledge pt 3

Free Will, Determinism and Self Knowledge pt 4

[batou]

I haven't read everyone's posts, but it would seem that no determinists are willing to do that. If your not willing to do that, then please consider the possibility that it's psychologically motivated.[/font] 

[/font]

Then perhaps go read the posts again. I have also already seen all the videos you have linked and found them unconvincing. 

What implications does determinism have on psychology? 

I would say none at all, while the implications of free will on psychology are clear. 

For example, belief in free will would give the believer a sense of agency and something to use to manipulate the behaviour of others (by using guilt and punishment).

Would you consider, that perhaps you hold the belief in free will, because of psychological reasons?

Also, there are several existing interpretations of quantum mechanics and some of them are deterministic.  

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/37334/289321.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

 

 

 

 

[RestoringGuy]

Also, there are several existing interpretations of quantum mechanics and some of them are deterministic.

Yes but they all require non-local simultaneity, which requires abandoning relativity or allowing backwards time travel or at least backwards-time communication.  In which case causality partially goes away.  You can certainly have acausal determinism -- like if the universe were simply a played-back movie of fixed events that had no mandate for forward stochastic causation.  Strict determinism does not care which way time flows.  If you reverse the direction of every particle, everything should work backwards.  Eggshells should unbreak on the floor and rise up into your hand.  Any why do we not have memory of the future, if both past and future are equally fixed and connected to the present by deterministic rules?  Since time prefers one direction, determinism alone is simply not good enough to explain why time prefers to flow one way.  Stochastic causality can explain such things.  There are really four options:

(1) Causal determinism - universe plays like a movie and the entire movie can be deduced from one frame

(2) Acausal determinism - universe plays like a movie with no requirement for the movie to make sense or go in any order

(3) Causal indeterminism - universe events are limited/biased by nearby events but there is no "movie"

(4) Acausal indeterminism - universe makes no sense, and future & past are only dreams

[Metric]

 

If determinism is simply the pointing out that the universe is causal and one result necessarily follows from another then that's disproven by the simple presence of indeterminacy (which is well established). Physics doesn't say anything about causality. Physics describes very particular properties of matter and energy in a causal universe.

What physics (as presently understood) demands is that the state of the universe "now" evolves to one and only one state of the universe "tomorrow."  The precise term is "unitary time evolution" ("unitarity" is a mathematical property that ensures this).  Presumably, you are referencing probabilities that occur in quantum mechanics -- these probabilities aren't a breakdown in unitary time evolution, they are instead a consequence of the way information is shared between entangled subsystems in QM.

There is definitely some subtle stuff here that may have interesting philosophical implications, but it's not at simple as time evolution breaking down and turning into mush.  Time evolution is still one-to-one in quantum mechanics.

If determinism is the claim that free will doesn't describe anything real and is simply an illusion (including Sam Harris's illusion that it's an illusion) even if there is indeterminacy in the same way that rocks don't have free will, then please somebody make that case with reference to Stef's argument against determinism. 

I haven't read everyone's posts, but it would seem that no determinists are willing to do that. If your not willing to do that, then please consider the possibility that it's psychologically motivated. Here is some recommended listening:

Determinism: The Family Back Story

Determinism pt 666

Free Will, Determinism and Self Knowledge pt 1

Free Will, Determinism and Self Knowledge pt 2

Free Will, Determinism and Self Knowledge pt 3

Free Will, Determinism and Self Knowledge pt 4

 

I am pretty sure everyone agrees that there is an interesting decision-making process that takes place in the human brain, where high-level abstraction, principles, and ideas are part of the calculation.  Presumably, that's what you're referring to as "free will."  None of that is opposed to deterministic physics playing out the way it is presently understood, which is simply what I subscribe to -- the notion that an extremely well-established experimental science is likely to be correct, in the absence of good evidence to the contrary.

BTW, Stefan has introduced at least one definition of "free will" that is not in opposition to deterministic time evolution, but hasn't addressed that point.

Also, while it's quite possible that people subscribe to any number of ideas for reasons of "bad personal psychology", it's also the case that I'm actually using these deterministic laws of physics as part of ongoing research about the physical world.  And I'm using them because they work.

[Metric]

 

I am beginning to think that this argument of determinism vs. free-will is an apples vs. oranges debate.

 

Determinism should probably be re-stated as causal relationship: If A (a certain set of conditions exist), then B (a specific outcome will ensue). This definition seems more in keeping with the scientific method: test-ability, falsify-ability, etc. Use of the term determinism contains an anthropomorphic bias, as "to determine" implies making a choice about different possibilities. More to the point, it implies predetermination for human action, which is not testable, nor falsifiable. Finally, it invites non-relevant comparisons between human action and physical and chemical facts.

Free-will should be re-stated as will. There is ample evidence, and common sense would concur, that humans are subject to make decisions based upon a host of predispositions: education, experience, bias, peer-pressure, etc., etc., etc. To say that the will is totally free seems a stretch of wishful thinking.

So, what does that leave? Causal relationships and the exercise of will.

Do causal relationships exist? That's an obvious yes, unless one has been living in a cave for the last hundreds of years.

Do humans exercise will? This is the key. Those that advocate definitive causal relationship between any decision and the history of the decider have to explain why someone could make a choice contrary to their predispositions. And they must explain creativity. Where an idea, completely unforeseen, appears with no correlation to the past.

To be fair, I accept causal relationships as a fact; even quantum mechanics does not eliminate causality, it only makes it more complicated.

But I exercise will. For any theory to be acceptable, it must be universal. That is the hurdle for "determinists": prove that my exercise of will is static, explained by all the hidden variables, and causal linkages to physics and chemistry. Good luck!

 

I think you're making an excellent observation about the limitations of the way this topic has been traditionally discussed.

[Kevin Beal]

So, . . . am I wrong? Did someone explain what Stef's argument was and where the logical errors were in it? Because if not, then that's important.

And I'm not a physicist, but I'm trying to point out that indeterminacies do exist in physics (ignoring quantum physics completely). This is to show that the premise of determinism that we just need to account for all the variables and we can determine any outcome is untrue (or not necessarily true). An example of an indeterminate system is explained in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNnQxDVyd8M

I'm not saying that things are random and we can't rely on deterministic systems. I am a software programmer. I don't expect that my programs will suddenly do things that don't make sense (that would be an error I introduced logical, wiring or otherwise).

[Metric]

 

So, . . . am I wrong? Did someone explain what Stef's argument was and where the logical errors were in it? Because if not, then that's important.

And I'm not a physicist, but I'm trying to point out that indeterminacies do exist in physics (ignoring quantum physics completely). This is to show that the premise of determinism that we just need to account for all the variables and we can determine any outcome is untrue (or not necessarily true). An example of an indeterminate system is explained in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNnQxDVyd8M

I'm not saying that things are random and we can't rely on deterministic systems. I am a software programmer. I don't expect that my programs will suddenly do things that don't make sense (that would be an error I introduced logical, wiring or otherwise).

 

This type of example is a mathematical pathology that appears by introducing infinite precision in the context of an unstable system.  It's not something you can observe or even hope to observe in principle.  It is not a terribly uncommon situation in physics that some theory gives odd/unexpected/unobserved behavior in some mathematically special case -- to show that the the theory isn't "broken" by the existence of such cases, one usually shows that the solutions with such behavior "are of measure zero" in the space of solutions.  The interpretation being that you can never actually see such behavior.  This is exactly the case in this example.  It is true that it's kind of interesting and unexpected mathematically, but it doesn't actually say anything about the functioning of the world around us.

[Metric]

 

So, . . . am I wrong? Did someone explain what Stef's argument was and where the logical errors were in it? Because if not, then that's important.

 

Usually what I personally point out are that there are huge gaps in the type of argument that Stefan would like to make.  I have on several occasions posted the exact definition of "free will" given by him in his 3-part series on free will, and noted that it is not in contradiction with deterministic time evolution (his definition works equally well, regardless of the form that physics takes).  But it doesn't seem to matter -- Stefan himself almost never uses his own definition of free will when he argues or posts on the topic.  In fact, you'll find it rather difficult to actually find his definition in the 3-part series itself.

BTW, I do think he may have something important to say regarding the philosophical concepts of choice, responsibility, etc. but they remain unfortunately buried under this different issue -- that it appears he is implying that the world cannot make sense in the current paradigm of physics.

[RestoringGuy]

It is only a small and subtle error, not worth spending a lot of time.  Nobody who is rational argues with a rock, and the reason we seem to give is that a rock is determined to do what it does, and discussion will not affect it.  My slightly different view is that the rock is mostly insensitive to sound, we do not expect a rock to be conditioned to have grammar to be encoded within it, and whether it is strictly rational is not important to whether we speak to it.  The idea that swaying opinion is an act of self-contradiction for a determinist really only holds with some implicit assumption that the sounds being spoken would have been without the stimulus provided by the other side.  I doubt when this conflict was started centuries ago that people had words and reasoning defined carefully enough for us to say who was a first cause, and then to conclude that the first causer was an unworthy speaker.

[Naddrin Kentlar]

oky pointing out a few things about Stef's video's about determinism.

 

from my understanding Stef is actually a determinist. If not then:

- Child abuse wouldn't have any influence on how a child grows, since the human has free will then it wouldn't affect him how it was raised.

- Bullies are just mean kids, since they have free will, and Steff claims that human beeings are inherently good, then the bullies are just evil.

Unless you want to go into the murky area where abused children are no longer humans, and no longer have free will.

 

Stefan asks what would change if someone changes from a free will to a determinist view of things.

THIS -> you stop blaming the person for his actions, and start looking at the causes that lead him to that action. and this is applicable to anything you dislike about the society. But as far as I'm aware Stefan already does that.

 

Stefan's second thing with determinism is: How can you explain virtue, vice, and is a person really guilty if it's predetermined ?

if you look from one individual's point of view yeah again you meddle in murky waters as things make little sense without free will.

 

if you look however at the humanity as an ORGANISM, with governed by one single rule (IT TRYS TO LIVE) then all of theese make sense.

- suicide is bad, because you lower the ORGANISM's ability to live.

- murder is bad, because you lower the ORGANISM's ability to live.

- you put away a murderer, not because he's evil or 'really responsable' (in a predetermined universe), you put him away because he's lowering the ORGANISM's ability to live.

- selfsacrifice exists, because you rise the ORGANISM's as a whole the ability to live.

- love exsists as a simple way to protect the ORGANISM's ability to live.

- why there's this heated talk about this, or just about anything that's debatable atheism/religion, statism/anarchy? we're merely bouncing ideeas between ourselves, because we 'feel' there's room for improvment in our society, but the end goal is actually finding a way to rise the ability of the ORGANISM to live. wich translated to us the simpletons means, better lifes for us, means better the ability of the ORGANISM to live.

 

 

also an interesting read:  Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide”

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

[Rob_Ilir]

I find it personally fascinating that every determinist post begins with "why are determinist threads "verboten"", and seeing them every 24 hours at the active section. 

 

Also it is fascinating that there are less agnostics who made up in numbers to determinists since 2008, maybe it could be a step in the right direction? 


Stafans  FDR forum physics...  number one still stands strong. 

Happy weekend all, enjoy the choicy/juicy side of life.  

[RestoringGuy]

 

from my understanding Stef is actually a determinist. If not then:

- Child abuse wouldn't have any influence on how a child grows, since the human has free will then it wouldn't affect him how it was raised.

 

Naddrin, No.  Don't confuse causality with determinism.  Influence and Fate are not the same thing!  You can influence your computer to send a reply.  You cannot guarantee it.

 

[Naddrin Kentlar]

 

 

from my understanding Stef is actually a determinist. If not then:

- Child abuse wouldn't have any influence on how a child grows, since the human has free will then it wouldn't affect him how it was raised.

 

Naddrin, No.  Don't confuse causality with determinism.  Influence and Fate are not the same thing!  You can influence your computer to send a reply.  You cannot guarantee it.

 

 

oky then maybe I am seeing things wrong (i'm kinda frustrated because I feel like everyone else is able to see the 'truth' while I can't because my mental abilities are subpar). So I'm gonna take this slow and break it into subproblems, to try to find where I'm making a mistake in my thought process.

 

first I'm gonna try to lay out the context to make sure we're speaking about the same thing. According to the dictionary:

free will: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

determinism: a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws

are theese definitions wrong ? if so then we might be speaking about different things. It's like arguing math while one person thinks in base 2, and the other in base 10. 1+1=10, 1+1=2 they're both right in theyr context, but totally wrong in the other person pov.

[masonman]

 

Not only is there indeterminism in quantum mechanics, but also in plain ol' vanilla physics (i.e. same state, different result).

 

I would say it is deterministic though. Lightning seemed like something random and not determined until science explained how it formed. Now with meteorology, even without every single variable, humans can make pretty decent predictions about when there will be lightning. With all the variables it could be predicted 100 percent of the time. I have little faith in the idea of true randomness.

 

Edit: Ok so I have been googling this stuff a little now and apparently in this post I am taking the position of support for the hidden variable theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory). It appears there is a lot of evidence going against this theory. That is bothering me so much. How can true randomness be physically possible? I can't fathom it......

[Subsidiarity]

Confession, I haven't read up on the thread and I might be repeating something here. 

This post is in response to Stef's suggestion that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon and so consciousness may have free will even though basic matter is deterministic. 

My observation is that emergent phenomena inherit all of the characteristics of their base elements, but require new vocabulary to describe the new emergent patterns. Consider water and a stream. The emergent pattern of a stream doesn't change anything about the water. And everything about water is inherited by the stream. As water boils so will the stream. As water reacts so will the stream. As dense is the water so is the stream. As water is deterministic so is the stream. But the stream does require some more vocabulary to talk about current, direction, temperature, etc. You may not logically speak of current changing the nature of water. 

As the matter of life is deterministic so is life. You may not argue around the determinism of matter with the higher level vocabulary of life. Actions and choice are from the vocabulary of life. Is this the fallacy of the stolen concept? 

Lastly, I wish I had the episode number but in Stef's treatment of this issue he invoked 'even a child can see the difference between life and non-life'. I wish to point out that is far from philosphical to appeal to the conceptions of others, especially children who are easily manipulated. You've probably seen the video of the 12 year old environmentalist, or the 4 year old preacher. 

I appreciate Stef's work and so want to help keep it of the highest integrity. 

[Metric]

 

 

Not only is there indeterminism in quantum mechanics, but also in plain ol' vanilla physics (i.e. same state, different result).

 

I would say it is deterministic though. Lightning seemed like something random and not determined until science explained how it formed. Now with meteorology, even without every single variable, humans can make pretty decent predictions about when there will be lightning. With all the variables it could be predicted 100 percent of the time. I have little faith in the idea of true randomness.

 

Edit: Ok so I have been googling this stuff a little now and apparently in this post I am taking the position of support for the hidden variable theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory). It appears there is a lot of evidence going against this theory. That is bothering me so much. How can true randomness be physically possible? I can't fathom it......

 

Yeah, hidden variable theories were mostly destroyed by experimental evidence.  It appears that there is true randomness in QM.  However, the randomness does not come from time evolution -- states still evolve from t1 to t2 deterministically.  The probabilities come from the way information is shared between subsystems at any given time -- it is a property that is independent of time evolution.  Basically, QM looks probabilistic because you are a quantum mechanical subsystem of the universe -- not because of a breakdown of cause-and-effect.

[RestoringGuy]

 

free will: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

determinism: a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws

 

Those definitions seem mostly right in a classical Newtonian way.  But just saying "preceding events" leaves some ambiguity.  An event on Mars and an event on Earth let's say "2 seconds later" cannot be causally linked, deterministically or otherwise.  But I think most determinists believe something magical by thinking that time is monolithic and absolute.  There is no sense in saying "a moment in the future can be determined from a preceding moment" unless moments of time can be shared universally.  I have never heard of any way to establish a standard frame across the entire universe.  Even if you could establish a standard frame, the Lorentz transformations will constrain strict determinism to behave like your standard time frame is merely a convenient fiction.

[RestoringGuy]

 

Yeah, hidden variable theories were mostly destroyed by experimental evidence.  It appears that there is true randomness in QM.  However, the randomness does not come from time evolution -- states still evolve from t1 to t2 deterministically.  The probabilities come from the way information is shared between subsystems at any given time -- it is a property that is independent of time evolution.  Basically, QM looks probabilistic because you are a quantum mechanical subsystem of the universe -- not because of a breakdown of cause-and-effect.

 

That leaves me asking where does it end?  As a QM system myself, acting to collapse wavefunctions of all experiments in front of me, who then collapses me?  Either (1) we do not experience true wavecollapse and we all stay oblivious to not having any reality, only an false observational world, or else (2) collapse happens objectively.  In either case the wavefunctions are defined in space, and space is curved by matter which is now indeterminately positioned, meaning that we are allowing space to be indeterminately positioned.  More specifically there is some infinite series of wavefunctions for both space and matter which hopefully will converge if our cause-and-effect are to make any sense.  If the series does not converge, nature must resort to some method.  It is information shared between subsystems (matter and space).  Does such an exchange not qualify as time evolution and give more credibility to option (2) ?