It’s odd to believe the universe is deterministic when physics experiments have observed particles that exist outside causality. Even the double slit experiment goes against causality, uncertainty goes against causality, even current particle experiments can’t prove deterministic causality. The prevailing scientific and philosophical findings are that universal, deterministic causality can’t be proved any more than the existence of god.
Physics experiments have observed causality almost everywhere, otherwise equations would not be reliable, but they are. We can observe unerring causality literally anywhere we look in the universe but uncertainty only is a, relatively, very small number of places.
Ever heard the phrase 1+1=3 for high values of 1? Equations “work” because numbers are abstract representations of value we assign.
We observe particles and forms of radiation we can’t explain the origins of or name literally everywhere we look, which is an infinitesimally, incomprehensibly small mote of the universe.
Any system that can be predicted accurately, is a system of cause and effect. The abstract nature of maths to describe the universe is not incongruent with causality. Not having an explanation, or not being able to observe, or having too little information, is not evidence of a lack of cause and effect.
If you drop something, it falls and will do so consistently if the context is similar enough. Every object that moves and can be accurately predicted, like all the planets and stars in the sky.
I’m not going to continue with someone who can’t admit to the observable causation that governs the movement of their own body ffs.
I’m less enthusiastic about someone who can’t cite peer reviewed sources. Your arguments are anecdotal at best.
Astrophysics on a macro scale can only be predicted within a margin of error. Particle and light physics are less predictable. Source: Already posted them.
It’s odd to believe the universe is deterministic when physics experiments have observed particles that exist outside causality. Even the double slit experiment goes against causality, uncertainty goes against causality, even current particle experiments can’t prove deterministic causality. The prevailing scientific and philosophical findings are that universal, deterministic causality can’t be proved any more than the existence of god.
Physics experiments have observed causality almost everywhere, otherwise equations would not be reliable, but they are. We can observe unerring causality literally anywhere we look in the universe but uncertainty only is a, relatively, very small number of places.
Ever heard the phrase 1+1=3 for high values of 1? Equations “work” because numbers are abstract representations of value we assign.
We observe particles and forms of radiation we can’t explain the origins of or name literally everywhere we look, which is an infinitesimally, incomprehensibly small mote of the universe.
Any system that can be predicted accurately, is a system of cause and effect. The abstract nature of maths to describe the universe is not incongruent with causality. Not having an explanation, or not being able to observe, or having too little information, is not evidence of a lack of cause and effect.
No, a lack of evidence for determinism is a lack of evidence for determinism.
Yet there’s a mountain of evidence efor determinism? Magnitudes more than for…non-determanism.
You haven’t shown me any.
If you drop something, it falls and will do so consistently if the context is similar enough. Every object that moves and can be accurately predicted, like all the planets and stars in the sky.
I’m not going to continue with someone who can’t admit to the observable causation that governs the movement of their own body ffs.
I’m less enthusiastic about someone who can’t cite peer reviewed sources. Your arguments are anecdotal at best.
Astrophysics on a macro scale can only be predicted within a margin of error. Particle and light physics are less predictable. Source: Already posted them.