What will happen, will happen.

[Hierophant]

How is the behavior of an electron deterministic, Francois?

Since I don't see the behaviour of any specific electron, they have no influence on how determined I see the universe.

I'd be happy to explain any scientific terms you think I'm "hiding" under.

You seem to operate under a delusion of superiority. Is this one of those "you disagree with me therefore you're stupid" deals?

[Atheist Statist]

Since I don't see the behaviour of any specific electron, they have no influence on how determined I see the universe.

So - in your opinion, is the behavior of an electron deterministic, or non-deterministic?

You seem to operate under a delusion of superiority. Is this one of those "you disagree with me therefore you're stupid" deals?

Not at all. I'd love to hear a good reason why the universe has to be deterministic. I might even change my mind back again (many years ago I had more or less the same position as ddolphin).

[ddolphin]

By "reason", I take it you imply what's known as a "hidden variable" theory of quantum mechanics. There are a number of objections to such theories. From a technical standpoint, hidden variables suffer from necessary non-locality, which is generally considered a far greater sin than non-determinism. From a philosophical standpoint, hidden variable theories aren't even scientific in the first place, because they deal with unobservable entities.

What leads you to believe that there must be a "reason" for the electron's behavior? Why do you think it necessary for the universe to possess such a rigid causal structure? Your personal experience with the macroscopic world? Or something more profound?

... I simply do not understand this logic at all. :/

Maybe I am lacking the mental faculties, could you more fully explain what you are talking about.

If there is a reason you cannot know, please explain it. If the reason is, there isn't enough information, do you believe there never could be enough information? If this is the case, explain to me why you believe it.

I have just never been introduced to this exact concept, and it is very intriguing, so please enlighten me if possible.

Thank you!

[Atheist Statist]

ddolphin - I've already given you the cliffnotes version of why hidden variable theories are not taken very seriously by theoretical physicists. If you want more, wikipedia and your local bookstore await.

I encourage you to answer my question - why is your assumption that there is a "reason" for the electron's behavior? If you have no good answer, then you're halfway to answering your own questions.

[ddolphin]

ddolphin - I've already given you the cliffnotes version of why hidden variable theories are not taken very seriously by theoretical physicists. If you want more, wikipedia and your local bookstore await.

I encourage you to answer my question - why is your assumption that there is a "reason" for the electron's behavior? If you have no good answer, then you're halfway to answering your own questions.

So in your mind the Theory of Everything is solved. We understand the quantum world completely and if some new theory that explains quantum events more completely arises that explains hidden variables, etc... It is bullshit, because... Why? Who's making the assumption here?

[Atheist Statist]

ddolphin - I already answered this question for you. Physicists tend to reject hidden variable theories because they are necessarily nonlocal and usually unscientific. Go back and read my previous posts.

As for assumptions - the difference between you and I (other than a science education apparently) is that I base my assertion that the universe is non-deterministic purely on cold hard evidence. A trip to the physics lab reveals that the state of an electron at any given time is insufficient to predict the results of measurements made on it in the future. Your assumption that the universe is deterministic, on the other hand, is entirely unsupported, which is why you can't answer my question.

[Luweewu]

What I mean is. If I drop a ball and it bounces to the left, and I go back in time as an observer removed from the tangible universe (unable to cause effect on the physical universe), would I not see myself drop the ball and have it bounce the same way every time?

ddolphin
No. I spent several YEARS on this and the nature of determinism

Lets reset the universe back to +1 second . The ball if dropped at all 'may bounce anywhichway'.
This is what quantum indetermism has hiding in it's skirts.
In the quantum world events occur without apparent cause. And while this seems to be without effect because said events are so small and fast. They cascade upwards.
Like evolution they take a long time to cycle into gross reality. In extreme you may not exist to drop the ball. , but leveling statistically you will but the ball could go left not right.
Like just about every thing else, it's grey time, a bit of this a bit of that. But the curry is still hot. Thank your god.

Luwee

[Atheist Statist]

In the quantum world events occur without apparent cause. And while this seems to be without effect because said events are so small and fast. They cascade upwards.

And sometimes, like in a Geiger counter or a bubble chamber, they cascade upwards very quickly indeed.

[Hierophant]

Convenient man-made exceptions.

[Atheist Statist]

Another example especially for Francois:

Evolution is driven by mutations. One of the ways mutations happen is through ionizing radiation. Now the ionizing events exhibit pure quantum randomness in that there's no way to predict, even in principle, exactly when or where they happen. Therefore life on earth is most likely strongly dependent on pure randomness.

A related example - if a given cancer is caused by ionizing radiation, then exactly who gets it is also purely random.

[Hierophant]

As you pointed out yourself, it is only one way in which mutations arise, making your example pretty weak. Furthermore, radiation is only random at the single particle level.

[Atheist Statist]

As you pointed out yourself, it is only one way in which mutations arise, making your example pretty weak.

Brings to mind someone on board the Titanic convincing themselves that everything is ok because icebergs are only one way to sink a ship.

Furthermore, radiation is only random at the single particle level

Well no, it's random regardless of the number of particles. In every sector of the Fock space, as we say in quantum field theory.

[Hierophant]

Brings to mind someone on board the Titanic convincing themselves that everything is ok because icebergs are only one way to sink a ship.

No... it's like telling someone on board a ship that is sinking from icebergs, storms, and cruise missiles, that the ship was only sunk by an iceberg and that he should stop whining about the storms and the cruise missiles.

[Atheist Statist]

Francois - so far in this thread I've given you 5 or 6 examples of systems whose behavior is non-deterministic. Your excuses have ranged from the irrelevant ("only one way in which mutations can arise") to the plain wrong ("only random at the single particle level"). Do you have any meaningful objections to bring to the table, or should we dismiss you as just another faith-based determinist?

[Hierophant]

I don't know what to say. How the fuck is my objection "irrelevant"? Your argument is that the randomity of single particles is a relevant argument against determinism. Yet it's obvious that radiation in this case is not a convincing argument against genetic determinism, since our DNA machinery is in the driver's seat, not radiation. At this point, I have to assume that you're simply projecting.