Thread: Determinism Logically Refuted

Wave-Particle Duality Continued/conclusion

So, in my last big post I described how all matter and energy exhibits both the properties of waves and particles. A man named John Archibald Wheeler came up with a very interesting thought experiment which has since been verified by empirical trials in which the effects of an observer's choice to view the outcome of an experiment has an effect on the output even after the event has occurred. Wheeler reasoned that if a situation could be set up in which one had the option of 'looking' at whether a particle went through one or both slits in a double slit set up after it went through, their decision would still have an effect on what it had done, even though logically the event is already past. Logically, this concept seems absurd, but it made sense based on certain interpretations of these sorts of experiments (namely, the Copenhagen interpretation) and also in the mathematical description of the experiments.

As I said, this experiment has been performed several times and it is now known that this strange phenomenon is in fact a reality. Even if one were to delay the 'choice' over an extremely long time line, the actual outcome is still affected by whether or not the particle is observed, even though what the particle has actually done happened well in the past.

Ok, so what does this all mean? No one knows exactly why everything exhibits these conflicting properties but so far, there are two main interpretations that I will describe extremely briefly, but will provide links if anyone wishes to look in to them further. The first option is that there is a collapse of the wave form into a particle after certain conditions are met. The conditions are either deterministic ones; ones in which a particle or system is required to have certain characteristics by the casual chain of events in which it is involved, and this can be just about anything as described by classical physics, or systems that are in a quantum state are shown to collapse only when an observation of their characteristics is performed.

The other most popular interpretation is known as quantum decoherence. The theory of decoherence basically says that any observation causes the appearance of collapse, but that everything still remains in a quantum superposition wave form state and we are simply unable to make measurements of all of the other possibilities now that they are in the past. This interpretation is very similar to the "many worlds" interpretation and in fact the two do not contradict each other. A very simplistic way of describing this theory is that everything is always in a state of quantum fluctuation, but our view of the world only allows us to look directly 'backwards' through the waves of possibility and not 'forwards' or 'side to side' thus giving the appearance of a linear chain of events. In reality, every moment of the present and future is a sea of infinite possibility and it is only the past that is determined by the observers particular vantage point in that infinite sea.

Wave Function Collapse
Quantum Decoherence

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I know it's been said before, but quantum mechanics does have an answer for UM's question, at least to a considerable extent (experiment can never totally prove any theory, but it should at least be the basis of understanding reality).

An oversimplified excerpt from Feynman's lectures on http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

A photon is reflected with probability 'p' from a piece of polished glass some distance 'd' from a second piece of polished glass. 'p' was indicated by the intensity of light observed at a detector set up to measure deflected photons. Photons penetrate the glass with some probability (1-p).

Since all photons of a given frequency and polarization are exactly the same, what causes them to behave differently upon encountering the same piece of glass? One could say the glass has defects, but Isaac Newton correctly discounted this theory based on the fact that light ignores the tiny features on polished glass (or else they'd be useless as lenses). If the features of the surface are not important, then the features below the surface must be. In fact, the gap and the glass thickness does influence p. How could this be?

Newton settled for "fits of transmission," also known as the theory of "I haven't the foggiest idea."

What can determinism say? Perhaps there are hidden variables that we don't know about, but asserting their existence when no evidence exists for them is not appealing. One could point out that such variables are common in classical systems, but this argument by analogy is weak.

What if the random variable thegnome54 mentioned is nothing other than the state of a system, as implied by quantum mechanics?

That does not answer my question. It is just another example of, "We don't know what causes it."

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Are you and UM trying to say that there are no probabilities?

Pay close attention this time. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, PERCEPTION, OR PREDICTION. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT. FUCK HUMANS AS FAR AS THIS DISCUSSION GOES.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That does not answer my question. It is just another example of, "We don't know what causes it."



Pay close attention this time. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, PERCEPTION, OR PREDICTION. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT. FUCK HUMANS AS FAR AS THIS DISCUSSION GOES.

UM, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember you arguing that mathematics are universal and all encompassing. If that was in fact you, does this include mathematical systems in which probabilistic functions play an intrinsic role?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

UM, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember you arguing that mathematics are universal and all encompassing. If that was in fact you, does this include mathematical systems in which probabilistic functions play an intrinsic role?

Probability involving percentages less than 100 is all about human understanding. What ends up happening ends up happening, and the only probability that applies beyond our attempts at prediction is 100%. However, that is beside the point. This subtopic goes nowhere near answering why X would cause Y instead of Z. It only addresses human inability to predict with complete accuracy whether Y or Z will happen. I am asking what would make the difference. If you think the answer is "absolutely nothing", then please explain how that is even possible, not just examples of where you think it apparently happens.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Probability involving percentages less than 100 is all about human understanding. What ends up happening ends up happening, and the only probability that applies beyond our attempts at prediction is 100%. However, that is beside the point. This subtopic goes nowhere near answering why X would cause Y instead of Z. It only addresses human inability to predict with complete accuracy whether Y or Z will happen. I am asking what would make the difference. If you think the answer is "absolutely nothing", then please explain how that is even possible, not just examples of where you think it apparently happens.

I was really hoping you'd follow along the path of reason that I'm laying out for you so that I could set down a conclusion at the end without you saying 'but you didn't answer my question' every step of the way. If you don't see how any of what I've posted applies to answering you, then you'll just have to wait in suspenseful anticipation for me to get around to finishing and tying it all together in one neat little paragraph for you.

If in the end you still want to chalk it all up to 'well there must be a cause even though we have no evidence for it' I'll label you a religious zealot relying on faith just like the many others out there. I for one base my models of reality on the current body of evidence that humans have been able to accumulate.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I was really hoping you'd follow along the path of reason that I'm laying out for you so that I could set down a conclusion at the end without you saying 'but you didn't answer my question' every step of the way. If you don't see how any of what I've posted applies to answering you, then you'll just have to wait in suspenseful anticipation for me to get around to finishing and tying it all together in one neat little paragraph for you.

If in the end you still want to chalk it all up to 'well there must be a cause even though we have no evidence for it' I'll label you a religious zealot relying on faith just like the many others out there. I for one base my models of reality on the current body of evidence that humans have been able to accumulate.

Seeing is believing, so let's see it. That sounds good. However, I am still going to ask how it is possible. If that never gets answered, I am never going to understand how it is possible. I see no way around the fact that what you are talking about involves uncaused events. If somehow you were to prove that X can cause Y instead of Z for no reason, you would prove the existence of an uncaused event. Right? That is my point, and how such a thing is possible is my question. There is no religious zealotry on my part. It is pure logic.

The observations of quantum mechanics, UM, form a version of a 'proof by contradiction.' If determinism is true, quantum mechanics is false, but quantum mechanics is true (insofar as it has not been contradicted), so determinism must be (or is very likely to be) false. Simply put, the logic is as follows;

(1) P is true
(2) If X is true, P is false.
(3) Since (2) contradicts (1), X must be false

This sort of proof demonstrates that X must be false, not by demonstrating a mechanism that causes it to be true, but by showing that a pre-established fact is contradicted by the assumption that X is true.

Your question, UM, is a demand for a direct proof. Logically speaking, a direct proof is unnecessary if a suitable proof by contradiction already exists.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The observations of quantum mechanics, UM, form a version of a 'proof by contradiction.' If determinism is true, quantum mechanics is false, but quantum mechanics is true (insofar as it has not been contradicted), so determinism must be (or is very likely to be) false. Simply put, the logic is as follows;

(1) P is true
(2) If X is true, P is false.
(3) Since (2) contradicts (1), X must be false

This sort of proof demonstrates that X must be false, not by demonstrating a mechanism that causes it to be true, but by showing that a pre-established fact is contradicted by the assumption that X is true.

Determinism contradicts only a small part of quantum mechanics. You are talking about a very large discipline of science. Proving one of its tenets false does not prove the whole discipline false. The other side of the coin is that proving parts of quantum mechanics true does not prove the truth of every tenet of the discipline. The Bible involves a lot of true history, but that does not prove that the world is 6,000 years old.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Your question, UM, is a demand for a direct proof. Logically speaking, a direct proof is unnecessary if a suitable proof by contradiction already exists.

I just want a direct answer. That is all.

I want to understand how X, and only X, can cause Y but also Z. If there is no answer to the question, then it is possible for something to happen without a cause. Right?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I want to understand how X, and only X, can cause Y but also Z. If there is no answer to the question, then it is possible for something to happen without a cause. Right?

Please describe a situation in which X and only X is the sole cause of anything. This is a large portion of the meat of what I am getting at. What you call 'X' as if it is a simple event is actually the entire state of the entire universe which may or may not be infinite at any given point. One of the things that I aim to show with this thread is that defining X or any given moment in the history of the entire universe is intrinsically flawed, as according to what we know about the nature of things, it is fundamentally impossible to define a specific moment of causation.

Innit funny how the atheists assert the existence of an unknown force, and the Theist asserts the nonexistence of it?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Please describe a situation in which X and only X is the sole cause of anything. This is a large portion of the meat of what I am getting at. What you call 'X' as if it is a simple event is actually the entire state of the entire universe which may or may not be infinite at any given point. One of the things that I aim to show with this thread is that defining X or any given moment in the history of the entire universe is intrinsically flawed, as according to what we know about the nature of things, it is fundamentally impossible to define a specific moment of causation.

Shut up, you retarded idiot.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

One of the things that I aim to show with this thread is that defining X or any given moment in the history of the entire universe is intrinsically flawed, as according to what we know about the nature of things, it is fundamentally impossible to define a specific moment of causation.

To me, it seems like you're arguing that a human could not feasibly define a specific moment of causation. What we're talking about is whether or not it exists, not whether or not we could define it entirely.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

No one knows exactly why everything exhibits these conflicting properties but so far, there are two main interpretations that I will describe extremely briefly, but will provide links if anyone wishes to look in to them further.

Does no one suspect that light may be an entirely new phenomenon, which only exhibits wave-like and particle-like qualities under some circumstances?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Please describe a situation in which X and only X is the sole cause of anything. This is a large portion of the meat of what I am getting at. What you call 'X' as if it is a simple event is actually the entire state of the entire universe which may or may not be infinite at any given point. One of the things that I aim to show with this thread is that defining X or any given moment in the history of the entire universe is intrinsically flawed, as according to what we know about the nature of things, it is fundamentally impossible to define a specific moment of causation.

We don't have to know all of the details of the situation. Forget us! Once again, this is not about human understanding or prediction. I am talking about cause and effect. Do you believe in it? The universe in state X and then state Z instead of state Y, or Gnome's pool table example.

This is last call, by the way. This thread is a dodgeball game that makes R/S and the 9/11 threads look like A students answering questions on tests.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This is last call, by the way. This thread is a dodgeball game that makes R/S and the 9/11 threads look like A students answering questions on tests.

I know, I was hoping somebody would finally settle this, so I would know. RD's getting closest, I think, except I don't think it's a philisophical question, but a scientific one. I never thought about the "hard" and "soft" sort of determinism you are describing, soft being based on probabilities (like, the example of radioactive decay; we know the half-life, but can't predict which individual atoms will go at any particular time.)

Isn't it true that there are some processes in quantum mechanics that make as much sense if you look at them going forward in time as backwards, like reverse cause and effect, and time doesn't matter on that scale? I'm not sure what that proves anyway.

Could it be that there is determinism on the macro scale, but not the subatomic? Therefore, the question doesn't really matter; you might as well be deterministic, unless you can find someway of using that random property of subatomic particles. (They have done it with some other paradoxical quantum mechanical properties, such as scanning-tunnelling electron microscopes, so maybe it could be done.) It seems to me that if on our scale of existence things are deterministic, it's only for fun that we investigate whether ultimately in the foaming sea of quantum probabilities things are random.

I guess it is philisophical after all. Anybody ever read the Tao of Physics? I read it a long time ago, you guys are making me want to read it again.

From UM
Determinism contradicts only a small part of quantum mechanics. You are talking about a very large discipline of science. Proving one of its tenets false does not prove the whole discipline false. The other side of the coin is that proving parts of quantum mechanics true does not prove the truth of every tenet of the discipline. The Bible involves a lot of true history, but that does not prove that the world is 6,000 years old.

That's a good counterpoint. If I claimed that the square root of 2 was a rational number, that would only contradict a small part of mathematics, right? Mathematics is far too large a discipline for such a minor thing to matter, or is it not? The key is that mathematics must be self-consistent, as physics must also be. Any contradiction, no matter how small, can indicate that the theory is wrong on a fundamental level, just as Newtonian physics is wrong on a fundamental level.

What criteria do you use to claim contradictions of QM are too minor to matter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
Your question, UM, is a demand for a direct proof. Logically speaking, a direct proof is unnecessary if a suitable proof by contradiction already exists.

I just want a direct answer. That is all.

I want to understand how X, and only X, can cause Y but also Z. If there is no answer to the question, then it is possible for something to happen without a cause. Right?

This is where the contradictions with QM are most apparent.

Determinism assumes some precondition X exists and has some definite value in any event and in all places, but QM shows that it exists in a different way altogether: as a wavefunction. The wavefunction describes the state X. So far, so good. Determinism is sound.

However, the wavefunction can interfere with itself constructively or destructively (a central tenet of QM). That is, the state called X is a superposition of two or more different states.

X=amplitude(i)*SUM(X(i)+X(2i)+...X(Ni))

Ever so subtly, probability has snuck into the mix, and determinism is in trouble. Determinism requires that X be only one state, not the sum of different states. X can make Y or Z happen, depending on which state is manifested at the moment of causation.

Perhaps one would redefine X as the state of the superposition to get around this, but the problem is the same. The state X is no longer truly uncertain, but now a defined X can cause different events Y or Z to happen. The problem remains the same.

Thus, X can make Y or Z happen.

If one wished, the manifesting of some state at the moment of causation could save determinism here(one state --> one outcome), but it's easy to show that the manifesting of said state is itself an event, with multiple states before and one of many possible states after.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We don't have to know all of the details of the situation. Forget us! Once again, this is not about human understanding or prediction. I am talking about cause and effect. Do you believe in it? The universe in state X and then state Z instead of state Y, or Gnome's pool table example.

This is last call, by the way. This thread is a dodgeball game that makes R/S and the 9/11 threads look like A students answering questions on tests.

Feel free to leave and stop arguing it then. I have put down a lot of information and still have a lot left to write out. If I'm not doing it fast enough for you then you need not continue checking back.

Originally Posted by UM

Originally Posted by Taosaur
My view: there is no "exact state" of the universe. There's no possibility of capturing a snapshot. Our experience of duration is more akin to a child staring at a cloud, watching a drama transform before its eyes. Instead of a cloud, however, we are the omnifaceted jewel of being staring into itself. The experience is dynamic, but the ground of our being is static, untouchable. The limits of the future are the limits of our imagination, and its significance is the import of our fantasies.

I am not at all questioning human perception, understanding, or prediction. I am talking about the relationship between cause and effect.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

And for god's sake, it doesn't matter that it's impossible for any human to ever know the current state of the universe. There only has to BE a state, which I can't imagine denying unless you shun objective reality.

I'm talking about the universe as it actually exists: with humans in it. You're both arguing from the subjective grounds of chains of cause-and-effect, human concepts relevant only to a human (or maybe as broad as higher mammalian) experience of reality. It's a strategy for operating within reality, not a property of the universe. "Objective reality" is just a reality that subjects can agree upon. It only exists in reference to subjects. When talking about the whole enchilada, objectivity does not apply unless one posits an outside observer.

I'm saying that the universe independent of our experience is always in motion--vibrating, if you like--but essentially unchanging. We are part of that vibrating tumult imagining that it is standing still and looking out on as much of the rest as we can see from here. The experience of time, the idea of a past and future, is inherently subjective, or subjective/objective, because the reality we perceive as things interacting over time is a product of subject/object duality.

In any case, determinists are the ones trying to argue antiquated 'common sense' notions of phenomena at odds with the current science, they're the ones arguing for unseen forces and the burden of proof is on them.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm talking about the universe as it actually exists: with humans in it. You're both arguing from the subjective grounds of chains of cause-and-effect, human concepts relevant only to a human (or maybe as broad as higher mammalian) experience of reality.

Let me just make sure we're clear here - when I say "cause and effect", I'm referring to one state of the universe resulting in a future state of the universe, as governed by physical law. Not "Jackson called me a name, so I punched him". I'm just not sure if you're misunderstanding me, or actually questioning the concept of physical laws causing future states.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm saying that the universe independent of our experience is always in motion--vibrating, if you like--but essentially unchanging. We are part of that vibrating tumult imagining that it is standing still and looking out on as much of the rest as we can see from here. The experience of time, the idea of a past and future, is inherently subjective, or subjective/objective, because the reality we perceive as things interacting over time is a product of subject/object duality.

I don't really understand where you're going with this... are you questioning the existence of time, past, and future?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

In any case, determinists are the ones trying to argue antiquated 'common sense' notions of phenomena at odds with the current science, they're the ones arguing for unseen forces and the burden of proof is on them.

What? Where do 'unseen forces' come into play?

I apologize if I'm missing the boat here, but it really seems like a lot of you are having way too much trouble grasping the simple concept of determinism. All of Xaq's points so far have been about how humans can't know the current state of the entire universe - this has nothing to do with determinism. Just because I don't know the state of each gate in my computer doesn't mean that the computer is not acting in a predictable, non-random manner. Determinism is simply the logical conclusion if you assume that truly random events do not occur and that all interactions are governed by physical laws. Probability has nothing to do with this, and I really don't think any quantum mechanical theories have much impact, either. Probability, wave-particle duality, and superpositions are all models created by humans in an attempt to predict phenomena. All models are wrong, but some are useful - just because we aren't capable of factoring in every existing variable (aka everything in the universe) and so have to resort to probabilities, does not mean that there are actually multiple possible futures.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

That's a good counterpoint. If I claimed that the square root of 2 was a rational number, that would only contradict a small part of mathematics, right? Mathematics is far too large a discipline for such a minor thing to matter, or is it not? The key is that mathematics must be self-consistent, as physics must also be. Any contradiction, no matter how small, can indicate that the theory is wrong on a fundamental level, just as Newtonian physics is wrong on a fundamental level.

What criteria do you use to claim contradictions of QM are too minor to matter?

This is where the contradictions with QM are most apparent.

Determinism assumes some precondition X exists and has some definite value in any event and in all places, but QM shows that it exists in a different way altogether: as a wavefunction. The wavefunction describes the state X. So far, so good. Determinism is sound.

However, the wavefunction can interfere with itself constructively or destructively (a central tenet of QM). That is, the state called X is a superposition of two or more different states.

X=amplitude(i)*SUM(X(i)+X(2i)+...X(Ni))

Ever so subtly, probability has snuck into the mix, and determinism is in trouble. Determinism requires that X be only one state, not the sum of different states. X can make Y or Z happen, depending on which state is manifested at the moment of causation.

Perhaps one would redefine X as the state of the superposition to get around this, but the problem is the same. The state X is no longer truly uncertain, but now a defined X can cause different events Y or Z to happen. The problem remains the same.

Thus, X can make Y or Z happen.

If one wished, the manifesting of some state at the moment of causation could save determinism here(one state --> one outcome), but it's easy to show that the manifesting of said state is itself an event, with multiple states before and one of many possible states after.

No matter how many states exist at once, the overall state is what it is. Our uncertainty regarding outcomes does not prove that nothing causes one result to happen instead of another. What would cause X to cause Y instead of Z? If the answer is nothing, then the implication is that uncaused events happen.

I don't claim to be a quantum physics expert, but I do see a flaw in that one part of it. I can't name another part of it I disagree with. It looks like there is just a mininterpretation of uncertainty, and I don't know how that mininterpretation affects the rest of the discipline.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

In any case, determinists are the ones trying to argue antiquated 'common sense' notions of phenomena at odds with the current science, they're the ones arguing for unseen forces and the burden of proof is on them.

We have given it. If X causes Z instead of Y for no reason, an uncaused event has happened. Uncaused events are impossible. Why does it never rain fish?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Feel free to leave and stop arguing it then. I have put down a lot of information and still have a lot left to write out. If I'm not doing it fast enough for you then you need not continue checking back.

I said it was last call, not last look or last post. I will keep looking, but not necessarily expecting your answer.

From UM
No matter how many states exist at once, the overall state is what it is. Our uncertainty regarding outcomes does not prove that nothing causes one result to happen instead of another. What would cause X to cause Y instead of Z? If the answer is nothing, then the implication is that uncaused events happen.

As I mentioned, one could redefine "state," as you seem to have done, so that it encompasses all superpositions of states, but the problem of a probabilistic outcome remains. The overall state is what it is, but the probabilistic outcome implies that this definition of state only obscures what is actually happening: multiple states exist simultaneously.

The second part of your response reveals a difference in interpretations of 'cause.' In this instance, one often views the manifesting of one state in X over other states as an uncaused event. Let's see where that interesting point takes us with a simpler example: a lottery.

Imagine that a lottery is set up that is perfectly random. 10 tickets are sold, distributed perfectly randomly, and one of them is the winning ticket. Since the lottery is perfectly random, can you say what "caused" one person to win while the others didn't?

(A) One could say that the event was uncaused: the existence of random chance means nothing caused it (and that can't logically be true. Therefore, the lottery was fixed in advance and only that person could win, which contradicts the initial assumption of randomness).

(B) Or, one could say that the lottery caused it. Distributing the tickets decided that someone would win (with a 10% chance of it being a certain individual), so holding a lottery must have caused the person to have won the lottery. Not holding a lottery would have resulted in no one winning.

The difference is precisely the question I had mentioned much earlier: Whether, on the one hand, events are directly determined, or on the other hand, their probabilities are determined. Hidden variables meet the needs of the assumption that uncaused events cannot occur only in case (A), where events can only be directly caused, but they are unnecessary in case (B), where events are indirectly caused.

Thus, the implication is that all events can be caused, while retaining probabilistic outcomes. X causes Y or Z when a state-dependent event (also known as a measurement) occurs, and it is this event which, we may say, causes the outcome, whatever it may ultimately be.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Imagine that a lottery is set up that is perfectly random.

The whole point of determinism relies on assuming that true randomness does not exist.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Thus, the implication is that all events can be caused, while retaining probabilistic outcomes. X causes Y or Z when a state-dependent event (also known as a measurement) occurs, and it is this event which, we may say, causes the outcome, whatever it may ultimately be.

That makes no sense. Probability is a reflection of human uncertainty. Only one outcome will occur, and it is decided by deterministic, non-random means. Probability sums up the inaccuracy of human models, it is not indicative of randomness or even uncertainty in an objective sense.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

To me, it seems like you're arguing that a human could not feasibly define a specific moment of causation. What we're talking about is whether or not it exists, not whether or not we could define it entirely.

Actually, what I am arguing is that a specific moment of causation does not exist. For every instant, there are infinite particles that exist in quantum fluctuation which is an infinite state in and of itself. The idea of freeze framing the infinite universe and labeling it as a specific state is absurd and impossible (based on what we know) under any circumstance from a human perspective or otherwise.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Does no one suspect that light may be an entirely new phenomenon, which only exhibits wave-like and particle-like qualities under some circumstances?

No, since light is completely unremarkable in this sense, since all matter and energy exhibits wave-like and particle like qualities.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

The whole point of determinism relies on assuming that true randomness does not exist.

That makes no sense. Probability is a reflection of human uncertainty. Only one outcome will occur, and it is decided by deterministic, non-random means. Probability sums up the inaccuracy of human models, it is not indicative of randomness or even uncertainty in an objective sense.

Stating these assumptions over and over again does not make them more true. When it comes down to it, you really can't prove any of them. You said yourself; it is impossible to test these things, as it is impossible to exactly recreate the conditions of an event to find out if it will always have the same effect. Any recreation you might attempt is in reality a seperate event with different conditions, and so determinism will always be faith and speculation.

from thegnome54
That makes no sense. Probability is a reflection of human uncertainty. Only one outcome will occur, and it is decided by deterministic, non-random means. Probability sums up the inaccuracy of human models, it is not indicative of randomness or even uncertainty in an objective sense.

I don't need to repeat Taosaur's counterpoint, but I will point out that the lottery analogy was not a demonstration of how a probabilistic event could happen, but a demonstration of two different possible views of causation in the event of an apparently random outcome. One assumes exactly what you've said (the randomness is an illusion), the other does not. It only shows that causality need not be sacrificed in a probabilistic perspective.

I described the mechanism of a probabilistic event in an earlier post. Even if it is not ultimately true, it at least shows that a mechanism can exist which allows for probabilistic outcomes.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, what I am arguing is that a specific moment of causation does not exist. For every instant, there are infinite particles that exist in quantum fluctuation which is an infinite state in and of itself.

I never said that the specific moment of causation would be finite. I really don't see your argument here. Aren't you again appealing to the impossibility of a human defining something infinitely complex?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

No, since light is completely unremarkable in this sense, since all matter and energy exhibits wave-like and particle like qualities.

I think you missed the point. Then all matter and energy should represent a phenomenon which is neither particle nor wave - both of these concepts are clearly flawed models which only partially describe their behavior.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Stating these assumptions over and over again does not make them more true. When it comes down to it, you really can't prove any of them.

Obviously. I've said this myself; I'm not saying causal determinism is true. I'm saying that if we decide that there is no such thing as true randomness, then it's the logical conclusion. The only way to "Logically Refute Determinism" would be to prove the assumption wrong. You haven't.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I described the mechanism of a probabilistic event in an earlier post. Even if it is not ultimately true, it at least shows that a mechanism can exist which allows for probabilistic outcomes.

one could say that the lottery caused it. Distributing the tickets decided that someone would win (with a 10% chance of it being a certain individual), so holding a lottery must have caused the person to have won the lottery. Not holding a lottery would have resulted in no one winning.

I'm really not following your reasoning here. Saying "the lottery caused it" is a transparently human way of using cause and effect. We're talking physical interactions on a tiny scale, not large-scale events 'causing' others.

And if I remember correctly, your mechanism for a probabilistic event involved some event collapsing a superposition, resulting in one of several outcomes. However, this event which collapses the superposition would also be deterministic, would it not?