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.