Additionally, I have a strong belief that the world is subjectively deterministic, i.e. that from my point of view the world couldn’t have turned out any other way than the way it did because I only ever experience myself to be in a single causal history.
That seems to be a non-sequitur. The fact that things did happen in one particular way does not imply that they could only have happened that way.
Just noticed that the same error is in Possibility and Couldness:
The coin itself is either heads or tails.
That doesn’t mean it must have been whatever it was,
That seems to be a non-sequitur. The fact that things did happen in one particular way does not imply that they could only have happened that way.
This would imply multiple causal histories for exactly the same world state. This can happen in sufficiently “small” universes, like Conway’s Game of Life, but it does not, as far as I know, appear to happen in ours, or if it does it happens over such large time scales that we can act as if it doesn’t since we’ll never encounter it. (Although I guess we could always end up having been wrong about physics.)
If we look at higher levels of abstraction other than world state then there’s a case to be made, e.g. an apple could fall from a tree multiple ways and still result in the apple haven fallen, but this is now no longer talking directly about the world state but an interpretation/model of it.
If we look at higher levels of abstraction other than world state then there’s a case to be made, e.g. an apple could fall from a tree multiple ways and still result in the apple haven fallen
So you assuming that the world state at time T happened inevitably, and you are objecting to the idea that there is more one possible history leading up to that state. But indeterminism doens’t state that the present moment happened inevitably, so what you are saying is not a genuine objection to indeterminism. And merely observing that something happened is not evidence that it happened inevitability, because inevitability is not a sense-datum.
But indeterminism doens’t state that the present moment happened inevitably, so what you are saying is not a genuine objection to indeterminism. And merely observing that something happened is not evidence that it happened inevitability, because inevitability is not a sense-datum.
I feel like we have a lot of evidence via our models of physics that are deterministic working that let us infer with high likelihood that the universe is deterministic. What is the specific alternative you are trying to offer (as in, what exactly does “indeterminism” mean), and what are your reasons for thinking it worth consideration?
I feel like we have a lot of evidence via our models of physics that are deterministic working that let us infer with high likelihood that the universe is deterministic
I don’t know whether that is supposed to mean that physics is all deterministic or mostly deterministic. But, however you feel, there are a lot of open questions, and not only about well known problem area like quantum mechanics.
What is the specific alternative you are trying to offer (as in, what exactly does “indeterminism” mean), and what are your reasons for thinking it worth consideration?
Saying that you personally have not supplied a good reason to believe in determinism is not equivalent to saying that determinism is false.
Saying that indeterminism might hold is not saying I personally believe in it.
Determinism is the theory that events occur with an objective problem ability p=1, and indeterminism is the theory that they occur with p<1..with corollaries such as the existence of real counterfactuals.
That seems to be a non-sequitur. The fact that things did happen in one particular way does not imply that they could only have happened that way.
Just noticed that the same error is in Possibility and Couldness:
This would imply multiple causal histories for exactly the same world state. This can happen in sufficiently “small” universes, like Conway’s Game of Life, but it does not, as far as I know, appear to happen in ours, or if it does it happens over such large time scales that we can act as if it doesn’t since we’ll never encounter it. (Although I guess we could always end up having been wrong about physics.)
If we look at higher levels of abstraction other than world state then there’s a case to be made, e.g. an apple could fall from a tree multiple ways and still result in the apple haven fallen, but this is now no longer talking directly about the world state but an interpretation/model of it.
So you assuming that the world state at time T happened inevitably, and you are objecting to the idea that there is more one possible history leading up to that state. But indeterminism doens’t state that the present moment happened inevitably, so what you are saying is not a genuine objection to indeterminism. And merely observing that something happened is not evidence that it happened inevitability, because inevitability is not a sense-datum.
I feel like we have a lot of evidence via our models of physics that are deterministic working that let us infer with high likelihood that the universe is deterministic. What is the specific alternative you are trying to offer (as in, what exactly does “indeterminism” mean), and what are your reasons for thinking it worth consideration?
I don’t know whether that is supposed to mean that physics is all deterministic or mostly deterministic. But, however you feel, there are a lot of open questions, and not only about well known problem area like quantum mechanics.
Saying that you personally have not supplied a good reason to believe in determinism is not equivalent to saying that determinism is false.
Saying that indeterminism might hold is not saying I personally believe in it.
Determinism is the theory that events occur with an objective problem ability p=1, and indeterminism is the theory that they occur with p<1..with corollaries such as the existence of real counterfactuals.