I don’t know why you are so despairing of resolving the question. Bell’s inequalities are a testable theory about determinism, and others might be possible.
You keep switching between determinism and eternalism, but they are not the same thing. The former is a subset of the latter, roughly
1) Bell’s inequalities only seem to disprove local realism. In addition, many scientists criticize the assumptions and, in any case, they are compatible with different deterministic systems or with non-local hidden variables, so it is far from being a definitive tool to prove or disprove determinism.
2) If you take determinism in the broad sense as the main subject of the discourse, then eternalism is a subset of determinism and not vice versa. Other subsets may be: Hard determinism, MWI, Biological determinism, Theological determinism and many others.
Bell’s inequalities only seem to disprove local realism.
It rules out determinism based on local hidden variables, which could rule in one of: nonlocality, indeterminism, or superdeterminism.
It’s frequently misquoted as merely disproving locality by those with a bias in favour of determinism
In addition, many scientists criticize the assumptions
There has always been a small but vociferous opposition. They are gradually losing the argument that experimental tests are flawed, because tests keep being repeated and refined, closing the alleged “loopholes”.
and, in any case, they are compatible with different deterministic systems or with non-local hidden variables, so it is far from being a definitive tool to prove or disprove determinism.
Its not definitive and I didn’t say it was, but it does hint that the issue is subject to empirical investigation.
A couple of points.
I don’t know why you are so despairing of resolving the question. Bell’s inequalities are a testable theory about determinism, and others might be possible.
You keep switching between determinism and eternalism, but they are not the same thing. The former is a subset of the latter, roughly
A couple of points to your points.
1) Bell’s inequalities only seem to disprove local realism. In addition, many scientists criticize the assumptions and, in any case, they are compatible with different deterministic systems or with non-local hidden variables, so it is far from being a definitive tool to prove or disprove determinism.
2) If you take determinism in the broad sense as the main subject of the discourse, then eternalism is a subset of determinism and not vice versa. Other subsets may be: Hard determinism, MWI, Biological determinism, Theological determinism and many others.
It rules out determinism based on local hidden variables, which could rule in one of: nonlocality, indeterminism, or superdeterminism.
It’s frequently misquoted as merely disproving locality by those with a bias in favour of determinism
There has always been a small but vociferous opposition. They are gradually losing the argument that experimental tests are flawed, because tests keep being repeated and refined, closing the alleged “loopholes”.
Its not definitive and I didn’t say it was, but it does hint that the issue is subject to empirical investigation.