uncaused events

Originally posted by apathist
If things happen for no reason, ....

the known laws of physics are a 'reason' even if the outcome is probabilistic. And science can (and does) 'grasp' probability. The success of quantum physics proves this beyond any doubt (not to also mention the science of statistics, of course). Some probabilistic outcome being exactly what it is, regardless of whether that probabilistic outcome is truly random or merely pseudorandom, is one thing quantum physics deals with just fine therefore whether something is truly random (meaning with a 'causeless' component) or merely pseudorandom (meaning with no 'causeless' component) is totally irrelevant to whether science can deal with it.
Lets say, hypothetically, quantum events ARE truly random (meaning with a 'causeless' component) , YET the fact will still remains the success of quantum physics irrefutably proves that science CAN and DOES deal with such truly random events.

Originally posted by humy.....
Lets say, hypothetically, quantum events ARE truly random (meaning with a 'causeless' component) , YET the fact will still remains the success of quantum physics irrefutably proves that science CAN and DOES deal with such truly random events.

You can't hear yourself. The only possible way physics can work is by determinism, according to you.

No sir.

Originally posted by apathist
The only possible way physics can work is by determinism, according to you.
.

Exactly WHERE did say/imply this? I CLEARLY didn't this and in fact implied the EXACT OPPOSITE. Can't you read?

Originally posted by apathist
You can't hear yourself.

What he can't hear is the voices in your head that you think are him.

Originally posted by humy....YET the fact will still remains the success of quantum physics irrefutably proves that science CAN and DOES deal with such truly random events.

You are still thinking if not determinism, then random. Truly random! You are the upper echelon, and cannot get away from clockwork.

Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat he can't hear is the voices in your head that you think are him.

You made my head explode!

Originally posted by apathist
You are still thinking if not determinism, then random. Truly random! .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
"...
Determinism is the philosophical position that for EVERY event there exist conditions that could cause no other event.
..." (my emphasis)

Therefore, BY DEFINITION of determinism, if determinism is wrong, there must exist at least ONE event that is such that the very same EXACTLY IDENTICAL conditions that made it possible COULD have BUT DIDN'T produced a different event.
In what way, according to you, could that be NOT truly random?

This prompts be to state meaning of 'truly random', NOT to be confused with merely 'random' which can be pseudorandom, as;

Definition of truly random;

"such that that the exact same identical conditions that lead to the outcome happening could have but didn't led to a different outcome"

Originally posted by humy
...

Therefore, BY DEFINITION of determinism, if determinism is wrong, there must exist at least ONE event that is such that the very same EXACTLY IDENTICAL conditions that made it possible COULD have BUT DIDN'T produced a different event. ...

Probabilistic. A die roll can shake out six ways. This is not a mystery for me.

The very same exact initial conditions never happen again. Ever. The entire galaxy has moved.

Originally posted by apathist
A die roll can shake out six ways.
....
The very same exact initial conditions never happen again

so what? Relevance to 'truly random'?

Originally posted by humy
Therefore, BY DEFINITION of determinism, if determinism is wrong, there must exist at least ONE event that is such that the very same EXACTLY IDENTICAL conditions that made it possible COULD have BUT DIDN'T produced a different event.
In what way, according to you, could that be NOT truly random?

Thus, determinism is a worthless concept, since this premise cannot be proven right or wrong. It can't be random, since only one of those two events occurred. One happened and the other didn't but you'll never know whether it was random or not.

Originally posted by apathist
You can't hear yourself. The only possible way physics can work is by determinism, according to you.

No sir.

Why is this so important to you, and do you have a point?

The entire thread has been about semantics, point-of-view and Wikipedia. As predicted (by determinism?) nothing's been achieved.

Determinism cannot work in a practical sense. There are too many variables and assumptions, it isn't very helpful as a replacement for empirical evidence, and it renders false the very obvious, measurable concept of free will.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Thus, determinism is a worthless concept, since this premise cannot be proven right or wrong.

Not true. It may one day be possible to prove that the universe is fully deterministic. But the concept of deterministic systems is hardly 'worthless' even if the universe is not deterministic. There are plenty of deterministic systems within the universe.

It can't be random, since only one of those two events occurred. One happened and the other didn't but you'll never know whether it was random or not.
You contradicted yourself. Either it can be random, or you can know. It cannot be known to be not random AND unknowable whether it is random.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Thus, determinism is a worthless concept, since this premise cannot be proven right or wrong. .

for all purely practical purposes, at least for now correct!
But it does have one great use; to satisfy people (us) who get kicks from endlessly arguing the toss over something that doesn't matter.

It can't be random, since only one of those two events occurred.

Here you are making the logical error of equivocation; in this case, equivocating the process that lead to the outcome with the fact of the outcome (not to be confused with a property of an outcome, such as being random); the two don't equate for the first (the process) may or may not be random but the fact of the outcome can never be random by the very definition of the word 'fact'!

One happened and the other didn't but you'll never know whether it was random or not

you above assertion implies it could have been random but your previous assertion of equivocation contradicts that by saying it couldn't be random. It is your previous assertion of equivocation that is in error, your latter assertion not being in error.

Originally posted by wildgrass
As predicted (by determinism?) nothing's been achieved.

If nothing has been achieved, its because you and apathist have no interest in learning but seem instead to thrive on covering your ears and declaring everything you don't like 'useless'.

Determinism cannot work in a practical sense. There are too many variables and assumptions, it isn't very helpful as a replacement for empirical evidence, and it renders false the very obvious, measurable concept of free will.
No, it does not render false anything that is measurable. If it did, that would be proof that the universe was not deterministic - something you agree above is not, as far as we know, provable.

What I find most interesting in this thread is how you clearly hold a belief about free will that you are not willing to share. You hint at it but won't pin it down.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If nothing has been achieved, its because you and apathist have no interest in learning but seem instead to thrive on covering your ears and declaring everything you don't like 'useless'.

[b]Determinism cannot work in a practical sense. There are too many variables and assumptions, it isn't very helpful as a replacement for empirical evidence, and it r ...[text shortened]... belief about free will that you are not willing to share. You hint at it but won't pin it down.

You already pinned me down 4 pages ago about my belief in free will, and I agreed with Rudy Carnap.

Did I say determinism rendered false anything that is measurable? I said that it rendered free will false, and since empirical evidence suggests free will exists, then there's something wrong with determinism. What is the empirical evidence for determinism?

Patrick Suppes (1993, 1996) argues, on the basis of theorems proven by Ornstein (1974 and later) that “There are processes which can equally well be analyzed as deterministic systems of classical mechanics or as indeterministic semi-Markov processes, no matter how many observations are made.” And he concludes that “Deterministic metaphysicians can comfortably hold to their view knowing they cannot be empirically refuted, but so can indeterministic ones as well.” (Suppes 1993, p. 254) For more recent works exploring the extent to which deterministic and indeterministic model systems may be regarded as empirically indistinguishable, see Werndl (2016) and references therein.

- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

In other words, philosophers agree with me that determinism is useless drivel.