Philosophy: Determinism Accurately Describes Reality

======== Clarification ======== I did not mean to insinuate that Con's arguments weren't his own, but to clarify that just because there are arguments against determinism, it doesn't make determinism false. The arguments against determinism are unsound. ========== The Microcosm ========== Con has said that Copenhagen's theory holds more weight than Bohm's because it has been observed and Bohm's has not. However, that is quite obvious (and the entire point) since Bohm's theory revolves around unobserved hidden variables. Again, because Copenhagen's theory has NOT been proven to be consistent enough for a law, then there really is no weight on it, and especially not any more weight than mine (Bohm's). Further, it is common knowledge amongst physicists that upon studying an atom, one disturbs its natural state. Thus, observations made of these quantum quarks can not be their true state; they are instead in a disturbed state that energy laid upon them through observation compels them to be in. Because of this faulty detail, Con can not prove that Copenhagen's theory holds ground, or that it's not only a result of quantum disturbance given to the atoms upon observation. These direct observations clearly conflict with the observation disturbances (Con even mentioned this). So again, Bohm's theory is no more hypothetical than Copenhagen's. Moving on, my opponent obviously does not understand the definition of what Bohm calls "self determined." What Bohm is referring to is that nothing could have evolved that base unit from itself; it is the base unit that all of matter is made up from. No other particle determines it's existence and its initial behaviors. This doesn't at all go against determinism -- as even determinism begs for a start movement -- but the states that follow after this initial movement are clearly determined (thus establishing determinism). Now, even if the base unit is indeterministic -- the only indeterministic thing in our universe -- this does not get rid of determinism. All this base unit provides is an initial movement that starts in motion a chain of events, like a chaotic system (which is 100% predictable if one knows the initial move). So, while my opponent brought up objections to Bohm's theory, keep in mind one clear, huge problem with Copenhagen's theory and that is that it clearly violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Violation of such a principle would lead the world to a completely indeterministic state (which doesn't imply free will either, as both determinism and indeterminism don't allow for free will). Additionally, even if my opponent is implying that his indeterministic quantum state carries up to the macro, then he too is making a "composition error." My opponent accused me of committing a composition fallacy: Illegitimately transfer a property of the parts of a thing to the whole. However, the composition error is not always illegitimate. It is common knowledge amongst logicians that some arguments from fallacies are sound. For example, atoms have mass (property of the part), and humans (the whole) are made of atoms. If humans are made of atoms, and atoms have mass, then humans have mass (and we all know this is true). So, humans have mass, and as you can see, sometimes fallacious arguments are sound. What can be considered fallacious in one setting may not be proven false in another. Moving on, Con brings up the Uncertainty Principle, but Einstein himself went head to head with this one saying that it was "a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality." He clearly defends this with the EPR Paradox. My source [1] and Wiki provide the simple version of the EPR Paradox described by physicist Brian Greene along with the complete mathematical formula verifying this paradox: "A positron and an electron are emitted from a source by pion decay, so that their spins are opposite; one particle's spin about any axis is the negative of the other's. Also, due to uncertainty, making a measurement of a particle's spin about one axis disturbs the particle so you now can't measure its spin about any other axis. Now say you measure the electron's spin about the X-axis. This automatically tells you the positron's spin about the X-axis. Since you've done the measurement without disturbing the positron in any way, it can't be that the positron 'only came to have that state when you measured it,' because you didn't measure it! It must have had that spin all along. Also you can now measure the positron's spin about the Y-axis. So it follows that the positron has had a definite spin about two axes – much more information than the positron is capable of holding, and a 'hidden variable' according to EPR." And the Uncertainty Principle is just that: ignorance and hasty judgment. ========== The Macrocosm ========== Con begins by stating, "Just because our actions are the direct result of our brain (this may or may not be true)..." which really blows my mind right off the bat. What do you mean that might not be true!? If I lift a pencil, do you think my arm is doing that on its own?! Or because my brain told it to via the nervous system? Anyway, let's just move right on to Con's point: He thinks that our consciousness has evolved so greatly that we are now able to rebel against previously deterministic causes. Okay first, this assertion proves that my opponent acknowledges deterministic causes. Second, you'll see that this point doesn't hold any weight because Con hasn't proven HOW we overcome deterministic causes. Moreover, it is not our CONSCIOUSNESS that disturbs atoms; it is any observation (distribution of energy) that can disturb movement of these atoms. If Con argues that consciousness does this, then consciousness is that distribution of energy (movement or cause) thus still validating determinism. Regarding the diet example, my opponent is completely ignorant to the reality that both choices (to eat or not eat) were NOT just as likely; obviously 1 choice is going to be made over the other. Every single choice we make is because 1 option has certain factors that lead us to choose it over the other. Even if we flip a coin, the factors that determine the result -- like the wind blowing, gravity or the amount of mass distribution in a particular setting -- are all out of our control due to the laws of nature. Now, Con has completely misunderstood and thereby misrepresented my position. I have explained why determinism is a sound and valid argument, and then explained why we can't predict everything even though the reality of determinism is quite obvious. I said that the human mind can not know the position of every single sub-atomic particle in the entire universe, or the position of each and its potential from prior states. Con turned around and asked how we can know that these unknowns are deterministic... but I've already explained why they are (see: entire debate!). Finally on this point, Con says that anything illogical happening defines determinism. Uh, what? This point proves absolutely NOTHING. If something illogical happens (whatever that is), all it means is that something determined led to that occurrence. Give me an example and in the final round I'll prove how. ====== Free Will ====== We certainly feel free, but what does that really prove? According to Sartre, he can re-evaluate his life and turn it around. This comes from a desire to do so, which comes from somewhere else... a chain. Again, his comment can be dismissed because he doesn't really say much that can't be easily refuted; his desire to change is just that - his desire - and where does that desire come from? Conflict, dislike of his current states that begs this next state of change. ======= Conclusion ======= Con has failed to adequately refute determinism. [1] http://math.ucr.edu...