Fatalism

Many thanks to CON for taking up the debate. As this is the final round, I will wrap up with some refutations and then a simple summary.Quantum IndeterminismCON's basic premise here is that humans are unable to explain the behavior of certain thinngs (i.e. the cause of probability distributions of quantum particles).I noted that these things will function and exist regardless of the human ability to explain them. They will hold whatever properties they hold regardless of human of human knowledge.To elaborate on this notion, I gave the example of humans' previous beliefs on elements that they are unable to explain.CON attacks the examples as depicting non-scientific humans. This is where CON's refutation crumbles. The inability to explain thingswith science doesn't change the premise of my counter to Quantum Indeterminism.It doesn't matter that we can't see beyond quarks. It doesn't matter that we don't have machines to measure all the properties of gluon. Science isn't perfect. It is limited in many ways.Scientific imperfection notwithstanding, it still holds that all particles contain all the properties that they contain. These properties are preset to act in certain ways.Once we believed protons to be the mobile particle within electric currents. As our capacity to observe subatomic particles increased, so did our understanding. Now we know that it is in fact the electrons that move within wires and facilitate current. Not protons.Perhaps in the future we will be able to better record and observe the strangeness of the latest subatomic mysteries (i.e. quarks). Perhaps in the future we will be able to determine how the probability distributions of quantum particles occur. Perhaps not. What matters is that they do occur. Our understanding is irrelevant.Substance Dualism"if a non-deterministic mind substance exists, then it does not matter if every particle in existence is deterministic" - CONFirst, the statement presumes that the mind is non-deterministic. Basically my opponent is saying: "If fatalism doesn't apply to the mind, then fatalism doesn't exist."The core of CON's refutation under the title of substance dualism begs the question of its own validity.As with my refutation of quantum indeterminism, our understanding of the mind is irrelevant when it comes to whether something exists or not. If it exists, it exists. If it doesn't, it doesn't. We might be able to determine its existence. We might not. I understand what CON is saying, but allow me to better clarify my point from the previous round. There is no reason to believe that qualia is non-physical. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that it doesn't follow deterministic properties.What matters is that there is both tautological and inductive evidence that show that all things follow preset patterns, even things we don't understand yet.Perhaps in the future we will be able to examine the properties of qualia. Perhaps not. It matters not.(Also note that my opponent conflates determinism with fatalism; the corollary of determinism may be drawn from the principle of fatalism, but they are not the same.)SummaryIt appears my proof is sound. My opponent refutes only on grounds of applicability and lack of knowledge (human fallibility). Otherwise, it asserts that the mind is non-deterministic and concludes that fatalistic properties don't apply - which is circular reasoning. I believe I've successfully addressed CON's rebuttals.Thank you for taking up this debate, Insignifica. I've learned some things, and I hope you have too. Wherever fate decides to take you, I wish you the best of it.Adieu.