Talk:Determinism

message: Metaphysical libertarians believe in free will and that individuals should be able to make their own choices without external constraints. As a result, they often view freedom and liberty as central values in their philosophy.
However, different people may have different understandings of what these terms mean. For metaphysical libertarians, freedom and liberty may be tightly linked to their belief in free will and individual autonomy. They may view any external constraints on an individual's actions or choices as an infringement on their freedom and liberty.
Therefore, to ensure that these concepts align with their philosophical beliefs, metaphysical libertarians may seek to control the meaning of the words "freedom" and "liberty." They may argue that the common usage of these terms does not accurately capture their specific philosophical views and may therefore insist on defining these terms in a way that aligns with their beliefs.
Overall, the desire to control the meaning of these words is likely rooted in the deep-seated belief that freedom and liberty are fundamental to their worldview and that any deviations from their understanding of these concepts would be a threat to their philosophical beliefs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edunoramus (talk • contribs) 16:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preamble for the Metaphysical Libertarians

message: To argue that determinism negates morality is akin to arguing that determinism negates sex. Determinism can present no argument as to why we should or shouldn't feel emotionally compelled to behave in a certain way, it only points out that our feeling compelled to behave in any way is the result of heredity and environment and not "free will". This renders moral responsibility meaningless but not morality itself. The idea of morality being meaningful or meaningless is a value judgement and a question for philosophers, not scientists or 'logic'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.57.17 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Determinism and ethics

message: Here's a mind experiment that i came up with, which i believe is better suited to proving Determinism than Laplace's demon:
We make two exact clones of a person- let it be "A" and "B". We send the exact signals through their 5 senses for a long period of time- a few years, maybe. We subject them to exact physical conditions such as temperature humidity, etc all this while. Now, when this is being done...or to make it an easier thing to imagine: if we send some signals through their senses that provoke a reaction- the reaction from both the samples will be the same. 
The basic message i tend to convey is this- there is absolutely nothing magical that happens in this world. It is only rational that every event is the only possible scientifically compatible consequence of previous events. It is perfectly rational.Mehfoos (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A mind experiment

message: The current 1st para is flawed in two ways;
Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. No wholly random, spontaneous, mysterious, or miraculous events occur. The principal consequence of deterministic philosophy is that free will (except as defined in strict compatibilism) becomes an illusion; this philosophical belief is known as hard determinism. In contrast to determinism is libertarianism, which is the doctrine that voluntary actions are caused by a self free from prior causation; and indeterminism which is the theory that some or all events are not completely determined.
The passage in bold is somewhat WK:POV and also dealt with much better under the "nature of determinism" section.
It also fails to clarify the difference between determinism and fatalism. The question of the relationship between determinism and predictability should also be dealt with.1Z 17:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph. 

message: The article says:
"(2) There is no event A0 prior to which there was no other event, which means that we are presented with an infinite series of causally related events, which is itself an event, and yet there is no cause for this infinite series of events."
This is seriously misleading. An "infinite series of causally related events" is not "itself an event". This is senseless because in reality an infinite group of events would have no limits (no start, no end). One can always "add" one more event into the series. [EPLeite 01:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement fails to take into account the nature of an infinite series as truly infinite, instead treating it as a real number. RealityRipple (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The phrasing fails to take into account the true nature of infinity and instead treats it as a "number" which has to have cause or begginning, when that has no reason to be the case. The "infinite number of yesterdays" don't outlaw the possibility of a today. It is a form of the problem of the halfs (when an arrow to reach to it's destination must first travel half of it's path, and then -or before- half of that half, etc.) but phrased into the form of a logical fallacy (because the arrow does reach it's destination). Therefore in my opinion it should be contested with a response as those said in here or removed altogether. Nobody is contesting it, and the statement plus the whole "first cause" section is completely uncited (besides the quantum part, but at least that one is mostly scientific unlike the other one that is theological). --190.174.64.243 (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A version  of this paaradox was presented by Kant, so it has some provenance.  But I don't find it very convincing: it seems to disappear if you label "now" as 0, 1 second ago as -1 and so on. 1Z (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

text: It's ORish and dubious logic, I think it should go. 1Z (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because of consensus and lack of opposition, I have removed the most OR statement and added citemarks to the section. --190.174.112.212 (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Cause 

message: Not every emergentist cognitive scientist defends determinism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.4.89 (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV on Cognitive Sciences 

message: Huge mess that needs immediate attention. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and rewrite 

message: Wow, this page was way too long so I've created some archives.  If you want restart an archived discussion, please do not edit the archive but start a new section on the current talk page.  Astronaut (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: There should perhaps be a short mention on the debate of Free will in theology, which is largely related to the question of determinism. ADM (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Free will in theology

message: I today deleted this section cause it was not cited an in my opinion is misleading:
::By now we not only see that we are unable to describe a very large piece of reality exactly but we also moved from direct to statistical formulations of physical laws. Many of today's scientists still understand physical laws as rules that drive the world and believe there must be some most basic rules all the others are derived from, but this view is much weaker now than in Newton's era.  
* You have to present the science that states that there are weaker believe in determinism now, rather than in Newtons era. 
* You have to discuss the part of reality that we cannot describe exactly. What effect does this have on the life as such. The most of this is annulled on molecular level.
* Stephen Hawking thinks that there also may be room for determinism within Quantum_mechanics:
::“These quantum theories are deterministic in the sense that they give laws for the evolution of the wave with time. Thus if one knows the wave at one time, one can calculate it at any other time. The unpredictable, random element comes in only when we try to interpret the wave in terms of the positions and velocities of particles. But maybe this is our mistake: maybe there are no positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability.” 
:::(A Brief History Of Time by Hawking)
-- Hogne (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted section 

message: This article seriously needs rewriting. First of all, determinism and causality are two wholly separate issues and should not be treated as being the same thing. Second, we need proper definitions of what we mean by determinism before we launch into all the "Free Will" stuff. I suggest someone with the time and the motivation read John Earman's Primer on Determinism and then rewrite the begining of this article so that it isn't quite so philosophically naive and misleading.Incompetnce (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Philosophy 

message: Hi Snalwimba. Christof Koch is not "speculation presented as fact".  Nor for that matter is Polkinghorne. There seems to have been a real change in attitudes in the last few years, and I think you would struggle to find a first-rate neuroscientist who now claimed that the brain was deterministic. If so, please add the refs. NBeale (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat like what critics of Questions of Truth contend, this section is a moulinex of two fields, Quantum indeterminacy and Biological determinism creating a funny grey goo. It may sell but it ain't WP and there is no need for that section to be there at all. If by Determinism in biology we mean Biological determinism then we link to that but this article is about the philosophy not the mechanics. It is plainly stated elsewhere in say Genetic determinism that few go with strong Biological determinism - it is refer to as a strawman (we cite "The Myth of Genetic Determinism" in A Devil's Chaplain by you-know-whom). This section on Determinism and biology is superfluous and insufficiently nuanced to correctly reflect the material. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that the article on biological determinism is in terrible shape and needs a lot of work to make it worthwhile, which I for one certainly don't have time to do.  The view that the brain is non-deterministic which is now mainstream was not at all so a few years ago, indeed much of the discussion of freewill is about "compatbilism" which is now a dead letter.  This is of course different from "it's all in the genes" or "it's all in the environment" which I agree are now straw men. The idea of the deterministic brain is still quite widespread amongst non-specialists. NBeale (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not forget that a minority of physicists subscribe to hidden variables that (conceivably) may yet throw determinism back into the mix.  I'm also a little uneasy that QoT is being cited here as an authority on this topic by (surprise, surprise) an authority on QoT.  Last I read, this source's treatment of the subject was being roundly spanked.  Surely we can find references to support this (ostensibly) widely-held view in the primary scientific literature rather than the deep gray?  --PLUMBAGO 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Grayling knows nothing about physics. Polkinghorne may be said to be parti pris although QoT is a WP:RS.  But Koch is completely mainstream.  Also is hidden variables bring back determinism this would apply to everything, not just the brain. The majority view as late as the 1990s was that indeterminism applied at the quantum scale but not at the neuron scale. I have another ref as well which I'll add, and I'm sure there are more. NBeale (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The biological question cannot be settled when the physical question is not, and it is not. I am toning down the hype in the addition. 1Z (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Polkinghorne is not a biologist and QoT is a semi-theological work, not primary mainstream science. I'm pulling the ref. 1Z (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The new reference (Lewis & MacGregor, 2006) is a much better source.  Good find.  It's not only primary literature, but it's also more conservative and even-handed in its references to chaos and quantum indeterminism.  It might be better to source a statement from this than use the rather over-reaching one of Koch's that is currently in the article.  Although a deterministic, neorealist interpretation of QM is not much favoured, Koch's statement precludes it out of hand.  I would imagine that he's a lot more cautious in a formal scientific publication rather than a book.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Hmmm.  While Koch is a neurobiologist, I'd much prefer some writing from him that was from a peer-reviewed publication instead of a book, largely for the reason I mention above (he may, of course, say the same thing there, but I expect more cautious utterances).  And as much as Polkinghorne is an expert on QM, it's not obvious that this translates into expertise in the biological determinism discussed here.  The Lewis & MacGregor source seems better given (a) it's a paper and not a book, and (b) the background of its authors is much closer to the topic at hand.  If Polkinghorne has published on this topic in the scientific literature, then that would be a more appropriate source than QoT.  --PLUMBAGO 14:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not suggesting Polk instead of L&M 2006 but I think it should stand alongside. Again, although not formally "peer reviewed" QoT carries endorsements from Nobel Laureates Hewish and Phillips and NIH Director Francis Collins (all of whom read it beforehand!) and it is highly unlikely that L&M got a similar level of scrutiny. NBeale (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  I forgot about all this.  Sorry.  Anyway, it really doesn't matter who "reviewed" QoT before its publication — the point remains that QoT is primarily a book with a strong theological core, one that ranges widely over science topics instead of being a specific treatment of biological determinism, and one whose authors are experts in subjects other than biology.  If QoT is summarising a scientific viewpoint that is expressed more fully elsewhere, ideally within the scientific literature (since this is a science article), then these other sources should be used instead.  QoT, at least judging from its website and blurb, is not at all an obvious source for this topic.  Were the article section a meditation on determinism and theology (as a lower section is) then, yes, it would be a good source.  But this section focuses on science, so a book whose main motivation lies in theology (and, more specifically, one flavour of this), is not going to be a good source.  1Z, and [[User:Snal
wibma|Snalwibma]] before him, were right to favour more relevant sources.  And I'd still prefer something from Koch that's from a more staid publication too (but can't find anything).  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 11:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: What possible relevance lies in the fact that several distinguished people agreed to "endorse" QoT? Such argument from authority has no bearing on the (ir)relevance of a book about religion and science in a section of the article that is concerned with biological determinism. As Plumbago says, it is very far from an obvious source on the topic, and its insertion here looks like some pretty desperate self-citation! Especially now that there is a source from something much more suitable (even though not perfect), the QoT reference should be deleted. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Peer review consists essentially of getting people to look at a paper and "endorse" it or otherwise. And this is an article about philosophy - not a scientific paper about biology.  As for "desperate self-citation" Koch has joined a collaboration based on the work in Appendix B of QoT which is how I have a copy of his Chapter. NBeale (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section of the article in question is about science. 1Z (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Well somebody has an interestign interpetation of "absence of objections". 1Z (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All these objections arrived after I had noted the "absence of objections". Ah well :-) NBeale (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: It is clearly the case that several of the objections made above were made before your re-insertion. 1Z (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views of Koch, Polkinghorne et al. 

message: This section is almost completely unrefed and reads like OR. I have put in some fact tags, straightened out some dubious wording and removed the assertion that "That is, the quantum mechanical problem can always be solved to a given accuracy with a large enough computer of predetermined precision, while the classical problem may require arbitrarily high precision, depending on the details of the motion." which may or may not be true in a very restricted sense with the 3 body problem, but is certainly not true in general and would need some v good refs. But the whole section needs lots of work. NBeale (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum Mechanics 

message: If we could predict what is going to happen in the future right now, then, isn't just another molecular or energy change that affects the future just like neurochemicals in our brain? But in fact, nothing has changed due to energy keeps moving forward and time keeps moving forward. Unless you paused time got out of the system like god and then meddled with a few things and came back and unpaused time.
If it is inside the framework of the Determinism theory, nothing can be changed. It's just an illusion of free will.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.218.15.159 (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Predictions,maybe not. 

message: The lengthy opening paragraph under Varieties combined and confused different determinisms in other Wikipedia entries. They now have separate paragraphs.
Here is the original version in case we want to recover some material to other sections.
Causal (or nomological) determinism is the thesis that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. Such determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon. Imagine an entity that knows all facts about the past and the present, and knows all natural laws that govern the universe. Such an entity might be able to use this knowledge to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail.Suppes, P., 1993, “The Transcendental Character of Determinism,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 18: 242–257. Simon-Pierre Laplace's theory is generally referred to as "scientific determinism" and predicated on the supposition that all events have a cause and effect and the precise combination of events at a particular time engender a particular outcome. This 
causal determinism has a direct relationship with predictability. Perfect predictability implies strict determinism, but lack of predictability does not necessarily imply lack of determinism. Limitations on predictability could alternatively be caused by factors such as a lack of information or excessive complexity. An example of this could be found by looking at a bomb dropping from the air. Through mathematics, we can predict the time the bomb will take to reach the ground, and we also know what will happen once the bomb explodes. Any small errors in prediction might arise from our not measuring some factors, such as puffs of wind or variations in air temperature along the bomb's path.
Cmsreview (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating Necessitarianism from Causal, Physical, and Mechanical Determinism 

message: We can only think of God from a human point of view. If God knows the end from the beginning he knows a person`s life. But that person still has free will and a choice whether to choose him or not. 
It`s an example of if you were given a chance to do something you really wanted and you took it and you went through the steps. and then you think later well, what would have happened to me if I didn`t take this chance? What would`ve been different? Would I have ended up somewhere completely different? But, at the same time you never have regrets in life, because you choose what you want and live with those choices. I believe after you have done something bad and you serve your time it should be dropped because, it was the past and you were already punished for what you did or didn`t do. Are there still consequences? Should there be consequences?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.234.155 (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determinist 

message: i made a small edit to fatalism, adding "and temporally unstable airplane engines" after miracles. if anyone can say how being hit by an airplane engine falling from the sky (or being hit by an airplane engine falling from a position that that airplane is not yet in - hence the temporal instability...watch the movie) is not fatalistic, or more or less relevant than miracles, then i'd be happy to hear it. for the bewildered, it's a donnie darko reference.
p.s. on a like note, i stopped myself from adding "or a deranged plot" at the end of the proceeding predictability section
58.7.105.23 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  fatalism for lols 

message: I read through the entire determinism page recently and (being a determinist) found the treatment fragmented. The goal of my re-writing has been to make the page more enjoyable and clear. I realize I have made many edits, but I am ready to discuss (and in some cases) every decision I have made.
I should also point out that I plan to tackle the "implications" section next chance I get (it needs way more links to moral viewpoints). -Tesseract2 (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many changes 

message: User:R'n'B added a {dn} tag to the lede, and I'm wondering what he thinks needs disambiguating. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Actually, this article has received a lot of editing since that January tag (not the least of which include my substantial re-writes in recent months). I will remove that tag for now, but certainly any more recent tags/criticisms may be made. -Tesseract2 (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  What needs disambiguating is the link to state, which I realize may have been hard to figure out since I put the tag immediately following that link. :-)  What meaning of state is intended?  If there is no intention to direct the reader to one of the relevant articles listed on the disambiguation page state, then both the link and the template should be removed.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  {dn} 

message: The sentence "The argument called indeterminism (otherwise "nondeterminism") negates causality as a factor and contradicts deterministic argument" was changed to "The argument called indeterminism (otherwise "nondeterminism") negates causality as a factor and opposes the deterministic argument" in that "contradicts" appeared a weasel word suggesting that indeterminism shows a flaw in determinism, yet does not keep this balanced in that determinism can show a flaw in indeterminism also. The way the sentence appeared, just seemed slightly inappropriate for a balanced approach.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.175.199 (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight alteration 

message: Is there any reason for me to believe that hidden variables and determinism in QM are anything more than a way for an omniscient deity to stay "king of the hill"? If so, please point that out in a way that those of us who are not omniscient can readily understand. The current arguments are notable for dying off mid-thought, like a poisoned cat. 
"On the macro scale it can matter very much whether a bullet arrives at a specific point at a specific time; there are analogous quantum events that have macro- as well as quantum-level consequences. It is easy to contrive situations in which the arrival of an electron at a screen at a certain point and time would trigger one event and its arrival at another point would trigger an entirely different event. (See Schrödinger's cat.)" So what? An S. box is assembled by persons, and has whatever consequences it has by human design. The word "contrive" here is just a little too accurate. For natural occurrences in which the outcomes have not been contrived by human efforts, connecting probabilistic causes to subsequent effects, and then speculating on counter-factual "couldabins" is just a good way to waste time when bored. (Oops! Sorry if that was too much truth there!) -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determinism and Deism 

message: I am really trying hard not to edit this article, so please help me avoid it! But the top level lede elements only refer to philosophical issues, and a search for the words science and physics reveals them to be way down in a section. The term Statistical mechanics does not appear in the article! Hello?  And the only reference for support of determinism is the Einstein Bohr letter? And the term Butterfly effect is not even mentioned. Hello? Hello? And Heisenberg is mentioned in passing just once? Overall, I am very unhappy with the scientific aspects of this article, but do not want to edit it - it will take serious work to fix it. But let the reader be warned, and hopefully those who edit here will begin to fix it in time. At the very least the lede should mention science/physics, etc. History2007 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  So far as I'm concerned, the Bell test experiments have proved that Classical Determinism has been scientifically falsified.  Period!  And "chaos" will always exist because of the fundamental impossibility of making measurements past the level of Quantum Uncertainty.  While Probabilities can be very accurate, they will never equate with the Certainty associated with Classical Determinism.  Also, it is known that some biological structures are fine enough to be directly affected by Quantum Uncertainty --Evolution can find an advantage in such things, if a critter being chased by a predator can tap into the foundational randomness of the Universe to jump in unpredictable-even-in-theory ways.  And, once such a mechanism for survival begins to exist, Evolution can play with it until Free Will begins to exist.  It is both ironic and funny that various people have opposed the idea of Quantum Uncertainty, while simultaneously supporting the idea of Free Will.  But since it is the former that allows the latter to exist, I have no sympathy for them! V (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  So your conception of free will is such that the source of it could be random?50.147.26.108 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I (some random person) did my best! If you guys/girls know more about quantum mechanics than my idle interest, let me know. I especially need input in the places where I left "clarification needed"-Tesseract2(talk) 04:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest reading Loopholes in Bell test experiments. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

text:  You have confused a lack of understanding ('"chaos" will always exist because of the fundamental impossibility of making measurements past the level of Quantum Uncertainty', etc) with law - the theory speculates that this isn't possible, but that doesn't mean it's fundamentally impossible. Furthermore, Evolution will always only find solutions that are 'good enough'. That is the kind of search algorithm it essentially is. Nothing says that the "randomness" we're seeing isn't pseudorandom, seeded by a variable we haven't seen yet. Assuming chaos exists because we currently lack understanding (or assuming that it doesn't exist because the opposite is equally true) is not solid logical footing. 77.166.198.73 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific issues and article quality

message: Hi! This is about the introduction.
We cant talk about "the beginning of the universe" anymore. Don't know what else could be said.-User talk:Twofeetofclay 1 August 2011 (UTC)
:Cosmogony?? -Tesseract2(talk) 16:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: About the introduction

message: I had never heard of a "determinist" ideology until reading this article. And if there really is some strange religion using the term, why does deterministic also redirect here?
I have always understood deterministic to mean that a closed system's entire state is predictable. Meaning that we understand the relation between information considered part of the system.
The article kind of touches on that but then starts talking about some strange ideology. Also: It continuously refers to time as though all state was relative to time. Which is an oversimplification and just commonly observed in day-to-day life. A system could be deterministic and have no time. In electronic circuits time is often not considered a part of the paradigm because electrons move fast enough that we don't usually notice the delay between state changes. In fact, we typically dub something "realtime" as an exception to that.  173.228.31.160 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where you're getting off with "ideology" and "religion", but determinism as a concept long predates modern science and as such has a large history outside of its use in contemporary physics. This article is about determinism in its broadest philosophical sense (or rather, in its many senses, both historical and contemporary), and so it the proper primary topic for the name "Determinism" simpliciter. As you've found, there are other articles about more specific senses of determinism, and they are (or should be if they're not) linked from this article's subsections. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is complete nonsense and doesn't explain determinism 

message: Should be section discussing moral impications  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morality 

message: Most psychologists appear to believe that free will is an illusion and after-justification, but metastudies by Kurt Fischer, Christina Hinton and others at "Mind, Brain and Education" have linked the prevalence of extreme recoveries after brain damage (that are unexplainable by established neurological and psychological theories) to unusually tolerant social environments. This can be explained by the model that social pressure to justify one's actions leads to justifications that paralyze an underlying ability of practically unlimited self-correction. This is explained in greater detail on the pages "Moderating the free will debate" and "Brain" on Pure science Wiki, a wiki devoted to the scientific method unaffected by academic prestige.
95.209.8.118 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolerant environments free will. 

message: This section males no connection with the subject of determinism, and further, has nothing to do with its header, Cause and effect. It should be rewritten to make it pertinent, or removed. Brews ohare (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with that and a good deletion, but be careful "Physics broadly construed" is how your topic ban is phrased.  ----Snowded TALK 16:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on cause and effect 

message: In the article Clockwork universe theory there is text which in my opinion properly belongs to this article, since it has to do with present-day determinism rather than with centuries-old mechanical world view. Please mind that there is a discussion about it going on at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Clockwork universe theory. The gist of the discussion is on whether science (especially quantum mechanics) has refuted determinism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clockwork universe theory 

message: Newtonian physics is not a deterministic theory; it has been proved false for more than 2 decades. One simple example is the "dome". There are other examples, such as "space invaders". I am far from qualified to edit the page, however, I urge someone more qualified to correct it: even though many people believed (and still believe) that Classical Physics is deterministic, such proposition is false, and western philosophers and scientists who based their belief of determinism on classical physics were wrong (of course that is a matter of adjusting the theory).80.22.192.23 (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Physics (Newtonian) is not a deterministic theory 

message: Libertarianism does not say that pshysical deteminism is false nor that "free will" in the sense meant here is possible.</br>
Libertarisniam means that free will in sense of free of coercion can and should exist. That's all!</br>
Please correct that picture and correct the article.
79.112.21.245 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly misleading mistake 

message: The key problem with Quantum Theory's questioning of determinism is the simple fact that where QT looks at an event and sees happenings that appear to have no cause, it assumes that they are causeless - positing a quasi-supernatural "god of the gaps" which it calls "randomness" when a more honest response would simply be "we don't know what happens there". 188.31.3.152 (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: First, WP:NOTAFORUM. Second, QM says nothing like that, see e.g. Interpretations of quantum mechanics#Comparison of interpretations. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem with Quantum theory 

message: The section "Modern scientific perspective" should consist a reference to general relativity and a view suggested by it, that past, present and future are equally real, the issues of which for example an Eternalism article talks about.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.69.99.111 (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to general relativity 

message: The second paragraph in the section “Quantum realm” is way below the standards of an encyclopedia. Much sounds like beating around the bush and some is misleading. For example: All science arises from measurement, so there is nothing significant about quantum mechanics also arising from measurement. The fact that quantum mechanics “determines probabilities” does not make quantum mechanics in any way deterministic; after all probability theory determines probabilities, but from this it does not follow that probability theory is about deterministic systems. The fact that some quantum phenomena are deterministic (“ the probability of finding the particles in that path is one”) is irrelevant too; if there are non-deterministic events in a system then this system is non-deterministic - not if there are deterministic events in a system then this system is deterministic. That quantum physics has found many applications such as in building computers is also misleading. In fact computer designers have to work hard in order to avoid quantum effects causing computers to malfunction by rendering their functioning non-deterministic. Dianelos (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing content re quantum physics 

message: Sjö
why you removed my editing about Goodman?
 2de0 (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sjö remove Charles Goodman  

message: The content of this section appears to be original research, and the style of writing is highly opinionated. 
Phrases like "absurdities," and "To forget this is a colossal error." need to be reworded or removed. 
Most egregious is: "These theories suggest that a deeper understanding of the theory underlying quantum mechanics shows the universe is indeed non-deterministic at a fundamental level." 
Determinism is a heavily debated topic and this section of the article reads like an argument (or, more accurately, an assertion) in favor of one side. It has been contested since November 2017 and August 2018. I suggest it be removed entirely, as it doesn't contribute significantly to the article's content.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.201.131 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other matters of quantum determinism" should be cited or removed 

message: I would do it myself, but I do not feel qualified, since I have no expertise in philosophy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.244.234 (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Superdeterminism]] should be referenced and given a short introduction in this article 

message: 1. distinction:
Evolutionary Natural Determinism, which deals with issues such as natural disasters, epidemics, tectonic plate - or climate changes, and their impact on the deterministic determination of plant and animal species.
Instinctive Natural Determinism, in which genes and behavior determine the deterministic course of events.
2. counterparts:
With Evolutionary Natural Determinism we can state that for many things man has overcome determinism, so far. Think of: industrialized agriculture, medicines, energy supply, building dams, ...
With Instinctive Natural Determinism it depends on the capacity of the being to be able to understand his genes and behavior in order to be able to overcome the deterministic course of his life with a Free Will. Think of: Critical Thinking versus Emotional Thinking.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:C04:7900:59B3:B7BD:1EE1:3404 (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural Determinism 

message: That some animals, perhaps including human beings, are capable of smelling the difference between deuterated and undeuterated versions of the same molecule at equivalent partial pressures seems to have implications for the role of quantum processes in nervous systems, and hence, if one subscribes to a truly nondeterministic quantum mechanics, for the role of nondeterministic processes in the biological systems that govern behavior.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmichaelragan (talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't. It means that their chemical reactivity is different, and that's all. To suppose that there is some function behind our ability to smell a particular molecule is absurd. We can smell many molecules that never existed during human evolution.134.131.33.4 (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of smell research 

message: Provide more information about Determinism and hope people get the right conceptual about Determinism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainJoseph (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick update 

message: :Where to begin? The article is: 
*1)- marked as possibly containing WP:original research (2010), 
*2)- unsourced statements (2014 & 2022), 
*3)- "minor POV problems" (Dec 2022),
*4)- style issues (April 2022) and,
*5)- possibly contains weasel-worded phrases (Dec 2022)
:Fails multiple areas of the B-class criteria. Much more and it will be a net negative. --  Otr500 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article issues and classification

message: :There are seven entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: . --  Otr500 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: They are the same. I don't know how to fix such things 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:BCAF:5E86:D00F:D0AE (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  References #27 & #75 

message: Links to Wikipedia article, not the relevant paper. That article has a similar reference by Vaidman, but for 2018 not 2002. I'm not sure to which paper #29 is referring. 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:BCAF:5E86:D00F:D0AE (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference #29 

message: This comment is with regard to the following line as well as its reference—which seems to be this paper (see above section, 'Reference #29' on this Talk page). "This theory is sometimes described with the example of agent based choices but more involved models argue that recursive causal splitting occurs with all particle wave functions at play."
Firstly, "is sometimes" is more weasel-wordy than saying by whom specifically. But, more importantly, I couldn't find any terms related to recursion in the paper. So, even as a well educated reader, I have no idea what is meant by this phrase. How then is this supposed to help teach anyone? Please elucidate, rewrite, or remove. 2604:2D80:DE09:D400:1C0:793:75E5:9481 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "recursive causal splitting"