Determinism is a scientific Law.
Can somebody please explain (show me) the evidence that led scientists to believe in the law of determinism?
Thankyou.
I was unaware that determinism is a scientific law.
However, the law that nothing is without a cause is a scientific law. This can be led to deterministic beliefs.
well for something to be a scientific law wouldnt it by definition have to be deterministic?
Determism isn’t a law, though. It’s a greater ideal than that.
How many of Newton’s so called “laws” are still considered as such?
Laws are man’s limits on nature.
So, no, it would have to obey the laws of thermodynamics, which is different.
I described determinism, as a scientific law.when I should have said the law that nothing is without a cause is a scientific law.
I appreciate you clearing that up for me.
I would appreciate it even more if you would answer the awkwardly put, but nevertheless obvious topic of the thread.
Thankyou.
I described determinism, as a scientific law.when I should have said the law that nothing is without a cause is a scientific law.
I appreciate you clearing that up for me.
I would appreciate it even more if you would answer the awkwardly put, but nevertheless obvious topic of the thread.
Thankyou.
It’s common sense, really. It’s the same reason some philosophers believe in determinism.
It’s awkward to say that anything in reality can be without cause. I exist in reality, therefore, I am just a complex form of causality. There is no such thing as true randomness, and if there was, all of science would be for naught, because the scientific method itself would break down.
It’s just a given, really.
Doesn’t sound too scientific to me.
Sounds like Science has a vested interest.
Science has its limits…
That’s why there’s philosophers and God…well…at least philosophers.
I do not think you should use determinism as another word for the cause and effect relationship of the physical properties of the universe. Sounds as if you are treating the law of cause and effect as a metaphysical primary and therefore conclude that everything in the universe is deterministic by law. The only primary in metaphysics is that existence exists, you should realize that in fact any thought process concerning determinism has to accept this primary.
Determinism in any variant is invalid however. It is true that the universe has a definite nature but everything cannot be determined at the perceptual level. Reasoning, the development of concepts and the hierarchy of knowledge are accomplished by choice and with effort. A given system, although perceived identically between two men, can result in different interpretations. Men reason and reason is potent. Man is distinct in this respect. One of the clearest destinctions is that his life is not ruled by determinism.
Theoretical theory haven’t been proven by experimental methods will not be called the Law of [Insert the word]. To be frankly speaking, I haven’t heard about Determinism 
There’s a difference between the practice of science, (experiments), and what science actually is itself.
When you look at some experiment, and something can’t be accounted for, you might think that it’s not necessarily “determined” and so on.
But when you talk about science per se, you’re not talking about a particular experiment, but about science itself.
Since you’re talking about science itself, you have to have some way to define it.
When you define something, for that definition to hold, it must contain an element of self reference, or be analytically true.
The only way to do that, is to assume some kind of identity, and accept some form of quantification.
Once you’ve assumed identity, and accepted some form of quantification, then you’ve pretty much got determinism.
Since every bit of knowledge that’s derived from experiments is derived from an experiment that’s derived from a method that’s the descriptor of science itself, then everything you end up talking about is scientific, and deterministic.
The End.
Check out de Retrocausality. It’s so retro. I don’t believe there is any such thing as a ‘cause’ because of a last succession of events. Correlation shouldn’t imply causation. Just because something happens before something else doesn’t mean that it was the most significant, or only driving force…there can be no last and final ultimate cause. In the words of Alan Watts, suppose for a second that we were the twinkle in our father’s eye before conception, that we wanted to be born…what then?
Cause and effect are fundamental premises to rational thought. It is useless to think in terms of the absolutely unpredictable or random. What purpose is served by thinking about an object that might become different in any way than you are thinking at any moment.
Determinism proposes that there is nothing in the universe that is independent of everything else. This is necessarily true because existence is the ability to have affect upon something else which means that all things must also be affected by something else. The end result is determinism.
Science presumes determinism because if it presumes that anything can occur without cause, that one thing would potentially effect all other things making nothing predictable at all and hence pointless to study. Schrodinger’s Cat was used to show that even on subnuclear levels, if we presume uncaused events, on the macroscopic scale, things would become unpredictable as well. “Quantum Mysticism”, which allows for the mind to cause subnuclear events and reverse causation (reverse determinism), is not Science.
Causality and determinism… what exactly can we determinate?
So, to say that they’re related is misleading. Determinism is believed (cause and effect) to be a universally governed law. On the other-hand, causality relates to same aspects of this. when both are talked about, they’re both pertaining to the “cause and effect” system. Although there should be a valid explanation on why it’s sensible to believe there’s a system of workings between that of a cause and effect. There should be examples of such believable principles. now we have abilities to cause but not obtain effect. As exampled: We think so therefore no action was not taken except for the initial process of thought. Now that we have thought what we have thought, we will have now the option whether to speak or to be confined to just thought. Now… As exampled: We think, then speak. We take effect, speaking, we say what we thought. Now If there’s something I did wrong please tell me, so that I know. This subject is really baffling. To think there natural principles, in which, for every cause there’s an effect in blundering. In different ways and in different circumstances there are plausible proofs that prove (cause and effect’s) it’s validity for such credibility. My favorably admired philosopher Aristotle was a brilliant thinker to think-up “A builder building a house, this single event can be analyzed into the builder building (cause) and the house being built (effect).” validates some lawful evidence for physical apprehensions. I see it as though he talked about physical formidable action specifically adhering to personal, physicality, taking action. Once done with action there’s an effect to take place after words. There’s something in this that tells different meaning. When we get carried away talking about cause and effect. We think of it as physically other then superstitiously. Karma in fact is of the cause and effect law in differently provided theories.
I ran into this by accident here. I thought I’d share.
I am de-terminator
Vis out mee za puny human race vould be crushed by ze awsome power of my biceps and pectoral muscles
Vis out knoweeng every-sing zear iz to know you vill alwayz be left in ze doubt about ze conziztenzey of cauzation
Puny humans…
Nothing is scientific. Science is a lame child trying to be God. Determinism exist as long as it can exist and it has nothing to do with formulas and maths.
Many reasonable people will grant Cause. Not I. Hume showed us that it is virtually impossible to prove Causality. In quantum Mechanics, as I understand it, we can only say that P probably causes Q.
But can we actually determine the effect of the cause? This is what determinism is all about. Certainly not now. The current models including the marco Newtonian models do not allow us to come to that conclusion.
The fallacy with causality is that there is an assumed gap between cause and effect.
There is not. Reality is a dynamic process moving non-linearly towards a state of completion which is unreachable. We freeze observed phenomena into artificial static concepts, like “thingness”, for the purpose of comparison and reference.
To assume that reality has a cause, is to assume that it conforms to the conventions of language.
Or, to assert ridiculous concepts like ex nihilo or Causa Sui, which also are derived from language.