3 ms·

> No, it's starting from a phenomena and providing a possible hypothesis for why that phenomena is occurring. This is explaining an existing, untested hypothesi

> No, it's starting from a phenomena and providing a possible hypothesis for why that phenomena is occurring. This is explaining an existing, untested hypothesis. There is no hypothesis presented, merely that there are deterministic factors that we don't know of. That's not a hypothesis. > No, there isn't, at least not as far as I know. The experimental evidence I'm aware of shows that we cannot, with current measurements, model the phenomena on a quantum scale, except probablistically. It does not show that there isn't any determinism, it only shows that, with current techniques, we don't have access to the determinism (if it exists). I think you are presenting a semantics argument that has little value. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation > the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology Science doesn't work backwards from conclusions. If you think that there is determinism, there needs to be a testable theory that explains what these deterministic factors are. Like I said, we can simply attribute this supposed determinism to invisible unicorns and it'd be an equally valid explanation.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> There is no hypothesis presented, merely that there are deterministic factors that we don't know of. That's not a hypothesis. How is that not a hypothesis? How is it any less valid a hypothesis than "it occurs randomly"? > Science doesn't work backwards from conclusions. And neither does the article. > If you think that there is determinism, there needs to be a testable theory that explains what these deterministic factors are. If you think that there is randomness, that is inherently not a testable hypothesis (nor is it a theory: please do not use "hypothesis" and "theory" as if they are interchangeable--in scientific discussion they are not interchangeable terms). I don't think that there is determinism: that would be a conclusion. I think it's possible that there is determinism. That's a hypothesis. I also think it's possible that there is not determinism. That's also a hypothesis. Given current technology, I don't think we have the means to test either hypothesis. I'll also point out that randomness is inherently untestable. > Like I said, we can simply attribute this supposed determinism to invisible unicorns and it'd be an equally valid explanation. This is also a valid argument against inherent randomness. As an atheist with a good amount of atheist reading under my belt, I am quite familiar with this argument, and in general agree with it when applied to i.e. God. The problem in this case is that BOTH hypotheses are untestable: you cannot test whether the underlying mechanism is random OR deterministic. Here's a thought experiment for you: I've generated the following sequence of numbers: 2385355152251270793561664145629697283988594371684899475531490573 2823786386194927922215110087335052193747272459669030480603069080 8421209646110735430316730270075597685536122026199316753888263136 8982777911253921734120343767097551341142139450682090146370225695 I generated this sequence of numbers via a widely-used secure pseudorandom generator, so they are not random. But if I didn't tell you that, you'd have no idea, and these pseudorandom generators are time-tested to be very hard to distinguish from random numbers if you don't know the seed (otherwise you'd be able to break a lot of modern encryption). So by your logic, since you can't tell me what the deterministic factors are, you can only conclude that the numbers are truly random. But that's wrong, the numbers aren't random. EDIT: This was downvoted faster than anyone can read, I'd wager.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > How is that not a hypothesis? It makes no falsifiable predictions, therefore, it's speculation, not a hypothesis.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    Would you care to answer the question directly after the one you answered? Attributing quantum phenomena to randomness also makes no falsifiable predictions. In fact, asserting quantum phenomena are caused by pure randomness is equivalent the assertion that no prediction is possible.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Attributing quantum phenomena to randomness also makes no falsifiable predictions. “Any research effort will find no deterministic explanation” is, I suppose, falsifiable, but mostly I agree; randomness as explanation is the absence of an explanatory hypothesis, not a substantial hypothesis.
      - kerkeslager 7y ago
        My thinking on this is basically, hypotheses don't have to be falsifiable, but they aren't very useful if they aren't, because you can't design an experiment to test them. Neither the determinism nor nondeterminism hypotheses are falsifiable, so there's no reason to prefer one over the other right now. However, non-determinism will never be falsifiable, whereas determinism is only currently non-falsifiable because a plausible, testable mechanism has not yet been hypothesized. So while there's no reason to favor determinism as something we believe, there's reason to favor it in research, because research has the potential to yield further information.

kerkeslager 7y ago

> There is no hypothesis presented, merely that there are deterministic factors that we don't know of. That's not a hypothesis. How is that not a hypothesis? How is it any less valid a hypothesis than "it occurs randomly"? > Science doesn't work backwards from conclusions. And neither does the article. > If you think that there is determinism, there needs to be a testable theory that explains what these deterministic factors are. If you think that there is randomness, that is inherently not a testable hypothesis (nor is it a theory: please do not use "hypothesis" and "theory" as if they are interchangeable--in scientific discussion they are not interchangeable terms). I don't think that there is determinism: that would be a conclusion. I think it's possible that there is determinism. That's a hypothesis. I also think it's possible that there is not determinism. That's also a hypothesis. Given current technology, I don't think we have the means to test either hypothesis. I'll also point out that randomness is inherently untestable. > Like I said, we can simply attribute this supposed determinism to invisible unicorns and it'd be an equally valid explanation. This is also a valid argument against inherent randomness. As an atheist with a good amount of atheist reading under my belt, I am quite familiar with this argument, and in general agree with it when applied to i.e. God. The problem in this case is that BOTH hypotheses are untestable: you cannot test whether the underlying mechanism is random OR deterministic. Here's a thought experiment for you: I've generated the following sequence of numbers: 2385355152251270793561664145629697283988594371684899475531490573 2823786386194927922215110087335052193747272459669030480603069080 8421209646110735430316730270075597685536122026199316753888263136 8982777911253921734120343767097551341142139450682090146370225695 I generated this sequence of numbers via a widely-used secure pseudorandom generator, so they are not random. But if I didn't tell you that, you'd have no idea, and these pseudorandom generators are time-tested to be very hard to distinguish from random numbers if you don't know the seed (otherwise you'd be able to break a lot of modern encryption). So by your logic, since you can't tell me what the deterministic factors are, you can only conclude that the numbers are truly random. But that's wrong, the numbers aren't random. EDIT: This was downvoted faster than anyone can read, I'd wager.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> How is that not a hypothesis? It makes no falsifiable predictions, therefore, it's speculation, not a hypothesis.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Would you care to answer the question directly after the one you answered? Attributing quantum phenomena to randomness also makes no falsifiable predictions. In fact, asserting quantum phenomena are caused by pure randomness is equivalent the assertion that no prediction is possible.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Attributing quantum phenomena to randomness also makes no falsifiable predictions. “Any research effort will find no deterministic explanation” is, I suppose, falsifiable, but mostly I agree; randomness as explanation is the absence of an explanatory hypothesis, not a substantial hypothesis.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      My thinking on this is basically, hypotheses don't have to be falsifiable, but they aren't very useful if they aren't, because you can't design an experiment to test them. Neither the determinism nor nondeterminism hypotheses are falsifiable, so there's no reason to prefer one over the other right now. However, non-determinism will never be falsifiable, whereas determinism is only currently non-falsifiable because a plausible, testable mechanism has not yet been hypothesized. So while there's no reason to favor determinism as something we believe, there's reason to favor it in research, because research has the potential to yield further information.