Each preceding loop could cause the next. However, if we are to argue that there was a “loop one” then what caused that? Loop zero?
Sorry. It’s a reference to Everett’s interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) entitled “Relative state formulation”, but popularized by the name ‘multi-world interpretation’, or MWI. Yes, it’s philosophy since, like any interpretation, it makes no empirical predictions.
MWI meets your definition of determinism: “all events are the inevitable result of preceding causes and natural laws.”
So under MWI, you being struck by lightning today is inevitable, as is you not being struck by lightning today. They just occur in different worlds.
The soft determinism you suppose relates to most religions ideas of their god’s abilities, but they also believe they were given free will as a test, what do you make of this?
They’re typically referring to libertarian free will, which is not compatible with the last 120 years of physics, which does not allow anything material to be affected by immaterial (supernatural) entities. Determinism has nothing to do with it, since the alternative is randomness. Intent cannot be conveyed with randomness.
Also sorry if my response seems robotic i dont know how to get emojis on here…
I rarely use them, but there’s a little smiley above your edit window, 3rd from the right. This is on a PC. Not sure what editing looks like from a phone. I don’t own one.
I dont believe determinsim is necessary but worth exploring.What stuff would you argue is uncaused?
Given a non-deterministic interpretation (there are plenty), things like where the photon is detected in the double split is pretty famous. Also spin measurements of particles, radioactive decay, etc. Plus all the macroscopic stuff that is affected by this quantum randomness, such as who gets conceived, the weather, etc.
When wiriting i wanted to use occurence as just something that exists.
Occurrence is fine. Event has a kind of specific definition, which is a point in spacetime, a thing that happens at a place and time. The sinking of the Titanic is an event. The cause of that event is spread over countless prior events, not any one in particular.
i woudl actually agrue the first instance would be the laws of the universe
Good instinct. Hawking said as much. Our laws are one (probably of many) collapses of what all the laws could be, including laws like the number of spatial and time dimensions. E.G. We have one macroscopic dimension of time, but some universes might have say 5.
I would argue that th euniverse can be an object in time, andtime can be a part of this universe simultaneously, once again relying on the idea of parent realities.
OK, but a parent universe is harder to explain than us not having a parent, unless the parent is simpler somehow.
What do people actually even mean by looped time?
It just means you take the time dimension and curve it into a circle, kind of like the surface of Earth takes 2 spatial dimensions and curves them into a loop such that there’s no edge to the surface. If you walk far enough, you come back to the starting point.
Spacetime is already non-Euclidean, so it doesn’t take much imagination to loop time. But such a model makes predictions, and those predictions are not measured.
The only intuitive response i have here is that they mean every occurence repeats itself in the same order with the same space in between.
With a loop, it’s not just the same occurrences each time around, but it’s actually the same thing since there’s only one of them.
Contrast that with a cyclic model like a bouncing ball, each time a little different. Not a loop, just a sequence of multiple iterations.
Good question and not entirely easy to articulate. It’s the difference between X and a simulation of X. The simulation is done by some parent world that runs the simulation, perhaps on a computer, or as simple as mental anticipation of the consequences of a choice.
So for instance, they simulate a car crash. It doesn’t create the car, it only simulates it for the purpose of the people in the parent world (ours) can know the impact characteristics of the car in such situations, all without the expense of actually creating the car in question. Point is, whether or not the car is created or not, and whether or not it is simulated or not, the car in question crumples thus when it hits a pole. The creation brings it into being in some world. A simulation is an epistemic act, giving knowledge of the thing simulated to those running it. The thing itself has certain properties, regardless of whether or not it is ever created or simulated by anything.
There are those that deny such statements: that it must be created before it can have any of those properties. I can think of countless counterexamples, so I think that’s bunk. I did an entire topic on it.
Unclear which are said ‘preceding words above’, since nothing quoted says anything of the sort.
Given a fully deterministic model and a precise description of the exact state of a closed system, the evolution of the system can be worked out by an entity with this knowledge, provided the entity in question is not part of said closed system. Being part of the system would constitute ‘subjective’ predicting, and that cannot be done. It’s pretty trivial to prove this.
If said external entity is outside of the time of the system being ‘predicted’, it isn’t really a prediction since it’s not part of the entity’s future, but rather the future of the system whose evolution is being worked out.
Complicating factors for our universe: Said ‘precise description of the exact state of a closed system’ cannot be had for multiple reasons. 1) Heisenberg uncertainty 2) Finite precision of measurements 3) Finite precision of any state and 4) what closed system?
So bottom line: This is a non-sequitur. Deterministic and predictability are different things, and the former does not imply the latter.
I did not read most of all these replies, but this caught my eye. You seem to be using a different definition of ‘eternal’ since the philosophical state of eternalism is simply the absence of the positing of a preferred moment in time, which means there is no ‘NOW’ under eternalism, rendering the statement meaningless.
I presume you probably suggest that time moves and has always been moving. If so, I find that naive, but it works as long as you don’t think about it hard. Most physicists would say time is bounded at 13.8 GYr ago and that there is no preferred moment at all. The naive model works great for day to day life, but doesn’t hold up to rational analysis.
Is it wise for you to reject an unprovable infinite past?
It isn’t a strict mathematical proof, so I acknowledge it is possibly false. Believing it to be true is similar to believing the 4-color theorem was true, before it was finally proven. I’ve discussed in many times with others, and no one has provided a good reason to deny it. I’ve encountered bad reasons, invariably based on treating infinity as a natural number (it isn’t).
What’s your basis for your belief that the past is infinite?
Every step is a finite number of steps from the first one, and therefore there is no step that reaches infinity. When we refer to the infinite future, it means a “stepping” process that never ends.
It’s entailed by a finite past. Why did you insert “absolutely”. I absolutely do believe it, but it’s because I consider it the inference to best explanation (IBE). This means it’s falsifiable: I’m open to a better explanation, or to new data that would falsify it.
Because I believe that the material world is the totality of existence, and that laws of nature are aspects of the material world: relational properties.
Also: laws of nature are needed to account for the initial state producing the change associated with subsequent states.
I was not previously aware that you did ask for this.
Now, if you really are curious about what are the ‘possible causes’ for the 10 numbers on the 10 randomly selected cards for randomly shuffled 78 cards with 0 to 78 numbered on each cards, then the ‘possible causes’ are;
- Numbers and cards were dreamed up, invented, and then created by human beings.
- Cards with numbers printed on them were designed and then, again, created by human beings.
- A human being asked another human being to ‘randomly shuffle’ 78 cards, or a human being just shuffled the cards “themself”. By the way, is there ‘a way’ to shuffle that is not randomly?
Now, they are some of the possible causes for those 10 numbers, on those cards, appearing.
There might be other possible causes for how those 10 numbers appeared, but are you suggesting that how those 10 numbers, on those cards, appeared was because of some ‘random event’ that could not be explained in any possible way?
Hopefully I explained some of what ‘the causes’ were above.
Considering the odds, it might be a while before ‘we’ can predict the next 10 numbers Accurately.
By the way, just using the word ‘randomly shuffled’ in now way means that ‘that shuffling event’ happened completely ‘randomly’ and could not be explained.
What do you mean by a ‘parent reality’, exactly?
To me, the ‘parent’ word implies ‘a before’, which could mean that ‘a parent’ ‘reality’, or parent human being’ for example, could in fact create another ‘off spring’ as they are sometimes referred to.
I would also suggest that a so-called ‘parent reality’ could produce or create a ‘simulation’, of ‘itself’, and therefore ‘itself’ would not be the ‘simulated one’ at all.
There always exists ‘the Reality’, Itself. Every thing is within this One Reality, also known as; the Universe, Existence, or Life, as well.
Now, the things known as human beings may well be living in ‘a simulation’ and/or a series of ‘countless simulations’, but no matter how many there are they all exist within the One and only undeniable Real Universe, Life, and Existence.
Of which ‘different worlds’ as proposed above here is impossible, both logically and empirically.
Although there actually exist ‘may different worlds’, as in ‘the worlds’ created by adult human beings, there are NO ‘many different worlds’ as proposed in the impossible ‘many different universes’ interpretation.
To ‘you’ maybe.
Why do ‘you’ say and claim this to be true, exactly?
By the way, obviously they are different things. One means one thing and the other means something else, differently.
Okay. Why did you not read most of all those replies?
Compared to ‘what’, exactly?
- Since I did not posit any preferred moment in ‘time’, what you say and write here has absolutely nothing to do ‘with me’ and what ‘I said and wrote’.
- Quite a number of people here like to use the ‘philosophical’ word as they think or believe that by doing so will make them appear to know what they are talking about, exactly. However, to see if one really does not know what they are talking about and claiming, 'What do the words, 'philosophical state of eternalism ', even mean or refer to, to you, exactly?
- No matter what those words mean or refer to, exactly, I was, obviously, talking in relation to the Universe, Itself, and NOT about some so-called ‘philosophical state of eternalism’ at all.
If ‘you’ want to think or believe, and state and claim, there is no ‘NOW’ under eternalism, then that is okay with me?
But since I wrote and claim that the ‘Universe is eternal’, any talk of ‘eternalism’ and whether there is or is not a ‘NOW’ ‘under eternalism’, again, has absolutely nothing at all to do ‘with me’ nor with what I have said and written here.
If you want to introduce some idea or concept, which I have never even thought, let alone said or claimed here, then okay. And, if you want to then fight or argue against ‘your own introduced idea and claim’, and refute ‘that’, then this is also okay and fine with me.
But the ‘only statement’ rendered meaningless here is ‘the statement’ that ‘you introduced’ here.
My statement, ‘The One and only Universe is eternal and infinite’, is, again, an already proved True Fact, which is irrefutable.
Now, does anyone want to address what I actually said and wrote here, and then discuss ‘that’, instead of discussing some ‘introduced statement’, which has absolutely nothing at all to do with me and ‘my words’?
Look, ‘you’ are absolutely free to presume absolutely anything you like and want to, but considering that you openly admitted that ‘you’ did not read most of all these replies, ‘you’ jumping to a conclusion, and then presuming it is so, some might consider to be a very foolish thing to do indeed.
Now, just so it is absolutely clear, and ‘you’ can understand, 'I do not, at all, suggest that time moves and has always been moving.
Hopefully this gets understood.
The Fact that I have NEVER ‘presumed so’, means the rest of what you said and wrote here is completely and utterly moot.
Who cares what ‘most human beings’ would say? Most human beings, at some time, once would have said that God created the whole Universe, all at once. Just like most human beings, as some time, once would have said that a big bang created the whole Universe, all at once. But, what most human beings would say never ever has to align with what the actual Truth is exactly.
If only ‘they knew’.
Doesn’t it mean there is no cause to it? Or it could be said it happened with unknown causes, which is the same thing as saying there is no cause for the event.
Or even if you made up some causes for the events, they are not intelligible or credible.
You could say, it happened randomly, or God wanted it to happen, or by many other possible causes you could imagine. How do you prove which cause is the right cause?
If it’s the foundational layer of reality itself, and time emerges from it, then it makes no sense to expect it to have a parent (or first cause).
You can’t have a chain of causes and effects before an extension in time has emerged in which you can have causal chains.
The comment was in context of a simulation. The parent reality is the one running the simulation, and has its own time separate from the simulated time.
I would also suggest that a so-called ‘parent reality’ could produce or create a ‘simulation’, of ‘itself’, and therefore ‘itself’ would not be the ‘simulated one’ at all.
A simulation by anything of itself is impossible, but a subset can sometimes be done, or an approximation, both of which differ from the parent.
I didn’t propose anything. MWI is a valid interpretation of QM. Empirically, it makes all the same predictions as quantum theory, which has not been falsified. If it made different predictions, it would 1) not be an interpretation, and 2) it would have a falsification test.
As for logically, your misconception of the view might be logically inconsistent, but MWI does not refer to your misconception. It is by far the simplest interpretation, positing only “In a closed system, the wave function evolves according to the Schrodinger equation”. That’s it. No randomness (Schrodinger equation is deterministic), no collapses or hidden variables.
MWI does not posit that worlds are created by ‘adult human beings’. It makes no mention of humans being special in any way. I can think of only one interpretation that does, and it was abandoned by the guy (Wigner) that proposed it.
Finally, I am unaware of an interpretation named ‘many universes’. OK, there are various multiverse proposals (Greene counted I think 9 of them). Only one is an interpretation of QM. Simulation theory is another, and interpretation of our reality, not of QM.
It’s your assertion. It fall on you, not me, to justify it. You even assert that it has been proven, but again, only rant and repeat. Got a link to this ‘proof’? There’s tons of proofs for mutually contradictory things, especially when it comes to say religion. There’s a difference between a rational argument and a rationalized one.
They have for example a whole museum dedicated to ‘proving’ flood geologist stance. It’s wonderfully done.
Because it is trivially provable. It’s not opinion. It’s not even a theory. It’s a theorem.
Coming at a pace faster than I can keep up, and my conversation was with the OP, not you.
I already indicated this: Compared to ‘eternalism’ as discussed in say Stanford EP. I have a physics background, and in physics ‘eternal’ is a synonym for what some others call a block universe which assigns identical ontological status to all spacetime events.
Your usage seemed to be more along the lines of ‘time not bounded anywhere’. That’s a valid view, but it needs to discard bounds that arise from relativity theory such as the big bang or black holes.
Eternalism is a philosophical view, not a philosophical state.
I beg to differ: is happening NOW
In caps no less.
Oh, I’ve noticed that.
It’s not my claim. It was proposed around 1000 years ago and gained serious traction with the relativity of simultaneity that comes from special relativity theory.
You seem to ask if it is OK with you. Kind of your question to answer I think, but I suspect you think I’m making stuff up instead of doing a quick internet query.
It’s also such comments that cause me to gloss over the majority of replies in this topic.
And I said as much. It was obvious you were using the term to describe something else. I’m fine with that until you assert that it has been proven.
Concerning your entire contribution, or at least that long post directed at me: What does any of it have to do with determinism or this inescapable problem it has? I know it’s not your topic, but you seem to have gone off track.
I believe this difference is the root cause of the disagreement.
Could you give your own definition of determinism?
So you are calling this “The Reality” the “Real Universe” and this our universe is part of that overall?
Also, do you consider “THE Reality” to have always been mindful?
Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries: “The belief that people are not free to choose what they like or how they behave, because these things are determined by their environment and other things over which they have no control.”
Cambridge English Dictionary: “The theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way.”
The first definition seems very correct, as it corresponds to scientific facts. But it only concerns human behavior.
The second definition concerns the physical world and clearly disagrees with modern scientific understanding. Events could have happened differently (there is a wave distribution of the probability of any given event).
Does this mean that determinism is currently undefined?
You propose to define determinism as “the inevitable result of preceding causes and natural laws.” But this is open to interpretation. If events could have taken a different course (even at the quantum level), then this doesn’t fall under the definition of inevitability. But the fact that everything has a specific cause indicates that causality is fundamental and again leads us to determinism.
How can the definition of determinism be changed so that its meaning is unambiguous?
That’s actually a pretty good question. Look it up on the web and you get all sorts of different answers.
AI does a fair job.
The philosophical and scientific idea that all events are completely caused by past events and natural laws
That definition seems to presume locality. Bohmian mechanics is considered to be a deterministic, and yet, not being a local interpretation, allows retrocausality.
Brittanica:
The thesis that all events in the universe are causally inevitable.
I think that this one should skip mention of ‘the universe’ and instead speak of closed systems.
Combining them gets something closer to how I’d say it.
The thesis that within a closed system, all events are caused by and natural laws and are thus inevitable.
Interestingly, my definition allows libertarian free will because such a system isn’t physically closed, and natural law extends to a realm not currently described by any scientific theory. If it works that way, the last 120 years of science will have been falsified.
Many of the definitions on the web directly reference ‘true’ (apparently meaning libertarian) free will, which is wrong since libertarian free will depends not on lack of determinism, but rather on lack of quantum theory being the case.
Example of such a definition:
That’s nonsense. Determinism (or even non-deterministic interpretations of QM) only prevents external control. It does not prevent control of your own actions since you’re not external. What an awful definition of determinism. Shame on Oxford.
You give a Cambridge definition that does better, but ends with ‘could not have happened any other way’, which besides the presumptuous A-series wording, kind of precludes views where things happen in more than just one way. Hence MWI being considered a deterministic interpretation.
X being causally inevitable does not preclude ~X also being causally inevitable, so that wording seems preferable.
Some definitions call it an idea, premise, or thesis. Some call it a belief, making it sound like a religion. This seems misleading. It isn’t any belief that makes events inevitable, it is the actual nature of natural law that does or does not make subsequent events inevitable. The unknowability of that nature is where belief might come in. I try to be open to most plausible views, rarely elevating an opinion to the level of a ‘belief’.
But I am not rejecting any so-called ‘unprovable infinite past’. So, why did ‘you’ say ‘I’ was?
What you are saying here has absolutely nothing at all to do with me.
you can deny or not deny anything of your choosing, and for whatever reason, good or bad, you like.
Not exciting, but okay.
I do not have ‘a belief’ that the past is infinite, for a few, good, reasons.
Obviously, especially considering what the ‘infinity’ here means and refers to, exactly.
I never thought otherwise.
Okay. I could and will ‘now’ change my question to, 'What have you chosen to believe, absolutely, that there is a so-called ‘finite past’?
Because of ‘the way’ you speak and write here.
Okay, thank you for elaborating here.
Are you really ‘open’ to anything contrary or in opposition while you are believing, absolutely, something is true?
you appear, well to me anyway, that you have completely misunderstood my question here.
But, HOW could ‘laws of nature’ be needed to account for what you call “initial state”, when there obviously could NOT have been any existing ‘laws of nature’ that could have accounted for an “initial state”?
And, if anyone wants to think or claim that the ‘laws of nature’ also began with or at the “initial state”, then okay.
No.
There is absolutely no way that a human being could just shuffle a deck of cards without something prior to that event having caused that event.
No it is not.
Just because you may well not yet know what caused an event never ever necessarily means that there were ‘unknown causes’. Unless, of course, you believe that ‘you’ are the holder of ALL knowledge and knowing. Now, obviously, just you alone are not. So, any causes that may well be unknown ‘to you’ is NOT the same as saying there is no cause.
Also, even if there are not yet known causes ‘to human beings’ never means that there are no causes also.
For absolutely every event, there is A cause. Now, if THE cause is yet known or is still unknown, never has any bearing at all on what ‘the cause’ is exactly. But, there always is one.
Now, if you want to believe and claim that there are or could be events with NO cause at all, then ‘we’ can have an open and honest peaceful about ‘this’ if you would like.
Obviously, if you make up something not intelligible or non-credible about ‘the causes’ for an event, then ‘those causes’ will be unintelligible or non-credible causes.
But what has ‘this’ got to do with the irrefutable Fact that there is ‘a cause’ for every event, exactly?
Yes, that is exactly what ‘you’ could do if you wanted to, but why would you want to do this?
‘you’ could, also, say that an event happened because of absolutely no cause at all. But, if you did, then doing so would be just as foolish as you saying, “it happened randomly”, or “God wanted it to happen”, or by any of the other IMPOSSIBLE causes you could imagine.
The exact same way the Truth of things and the Rightness of morality are proved.
When something is produced that everyone could agree with and accept, then that is how you prove which cause is the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct one.
you could, however, also provide the actual physical thing, which caused something, and provide an actual demonstration that proves so.
I KNOW. That is WHY I asked ‘the question’ that I did.
Thank you for clarifying.
I NEVER said nor implied ‘you’ did.
‘you’ wrote the words ‘different worlds’, I was just asking for clarification which definition of ‘different worlds’ you are using here?
What do you mean by ‘valid interpretation’, exactly?
Absolutely anyone could interpret absolutely anything, and each and every one of them could be ‘interpreted’ as being a ‘valid interpretation’. This is because absolutely everything is relative to ‘the observer’.
However, because there is One and only One Universe, this so-called ‘valid interpretation’ does not work in nor align with this One and only Universe.
And what is my supposed and alleged ‘misconception’, exactly?
you misunderstood what I said and meant entirely.
Who cares? It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said and meant.
Okay, thank you. This explains more here.
One was all that was needed for my reply and questions.
Okay, but again this has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I have said, meant, and asked.
Yes, ‘my statement’ is ALSO ‘an assertion’ and a Fact. Which, once more, is irrefutable.
But it has already been justified.
Which, do not forget, does not mean that you have had access to it yet.
So when someone just presents a claim and a statement, this is laughably ‘a rant’ to you.
I can write down the proof, and then send you a link to it if you would like.
And, do not forget that ‘science’ is just another form of ‘religion’ to some people, and which also has its own followers and believers as well.
Now, and obviously, there cannot be ‘proof’ for contradictory things. Depending on what country and cult/ure you were raised in and come from ‘proof’ means one and ‘evidence’ means something else.
To some people, ‘proof’ cannot be refuted, whereas ‘evidence’ can. So, from this perspective and definition it is impossible for ‘proof’ to exist for mutually contradictory things, let alone LOL ‘tons of proof’. Unless, of course, you have proof there is, and if you do, then will you provide it here for us to look at and see it
Okay. And, you have just provided an example of a ‘rationalised one’, correct?
LOL Again, where you come from ‘proof’ means something very different from where I come from.
There is, by the way, “tons” of so-called “scientific literature” talking about in the early universe. people in science speak and believe like people in theology do.
There is NO proof that the Universe began, nor expanding, but the way it is written and claimed to be true can also be said to be ‘wonderfully done’.
LOL After all, many people actually believe that the Universe began, and is even expanding in size.
People in both the scientific and theologian religions laughably believe that the Universe began. In fact, these people are far more alike than most like to believe.
How, exactly, did you indicate, in say, “standford ep”?
Also, I used the word ‘eternal’ in ‘the way’ I meant it. your use of the ‘eternalism’ word, in reply, does not fit in nor work with the definition and meaning I have and used.
I wrote, ‘the Universe is eternal’. and this ‘caught your eye’, as you said and claimed.
you then claimed that I was using a different definition of ‘eternal’. However, I was using ‘the definition’ I was, in ‘my sentence and claim’.
you have claimed that ‘your conversation’ was with the opening post, and not me. But, yet when I was discussing with another about the opening post and something I said and wrote, ‘caught your eye’, for some reason what I said and meant did not align with your own perspective and preconception, but was somehow meant to.
LOL I even used the word ‘eternal’ and you said that I seem to be using a different definition of ‘eternal’, but when you were asked to clarify compared to ‘what’ exactly you laughably said to a completely different word with a completely different definition. you were comparing my use of the ‘eternal’ word with some other word called ‘eternalism’. And, what I was discussion with someone else had absolutely nothing at all to do with ‘eternalism’ and your use and definition of ‘that word’.
you even admitted not reading all of what I had said and discussed about. So, I will suggest you read up, and become savvy about what is being talked about and discussed before you start presuming things.
Does this make ‘you’ less fallible somehow?
Once more, I do not do models, theories, pre/assumptions, beliefs, debates, nor anything else that only makes guesses about what is or could be actually True and Right, nor anything in regard to fighting for or against something.
There is One Reality, which holds the Truth of things.
If anyone one wants to discuss these and/or wants to find out HOW find the answers to these things, then let us have a Truly open and honest logically reasoned discussion. But, if you people want to discuss what you presume or believe is true or want some model or theory says or looks like, I will leave you to “yourselves”.
Not that there is ‘a thing’ as ‘time’, the usage of ‘eternal’ I was using was, as you suggested, in regard to the Universe being eternal temporally. Like the Universe is ‘infinite’ eternally.
- A theory is NOT the Truth of things. A theory is nothing really more than just another presumption or guess.
- What I have said actually includes the big bang and black holes, while unifying them and everything else in ‘a way’ so that a crystal clear, perfect big picture can be clearly seen, and understood. And, explained very, very simply and easily, I will add.
- The big bang and black holes are certainly not ‘bounds’ at all.
Who cares? I did NOT introduce this word.
Also, and if you are at all curious, you also use and define the ‘philosophical’ word different from me as well.
But, and again, NOW is NOT any so-called ‘preferred moment in time’, as there is NO ‘time’, in ‘the way’ you imagine and perceive there to be, and because there is ONLY ‘NOW’. Capitalised for a very specific reason. And, not necessarily ‘the one’ that you are imagining and believing ‘right now’.
Yet here you are being one of those ones who continue to use that word.
What seems to you here is NOT right.
you are absolutely free to ‘suspect’ absolutely anything you like here about ‘me’ or anything else here.
you have shown and are continuing to show and prove that you really do do this.
If it was, supposedly, obvious to you, then WHY did you introduce that term here?
Again, if you were supposedly fine with the Fact that what you said and wrote had absolutely nothing at all to do with me, then again WHY introduce it?
If you were, as you say and claim here, now, fine with that, but not fine with my assertions that it has already been proved, then why not just focus on ‘this’ only, and instead?
What it has to do with ‘determinism’ is what I said and wrote about it. Remember, if you had read what I have said and written in this thread, then you might already know what I have said and written, in this thread, has to do with ‘determinism’.
Also, as to your claim and assertion that there is some alleged inescapable problem determinism has, then will you write down what ‘that problem’ is to you exactly, and how ‘that’ is inescapable in ‘determinism’, exactly?
If no, then why not?
Will you provide anything regarding this unsupported claim of yours here?
Great question…
So, explain why number 10 came out when the cards were randomly shuffled and a card was picked out from the pile. What is the cause for the event? Why not 1 or 25 or 50, but 10?
Let’s take it step by step.