Determinism Revisited

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by mburbank

A mathematical formula which contains an unknown which would solve the equation is not a viable theory, is is a problem.

The hidden variable is "A number so that we could distinguish when an electron is a wave and when it is a particle".

It is a viable theory for purposes of explanation.

Burbank's theory of faster than light travel, ie. FTL = CX, or Faster Than Light travel equals the Speed of Light times an unknown number which when multiplied by the speed of light results in a number greater than the speed of light is not a theory, it is a problem. Theories can at some future point or at VERY least in thought expiriments be tested. You can test E=MC2.

You don't understand why nothing can be faster than light. It would require an infinite mass.

To date you cannot observe any quantum events, only their after effects. No one has ever seen an atom, let alone an electron or a quark. You theorize their existance based on their observable effects, like Brownian motion.

That is irrelevant to your argument. It provides no support for the statement that mere observation alters the effects.

I'm arguing for unpredictability, not predictability. There is no burden of proof at all. You CAN'T prove a negative. Determinism depends utterly on a predicatble, mechanical universe.

Quantum results are still predictable, they simply are not deterministic; rather, they are probabilistic. That is no more "unpredictable" than, say, genetical results between two parents.

You CAN prove a negative. Consider mathematics. 2+2=5 can be disproven by the very axioms which mathematics is built upon. One could object to the axioms - but once this is done, you will realize that nothing can be proven.

It is theoretically impossible for science to create knowledge of any kind because it rests upon principles of induction.

It's easy to see why determinism appeals to you, as you are the philisophical equivalent of a clockwork dog.

No, it's not. AB pointed out that it makes it hard for me to justify libertarianism.