Scientific determinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Physicists have sometimes used the term "determinism" in a special way that people such as Karl Popper and Stephen Hawking have called Scientific Determinism.

Popper insisted that the term "scientific" can only be applied to statements that are falsifiable. Popper's book The Open Universe: An Argument For Indeterminism defines scientific determinism as the claim that ...any event can be rationally predicted, with any desired degree of precision, if we are given a sufficiently precise description of past events, together with all the laws of nature, a notion that Popper asserted was both falsifiable and adequately falsified by modern scientific knowledge.

In his book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking claims that predictability is required for "scientific determinism" (start of chapter 4). He defines "scientific determinism" as meaning: "something that will happen in the future can be predicted."

Since many limitations on predictability are now known (for a partial list see: quantum indeterminacy), most people who argue for determinism do not argue in favor of a strong version of scientific determinism. For example, a weaker type of determinism is one that only implies a unique, mechanical course for the universe with future events being caused by past events.

Hawking admits that even the uncertainty principle does not absolutely rule-out a kind of determinism "in principle", and says that quantum mechanics may very well allow the universe to be deterministic. He wrote:

"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." (conclusions section of A Brief History Of Time)

[edit] Compatibility of determinism and uncertainty

Critical thinkers and theorists have cast further doubts upon common assertions of an objective unpredictability element. All three positions concerning the popular wave/particle/duality debate (wave theory, particle theory, and duality) appear compatible with a deterministic universe. Irrespective of which model may more accurately depict the genuine nature of existence, there is an unresolved flaw that haunts the concept of objective unpredictability. More often than not, this issue goes unacknowledged by uncertainty supporters.

The crux of the issue is the patent incongruity of mechanistic determinism with the uncertainty concept. The common assertion that only valid humanly-predictable events can somehow establish an objective system of pure determinism which may lead to a particular determined result is not only anthropocentric, but seemingly ignorant of established cause and effect principles. Reasonably, observable and trackable factors which can be measured and documented by man only comprise a small window into the vast realm of objective reality. Logic holds that deterministic progression occurs throughout the universe regardless of human knowledge. The insistence that manifest evidence of predictability is the sole qualifier for deterministic occurrence, and only on a case-by-case basis, denotes a fragmented theory at best.

The fundamental argument against apparent uncertainty is as follows: Particle theory suggests that each subatomic event, including its relative-positions, masses, velocities, momentums, and trajectories constitutes a precise pattern at any given instant (a precise snapshot of existence at foundational levels, as it were). Importantly, the wave side of the duality debate would seemingly also be conducive to such exacting theoretical snapshots. The precise configuration denoted by any such theoretical snapshot in time may easily be expanded to include the entire universe. Hence, we have an all-inclusive snapshot of the total existence pattern (be it finite or infinite) at any given point in time. Each theoretical snapshot strictly accords to the inseparable and inflexible governance of physical laws and potentials. On the surface, at least, this appears a logical premise; one that strongly suggests there is a precisely preset (and inflexible) script which strictly guides all occurrence within the universe. Included, of course, would be all of our thoughts, all of our feelings, all of our decisions, and all of our behaviors. There can be no exceptions within this doctrine since all events must strictly accord to physical laws and the precise snapshot configuration that prevails at each instant. Stated another way, this view holds that cause and effect governance fully dictates the whole of event dynamics within the physical realm to the most minuscule detail.

Conclusion: Hard determinism is simply pure cause and effect. It holds that our apparent "free will" is merely an elaborate illusion. Scientific determinism is technically hard determinism. It stands in contrast with the quantum mechanics uncertainty principle.

[edit] See also

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/i/Scientific_determinism.html"