Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:03 am
...you won't strip this down to what I think we're having a problem with....
Sure I will. I see that you're trying to say...
...the point there is SOLELY that the standard view in the sciences doesn't support that determinism is the case.
Except that, if by "the standard view of the sciences," you mean either Materialism/Physicalism or quantum mechanics, the conclusion there is not true.
Now, I agree that actual
science does not necessitate either Materialism-Physicalism, or even quantum mechanics (which we both know is still in its infancy, really). That's because a good understanding of science is modest, not totalizing. Science itself is not the total sum of knowledge, nor is scientific knowing the only way of knowing things in the world. To believe otherwise is to become a victim of an ideology called "Scientism," i.e. the worship of science as the sine qua non
of all wisdom. (Merriam-Webster: “An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities).”
Much has been written about the problems with that, so I'll say no more.
Hopefully, that's not where you and I are at, and for sure, a good scientist knows that, too. So a good scientist need not be a Materialist or Physicalist.
But if science necessitated either Materialism/Physicalism or impersonal probabilistics, like in quantum theory, then Determinism would follow inevitably
That's the problem. Now, if you want to toddle for a bit, then the first thing you're going to have to do is prove (not just state and assume) that impersonal probabilistics aren't Deterministic. We're giving you reasons they are; you've not provided us a reason why you believe they're not.
So go ahead, if you can. And in deference to your preference, we're still on step 1.