Itoero

I don't agree with Bell's theorem. Bell's theorem basically states that local hidden variables can't explain quantum effects,like the quantum correlation between entangled particles. The absence of hidden variables is the absence of a cause. 1.If an effect like quantum correlation is not caused by hidden variables then the absence of hidden variables causes quantum correlation which means it should be present between all sub-atomic particles. 2.When you measure one of an entangled pair, the correlation collapses. This is only possible when hidden variables are destroyed. If nothing causes an event then you can't create or destroy it. 3.Hidden variables are like a hidden reality or other dimension. You can't disprove a reality you can't define. The only thing that's proven is that our knowledge and technology shoots short to find or understand hidden variables which cause quantum effects. What do you think about those 3 points? The order we see in the universe proves (causal) determinism.

Only when you understand or have some knowledge concerning those laws of nature. This is a nice example of what happens when you have not enough knowledge/understanding about something and you apply logic: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99867-we-are-in-early-stage-of-big-bang-and-there-would-be-a-black-whole-in-center-of-universe/ Applying logic like that causes many erroneous beliefs.

I'm not calling the mathematics of QM illogical, I find your ideas illogical. I'll try to explain it in a different way. When the correlation is not caused by anything then it's not necessary linked to entangled particles. Then you should see correlation between all particles. That's not a fact, it's an interpretation of experiments.

I'm not calling the mathematics of QM illogical, I find your ideas illogical. I'll try to explain it in a different way. When the correlation is not caused by anything then it's not necessary linked to entangled particles. Then you should see correlation between all particles. That's not a fact, it's an interpretation of experiments.

Ok, I'll do that. Yes but the exact path a photon goes is very different then the possibility of local hidden variable in entanglement. The path of a photon is determined, the exact location is not. You can measure the exact location/path by placing detectors but I doubt Heisenberg will like that. You destroy the wave-behavior when you do that. If there are no hidden variables which cause the quantum correlation then the absence of hidden variables enables correlation. Then correlation, or correlation energy, can be present in all systems without variables that cause correlation...this is very illogical. Quantum superposition and entanglement would be the same if nothing causes the correlation. Hidden variables are basically hidden realities. Your can't disprove that, it's like disproving another dimension. The idea that there are no hidden variables is not a scientific fact, there is no scientific theory about it. When I talk with people or in discussions on fora I've often noticed people having indeterministic beliefs. Since I think determinism is 'normal' I don't really notice deterministic ideas. I just like to know what people believe, mostly because I think my belief is the scientific one:p

I am listening to rowan atkinson and elthon john.

There is something that causes a photon to arrive at a precise place, we just don't know what. The fact that we see the interference pattern every time proves this. If the exact position of a photon is not caused by anything then we shouldn't see interference because the interference pattern is an interpretation of many exact positions...therefor the exact positions must be determined. Entanglement is quantum correlation between particles or objects. If no hidden variables cause this correlation then the correlation should not be a property of entanglement. If there is no cause for an event then the event can be present everywhere. They also found entanglement in DNA. If it's true that entanglement holds DNA together then that proves hidden variables. it seems like there is a kind of correlation energy. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419590/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/ https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053 Isn't another way of explaining this that our knowledge and technology shoots short to find a local cause? I think everything is determined and only believe in the free will the way compatibilists describe it.

I believe he might win.

An axon can regrow or be repaired if the cell body is still intact but only in the peripheral nervous system. In the central nervous system (brain+spinal cord) axonregeneration is very unlikely. I suppose only stem cells can regrow a cell body. In the central nervous system (CNS) there is a chemical/physical bad environment for axonregeneration. CNS neurons do not upregulate growth-associated genes to the same extent as do PNS neurons. Consequently, their ability to regenerate axons is limited even in the absence of the 'bad environment'. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2846285/

True but a cause is imo a 100%necessity. An effect or event which is not caused by anything is not adjusted/adapted to the properties of its environment since its not caused by anything. That kind of correlation is only present between entangled particles which means it's caused by something. If correlation is not caused by something, then it would not be present specifically between entangled particles. The idea that the most usual interpretation of QM says that the world is not determined is based on the absence of evidence for the cause of quantum effects. The absence of evidence points to the incompleteness of QM. I definitely agree with that definition of free will. Yes, I often heard and read things which makes it clear that people have different ideas, often concerning free will.

I don't think there is indeterminism in the physical universe. I don't know if this makes any sense but if quantum effects are not causal determined then there wouldn't be order and matter in the universe. It depends how you define free will.

Is it possible that you can get yourself together in prison?

Thanks for the advice but I will not be using it anymore, it lost its vigor.

Bell's Theorem states that the predictions of quantum mechanics, concerning correlations, being inconsistent with Bell's inequality, cannot be reproduced by any local hidden variable theory...this does not disprove nonlocal hidden variable theories, like you mentioned. The Broglie-Bohm is such a nonlocal hidden variables theory....a causal interpretation...a deterministic theory. What those experiments show is that our knowledge of physics comes short to explain the correlation and that quantum theory is very incomplete. The absence of a cause is definitely not proven and is something you can't prove. The Broglie-Bohm theory is a causal interpretation and is called a deterministic theory. When everything is determined and there is only one way the world unfolds then everything is cause and effect. My interpretation of QM tells me QM is to incomplete to make such a claim. It depends what you consider to be free will. If free will is the ability to make a causally disconnected choice between different possible courses of action then I don't think free will exists. Natural selection/survival of the fittest works through cause and effect. I started this thread because I want to know if people are deterministic or indeterministic and why.

I preserved some nitrocellulose in a glass jar for 8 months and it's very smelly.

Depression is always caused by something. The cause imo decides if and how depression is treatable. In the case of seriously disabled, it seems that financial, health and legal problems feed his depression. I can imagine it seems impossible for him to find help. Don't you have people who care for you and want to help? I have a neurodegenerative disease and would have killed myself if it wasn't for my family. I do understand what it's like to see no solutions for your misery.

Personal responsibility? Do you think people choose to be like this?

Can you show that experimental proof? The words 'effect' and 'event' don't have an absolute definition. Depending on the observation/interpretation you can call something to be an effect or event. Determinism is an emergent property. Causal determinism is determinism. This is the Wikipedia definition of determinism: "Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event." Another way of saying this: "Determinism is the philosophical position that for every effect there exist causes that could cause no other effect."

Not knowing the cause is not evidence for the absence of a cause. Aren't quantum effects often called indeterministic effects? Effects without a cause...that's what indeterminism is all about. If you look into the real meaning of those words then determinism is just the belief in causality. I suppose you don't agree with this. Can you then give an example of a deterministic effect without a cause?

This might happen in the not too distant future. They can already edit DNA with CRISPR/Cas9 .

There have been many experiments that show that basic building blocks of life could form in the early atmosphere. The Miller Urey was just the first one. Experiments that came after the Miller Urey used different chemicals. Something caused the universe to expand. The giant molecular cloud that created our Solar system was part of the expansion. If panspermia is correct then precursors of life evolved somewhere else and then arrived on Earth via asteroids or planetoids. Those asteroids or planetoids could not be part of our solar system. What kind of happening can cause asteroids to cross a part of the universe to crash on Earth? If asteroids did travel this far, they must have had a tremendous speed, the impact on Earth must have been more destructive then the one of Theia which makes it impossible for any life to survive. If the asteroid flew randomly, it must have fallen on the sun (the biggest gravitational pull)...this imo debunks Panspermia.

-Theia was an Earth trojan, it was formed during the formation of our solar system. This a hypothesis but if it's true, then it debunks that Theia brought life. I don't believe in panspermia because abiogenesis on this earth is proven to be possible. Panspermia rises a lot more questions.

I think you mean a black hole. The expansion of the universe is accelerating so your idea is kind of odd.

Why do you think there is no water on the moon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water

When the Moon got created the Earth was pretty hot, it was estimated to be 2300 Kelvin...could precursors of life survive such a heat? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been