24 minutes ago, joigus said:

You keep saying this, as if you were making sense. It doesn't magically start to make sense when you say it for the eleventh time.

Agreed repetition does not constitute proof.

5 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

Theorems 1 and 2 prove that indeterminism, ie lack of direct causality, cannot exist.

I have already told you twice that your understanding and statement of logic is incorrect in your definition 2.

You tried incorrectly to support your definition 2 with an example from the real world.

There is even a meteorological term from the real world that negates your example - virga.

You offered another real world example instead, to which I can think of many real world situations that continue to negate your real world support.

In purely theoretical logic it is the easiest thing in the world to create a statement which is both (or neither) true nor false at the same time.

You can also make logic gate circuitry to demonstrate this.

I don't see why I should reply to your questions, since you don't reply to mine.

If and when you deign to reply to my questions I will tell you how to create such statements in logic.

On 8/27/2025 at 10:02 PM, AThinker1 said:

Indeterminism: is the principle that some events or processes lack complete prior causal determination, introducing inherent randomness thought to be described only by probabilities with full predictability—in principle and in general—impossible. We will prove that indeterminism does not exist.

• Conversational: Indeterminism means some things happen without a full reason—just chance or odds.

On 8/28/2025 at 11:44 PM, studiot said:

On 8/28/2025 at 11:07 PM, AThinker1 said:

1) Superposition is an illusion, due to observer ignorance. It is not a real object, but mathematical approximation/fiction. Kind of like 2.5 children being an average family size, which does not in fact exist.

2) Fundamental basis of QM is a very interesting question. And I plan to address it eventually. For starters, I will say, that as per the Theorem, reality is 100% deterministic in every way. So also correct view of QM must be fully deterministic, or it is wrong. Probabilities are fine as an approximation, but do not represent reality completely. The state is always fully deterministic. No exception possible as per the Theorem.

3) As for governing principle of QM I have another theorem about it. It has to do with Reason and mind. I will share it later, I hope.

4) I agree, probabilities are useful. But should not be confused for actual reality they approximate.

Having carefully side stepped all my questions by addressing things I did not say how about answering the questions I did ask ?

For instance I said nothing about probability.

Looking more deeply now at probability, it is evident you don't undersatand some basic facts about probability.

Firstly the probabilities 1 or 0 are different from all other values.

Introducing a probability other than one of these two values automatically implies there must be more than one possibility.

This is because the probabilities of all possibilities must add up to exactly 1 if something is to happen.

We handle this by moving from individual values to what is called a probability distribution, which mathematically is a function not a value..

This may be a continuous or discrete function, with finite or infinite domain, but bounded codomain.

This is different from genuine indeterminism since every possibility posseses a probability.

No additional dimensions are need for this.

10 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

Which part seems fuzzy to you?

“which violates (insults) reason itself” is not a rigorous statement. It’s subjective. It’s saying you don’t understand how it can be that way, therefore it’s wrong. It is argument from incredulity, which is fallacious.

11 hours ago, joigus said:

No, they don't. I've proved many theorems. I know what is like to prove a theorem, and the different techniques: direct proof, reductio ad absurdum, mathematical induction, etc.

Yours is not one. No. Nein. нет. いえ.

I am not sure we are speaking the same language. But just in case you understand, Theorem one is inductive proof. Theorem two is reductio ad absurdum. It actually says that next to the proof.

Anyways. Good luck to you.

11 hours ago, studiot said:

I have already told you twice that your understanding and statement of logic is incorrect in your definition 2.

You tried incorrectly to support your definition 2 with an example from the real world.

There is even a meteorological term from the real world that negates your example - virga.

You offered another real world example instead, to which I can think of many real world situations that continue to negate your real world support.

In purely theoretical logic it is the easiest thing in the world to create a statement which is both (or neither) true nor false at the same time.

You can also make logic gate circuitry to demonstrate this.

I don't see why I should reply to your questions, since you don't reply to mine.

If and when you deign to reply to my questions I will tell you how to create such statements in logic.

I define consistency as the absence of contradictions, standard in classical logic, where a statement can’t be true and false simultaneously (e.g., “it’s raining and not raining at the same time in the same place”). This supports my proof’s determinism (Theorem 2), as reason fails if reality contradicts itself (Axiom 1).

Regarding virga, it doesn’t negate my example. Virga is rain falling from a cloud but evaporating before hitting the ground—raining at one altitude, not raining at another. My example specifies the “same place,” so there’s no contradiction, just different locations. If you have other real-world examples, please share them, and I’ll address how they fit classical logic’s non-contradiction rule.

Logical gates that output both 0 and 1 at the same time are broken.

If you think my definition of consistency is flawed, please tell me why.

Thanks.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

“which violates (insults) reason itself” is not a rigorous statement. It’s subjective. It’s saying you don’t understand how it can be that way, therefore it’s wrong. It is argument from incredulity, which is fallacious.

Violation of reason isn’t subjective or an argument from incredulity—it’s a logical contradiction defined by Axiom 1 of the proof:

Axiom 1
Reason’s Requirements: Reason exists (we use it) and depends on causality and consistency; without these, reason does not exist.

• Persuasiveness: Reason’s daily use (e.g., in science) fails in chaos; using reason to deny reason's existence is a self-contradiction, and thus is false.

So if reality denies causality and consistency, reason cannot exist in such reality, as reason requires both causality and consistency to exist.

So, if reality is fundamentally non-causal: no exact cause exists for a specific outcome, then such reality cannot support reason, because it breaks it. Yet we are using reason to make that conclusion, which is a self-contradiction.

This is strict logic. Not emotion.

Edited August 30Aug 30 by AThinker1

28 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

I am not sure we are speaking the same language. But just in case you understand, Theorem one is inductive proof. Theorem two is reductio ad absurdum. It actually says that next to the proof.

Anyways. Good luck to you.

I suggest you try your luck on https://physics.stackexchange.com/ or https://math.stackexchange.com/

Or maybe try a professional publication; the likes of Foundations of Physics Letters, for example. FPL is concerned with fundamental questions like the ones you are proposing.

The stack exchange platform is more for questions concerning mainstream science, with no room for speculation. In FPL they will give you what will feel like a fair hearing.

It would be interesting to know how your idea has fared over there.

2 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

Violation of reason isn’t subjective or an argument from incredulity—it’s a logical contradiction defined by Axiom 1 of the proof:

Axiom 1
Reason’s Requirements: Reason exists (we use it) and depends on causality and consistency; without these, reason does not exist.

Axioms are made up; they can be incorrect. It only matters for internal consistency of the theorem. The idea must still match up with experiment. Many proposed theories fail to do so.

The thing is, even if it were relevant, you’re made reason a result of causality, not determinism.

In any event, you can’t base QM on human behavior.

Tell me, what was QM like before humans existed, and there was no “we use it”?

3 hours ago, joigus said:

I suggest you try your luck on https://physics.stackexchange.com/ or https://math.stackexchange.com/

Or maybe try a professional publication; the likes of Foundations of Physics Letters, for example. FPL is concerned with fundamental questions like the ones you are proposing.

The stack exchange platform is more for questions concerning mainstream science, with no room for speculation. In FPL they will give you what will feel like a fair hearing.

It would be interesting to know how your idea has fared over there.

That is a thoughtful comment. Thank you!
What about you? Has the logic rubbed off on you yet? If you understand the point I was trying to make, do you have any suggestions for making it clearer?
Thanks again!

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Axioms are made up; they can be incorrect. It only matters for internal consistency of the theorem. The idea must still match up with experiment. Many proposed theories fail to do so.

Axioms are not just "made up." If it was true, then all the theorems are also "made up" because they are built on top of these "made up" axioms.

Axioms are statements of truth so fundamental, that they do not require proof, because they are self-evident.

Truth is eternal. It was here before humans arrived. It will be here after they are gone.

And yes, some axioms could be false, if made up by a fool. This is not one of them.

And yes theorems must match up with experiment. This one does. Example: Quantum Computing that relies on superposition, ie particle not being in a definite state are a massive fail despite hundreds of billions spent. The reason is: the state is deterministic. Always was, always will be.

Also there is a difference between "proposed theories" and hard mathematical proofs. Proposed theories make assumptions. Hard proofs, like the one I gave, do not make assumptions. It is inescapable conclusion from the axioms. Can you rationally challenge the axiom? You can't unless you contradict yourself, by using reason to deny reason's existence.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The thing is, even if it were relevant, you’re made reason a result of causality, not determinism.

That is nonsensical statement given the definition I use for the Theorems:

Determinism: is the principle that events, states, or processes in reality are completely governed by prior causal conditions, with no intrinsic randomness, ensuring full predictability given complete knowledge.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

In any event, you can’t base QM on human behavior.

Reason is not human. It is divine. Try arguing against reason without sounding like a fool. [No disrespect intended, simply a statement of fact].

We, humans, use it, but it is divine in origin. Universe was written in this language. This is why math works in describing the universe.

1 hour ago, AThinker1 said:

Axioms are not just "made up." If it was true, then all the theorems are also "made up" because they are built on top of these "made up" axioms.

Yes, they are.

You find them in math, and the math is internally consistent, but math is not necessarily representative of the behavior of nature. That’s an additional burden that science imposes.

e.g. Euclidean geometry. We know it’s not how the universe behaves (though it can be used for approximations under a lot of circumstances). It’s internally consistent but at least one axiom will fail if you’re in another geometry.

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, they are.

You find them in math, and the math is internally consistent, but math is not necessarily representative of the behavior of nature. That’s an additional burden that science imposes.

e.g. Euclidean geometry. We know it’s not how the universe behaves (though it can be used for approximations under a lot of circumstances). It’s internally consistent but at least one axiom will fail if you’re in another geometry.

Euclidean geometry is fine and accurate for a few thousand light years. It describes reality well. Other geometry is also fine for a different set of conditions.

It is a self-contradiction to assert that nature does not follow reason, that is causality and consistency. By saying this you are using reason to deny reason. That is a self-contradiction, and is therefore false.

3 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

Euclidean geometry is fine and accurate for a few thousand light years. It describes reality well. Other geometry is also fine for a different set of conditions.

It is a self-contradiction to assert that nature does not follow reason, that is causality and consistency. By saying this you are using reason to deny reason. That is a self-contradiction, and is therefore false.

That does not address @swansont ’s point about axioms, though.

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

That does not address @swansont ’s point about axioms, though.

There are some axioms that are not negotiable. Axiom 1 is one of those. Why? Because by breaking it, you have no reason left, which again is a self-contradiction.

11 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

Logical gates that output both 0 and 1 at the same time are broken.

Actually I didn't say anything about outputs. I talked about statements which are inputs.

But no, tristate logic chips do not work like that.

11 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

Regarding virga, it doesn’t negate my example. Virga is rain falling from a cloud but evaporating before hitting the ground—raining at one altitude, not raining at another. My example specifies the “same place,” so there’s no contradiction, just different locations. If you have other real-world examples, please share them, and I’ll address how they fit classical logic’s non-contradiction rule.

Of course it does an the reason is embedded in a children's nursery rhyme.

To rephrase it

When the rain was up it was up

When the rain was down it was down

And when it was only halfway down it was neither down nor up.

A beautiful example of second order logic, (which excludes the law of the excluded middle) unlike

first order logic which you are employing (aka classical logic).

It so happens that I agree with you that 'reason' exists.

Reasoning is a much wider process than 'logic' or mathematics and not cecessarily causal in character.

I often quote reasoning examples of how to do science without mathematics.

But I'm sorry repetition does not improve veracity and 'the burden of proof' lies firmly with the promoter of a hypothesis.

But you have not proven anything.

2 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

There are some axioms that are not negotiable. Axiom 1 is one of those. Why? Because by breaking it, you have no reason left, which again is a self-contradiction.

Not in the least. That axiom is a mere assertion, made by your AI. The inexorable link you seek to establish between reason and causality seems to me to be an example of question-begging. You are assuming at the start the thing you wish to prove. At least, that is what it looks like to me.

If we start with a different axiom, viz. that not all events in nature need to have a direct cause, then the resulting chain of reasoning would be quite different, but would still be reasoning.

And that is the assumption implicit in QM. People have evidently been able to reason perfectly well on that basis (using non-commuting operators, Fourier transform relationships and so on).

Edited August 31Aug 31 by exchemist

8 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

Euclidean geometry is fine and accurate for a few thousand light years. It describes reality well. Other geometry is also fine for a different set of conditions.

As I said, it can be used for approximation. It’s that “different set of conditions” that matters here; that’s where you see axioms fail. And when/where axioms fail, the system built on them is invalid. And if the system fails, it’s because one of the axioms has failed (assuming it’s otherwise self-consistent)

8 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

It is a self-contradiction to assert that nature does not follow reason, that is causality and consistency. By saying this you are using reason to deny reason. That is a self-contradiction, and is therefore false.

If, and only if, your system is valid. Otherwise it’s just “because I said so” and it’s a circular argument because it’s all part of the same system.

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Actually I didn't say anything about outputs. I talked about statements which are inputs.

But no, tristate logic chips do not work like that.

Of course it does an the reason is embedded in a children's nursery rhyme.

To rephrase it

When the rain was up it was up

When the rain was down it was down

And when it was only halfway down it was neither down nor up.

A beautiful example of second order logic, (which excludes the law of the excluded middle) unlike

first order logic which you are employing (aka classical logic).

It so happens that I agree with you that 'reason' exists.

Reasoning is a much wider process than 'logic' or mathematics and not cecessarily causal in character.

I often quote reasoning examples of how to do science without mathematics.

But I'm sorry repetition does not improve veracity and 'the burden of proof' lies firmly with the promoter of a hypothesis.

But you have not proven anything.

This explains a lot. You deny reason itself. This is the core of our disagreement. You deny Axiom 1. You should have lead with that.
Now the problem is, that you are trying to reason with me, which means you are using causality and consistency, to prove that causality does not exist.

Your every statement is C => E, cause => effect structure. Yet you deny the =>. That is a self contradiction.

As for rain, if you define "raining" as x amount of H2O in liquid form at a given volume of air, then it is either raining or not raining at a given place at a given time. No exceptions. It is all in the precise definitions. But you deny that also. So there is no point to this conversation, because if causality and consistency is out of the window, we have nothing to talk about :) See the problem here?

As for non-classical logic: Any non-classical logic must be built on classical logic honoring causality and consistency. If it does not, then it embraces self-contradiction, and thus is nonsense by definition, because it literally makes no sense, and thus is false by definition.
Even pattern recognition reasoning is still based on math and classical logic as it relies on causality and consistency and is nonsense without it.

You cannot escape "classical" reason, because it is divine, and the foundation of all truth. No exception.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

If, and only if, your system is valid. Otherwise it’s just “because I said so” and it’s a circular argument because it’s all part of the same system.

Not all axioms are created equal. There are axioms, which if denied, contradict reason itself. The fact that you are using reason to talk to me, should give you a pause. You cannot use reason to deny reason. It is a self-contradiction, and therefore error by definition.

1 hour ago, AThinker1 said:

Not all axioms are created equal. There are axioms, which if denied, contradict reason itself. The fact that you are using reason to talk to me, should give you a pause. You cannot use reason to deny reason. It is a self-contradiction, and therefore error by definition.

You can use reason to point out flaws in reasoning, and saying that an axiom doesn’t hold is not “denying reason”

Your axioms are not unassailable pillars of truth, and this has an air of “How dare you contradict me!”

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

You can use reason to point out flaws in reasoning, and saying that an axiom doesn’t hold is not “denying reason”

Your axioms are not unassailable pillars of truth, and this has an air of “How dare you contradict me!”

I’m now fairly convinced his entire exercise is begging the question by assuming at the outset the truth of the proposition he wants to prove.

1 hour ago, AThinker1 said:

This explains a lot. You deny reason itself. This is the core of our disagreement. You deny Axiom 1. You should have lead with that.
Now the problem is, that you are trying to reason with me, which means you are using causality and consistency, to prove that causality does not exist.

Your every statement is C => E, cause => effect structure. Yet you deny the =>. That is a self contradiction.

As for rain, if you define "raining" as x amount of H2O in liquid form at a given volume of air, then it is either raining or not raining at a given place at a given time. No exceptions. It is all in the precise definitions. But you deny that also. So there is no point to this conversation, because if causality and consistency is out of the window, we have nothing to talk about :) See the problem here?

As for non-classical logic: Any non-classical logic must be built on classical logic honoring causality and consistency. If it does not, then it embraces self-contradiction, and thus is nonsense by definition, because it literally makes no sense, and thus is false by definition.
Even pattern recognition reasoning is still based on math and classical logic as it relies on causality and consistency and is nonsense without it.

You cannot escape "classical" reason, because it is divine, and the foundation of all truth. No exception.

Calm down Man.

Scientists often have to point out that

Correlation does not imply causation.

But you deny the existence of probability.

To me, and in this context, reason is associated with rational thinking or 'reasoning'.

Reason is not, and never has been, synonymous with cause, though some use them interchangably.

As a general guide a cause for an event forces that event to happen and precedes it in time even if only very very briefly; whereas a reason is a thought about that cause and may happen after both casuse and event are over and done with.

So all this

On 8/27/2025 at 10:02 PM, AThinker1 said:

Reason’s Requirements: Reason exists (we use it) and depends on causality and consistency; without these, reason does not exist.

• Persuasiveness: Reason’s daily use (e.g., in science) fails in chaos; using reason to deny reason's existence is a self-contradiction, and thus is false.

Is just typical AI pompous twaddle.

It is not meaningless.

It just goes too far and tries to do too much.

As regards electronic chips,

National Semiconductor introduced Trisate logic in the 1970s

This was further extended to four value logic in IEEE 1364 which itself is a subset of the 1993 IEEE standard 1164 for multivalued logic systems.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You can use reason to point out flaws in reasoning, and saying that an axiom doesn’t hold is not “denying reason”

Your axioms are not unassailable pillars of truth, and this has an air of “How dare you contradict me!”

Ok, do you believe causality and consistency are not required for reason? That's the axiom we are talking about, Axiom 1.

Let's be specific. Do you deny Axiom 1?

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Calm down Man.

Scientists often have to point out that

Correlation does not imply causation.

But you deny the existence of probability.

To me, and in this context, reason is associated with rational thinking or 'reasoning'.

Reason is not, and never has been, synonymous with cause, though some use them interchangably.

As a general guide a cause for an event forces that event to happen and precedes it in time even if only very very briefly; whereas a reason is a thought about that cause and may happen after both casuse and event are over and done with.

So all this

I don't deny probability, and said multiple times that it is useful when full knowledge is unavailable, aka observer ignorance. But probabilities must be fully causal and rational under the hood, as per the Theorem.

Let's simplify this a bit: What is your definition of rational thinking? Let's see you define it without causality and consistency. Good luck.

Causality in formal logic is denoted as C => E, cause produces an effect. Consistency is expressed as K ̸≡ ¬K, where K is a claim and ¬K its negation. Axiom 1 says that no rational thinking is possible without these 2.

So your task, is to define rational thinking without using causality and consistency, or their equivalents. Good luck.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

As regards electronic chips,

National Semiconductor introduced Trisate logic in the 1970s

This was further extended to four value logic in IEEE 1364 which itself is a subset of the 1993 IEEE standard 1164 for multivalued logic systems.

Yes. And I am saying that all of these are based on classical logic, and simply extend upon it without contradicting it.

Classical logic is the basis and foundation of all non-self-contradictory logic. Thus that which contradicts classical logic is embracing self-contradiction, and thus is nonsense by definition.

45 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

I don't deny probability, and said multiple times that it is useful when full knowledge is unavailable, aka observer ignorance. But probabilities must be fully causal and rational under the hood, as per the Theorem.

Really, perhaps I misconstrued all these then

On 8/28/2025 at 11:44 PM, studiot said:

4) I agree, probabilities are useful. But should not be confused for actual reality they approximate.

On 8/28/2025 at 11:07 PM, AThinker1 said:

Probabilities are fine as an approximation, but do not represent reality completely. The state is always fully deterministic. No exception possible as per the Theorem.

On 8/29/2025 at 3:32 AM, AThinker1 said:

Superposition is mathematical approximation, aka fiction, just like 2.5 children family, that does not actually exist.
QC is directly relying on this non-existent object to do magical calculations. This is a problem.

On 8/29/2025 at 8:25 PM, AThinker1 said:

superposition is a probabilistic math trick and not an actual physical object that you can use to do calculations with.

On 8/29/2025 at 8:25 PM, AThinker1 said:

Probabilistic estimates are fine and useful. Just don't promote them into actual underlying reality, because by doing so you'd violate direct causality and determinism, which violates (insults) reason itself, and is therefore false.

On 8/30/2025 at 3:58 AM, AThinker1 said:

Probabilism is a Band-Aid for an ignorant observer, and it is useful, but it cannot replace direct causality.

Seems a pretty devastating attack on all things probabilistic to me (and I expect to others as well)

Except that it is just plain wrong.

Not in tune with reality, just a band aid.

What do you mean by cause ?

54 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

Causality in formal logic is denoted as C => E, cause produces an effect

Could that E have happened or happen without C ?

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

Really, perhaps I misconstrued all these then

Indeed. I was saying the same thing in different words to help you understand.

14 minutes ago, studiot said:

Could that E have happened or happen without C ?

Then it is not the effect of C.

You still have not defined rational thought without relying on Axiom 1. Any trouble doing so?

1 hour ago, AThinker1 said:

Then it is not the effect of C.

But you said it was. as I already quoted .

14 minutes ago, studiot said:

But you said it was. as I already quoted .

context: if E happens without C then it is not the effect of C but of something else, ie D.

3 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

context: if E happens without C then it is not the effect of C but of something else, ie D.

But that is not what you said or your version of the propositional calculus says.

If you wanted to have a D you should have correctly introduced it.

Personally I prefer the word antecedent not cause for reasons I have already explained.

And I prefer the word implies which does not necessarily mean causality.

It could do for it does not preclude it either.

(C ᴠ D) Ͱ E

Edited August 31Aug 31 by studiot

2 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

Ok, do you believe causality and consistency are not required for reason? That's the axiom we are talking about, Axiom 1.

Let's be specific. Do you deny Axiom 1?

I don’t think that you have defined anything well enough (reason isn’t defined at all), and language is imprecise.

Logic has a more solid foundation, and logic can be used to disprove logical arguments; you can make faulty arguments and you can use false premises. You can also have issues like the Epimenides paradox (the Cretan who proclaimed “All Cretans are liars”)

So I think your axiom is ill-defined and a false statement on which you built an argument. Like the geometry example I gave, you might be able to build a system based on that axiom, but to apply it to our universe has additional requirements