Scientific determinism
The arguments you make in the current series (doubt and statistics) are all based on scientific determinism.
A. Is this a truly universally agreed-upon philosophical view?
on. I didn’t understand why you don’t see quantum physics as a rejection (even in principle, but still present) of determinism.
on. Humans have a very profound influence on reality, so it is never possible to predict what will happen even if we have all the relevant physical data, because we lack the power of human influence. For example, ten thousand years ago, if I had taken all the necessary scientific data, I would have predicted and determined that there would be an earthquake in Turkey in 3028. But I would have been wrong, and the earthquake would have happened in 2023, because humans affected global warming following the industrial revolution, or influenced in all sorts of other ways, and this caused the earthquake to happen in 2023.
So because of humanity, natural reality is no longer deterministic, right?
A. This is not (just) philosophy but science. And yes, that is agreed upon.
B. I explained this in my Freedom Science books. This may be a rejection of determinism (depending on the interpretation), but it still does not allow for divine intervention without violating the laws of nature.
C? Absolutely. I’ve explained this before, too, mainly in the second book of the trilogy, and also several times here on the site. But again, divine involvement at this point is an involvement that breaks the laws of nature (of which human choice is a part).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
