Energy galore with IEC ...

[sen-no-sen]

Are you talking about the parapsychologist ?! I hope it was humor, because if she thinks there is the slightest hint of truth in this assumption, it is in fact that she does not think. Didn't she try telepathy?

You must have zapped the work of Suzanne blackmore, because it is one of the big names of the skeptical current ...

Consciousness, through the anticipation that it allows, adds a pre-determinism, a sort of feedback loop like in electronics, except that here the loop is made between what is expected to happen, and the present, in order to determine the future. This has always been done since man is man, I don't see why that would change, nor do I see why you want to go beyond this determinism. It is a utopia.

It is absolutely not a utopia ... there is no Karma or predestination, no more than fatality.
Otherwise we should consider that miserable people should remain miserable or that disasters cannot be avoided, diseases fought.
Science has not been deterministic for a long time, the universe does not have a story, it has all the possible stories, so it is up to us to choose our future *.
The problem lies - and it is not insurmountable - in the fact that social phenomena are by nature very inflexible. Indeed an individual decision requires little time as for its implementation, whereas on a large scale that This requires a set of modifications, notably of mentalities and generates a delaying of the consensus because of the disparities of point of view and the frame of reference of each one.


* Which is moreover the definition of intelligence:intelligence is what makes it possible to maximize the choices for possible future actions.

[Exnihiloest]

...
It is absolutely not a utopia ... there is no Karma or predestination, no more than fatality.
Otherwise we should consider that miserable people should remain miserable or that disasters cannot be avoided, diseases fought.
Science has no longer been deterministic

She alone was unaware ...

Science is deterministic. Even in quantum mechanics, the wave function is deterministic.

the universe does not have a story, it has all the possible stories, so it is up to us to choose our future *.
...

And how do you think we make our decisions?
A brain is a processing center. He has stored an immeasurable number of data of different nature in his or rather his memories because the areas of the brain do not store or process in the same way data of different nature, and all of these data, combined with stimuli that it receives senses, attack neural inputs whose outputs will determine the actions. It is only the enormous amount of data and processing that gives the impression that the choice is free.

A non-deterministic system would be a system for which effects would be without cause, and not a system whose number of causes is so large that one controls almost nothing at all to predict the effect, as to predict if so and so will go on vacation to Houat rather than Houédic or Pétaouschnock.

The only apparent non-determinism is seen in quantum mechanics, where a deterministic function gives the probability of the occurrence of an event which would not be so according to one of the interpretations of MQ, that of the Copenhagen school. But it is not formalism that says it. Other interpretations perfectly compatible with QM, such as transactional interpretation or even Everett's multiuniverse theory, maintain determinism and of course causality.

[sen-no-sen]

Science is deterministic. Even in quantum mechanics, the wave function is deterministic.

Hence the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ...

In fact it is much more complex than that, there is indeterminacy in determinism and vice versa.

Other interpretations perfectly compatible with QM, such as transactional interpretation or even Everett's multiuniverse theory, maintain determinism and of course causality.

The multiple universe theory of H. Green is to consider a split in the Universe during each event, however shy it may be.
So there is a universe where I write 10 lines on these subjects, another 11 another 12,13,14,15 etc ... or almost an infinite number of possibilities.
This is not the most economical theory, to say the least! In addition it is not testable, the observer is necessarily trapped in a branch of the Universe.
It is in fact a theory aimed at keeping the dogma of causality and therefore of determinism intact.

In the framework of quantum cosmology we consider that the universe is endowed with a wave function, covering all possibilities (and therefore all physical laws), therefore a current event could very well be caused by several parallel pasts , we are therefore no longer in determinism (= a past for a future).
Same as the example taken by Alain Connes on "the past which is still moving":

[izentrop]

Science is deterministic. Even in quantum mechanics, the wave function is deterministic.

Hence the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ...

Just the fact that it is made by men ... In quantum mechanics we can only speak of probability, especially since the standard model can still crumble like a house of cards, I do not see either or would be the determinism ... https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1641

[sen-no-sen]

Science is deterministic. Even in quantum mechanics, the wave function is deterministic.

Hence the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ...

Just the fact that it is made by men ... In quantum mechanics we can only speak of probability, especially since the standard model can still crumble like a house of cards, I do not see either or would be the determinism ... https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1641

Indeterminism does not oppose determinism, it completes it.
Quantum physics is deployed in a framework that covers the two notions.
There is no serious scientist in our time to say that science is only deterministic.

To better understand it is necessary to approach the different aspects and terms covered by its concepts:

-Determinism, the past influences the present via chains of causality step by step.

-Deterministic chaos(such as meteorological phenomena), that is to say a set of deterministic phenomena whose immense complexity would generate an apparent indeterminacy (for the observer). Indeterminacy linked to ignorance of all interactions.

-indeterminism ou non-local entanglement,that is to say:(...) of real chance, therefore inherently unpredictable event, and no simply unpredictable for the observer. In this simple term of “true chance” there is a whole ontology at stake since the question of knowing whether the impossibility of predicting the state of a system is linked to our ignorance or to the very nature of the system is engaged; in other words, the state of the system is inherently unpredictable, and does not reflect the ignorance in which we are dealing with it. In short, true chance indicates a situation where the measure does not compensate for ignorance but creates the result ; there is a real act of creation there, which excludes any form of predetermination which we could not have accessed. " True chance therefore does not have a cause in the same sense as in classical physics. A random result is not predetermined in any way »
in , The unthinkable chance. Non-locality, teleportation and other quantum wonders, from Nicolas gisin Odile-Jacob edition, 2012

[izentrop]

Indeterminism was introduced by Heisenberg, but has since been refuted https://www.institut-pandore.com/physiq ... eisenberg/

[eclectron]

Indeterminism does not oppose determinism, it completes it.
Quantum physics is deployed in a framework that covers the two notions.
There is no serious scientist in our time to say that science is only deterministic.

Quite personal opinion, I am neither scientific nor serious, so I have the right to have a personal opinion?

For the moment, I consider that everything is deterministic but we don't know the causes, so we say, there is indeterminism.
A bit like a cork on the surface of the water which only considers the surface of the water and has no knowledge of underwater life, from time to time a fish causes an unexplained backwash for the cork and this one makes probabilities on these events.

The emptiness is subject to fluctuations which cannot be determined by us, and what can we say if other still unknown dimensions get involved?

As far as we know, the infinitely small is indeterministic except when it interacts with the macroscopic. (Observer)
The macroscopic, less impacted by the fluctuations of the vacuum by its mass effect, behaves in a deterministic way.

Are there any experiences that would contradict this vision?
Obviously I stop at deterministic chaos.

there is a real act of creation, which excludes any form of predetermination which we could not have accessed

On the other hand, it also speaks to me ... would it be only with the creation of the universe, or would it also be the fruit of determinism ???? there would be no real creation.
It is to go crazy!
Difficult to embrace everything.

[izentrop]

The word creation makes one think too much of the power of monotheistic religions. I think we shouldn't mix everything

The hypothesis of universal determinism governed the science of the nineteenth century. It was challenged by modern physics in the XNUMXth century https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Déterminisme#Limites

[sen-no-sen]

For the moment, I consider that everything is deterministic but we don't know the causes, so we say, there is indeterminism.
A bit like a cork on the surface of the water which only considers the surface of the water and has no knowledge of underwater life, from time to time a fish causes an unexplained backwash for the cork and this one makes probabilities on these events.

You have absolutely the right to express an opinion, but an opinion does not form reality.
Up to now all the experiences on the subject (and mainly that on the experiences of non locality) demonstrate that one can no longer affirm that reality would be strictly deterministic.
Maybe someday we will discover "hidden variables" to explain the results, but so far they have all been beaten up.

Going back to the origin of this digression, namely can humanity choose other paths in the future? There is no need to resort to quantum physics.
All the prophylactic measures, the accidentology etc ... shows us to what point there is no fatality and that we can diminish or even reduce risk-wise by knowing the issues.
It would not have been possible, for example, to reduce the number of deaths from more than 16000 to less than 4000 on the roads in 50 years with an increase in traffic ...
It is the same on a larger scale, even if I agree it is very difficult to change behavior.
In conclusion, determinism (science) and predestination (superstition) should not be confused.

[eclectron]

The word creation makes one think too much of the power of monotheistic religions. I think we shouldn't mix everything

The hypothesis of universal determinism governed the science of the nineteenth century. It was challenged by modern physics in the XNUMXth century https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Déterminisme#Limites

Everyone has their own sentence in the article.

Chaos theory is often cited as going against the idea of ​​determinism, when it deals with rigorously deterministic dynamic systems. There is a nonsense there on which one must be attentive.

As for the word creation, each has its taboos.
the quantum vacuum does just that, create and destroy.

Cut everything into rings as likes to do the mind happens to lose the sense of the whole, the sense of the essential.
Physics and spirituality are not, in my opinion, separate but it is necessary to keep, which can seem delicate.

Conformism has a lot to do with your positioning, it's a bit of a shame for you, you cut yourself off from an essential aspect of life. because everything is mixed in the omelet of life!