Scientific Urban Legends

I don't think "deterministic" is a very well defined word. However, I think I agree with you. However, you can use Quantum Mechanics to make absolute predictions... I can predict with 100% certainty how semiconductor logic gates will behave. Your computer depends on this.

A common misunderstanding of evolution is the idea that it has a purpose or a direction. It that sense I definitely agree with you.

"Deterministic" means "entirely predetermined", without room for chance or for new development.

Funny how some have it both ways, but never at the same time.

You're talking about what? Sex?

I rarely even think about that anymore.
As far as i know you can have that any number of ways simultaneously.

Me neither. Unfortunately, my wife still does.

My prostate reminds me once in a great while.

oh dear, i didnt make that 'simultaneous' edit with that unintended outcome.

Anyway, it would appear that "God plays dices", contrary to what Einstein believed.

Yeah, but I betcha they're loaded.

The tens of millions of logic circuits in your computer act in a completely predictable way. If they didn't than you wouldn't be able to read this message.

Does this fit your definition of "deterministic"? (I ask this because these semiconductor-based logic gates work because of Quantum Physics). I only say this because your statement implies that Quantum Physics is not deterministic.

The term "deterministic" is awfully vague unless you provide a better definition.

I have provided a definition already. Try to understand it first, before rejecting it... or try and find another. Semantic disputes are boring.

Yes, the guy is cheating, on top of it all!

I remember one from the 1960's in which Planarian worms (flatworms) that had been trained to navigate a maze were subsequently "chopped up" and fed to other planarian worms, which seemed to acquire the ability to also run the maze (actually it was sensitivity to light, not a maze, but same basic concept).

They taught us this in school science class and concluded that "memories" could be transferred to other flatworms through ingestion.

Years later, this seems preposterous, but I still have not figured out to what degree it is actually true or not.

Scientific Urban Legend? I don't know.

Maybe he just didnt wanna leave everything to chance. Can you blame him?

Of course I can blame God. Otherwise what's the point of having one?

I bet Rod Serling could have given us a clue.

My question is how your definition of "deterministic" (which I suggest is too vague to have practical use in this context) in this real life circumstance.

Are the logic gates in your computer "deterministic" or not? (I think this is a valid question... and it just takes a yes or a no). I argue that Quantum Mechanics, in at least this sense, is perfectly deterministic.

This is very relevant to the discussion.... because misconceptions of Quantum Physics is a core source of many Scientific Urban Legends.

I suspect your difficulties with the word indicate a form of mental resistance, of denial. There's nothing wrong with the definition but there's something wrong with your logic.

In a non-deterministic world view, some events are predetermined while others are not.

In a deterministic view point, every single event is predetermined.

Therefore, the existence of events that are predetermined (such as a computer's calculation, most of the times) is consistent with both determinism and non-determinism. Do you understand that point?

This is a thread about science. My point is valid. I am sorry it upsets you.

You made the claim that "modern science is non-deterministic". I am asking to explain what this means in scientific terms... i.e. how do we test this statement. In science we need to be careful defining terms-- scientific claims are testable.

Your response (ignoring the personal insults) is a tautology. You just added another word without any definition.

1. What test can I run that would tell me if an event is "predetermined" or not?
2. How does this test work differently in "modern science" versus the other type of science?

Rather than challenging it, you seem to be creating new mythology about science.