So yes, you are right that quantum physics may show that total determinism is not entirely correct at the scale of very small - but it is also the case that it might be that determinism is still in play at this level.
If you insist that Laplacian determinism be accepted as a given, then there is no point in further discussing the subject of this thread, or in fact any other idea or any other matter, since, thanks to determinism, there is nothing that any discussion can do about anything. Even though, ironically, we cannot stop uselessly discussing things because, like everything else we do, determinism forces us to do it anyway.
So here we are. I accept what quantum physicists say about quantum indeterminacy, i.e.; that it is a real, not an abstract, phenomenon. That it is an ontological fact, not just an epistemological, mathematical, notional construct. You, OTH, want to claim that the jury is still out on that one, and that until these scientists pile up sufficient 'proof' to satisfy your demands, quantum indeterminacy will remain speculative. Meanwhile, until quantum physics meets with your satisfaction, you, I, and all the world together, must stick with the mechanist determinism of pre-quantum mechanics,i.e. 17th-18th century materialist determinist mechanics. I must deny the postulate that is the basis for my thread--that reality, including biology, is not mechanically determined.
Now - since we are both unqualified to talk about quantum physics we should probably leave it well alone unless we don't mind the risk of looking like idiots.
We do not have to go into it far enough to make ourselves look like idiots. All we have to do is agree that, as per my citation in my previous post, quantum physics has disproven materialist determinism , and replaced that postulate with quantum indeterminacy.
Since you refuse to do that, rightly or wrongly, we have reached an impasse, an irreconcilable difference, and have nothing further to say to each other wrt evolution's proposed mechanism/s.
[qs]
Whether or not some events occur with no prior cause is not relevant to the question at hand in this thread no matter how many exclamation marks you use:
quote:
It isn't simply "relevent", it is the very essence of the matter!!!!
Funny, now you are trying on some of your own sophistry. You quote me where I refer to quantum indeterminacy, at the end of my post, but try to make it appear that by "it" I am referring to the 'ex nihilo', which occupied the early part of my post. The 'ex nihilo' being a logical argument I challenged you to rebut, but which you do not even mention until this point, where it is falsely dragged in where it does not belong. 'QI' and the 'ex nihilo' are two separate arguments, as I'm sure you know.
The quotation marks are not offered as proof of relevency, but rather, my reaction to your absurd assertion that the validity of 19th century determinism, given QI, is irrelevent to the issue of whether or not genetic/biological determinism is valid , and still supports the RMNS hypothesis. No matter many exclamation marks come with my reaction to it, your assertion of irrelevency is still just as absurd as ever.
You assert that genetic determinism (the exclusive variety) is necessary for certain variants of evolutionary theory.
No, I do not assert that at all. I assert that 'determinism', [specifically gene-centric genetic/biological determinism], is necessary _to_ 'RMNS',--that is, the 'sine qua non', foundational causal mechanism that supposedly explains biological evolution in darwinian, i.e., materialist, terms.
I hope it is clear that this is evidently false
In my own terms, as above, it is true.
since it is simple enough to demonstrate that genetic determinism isn't essential to the simple theory of evolution.
If by "the simple theory of evolution [?!?]", you mean "RMNS" then provide this 'simple demonstration' that "RM" can be the 'mechanism' generates productive novel traits, but without relying upon/entailing mechanical determinism.
You go on to say that this is somehow affected by the fact that it might be impossible to determine the future from the present - but this part of your idea seems many steps ahead of the argument at this stage. So let's take things one step at a time.
Well, since 'this' proposition, {QI},is not "somehow affected by" determinism, but rather, itself affects whether or not it _is_ possible "to determine the future from the present" [determinism _ meaning, 'fix', 'establish', I assume?], is not "ahead of the argument at this stage", but rather, is the heart of the matter now, and at all stages, I suggest that we either deal with this step now, or, as above, simply agree to disagree and abandon our exchange.
Edited by Elmer, : No reason given.