well, as I explained, I have not studied physics. I just read lots of philosophy. My definition of determinism is very loose and that is why I refer to a variety of determinism and do not pin it down. I am more of an agnostic about more than just religion, and thus do not assert any sort of strict determinism or define it carefully - I use it more to complain against folks who believe in free will and sin and all the nonsense about people making choices and having to suffer for them. Since my emphasis is on ethics, that is the approach that is meaningful to me. Your emphasis is on physics - though I suspect your ethical views would be similar enough to mine that I would be comfortable with them - so you approach determinism in the context of science - which I candidly cannot keep up with.<quoted text>
I am curious about your definition of the term 'determinism'. Some care is required in terminology, the term 'chaos' is used technically for certain types of evolution in deterministic systems (ones where initial conditions determine later ones).
One of the interesting aspects of the Bell inequalities is that they apply to *any* locally causal, realist system. In this, the term 'realist' means that things have definite properties at all times and 'locally causal' requires that all events are caused and the causes do not travel infinitely fast. It turns out that any such system will automatically obey certain inequalities in the correlations of certain observations. These inequalities are called Bell inequalities. It turns out that these inequalities are violated in the real word. In other words, the actual universe is either acausal, has causes that travel infinitely fast (which is sort of acausality also), or things do not have definite properties at all times.
Quantum mechanics is an acausal theory where particles often do not have definite properties and it also violates the Bell inequalities. it does agree with the observations.
My interest is in matters like what are the consequences for a criminal justice system, for child rearing, etc, if one disputes free will and believes in some type and degree of "determinism" on the human level - nature and nurture. I am not interested in nor able to follow the issue of determinism in the context of physics and the scientific explanations you revel in. That is not a criticism nor even an admission. Both aspects are extremely important in their own ways.
Thanks for your wonderful patience in trying to explain things in scientific terms however, and I trust others will understand them better than I do. At least you open my eyes and my mind to matters (that is a pun) which I would not normally read or think about.
I was raised as a very contented agnostic, and not knowing about God or the intricacies of nature never bothered me a bit. I just try to know the names of every evil Republican I want to see defeated somehow, and to be informed about public policy matters.
I think the ground on which we would meet with both approaches in the most interesting way, would be on the issue of global warming and climate change. I approach it as a matter of risk assessment.
What are the consequences if one is wrong, and acts accordingly - I am a climate change worrier, and that is sufficient. I do not need final proof, since I think final proof would be death by heatstroke or drowning, and a bit too late to be helpful.