Causality and Acausality

[guest_of_logic]

David: Perhaps we need to define exactly what we mean by "determinism" and "indeterminism". It could be that we are talking at cross-purposes here. What is your exact conception of "completely deterministic causality"?

guest_of_logic: To me it means that one state of the universe completely determines the subsequent state of the universe, such that the universe in its entirety (the Totality as you like to label it) is something akin to a brick, in the sense that a brick is completely fixed.

David: The universe is a brick regardless of whether things are caused or not. From the standpoint of the future, the past is fixed and thus brick-like, which means that it is the same for what we currently consider to be the future.

That's a non-sequitur. It could be that the future is in some ways indeterminate in the sense that it is not entirely determined by the past state of the universe, and that one out of all of the possibilities is randomly selected only at the time of its occurrence.

In any case, you didn't say whether you conceive of "completely deterministic causality" in the same way that I do.

Whatever happens is destined to happen. Even random events are destined to happen.

That's a faith-based assertion. You have no way of knowing whether it's true. In fact, given my definition of "random", it's patently false. In any case, why do you introduce this new word, "destiny", into the discussion? What does it mean to you? Is it the same as determinism to you?

This is another way of saying that I don't see the distinction between caused events and what you call "random events".

A "random event" as I'm conceiving of it is one which is not destined or determined by prior states of the universe. I don't see how you can fail to grasp this concept, except that you are "determined" to defend your faith.

DQ: Maestro hasn't demonstrated how random events, or creativity for that matter, are at odds with a causal universe. Until he does, his pointing to them has no meaning.

Guest: Oh, but he very much has. What, about "It is non-causal in the sense that the present state of the universe is not sufficient to determine the outcome of the random process. The outcome cannot be known until it is revealed", do you fail to understand?

DQ: It doesn't really say anything. It can equally be said that an outcome cannot be known until it is causally created.

guest_of_logic: Yes, that could equally be said, but only one of the two is truth, and we cannot know which. Therefore your stance that causality rules supreme is pure faith. Therefore it is you who "doesn't really say anything".

DQ: I still don't see how our being ignorant of an outcome casts doubt on causality. The fact that an outcome isn't known until revealed only points to our ignorance of what will happen. It says nothing about whether the outcome is caused or not. That is why I said that maestro's statement doesn't really say anything.

Oh, I see, you're looking purely at the second of the two sentences. Ignore that, then, and concentrate on the more substantive first sentence.

David: If by random you mean, "springing into existence out of nothing", then there is the further problem of improbability. What are the odds that a completely uncaused event can throw up a configuration that is even remotely meaningful to one's personal situation in life?

guest_of_logic: What if it were not "completely uncaused", but were rather random within a set of (meaningful) parameters?

David: What does that mean exactly? What does it mean to say that something is partially caused? Does it mean that those areas where causality isn't happening, non-causality reigns?

guest_of_logic: It's like saying that the die roll results in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, at random, rather than in any number of possible events such as the die exploding, the die disappearing, someone hiding the die, the die causing your house to catch on fire, the die causing a purple smurf to eat your television, etc. In other words, only a restricted set of outcomes are possible, rather than any outcome whatsoever.

David: The range of parameters here is only made possible by the causal circumstances - e.g. the cube-structure of the dice and our ignorance of how a throw will eventuate. So your example here only confirms the reality that the dice-throwing is fully causal.

guest_of_logic: It was merely a crude example: more sophisticated examples would involve things further removed from the obvious universe of causes, more in the realm of "coming into effect from apparent nothingness".

David: You'd have to give a specific example. At the moment, it sounds like science fiction. You gave the dice example, but now you seem to be abandoning it. Will you be doing the same with the next example?

I just wasn't on my game with that response - it was quite ineffective. I will try again, without abandoning the example. To avoid the usual causes as much as possible, imagine that the die appears out of nowhere, with one side up, completely at random - in other words, nothing in the past determines which side is up; nor is any side "destined" to be up. There are six, and only six, possible outcomes, but as to which of those six will appear, that is a matter of completely random non-determinism.

When I wrote of more sophisticated examples I was thinking of things like the nucleus of an atom, which in any instant either decays by splitting into two or more parts, or does not decay. Here there are only two options, rather than six, but it's a bit easier to imagine it because it doesn't involve "magical" appearing-out-of-nowhere, and nor do we have to worry about explaining why causes such as the physics of the die rolling around on the table are overridden by the randomness.

guest_of_logic: In other words, the die would appear out of nowhere, with one of its sides definitively up. Whichever side was up would have no correlation to anything that had occurred previously in the physical world, because until its appearance, the die would not have existed in the physical world.

David: Why would a dice appear in this instance and not something else?

Because of the constraints that I've already mentioned.

[Kevin Solway]

This is the crux of the matter, because if you can't see that constraints are in fact causes, there's no point in continuing with this discussion.

I acknowledge that a constraint is in some sense a cause.

That's not good enough. You need to see that a constraint is in fact an actual cause.

For example, the result of a dice throw is constrained to 1..6 because the dice has six sides. The fact that the dice has six sides is a cause of this range of results.

Further, there is no constraint that isn't a cause.

My point is that the fact that there are some causes operating does not preclude randomness from occurring.

So you are saying that there might be some things that are acausal. (As an aside, I don't like your using the word "random" to imply acausality, but it's your choice).

If this were the case there would have to be a point at which the restrictions (causes) came to an end, and where acausality begins. But within the acausality, beyond the point at which restrictions (causes) came to an end, there would necessarily be no restrictions whatsoever. Being beyond restrictions, anything at all would be possible, and you could indeed throw a dice and get an elephant.

If, on the other hand, you argue that the restrictions (causes) extend into the region of acausality, then in fact there is no acausality at all.

There's no third possibility.

[guest_of_logic]

Kevin: This is the crux of the matter, because if you can't see that constraints are in fact causes, there's no point in continuing with this discussion.

guest_of_logic: I acknowledge that a constraint is in some sense a cause.

Kevin: That's not good enough. You need to see that a constraint is in fact an actual cause.

I hedged a little because I'm aware that you have a slightly different understanding of what constitutes a "cause" than that which is typical. Typically a cause is held to be the most significant and unique contributor to an outcome, whereas you consider all contributing factors as causes. All I'm saying is that whilst I understand your paradigm, I also think that it's unorthodox, hence I'm only willing to go so far as saying that a constraint is "in some sense" a cause. I am aware that under your unorthodox understanding a constraint would be an unqualified cause.

guest_of_logic: My point is that the fact that there are some causes operating does not preclude randomness from occurring.

Kevin: So you are saying that there might be some things that are acausal. (As an aside, I don't like your using the word "random" to imply acausality, but it's your choice).

Yes, that's what I'm saying, and I prefer the word "random" to "acausal" in this context. If you think that it would help, I could prefix it with "truly", as in "truly random", to distinguish it from merely unpredictable (but nevertheless deterministic) randomness.

If this were the case there would have to be a point at which the restrictions (causes) came to an end, and where acausality begins. But within the acausality, beyond the point at which restrictions (causes) came to an end, there would necessarily be no restrictions whatsoever. Being beyond restrictions, anything at all would be possible, and you could indeed throw a dice and get an elephant.

If, on the other hand, you argue that the restrictions (causes) extend into the region of acausality, then in fact there is no acausality at all.

There's no third possibility.

You're limiting your imagination. I've already described a third possibility: that of the die example (or, alternatively, of the decaying/not-decaying atomic nucleus), where there are limited (constrainted) choices and one of them occurs truly at random.

[Kevin Solway]

. . . one of them occurs truly at random.

Once again, interpreting your "random" as "uncaused":

The same argument applies that I gave previously, and the argument cannot be disputed:

To rephrase it: For there to be anything acausal then there must be a point at which the restrictions (causes) come to an end, and where acausality begins. But within the acausality, beyond the point at which restrictions (causes) came to an end, there would necessarily be no restrictions whatsoever.

The only other alternative is that the restrictions (causes) extend into the acausal region, which would render the acausal region non-existent.

Logically there cannot be another alternative, so it's not a matter of insufficient imagination.

[guest_of_logic]

For a start, you could stop interpreting my random as your uncaused.

But let me show you where you're going wrong. You write: "But within the acausality, beyond the point at which restrictions (causes) came to an end, there would necessarily be no restrictions whatsoever." Fine - have it that way if that's the way that you want it. But then if that's the way that you want it, then the way that I want it is that the "unrestricted acausality" has limited expression, so that it can only manifest in the real world through the mediation of constraints. "Anything goes" inside that acausal realm, but then, not just anything actually appears and manifests out of it into the world of form.

In any case, your objections are highly theoretical, whereas you have not demonstrated practically what is wrong with my example of a die appearing with one of its sides up at true random: one out of six distinct possibilities.

[Kevin Solway]

For a start, you could stop interpreting my random as your uncaused.

"Random" either means unpredictable and caused (fully determined), or it means unpredictable and uncaused. I believe I am correct in assuming you mean the latter, since you clearly don't mean the first.

But let me show you where you're going wrong. You write: "But within the acausality, beyond the point at which restrictions (causes) came to an end, there would necessarily be no restrictions whatsoever." Fine - have it that way if that's the way that you want it. But then if that's the way that you want it, then the way that I want it is that the "unrestricted acausality" has limited expression, so that it can only manifest in the real world through the mediation of constraints. "Anything goes" inside that acausal realm, but then, not just anything actually appears and manifests out of it into the world of form.

Either the acausal realm has an effect on the causal realm, or it doesn't.

In the case that it doesn't, then we can ignore it out of hand, since not only do restrictions (causes) not act upon it, but it does not have any action in our causal world, and we could thus never know of its existence, or have any reason for thinking that it exists.

The only other possibility is that it does have an effect on the causal realm. But since "anything goes" inside the acausal realm, the effects on the causal world will be truly chaotic, since effects do not happen independently of causes. You can't have ordered effects come out of truly chaotic causes.

In this way, even if there were a tiny bit of acausality, the whole Universe would become chaotic.

In any case, your objections are highly theoretical, whereas you have not demonstrated practically what is wrong with my example of a die appearing with one of its sides up at true random: one out of six distinct possibilities.

"Truly random" to me, means only "truly unpredictable", but I will assume you are alluding to some kind of acausality.

When we throw a dice, and the dice then shows a number between one and six, it is not the same dice that we threw. It is identifiably different. Not only that, but the dice that shows the number may not have any close causal connection with the dice we threw. We cannot determine that it does. So for all intentional purposes, the dice that shows the number, "just appeared". In fact, every single thing in the Universe "just appears", and we don't know where they appeared from, or what caused them. But that's no reason to assume that they had no cause.

[David Quinn]

But let me show you where you're going wrong. You write: "But within the acausality, beyond the point at which restrictions (causes) came to an end, there would necessarily be no restrictions whatsoever." Fine - have it that way if that's the way that you want it. But then if that's the way that you want it, then the way that I want it is that the "unrestricted acausality" has limited expression, so that it can only manifest in the real world through the mediation of constraints. "Anything goes" inside that acausal realm, but then, not just anything actually appears and manifests out of it into the world of form.

This doesn't make any sense at all.

In the realm of "anything goes", anything can indeed appear, by definition. An elephant might appear where the dice is expected to appear, and then according to your line of thinking, "restrictions" will act to turn the elephant into a dice with one side showing up.

Somehow, I don't think so.

In any case, your objections are highly theoretical, whereas you have not demonstrated practically what is wrong with my example of a die appearing with one of its sides up at true random: one out of six distinct possibilities.

There is nothing theoretical about Kevin's objections or mine. It is simply a case of following the logical implications of what it means for an event to be acausal, or even partly acausal.

David: What does it mean to say that something is partially caused? Does it mean that those areas where causality isn't happening, non-causality reigns?

guest_of_logic: It's like saying that the die roll results in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, at random, rather than in any number of possible events such as the die exploding, the die disappearing, someone hiding the die, the die causing your house to catch on fire, the die causing a purple smurf to eat your television, etc. In other words, only a restricted set of outcomes are possible, rather than any outcome whatsoever.

David: The range of parameters here is only made possible by the causal circumstances - e.g. the cube-structure of the dice and our ignorance of how a throw will eventuate. So your example here only confirms the reality that the dice-throwing is fully causal.

guest_of_logic: It was merely a crude example: more sophisticated examples would involve things further removed from the obvious universe of causes, more in the realm of "coming into effect from apparent nothingness".

David: You'd have to give a specific example. At the moment, it sounds like science fiction. You gave the dice example, but now you seem to be abandoning it. Will you be doing the same with the next example?

I just wasn't on my game with that response - it was quite ineffective. I will try again, without abandoning the example. To avoid the usual causes as much as possible, imagine that the die appears out of nowhere, with one side up, completely at random - in other words, nothing in the past determines which side is up; nor is any side "destined" to be up. There are six, and only six, possible outcomes, but as to which of those six will appear, that is a matter of completely random non-determinism.

When I wrote of more sophisticated examples I was thinking of things like the nucleus of an atom, which in any instant either decays by splitting into two or more parts, or does not decay. Here there are only two options, rather than six, but it's a bit easier to imagine it because it doesn't involve "magical" appearing-out-of-nowhere, and nor do we have to worry about explaining why causes such as the physics of the die rolling around on the table are overridden by the randomness.

I don't see any difference between the nucleus example and the dice example.

The very fact that there are only two options open to a nucleus - to decay or not to decay - implies that the whole system is fully causal. If causal restraints weren't in operation in every aspect of the procedure, then the nucleus would suddenly have an infinite range of options available to it. It might choose to sing an aria, for example.

The two available options are causally created in the same way that the six available options of a dice throw are causally-created. The latter involves the cube-like structure of the dice, while the former involves the particular structure of the nucleus.

In any case, you didn't say whether you conceive of "completely deterministic causality" in the same way that I do.

It differs in our conception of what constitutes a "random event".

From our perspective as finite beings in time and space, random events are as good as real. To us, it really does seem as though "a random choice is made between 6 parameters", or whatever the case might be. From the larger perspective of the absolute, however, these same random events are caused, just like any other event is.

Whatever happens is destined to happen. Even random events are destined to happen.

That's a faith-based assertion. You have no way of knowing whether it's true. In fact, given my definition of "random", it's patently false. In any case, why do you introduce this new word, "destiny", into the discussion? What does it mean to you? Is it the same as determinism to you?

It is a different issue to determinism, although it does relate to your conception of an open-ended future and your need to insert "random events" into the proceedings in order to maintain this conception.

Again, the future is fixed in the sense that whatever happens in the future will be what happens in the future. From the standpoint of someone in the far-flung future, our own future is as fixed as our past is. It only seems open-ended to us because we don't know what is going to happen. And because we don't know what will happen, the open-endedness of the future is as good as real.

It's all a matter of perspective.

-

[guest_of_logic]

Kevin,

guest_of_logic: For a start, you could stop interpreting my random as your uncaused.

Kevin: "Random" either means unpredictable and caused (fully determined), or it means unpredictable and uncaused. I believe I am correct in assuming you mean the latter, since you clearly don't mean the first.

The latter is closer to what I mean, but it's not a perfect fit. Is a random (in the sense that I intend the word) event caused or uncaused? Well, in one sense it's caused: its cause is randomness, but in another sense, it's uncaused, because that randomness cannot be broken down into any more specific cause (and, importantly, because the random process is - by my definition of random - non-deterministic) - so I object to your associating my random with your uncaused, because they're not the same thing.

Either the acausal realm has an effect on the causal realm, or it doesn't.

That's sloppy wording and framing. "Effect" implies a preceding "cause", but "acausal" means "without cause", so you're contradicting yourself. Also, the term "acausal realm" is ambiguous - where exactly is this "realm" and what does it consist of?

In the case that it doesn't, then we can ignore it out of hand, since not only do restrictions (causes) not act upon it, but it does not have any action in our causal world, and we could thus never know of its existence, or have any reason for thinking that it exists.

Again, you imply a "realm", as though acausality were some sort of thing, whereas in fact all that it means is a lack of a cause (in other words: please interpret the question in my last paragraph as rhetorical, because it doesn't really have an answer). For that reason (acausality's meaning as a lack of a cause) I prefer the word "random" to describe what I'm getting at, because randomness is more than simply a lack of a cause.

The only other possibility is that it does have an effect on the causal realm. But since "anything goes" inside the acausal realm, the effects on the causal world will be truly chaotic, since effects do not happen independently of causes. You can't have ordered effects come out of truly chaotic causes.

It's hard to get sense out of that paragraph. You talk about acausality having an "effect" on the causal realm, and you write that "effects do not happen independently of causes": hence you are asserting that acausality is a cause, which is a contradiction, because acausality is actually a lack of a cause. Your use of language is flawed.

Anyway, I'll try to make sense of what I think you mean: you seem to be saying that if acausal events or occurrences (those without a cause) are possible, then anything might happen anywhere at any time, and chaos would ensue (I disagree that this is necessarily the case, but more on that in my response to David). This is why I have a problem with the use of the words "uncaused" or "acausal" to describe what I'm trying to suggest: they make it harder to see how it could be possible and what I actually mean. (Non-deterministic) "randomness" really is a better word to describe it. Please try to understand what I mean when I use that word. Here's how it might realistically function:

In the causal network of the universe, there might be opportunities for the phenomenon of non-deterministic randomness to operate to select instantaneously (i.e. in a way that is not determined by anything in the past) one eventuality out of a set of possibilities. I've given the example of the nucleus of an atom either randomly decaying or not decaying; now let me elaborate on that example: rather than the two discrete possibilities in each moment of decay/not-decay, there might be, say five ways in which the nucleus can decay - for example it might split into two 75%-25% masses, or into three 60%-20%-20% masses, etc. This is a more realistic version of the somewhat clumsy die example that I provided earlier. In each moment, there are six possibilities: either the nucleus does not decay (the first possibility), or it decays in one of the five preset possible ways; one of these possibilities is selected at random (possibly, though, according to a probability function, which biases the "not-decay" option much more heavily than the five "decay" options - else we'd have nuclei disintegrating far too frequently) in that very moment, i.e. completely divorced from anything in the past and without any cause that can be broken down further than by saying "it was utterly random".

guest_of_logic: In any case, your objections are highly theoretical, whereas you have not demonstrated practically what is wrong with my example of a die appearing with one of its sides up at true random: one out of six distinct possibilities.

Kevin: "Truly random" to me, means only "truly unpredictable", but I will assume you are alluding to some kind of acausality.

Please refer to my first paragraph in this response to see why "acausality" is not exactly what I mean, but something like it.

In fact, every single thing in the Universe "just appears", and we don't know where they appeared from, or what caused them. But that's no reason to assume that they had no cause.

But that doesn't refute my scenario at all. I'm not taking an observation and making an assumption, I'm posing a possibility to you: that in this situation there is no cause that can be broken down beyond "it was pure randomness".

--------------------------

David,

guest_of_logic: But let me show you where you're going wrong. You write: "But within the acausality, beyond the point at which restrictions (causes) came to an end, there would necessarily be no restrictions whatsoever." Fine - have it that way if that's the way that you want it. But then if that's the way that you want it, then the way that I want it is that the "unrestricted acausality" has limited expression, so that it can only manifest in the real world through the mediation of constraints. "Anything goes" inside that acausal realm, but then, not just anything actually appears and manifests out of it into the world of form.

David: This doesn't make any sense at all.

In the realm of "anything goes", anything can indeed appear, by definition. An elephant might appear where the dice is expected to appear, and then according to your line of thinking, "restrictions" will act to turn the elephant into a dice with one side showing up.

Somehow, I don't think so.

I don't think that I expressed myself well the first time, mostly because I didn't carefully analyse what was wrong with what Kevin wrote. Here's the problem: he uses the phrase "within the acausality", again reifying acausality: but acausality is not a thing, it's a lack of cause. It makes no sense to talk of there being "no restrictions whatsoever" "within acausality", because acausality is not a thing. Things (or more to the point, events and occurrences), can, however be acausal. Is it true to say that such things have "no restrictions whatsoever"? Absolutely not! All that we need to do is to refer to your favourite equation, A=A. Any thing has an identity. It is restricted by that identity.

Also, is it true to say that "anything goes" for acausal events? Well, all that we need to do to answer that question is to ask "Is it possible for an acausal square circle to materialise?" Again: absolutely not! A square circle doesn't go.

So the two contentions that you guys are making - that "anything goes" for acausal events, and that acausal events are "unrestricted", are both false. If any thing makes an appearance in this world of form - causally or acausally - that thing is necessarily restricted. So once we've dispensed with those two fallacious contentions, then the question arises: "to what extent would (hypothetical) acausal events be constrained?" This is really an empirical question, and it's impossible to discount the scenario that acausal events would be highly constrained to a limited set of possibilities.

All that I'm really trying to do here is to point out that "acausal" is a less useful concept, but that it's possible that - given the right empirical framework in the universe - it would result in something like the scenario that I'm proposing for non-deterministic random events, given that restrictions are unavoidable anyway.

The very fact that there are only two options open to a nucleus - to decay or not to decay - implies that the whole system is fully causal. If causal restraints weren't in operation in every aspect of the procedure, then the nucleus would suddenly have an infinite range of options available to it. It might choose to sing an aria, for example.

That's why I wrote "partially caused". Yes, causal restraints are in operation, but they're not the whole story. There's a non-deterministic random element, which in some sense is "uncaused" - i.e. in the sense that the randomness can't be broken down into a more specific cause.

From the larger perspective of the absolute, however, these same random events are caused, just like any other event is.

But I'm proposing the possibility of the existence of non-deterministic random events which - in the sense that I described above - aren't caused just like any other event is. You haven't proved that such a scenario is impossible, hence your above statement is once again one of faith.

Again, the future is fixed in the sense that whatever happens in the future will be what happens in the future.

Whereas if the scenario that I'm suggesting is true, then the future is not fixed, in the sense that it is not wholly determined by the past, and is only selected as it occurs.

[Kevin Solway]

"Random" either means unpredictable and caused (fully determined), or it means unpredictable and uncaused. I believe I am correct in assuming you mean the latter, since you clearly don't mean the first.

The latter is closer to what I mean, but it's not a perfect fit. Is a random (in the sense that I intend the word) event caused or uncaused? Well, in one sense it's caused: its cause is randomness, but in another sense, it's uncaused, because that randomness cannot be broken down into any more specific cause (and, importantly, because the random process is - by my definition of random - non-deterministic) - so I object to your associating my random with your uncaused, because they're not the same thing.

The main problem with this discussion is your use of word "random", and your inability to define exactly what you mean by it.

Above, you suggest that your "random" means "non-deterministic". But "non-deterministic" can mean a number of completely different things. "Non-deterministic" can mean uncaused or it can mean that we, as finite, conscious beings, cannot determine something (eg, we cannot determine for sure what the weather will be tomorrow). These are two completely different meanings.

In other words, your definition of "random" is itself non-deterministic, and so nothing can be done with it.

Also, if we say that an event happens "without cause", we are in fact attributing a cause to the thing, because we are saying that its cause is the fact that it lacks something. A lack of something is itself a cause. For example, if I lack a heartbeat for too long, it will be the cause my death.

So, as a logical point, it is impossible for there to be acausality.

[David Quinn]

guest_of_logic: But let me show you where you're going wrong. You write: "But within the acausality, beyond the point at which restrictions (causes) came to an end, there would necessarily be no restrictions whatsoever." Fine - have it that way if that's the way that you want it. But then if that's the way that you want it, then the way that I want it is that the "unrestricted acausality" has limited expression, so that it can only manifest in the real world through the mediation of constraints. "Anything goes" inside that acausal realm, but then, not just anything actually appears and manifests out of it into the world of form.

David: This doesn't make any sense at all.

In the realm of "anything goes", anything can indeed appear, by definition. An elephant might appear where the dice is expected to appear, and then according to your line of thinking, "restrictions" will act to turn the elephant into a dice with one side showing up.

Somehow, I don't think so.

I don't think that I expressed myself well the first time, mostly because I didn't carefully analyse what was wrong with what Kevin wrote. Here's the problem: he uses the phrase "within the acausality", again reifying acausality: but acausality is not a thing, it's a lack of cause. It makes no sense to talk of there being "no restrictions whatsoever" "within acausality", because acausality is not a thing. Things (or more to the point, events and occurrences), can, however be acausal. Is it true to say that such things have "no restrictions whatsoever"? Absolutely not! All that we need to do is to refer to your favourite equation, A=A. Any thing has an identity. It is restricted by that identity.

Also, is it true to say that "anything goes" for acausal events? Well, all that we need to do to answer that question is to ask "Is it possible for an acausal square circle to materialise?" Again: absolutely not! A square circle doesn't go.

Okay, good. So we both agree that everything is necessarily governed by logical causation.

So the two contentions that you guys are making - that "anything goes" for acausal events, and that acausal events are "unrestricted", are both false. If any thing makes an appearance in this world of form - causally or acausally - that thing is necessarily restricted. So once we've dispensed with those two fallacious contentions, then the question arises: "to what extent would (hypothetical) acausal events be constrained?" This is really an empirical question, and it's impossible to discount the scenario that acausal events would be highly constrained to a limited set of possibilities.

All that I'm really trying to do here is to point out that "acausal" is a less useful concept, but that it's possible that - given the right empirical framework in the universe - it would result in something like the scenario that I'm proposing for non-deterministic random events, given that restrictions are unavoidable anyway.

In other words, if the causal circumstances are ripe, then a particular "selection" will occur ....?

The very fact that there are only two options open to a nucleus - to decay or not to decay - implies that the whole system is fully causal. If causal restraints weren't in operation in every aspect of the procedure, then the nucleus would suddenly have an infinite range of options available to it. It might choose to sing an aria, for example.

That's why I wrote "partially caused". Yes, causal restraints are in operation, but they're not the whole story. There's a non-deterministic random element, which in some sense is "uncaused" - i.e. in the sense that the randomness can't be broken down into a more specific cause.

What about the bursting of a bubble? Would you consider this to be a causal process, or one that also contains acausal elements?

In other words, we could easily adopt the perspective that in each moment the bubble has a "choice" of whether to burst or not. Is this bursting or not bursting a random selection in each moment? Or is it causal all the way through?

-

[brokenhead]

It is impossible to predict the future, and it is impossible to explain events, but that doesn't mean that they aren't fully causal.

Causes determine things, but this isn't the same as an "explanation", since the latter implies some sort of human input.

That it is impossible, in principle, to predict the future is a realization made necessary by the advent of Quantum Mechanics. Until the end of the age of classical physics, the universe was very definitely thought to be deterministic in principle.

The universe is now known to be nondeterministic in principle.

Yet you assert that causes determine things, with the caveat that this is not the same as an explanation since an explanation requires some human input. The human input to which you refer resides not in the explanation, but with the observation which is only subsequently the focus of explanation.

In other words, you are claiming a type of causality which is impossible, in principle, to verify. In fact, any attempt to do so only demonstrates the negation of the premise that things are causal.

If I asked you how then do you know things are caused, you would say, "Through logic." So what would that logic be? Precisely? It cannot be an explanation, and it cannot be an observation. Just what is the "law" of cause and effect? To say it is a "law" is merely an unsubstantiated assertion. The mass-energy conservation law and the third law of thermodynamics have both been observed always to hold, and never not to hold. Yet the "law" of cause and effect has never been directly observed to hold at all as we have said this is not possible, and when science explores the subatomic realm it has been observed not to hold as nature becomes probabalistic instead of deterministic.

You are making a fundamental error in logic. If you have asserted that the thing-in-itself exists and that it is not knowable as such, the any putative law of causality affects and is relegated solely to this objective realm from which we are forever restricted. In other words, you are making an assertion about something your logic tells you that you can make no assertions about. How is this a coherent philosophy?

[Kevin Solway]

It is impossible to predict the future, and it is impossible to explain events, but that doesn't mean that they aren't fully causal.

Causes determine things, but this isn't the same as an "explanation", since the latter implies some sort of human input.

That it is impossible, in principle, to predict the future is a realization made necessary by the advent of Quantum Mechanics.

Not at all. It has always been known that we cannot predict the future with certainty. This is because there are too many factors for us to take into consideration, and because of the inherent lack of accuracy in making measurements.

For example, even the common folk know that "We never know when we are going to die."

Until the end of the age of classical physics, the universe was very definitely thought to be deterministic in principle.

You need to define what you mean by "deterministic".

Do you mean "caused", or do you mean "explainable by us." These are two completely different meanings of the word "deterministic."

The universe is now known to be nondeterministic in principle.

It is known that we cannot predict the future, yes. In science, indeterminacy has to do with predictability, and doesn't say anything about causality.

Yet you assert that causes determine things

Indeterminism in science doesn't say anything about whether causes determine things.

you are claiming a type of causality which is impossible, in principle, to verify.

It is verified with logic alone.

If I asked you how then do you know things are caused, you would say, "Through logic." So what would that logic be? Precisely?

Things are necessarily caused by that which they are not. For example, the present is caused by the past.

. . . when science explores the subatomic realm it has been observed not to hold as nature becomes probabilistic instead of deterministic.

Every thing in Nature is probabilistic. The throwing of a dice is probabilistic, but that doesn't mean that the result of a dice throw is not caused.

[guest_of_logic]

Kevin,

Kevin: "Random" either means unpredictable and caused (fully determined), or it means unpredictable and uncaused. I believe I am correct in assuming you mean the latter, since you clearly don't mean the first.

guest_of_logic: The latter is closer to what I mean, but it's not a perfect fit. Is a random (in the sense that I intend the word) event caused or uncaused? Well, in one sense it's caused: its cause is randomness, but in another sense, it's uncaused, because that randomness cannot be broken down into any more specific cause (and, importantly, because the random process is - by my definition of random - non-deterministic) - so I object to your associating my random with your uncaused, because they're not the same thing.

Kevin: The main problem with this discussion is your use of word "random", and your inability to define exactly what you mean by it.

I'm sorry that you don't understand what I mean by "random". To me, it's one of those words like "exist", which has a meaning that is difficult to convey except through intuition. I would like to trust that you already understand intuitively what I mean by it, but you're making it difficult for me, so let me try to elaborate: random in the sense that I intend it means that one out of various options comes to be the case, with the ultimately chosen option occurring non-deterministically; it is not known which it is until the choice is actually, in the instant, made - and it is not determined by anything in the past or by any other causal means, and any one of the choices is equally (unless there is a probability distribution) likely to occur, but the mechanism by which one actually does occur can in no sense be broken down further than to say that it was "random". Yes, there may be some sense of intuition required, but I'm sure that you're capable of it. Not all things can be expressed in words.

Above, you suggest that your "random" means "non-deterministic". But "non-deterministic" can mean a number of completely different things. "Non-deterministic" can mean uncaused or it can mean that we, as finite, conscious beings, cannot determine something (eg, we cannot determine for sure what the weather will be tomorrow). These are two completely different meanings.

I've been repeating it from the start, and I'll repeat his words again here, because maestro nailed it perfectly. Non-deterministic randomness "is non-causal in the sense that the present state of the universe is not sufficient to determine the outcome of the random process." In other words, it's not just that we as finite, conscious beings cannot determine it, but that it simply is not determined: it's random. Get it yet, or are you determined to keep clinging to your determinism?

In other words, your definition of "random" is itself non-deterministic, and so nothing can be done with it.

That wasn't very witty, and it was false to boot. You simply haven't attempted to understand what I mean yet.

Also, if we say that an event happens "without cause", we are in fact attributing a cause to the thing, because we are saying that its cause is the fact that it lacks something. A lack of something is itself a cause. For example, if I lack a heartbeat for too long, it will be the cause my death.

So, as a logical point, it is impossible for there to be acausality.

You can play weak semantic games regarding causality all that you like, but the real question is whether or not the universe is deterministic. That's been the issue from the start. You can call randomness (or, as you choose it, "lack") a cause if you like, but that's beside the point: the real point is whether or not one state of the universe determines the next, such that the future is fixed by the present and past. My argument is not that the future is deterministic, nor that it is non-deterministic, but simply that we can't know either way and that therefore your philosophy of determinism is an article of faith: in this I agree 100% with maestro's entry into this thread.

David,

Okay, good. So we both agree that everything is necessarily governed by logical causation.

I wouldn't have added "causation" to it. I would have stuck with "logic", or, rather, "the rules of the universe". But whatever floats your boat, really.

guest_of_logic: All that I'm really trying to do here is to point out that "acausal" is a less useful concept, but that it's possible that - given the right empirical framework in the universe - it would result in something like the scenario that I'm proposing for non-deterministic random events, given that restrictions are unavoidable anyway.

David: In other words, if the causal circumstances are ripe, then a particular "selection" will occur ....?

Sure, but that doesn't make it deterministic (if, indeed, you even want to ascribe "causality" to "randomness", which, as I've explained elsewhere, is a matter of preference). In fact it's non-deterministic, the possibility of which is the entire point of this debate.

What about the bursting of a bubble? Would you consider this to be a causal process, or one that also contains acausal elements?

It could be either. I honestly don't know, and therefore won't say. You, on the other hand...

Which, again, is the entire point of this debate. You claim certainty on an issue that is decidedly uncertain.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm confused, guest_of_logic, what is a "cause"?

[guest_of_logic]

Well, Mr R of QRS, as one with access to Absolute Truth (tm), I would rather hope that you would explain it to me.

[brokenhead]

That it is impossible, in principle, to predict the future is a realization made necessary by the advent of Quantum Mechanics.

Not at all. It has always been known that we cannot predict the future with certainty. This is because there are too many factors for us to take into consideration, and because of the inherent lack of accuracy in making measurements.

You are just wrong about this. It has always been known that complexity is what prevents us from predicting the future. But it was universally believed that complexity could be addressed in principle. This means that until the turn of the 20th Century, most scientists and many philosphers acquainted with the state of science at the time believed that the laws of physics were completely deterministic, and that they were all already known, that all that remained was to work things out "to the next decimal place." Common wisdom was that complexity made things extremely difficult to calculate, but not impossible in principle.

You do not know your intellectual history if you are unaware of this very basic turning point.

You need to define what you mean by "deterministic".

Do you mean "caused", or do you mean "explainable by us." These are two completely different meanings of the word "deterministic."

At the turn of the 20th Century, the universe was believed to be deterministic. By this both things were meant. All changes that took place were thought to be reducible to the laws of physics, which at the time were given by Maxwell's Equations and Newton's Laws. Put precisely, this meant that if you knew the position and momentum of every particle in the universe at any given point in time (along with the value of the EM field at every point in space), you could calculate the position and momentum of every particle at any other point in time, either before or after. This belief in determinism, as expressed this way and at the time universally accepted as true, explicitly meant all things were caused and that all things were explainable. Science was not concerned with the "thing-in-itself." This is a very important concept to grasp if you are interested in understanding the Western world's recent intellectual development.

The universe is now known to be nondeterministic in principle.

It is known that we cannot predict the future, yes. In science, indeterminacy has to do with predictability, and doesn't say anything about causality.

Not correct. At least, not entirely. It is important to realize that the laws of physics are thought to be time-invariant. This point may be subtle, and it is not the easiest one to grasp, I know that. But it is absolutely crucial for understanding what science concerns itself with.

In Classical physics, as I stated above, knowing the position and momentum of every particle in a closed system - or in the entire Universe - makes it possible to know what comes next. In Classical physics, then, knowing position and momentum of every particle and knowing the EM field everywhere translates to knowing all the causes, meaning you know what all the effects will be. Forget about complexity for the moment, for the same reasons I described above.

In addition, knowing all the positions and momenta of every particle at any given point of time means knowing the same thing about every particle at any prior point in time. This is because the laws of physics are time-invariant. But this means that we can view this knowledge of positions and momenta as effects, and could in principle calculate all the causes in their entirety, the cause merely being the position and momentum of every particle at the moment just prior to the original one.

The philosophical consequences of this world-view are obvious and immediate.

Quantum Mechanics is probabalistic in nature, and implies that no matter how clever we are or technologically advanced we may become, we can never entirely know a thing's causes because Nature prevents it in principle. If you do not follow this profound difference in scientific outlook, I can't really blame you. But if you had spent years solving classical physics problems then tried to tackle QM, you'd agree with what I am saying here. As the saying goes, "Anyone who thinks he understands QM, does not understand QM."

Indeterminism in science doesn't say anything about whether causes determine things.

Correct. But that was my point. Indeterminism in science addresses what we can know and therefore what we can say about the causes and/or effects of things. Since science cannot demonstrate cause and effect, how is it that you logically deduce it? Based on what? It cannot be observation, due to everything I have said above.

Things are necessarily caused by that which they are not. For example, the present is caused by the past.

But the future is not the present, either. So why can you not logically conclude that the present is caused by the future? Or the past by the present, or the past by the future? Remember, you are only using logic, you cannot use observation.

Your statements about causality refer to the things-in-themselves. But the thing-in-itself is unknowable. How can you make statements about causality between unknowable things?

Every thing in Nature is probabilistic. The throwing of a dice is probabilistic, but that doesn't mean that the result of a dice throw is not caused.

Once again, you have put my unease with your concept of causality into a nutshell. If everything in Nature is probablistic, then discussing the throw of a die is equivalent to discussing anything else that transpires in Nature, the only diffrence being relative probabilities, and all probabilities are simply numbers between 0 and 1.

Given a specific throw of the die, you cannot with certainty predict the outcome. Given a specific outcome, you cannot determine specifically how the throw was made, which you would want to do if the outcome was favorable. In other words, given an effect, you do not know the cause because you cannot; given a cause, you do not know the effect, again, because you cannot.

This ignorance of specific causes and effects applies universally because Nature, as we agree, is probabalistic. Yet crucial to your philosophy, it appears to me, is the tenet that everything indeed has a cause. This cannot, in principle, be demonstrated by any physical means.

To say that every result is caused by a throw is to say NOTHING. This is my objection to the notion of causality. You are making a statement that you claim always holds and yet never contains specific information, because such information would reside in the realm of things-in-themselves, which is a realm from which we are by definition excluded.

It is not my view that things do not have causes. It is my view that it cannot be demonstrated that every thing must have a cause. Further, it is my view that if a thing is caused, it cannot be known precisely what all the contributing causes were. To say that the Totality caused the thing is to say nothing, since by that reasoning, it is the Totality that causes everything that has been caused.

[Kevin Solway]

The main problem with this discussion is your use of word "random", and your inability to define exactly what you mean by it.

Random in the sense that I intend it means that [. . .] not determined by anything in the past or by any other causal means

I note that here you specify that there must not be any causes at all.

I don't see why you need to specify that there must not be any causes at all. It seems more sensible to me to say that a thing is "random" when we cannot predict ahead of time what its result will be, and when it is equally likely to be one of a range of values.

Intuitively, that definition makes a lot more sense, does it not? For example, I would say that the result of the throw of a dice is "random", but that doesn't suggest to me, even slightly, even on an intuitive level, that there are no causes involved in bringing about this random result.

I just don't see the point to your adding-in the "no causes" component. It would be like me defining a bicycle to have two wheels, but then adding the extra specification that there is something to do with having two wheels that happens without any cause whatsoever.

It doesn't make any sense.

the real question is whether or not the universe is deterministic.

This is easily answered purely logically, and this has already been done.

If anything at all happened without cause then everything would be chaotic. And since there is order, as evidenced by these words you are reading, then we know for sure that there are no things that happen without cause.

That's all there is to it, and your question is fully answered.

There's no such thing as being "partly uncaused", because that is a contradiction in terms, like being "partly pregnant."

[brokenhead]

The powers given to followers of Tao, are quantum in nature. Which opens the mind to the empirical datum unidenified, so far.

Steven, I think you have encapsulated how the scientific process actually unfolds in many cases. The Tao is the Tao, and as such, many, if not most people follow it, if only sporadically, if only unconsciously. The empirical datum lies on this path waiting to be identified.

[brokenhead]

If anything at all happened without cause then everything would be chaotic. And since there is order, as evidenced by these words you are reading, then we know for sure that there are no things that happen without cause.

But you are not acknowledging the different scales upon which Nature operates. In our macro world, things do seem to be relatively ordered. In the quantum realm, they are not. Space itself cannot be empty. Rather, it is a chaotic process of particles coming into existence and then annihilating one another. Such processes have been studied at length and in depth by those who run experiments with the various particle accelerators around the world. The very appearance of such particles in what was once thought to be "empty" space is purely probabalistic. Since they arise where there had been no particle, science cannot say they were caused. You, however, seem prepared to make that statement. It is not verifiable by any means. It is therefore incorrect to claim that there is some verification for it, such as the "evidence" of these words you are reading. See my previous post.

[Kevin Solway]

It has always been known that we cannot predict the future with certainty. This is because there are too many factors for us to take into consideration, and because of the inherent lack of accuracy in making measurements.

You are just wrong about this. It has always been known that complexity is what prevents us from predicting the future. But it was universally believed that complexity could be addressed in principle.

Your schoolteacher may have told you this, but he was wrong.

"In principle" means that if you could know all the causes (eg, the present state of the Universe) then you would be able to tell what the future will be. This is absolutely correct. But you cannot know all the causes.

Common wisdom was that complexity made things extremely difficult to calculate, but not impossible in principle.

Nonsense. Anyone with half a brain knows that there is no possible way we could ever know the future with certainty. If any person thought that they could ever predict with certainty the result of a dice throw, under any conditions, for example, in a tornado, with aliens from another planet suddenly appearing in the tornado and playing football with the dice, then they would be a very stupid person. Your schoolteachers may have been such people, in which case you would have a very distorted idea of "common wisdom."

In Classical physics, then, knowing position and momentum of every particle and knowing the EM field everywhere translates to knowing all the causes

No sane person ever thought that this could ever be known, even in principle — and especially in an infinite Universe.

Quantum Mechanics is probabalistic in nature, and implies that no matter how clever we are or technologically advanced we may become, we can never entirely know a thing's causes because Nature prevents it in principle.

This doesn't even remotely say that things don't have causes, so you are wasting your time with all these words.

Since science cannot demonstrate cause and effect, how is it that you logically deduce it?

Because you can do things with logic and philosophy that science cannot.

Based on what?

Logic.

Things are necessarily caused by that which they are not. For example, the present is caused by the past.

But the future is not the present, either. So why can you not logically conclude that the present is caused by the future?

The past is caused by the present, since the past would not exist if it wasn't for the present, but the past is not caused by the present in time.

The past is the only possible thing that could cause the present, in time, because it is the only other thing that exists, in time. For logical reasons why events can't happen without cause, see my previous post.

To say that every result is caused by a throw is to say NOTHING.

Every event is caused by the past state of the Universe.

This says a lot, to the wise person at least.

To say that the Totality caused the thing is to say nothing

It only speaks to wise people, who have spiritual awareness.

[Kevin Solway]

If anything at all happened without cause then everything would be chaotic. And since there is order, as evidenced by these words you are reading, then we know for sure that there are no things that happen without cause.

But you are not acknowledging the different scales upon which Nature operates.

Certainly I am.

In our macro world, things do seem to be relatively ordered. In the quantum realm, they are not.

Yes they are.

If they weren't, elephants would be popping into existence in the quantum realm. Or you might never see the same kind of quantum particle twice — each one would be entirely different to the last.

The very appearance of such particles in what was once thought to be "empty" space is purely probabalistic.

No big deal. So is throwing a dice.

Since they arise where there had been no particle, science cannot say they were caused.

Nor can science say that the result of a dice throw is caused.

You, however, seem prepared to make that statement. It is not verifiable by any means.

It is certainly verifiable that there is order. And that means, logically, that things are caused.

[guest_of_logic]

It seems more sensible to me to say that a thing is "random" when we cannot predict ahead of time what its result will be, and when it is equally likely to be one of a range of values.

Yes, I know that it does, because you've made it plain that that's your understanding of "random". I'm presenting you with a new one. The issue is not which definition makes more sense to either one of us, but whether the type of randomness that I'm suggesting is possible. So far you haven't presented a cogent argument against it. The best that you've done is to postulate that it is equivalent to acausality, and that the existence of acausality leads to chaos due to the fact that "anything goes". I've explained that this is not the case, because not just "anything" could go, for the reason that acausal events are at least constrained by both identity (A=A) and by logic (no square circles) - and that given these restraints, there is nothing to stop us from imagining that the universe imposes even more restraints, such as restricting acausal events to occur in only such situations as I have given examples of, like a nucleus decaying in one of five possible ways - or not decaying - in any given instant.

guest_of_logic: the real question is whether or not the universe is deterministic.

Kevin: If anything at all happened without cause then everything would be chaotic.

Such is your assertion, but it is based on what you would like to believe rather than on any serious argument. I have proposed instead the possibility of constrained randomness. In other words, there can be no ultimate cause ascribed to the event beyond that "it was non-deterministically random", but it can only exhibit itself (due to the workings of the universe) in certain ways.

There's no such thing as being "partly uncaused", because that is a contradiction in terms, like being "partly pregnant."

If you want to play analogies, then here's mine: "partly uncaused" is like saying (of orange) that it is "partly red".

[brokenhead]

Your schoolteacher may have told you this, but he was wrong.

"In principle" means that if you could know all the causes (eg, the present state of the Universe) then you would be able to tell what the future will be. This is absolutely correct. But you cannot know all the causes.

This was not a sinlge schoolteacher, but several and countless books besides.

You are missing a crucial point, one that is well-documented in Western intellectual history. It is well-documented because it is recent. The "in principle" you are speaking of (the present state of the Universe being known makes telling the future state possible) is precisely what has been shown not to be the case.

Even if you could know all the causes, you cannot predict the future precisely.

Reread this as many times as necessary for you to grasp it. Because this is what Quantum Mechanics implies, and we live in a QM Universe.

This realization is less than a century old. I can give you an overwhelming bibliography to support what I am trying to tell you. I would be happy to do so.

Common wisdom was that complexity made things extremely difficult to calculate, but not impossible in principle.

Nonsense. Anyone with half a brain knows that there is no possible way we could ever know the future with certainty. If any person thought that they could ever predict with certainty the result of a dice throw, under any conditions, for example, in a tornado, with aliens from another planet suddenly appearing in the tornado and playing football with the dice, then they would be a very stupid person. Your schoolteachers may have been such people, in which case you would have a very distorted idea of "common wisdom."

You are missing the point, Kevin! Anyone with half a brain knows that it is the complexity of the movement of the die that makes it unpredictable. This was always known and accepted. If you were to drop a die from 1 mm above the table with the six on its top face, the die will land with the six showing up. In this case, we reduced the complexity of the situation by reducing the initial potential energy. We did not change the laws of physics in order to make our new scenario 100% deterministic. You throw in tornadoes, aliens, and football. This merely increases the complexity. Do you see this? It does not change the laws of physics. Before the advent of modern physics, the common view would have been that if the state of all the particles in the alien, tornado, football, die, person throwing the die, etc. was known (position and momentum), then the result of the throw could be calculated in principle.

You might not be getting what I mean by "in principle." I mean, given enough time and computing power. This is a crucial point, because with the advent of QM, it is not the complexity but the actual nature of the Universe that keeps us from being able to predict the future. Meaning, even simple quantum mechanical systems are non-deterministic.

No sane person ever thought that this could ever be known, even in principle — and especially in an infinite Universe

You are incorrect. They very much did think so. To impugn their sanity is to wax subjective and therefore pointless.

Quantum Mechanics is probabalistic in nature, and implies that no matter how clever we are or technologically advanced we may become, we can never entirely know a thing's causes because Nature prevents it in principle.

This doesn't even remotely say that things don't have causes, so you are wasting your time with all these words.

I am not trying to say that things don't have causes. I am saying it cannot be demonstrated that every thing has a cause. There is an enormous difference.

Because you can do things with logic and philosophy that science cannot.

This is something you and David have said before. In my view, you should be very careful here. Science is not and never was devoid of philosophy. Every professional physicist, for example, has a PhD, which stands for Doctor of Philosophy. While this might not impress you in the slightest, it is far from meaningless. That academics do not impress you does not invalidate any of your views, of course.

But when you make this claim, you make your views unverifiable. You are saying, in effect, I do not have to demonstrate I am correct in order to be correct.

This, actually, is the sum total of your so-called "spirituality." "I am wise, and only wise people know my philosophy is correct."

[Kevin Solway]

If anything at all happened without cause then everything would be chaotic.

Such is your assertion

Rather, I have proven conclusively that this is the case.

I have proposed instead the possibility of constrained randomness.

As far as I can tell, the only difference between your definition of "random" and mine, is that you have added the element of acausality.

So why don't we simplify your argument to that of proposing "constrained acausality"?

In other words, there can be no ultimate cause ascribed to the event beyond that "it was non-deterministically random"

Likewise, as far as I can tell, when you use the word "determined" I think you are meaning "caused", so we can simplify your "non-deterministically random" (which is commonly understood to mean several different, and unrelated things) to mean "acausally random".

So, we have "constrained acausality" and "acausal randomness". Does that make sense?

If we can simplify it down to this then we might be able to make progress with it.

There's no such thing as being "partly uncaused", because that is a contradiction in terms, like being "partly pregnant."

If you want to play analogies, then here's mine: "partly uncaused" is like saying (of orange) that it is "partly red".

Let's run with your analogy. Either there's red in the orange, or there isn't. If there's red in the orange, then something in the orange, or something about the orange, is red.

Likewise, with randomness. Either there's acausality in randomness, or there isn't. If there's acausality in randomness, then something in randomness is acausal, or something about randomness is acausal.

Whatever it is about randomness that is acausal, then with regard to it, "anything goes", since that's what "acausal" means. If such a thing exists, then everything becomes chaotic.

[Kevin Solway]

Even if you could know all the causes, you cannot predict the future precisely.

This statement is simply wrong, and arises from a misunderstanding of the findings of modern science.

is what Quantum Mechanics implies, and we live in a QM Universe.

Quantum mechanics most definitely does not imply that if we could know the current state of the Universe, we would not be able to know the next moment.

Rather, it finds that we cannot possibly know the current state of the Universe. That's what indeterminacy is about.

If you were to drop a die from 1 mm above the table with the six on its top face, the die will land with the six showing up.

Completely wrong. There is no way you can know this. No matter how simple you make it, it will always be infinitely complex. That's why you can't predict the future with certainty.

You might not be getting what I mean by "in principle." I mean, given enough time and computing power.

There's no possible way that you could find out what the current state of the Universe is, let alone compute what a future state of it would be. But if you could know the current state of the Universe, which is impossible, then there's no reason you wouldn't be able to know the subsequent moment.

Meaning, even simple quantum mechanical systems are non-deterministic.

Even simple dice throws of a billionth of one millimetre can't be predicted with certainty, so you aren't saying anything here.

Every professional physicist, for example, has a PhD, which stands for Doctor of Philosophy.

Now you're being ridiculous.