GENIUS FORUMS

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Determinism has nothing to do with free will. When we imagine free will in such a way that it can be proven false by determinism, we should see that such a conception of free will is false even in a partially or completely random system. One is not free to will what he will if that which he wills is randomly selected. Nevertheless, that conception of free will is something of a straw man, as few who are inclined towards philosophy would ever accept such a thing. When one argues a case for free will, they allow for a causal or semi-causal system, but nevertheless argue that a person is partially that which causes them to take action. It seems that I choose when to light my cigarette, because I do choose when to light my cigarette. Some of the events that are part of the process of lighting a cigarette can be seen as being incorporated into what we call "I" when the term is used in this way by the conventions of common language.

I should also say that I'm not a determinist. It's easy to conceive of a completely deterministic system, and indeed such a thing fits nicely with the conventional thought of an orderly and understandable universe. Nevertheless, it strikes me as sheer faith to suggest that just because, for example, the position of electrons in a double-slit experiment could have an unknown deterministic explanation, means that they then must have such an explanation. This isn't to say that I support the wholesale rejection of inductive inferences where they are useful, but rather that it simply isn't useful to posit determinism. We should say that it seems impossible for the universe to be completely random, but nevertheless, this doesn't mean that random elements couldn't exist within it, or that this randomness couldn't provide the base upon which an otherwise causative system rests.

No randomness really cannot exist, I don't know where you're going with this. Give me an example of randomness, something that is totally uncaused, and rolling dice isin't random in the physical/reality sense.

Shahrazad wrote:

Since you do seem to know a lot about this, why don't you help me to understand it better...but don't go into causality, I'm well aware of that...I would like you to go into the psychology of mind that thinks you are determined. It is not that I don't understand the definition of it...I just cannot believe that one thinks they are subject to it...except

I am a determinist. I haven't believed in free will, or even had the illusion thereof, in over two decades. My actions are caused by my desires, and my desires aren't chosen by me - far from it. I have had emotions that I would rather not have, and that upon thinking are completely silly. But knowing this doesn't get rid of the emotion. If I had free will, emotions would be 100% under control.

If you understand that everything that goes on in your brain is caused, I don't see why determinism still doesn't make sense to you.

In spite of my determinism, I go on behaving in a way that would be common with people who have the illusion of free will. I don't have a defeatist attitude and act as if I felt responsible for my own actions, because blaming causation for everything would have a negative outcome, at least from my perspective.

Since we have no way of knowing the outcome of our actions, to us it is as if nothing is set in stone. So really, I see no reason why a determinist would act different than a freewillist.

.

If you're a determinist you would agree that people cannot be blamed or praised for their actions. This is not to say that morality and philosophy should not be taught because these things are part of the environment which influence children. Nevertheless in terms of criminality, you shouldn't say taht they're guilty or punishment, but that you have to be put them away because they threat other people.

Faust13 wrote:If you're a determinist you would agree that people cannot be blamed or praised for their actions.

Just out of idle academic curiousity, does anyone remember the name of this fallacy?

(Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I just had a brain fart.)

If you're a determinist you would agree that people cannot be blamed or praised for their actions. This is not to say that morality and philosophy should not be taught because these things are part of the environment which influence children. Nevertheless in terms of criminality, you shouldn't say taht they're guilty or punishment, but that you have to be put them away because they threat other people.

I blame and praise people for their actions, not because they are guilty or responsible for them, but because of the way that classical conditioning works. When you train a dog to poo outside the house, you're telling him that that is the behaviour that you desire from him, not that he is guilty for pooing in the house. I apply that same rule to humans.

At the end of the day, right or wrong are constructs that we build for convenience, so that we can live successfully in a society.

.

Faust13 wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:Matt said,

The experience of free will is always there, but the determinist repudiates the reality of it.

I must be the only person who doesn't experience it.

.

freewill is an illusion that is all.

Of course, but it's an illusion that I don't have, and everyone else I know claims to have it. Am I missing out?

.

Faust13,

No randomness really cannot exist, I don't know where you're going with this. Give me an example of randomness, something that is totally uncaused, and rolling dice isin't random in the physical/reality sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

Shahrazad wrote:

Faust13 wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:Matt said,

The experience of free will is always there, but the determinist repudiates the reality of it.

I must be the only person who doesn't experience it.

.

freewill is an illusion that is all.

Of course, but it's an illusion that I don't have, and everyone else I know claims to have it. Am I missing out?

.

No, christ why would you think about it like that.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Faust13,

No randomness really cannot exist, I don't know where you're going with this. Give me an example of randomness, something that is totally uncaused, and rolling dice isin't random in the physical/reality sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

It's all hidden variables sheesh. I mean we cannot see everything that happens, so just because you can't predict it doesn't mean it's not there. Quantum theorists want to be magicians or something.

Faust,

It's all hidden variables sheesh. I mean we cannot see everything that happens, so just because you can't predict it doesn't mean it's not there. Quantum theorists want to be magicians or something.

Speaking of magic, on what grounds are you suggesting that nothing can occur randomly? It seems to me that like many people you rightly noticed that the roll of a dice isn't random, and went on to infer that nothing could occur randomly (I did as much myself many odd years back). Hence, why you suggest there must be hidden variables at play in such quantum phenomena. It isn't because such events appear not to be random, like the roll of a dice, but rather because you've inductively inferred that nothing could be random, and are now applying such a "law" to a case where something appears to be random. I shouldn't have to point out to you the flaw in such thinking.

Note that I'm not saying conclusively that random events happen, for how could I ever prove such a thing? Rather, I'm suggesting that there's no reason to accept that random events can't occur. Thus, there is no reason to accept determinism. Such things aren't all or nothing. One doesn't have to conclude that random events can't occur to think that random events have little involvement in most affairs.

EI,

Would you agree that even if random events exist, there still is no free will?

.

Shah,

Would you agree that even if random events exist, there still is no free will?

I would agree. Although, I don't normally think about free will in the sense that you mean to suggest. To me "free will" merely speaks of the fact that a person is the cause of their actions. We will what we will because we're the experiences and processes that result in our decisions. If I say "I decided to wear socks today", I don't mean to suggest that some magical non-causal soul "me" somehow violated all common sense to put on socks. Rather, I mean to suggest that what I refer to as "I" put on socks despite the fact that I can imagine having done something else. It doesn't matter if I could have actually done something else, and I don't think that such a statement is ever meant to imply as much.

EI,

If I say "I decided to wear socks today", I don't mean to suggest that some magical non-causal soul "me" somehow violated all common sense to put on socks. Rather, I mean to suggest that what I refer to as "I" put on socks despite the fact that I can imagine having done something else. It doesn't matter if I could have actually done something else, and I don't think that such a statement is ever meant to imply as much.

Everybody talks like that for obvious reasons, but I have encountered many people who believe they have libertarian free will.

.

Shah,

Everybody talks like that for obvious reasons, but I have encountered many people who believe they have libertarian free will.

I'd imagine that they hold such views because it feels to them like they have free will. I'd also imagine that they've encountered enough folks who reject free will on deterministic grounds to get it into their heads that determinism is incompatible with any possible source of this feeling (although I'm merely guessing here). This is why I feel that the best possible account of free will is one that gives some consideration to the feeling of free will and the seemingly closed-causal nature of the brain. To deny free will as an "illusion" (whatever that means) doesn't suggest any ignorance on the part of one who holds such a notion, but neither does it dig far enough into the issue for the satisfaction of many.

Sher, what is libertarian free will?

For me, free will is another of those terms that can be defined several ways. I prefer to think of it as cheap will. Not free. Small pun.

Philosophers here like to point to the fact that we obviously can't decide willynilly what to do, i.e. will ourselves to leap up to the moon. This doesn't actually prove there is nothing free about it.

I get the feeling some here think we are total robots. While it is true that many people virtually are, we humans do have some lattitude in our choices of action, at least potentially. It is a matter of developing will to allow some freedom of motion, of choice. Just as one would practice certain exercises to increase physical range of motion.

In that sense I'm probably in basic agreement with EI.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Faust,

It's all hidden variables sheesh. I mean we cannot see everything that happens, so just because you can't predict it doesn't mean it's not there. Quantum theorists want to be magicians or something.

Speaking of magic, on what grounds are you suggesting that nothing can occur randomly? It seems to me that like many people you rightly noticed that the roll of a dice isn't random, and went on to infer that nothing could occur randomly (I did as much myself many odd years back). Hence, why you suggest there must be hidden variables at play in such quantum phenomena. It isn't because such events appear not to be random, like the roll of a dice, but rather because you've inductively inferred that nothing could be random, and are now applying such a "law" to a case where something appears to be random. I shouldn't have to point out to you the flaw in such thinking.

Note that I'm not saying conclusively that random events happen, for how could I ever prove such a thing? Rather, I'm suggesting that there's no reason to accept that random events can't occur. Thus, there is no reason to accept determinism. Such things aren't all or nothing. One doesn't have to conclude that random events can't occur to think that random events have little involvement in most affairs.

We don't have any evidence of chance or randomness, but we have lots of evidence for causality affecting everything. Your attitude to choose to believe that randomness exists because it SEEMS to be randoma also isin't very bright. If we have not found any evidence that randomness can occur, then we cannot say that it could exist. How do you know randomness wouldn't be involved in large affairs? If randomness occurs in some place on Earth, then I would presume that it does have a big affect on other things such as the origin of life.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Shah,

Everybody talks like that for obvious reasons, but I have encountered many people who believe they have libertarian free will.

I'd imagine that they hold such views because it feels to them like they have free will. I'd also imagine that they've encountered enough folks who reject free will on deterministic grounds to get it into their heads that determinism is incompatible with any possible source of this feeling (although I'm merely guessing here). This is why I feel that the best possible account of free will is one that gives some consideration to the feeling of free will and the seemingly closed-causal nature of the brain. To deny free will as an "illusion" (whatever that means) doesn't suggest any ignorance on the part of one who holds such a notion, but neither does it dig far enough into the issue for the satisfaction of many.

There's not much substance in this post. determinism isin't compatible with freewill, not with the illusion of freewill. Sure anyone can have the feeling of it but it doesn't change the determinism. When determinists say freewill is an illusion they say what it exactly means what's difficult about you not knowing what it's supposed to mean?

[tried to speak about the origins of consciousness]

Carl,

Sher, what is libertarian free will?

This is from a Christian website : http://www.carm.org/open/free_will.htm

Furthermore, they hold to a view of free will known as libertarian free will. This is the position that a person is equally able to make choices between options independent of pressures or constraints from external or internal causes. In other words, the person is able to equal choose between any set of options. By contrast, compatibilist free will holds that a person can choose only that which is consistent with his nature and that there are constraints and influences upon his ability to choose. In libertarian free will, a sinner is equally able to choose God or reject God regardless of his sinful condition. In compatibilist free will, a sinner can only choose to do that which is consistent with his sinful nature.

.

Faust13,

We don't have any evidence of chance or randomness, but we have lots of evidence for causality affecting everything.

I've already provided evidence that random events could occur. You've, so far, provided no evidence to suggest that everything is caused. An assertion doesn't make something so.

Your attitude to choose to believe that randomness exists because it SEEMS to be randoma also isin't very bright.

To reject the possibility of random events because you can imagine that radioactive decay might not be random isn't overly bright either. Regardless, I don't believe that random events happen. Rather, I believe that they very well could.

How do you know randomness wouldn't be involved in large affairs? If randomness occurs in some place on Earth, then I would presume that it does have a big affect on other things such as the origin of life.

There aren't that many systems that appear to operate according to probability distributions, and where they do, it isn't hard to imagine that the effect is negligible in the vast majority of affairs.

determinism isin't compatible with freewill

Go back and read some of my other posts. I make it quite clear that when I speak of "free will" I don't mean the same thing you're thinking of.

I had a test, so I’ve been gone…I hope I can get back in coherently:

Faust 13 wrote:

If the past determines what we are in the present, that means what we are in the present will determine the future...

No, it means that what we choose in the future will then determine who we are.

Faust 13:

Now, you can certainly tell people of truths you've discovered, and whether they pick up on it or not is also determined.

I think everyone is given the same opportunity to have conscious awareness in order to make the right choices. We are determined, if unconscious, to be purely physical creatures. If conscious and see the right and wrong path, choosing the wrong path, we are determined to be physical creatures. If you choose the right path you find God.

Many float in and out of this conscious state. Some, not all, have their God moments and fall back into physical status. When one can consistently choose this right path, through wisdom, one, then becomes determined to being a spiritual creature, that which is one with God.

What happens after one dies, that is to be determined and possibly by the choices you make, therefore, wisdom and righteousness is the better path to choose. To blame something that is beyond your control for your actions and choices is only an admittance of your own foolishness.

We have the ability to transcend human determinism by moving to a spiritual determinism. If God is First Cause, there was matter and consciousness. The consciousness willed the matter to form…we have a choice to stay matter, like a rock or tree, or move to the consciousness that causes.

He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Faust 13:

It's not that we don't think we're thinking, it's that you're thinking isn't chosen. Our thoughts just pop into our head, we don't choose to do it. And how you deal with your thinking is determined by your character and environment.

Let’s say you have a foreman on a construction crew, who is a harsh taskmaster. The man has two young men under his supervision. The young men range in talent and strength, where one is clever he lacks in brawn and where one is strong he lacks in brain. The one lacking brain is charged to lay a concrete wall. He makes an error in judgment and the wall is not plumb, wasting labor and supplies. The intolerant foreman comes over and gives the brawny one a “what for” over being stupid.

Later, the contractor comes around to survey the jobsite, finding the concrete wall is being torn down. The contractor chews the foreman out telling him how stupid he was to have allowed the brawny one to do the work of the brainy one. He has no one to blame but himself for his lack of wisdom. If he is determined, he will return to the brawny guy and chew him out some more for getting him into trouble, not realizing he (the foreman) is only living up to his own nature. If he is free, he will learn from this incident, and will become wise by choosing that which goes against his nature even though it may be difficult.

So, later on, the foreman gives the brainy guy a job of shoveling and transporting sand to the concrete mixing site. Quite clearly, the brawny guy should have been selected for this job. As it would happen, not enough concrete is made to keep up with the brawny guy who is laying the bricks according to the plan laid out by the brainy guy (the foreman learned that much).

The foreman goes over to the brainy guy and has a choice, he can either lay into the guy for being an idiot or he can realize his own foolishness by assigning him the wrong task. His nature would have him chew out the brainy guy, but having learned his lesson before, he realizes his mistake, and swaps the two out back and forth until the job is done. At the end of the day, the contractor comes by and sees that progress has been made. And it has, hasn’t it?

He made a free choice against his character and environment because he gained wisdom.

If you say that he was determined to learn from his mistake then I would say I think it easy for you to come in hindsight and make this claim. No matter what happens, you would say that it was determined to happen, so you can never be wrong...but have you proved anything? I don't think you have, you have made this decision by default because you don't know the future to know whether it was intended or not intended. Who or what makes the determination of the determined state? The foreman could have gone either way, so then you are saying that either way is determined, which makes no sense at all. You are saying that either way is then right. Both choices cannot be right, one has to be wrong.

It is only when one makes a consistent choice of right that one becomes determined to the truth. In the interim, the status is flux.

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

I should also say that I'm not a determinist. It's easy to conceive of a completely deterministic system, and indeed such a thing fits nicely with the conventional thought of an orderly and understandable universe. Nevertheless, it strikes me as sheer faith to suggest that just because, for example, the position of electrons in a double-slit experiment could have an unknown deterministic explanation, means that they then must have such an explanation. This isn't to say that I support the wholesale rejection of inductive inferences where they are useful, but rather that it simply isn't useful to posit determinism. We should say that it seems impossible for the universe to be completely random, but nevertheless, this doesn't mean that random elements couldn't exist within it, or that this randomness couldn't provide the base upon which an otherwise causative system rests.

I am not a Physics person. Obviously, you are or have hidden talents in understanding the theories. Can you explain this in English? There is something I would like to comment on regarding this subject, but I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

Matt Gregory wrote:

Okay. I'm trained as a computer scientist, so I tend to think of experience in terms of input (senses) and output (choice). Data goes into the brain through the senses and just the body in general, then the brain more or less does a computation of what it should do next, and then the choice is the result and the body acts on it.

And I’m not trained thusly. I believe you and I are saying the same thing, however.

Matt Gregory:

It's kind of like standing here on the earth and watching the sun go around us. Yes, the sun is going around us on one level, but if we were to stand on the sun and look at the earth, then we would see that the earth is spinning. Or if we were to stand on the moon. Or Mars. Or Venus. Or if we were to stand any other place, we would see the earth spinning. So, our experience of free will is like standing on the earth. Determinism is best seen by standing outside oneself and looking from a larger perspective. In particular, by looking at our present decisions and looking at how they could have possibly been molded by our past experiences. The experience of free will is always there, but the determinist repudiates the reality of it.

Yes, I agree. It depends on which viewpoint you look, the infinite or the finite. Kant said something to this effect, in that if we use our senses we are determined, but if we use our reason we are free.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:I've already provided evidence that random events could occur. You've, so far, provided no evidence to suggest that everything is caused. An assertion doesn't make something so.

To rejection the possibility of random events because you can imagine that radioactive decay might not be random isn't overly bright either. Regardless, I don't believe that random events happen. Rather, I believe that they very well could.

Go back and read some of my other posts. I make it quite clear that when I speak of "free will" I don't mean the same thing you're thinking of.

No you haven't provided evidence for the possibility of random events. Quantum physics is incomplete and I'm sure there are hidden variables. I have evidence for causality because everything I see that occurs is caused by something else. Therefore there is more evidence for causality than for the probablility of chance. what do you mean by freewill? There is only one definition of the meaning of 'freewill' and anything else is not the same thing. If by freewill you think the illusion of freewill, that doesn't make freewill existant, you should instead just call it the illusion of freewill because that's what it is.

Passthrough,

I am not a Physics person. Obviously, you are or have hidden talents in understanding the theories. Can you explain this in English? There is something I would like to comment on regarding this subject, but I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

The classic double-slit experiment just consists of shining light through something with a couple of slits cut in it. The pattern formed on a wall when you do this is similar to what happens if you preform the experiment with waves in water, rather then what would be expected of particles, and thus we say that light acts like a wave. It also, we now know, acts like a particle, and if you shoot electrons at the slits one at a time, they to will form this wave pattern, despite having no way of interacting with one another to do so. More importantly to the discussion at hand though, is the fact that it's impossible to predict where any given electron will end up within the pattern.



Faust,

Quantum physics is incomplete and I'm sure there are hidden variables.

I really can't argue with faith. I just don't have it.

I have evidence for causality because everything I see that occurs is caused by something else. Therefore there is more evidence for causality than for the probablility of chance.

The philosopher Popper suggested that anything that isn't falsifiable isn't within the realm of science. We can always insist that something that appears random has hidden factors at play, and if we are to do so, then we render universal determinate causality a dogma that can never be proven wrong. Thus, we should say, that such a notion isn't testable, and any evidence you claim to have for such a thing is worthless.

what do you mean by freewill? There is only one definition of the meaning of 'freewill' and anything else is not the same thing.

A word means whatever it is used to mean, and the best way to determine how an individual intends to use a term is to take it in context. Regardless, there are at least two common uses of the term "freewill" from what I can gather. The first is incompatibilist freewill where it's believed that any given decision that is made could theoretically result in different effects, altering physical reality, though not being a slave to it. Most people find this notion absurd, given that most people think the mind is necessarily part of physical reality, or otherwise isomorphically reflects it, or interacts with it in a causal manner. I'm inclined to agree.

The second type of freewill is compatibilist freewill, whereas its believed absurd to think that decisions aren't determined by physical reality, but that such a fact doesn't change anything about their phenomenal reality. To a compatibilist it makes no difference if the world were entirely random or entirely determined. Either way the incompatibilist conception of freewill is absurd, it is thought. I hold to the compatibilist notion of freewill, which I've already described my own version of throughout this thread, and in much more depth in another thread on this board that I might try to find a link to if I get more time.

.

Faust, we must try to avoid the impoverished form of this debate that the religious use of the word "free" in front of "will" knee-jerks us to do.

I have been thoroughly conditioned/determined to possess a will (life-force, what-have-you). This will/lifeforce in no way stands outside the phenomenal world, nor does it source itself in any metaphysical form, but it exactly and precisely belongs to all organic life as a property of its appearance, and in varying degrees and volumes. The line between the organic and the inorganic is thin, but I will draw it thusly: the organic is a phenomenal form that becomes; whereas the inorganic possesses mere being. (Indeed, a rock becomes a rock by geologic forces, but it stays a rock, once rock it becomes).

This will/lifeforce shall drive all that I do (from unconscious breathing to conscious thinking), and so I am not "free" in it. Nevertheless, it belongs to myself alone as a phenomenal entity, and as such, I act everywhere and at all times in my own agency, in answer to this will. Perhaps I possess a will configuring to destroy itself, in which case, I commit willful suicide. In any and every case, this will does not exist outside of its agents, and thus belongs to the agent alone. You cannot keep me alive against my will; and I cannot live your life for you. These are the basic truths of human experience; this is how we experience our lives. I cannot live/will for others and they cannot do the same for me, only inasmuch as what we are willing belongs to ourselves/our tastes/values/our will alone. I might will that you should do well in life, but this comes from my willing, and not yours. This is basic Nietzsche - an understanding of no-such thing possible as a self-less act. Every living thing is everywhere and at all times acting for-itself. Every living thing is caused to. Hence, every living thing is the source of its own agency.

You must tell me how you are not acting in your own agency at every moment of every day.

This is the ultimate truth. All other truths about existence fall out from this point. This is not to say that we cannot speak well or accurately of these things we reason forth, but it is not and it is never an escape from the thinking agent who assumes to stand outside its for-itself nature. To think this is precisely and exactly where delusion begins.


.

P.S. As I have mentioned before, and perhaps for the last time now, this is the signal moment in Kierkegaard that stands in the brightest light: Truth is subjectivity. Backing off from this into its meager cousin - "truth is subjective" - is to fall away from this greatest statement of truth for these truth-seeking and truth-speaking beings. That we may reach ever and evermore truths about the phenomenal world through our rational processes does not in any way enable us to stand outside the process or the processor. Any instrument that measures cannot exceed its own nature, and to think so, is to continue the world of human delusion.

Hard determinism fails in this on many counts precisely because it refuses to deal with the experience of the self. It fails in the same manner that its religio-spiritual cousins ("there is no self") does. It does not accurately describe the human experience, nor has it any capacity to predict the world of thoughts, creations, and individual wills that occupy the world. It has no answer for the future actions of a becoming thing, but instead looks back for itself to the has-been. Cause/effect has directed an enormous amount of highly rational thought and is not to be dismissed. However, handing over one's for-itself agency to this meta-agency is in no way the fullest picture of human experience. And after all, what else are we talking about? What else can we talk about?

And from elsewhere (sorry, in a bit of a rush): Consciousness and awareness are the same thing. To be conscious is to be conscious-of something; same with being aware. One is not aware of nothing; same as with consciousness. What must be added here is the varying formations of will that belong to conscious entities, who are more or less aware. Those with a will to drive their consciousnesses to ever-increasing consciousness are simply aware of more things; have apprehended more "of's" outside themselves, through themselves.

P.P.S. I pause on this occasion for a nicely self-serving observation that I am glad to see bert back. He has no idea I have read/understood/ and even admired his thinking, and so I tell him now. In addition, there is another excellent thinker on this forum - Expectantly Ironic. This is just to say.


.

Faust13 wrote:No randomness really cannot exist, I don't know where you're going with this. Give me an example of randomness, something that is totally uncaused, and rolling dice isin't random in the physical/reality sense.

You are using "random" to mean something it doesn't really mean. Rolling dice is random because you can not predict the result ahead of time, but you can specify probabilities of different outcomes. There is no pattern to the outcomes if you roll a number of times. That's what random means.

"Random" does not say anything about causes or the lack thereof.

In Quantum Mechanics there are certain quantities that must be treated as random variables. What that means in terms of the underlying physical reality is subject to considerable vigorous debate.

"Hidden variables" means something quite specific in QM. Generally, people mean "local hidden variable," an unobserved property (state) of a particle.

Bell's Theorem tells us that no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.