You’ll want to get familiar with the No True Scotsman fallacy.
@FireMadeFlesh said: “You are working from the assumption that the universe is deterministic, and then saying it couldn’t be any other way.”
Actually, I’m working from the assumption that the Universe can only be described by the way ours is observed to behave. I’m not allowed to invent properties or characteristics that are not evident in the real world. I’m drawing my conclusion about the universe only from what I observe around me.
For example, consider the God vs No God debate. Imagine a Theist might fallaciously assert: “If there were no god, there would be no love in the world.” So, clearly, whether there is a god or not, the world stays the same as it always has been. Love as we know it is real and the question remains: does the loving world have a god or not.
Similarly an Atheist might fallaciously assert:“If there were a god, Hitler wouldn’t have ever been able to do what he did!” But again, clearly, hitler did do what he did. So, if there is a god, he is one that includes the existence of Hitler. Again, the question remains: does the Hitler-existent world have a god or not?
@Thammuz fallacy or not, I assert that no real jelly would ever mind your butting in! ;)
@FireMadeFlesh said: “Surely we should investigate what should and shouldn’t be possible in a deterministic universe, and then see if that matches our observations.”
This line of thinking defines the principals of science. Science is based on observations of the real world, not theories about how the world should work. It must be assumed that whether the universe is deterministic or not, it functions exactly as we have observed it so far.
hopefully, i’ve made this clear.. if anyone sees my meaning and can explain this better please do and thank you!
@FireMadeFlesh said: “Non-deterministic theories can result in any one of a myriad of outcomes, while determinism results in one outcome only. Therefore determinism must make solid predictions to be taken seriously.”
You have to be careful about what you’re asking for. Again, this is a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy. It would be like me saying to my best friend: “If you loved me, you would write me up for 100% of the assets in your will.” But it may not be true that “love” equals “100% of assets in the will.” You’re essentially saying: “If determinism is true, I should be able to predict the next lottery numbers accurately.” But no.. clearly, we live in a world where such predictive ability does not belong to human-kind. So, we can’t expect that to be the sort of evidence we require to prove the case. We have to look at what is real in the world and then form our conclusions from those observations.
That said, determinism does make solid predictions. Humans have a measure of predictive ability to the point where most of our predictions come true. However, the universe is sooooo complex that our predictive abilities are not absolute. We have more predictive ability than a Tiger, certainly more than an Ant, and of course more than a tree or a rock.. We seem to have the best predictive ability out of all living things but just like all the other creatures, it seems we too have our limit. We get most things right, but not all things. as illustrated elsewhere