If you want an HD-DVD player, then be sure to get one now while it doesn't support RPC. (And don't get one that you plan to firmware update like an Xbox360.)
That said, at least the US and Japan are in the same region now.
Actually, there were two competing formats for DVDs as there are now for its successor.
No, there were going to be two competing formats. But the two sides joined together and used Toshiba's disc with Sony & Phillips encoding. This is nothing like the situation today where 2 different formats have actually been released.
Sony and Philips lost, and ended up agreeing to the other format with one modification.
Sony and Philips didn't loose, that's your spin. They partnered up with Toshiba to make one superior product instead of two inferior products. It's a win-win situation. If they hadn't partnered up, we would have been stuck with something akin to an SVCD and DVD's that would have required a cartridge.
By your absurd logic, why not kill 4 year olds? I mean, how human can they be when their bodies haven't developed fully (they've got extra freakin' bones!), their brains haven't clicked into the next gear, etc., etc. Of course, we could extrapolate from here. Since 4 year olds are still potential human beings, really aren't all individuals who don't meet the ideal of humanity just potential human beings? Thanks for the proof.
You've basically missed my point completely. You threw down an arbitrary dividing line without any thought. I was never arguing what is essential to being able to end life ethically, but pointing out something that wasn't essential. Thus your objection would be irrelevant even if it were sound.
A 4 year old isn't simply a potential human beings, but a current human beings. A 4 year old can feel pain, pleasure, hope, and fear death. An embryo or a glimmer in my eye cannot. Your attempt at arguing that a 4 year old doesn't qualify as being a human being is what is absurd. All the absurdity of your argument rests upon that and not any fault in my thinking.
Like, I don't know, when a cell with completely unique, diploid genome is created? A cell completely different from gametes that were its origin, yet geneticaly identical (modulo non-lethal mutations) with all cells that will exist in the body of a person which will grow from this one cell?
And that has absolutely nothing to do with why I wouldn't want to die or end the life of another person.
The argument to preserve "potential persons" is completely bogus as it enforces an entirely arbitrary dividing line. I can prove this as follows.
Seeing that I am fertile, when I walk into a room with a fertile woman there in lies the potential for a human being. Just as easily as you can argue that the embryo should be preserved, I can argue that you must let me mate with the woman.
There is no end to this. The argument can be moved further and further from actual human life.
Pointing to the embryo and saying "don't kill this" is a priori no more reasonable not allowing people to use contraceptives (something which many Catholics still believe).
There must be a reason to place the dividing line in a certain spot, and that reason must be based on knowledge and not belief. Enforcing beliefs over people's welfare is just as evil as anything else, and stupid too.
Gold's Gym is a franchise and each location is individually owned and operated. Check with the BBB for your specific Gold's Gym. Some of them do suck balls and should be burned to the ground.
Motorola HD cable boxes default to 480i. If he has one, power off the cable box, hit menu, then switch the to HD 1080i and override SD to 480p. Hit menu again and power it back on. You might have to be switched to an SD channel for the menu to come up.
Many cable guys don't set the box up properly when they come to your house.
Potentially, yes. But there are other systems that would lead to different universes thanks to the probabilistic nature. At least certain aspects of QM are necessarily probabilistic (as in Bell's spin experiments), meaning irreducible. From this framework we might still be governed by deterministic processes (albeit random chance, instead of reductionist laws), but it does illustrate how there is some wiggle room in physics for something other than pure determinism. (mind I'm not a physicist, just an interested researcher)
Well I am a physicist and closed systems that are pure states evolve deterministically. It is the measurements that are random, but a measurement is the evolution of an open system in contact with a large classical environment. Unless you are going to argue that the universe is not a closed system, then it evolves deterministically with no wiggle room.
In our own experience the immediate world is real, he are human first and scientists only after.
I think this statement sweeps a million assumptions under the rug. When one sees their reflection in the water, they know it is not them. If you can't consider an electron real, then what can you consider real. You can't make an arbitrary dividing line between knowing that an electron is real and knowing that a reflection is not real. There is nothing in the immediate world that is truly known to be real a priori. There are our experiences and the conclusions we draw.
Some chaotic phenomena (turbulence, etc) are irreducible.
Chaos is a strictly classical phenomena. QM contains no chaos.
I am pretty sure that if you model a fluid with molecular dynamics instead of fluid dynamics you can reproduce turbulence. MD is computationally prohibitive though.
Actually the state of the universe is irreducable thanks to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, if you started with the big bang again, and let it run, you would not end up with the same universe as now.
If the universe is governed by regular quantum mechanics, say the Wheeler-De-Witt equation, and we started with the exact same initial conditions, then we would end up with the exact same universe. Assuming the universe comprises a closed system.
If I took a single atom it would be hard to deduce the higher-level phenomena from it (or impossible), such as principles in biology, without foreknowledge of those phenomena. I'm also talking about more esoteric things, that are not completely scientific, but are nonetheless real features of the world we live in, such as beauty, etc...
A chemist does not concern himself with what the quarks are doing because for him it really isn't that important. It is an insignificant part of his calculation given the regime he is working in. And it is the nuclear physicists job to make sure this really is the case and find out when it isn't. Scientists aren't blind reductionists, they build models at different scales and try to make sure it's all consistent. Take thermodynamics for instance. It's a macroscopic classical theory. But physicists worked to derive it's principles from something more fundamental, statistical mechanics, even though they knew thermodynamics works. Thermodynamics becomes understood as an approximation under certain conditions.
Science should be open to analysis, it is ALSO a social system, as well as being a systematic method (of sorts). Being a social system the people involved, and their psychology, does play an issue. Also, ala Kuhn and Rorty (mostly), the current paradigm does limit the avenues of inquiry open to science, and ala Nagel, inquiry (anything using logic, in this case) is only as valid as the data entered, the weakness comes from the choice or selection of that data. We select data based on unscientific things (mostly), we are looking at a finite amount of possible theories (and data sets) out of a near infinite range of potentially valid ones. Right now the current paradigm requires reductionism (which is the key to determinism as it relates to human agency), so potential observations outside of this view are outside the realm of possibility (yes, eventually they might be).
At the end of the day, as far as real science is concerned, the only thing that matters is "does the theory agree with experiment". Scientists have bias. They are slow moving in their opinions. But empiricism rules all of that. They will not disagree with reproducible experiment. It only takes one person to move the whole community.
In the "how can one live as determined" topic, I think we're arguing at cross purposes. I'm talking about subjective experience, when I choose, say, the blue sweater over the red one, it seems a free choice. I have the experience of choice.
But how do you really know? You cannot rewind the universe and find out. You feel the experience of a choice. You feel the various motivating factors. You weigh them accordingly. Then you make your choice. How can you possibly know if you really could have chosen differently? You cannot know because the initial conditions are unique. It is not a repeatable experiment.
With your robot example we enter a problematic realm, Searle's "Chinese Box", or at least we risk this. The problem, as it stands now, is that we are dealing with OBSERVING behavior, versus EXPERIENCING behavior
I see no problem with the term "scientism" nor do I see it as derogatory, it is a philosophy of the world that one can take, like idealism, materialism, etc. As Wikipedia says, it is merely the view "that science has primacy over other interpretations of life (e.g., religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations). The term has also been applied to the view that natural sciences have primacy over other fields of inquiry such as social sciences." Doesn't seem derogatory to me. Perhaps it does verge on being a strawman, I admit, but in most other views determinism doesn't arise (except in some rather archaic Christian doctrines), and thus this wouldn't be a topic for debate.
There are 10 completely different definitions on that page, most of them I've never heard. Historically the word was derogatory. This would be the first time I've ever heard the word not being used in a derogatory manner.
Yes determinism has shown itself useful in science, I would not argue otherwise. But this does not make it true in all cases, we cannot generalize that because it works in A-Y that it must be true in Z since our sciences are based (mostly) on inductive principles. It might hold true for everything, but we run into the problem that most determinism is of the reductionalist kind. but we do encounter unreductable natural phenomena too in the form of emergent behavior.
Yes, yes, category fallacy. Say I plot a graph of F/(m M) between heavenly bodies. Then I fit a 1/r^2 curve to that data and it fits naturally within the error bars. Is it a category fallacy to think that if I measure one more point, that it will also fit this curve?
And what are these unreductable natural phenomena? And how do you know they are unreductable? It is also a fallacy to assume that because today there is no mechanistic explaination that there will never be a mechanistic explaination. If you were a gambler that lived for thousands of years, would you gamble against science? At every stage of history there were detractors and their record is very poor.
Science has its own stack of problems, but that is largely another debate. The fact that we're talking about CURRENT science makes my point nontrivial, your talking about science as process, and I'm talking about science as the current standing of human knowledge. Perhaps in 10/20/100 years there will be a better answer, but right now I think we're on shaky ground.
Shaky ground? That's simply too blind of an assertion. In science there are degrees of certainty with respect to every bit of scientific knowledge. When new scientific knowledge is discovered, we do not throw away the old knowledge, we fill in the gaps. Einstein's gravity does not simply replace Newton's gravity, but is a more complete theory of gravity that has a larger domain of validity. And Quantum gravity (when discovered) will be an even more complete theory of gravity that will have an even larger domain of validity. Mistakes get discarded. Blind guesses get discarded. But most knowledge remains forever.
The fact that science (which has somehow become a proper noun) holds itself above analysis is troubling, and I think that this fact leads to potential problems.
Perhaps you misunderstand me. Science is not above analysis. Science is analysis. Science is above people giving it credence. It's simply too late for that.
And in addition, the idea that you can boil science down to a philosophy is somewhat misguided. The best definitions of science happen to be very vague, like science is an systematic method of hypothesis testing. It is as misguided as when school children are taught The Scientific Method. There is no The Scientific Method. That is a lie.
As Kuhn demonstrated, there is more at work in science (as activity) than pure science, there is more too it than just men in white lab coats plugging away at "truth". Your second
The solutions to Schrodinger's equation are wave functions and the magnitude of a wave function squared describes a normal probability distribution.
Solutions to Schroedinger's equation evolve deterministically independent of what meaning you give them. These solutions are complex waves and exhibit wave interference (which is not a property of pdf's).
I would describe this probabilistic quality of wave functions as an not just describing observations but actually describing reality. More specifically, I think that reality simply isn't determined before one measures an observable.
Now here you have a multitude of problems. The first and most important is that you have no fundamental theory.
What is the fundamental theory that describes all systems? You have none. I say: Schroedinger's equation. You have that theory for the microscopic, closed system. And then you have a rule for the measurement. But they are incompatible. Only one can be right and the other must be an approximation. You have no theory that encompasses the entire closed system that includes both the quantum system and the measuring device. Your theory is incomplete.
Secondly, what defines a measurement? It is a fundamental part of your half-theory. I do not have to define a measurement. For me, it is simply another interaction via Schroedinger's equation, only with Avagadro's number of degrees of freedom. In your theory, is not everything composed of quantum systems? Is not everything always in interaction with larger, classical systems? Your theory is incoherent.
Moreover, even though the time-dependence of a wave function makes the wave function evolve deterministically, that just means the shape of the probability curve is deterministic, not what that probability wave describes, namely the likelihood of measuring particle psi at a specific momentum p.
It is true that pdf's that are solutions to pde's for stochastic processes evolve deterministically. But the wave is not simply a pdf. It exhibits interference. It is a wave.
The concept of a determinate reality before measurement is meaningless, because we cannot ever access or observe this reality by definition, since all observations are perturbations of a system.
You could say that about classical systems, and it would be wrong in that context as well. Determinism has nothing to do with if we (humans) can predict the future. Even in a deterministic QM we cannot possibly do that ever. Determinism simply means that given some initial conditions, the final conditions are singularly defined.
Measurements are perturbations of a system. You cannot possibly couple a measuring apparatus to a quantum system without changing it.
I never said I could. I certainly can't. The perturbations from Avagadro's number of degrees of freedom are exactly what give you the randomness in the measurement. The measurement is as random as Avagadro's number is big. The measurement is as irreversible as Avagadro's number is big. It's very much like the thermodynamic limit.
I don't think I implied that what scientists say = proof, I was going for the contrary. Could you please elaborate?
First you use the derogatory term "scientism" against those you disagree with. And their crime is that they have "unbridled faith" in science. Already I can't take you seriously. Belief in determinism is simply belief that one can effectively model the universe with a deterministic theory, differential equations for instance. Given that this kind of thinking has been so overwhelmingly successful so far (you are using a transistor computer aren't you?), it is hardly "unbridled faith" that one would have to have to imagine that this property might extend to all of existence.
Then you talk about how science is fallible because humans are fallible. Well of course science is fallible. Science doesn't espouse absolute truth. But it's also naturally self correcting. You wouldn't know that science is fallible if it weren't for science. And moreover, science is constantly improving. This is all a red herring and doesn't prove or even support anything.
Next you have this nice quote, the philosophic jury is still out on the abilities of science, and the primacy of science. Science doesn't care about the philosophic jury. The entire subject of The Philosophy of Science is young and does not yet hold any sway over science. You are using a transistor computer. An invention that would not have been possible without the discovery of quantum mechanics... deep, deep science that is completely counterintuitive to regular thinking. You cannot argue and philosophize against the achievements of science. Science is self proving.
That said I don't necessarily hold any beliefs that the universe is entirely deterministic, but if there is evidence for any one idea then it is determinism. There are no other contenders.
Oh and your existential counter example is also incorrect. Determinism is not incompatible with subjective experience, even the subjective experience of free will.
Oblivions broken level system? Thats a stretch. If it doesn't level the way you want, use the difficulty scrollbar. If certain stats don't increase much, it's not the games fault you planned your class poorly. I'm left wondering what RPG is so great that would make Oblivion a bad game.
Planned your class poorly? You have to make your primary skills the ones you never use. The class/level system is completely retarded.
at the very base of quantum physics is the measurement problem: when a measurement is made, the many quantum possiblities of particles collapse into one actuality. so far, no one has any explanation of what determines which possibility becomes the actuality, and some physicists believe the choice is made by the conscious observer.
The key phrase there is when a measurement is made. In quantum mechanics, the evolution of closed systems is strictly deterministic. The evolution of a measured system is, by definition, the evolution of an open system. And the environment of this open system has Avagadro's number of degrees of freedom (effectively infinity). Such an evolution is random even in classical mechanics, see Brownian motion.
And consciousness causes collapse is a long abandoned belief. It is no more credible to say that some physicists believe phlogiston causes fire or that spinons cause spin.
There is nothing magical in QM that can explain consciousness or give credence to free will.
Your third paragraph is a red herring. Scientists being able to figure out the deterministic truth is not the same as the existence of the deterministic truth.
if we're to follow the orthodox interpretation of Quantum Physics, which (if one follows the orthodox interpretation) insists that we give up the idea of a determinate reality that exists completely independent its observers.
The Schroedinger wave equation is completely deterministic. It is the measurements that are random. But the evolution of a measured system is the evolution of an open system where there is an environment with Avagadro's number of degrees of freedom (effectively infinity). Such a situation is also random in classical mechanics, as is the case in Brownian motion.
Quantum mechanics contains no magic that can be used to explain consciousness or give credence to free will.
--Anonymous Quantum Physicist whose name is not really Mark Maughan
Batman Begins was arguably the best superhero movie ever.
Hulk was a Shakespearian, father-son conflict, tragedy shot comic book panel style. The only reason people thought it was awful was because they came wanting to see some piece of shit like Fantastic 4 and instead got a more thoughtful, artistic masterpiece. It was a highbrow movie about lowbrow subject matter.
Suicide bombers believe what they are doing is Good, I think you'll find there's no such thing as a universal morality. e.g. Muslims believe and eye for and eye, but Christians believe you should turn the other cheek.
You are mixing premises. There was never any argument that people practice universal morality. Morality as practiced is not the same thing as what a believer of universal morality is believing in. Inherent in believing in universal morality is also believing in ethical realism, that people's actions and beliefs about what is good do not define what is good. Such a person believes that good is a universal, not people's opinions of good.
Slashdot Mirror
Walmart is now included now and has been for a while.
That's actually the first thing I said after I bought my 50" HDTV and popped in a DVD.
Unfortunately RPC is coming to HD-DVD
p x?ArticleID=11877
http://www.emedialive.com/Articles/ReadArticle.as
If you want an HD-DVD player, then be sure to get one now while it doesn't support RPC. (And don't get one that you plan to firmware update like an Xbox360.)
That said, at least the US and Japan are in the same region now.
No, there were going to be two competing formats. But the two sides joined together and used Toshiba's disc with Sony & Phillips encoding. This is nothing like the situation today where 2 different formats have actually been released.
Sony and Philips didn't loose, that's your spin. They partnered up with Toshiba to make one superior product instead of two inferior products. It's a win-win situation. If they hadn't partnered up, we would have been stuck with something akin to an SVCD and DVD's that would have required a cartridge.
Both the CD and the DVD had Sony pushing them out of the starting gate.
...that will still probably be enough to give Bluray the winning edge.
I don't think Microsoft's lack of digital video out and an add-on only solution is going to make much of a difference in the format war.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
You've basically missed my point completely. You threw down an arbitrary dividing line without any thought. I was never arguing what is essential to being able to end life ethically, but pointing out something that wasn't essential. Thus your objection would be irrelevant even if it were sound.
A 4 year old isn't simply a potential human beings, but a current human beings. A 4 year old can feel pain, pleasure, hope, and fear death. An embryo or a glimmer in my eye cannot. Your attempt at arguing that a 4 year old doesn't qualify as being a human being is what is absurd. All the absurdity of your argument rests upon that and not any fault in my thinking.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with why I wouldn't want to die or end the life of another person.
The argument to preserve "potential persons" is completely bogus as it enforces an entirely arbitrary dividing line. I can prove this as follows.
Seeing that I am fertile, when I walk into a room with a fertile woman there in lies the potential for a human being.
Just as easily as you can argue that the embryo should be preserved, I can argue that you must let me mate with the woman.
There is no end to this. The argument can be moved further and further from actual human life.
Pointing to the embryo and saying "don't kill this" is a priori no more reasonable not allowing people to use contraceptives (something which many Catholics still believe).
There must be a reason to place the dividing line in a certain spot, and that reason must be based on knowledge and not belief. Enforcing beliefs over people's welfare is just as evil as anything else, and stupid too.
Gold's Gym is a franchise and each location is individually owned and operated. Check with the BBB for your specific Gold's Gym. Some of them do suck balls and should be burned to the ground.
Why did we invade Iraq again? Oh yes, they bombed the WTC. And terrorism, I don't want to fight that here.
Motorola HD cable boxes default to 480i. If he has one, power off the cable box, hit menu, then switch the to HD 1080i and override SD to 480p. Hit menu again and power it back on. You might have to be switched to an SD channel for the menu to come up.
Many cable guys don't set the box up properly when they come to your house.
Well I am a physicist and closed systems that are pure states evolve deterministically. It is the measurements that are random, but a measurement is the evolution of an open system in contact with a large classical environment. Unless you are going to argue that the universe is not a closed system, then it evolves deterministically with no wiggle room.
I think this statement sweeps a million assumptions under the rug. When one sees their reflection in the water, they know it is not them. If you can't consider an electron real, then what can you consider real. You can't make an arbitrary dividing line between knowing that an electron is real and knowing that a reflection is not real. There is nothing in the immediate world that is truly known to be real a priori. There are our experiences and the conclusions we draw.
Chaos is a strictly classical phenomena. QM contains no chaos.
I am pretty sure that if you model a fluid with molecular dynamics instead of fluid dynamics you can reproduce turbulence. MD is computationally prohibitive though.
If the universe is governed by regular quantum mechanics, say the Wheeler-De-Witt equation, and we started with the exact same initial conditions, then we would end up with the exact same universe. Assuming the universe comprises a closed system.
A chemist does not concern himself with what the quarks are doing because for him it really isn't that important. It is an insignificant part of his calculation given the regime he is working in. And it is the nuclear physicists job to make sure this really is the case and find out when it isn't. Scientists aren't blind reductionists, they build models at different scales and try to make sure it's all consistent. Take thermodynamics for instance. It's a macroscopic classical theory. But physicists worked to derive it's principles from something more fundamental, statistical mechanics, even though they knew thermodynamics works. Thermodynamics becomes understood as an approximation under certain conditions.
At the end of the day, as far as real science is concerned, the only thing that matters is "does the theory agree with experiment". Scientists have bias. They are slow moving in their opinions. But empiricism rules all of that. They will not disagree with reproducible experiment. It only takes one person to move the whole community.
But how do you really know? You cannot rewind the universe and find out. You feel the experience of a choice. You feel the various motivating factors. You weigh them accordingly. Then you make your choice. How can you possibly know if you really could have chosen differently? You cannot know because the initial conditions are unique. It is not a repeatable experiment.
There are 10 completely different definitions on that page, most of them I've never heard. Historically the word was derogatory. This would be the first time I've ever heard the word not being used in a derogatory manner.
Yes, yes, category fallacy. Say I plot a graph of F/(m M) between heavenly bodies. Then I fit a 1/r^2 curve to that data and it fits naturally within the error bars. Is it a category fallacy to think that if I measure one more point, that it will also fit this curve?
And what are these unreductable natural phenomena? And how do you know they are unreductable? It is also a fallacy to assume that because today there is no mechanistic explaination that there will never be a mechanistic explaination. If you were a gambler that lived for thousands of years, would you gamble against science? At every stage of history there were detractors and their record is very poor.
Shaky ground? That's simply too blind of an assertion. In science there are degrees of certainty with respect to every bit of scientific knowledge. When new scientific knowledge is discovered, we do not throw away the old knowledge, we fill in the gaps. Einstein's gravity does not simply replace Newton's gravity, but is a more complete theory of gravity that has a larger domain of validity. And Quantum gravity (when discovered) will be an even more complete theory of gravity that will have an even larger domain of validity. Mistakes get discarded. Blind guesses get discarded. But most knowledge remains forever.
Perhaps you misunderstand me. Science is not above analysis. Science is analysis. Science is above people giving it credence. It's simply too late for that.
And in addition, the idea that you can boil science down to a philosophy is somewhat misguided. The best definitions of science happen to be very vague, like science is an systematic method of hypothesis testing. It is as misguided as when school children are taught The Scientific Method. There is no The Scientific Method. That is a lie.
Solutions to Schroedinger's equation evolve deterministically independent of what meaning you give them. These solutions are complex waves and exhibit wave interference (which is not a property of pdf's).
Now here you have a multitude of problems. The first and most important is that you have no fundamental theory.
What is the fundamental theory that describes all systems? You have none. I say: Schroedinger's equation. You have that theory for the microscopic, closed system. And then you have a rule for the measurement. But they are incompatible. Only one can be right and the other must be an approximation. You have no theory that encompasses the entire closed system that includes both the quantum system and the measuring device. Your theory is incomplete.
Secondly, what defines a measurement? It is a fundamental part of your half-theory. I do not have to define a measurement. For me, it is simply another interaction via Schroedinger's equation, only with Avagadro's number of degrees of freedom. In your theory, is not everything composed of quantum systems? Is not everything always in interaction with larger, classical systems? Your theory is incoherent.
It is true that pdf's that are solutions to pde's for stochastic processes evolve deterministically. But the wave is not simply a pdf. It exhibits interference. It is a wave.
You could say that about classical systems, and it would be wrong in that context as well. Determinism has nothing to do with if we (humans) can predict the future. Even in a deterministic QM we cannot possibly do that ever. Determinism simply means that given some initial conditions, the final conditions are singularly defined.
I never said I could. I certainly can't. The perturbations from Avagadro's number of degrees of freedom are exactly what give you the randomness in the measurement. The measurement is as random as Avagadro's number is big. The measurement is as irreversible as Avagadro's number is big. It's very much like the thermodynamic limit.
I count 5 paragraphs and then a sig.
First you use the derogatory term "scientism" against those you disagree with. And their crime is that they have "unbridled faith" in science. Already I can't take you seriously. Belief in determinism is simply belief that one can effectively model the universe with a deterministic theory, differential equations for instance. Given that this kind of thinking has been so overwhelmingly successful so far (you are using a transistor computer aren't you?), it is hardly "unbridled faith" that one would have to have to imagine that this property might extend to all of existence.
Then you talk about how science is fallible because humans are fallible. Well of course science is fallible. Science doesn't espouse absolute truth. But it's also naturally self correcting. You wouldn't know that science is fallible if it weren't for science. And moreover, science is constantly improving. This is all a red herring and doesn't prove or even support anything.
Next you have this nice quote, the philosophic jury is still out on the abilities of science, and the primacy of science. Science doesn't care about the philosophic jury. The entire subject of The Philosophy of Science is young and does not yet hold any sway over science. You are using a transistor computer. An invention that would not have been possible without the discovery of quantum mechanics
That said I don't necessarily hold any beliefs that the universe is entirely deterministic, but if there is evidence for any one idea then it is determinism. There are no other contenders.
Oh and your existential counter example is also incorrect. Determinism is not incompatible with subjective experience, even the subjective experience of free will.
I didn't separate good from morality. I separated people's opinions of good from what is actually good. Those are two different things.
Planned your class poorly? You have to make your primary skills the ones you never use. The class/level system is completely retarded.
The key phrase there is when a measurement is made. In quantum mechanics, the evolution of closed systems is strictly deterministic. The evolution of a measured system is, by definition, the evolution of an open system. And the environment of this open system has Avagadro's number of degrees of freedom (effectively infinity). Such an evolution is random even in classical mechanics, see Brownian motion.
And consciousness causes collapse is a long abandoned belief. It is no more credible to say that some physicists believe phlogiston causes fire or that spinons cause spin.
There is nothing magical in QM that can explain consciousness or give credence to free will.
Your third paragraph is a red herring. Scientists being able to figure out the deterministic truth is not the same as the existence of the deterministic truth.
The Schroedinger wave equation is completely deterministic. It is the measurements that are random. But the evolution of a measured system is the evolution of an open system where there is an environment with Avagadro's number of degrees of freedom (effectively infinity). Such a situation is also random in classical mechanics, as is the case in Brownian motion.
Quantum mechanics contains no magic that can be used to explain consciousness or give credence to free will.
--Anonymous Quantum Physicist whose name is not really Mark Maughan
Really? Show us where.
Because I haven't seen a single philosopher who could even define free will and I have looked.
Batman Begins was arguably the best superhero movie ever.
Hulk was a Shakespearian, father-son conflict, tragedy shot comic book panel style. The only reason people thought it was awful was because they came wanting to see some piece of shit like Fantastic 4 and instead got a more thoughtful, artistic masterpiece. It was a highbrow movie about lowbrow subject matter.
You are mixing premises. There was never any argument that people practice universal morality. Morality as practiced is not the same thing as what a believer of universal morality is believing in. Inherent in believing in universal morality is also believing in ethical realism, that people's actions and beliefs about what is good do not define what is good. Such a person believes that good is a universal, not people's opinions of good.