Talk:Indeterminism

Philosophy Mid‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have a problem with the author's logic here. The statement, "Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x" could perhaps have been more correctly stated as, "Thus the presence of y does not confirm the presence of x." Determinist (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's incompatibilism.

Indeterminism is the idea that there are things that happen, not caused by previous events.

Merge with determinism? [21/12/2005]

What's with the "example" section? That needs to be revised or removed.71.125.76.125 (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of English is this: "The world therefore was formed assuming a curbed form. Its formation followed a process where the atoms were subjected to an chance movement not predeterminate and they move incessantly with a very high speedy"?

Low quality article[edit]

A very low quality article. That part is easy to determine just by a first glance. It is so far off, it even puts one off from an attempt to fix it. And in fact most of these articles on determinism/indeterminism/predictability etc. and the N disambig pages that duplicate the terms are pretty confused, and often incorrect. It will take major work to clean them up, and it will be better to just do a clean rewrite. History2007 (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eep! This isn't indeterminism, it's nondeterminism! see page 16 of An Introduction to the History of Psychology By B. R. Hergenhahn. (it's on Google Books) 174.6.84.210 (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koch's "free will" is nothing like Kane's[edit]

Koch's view of free will is along the lines of "pragmatism", it's mora a semantic divergence from those who argue for "strong" free will, than epistemologic. I don't know much about Kane's position, only that he's a "libertarian", which is nearly the extreme opposite of a "pragmatic". Read "How Physics and Neuroscience Dictate Your "Free" Will", from SCIAM. The title is already telling, "dictate", and quotes for free will. He just hypothesizes that physical indeterminism could be "used" to produce random behavior, in the brains of "bees, beagles and boys". Random behavior is not a loophole for a supernatural/not physically determined "free will" to take charge, or even some eventual hypothetical natural "free will mechanism" as it seems that Kane imagines. It's still natural physical determinism, and quite simple, like a roll of dices is deterministic. If Kane's free will isn't "supernatural taking charge" (under a cursory reading, it seems it is not), it's at least more complex than sheer randomness, not something that would be the same for any organism with nervous systems hypothetically sensible to quantum randomness, but apparently exclusively human. --Extremophile (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intrinsic indeterminism versus unpredictability[edit]

The section of the article titled "Intrinsic indeterminism versus unpredictability", doesn't clearly state whether quantum mechanics is indeterministic, or simply unpredictable.

Whfiwh (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lengthy intro to the "Philosophy" section is a great essay...[edit]

The lengthy introduction to the "Philosophy" section of this Indeterminism article is a great essay! But it's a poor example of encyclopedic style, lacking even a single reference. Do any editors have thoughts on how to remedy this? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]