Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond—then yes, their behavior would align perfectly. At least for a time, until random quantum effects begin to accumulate, eventually influencing their divergence.

If two computers are "truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond", and even in absence of "random quantum effects", even with perfect knowledge of inputs, environment, and algorithm, Rice Theorem still prevents the observer from predicting that "their behavior will align perfectly".

Rice’s Theorem doesn’t apply to this situation the way you think it does. The theorem pertains to the undecidability of certain properties of programs and algorithms, which is a computational and mathematical constraint, not a physical one. It doesn’t imply that deterministic systems—whether computers or physical entities—behave unpredictably given identical initial conditions.

If two computers are truly identical—hardware, software, inputs, and environment—and there are no random quantum effects or external perturbations, their behavior will align perfectly because they operate under deterministic rules. Rice’s Theorem doesn’t contradict this; it simply states that certain non-trivial properties of programs cannot be determined universally without running the programs. It doesn’t mean the outcomes of specific deterministic systems are unpredictable when all conditions are known.

Your attempt to conflate Rice’s Theorem with the deterministic behavior of physical systems misunderstands both the theorem’s scope and the nature of deterministic causality. Identical systems will always produce identical outcomes under identical conditions, whether they’re computers or anything else governed by deterministic laws of physics.

[attofishpi]

Allow me to comprehend THE most important consideration I have of U and your belief.

Is it your belief that atto posting this question was ALWAYS going to exist, even if the Big Bang had all the identical parameters again (a second IDENTICAL instance of the Big Bang) ...that this question I am posing would always be posed

Yes, Atto, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If the Big Bang, with all its initial conditions, were to play out again with identical parameters, then everything—including you posting this question—would unfold in precisely the same way. Why? Because the universe operates under deterministic laws. Every atom, every particle, every force is governed by causality. Given identical starting conditions, the same chain of events would inevitably lead to this moment, including your decision to pose this question.

Mike!!

You appear to be ignoring ol' atto where I feel I have kicked "hard" determinism in the bollocks..

--> earlier you stated from the Boony's Room thought experiment that the two identical instances of David Boon would diverge in their actions after some time..to which I agreed.

BigMike: "If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond—then yes, their behavior would align perfectly. At least for a time, until random quantum effects begin to accumulate, eventually influencing their divergence."

So, there you admit that where minds are concerned hard determinism falls apart. That actually, you'd have to admit in that my question above is extremely unlikely to occur again within an identical Big Bang scenario. Since where the conscious mind decision making process occurs, quantum indeterminacy has such a profound affect as to refute any argument hard determinism attempts to make.

Given ALL the same conditions of the Big Bang, this planet Earth is extremely likely to exist.
However, since human conscious minds exist, this planet would never look identical again if the identical Big Bang were repeated.
Y ? ..because conscious human minds with their decision making "will" are affected by quantum indeterminacy within their decision making process...hence humanity will never look the same again!

What is it? You can't have divergence of David Boon and David Boon and still insist that this current conversation was always destined to be since the Big Bang!

[BigMike]

It's actually you that's missing the point. That cognitions issue in physical symptoms, you can prove; that the physical symtoms cause the cognitions, you cannot prove, and cannot even make plausible.

Immanuel, your assertion is absurd. Cognitions don’t “issue in” physical symptoms

You don't know that. Rather, you're assuming it. But what you've forgotten is that physical events don't *mean* anything, in the sense that they don't have propositional content, linguistic coherence, or a particular implication attached.

A rock falling off a cliff doesn't "mean" anything in particular. It does not invite us to any conclusion beyond itself: we can't derive from it that the gods are angry, or that luck is against us, or that to be or not to be is the question. An avalanche, an earthquake, or the rubbing together of atoms does not have meaning. It's not a message. It's not a sign.

But cognitions are. They are always about something. (Philosophers use the term "aboutness" to indicate this.) Cognitions always have meaning beyond the mere firing of synapses. One thinks about Shakespeare, or about suffering, or about the price of eggs. Aboutness is an ineradicable feature of thinking...but physical events have no aboutness. They just are themselves, and nothing further.

So when the synapses fire, we have no demonstration of what is causing what. Are the cognitions firing the synapses, or the synapses firing the cognitions, or some other thing firing both? We have absolutely no way to know. But we do know that that the synaptic firing, considered as a physical event, is not "about" anything. The consciousness associated with it has aboutness.

Your argument has aboutness. The accidental or random firing of synapses are mere physical events that signify nothing but the buzzing of meaningless electricity. But your argument depends utterly on its meaning, its aboutness.

So is your argument "about" Determinism? Or is it just the physical-causal firing of synapses, absent any "aboutness"? If it's the latter, as you insist, then it has no meaning. But if it has meaning, then it's not merely a physical event, a physical-causal firing of synapses: and maybe it is both a thing produced by a consciousness and directed to a counsciousness, and can be debated as to meaning.

Which is it? Your continuing to debate shows that you know which it is.

Immanuel, your "aboutness" theory is a convoluted distraction that falls apart the moment we bring in actual neuroscience. You claim that physical processes like synapses firing lack "aboutness" or meaning, but this completely ignores how cognition and memory actually work. Synaptic changes—like strengthening, weakening, or forming new connections—are precisely how learning, memory, and understanding occur. Meaning isn’t some ethereal property floating outside the brain; it emerges from the structured, adaptive interactions of physical processes.

If cognition and "aboutness" aren’t rooted in physical processes, how does your theory handle learning? How do synaptic modifications encode memories or facilitate reasoning? Are you suggesting that this is somehow divorced from the physical structure of the brain? If so, you’re denying the overwhelming evidence that synaptic plasticity underpins everything from learning a language to developing complex philosophical arguments like the ones you’re attempting (poorly) to make.

The idea that synaptic firings “aren’t about anything” because they are physical is laughable. It’s like saying the ink on a page isn’t “about anything” because it’s just molecules arranged in a pattern. The meaning arises from the structure and function of the system, whether it’s neurons firing or words on paper. Your refusal to acknowledge this isn’t profound—it’s willful ignorance.

Your argument isn’t an attack on determinism; it’s an exercise in dodging the reality that the brain’s physical processes are both the source and the medium of cognition. Stop hiding behind rhetorical wordplay and explain how your immaterial “aboutness” theory accounts for the physical mechanisms of learning and memory. Or better yet, admit that you have no coherent explanation and that this entire "aboutness" distraction is just a smokescreen for rejecting the implications of a deterministic universe.

[godelian]

If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond—then yes, their behavior would align perfectly. At least for a time, until random quantum effects begin to accumulate, eventually influencing their divergence.

If two computers are "truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond", and even in absence of "random quantum effects", even with perfect knowledge of inputs, environment, and algorithm, Rice Theorem still prevents the observer from predicting that "their behavior will align perfectly".

Apparently two computers with CPU clocks in perfect synchronisation will always return an identical integer using rand().

Sculptor educated me re that. Are you alluding to something different?

It's about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem

In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all non-trivial semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A semantic property is one about the program's behavior (for instance, "does the program terminate for all inputs?"), unlike a syntactic property (for instance, "does the program contain an if-then-else statement?"). A non-trivial property is one which is neither true for every program, nor false for every program.

[BigMike]

Allow me to comprehend THE most important consideration I have of U and your belief.

Is it your belief that atto posting this question was ALWAYS going to exist, even if the Big Bang had all the identical parameters again (a second IDENTICAL instance of the Big Bang) ...that this question I am posing would always be posed

Yes, Atto, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If the Big Bang, with all its initial conditions, were to play out again with identical parameters, then everything—including you posting this question—would unfold in precisely the same way. Why? Because the universe operates under deterministic laws. Every atom, every particle, every force is governed by causality. Given identical starting conditions, the same chain of events would inevitably lead to this moment, including your decision to pose this question.

Mike!!

You appear to be ignoring ol' atto where I feel I have kicked "hard" determinism in the bollocks..

--> earlier you stated from the Boony's Room thought experiment that the two identical instances of David Boon would diverge in their actions after some time..to which I agreed.

BigMike: "If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond—then yes, their behavior would align perfectly. At least for a time, until random quantum effects begin to accumulate, eventually influencing their divergence."

So, there you admit that where minds are concerned hard determinism falls apart. That actually, you'd have to admit in that my question above is extremely unlikely to occur again within an identical Big Bang scenario. Since where the conscious mind decision making process occurs, quantum indeterminacy has such a profound affect as to refute any argument hard determinism attempts to make.

Given ALL the same conditions of the Big Bang, this planet Earth is extremely likely to exist.
However, since human conscious minds exist, this planet would never look identical again if the identical Big Bang were repeated.
Y ? ..because conscious human minds with their decision making "will" are affected by quantum indeterminacy within their decision making process...hence humanity will never look the same again!

What is it? You can't have divergence of David Boon and David Boon and still insist that this current conversation was always destined to be since the Big Bang!

Atto, you're grasping at straws. Determinism says everything is caused, and those causes are exchanges of conserved physical properties like energy, momentum, and charge—all governed by the conservation laws. These laws are foundational to every field of science, and so far, not a single one has been found flawed. If you accept the conservation laws, then you must reject free will, because no mysterious "will" can interact with the brain without violating these principles.

Quantum indeterminacy doesn’t save free will. Randomness isn’t agency; it’s just unpredictability within a deterministic framework. If you think quantum effects grant free will, you need to show how they bypass conservation laws while magically creating intentional decisions. If you can’t, then your argument falls apart. Either name the conservation law you think is flawed or admit that free will has no place in a causally consistent universe. Science stands with determinism, not your wishful thinking.

[attofishpi]

Yes, Atto, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If the Big Bang, with all its initial conditions, were to play out again with identical parameters, then everything—including you posting this question—would unfold in precisely the same way. Why? Because the universe operates under deterministic laws. Every atom, every particle, every force is governed by causality. Given identical starting conditions, the same chain of events would inevitably lead to this moment, including your decision to pose this question.

Mike!!

You appear to be ignoring ol' atto where I feel I have kicked "hard" determinism in the bollocks..

--> earlier you stated from the Boony's Room thought experiment that the two identical instances of David Boon would diverge in their actions after some time..to which I agreed.

BigMike: "If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond—then yes, their behavior would align perfectly. At least for a time, until random quantum effects begin to accumulate, eventually influencing their divergence."

So, there you admit that where minds are concerned hard determinism falls apart. That actually, you'd have to admit in that my question above is extremely unlikely to occur again within an identical Big Bang scenario. Since where the conscious mind decision making process occurs, quantum indeterminacy has such a profound affect as to refute any argument hard determinism attempts to make.

Given ALL the same conditions of the Big Bang, this planet Earth is extremely likely to exist.
However, since human conscious minds exist, this planet would never look identical again if the identical Big Bang were repeated.
Y ? ..because conscious human minds with their decision making "will" are affected by quantum indeterminacy within their decision making process...hence humanity will never look the same again!

What is it? You can't have divergence of David Boon and David Boon and still insist that this current conversation was always destined to be since the Big Bang!

Atto, you're grasping at straws. Determinism says everything is caused, and those causes are exchanges of conserved physical properties like energy, momentum, and charge—all governed by the conservation laws. These laws are foundational to every field of science, and so far, not a single one has been found flawed. If you accept the conservation laws, then you must reject free will, because no mysterious "will" can interact with the brain without violating these principles.

Quantum indeterminacy doesn’t save free will. Randomness isn’t agency; it’s just unpredictability within a deterministic framework. If you think quantum effects grant free will, you need to show how they bypass conservation laws while magically creating intentional decisions. If you can’t, then your argument falls apart. Either name the conservation law you think is flawed or admit that free will has no place in a causally consistent universe. Science stands with determinism, not your wishful thinking.

But hang on here Mike, I am not making an argument for free will, I am making an argument against "hard" determinism.

1. On the one hand, you insist that since the Big Bang me typing this to you would be instantiated precisely the same way IF the same Big Bang and all conditions were perfectly the same existed again - that in EVERY instance of the Big Bang with all the precise same conditions...that this here conversation would exist.

2. On the other hand, you state RE the Boony's Room thought experiment, that the two identical instances of David Boon would diverge in their thoughts/actions through time due to "random quantum effects"..

...surely U see how you can't stick to point 1. AND point 2. - you've got to pick a side Mike, you can't have both options, so which is it?

[Noax]

Actually, no. We know for certain that every causal chain has to have a beginning point, because mathematically, a causal chain of infinite regressions never starts; the conditions for it to begin are never met.

My comment was that a new causal chain is a very poor way to make any sort of decision. Your reply didn't seem relevant to that comment at all, instead making irrelevant asserts (nether of which I agree with).

[BigMike]

Mike!!

You appear to be ignoring ol' atto where I feel I have kicked "hard" determinism in the bollocks..

--> earlier you stated from the Boony's Room thought experiment that the two identical instances of David Boon would diverge in their actions after some time..to which I agreed.

BigMike: "If they were truly identical—right down to the atomic level and beyond—then yes, their behavior would align perfectly. At least for a time, until random quantum effects begin to accumulate, eventually influencing their divergence."

So, there you admit that where minds are concerned hard determinism falls apart. That actually, you'd have to admit in that my question above is extremely unlikely to occur again within an identical Big Bang scenario. Since where the conscious mind decision making process occurs, quantum indeterminacy has such a profound affect as to refute any argument hard determinism attempts to make.

Given ALL the same conditions of the Big Bang, this planet Earth is extremely likely to exist.
However, since human conscious minds exist, this planet would never look identical again if the identical Big Bang were repeated.
Y ? ..because conscious human minds with their decision making "will" are affected by quantum indeterminacy within their decision making process...hence humanity will never look the same again!

What is it? You can't have divergence of David Boon and David Boon and still insist that this current conversation was always destined to be since the Big Bang!

Atto, you're grasping at straws. Determinism says everything is caused, and those causes are exchanges of conserved physical properties like energy, momentum, and charge—all governed by the conservation laws. These laws are foundational to every field of science, and so far, not a single one has been found flawed. If you accept the conservation laws, then you must reject free will, because no mysterious "will" can interact with the brain without violating these principles.

Quantum indeterminacy doesn’t save free will. Randomness isn’t agency; it’s just unpredictability within a deterministic framework. If you think quantum effects grant free will, you need to show how they bypass conservation laws while magically creating intentional decisions. If you can’t, then your argument falls apart. Either name the conservation law you think is flawed or admit that free will has no place in a causally consistent universe. Science stands with determinism, not your wishful thinking.

But hang on here Mike, I am not making an argument for free will, I am making an argument against "hard" determinism.

1. On the one hand, you insist that since the Big Bang me typing this to you would be instantiated precisely the same way IF the same Big Bang and all conditions were perfectly the same existed again - that in EVERY instance of the Big Bang with all the precise same conditions...that this here conversation would exist.

2. On the other hand, you state RE the Boony's Room thought experiment, that the two identical instances of David Boon would diverge in their thoughts/actions through time due to "random quantum effects"..

...surely U see how you can't stick to point 1. AND point 2. - you've got to pick a side Mike, you can't have both options, so which is it?

Atto, your argument misinterprets quantum uncertainty and its implications for determinism. Quantum uncertainty, as described by Heisenberg's principle, states that we cannot simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of subatomic particles with absolute precision. This does not mean that those particles lack specific positions and momenta—only that our ability to measure them is limited. The uncertainty is epistemic (about what we can know), not necessarily ontological (about what exists).

Now, addressing your points:

1. If the Big Bang and all its conditions were perfectly identical, the universe would unfold exactly the same way. Even quantum uncertainty would originate from the same initial conditions. The "randomness" we observe arises from our inability to measure or predict certain outcomes, not because they are causeless. Quantum mechanics operates within a deterministic framework at the level of fundamental laws.

2. The divergence you refer to in the Boony’s Room thought experiment would occur only if quantum states are allowed to vary. In a truly identical scenario, with every particle and quantum state precisely recreated, even quantum randomness would follow the same probabilistic rules as before, leading to identical outcomes. Divergence happens only when quantum states differ across iterations, which does not apply in a perfectly identical scenario.

You’re conflating unpredictability (our limited ability to calculate outcomes) with indeterminism (events lacking causes). If you want to argue against hard determinism, you need to show that quantum effects introduce genuine causeless events and that those events somehow override the brain’s physical processes to create "will." So far, quantum mechanics provides no evidence for causeless events overriding determinism in any meaningful way. Conservation laws remain valid, and determinism stands unshaken.

[attofishpi]

Atto, you're grasping at straws. Determinism says everything is caused, and those causes are exchanges of conserved physical properties like energy, momentum, and charge—all governed by the conservation laws. These laws are foundational to every field of science, and so far, not a single one has been found flawed. If you accept the conservation laws, then you must reject free will, because no mysterious "will" can interact with the brain without violating these principles.

Quantum indeterminacy doesn’t save free will. Randomness isn’t agency; it’s just unpredictability within a deterministic framework. If you think quantum effects grant free will, you need to show how they bypass conservation laws while magically creating intentional decisions. If you can’t, then your argument falls apart. Either name the conservation law you think is flawed or admit that free will has no place in a causally consistent universe. Science stands with determinism, not your wishful thinking.

But hang on here Mike, I am not making an argument for free will, I am making an argument against "hard" determinism.

1. On the one hand, you insist that since the Big Bang me typing this to you would be instantiated precisely the same way IF the same Big Bang and all conditions were perfectly the same existed again - that in EVERY instance of the Big Bang with all the precise same conditions...that this here conversation would exist.

2. On the other hand, you state RE the Boony's Room thought experiment, that the two identical instances of David Boon would diverge in their thoughts/actions through time due to "random quantum effects"..

...surely U see how you can't stick to point 1. AND point 2. - you've got to pick a side Mike, you can't have both options, so which is it?

Atto, your argument misinterprets quantum uncertainty and its implications for determinism. Quantum uncertainty, as described by Heisenberg's principle, states that we cannot simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of subatomic particles with absolute precision. This does not mean that those particles lack specific positions and momenta—only that our ability to measure them is limited. The uncertainty is epistemic (about what we can know), not necessarily ontological (about what exists).

Now, addressing your points:

A. If the Big Bang and all its conditions were perfectly identical, the universe would unfold exactly the same way. Even quantum uncertainty would originate from the same initial conditions. The "randomness" we observe arises from our inability to measure or predict certain outcomes, not because they are causeless. Quantum mechanics operates within a deterministic framework at the level of fundamental laws.

B. The divergence you refer to in the Boony’s Room thought experiment would occur only if quantum states are allowed to vary. In a truly identical scenario, with every particle and quantum state precisely recreated, even quantum randomness would follow the same probabilistic rules as before, leading to identical outcomes. Divergence happens only when quantum states differ across iterations, which does not apply in a perfectly identical scenario.

You’re conflating unpredictability (our limited ability to calculate outcomes) with indeterminism (events lacking causes). If you want to argue against hard determinism, you need to show that quantum effects introduce genuine causeless events and that those events somehow override the brain’s physical processes to create "will." So far, quantum mechanics provides no evidence for causeless events overriding determinism in any meaningful way. Conservation laws remain valid, and determinism stands unshaken.

Mike, do you think I can't tell when someone is attempting to blow smoke up my arse?

MY Point 1. & 2. are challenging the SAME PREMISE of hard determinism. You cannot on the one hand have identical David Boons diverging their decision-making process and indeed their actions in Point 2. while still insisting that if another identical instance of Big Bang were to occur that this conversation would again exist.

Thus U R insisting within:-

Point 1. there is no divergence due to ALL conditions being identical ALL the time (thus no "random quantum effects").
Point 2. the two David Boons diverge because of "random quantum effects".

AGAIN - which is it? You cannot blow smoke up my arse Mike and insist you are correct on BOTH point 1 & 2. !!

[godelian]

Apparently two computers with CPU clocks in perfect synchronisation will always return an identical integer using rand().

The first computer asks the second one:

Look at the source code of my program. Am I going to print "yes" or "no"?

If the second computer says that the first computer will print "yes", he prints "no". If the second computer says that first computer will print "no", then he prints "yes".

The second computer runs the same program.

The result is that both computers are perfectly unpredictable to each other. They get it wrong 100% of the time as to what the other computer will be doing.

There is not even any randomness involved.

Two humans could more or less do the same.

If any oracle claims that it can perfectly predict the future, it is trivially easy to ask it to predict what you are going to be doing next and to make its prediction fail.

That the essence of the proof for Turing's halting problem and Rice Theorem (which is a further generalization of Turing).

Any observer located inside the universe can trivially be misled by the instances that it is trying to predict into making wrong predictions.

If you claim that you can predict two otherwise identical computers, these computers can trivially mislead you into making wrong predictions, even if you have 100% knowledge about their software.

[BigMike]

Atto, your argument misinterprets quantum uncertainty and its implications for determinism. Quantum uncertainty, as described by Heisenberg's principle, states that we cannot simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of subatomic particles with absolute precision. This does not mean that those particles lack specific positions and momenta—only that our ability to measure them is limited. The uncertainty is epistemic (about what we can know), not necessarily ontological (about what exists).

Now, addressing your points:

A. If the Big Bang and all its conditions were perfectly identical, the universe would unfold exactly the same way. Even quantum uncertainty would originate from the same initial conditions. The "randomness" we observe arises from our inability to measure or predict certain outcomes, not because they are causeless. Quantum mechanics operates within a deterministic framework at the level of fundamental laws.

B. The divergence you refer to in the Boony’s Room thought experiment would occur only if quantum states are allowed to vary. In a truly identical scenario, with every particle and quantum state precisely recreated, even quantum randomness would follow the same probabilistic rules as before, leading to identical outcomes. Divergence happens only when quantum states differ across iterations, which does not apply in a perfectly identical scenario.

You’re conflating unpredictability (our limited ability to calculate outcomes) with indeterminism (events lacking causes). If you want to argue against hard determinism, you need to show that quantum effects introduce genuine causeless events and that those events somehow override the brain’s physical processes to create "will." So far, quantum mechanics provides no evidence for causeless events overriding determinism in any meaningful way. Conservation laws remain valid, and determinism stands unshaken.

Mike, do you think I can't tell when someone is attempting to blow smoke up my arse?

MY Point 1. & 2. are challenging the SAME PREMISE of hard determinism. You cannot on the one hand have identical David Boons diverging their decision-making process and indeed their actions in Point 2. while still insisting that if another identical instance of Big Bang were to occur that this conversation would again exist.

Thus U R insisting within:-

Point 1. there is no divergence due to ALL conditions being identical ALL the time (thus no "random quantum effects").
Point 2. the two David Boons diverge because of "random quantum effects".

AGAIN - which is it? You cannot blow smoke up my arse Mike and insist you are correct on BOTH point 1 & 2. !!

Atto, your insistence that I'm contradicting myself betrays your misunderstanding of both quantum mechanics and determinism. Let me clarify again.

In Point 1, the identical re-creation of the Big Bang assumes not just identical macroscopic conditions but also identical quantum states. If this happens, the universe—including this conversation—would play out exactly the same way because even quantum events, which follow probabilistic rules, would be governed by the same initial conditions and thus yield identical outcomes.

In Point 2, the divergence in Boony’s Room occurs only if quantum states are allowed to vary. Quantum effects can cause divergence if the states aren’t perfectly replicated or if the system evolves with indeterminate variables. However, this variability arises because quantum states were not explicitly identical in that scenario.

You’re conflating two different situations: one where conditions, including quantum states, are perfectly identical (Big Bang scenario), and one where quantum variations exist (Boony's Room). In a truly identical scenario, there would be no divergence—neither in David Boon nor in this conversation—because quantum “randomness” would be dictated by the exact same probabilities as before.

So no, I’m not blowing smoke. The consistency of determinism holds. If you still claim I’m wrong, then you need to demonstrate how quantum effects introduce causeless divergence while maintaining the conservation laws. So far, you haven’t addressed that critical gap.

[accelafine]

I still don't know how you are going to prevent people from becoming serial killers in a deterministic universe

[BigMike]

Atto, your misunderstanding of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is leading you astray. The principle doesn’t say that particles lack definite positions and momenta—it says that we cannot simultaneously measure both with arbitrary precision. The particles themselves do have specific positions and momenta at any given moment, but the act of measuring one with high accuracy inherently introduces uncertainty in the other.

In principle, we can measure either the position or the momentum of a particle with any degree of accuracy we choose. The problem arises when we try to measure both at the same time; the precision of one measurement limits the precision of the other. This is a limitation of measurement, not a statement about the intrinsic properties of the particles.

So, particles always have definite positions and momenta, even if we cannot measure them both with perfect accuracy simultaneously. This epistemic limitation doesn’t mean that quantum events are causeless or that determinism falls apart—it simply reflects the inherent constraints of observation in quantum mechanics. Determinism still applies at the level of fundamental physical laws, and the universe operates within the framework of conservation laws that remain unbroken.

[BigMike]

I still don't know how you are going to prevent people from becoming serial killers in a deterministic universe

Accelafine, preventing people from becoming serial killers in a deterministic universe is no different than addressing any other issue with causes. Determinism doesn’t mean we’re powerless—it means we focus on understanding the causes of behavior and intervening effectively. Serial killers don’t emerge randomly; they are the product of specific genetic, environmental, psychological, and social factors.

By identifying these factors—like childhood trauma, mental health issues, or abusive environments—we can design evidence-based interventions to reduce the likelihood of such outcomes. For example, programs that address poverty, provide mental health support, or prevent abuse have been shown to reduce violent crime rates.

The deterministic framework doesn’t eliminate the possibility of change; it enhances it by focusing on the root causes. The question isn’t "How do we stop them in a deterministic universe?" but "Why wouldn’t we use determinism to target the factors we know lead to harmful behaviors?" Ignoring those factors is what leads to failure, not determinism.

[godelian]

Rice’s Theorem doesn’t apply to this situation the way you think it does. The theorem pertains to the undecidability of certain properties of programs and algorithms, which is a computational and mathematical constraint, not a physical one. It doesn’t imply that deterministic systems—whether computers or physical entities—behave unpredictably given identical initial conditions.

Rice theorem certainly applies.

The behavior of these computers is to figure out what you are predicting about them with the purpose of making your prediction fail.

If two computers are truly identical—hardware, software, inputs, and environment—and there are no random quantum effects or external perturbations, their behavior will align perfectly because they operate under deterministic rules.

No, because their behavior depends on your behavior.

If you predict that they will run forever, they will halt instead. If you predict that they halt, they will run forever instead.

They predict about you what you are going to predict about them with the purpose of making your prediction fail

The proof for Alan Turing's Halting problem and for Rice Theorem work exactly like that.

The first computer will only behave identically to the second computer if you predict that they will do exactly the same things. If you predict that they will do different things, they will behave differently.