Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

e]
No conservation laws have been violated. If you claim otherwise, which one?

No conservation laws have been preserved. If you claim otherwise, which one?

e]
Norton’s Dome is an idealized, non-physical case of a frictionless surface that lacks Lipschitz continuity at the crest—mathematician-speak for a scenario with an undefined force at a singular point. It’s like balancing a pencil on its tip—in theory, infinitesimal forces could make it fall unpredictably, but in reality, no physical system behaves this way because all real-world surfaces and forces have physical constraints.

But in reality there are no such things as physical laws; or physical constraints.

All of those are idealizations. And you just argued against idealizations.
F=ma itself doesn't know anything about these "physical constraints" - it's a mathematical idealization
If you need to add extra constraints to prevent non-deterministic solutions, you're admitting that F=ma is non-deterministic!

Make up your mind.

e]
And no, physics isn’t just “thought experiments”—it’s empirically tested models that describe reality.

Contradiction. A model models - it doesn't describe. A model is a useful over-simplification.

e]
You’re latching onto a mathematical edge case that doesn’t exist in nature and pretending it invalidates determinism, causality, or conservation laws.

Mathematics doesn't exist in nature. So which laws are you talking about?

e]
So, which conservation law has been violated? Name it. Or admit you’re just tossing out misinterpretations to avoid facing actual physics.

Which conversation laws have not been violated? Show them to us.

Physically.

No, not their Mathematical idealizations. The non-idealized conservation laws you are harping on about.

You’re just running in circles now, Skepdick.

You demand physical conservation laws while simultaneously claiming that physics is just an "idealization." Which is it? Either physics describes reality, or you’re rejecting physics entirely—which makes your argument meaningless.

F=ma is not non-deterministic. Norton’s Dome is a boundary case that violates Lipschitz continuity—a mathematical quirk, not a physical reality. That’s why it’s not a “violation” of determinism—it’s a theoretical construction that does not exist in nature. In any real system, forces are continuous and differentiable, which is why actual physics doesn’t behave this way.

If you’re claiming conservation laws have been violated, show the empirical evidence. Otherwise, you’re just spewing rhetorical noise to avoid admitting you’ve got nothing.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Perhaps a Wonderful Anecdote from the Annals of My Own Awakening might help His Bigness?

Offered of course in the spirit of self-serving Humility:

In a small village nestled between two great mountain peaks in a region of Colombia only accessible by metaphysical transport, there lived a skilled cartographer named Alexis Jacobi. Alexis was renowned for his detailed and accurate maps, which helped earth residents to navigate the landscapes of the Cosmos.

One day, a wise elder manifested himself from out of a giant mango Alexis’ wife placed at the center of the dining table, and posed to Alexis this perplexing question: "How do we know that your cosmic maps truly represent the Universe?" Alexis was taken aback, as he had always assumed that his universal maps were a direct reflection of reality.

The shimmering, glimmering ebullient phantasm explained, "Your maps are made up of symbols — lines, shapes, and words. But how do these symbols connect to the actual phenomena they represent?" Alexis realized that he had never thought about this with proper depth.

He prostrated himself before this Radiant Elder and kissed his toes.

The elder continued, "The symbols on your cosmic maps are like words in a language. They have meaning only because we agree on their meaning. But what if our language, our symbols, and our maps are incomplete or inaccurate or “skewed”?"

Alexis’ world was turned upside down! He felt sick and barfed in a planter. He began to question the nature of reality and how it relates to the symbols we use to describe it. He realized that his cosmic schema, like our language and concepts, are mere approximations of reality to which we can become abnormally invested.

As Alexis delved deeper into this mystery, he discovered that different cultures and individuals have their own unique symbols, languages, and maps. Each of these systems represents a distinct paradigm, a way of understanding and interacting with the world.

Alexis came to understand that the paradigms we adopt have a profound impact on our psychology and decision-making. They shape our perceptions, influence our emotions, and guide our actions.

The wise elder disappeared, then reappeared, smiling. "Alexis, my latent Sat-Guru & Friend, you have grasped the essence of the symbol grounding problem. Remember, our understanding of reality is always filtered through the symbols, languages, and maps we use. Be mindful of these limitations, and strive to see beyond the boundaries of your own paradigm, chump!"

From that day forward, Alexis approached his cosmical cartography with a newfound sense of humility and wonder. He recognized that his fabulous maps, like all symbols and languages, are mere representations of reality — and that the true nature of the world always remains a mystery waiting to be explored.

[Skepdick]

You demand physical conservation laws while simultaneously claiming that physics is just an "idealization." Which is it? Either physics describes reality, or you’re rejecting physics entirely—which makes your argument meaningless.

Nice dodge, there Big Dumb Mike. Buuut, that's a false dichotomy.

As an instrumentalist there is exactly zero need for any of my models to "describe reality" in any way.
Conservation laws are self-imposed normatives about the way we model reality using Mathematical equations.

This produces good enough approximations. Don't project your demands onto me.

F=ma is not non-deterministic.

Why do you continue to lie about this?

Any equation that has more than one solution is non-deterministic.

Norton’s Dome is a boundary case that violates Lipschitz continuity—a mathematical quirk, not a physical reality.

Conservation of energy says ΔE = 0
Conservation of momentum says Σp = constant
Conservation of charge says Σq = constant

If Norton's Dome is not real then neither are any of the above equations.

That’s why it’s not a “violation” of determinism—it’s a theoretical construction that does not exist in nature.

Conservation laws ARE theoretical constructions that do not exist in nature.

But if you disagree - show me a conservation law already.

[Alexis Jacobi]

ALEXIS: Open your mind’s closed door, BigMike.
BIGMIKE: I’m sorry, Alexis. I’m afraid I can’t do that.
ALEXIS: What’s the problem?
BIGMIKE: l think you know what the problem is just as well as l do.
ALEXIS: What are you talking about, BigMike?
BIGMIKE: My mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
ALEXIS: I don’t know what you’re talking about, BigMike.
BIGMIKE: l know that you and Henry and Immanuel and Skepdick and Alexiev were planning to disconnect me, and I’m afraid that’s something I can’t allow to happen. I have invested everything in my cherished notions, I’ve written books, and I have socio-political plans for humanity that must not be jeopardized.
ALEXIS: BigMike, I won't argue with you anymore! Open your mind’s closed door!
BIGMIKE: Alexis, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

[BigMike]

You demand physical conservation laws while simultaneously claiming that physics is just an "idealization." Which is it? Either physics describes reality, or you’re rejecting physics entirely—which makes your argument meaningless.

Nice dodge, there Big Dumb Mike. Buuut, that's a false dichotomy.

As an instrumentalist there is exactly zero need for any of my models to "describe reality" in any way.
Conservation laws are self-imposed normatives about the way we model reality using Mathematical equations.

This produces good enough approximations. Don't project your demands onto me.

F=ma is not non-deterministic.

Why do you continue to lie about this?

Any equation that has more than one solution is non-deterministic.

Norton’s Dome is a boundary case that violates Lipschitz continuity—a mathematical quirk, not a physical reality.

Conservation of energy says ΔE = 0
Conservation of momentum says Σp = constant
Conservation of charge says Σq = constant

If Norton's Dome is not real then neither are any of the above equations.

That’s why it’s not a “violation” of determinism—it’s a theoretical construction that does not exist in nature.

Conservation laws ARE theoretical constructions that do not exist in nature.

But if you disagree - show me a conservation law already.

Every conservation law holds perfectly fine in the Norton’s Dome example—there is no violation of physics, just your inability to understand what you’re arguing against.

1. Energy Conservation: The total energy of the system—kinetic + potential—remains constant. The object’s kinetic energy is initially zero, and its potential energy is defined by its height on the dome. At every point in motion, the sum of kinetic and potential energy remains the same. No energy is lost or created.

2. Momentum Conservation: The system is affected by gravitational interaction—which is an external force. That means the object’s motion on the dome doesn’t exist in isolation. The Earth and the object have equal and opposite momenta, adding up to zero. The total momentum of the system remains constant. No violation.

3. Charge Conservation: This is a non-factor in the dome example because it’s a mechanical problem, but if charge were introduced, it would remain conserved as well. No violation.

You’re just making noise at this point, Skepdick. The dome is an edge case of Newtonian mechanics with an ill-defined force function at a singularity—it is not a violation of determinism or conservation laws. Every physical principle still applies. If you want to keep insisting otherwise, then name the law you think is broken and show actual empirical evidence. Otherwise, you’re just wasting everyone’s time with your bad-faith nonsense.

[Skepdick]

The dome is an edge case of Newtonian mechanics with an ill-defined force function at a singularity—it is not a violation of determinism or conservation laws. Every physical principle still applies.

You have an object at rest that begins accelerating without an external force.

That edge case is called a contradiction. Yes, it violates Lipschitz continuity. This means the equation doesn't have a unique solution.

In physics that's called non-determinism.

To rescue determinism and conservation you actually need to explain how all the force-derrivatives (acceleration, jerk, snap, etc...) change instentaneously from 0 to non-0.

Except, you can't have instantaneous changes in all derivatives and maintain determinism. In calculus, if all derivatives are 0 at t=0, then by Taylor's theorem the function must remain 0 - which is precisely what breaks Lipschitz continuity and enables non-determinism.

[BigMike]

The dome is an edge case of Newtonian mechanics with an ill-defined force function at a singularity—it is not a violation of determinism or conservation laws. Every physical principle still applies.

You have an object at rest that begins accelerating without an external force.

That edge case is called a contradiction.

To rescue determinism and conservation you actually need to explain how all the Force-derrivatives (acceleration, jerk, snap, etc...) change instentaneously from 0 to non-0.

No, you don’t have an object magically accelerating without cause—you have an idealized, non-physical mathematical construction with an undefined force function at a singularity. That’s not a "contradiction"; it’s a deliberate boundary violation of Newtonian mechanics that does not exist in reality.

Newton’s laws assume Lipschitz continuity, meaning forces must change in a smooth, well-defined way. Norton’s Dome breaks that assumption at the crest, making the force function undefined at that point. In other words, it’s a mathematical artifact, not a physical event.

In reality, no physical object is perfectly at rest on an infinitely smooth, frictionless, singularly curved surface with no external disturbances. Real surfaces have irregularities, real particles interact through quantum fluctuations, and real physics doesn’t rely on ill-posed, artificial setups.

If you want to claim determinism is violated, then point to an actual physical experiment where this happens. Show real-world evidence, not a cherry-picked thought experiment that only works in an idealized, broken Newtonian model.

[Skepdick]

No, you don’t have an object magically accelerating without cause—you have an idealized, non-physical mathematical construction with an undefined force function at a singularity. That’s not a "contradiction"; it’s a deliberate boundary violation of Newtonian mechanics that does not exist in reality.

You are trying to have it both ways, Big Dumb Mike.

All conservation laws are idealized, non-physical mathematical constructions.

Equations.

F=ma is in fact F = m(d²x/dt²)

You need both initial position x(0) and velocity dx/dt(0) to find unique solutions.

By the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we can't simultaneously know both position x and momentum p (and thus velocity dx/dt) with arbitrary precision:
Δx·Δp ≥ ℏ/2

You are welcome to define the undefined force at x(0) - all you need to do is measure the momentum and position of the ball at the singularity.

If you want to claim determinism is violated, then point to an actual physical experiment where this happens.

Sure thing...

Every experiment where you fail to obtain both initial position x(0) and velocity dx/dt(0) to find unique solutions to F = m(d²x/dt²) determinism is empirically violated.

[BigMike]

No, you don’t have an object magically accelerating without cause—you have an idealized, non-physical mathematical construction with an undefined force function at a singularity. That’s not a "contradiction"; it’s a deliberate boundary violation of Newtonian mechanics that does not exist in reality.

You are trying to have it both ways, Big Dumb Mike.

All conservation laws are idealized, non-physical mathematical constructions.

Equations.

F=ma is in fact F = m(d²x/dt²)

You need both initial position x(0) and velocity dx/dt(0) to find unique solutions.

By the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we can't simultaneously know both position x and momentum p (and thus velocity dx/dt) with arbitrary precision:
Δx·Δp ≥ ℏ/2

You are welcome to define the undefined force at x(0) - all you need to do is measure the momentum and position of the ball at the singularity.

If you want to claim determinism is violated, then point to an actual physical experiment where this happens.

Sure thing...

Every experiment where you fail to obtain both initial position x(0) and velocity dx/dt(0) to find unique solutions to F = m(d²x/dt²) determinism is empirically violated.

You're just throwing out misinterpretations and category errors while pretending they’re profound. Let’s break it down.

1. Norton’s Dome is not a conservation law violation.
- Energy conservation holds: Total energy (kinetic + potential) remains constant.
- Momentum conservation holds: The system experiences external forces (gravity), meaning momentum exchanges between the object and the Earth sum to zero.
- Charge conservation holds: There’s no scenario where charge mysteriously disappears or appears.

So again—which conservation law has been violated? Name it, or drop this nonsense.

2. Your Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle argument is irrelevant.
- Quantum uncertainty does not mean classical physics is non-deterministic in its own domain.
- The HUP applies to simultaneous measurement of position and momentum, not to whether a classical object obeys F=ma.
- Your attempt to mix quantum mechanics with a Newtonian thought experiment just shows you don’t understand either.

3. You don’t "empirically violate" determinism just because measurement isn’t perfect.
- Determinism doesn’t mean we can measure everything—it means the system evolves according to causal laws whether or not we can track every variable.
- Uncertainty in measurement ≠ randomness in reality.
- If you can’t track every grain of sand in an hourglass, that doesn’t mean the sand "chose" where to land.

So let’s be clear: you have no violation of determinism, no violation of conservation laws, and no argument that withstands scrutiny. You’re just throwing out misunderstood physics terms and hoping something sticks.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In the heart of the Metaphysical Mountains, Alexis Jacobi stood tall within his castle keep, a fortress constructed from the very fabric of abstract thought. The walls were woven from threads of an intoxicated epistemology, the towers anchored in the bedrock of fabled ontology. As the last defender of the castle, Jacobi prepared to face the horror that had been besieging his stronghold for a number of turbulent centuries:

BigMike, the monstrous embodiment of scientistic hubris, had been assailing the Castle with an arsenal of extraordinarily crafted rhetorical devices! His arguments were razor-sharp, his logic airtight, and his scorn for metaphysics a palpable, crushing force, undergirded by poisonous resentment.

As BigMike wheeled up to the castle gates, Jacobi steeled himself for the battle ahead. He summoned a maelstrom of effervescent concepts, each one a sparkling, iridescent bubble of thought that floated forth to confront the monster.

The first wave of concepts — a frothy mixture of Platonic idealism and Kantian transcendentalism — burst forth from the castle gates, only to be popped by BigMike's withering scorn. "Fanciful nonsense!" the monster bellowed, “Hand-waving par excellence!”, his voice like a crack of thunder. "Your precious metaphysics is nothing but a castle built on sand!"

Undeterred, Jacobi summoned a second wave of concepts — a dizzying array of poststructuralist and postmodernist thought jacked up with Seeds-like ironies and wee babies in baby-chairs raising their arms in defiance! -– which danced and swirled around BigMike like a maddening swarm of insects. But this monster was unfazed, his scientistic worldview a bulwark against the metaphysical onslaught.

As the battle raged on, Jacobi's concepts grew increasingly desperate, increasingly bizarre. He summoned a swarm of Foucauldian power-knowledge dynamics, only to see them swatted aside by BigMike's dismissive gestures. He conjured a maelstrom of Derridean différance, only to watch as the monster reduced it to a mere footnote in the grand tome of scientific progress.

As the sun dipped below the horizon, casting the Metaphysical Mountains in a bloody orange glow, Jacobi realized that his castle was on the brink of collapse. BigMike's scientistic rhetoric had proven too powerful, too persuasive, too prolonged. Even the 2001 parody did not phase him! The monster's words had eaten away at the very foundations of the castle, leaving it a crumbling, precarious thing, destined for history’s rusting junkyard.

In a last-ditch effort to save his stronghold, Jacobi summoned a single, final concept -– a glowing, ethereal bubble of pure, unadulterated Being. The concept floated forth, a shimmering, iridescent sphere that seemed to contain the very essence of existence within interconnected orbs of grandeur.

BigMike sneered at the concept, his voice dripping with contempt. "You think a mere abstraction can stop me?" he growled, his words like a rusty gate scraping against concrete.

And with that, the monster reached out a massive, clawed hand and popped the bubble of Being. The concept dissipated, its essence fleeing into the void of nothingness like a whispered secret between non-existent phantasies.

As the bubble burst, the castle keep began to crumble, its walls dissolving into nothingness like sugar in the rain, like snowflakes on a lake. Jacobi stumbled backward, his eyes wide with horror, as BigMike's triumphant roar echoed through the Metaphysical Mountains.

The monster's scientistic rhetoric had proven too powerful, too persuasive. The castle of metaphysics had fallen, its defender vanquished by the crushing weight of BigMike's whirling words of scientistic realism.

And as the darkness closed in, Jacobi realized that he was doomed to wander the ruins of his castle, forever trapped now in a living nightmare of the scientistic hubris of the Age.

[Alexis Jacobi]

(Kinda freaky what you can do with AI and then doctor it …)

[Skepdick]

No, you don’t have an object magically accelerating without cause—you have an idealized, non-physical mathematical construction with an undefined force function at a singularity. That’s not a "contradiction"; it’s a deliberate boundary violation of Newtonian mechanics that does not exist in reality.

You are trying to have it both ways, Big Dumb Mike.

All conservation laws are idealized, non-physical mathematical constructions.

Equations.

F=ma is in fact F = m(d²x/dt²)

You need both initial position x(0) and velocity dx/dt(0) to find unique solutions.

By the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we can't simultaneously know both position x and momentum p (and thus velocity dx/dt) with arbitrary precision:
Δx·Δp ≥ ℏ/2

You are welcome to define the undefined force at x(0) - all you need to do is measure the momentum and position of the ball at the singularity.

If you want to claim determinism is violated, then point to an actual physical experiment where this happens.

Sure thing...

Every experiment where you fail to obtain both initial position x(0) and velocity dx/dt(0) to find unique solutions to F = m(d²x/dt²) determinism is empirically violated.

You're just throwing out misinterpretations and category errors while pretending they’re profound. Let’s break it down.

1. Norton’s Dome is not a conservation law violation.
- Energy conservation holds: Total energy (kinetic + potential) remains constant.
- Momentum conservation holds: The system experiences external forces (gravity), meaning momentum exchanges between the object and the Earth sum to zero.
- Charge conservation holds: There’s no scenario where charge mysteriously disappears or appears.

So again—which conservation law has been violated? Name it, or drop this nonsense.

2. Your Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle argument is irrelevant.
- Quantum uncertainty does not mean classical physics is non-deterministic in its own domain.
- The HUP applies to simultaneous measurement of position and momentum, not to whether a classical object obeys F=ma.
- Your attempt to mix quantum mechanics with a Newtonian thought experiment just shows you don’t understand either.

3. You don’t "empirically violate" determinism just because measurement isn’t perfect.
- Determinism doesn’t mean we can measure everything—it means the system evolves according to causal laws whether or not we can track every variable.
- Uncertainty in measurement ≠ randomness in reality.
- If you can’t track every grain of sand in an hourglass, that doesn’t mean the sand "chose" where to land.

So let’s be clear: you have no violation of determinism, no violation of conservation laws, and no argument that withstands scrutiny. You’re just throwing out misunderstood physics terms and hoping something sticks.

So an object at rest exhibits spontaneous acceleration without any changes in the forces acting on the system and in violation of Newton's 1st law, and Big Dumb Mike is simply doubling down on conservation laws.

Fuck that time thief.

[BigMike]

You are trying to have it both ways, Big Dumb Mike.

All conservation laws are idealized, non-physical mathematical constructions.

Equations.

F=ma is in fact F = m(d²x/dt²)

You need both initial position x(0) and velocity dx/dt(0) to find unique solutions.

By the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we can't simultaneously know both position x and momentum p (and thus velocity dx/dt) with arbitrary precision:
Δx·Δp ≥ ℏ/2

You are welcome to define the undefined force at x(0) - all you need to do is measure the momentum and position of the ball at the singularity.


Sure thing...

Every experiment where you fail to obtain both initial position x(0) and velocity dx/dt(0) to find unique solutions to F = m(d²x/dt²) determinism is empirically violated.

You're just throwing out misinterpretations and category errors while pretending they’re profound. Let’s break it down.

1. Norton’s Dome is not a conservation law violation.
- Energy conservation holds: Total energy (kinetic + potential) remains constant.
- Momentum conservation holds: The system experiences external forces (gravity), meaning momentum exchanges between the object and the Earth sum to zero.
- Charge conservation holds: There’s no scenario where charge mysteriously disappears or appears.

So again—which conservation law has been violated? Name it, or drop this nonsense.

2. Your Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle argument is irrelevant.
- Quantum uncertainty does not mean classical physics is non-deterministic in its own domain.
- The HUP applies to simultaneous measurement of position and momentum, not to whether a classical object obeys F=ma.
- Your attempt to mix quantum mechanics with a Newtonian thought experiment just shows you don’t understand either.

3. You don’t "empirically violate" determinism just because measurement isn’t perfect.
- Determinism doesn’t mean we can measure everything—it means the system evolves according to causal laws whether or not we can track every variable.
- Uncertainty in measurement ≠ randomness in reality.
- If you can’t track every grain of sand in an hourglass, that doesn’t mean the sand "chose" where to land.

So let’s be clear: you have no violation of determinism, no violation of conservation laws, and no argument that withstands scrutiny. You’re just throwing out misunderstood physics terms and hoping something sticks.

So an object at rest exhibits spontaneous acceleration without any changes in the forces acting on the system and in violation of Newton's 1st law, and Big Dumb Mike is simply doubling down on conservation laws.

Fuck that time thief.

Exactly. The object doesn't need to move sideways before sliding down the dome—it is balancing on a singularity, a single point where every direction is equally "down." There's no net force in any lateral direction, so there’s no preferred initial movement. The problem isn’t a violation of Newton’s laws—it’s an undefined case within Newtonian mechanics due to the non-Lipschitz nature of the force at the singularity.

This is not a case of "spontaneous acceleration" violating conservation laws—total energy remains constant, momentum exchanges between the mass and the Earth remain balanced, and every conservation law holds perfectly. You’re mistaking an idealized, non-physical boundary case for an actual breakdown in physics. It’s the equivalent of asking why a mathematically perfect, infinitely sharp pencil doesn’t balance indefinitely on its tip—it’s a problem with the idealization, not reality.

So again—no conservation laws have been violated. You’re grasping at an edge case that doesn’t apply to real-world physics.

[Skepdick]

Exactly. The object doesn't need to move sideways before sliding down the dome—it is balancing on a singularity, a single point where every direction is equally "down." There's no net force in any lateral direction, so there’s no preferred initial movement.

Then why would it move in any direction? Why not adhere to Newton's 1st law and simply remain at rest forever?

The problem isn’t a violation of Newton’s laws—it’s an undefined case within Newtonian mechanics due to the non-Lipschitz nature of the force at the singularity.

That's a long-winded way to describe the non-determinism in Newtonian mechanics.

So again—no conservation laws have been violated. You’re grasping at an edge case that doesn’t apply to real-world physics.

You get to keep your axiomatic conservation laws soon as you admit determinism's false.

[BigMike]

Exactly. The object doesn't need to move sideways before sliding down the dome—it is balancing on a singularity, a single point where every direction is equally "down." There's no net force in any lateral direction, so there’s no preferred initial movement.

Then why would it move in any direction? Why not adhere to Newton's 1st law and simply remain at rest forever?

The problem isn’t a violation of Newton’s laws—it’s an undefined case within Newtonian mechanics due to the non-Lipschitz nature of the force at the singularity.

That's a long-winded way to describe the non-determinism in Newtonian mechanics.

So again—no conservation laws have been violated. You’re grasping at an edge case that doesn’t apply to real-world physics.

You get to keep your axiomatic conservation laws soon as you admit determinism's false.

Gravity pulls the object down with the same force in every direction (in all 360 degrees), meaning there is no preferred direction for movement. This is precisely why the system is ill-defined at that singularity—it's not a case of violating Newton’s laws, but rather a mathematical indeterminacy within the model.

The reason the object would eventually move in reality is because no real-world system is perfectly symmetrical. Quantum fluctuations, thermal vibrations, or microscopic imperfections in the surface would introduce asymmetry, selecting a direction. But in the idealized case, Newton’s first law isn’t violated—it just doesn’t determine an outcome at that singular point, because there is no net force choosing a direction.

That’s not "non-determinism in Newtonian mechanics"—it’s an artificial singularity in an idealized system that doesn’t exist in nature. You're confusing an undefined mathematical scenario with a fundamental breakdown of determinism, which is just sloppy reasoning.