> Classical mechanics is also indeterministic, you just have to know where to look.
On the contrary, classical (pre-quantum) mechanics is certainly deterministic. The first real challenge to a strict relationship between causes and effects was QM, which (as you may recall) caused Einstein to begin a long campaign against those ideas -- "God doesn't throw dice," and so forth.
> But we can predict NEITHER when NOR which direction.
Our inability to predict an outcome doesn't constitute an argument against determinism, only the limits of experimental measurements.
> analogous if not in fact homologous to how the radioactive decay of a single particle cannot be predicted.
That's simply false. A radioactive decay's timing is certainly nondeterministic, but the direction an observed, macroscopic ball takes is deterministic, even if we don't get the memo.
Think a bit harder. If Norton could demonstrate the indeterminism of classic mechanics, as opposed to publishing a philosophical paper on the topic, he would win a Nobel prize for undermining a well-established physical principle. But philosophy isn't science.
> We can all behave in ways that are not predetermined.
We can all behave in ways that we believe to be nondeterministic, but free will remains an open philosophical question.
Our inability to predict an outcome doesn't constitute an argument against determinism, only the limits of experimental measurements.
I'm not sure how to square that statement with the paper: The paper does sets the equations of motion for an object, equations that completely define the objects motion, but that cannot predict when the object will move. This has nothing to do with the quality of measurement.
On the contrary, classical (pre-quantum) mechanics is certainly deterministic. The first real challenge to a strict relationship between causes and effects was QM, which (as you may recall) caused Einstein to begin a long campaign against those ideas -- "God doesn't throw dice," and so forth.
> But we can predict NEITHER when NOR which direction.
Our inability to predict an outcome doesn't constitute an argument against determinism, only the limits of experimental measurements.
> analogous if not in fact homologous to how the radioactive decay of a single particle cannot be predicted.
That's simply false. A radioactive decay's timing is certainly nondeterministic, but the direction an observed, macroscopic ball takes is deterministic, even if we don't get the memo.
Think a bit harder. If Norton could demonstrate the indeterminism of classic mechanics, as opposed to publishing a philosophical paper on the topic, he would win a Nobel prize for undermining a well-established physical principle. But philosophy isn't science.
> We can all behave in ways that are not predetermined.
We can all behave in ways that we believe to be nondeterministic, but free will remains an open philosophical question.