Randomness vs Determinism part 2

Positions taken on determinism in modern times invariably have to contend with the fact that indeterminism has been proved quite comprehensively in the quantum world.

Determinism however is maintained for the world at large by saying that quantum indeterminacy is a strange little phenomenon that is confined only to quantum events and has no relevancy at all for our macroscopic world. Quantum indeterminacy is thus boxed in in a safe little world of quantum events and is not allowed to intrude into the discussion about determinism at large.

But when there is indeterminacy at any level, it is bound to cause the hole chain of determinacy to collapse. Determinacy involves arguments regarding cause and effect, a chain of cause and effect tightly following each other. After Hume of course, the very mention of a cause and effect relationship ought to raise a red flag. Determinists would argue that when an ocean wave crashes on the shore, each bubble is ultimately dependent on factors involving the formation of the wave and there is no random event even here. Thus events since the big bang itself have ensured that a particular wave would crash at a particular shore causing a particular amount of bubbles.

However, quantum indeterminacy can and does intrude into this cozy chain of cause and effect.

For example, when we take a kettle boiling and ultimately blowing off its lid, we have an example where activity at the quantum level intrudes ultimately into the macroscopic world. As the temperature of the water rises, the electrons absorb energy and buzz around, jumping from lower to higher orbits, and ultimately the atoms in the steam vibrate with a great deal of energy. As these atoms vibrate, they vibrate as molecular phenomena and the element of indeterminacy is present in their interactions, until the point when the vibrations burst off the lid.  When the kettle blows off its lid, the angle is determined by randomness. No determinism in larger events outside determine this and quantum fluctuations certainly play a large part. The final vector of force which acts on the lid is the sum of all the random vectors of each molecule, and this is entirely random.

These systems also work in other macroscopic events. In analyzing volcanoes, we can infer that there must have been millions of such ‘kettle pot’ phenomena deep inside and these random phenomena finally decided when the volcano was going to go off and on which side the lava would flow.

Similarly, the direction taken by a spark when two quartz are rubbed together, determines a fire in a forest.

Also, in a wave crashing on a shore, we can infer millions of such miniature ‘kettle pot’ events which would ultimately determine the events, so that the bubbles would truly be random.

Thus randomness in quantum events cannot be confined to quantum levels only. This randomness no doubt determines events in the macroscopic world too, and so maintaining a position of determinism for the macroscopic world when we know that it does not exist for the quantum world is untenable.

If you wish to read more on this topic,  you can look up my book, The Circle of Fire- the Metaphysics of Yoga. You can also look up topics on the relation of science and Advaita Vedanta like Advaita Vedanta and Quantum Physics on my site, www.thecircleoffire.com