PT102 · S2 · Q20 Physicist: Determinism is the view

This answer is structured like this: That X is true does not imply that Y is true We're always objecting that, "the fact the evidence is true does not imply/prove the conclusion". Does the evidence match X and the conclusion match Y? Yes, the evidence was saying "it's impossible measure both the position and velocity of any given subatomic particle". But, no, the conclusion wasn't saying "it's impossible to know the position or velocity of all subatomic particles". The conclusion was saying, "It's not the case that every event has a preceding cause sufficient for its occurrence / events presently occurring could have failed to occur given the state of the universe a moment ago".

This answer is also structured like this: That X is true does not imply that Y is true So we want to know, does the evidence match X and the conclusion match Y? Did the evidence say "the complete state of the universe at any given time is unknowable"? Yes, the Intermediate Conclusion said that, and it is evidence for the Main Conclusion. Did the Main Conclusion say "the states of the individual subatomic particles making it up are unknowable". No. The premise was saying something like that. This answer essentially is saying, "The fact that the intermediate conclusion is true doesn't imply that the premise is true". That would never be an objection we would make. We only care whether premises imply conclusions, not whether conclusions imply premises.

This answer is also structured like this: That X is true does not imply that Y is true So we want to know, does the evidence match X and the conclusion match Y? Did the evidence say "it's impossible to measure both position and velocity at a particular time"? Yes, that's the premise. Did the author use that to support a Conclusion that says, "position or velocity cannot be measured separately"? No. The author used it to support the conclusion that says, "It's impossible to know the complete state of the universe at any given time."

This answer is also structured like this: That X is true does not imply that Y is true So we want to know, does the evidence match X and the conclusion match Y? Did the evidence say "it's impossible to measure both the position and the velocity of a particle at a particular time"? Yes, that's the premise. Did the author think that idea implied that "it's impossible to accurately measure the position and velocity of all particles at a particular time"? No. The author used it to support the conclusion that says, "It's impossible to know the complete state of the universe at any given time." But in addition to this answer not matching the reasoning move the author made, the reasoning move this answer describes doesn't sound bad. If we say, "It's impossible to know whether any particular M&M has rat poison in it", then it's it fair to say, "Thus it's impossible, for all M&M's, to know whether they have rat poison in them"? It sounds like a self-justifying truth, but either way it's not a reasoning move our author made.