Forums → WEPR → Is Determinism Underrated?

First of all, I need only one "coinflip" to determine the fate of the - that is, to nuke or not to nuke. I need not use the same "coin", I could repeat this for any number of "coins"(though it would be inconvenient). The real problem, however, has to do with the classical model of the subatomic particle that you've used, which implies that

Now, a deterministic variable need not make a system automatically deterministic. In fact, our old friend the Uncertainty Principle has told us this already. If we, for example, attempt to use a deterministic photon to find the position of an electron, our attempt to inject determinism has failed, as we still cannot guess at the particle's momentum. Certainly, the system has been perturbed, but the Uncertainty Principle tells us that we don't know how the system has been perturbed, no matter how hard we try. Once again, we can posit that an invisible framework(e.g. hidden variables) guide the system, but this again is unprovable and the logic used is just as valid for magical unicorns.

Now, to put things in context, we can imagine the following:
Suppose I have an electron that has unknown momentum. I attempt to locate it by utilizing photons. Upon finding its position to a certain degree of accuracy, the Uncertainty Principle tells us that we no longer have enough information about its momentum to make a meaningful prediction. Now, some time later, we can try to measure its location a second time. We have no idea as to where the electron has gone(with little knowledge of momentum), and our best guess cannot tells us whether the electron is to the "left" of where it was or to the "right". When we combine our second measurement with our first, we can consider it "heads" if the electron is to the right of its original position, and tails otherwise. In this way, we have just carried out a quantum "coinflip". Perhaps a hidden variable guides the electron, but in any event, we cannot measure it, and our best statistical attempts can give 50% accuracy, an inaccuracy that can be repeatably exploited.

If we, for example, attempt to use a deterministic photon to find the position of an electron, our attempt to inject determinism has failed, as we still cannot guess at the particle's momentum.

Now, some time later, we can try to measure its location a second time. We have no idea as to where the electron has gone(with little knowledge of momentum), and our best guess cannot tells us whether the electron is to the "left" of where it was or to the "right".

Probabilism means something else. I don't know if there's a proper name, but I have seen it referred to as "statistical determinism", where quantum indeterminism becomes statistically negligible on the macroscopic scale.

Let us once again review the uncertainty principle. When we take a single position measurement, we INCREASE the range of available momenta. This is exactly what the uncertainty principle says. By knowing more about the present(position), we know less about the future(momentum). This is counter intuitive, but MORE IS LESS. The harder we tamper, the more "random" that electron seems. It's difficult to understand, but at some level, you have to acknowledge this fact.

I say that determinism has some reasonable basis by the same logic that classical mechanics has some logic. But then the next couple lines show exactly where determinism breaks down. Determinism is very inflexible by its nature, where as probabilistic evolutions of certain states is much more flexible. Intuitively, some events are more likely than others. But this does not mean that every event that will occur is guaranteed to occur.

Now, there's two ways that Quantum mechanics can raise its ugly head at the macro level. The first is an extraordinarily improbable event - eg quantum tunneling of macro objects. Now, in theory, we can discard this. But, what if I measure quantum effects and base macroscopic effects off of these? Then, we can no longer ignore these effects, since their effects are so large.

To make things clearer, here's an example of a system that would not be really deterministic. Let's suppose that I throw a baseball and a batter tries to hit it. Now, if we're deterministic, we can know what the ball's trajectory will be when it gets hit. But, if we truly account for everything, quantum mechanics tells us that the ball could phase through the bat(however unlikely). If that happens, then for all intents and purposes, determinism has failed. For smaller systems, these deterministic violations grow ever more probable, until almost everything is a violation. If we utilize (the rate of) such smaller scale violations as the basis for larger effects, then the system is no longer deterministic at any scale.

Let us once again review the uncertainty principle. When we take a single position measurement, we INCREASE the range of available momenta.

But, if we truly account for everything, quantum mechanics tells us that the ball could phase through the bat(however unlikely).

For smaller systems, these deterministic violations grow ever more probable, until almost everything is a violation. If we utilize (the rate of) such smaller scale violations as the basis for larger effects, then the system is no longer deterministic at any scale.

Let's reframe the argument:

Suppose determinism is true. Then, it is, in principle ,possible to construct Laplace's demon. Such a demon would obey the laws of physics, but would be able to acquire and store all possible measurements, and make perfect, instant calculations. Such a demon would be able to take many measurements across some period of time, and make perfect inferences about a system some time later given its extraordinarily detailed measurements.

But, we know from quantum mechanics that such a demon has a finite precision. To make things really work, Laplace's demon has to add an error margin to everything, which mostly cancels out, but not entirely as more error-prone terms are added. At this point, determinism can still hold, albeit with a small 1*10^(-9999) error term. But, as I've reiterated many times, it's entirely possible to make large-scale events dependent on such small error terms. Once we start doing so, our error term is no longer negligible, but dominates the system, with each "coinflip" causing another 50% loss in accuracy.

Determinism implies a sense of certainty about the world's future and past. This certainty, to be valid and testable, has to be attainable, with sufficient advances in technology, and theoretically possible.

Determinism must have reasonable evidence that at least hints at the presence of deterministic hidden variables. For evolution, we have fossils, radioactive dating, and DNA sequencing that strongly suggest the origin of species. For the big bang, we can observe cosmic radiation. But for determinism, we are constrained at every step by the uncertainty principle, so much that the only tenable suggestion is that hidden, unmeasurable variables govern the world. Such a proposition is literally irrefutable, and is worthless, as valuable as the notion of magical unicorns. The key behind causal determinism(as it was first postulated) is the thought experiment that is Laplace's demon - in doing so, determinists make a meaningful claim, one that claims perfect prediction is possible with enough information.

Now, returning to the electron, Laplace's demon, in theory, would be able to guess the second location of the electron. One might imagine that as Laplace's demon aims more and more precisely, the demon would get a better understanding of the electron. This is what our intuition says, that as we measure the electron better, our predictions get more accurate. And yet, our intuition is absolutely wrong. We postulate(as a determinist would) that an electron must be constrained by certain physical processes, yet, the more we try to constrain it, the more it slips free. It is as if the electron were entirely random, with each measurement telling us nothing about the next.

In regards to the baseball, I noted the probabilities are extraordinarily small. Some simple quantum mechanics will estimate that such an event will never occur during 10^100+ universe lifespans. That is why our intuition (correctly) tells us that the baseball will make contact with the bat. But Laplace's demon cannot just rely on intuition - he must account for the possibility of such events. Quantum tunneling is a real, observed phenomenon. Despite what you've just said about the impossibility of a particle tunneling into a nucleus, this very phenomenon exists, and has been measured(at quantum levels), without any of the dire consequences mentioned. Of course, for a baseball to tunnel, it would require an incredible number of tunneling events happening in a certain fashion, but it could happen. This, of course, is only relevant as a thought experiment, as we can safely discard this event as improbable.

The rest of the argument relies on the ability to understand this example - far from circular, it follows logically from this anchor. If we concede that such a large-scale deviation from our predictions violates the principles of determinism, then we realize that any smaller scale deviations violate deviations must just as surely violate determinism. After all, determinism is about fixed, unchanged evolutions from state to state. A goes to B goes to C, and A cannot go to D. And yet, uncertainty tells us something different: A+/- E(error) can go to B with probability P1, but can go to D with probability P2, and can go to F with probability P3, because we can never learn enough to remove E. This is the fundamental uncertainty that Laplace's demon must suffer from, and its presence eventually forces all predictions to be correlationally linked(R<1), rather than causally linked(R=1). In subsequent steps, it's entirely possible to drive these correlations down to worthless levels(R<<0.1), by repeatedly exploiting such loopholes(I've described this).

Summary
The key take-home message is that Laplace's demon cannot exist, even with perfect technology. The only way to accurately characterize systems is through probability distributions. Although determinists can always fall back to the governing of the world hidden, immeasurable variables, this option truly relegates determinism into the realm of the magical - something that can no longer be proven or tested, and therefore worthless.

Suppose determinism is true. Then, it is, in principle ,possible to construct Laplace's demon. Such a demon would obey the laws of physics, but would be able to acquire and store all possible measurements, and make perfect, instant calculations. Such a demon would be able to take many measurements across some period of time, and make perfect inferences about a system some time later given its extraordinarily detailed measurements.

Determinism implies a sense of certainty about the world's future and past. This certainty, to be valid and testable, has to be attainable, with sufficient advances in technology, and theoretically possible.

We postulate(as a determinist would) that an electron must be constrained by certain physical processes, yet, the more we try to constrain it, the more it slips free. It is as if the electron were entirely random, with each measurement telling us nothing about the next.

Despite what you've just said about the impossibility of a particle tunneling into a nucleus, this very phenomenon exists, and has been measured(at quantum levels), without any of the dire consequences mentioned.

The rest of the argument relies on the ability to understand this example - far from circular, it follows logically from this anchor. If we concede that such a large-scale deviation from our predictions violates the principles of determinism, then we realize that any smaller scale deviations violate deviations must just as surely violate determinism.

And yet, uncertainty tells us something different: A+/- E(error) can go to B with probability P1, but can go to D with probability P2, and can go to F with probability P3, because we can never learn enough to remove E.

See, a lot of the reason why you've been able to &quotrove" determinism is "obvious" is that you're backpedaling on a lot of the claims. If we continually walk back the claims until the only claim you're capable of making is that "all think work due to hidden variables that we cannot probe at", then this discussion is quite pointless. I've said this before, and will say this again: if determinism makes no stronger claim than the presence of immeasurable hidden variables, then this argument is over.

A determinist, by definition(as you've admitted) believes that the world has a well defined state throughout time. We presume such an individual believes that having more information will help better act as a physics-defying Laplace's demon would. Perhaps, one might imagine that with enough work and advancement, the individual could gather more and more data at once, until they have a strong understanding of a small portion of the universe. If perhaps this little corner of the universe is closed off, we might imagine this demon-in-training might be able, over time, get amazingly accurate predictions for this little system, with increasingly smaller error as it gets more advanced. The only constraint is that the demon-in-training must only give one prediction for any scenario, as a determinist believes that only one outcome is possible. If this is true, and we might think it is, then this would suggest that determinism is quite real - though perhaps beyond the abilities of us mere mortals.

Now, I can already predict your objection. You will say that the little demon's ability to predict things is irrelevant to determinism. Theoretically, this is true, but it is a proxy for understanding how little ground determinism has. The more we can predict, the stronger determinism's claim is; the less we can predict, the more we ascribe determinism to voodoo magic. If we choose to make a credible argument for determinism, then such a little demon-in-training must be at least theoretically possible at some scale.

Here, of course, we return to the issue at hand, wherein measurements made yield no additional information. Of course, knowing some positional information about the electron is better than knowing no information of any form. But, as I'm sure you're aware, more positional informational does not help us any further. The demon-in-training is stuck at this stage, and can no longer advance, a troubling implication for determinism.

It is also worth commenting about your constant use of the term "entirely random", or "truly stochastic". One thing to consider is how many states determinism allows. As we've seen, determinism asserts that only one state is possible at any time, such that NO randomness exists. Hence, in a determinist world, even the imperfectly stochastic is impossible. If a variable is subject to a true coin flip 0.0001% of the time, but follows exact equations the rest of the time, then determinism is false. It may be influenced every other time by deterministic variables, but that 0.0001% makes determinism false.

Now, onto quantum tunneling. Your attempts to discredit things entirely rely on intuition. A hand-wave argument will not suffice for this, as this is an unintuitive quantum phenomena. If you accept one particle can move through, you may as well accept that two particles move through, and if two can move, then so can four, and eight, and so on. In fact, as this site shows, alpha decay relies on a 4-sized particle's(2 proton, 2 neutron) ability to tunnel out of the nucleus. Certainly, they interact with each other in a very meaningful way and must keep coherent, and yet, alpha decay is well documented. My claim is not that we should expect baseballs to fly through baseball bats. Any demon-in-training, and all of us, expect the ball to bounce off. But that is exactly what the error is - our demons-in-training will systematically predict that this probability is zero, as every other baseball bat hits every other baseball.

Classical mechanics and our intuition screams that such quantum scale events are impossible. But we know such events are possible, a serious blow to any determinist(as can be seen by your vehement objection to larger scale tunneling). If we consider alpha decay, such a system is essentially random - we have no idea when it may decay, we know such a system will decay at some time experimentally, but it seems entirely whimsical, and furthermore, our classical understanding and intuition claims that no alpha particle should be able to coherently escape. No amount of measurements can better tell us when this nucleus will decay, and any determinist is reduced to claiming that a hidden voodoo variable governs this, an obviously unpalatable situation.

Lastly, in closing, let's visit certainty in the context of our demon-in-training. In a determinist world, our grand demon knows everything and can make perfect predictions, being able to exist outside pesky physical constraints. As mentioned, as our demon-in-training improves in skill, we expect them to make better and better predictions as to the true outcomes of events. Hence, a high level demon-in-training must be more certain than a lower level demon-in-training. After all, with only one possible outcome, better information ought to be increasingly error free. But instead, we find that both demons-in-training are equally stuck, and can find no information to further their understanding. The fact that two possibilities remain equally probable, even with more advanced knowledge, implies that both outcomes are possible. While this isn't a clear-cut proof(and none can be found, due to the ability to fall back to voodoo magic), this is still good evidence that determinism isn't real, and no evidence you have presented suggests determinism is real.

A determinist, by definition(as you've admitted) believes that the world has a well defined state throughout time. We presume such an individual believes that having more information will help better act as a physics-defying Laplace's demon would. Perhaps, one might imagine that with enough work and advancement, the individual could gather more and more data at once, until they have a strong understanding of a small portion of the universe. If perhaps this little corner of the universe is closed off, we might imagine this demon-in-training might be able, over time, get amazingly accurate predictions for this little system, with increasingly smaller error as it gets more advanced. The only constraint is that the demon-in-training must only give one prediction for any scenario, as a determinist believes that only one outcome is possible. If this is true, and we might think it is, then this would suggest that determinism is quite real - though perhaps beyond the abilities of us mere mortals.

Theoretically, this is true, but it is a proxy for understanding how little ground determinism has. The more we can predict, the stronger determinism's claim is; the less we can predict, the more we ascribe determinism to voodoo magic. If we choose to make a credible argument for determinism, then such a little demon-in-training must be at least theoretically possible at some scale.

Here, of course, we return to the issue at hand, wherein measurements made yield no additional information. Of course, knowing some positional information about the electron is better than knowing no information of any form. But, as I'm sure you're aware, more positional informational does not help us any further. The demon-in-training is stuck at this stage, and can no longer advance, a troubling implication for determinism.

It is also worth commenting about your constant use of the term "entirely random", or "truly stochastic". One thing to consider is how many states determinism allows. As we've seen, determinism asserts that only one state is possible at any time, such that NO randomness exists. Hence, in a determinist world, even the imperfectly stochastic is impossible. If a variable is subject to a true coin flip 0.0001% of the time, but follows exact equations the rest of the time, then determinism is false. It may be influenced every other time by deterministic variables, but that 0.0001% makes determinism false.

My claim is not that we should expect baseballs to fly through baseball bats. Any demon-in-training, and all of us, expect the ball to bounce off. But that is exactly what the error is - our demons-in-training will systematically predict that this probability is zero, as every other baseball bat hits every other baseball.

Classical mechanics and our intuition screams that such quantum scale events are impossible. But we know such events are possible, a serious blow to any determinist(as can be seen by your vehement objection to larger scale tunneling).

If we consider alpha decay, such a system is essentially random - we have no idea when it may decay, we know such a system will decay at some time experimentally, but it seems entirely whimsical, and furthermore, our classical understanding and intuition claims that no alpha particle should be able to coherently escape. No amount of measurements can better tell us when this nucleus will decay, and any determinist is reduced to claiming that a hidden voodoo variable governs this, an obviously unpalatable situation.

The fact that two possibilities remain equally probable, even with more advanced knowledge, implies that both outcomes are possible.

The key is that we expect our demon in training to give successively better answers as he levels up. We find this is true to a small extent, and then it hits a hard wall. Things like Godel's incompleteness theorem and the Uncertainty principle state that it is not ever possible to know everything. As disappointing as it is(and I am a big fan of science), the scientific community cannot answer every question. There will always be questions that are never answerable with a single exact response.

Now, we can partially escape these unanswerable questions by positing that some underlying, hidden variables account for these. This is what I have called voodoo magic. Science does not rely on this, quite the opposite, which is why Einstein rejected Bohmian mechanics(which uses hidden variables) as "the cheap solution". That is why the Copenhagen interpretation is still the most prevalent - there is no reason why the universe must run on voodoo magic. That's why we rejected geocentrism and its epicycles, since there was no reason why planets had to obey such obscure variables.

You are heavily conflating determinism(something that I disagree with) with probabilistic models(something that I strongly agree with). If we subscribe to probabilistic models, then we're satisfied with saying that "these are the possible outcomes, we can proceed no further". If we subscribe to determinism, we are never satisfied until anything is absolutely correct. But I've shown repeatedly that absolute correctness is not possible. This hints strongly that the universe is much less deterministic than we might imagine.

I used the term true coin flip to indicate one that is indeterminate. But the point remains true: determinism holds that EVERYTHING conforms to a certain pattern. If but one object does not conform, determinism is false. One counterexample defeats the entirety of determinism, and that is exactly what I have given. Simple logic.

You posit that bonded systems cannot tunnel. This is false, both experimentally and theoretically.The presence of bonds reduces the likelihood that an object tunnels through unchanged, but does not prevent it. The only new stipulation this adds is that everything has to tunnel at once, and emerge in the same orientation. Certainly, it's a lot harder, but it's not impossible (if the probability of a single particle tunneling is P, then the likelihood of a molecule roughly scales with 1/(P^N*N!).

There is nothing unintuitive ... about the tunneling of a single subatomic particle, or even a nucleus, through a potential barrier.

So, according to you, the very suggestion of there being a logical reason for something is just superstitious "voodoo" nonsense, provided that it's behaviour seems entirely whimsical?

If something seems random, and we fail every time we test for nonrandomness, it probably IS random. Logical, no?

Mr. Boddy present an interesting example, one that is at least novel(though it argues determinism should be preferred due to its consequences(a fallacy)). But nonetheless, as a non-determinist, I say that there is a 1/6 chance that any of them did it, and 1 chance that a boddy is found, and a 1 chance that at least one did it. Then, each of them has a 1/6 chance of being guilty. Whether or not we choose to jail them is a legal question - in America, the terms innocent until proven guilty, and beyond a reasonable doubt come to mind. So none of them are jailed, and alas, here is where we close the investigation. To be completely honest, I have no idea how a determinist will react, but I don't think what you described is correct. Even if it is, the argument is at best "a broken clock is right twice a day", something that's not very true.

I suppose one might summarize your view with the famous quote below:

God does not play dice with the universe -Einstein

Let me refer you to Stephen Hawking's excellent remarks on this topic. If you don't read anything else, the takeaway is that

Thus it seems Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen. -Hawking

Determinism is something that you seem to cling onto, even when every attempt to find absolute meaning has failed. We can prove that our understanding is absolutely limited, even at its best, and that systems can appear entirely random. There is a human need to impose control on a random system. It explains behaviors such as athletic pre-game rituals. Determinism is nothing more than a philosophized version of this. It seems oh so intuitive, and oh so tempting, but ultimately is more a facet of our thinking than it is a truth of nature.

The burden is on you to provethat determinism is something more than a reflection of a heuristic.

You are heavily conflating determinism(something that I disagree with) with probabilistic models(something that I strongly agree with). If we subscribe to probabilistic models, then we're satisfied with saying that "these are the possible outcomes, we can proceed no further". If we subscribe to determinism, we are never satisfied until anything is absolutely correct. But I've shown repeatedly that absolute correctness is not possible. This hints strongly that the universe is much less deterministic than we might imagine.

I used the term true coin flip to indicate one that is indeterminate. But the point remains true: determinism holds that EVERYTHING conforms to a certain pattern. If but one object does not conform, determinism is false. One counterexample defeats the entirety of determinism, and that is exactly what I have given. Simple logic.

You posit that bonded systems cannot tunnel. This is false, both experimentally and theoretically.

The above is pretty hilarious. It's well documented that people find tunneling and quantum mechanics very unintuitive.

If something seems random, and we fail every time we test for nonrandomness, it probably IS random. Logical, no?

[...] (though it argues determinism should be preferred due to its consequences(a fallacy)).

There is a human need to impose control on a random system. It explains behaviors such as athletic pre-game rituals. Determinism is nothing more than a philosophized version of this. It seems oh so intuitive, and oh so tempting, but ultimately is more a facet of our thinking than it is a truth of nature.

The burden is on you to provethat determinism is something more than a reflection of a heuristic.

If you have three different sensors each takeing [sic.] one measurement of this totally stochastic system every second, you may expect to obtain data from those particles that is consistently random no matter how long you let the experiment run.
The problem here is that by taking these measurements, you are adding a deterministic variable, where before, there were none. The particles are no longer stochastic, because they have been influenced by a factor external to themselves. Unless we accept the anthropic principle, which I just learned is a real thing, any ray of light would have this same effect upon the system.
If the particles were to remain stochastic, they would have to continually re-randomize their states, which would make every one of these particles an unmoved mover. There would be no way to influence their behaviour, and that behaviour would be randomizing everything that comes in contact with them.

You bandy around the term 'any appreciable amount of tunneling'. What do you think is appreciable? 0.1 Angstrom? 10 Angstroms? More? Less? What makes this line? The answer is that no such discrete line exists. Probabilities are continuous - you draw an arbitrary line in the sand that particles do not care about. Furthermore, you are positing that the majority of professors that teach quantum mechanics is incorrect - the real-world analogy of a marble jumping out of a bowl is one that almost every physicist who works in the field will acknowledge is possible, but extraordinarily unlikely. Unless you have a credible physics degree(and the author of the source I linked you to has one), then your argument is really "I don't know physics, but this is how I think things work". Let's not spend time arguing against authority sources.

The shark example - I can clearly see a non-random pattern. I can use machine learning algorithms to teach a computer to realize that patterns exist(and computers are notoriously bad at image processing). I can fourier transform it and see some pattern. I may not see a shark, but I see something. No amount of data analysis has yielded anything to show that some data is not random. And believe me, people have tried REALLY hard, and every single experiment shows that some fundamental randomness exists.

Why must the indeterminist make an arrest? An intelligent indeterminist would realize, as I have mentioned, that each of them has equal chance of being guilty. By societal standards, that is not enough, and so none are arrested. I suppose that, if anything(and this is absurd), we can go with letting them each serve 1/6 of the sentence(assuming it's prison time), and the error is 1*(|1-1/6| + |0-1/6|+|0-1/6|+...), which not coincidentally equals 1. If we prefer mean square error, that can work just as well. I suspect that a similar straw man argument can be made for a determinist: suppose our determinist goes up to the one that's most convenient and tortures him until he confesses. The error there isn't much better. Either way, justice is generally not served, because there isn't enough information.

Now, onto your stochastic sensor probe. I admit that I forgot about this example, but let me proceed to merrily destroy it. Let's simplify this system a little, and say that it's comprised of 1 electron that can reside in either a spin up(heads) or spin down(tails) state(realistically, we could pick any variable, this one does seem standard for such examples). At the beginning, we have no idea, so we try a measurement. It returns spin up. But, in the act of doing so, we've knocked the electron about, so once again, we have no idea what it is. We try again, perhaps it's spin down now. And again, and again, and realize it's as if we flipped a theoretical fair coin. Every time we influence the system with our deterministic photon, we get a nice answer, but we influence the system in a random way. The key to the system remain just as random is that our deterministic photon is the mover, by cleverly measuring the system, we have jostled it. This is the observer effect. The so-called "unmoved mover" is simply your instrument.

I openly admit that the case against determinism is not perfect. At some level, we don't know if nature "conspires" to give the illusion of randomness. This I can't argue against, but I will say that it is a weak argument for determinism. I will also add, however, that an incredible amount of effort to prove determinism has failed, in much the same way that an incredible amount of effort to demonstrate the luminescent ether has failed. Theoretically, determinism is besieged by the Uncertainty Principle, incompleteness, and Hawking's black holes, with no ready counters at hand. At its heart, science can never prove a theory, it can only disprove, but so little determinism remains to be disproved that to me, it seems untenable.

I did not purport that determinism is absolute fact; I declared it as my philosophy on the matter of causality

While I do respect your views, i would like to analogize this once again. I declare that my philosophy on magical unicorns is that they exist, and that they are invisible and immeasurable. Yet, they have a meaningful effect on our life, one that can never be shown, and you see, our intuition as children about unicorns was truly correct. There's no logic or suggestion that determinism is real; what there instead is plenty of is plenty of examples where things appear to be random.

You bandy around the term 'any appreciable amount of tunneling'. What do you think is appreciable? 0.1 Angstrom? 10 Angstroms? More? Less? What makes this line? The answer is that no such discrete line exists. Probabilities are continuous - you draw an arbitrary line in the sand that particles do not care about.

Furthermore, you are positing that the majority of professors that teach quantum mechanics is incorrect - the real-world analogy of a marble jumping out of a bowl is one that almost every physicist who works in the field will acknowledge is possible, but extraordinarily unlikely. Unless you have a credible physics degree(and the author of the source I linked you to has one), then your argument is really "I don't know physics, but this is how I think things work". Let's not spend time arguing against authority sources.

No amount of data analysis has yielded anything to show that some data is not random.

And believe me, people have tried REALLY hard, and every single experiment shows that some fundamental randomness exists.

Every time we influence the system with our deterministic photon, we get a nice answer, but we influence the system in a random way.

Theoretically, determinism is besieged by the Uncertainty Principle, incompleteness, and Hawking's black holes, with no ready counters at hand.

At its heart, science can never prove a theory, it can only disprove, but so little determinism remains to be disproved that to me, it seems untenable.

There's no logic or suggestion that determinism is real; what there instead is plenty of is plenty of examples where things appear to be random.

In regards to the marble in the bowl, the website says

To say it another way: any object can tunnel through a “wall”, but the probability for it to do so typically goes down very rapidly if...

Find the full quote to assure yourself - as I have mentioned many times before, it is improbable, not impossible.

Repetitive negative results suggest that the hypothesis is false. In principle, the luminescent ether could exist, just outside the precision of our instruments, but we reject this hypothesis. People have increased sensitivity repeatedly, and we're basically at the point where the only thing left to end local hidden variables is using light from quasars at the opposite end of the galaxy to provide reduce the last loopholes into oblivion(see Bell's theorem tests). Global hidden variables can never be disproved, but as I have mentioned, global hidden variables has the same plausibility as magic.

No amount of data analysis has yielded anything to show that some data is not random.

I apologize if you misinterpreted the quote. To rephrase: At least one seemingly random data source exists; every attempt to analyze this data source for patterns has failed. I assert that such a data source appears random because it is random, and not because we lack the sophistication.

Uncertainty still isn't a problem for determinism. It's a problem for the would-be Laplace's demon.

All of causality suggests that determinism is real. It's just an extension of those principles.

If we think about it as a strategy game, one might envision non-deterministic theories covering a massive plain outside the little final enclave of determinism(e.g. immeasurable hidden variables). Outside, little pockets of resistance still exist, but they are rapidly being eliminated. Determinism is reduced to fighting a purely defensive war, and plays a small role on the map. Outside, armies of evidence, none of which can breach the walls dominate the plains. Now, we ask ourselves: which army is winning or is better? We could argue that the defenders in the castle are just as good as the attacking horde outside, since neither side can win, but as much as we love underdogs, I think most of us would say that the attacking horde is much superior. This, to me, is how I see determinism, not entirely defeated, but so weak that one might as well discard it.

Find the full quote to assure yourself - as I have mentioned many times before, it is improbable, not impossible.

Repetitive negative results suggest that the hypothesis is false. In principle, the luminescent ether could exist, just outside the precision of our instruments, but we reject this hypothesis.