Is universe deterministic and non-local or is it non-deterministic

Non-deterministic implies that events inside it can arise without causality. We know for certainty that that's not the case and our entire Universe follows a deterministic causality chain. Even if something actually managed to pop up randomly, it still has a cause due to the fact that it is contained within the Universe (and the Universe becomes its cause therefor)

As for the Universe itself and its Big Bang, or the event that supposedly came without a cause and without being contained "anywhere", it is literally impossible to be known and no technological advancement inside this Universe will have the capability of observing "beyond it", therefor will never be able to prove with full confidence if there is something "outside", or not. But even if there was and the Universe wasn't local, it still remains deterministic due to causality.

Determinism is not realism op, these are slightly different stuff

File: 1472055276542.jpg (233KB, 646x944px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 646x944px

>>8536608
I sure as fuck would like to know

>>8536680
Quantum mechanics suggest non-determinism though if you preserve locality.
Or you can throw away locality and preserve determinism. You can't have both.

The observable universe is deterministic and local.
Once you include the unobservable universe it becomes non-deterministic and non-local.

>>8536727
Lacking the capability to predict something doesn't imply randomness. True randomness is an event arising without causality. As I said in the post above, as soon as the BB hit, nothing *inside* this Universe is physically possible to be non-deterministic as the cause of that event's existence is the BB. It may be unpredictable, but it's not random. If I were to reverse time to right after the BB and replay the Universe with zero interference, everything inside it would come up exactly as it was, up to the last particle.

Why do I say that with such certainty? Because all those events have a logical progression chain that can be followed and has zero reason to magically change if it was reversed, we just lack the capability of observing it all the way down.

>>8536608
Neither. It's superdeterministic

>>8536744
Except hidden variable theory was proven false.

>>8536756
which one? and when?

>>8536766
All of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

>>8536770
Yeh I thought I remembered that David Bohm came up with a legit hidden variable theory but that it used non-local communication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory#Bohm.27s_hidden_variable_theory

>>8536770
Execept you're a retard, there's non-local hidden variables theories.

And people in this thread should learn the difference between realism and determinism. Fuck you all

>>8536781
>>8536783
Which is why a deterministic non-local universe is equally valid as a non-deterministic local one.

>>8536756
>>8536770
Again, you're confusing unpredictability with randomness.

Not being able to measure something due to interference doesn't magically strip it of its causal chain.

>>8536788
Non-determinism doesn't break causality.

>>8536785
Yes and stop saying deterministic for God's sake its realistic, the bells inequality and a bunch of other thought experiments show that it is impossible to have a both REALISTIC and local theory.

Realism: The assumption that Physical quantities exists even when you're not measuring them and intrinsic properties of nature.

Determinism:The assumption that causality and laws of nature determine all future/past events.

You can still have a probabilist realistic theory, so stop using the wrong concept you mong

>>8536794
So feel free to show me those random events that arise without a logical cause and are caused by a logical cause at the same time

>>8536814
You mean like the wave function collapse?