Q20 - Physicist: Determinism is the view

[alberto.o.205]

I know this is a weaken question, but I really don't understand how D is the correct answer. The stimulus says that:

P: Determinism is the view that every event is preceded by a cause sufficient to cause it to occur
P: The events of the present must occur given the state of the universe a moment ago
C: This is false
P/C: It is impossible to know the complete state of the universe at a given time
P: It is impossible to measure the position and velocity of any subatomic particle at a given time.

I'm not sure how one can get the objection that the stimulus implies that since the complete state of the universe is unknowable there is no complete state of the universe.

The first time I chose E and the second time I couldn't decide between C and D.

[noah]

OP, I think part of the problem is that you're not boiling down the argument to its core:

We can't know the complete state of the universe (because we can't fully measure particles) --> Determinism (the idea that what's happening right now is arranged by what was occurring the moment before) is false

The gap - and flaw questions hinge on these since they're in the Assumption Family - is that the premise is about knowing the state of the universe, but the conclusion is about the state of the universe in one moment determining the what it's like in the next.

(D) points this out, albeit in a complex manner. Just because you can't know it, (D) says, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

(A) only attacks a premise - and not very well at that. If you only knew the velocity or position of all the particles, would you be any better off in terms of knowing the state of the universe?

(B) is tempting, because the argument's premise does include the relationship that we can't know the universe because we can't accurately measure both the velocity and position of a particle, but (B) suggests that the relationship is reversed, that the fact that we can't know the complete state of the universe implies something about our ability to measure particles. There might be a gap in that relationship (though remember that the gap we care about in a 3-part argument is usually the last one), but (B) is missing it because it's reversed it.

(C) is similar to (B). The argument doesn't suggest you can't accurately measure them separately.

(E) doesn't make sense. The fact that the position and velocity of a given thing can't be measured, means that it's true for all.

[Shiggins]

We can't know the complete state of the universe --> Determinism (the idea that what's happening right now is arranged by what was occurring the moment before) is false

Noah, I am trying to understand how you have it diagrammed as so.

I understand the conclusion is determinism is false. Does the word because signal a sufficient condition. "We can't know complete state" is part of the reasoning from the author. I just want to know is it safe to say that in other instances the term "because" can be as clear as the term "if" or is it more situational. Thank you.

[noah]

To clarify, that's a diagram of the core, the premise and the conclusion of the argument. The author of an argument is always suggesting that the premise(s) are sufficient to reach the conclusion. In the assumption family, we know that it's actually not (i.e. there's an assumption)

"Because" does usually indicate that we're hearing the premise of the argument.

[dean.won]

Would B be correct if the statements before and after "do not imply" were reversed??

Also, how does determinism being false = imply that there is no complete state of the universe at that time??

[griffin.811]

Would B be correct if the statements before and after "do not imply" were reversed??

Also, how does determinism being false = imply that there is no complete state of the universe at that time??

This is a tough one to explain.

Not sure about the part about B and the reversals. I try to stay away from speculations like this, especially since there are so many LR questions out there to study, why bother making my own. But doing that will probably help tremendously.

Anyway, to the issue. Think of determinism like an infinite row of dominoes (with the first already knocked over). Determinism says that the 500th domino (and all others in the row for that matter) have no choice but to fall over at the precise time that they do.

Why?

Because the first action that ever took place (knocking over the first domino in this case) has set in motion an unavoidable/unchangeable set of actions. (since domino 1 was tipped into domino 2 at the begining of time, all the other dominos must fall).

The passage claims that since the state of the world cannot be known (imagine the dominos have eyes, but they can only look forward), Determinism cannot exist.

In our example, the argument says since domino 500 cannot see that domino 499 is falling, that the fact domino 499 is falling is not sufficient to say 500 will be knocked over.

Issue: just because we cannot see domino 499 falling doesn't mean it will not knock over the next domino in line. In fact it will.

Think of it this way. If you close your eyes and someone (with good aim) throws a ball at you do you know the state of the world? NO! will the ball still hit you? Of course! and why will it hit you? because the person threw it (which was the first action that took place, and set in motion the chain of events that led to you getting hit).

For the argument to be true, we would need something that says if the state of the world is unknown, then that particular state does not exist. (If the domino cant see the one behind it falling, then that domino is not falling).

Long winded, maybe a little confusing, but I hope this helps some.

[redcobra21]

Thanks for the great response, Noah. Cleared up a lot in terms of seeing the core in a diagrammed fashion. Just had two quick clarification questions if you get the chance.

(1) The conclusion is that determinism is false, which based on the second sentence in the stimulus, means that "the events that are presently occurring COULD have failed to occur given the state of the universe a moment ago." How is this the same thing as "there is no complete state of the universe at that time" (which is what D suggests the author is saying)?

(2) Still a bit confused by your explanation regarding (C). Isn't the fact that he ignores the possibility of measuring position and velocity separately precisely a reason why his argument is vulnerable to criticism? Based on what should be the first premise (according to how you diagrammed the core), the physicist seems to be only entertaining the possibility of measuring "both the position and velocity of any given subatomic particle at a particular time," which struck me as ignoring the possibility that they could in fact be measured separately. It seemed to me like such a failure to consider alternatives would have constituted a glaring weakness in his argument.

Hopefully that made sense. Thanks in advance for your help

[noah]

(1) The conclusion is that determinism is false, which based on the second sentence in the stimulus, means that "the events that are presently occurring COULD have failed to occur given the state of the universe a moment ago." How is this the same thing as "there is no complete state of the universe at that time" (which is what D suggests the author is saying)?

We don't need the assumption to sound exactly like the topic of the argument (though it does need to strongly relate to it). The gap is the jump between the fact that we can't know the complete state of the universe and the conclusion that this means that determinism must be false. The physicist is acting like the fact that we don't know it mean that it's impossible for the state of the universe at one moment to determine the next! We might not be able to see the current state, but it still might exist--(D)'s point--and then determine the next moment.

That clear that up?

(2) Still a bit confused by your explanation regarding (C). Isn't the fact that he ignores the possibility of measuring position and velocity separately precisely a reason why his argument is vulnerable to criticism? Based on what should be the first premise (according to how you diagrammed the core), the physicist seems to be only entertaining the possibility of measuring "both the position and velocity of any given subatomic particle at a particular time," which struck me as ignoring the possibility that they could in fact be measured separately. It seemed to me like such a failure to consider alternatives would have constituted a glaring weakness in his argument.

I see what you're saying: couldn't they measure it in some other way? However, the point of the not both issue is that we can't get a full picture. We could measure each one at its own moment in time, but then we'd be back to not having a full picture. A complete picture of the universe is supposed to be tied to a specific moment.

Also, it's doubtful that the gap would be in that connection. The "impossible to know the complete state" bit is an intermediate conclusion, and the gap that the LSAC cares about is very rarely between the first premise and the intermediate conclusion. It almost seems that we're generally supposed to accept that first connection.

We good?

[rpcuhk]

This one really ate up my time.

The difficulty of this question comes from the following embedded factors: 1. Causality; 2. Conditionality; 3. Argument structure (the presence of subsidiary conclusion); 4. Abstract scientific language in the argument and the answer choices

Breaking down the argument:

P1: it is impossible to measure accurately both the position and velocity of any given subatomic particle at a particular time

Sub-conclusion / P2: it is impossible to know the complete state of the universe at any given time

P3 causality (sentence 1): according to determinism, every event has a preceding cause sufficient for its occurrence.

P4 conditional+causality (sentence 2): If determinism is true, then the events that are presently occurring could not have failed to occur given the state of the universe a moment ago.

P1 is premise for P2.

P3 and P4 both describe determinism, different sides of the same coin. The central position of determinism is the causal relationship between an earlier relationship between an event and the preceding state that inevitably causes the event to occur.

Conclusion: determinism is false

There are many assumptions in this argument, but the biggest leap of logic is the connection from P2 to the satisfaction of the contrapostive of P4:
The physicist is assuming
that it is impossible to know the completely state of the universe means that the events that are presently occurring could have failed to occur given the state of the universe a moment ago = paraphrase: if the state of the universe is unknown, the earlier state of the universe could have fail to cause an event that occurs

The assumption included Answer choice D is not exactly the same as the paraphrase above, but it is quite close. It points out the physicist is assuming that "since it is impossible to know the state of the universe, there is no state of universe". Denying this assumption, if there is state of universe, it will be impossible for the physicist to conclude that an earlier state of universe could have failed to cause an event.

[brandoncbias]

I've read everyone's comments on this question and I still don't understand how D could possibly be a credible answer. I initially went through this question and couldn't find an AC that I couldn't eliminate.

To me it seems the argument's relevant flaw here is that the Physicist assumes since we can't determine the existence of a necessary condition of Determinism(the current events could have occur in an earlier state of the universe), that Determinism is false.

D claims that the author in this instance is assuming that the existence of the state of universe is also false but that is an unwarranted assumption. The author is only erroneously believing that since the satisfaction of the necessary condition cannot be determined, the sufficient belief is false. I cannot come to accept D without making some unwarranted assumption, so I have to be missing something if this question wasn't omitted.

If anyone could help, it would be greatly appreciated!

[cyt5015]

Determinism is simply a fancy way to describe causal relationship. We can simplify the stimulus as below:
Determinism is the view that every result has a preceding cause. If determinism is true, then the result could not have failed to occur given the cause. Determinism, however, is false because it is impossible to know the complete cause.
Flaw: just because we don't know the complete cause does not mean the cause is not there.
Another example revealing the same flaw: It is impossible to know whether ghost existed or not, therefore, ghost does not exist. Hope it helps.

[donghai819]

I got the answer correct. I ruled out all four incorrect answers by abstracting the core--because a part has the characteristics A, the whole has the same characteristics.

Do I solve this question correctly?

Thank you, Geeks.

[tommywallach]

Perfect!

[BackoftheEnvelope]

There's way too much confusion here. Keep it simple. Not knowing something does not imply that it does not exist. Not knowing the complete state of the universe does not imply that such a state does not exist. (A) and (C) are both true but do not touch on the flaw. (B) taken alone is not true. If the whole is unknowable, then at least some of the individual parts of the whole must be unknowable. It also reverses the relationship in the stimulus. (E) taken alone also is not true. If the position and velocity of any given subatomic particle cannot be measured, then that is the case for all subatomic particles: no subatomic particules can be measured = all subatomic particles cannot be measured; "none" or "not one" is the same as "all can't".

[seychelles1718]

I got the answer correct. I ruled out all four incorrect answers by abstracting the core--because a part has the characteristics A, the whole has the same characteristics.

Do I solve this question correctly?

Thank you, Geeks.

Hi,
I don't really understand how you were able to rule out the wrong answers...could you please elaborate on your process of thoughts?
I am really lost and confused..
Thank you so much

[donghai819]

Sure thing dude.

Core:

Premise1(the second sentence) : determinism is true --> "given point" does not fail
Premise2 (the third sentence) : since we cannot know the whole picture, we can't know the "given point"

Conclusion: determinism is false, by implying the contrapositive of the first premise: "given point" fails ---> determinism is false(or not true,(yes, "not true" does not equal "false" in LSAT, but they don't want to test you that point here, so don't worry ))

Assumption: the whole picture fails --> given point fails ---> determinism is false

Let me know if you are still confused.