Plainly one may present numerous paradigms for deterministic systems without teleology. There is no necessary relation between a deterministic system and purpose of the system (or is there). Do some believe that a deterministic system must necessarily have a purpose and that from a Creator of the system? It is possible to imagine a computer program as an entirely deterministic system itself that generates deterministic algorithmic programs as sets that have no purpose, obviously.
Given a finite set of construction components there may be a necessity of a determined number of configurations of a system with an initial set. Someone mentioned constructing a square with just three lines. With three lines one may build a triangle in a certain configuration that when viewed seems like it is a square, without being one. With the alphabet one can’t construct hieroglyphs or build an automobile with raspberry jello.
Deterministic systems may certainly exist. The question people with antipathetic positions toward faith might have that they cannot exist is absurd. The effort is to deny that the entire Universe is pre-determined, and that it freely evolves without constraints or limits in it’s course of evolution. It does appear that at least parts of it’s fate is predetermined. Stars have a limited life span of several billion years more or less, the entire initial endowment of mass that is apparently finite will reduce with entropy to either a cold dead condition near absolute zero or be recollected with gravity to a singularity. In either case the temperature might have a phase change to absolute high temperature.
There may be an argument that a predetermined fate of the Universe is not known by humans yet that doesn’t make it so. The fate of the entire Universe is already set; nothing people or other sentient beings living in it can change that.
Of course some might regard the Higgs field entanglement of two-dimensional massless particles given the appearance of three dimensions occurring in space-time as indicative of an unlimited source of Universes and other structures that happen rather like a dream generated by a bubble maker, and those could be regarded as non-determined. Yet of course once they are brought into being they became determined with a set future. The phrase ‘the die is cast’ encapsulates the notion.
Free will may coexist within determinism. Life is a complex phenomenon physically and there is a vast degree of uncertainty regarding physics. It does seem plain that deterministic elements exist and that degrees of freedom exist while the entire Universe phenomenon may itself be determined since its foundation. One doesn’t have answers to the questions about the structure of the Universe or Multiverse that are exhaustive. Christians at least have faith in a Creator.
https://www.udio.com/songs/mTdMFKeB7j9DF8sgdGcdtr
If a program is written to generate whole numbers it is determined to produce while numbers; that is it will not generate the collected works of Shakespeare with annotations, loaves of bread or reasons not to elect Pamela Harris.
It seems wrong to use Norbert Weiner’s work as a strong advocate for necessary nondeterminism. A Google search asking if N.W. supported indeterminism generated this response; “While not definitively stating a belief in or against strict determinism, Norbert Wiener's ideas in cybernetics suggest a view that emphasized predictability within systems, leaning towards a deterministic framework for understanding complex systems like human brains and cultures, rather than strict, unfettered freedom”.
I appreciate the gulf in communication between word and object. The idea that ideas may not be expressed with deterministic exactitude since words are descriptions of observations an dare- approximate descriptions of experience. It is the purpose of words that concern, and one is venturing into linguistic and analytic philosophical claiming that all knowledge is non-deterministic and physics is non-sense as well. It is a metaphysical inference to extrapolate from human epistemology to the nature and constructions of what humans experience. Utilizing analytic philosophy for the purpose of arguing pro or con determinism is at best a fraction of the right parameters required for inducting some sort of an accurate response to the challenges of the inquiry. Human epistemological uncertainty doesn't mean the Universe itself is nondeterministic. Perhaps one can say that humans may know that they know nothing after jettisoning pragmatism. ‘What is wisdom to man is foolishness to God.’
Incompleteness theorems don’t equate to non-determinism for the given (Universe for-itself). Humans are elements of pluralism in a monism that IS.
That is the nature of the experience of what is regarded as an entangled field of two-dimensional massless particles that pick up a virtual third dimension in the field. It is the world people exist in though, so that contingent experience is assigned as being real. One need only be poor, freezing or starving, very sick etc to know that one need treat the world as reality.
