Why isn't there indeterminacy about knowing how it got up there in the first place?

So you have indeterminacy on both sides?

What it says is that if you have a mass that's at the top of a dome and it's frictionless and the dome is characterized by a certain curve, which needs to be defined specifically, then it's at rest at the top of the dome, but at any T that's non-negative, any time that's greater than zero, it can take off. Why is it, why, why, why is what you're describing to me asymmetric at all?

The point is that you just-negative, any time that's greater than zero, it can take off. Why is it, why is what you're describing to me asymmetric at all? So the point is that you just set up the system like that as a thought experiment in order to just put T equals minus T. Okay. It's just useful to set up the experiment like that. Got it. Okay. So, in that, what is, okay, so fine, it's an interesting thought experiment. I like, nobody doesn't like thought experiments, then of what utility is that to the practicing scientist, even if it is of high interest to the philosopher?

It then makes you say, hey, if there's a classical system that is determined, that's not the case.

We shouldn't say, if that's really true about the Norton Dome, then we shouldn't say classical physics is deterministic, right?

Correct.

Okay.

What does that change?

I don't get it.

It's fine.

That's great, great result. Okay?

So let's think about this in a couple ways. So number one, what is physics? Like, physics is understanding what reality is.

So we have to put an asterisk on what reality is because, like, who the heck knows what reality is?

But physicists are trying to understand what that is. Someone like Tim Modlin would say,

hey, which I agree with, and I never put in these words before, quantum theory is never

talked about in university as a physicist. You'd learn quantum mechanics and quantum field theory,

but he would say, a theory tells you what the heck you're dealing with. It talks about ontology.

So there needs to be that component as well. What does you need to be if what we're doing still

works? It needs to be to you, the philosopher, but to me, the practicing scientist that's building

circuit boards based on a complete understanding of how quantum physics works, I don't need to know that.

That doesn't mean I don't want to know it, but the search for that answer,

...