 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hellznrg
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Mar 06, 2006
Posts: 718
Location: Apt 7, Block 16, Street 318/41, Karama, Dubai, UAE
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
IMHO the universe is deterministic... if we had all the information of all the subatomic particles and energy fields and photons, etc.. we could predict with 100% accuracy the fate of the universe and also small-scale predictions...
unforttunately to record all this information would require a computer that was OUTSIDE our universe, to avoid influencing the outcome of the universe.
however, just because this is an impossible hurdle, doesn't magically make the universe non-deterministic.. there's no reason to wheel out the god of the gaps.
why cannot computers generate random numbers? they can only generate pseudo-random numbers
_________________
I have no enemies - merely topologies of ignorance - JC Denton, Deus Ex 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tim_p
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 511
Location: Alberta, Canada.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IgorStop wrote: | Tim_p
you seem to have forgotten which side of the debate I am on, so I will remind you. It is my contention that:
1. Free will as defined by Collins cannot exist in a system as rigidly determined as the one we agreed to debate.
2. This rigidly defined 'scientific determinism' does not describe the real universe.
It is you that believes in this rigidly deterministic system, not me. And it is you that must accept a less rigidly defined idea of determinism if any kind of 'free will' worth the name can be said to exist in reality. You have not answered the contradiction. You wrote:
| Quote: | | One's brain, and it follows one's mind, are determined by the initial conditions of the universe. |
...which contradicts your latest statement that:
| Quote: | | once created the mind controls itself |
...and your earlier:
| Quote: | | Yet one's thoughts are still one's own, created entirely in one's mind with no external control, |
....here you accord a special status to the mind, 'ones own thoughts,' which is meaningless. Are you saying that they exist independently of the rest of the universe? How so?
Within the terms of 'scientific determinism' your thoughts are nothing more than the firing of synapses in the brain, and this, being a physical system, is predetermined, not by any earlier state of mind, which can only be one link in the chain of causation, but - at the risk of repeating myself, and as you have already agreed - by the initial conditions of the universe. Any earlier state of mind was also predetermined and so on.
You have done here what I have seen you do with other people who have pointed out the contradiction in your argument: you defend a rigidly defined determinism until someone challenges you to show how free will can exist within it. At this point you move to a much less rigidly defined definition |
Here I am perhaps guilty of poor wording, the problem being that I've already explained my thoughts and can only come up with so many new wordings before they become hideously convoluted. I never wavered from the strict scientific determinism you defined. By "no external control" I mean to say that the mind acts as it should based on it's structure and the effects of accumulated years of data gathering and that it is not forced to behave in any other way.
My statement "but at any one point what came before it was an earlier state of that same mind, once created the mind controls itself" did not contradict determinism in any way. I agree that each earlier state was merely "one link in the chain of causation", I'm pointing out that the predetermination of the mind does not change the fact that it is still the mind making decisions
| IgorStop wrote: | ...as here:
| Quote: | | for correlation to exist there must be influence and where there is influence there is some level of determination. |
....and claim that it is the same thing. It is not.
On this side of the pond we call that 'moving the goal posts.' |
I did no such thing, if you'll look back, you'll see that as soon as you provided a definition of free-will I said that I could not possibly accept it in such a strict form, and nor can you even though you do not agree with such a strict determinism. The goal is firmly set.
Regardless of your thoughts on determinism, you must accept that free will cannot be completely free, there must be influence from the world or free-will would produce nothing but noise. There is clear logical incompatibility between pure free-will and the world, and I do not think this debate can continue in any useful direction unless we can agree that such strict free-will does not exist.
Either: agree, prove some form of compatibility (which I assure you, cannot be done), or I'm leaving this argument. Please note that I do not intend this as a threat or argumentum ad baculum. I'm quite sure you would not be hurt by my leaving, it would in reality make your argument look better. This is merely a statement of my belief that this argument cannot make any progress in the direction it's going now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
IgorStop
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Posts: 63
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tim_p
....argumentum ad baculum. It would be a shame if you left the debate since, at the very least, I am learning latin. Yes, we do seem to be stuck on point one, and while I see no reason to give ground, I would much rather move on to the more complex question of whether determinism 'rules the universe,' or not. Plenty of other people agree with you that it does.
In the course of our debate on free will I admit that I have been in combative mode, and that there are statements that you have made that I have agreed with, but have refrained from saying so because it would have muddied the waters. I would prefer to discuss ideas and issues in a less rigid way, but before I defined 'scientific determinsim' you did accuse me of making circular arguments and not backing them up when I was not debating things in any kind of a formal manner.
Please note that I have not argued that nothing in the universe is determined. Obviously many things are determined to some extent. My genes dictate many things about me, both physical and mental. But not everything. Genes are constantly switched on and off by the influence of the environment.
Free will is very difficult to define, which is why I reached for the dictionary. In a formal debate you have to define your terms and keep to them, otherwise 'fuzzy logic' ensues, and the argument can get lost in a sea hazy definitions. If you don't agree with the Collins version, fair enough. But I do not agree that it implies random noise. I agree that what we value about free will is not randomness, but that it is self determined. This self determination does not exist without reference to the rest of the universe, of course, and I have never said that it did. I am not arguing for some kind of 'absolute free will,' which rules over everything else. It is simply my contention that free will, cause and effect, randomness and probability co-exist. Some things are predetermined and some things aren't. Science does its best to study those things which explain most about the world, and this means sifting those things that are determined out from the random. You may not agree. I would be surprised if you do.
As far as I am concerned we can agree to disagree with no hard feelings. If you want to continue the debate more as a discussion, that would be fine by me, since I have not really had the chance to discuss any of the ideas that really interest me as yet. Let us agree to move on.
_________________
'Languages are theories. In their vocabulary and grammar, they embody substantial assertions about the world.' David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tim_p
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 511
Location: Alberta, Canada.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IgorStop wrote: | | As far as I am concerned we can agree to disagree with no hard feelings. If you want to continue the debate more as a discussion, that would be fine by me, since I have not really had the chance to discuss any of the ideas that really interest me as yet. Let us agree to move on. |
Good idea. A change of tone from debate to more casual discussion might just free us from this sort of intellectual trench warfare that we're stuck in now. I'll resist the overwhelming urge to try and have the last word. 
What ideas were you wanting to bring up? |
|
| Back to top |
|
IgorStop
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Posts: 63
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tim_p wrote:
| Quote: | | Good idea. A change of tone from debate to more casual discussion might just free us from this sort of intellectual trench warfare that we're stuck in now. I'll resist the overwhelming urge to try and have the last word. |
At the risk of sounding patronizing, well done. It would not be an easy thing for me to let someone else have the last word either. You may have noticed.
What else would I like to discuss? Well, Hyperion brought up the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics. The book I quote from as my signature attempts to formalize a theory that accepts an infinity of universes. It is certainly a breathtaking concept, since most of us have enough trouble dealing with the one we already know about.
These other universes interact weakly at the quantum level, Deutsch believes, producing the kind of interference effects seen in the famous 'double slit' experiments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
http://naturalscience.com/ns/books/book02.html
What do you think?
_________________
'Languages are theories. In their vocabulary and grammar, they embody substantial assertions about the world.' David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tim_p
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 511
Location: Alberta, Canada.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Interesting, but I don't see it as necessary to explain wave-particle duality, and applying Occam's razor I think other theories with more predictions (or at least potential for prediction) should take precedent at the forefront of research. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Quincunx
Blue Jay
Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, a little off-topic, but I wrote a theis proposal paper on this:
A brief survey into freewill while following the belief of the Christian God:
Rom 8:29-28; "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined
to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might
be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined,
these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified;
and whom He justified, these He also glorified."
Predestination: Your fate has been chosen for you. That, which goes against the God-given, a priceless, irrevocable, most important gift He has given us, "free will", which leads to you having no chance of salvation. Either God has chosen (predestination) for you to be saved, or not.
Furthermore, it states in the above passage that God chose only some to be saved, but in the following collected passages, it clearly states that God wants everyone to be saved.
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive." (I Corinthians 15:22)
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some
count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not
willing that any should perish but that all should
come to repentance." (II Peter 3:9)
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God
our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to
come unto the knowledge of the truth." (I Timothy
2:3,4)
Moreover, according to scripture, it claims God knows everything. That means your actions and events in life are predestined to become; you have no choice in the matter. But, as already pointed out, this goes against the notion of free will.
Every human decision is based off of certain things - your environment (social and physical, beginning at birth), which will dictate your options and opinions, ultimately, your personality. Your personality is usually determined by a plethora of things, but mainly your past experiences and your biological composition.
Your environment and biological chemistry is not a choice, but both determine your actions. Therefore, your actions aren't "free"- they're determined before you were born, in your biological makeup.
This leads to two problematic instances. First, and foremost, it shows that there is no free will like Christians claim there is. Second, the "cause" of your biological makeup is the Christian God, and the Christian God is powerful and all knowing, therefore, he forces your life to be precisely the way it is.
Lastly, free will and the Christian conception of Heaven: The Christian God guarantees us free will, so that means there will be free will in Heaven. However, evil exists, and there is free will in this world. So, to ensure there is no evil, the Christian God will have to remove free will in Heaven. This is completely ludicrous to all Christian's claims. Therefore, the claim of "free will" explaining evil is completely asinine to the Christian myth of Heaven.
Kind regards,
Chris
_________________
By all means marry. If you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher - Socrates |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tim_p
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 511
Location: Alberta, Canada.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quincunx wrote: | | However, evil exists, and there is free will in this world. So, to ensure there is no evil, the Christian God will have to remove free will in Heaven. This is completely ludicrous to all Christian's claims. Therefore, the claim of "free will" explaining evil is completely asinine to the Christian myth of Heaven. |
I will not speak to the rest of your post for fear of breaking my word to IgorStop, but I do have a complaint with this statement.
In the first part the conclusion "... to ensure there is no evil, the Christian God will have to remove free will in Heaven." simply does not follow from the premise "... evil exists, and there is free will in this world.".
And this "Therefore, the claim of "free will" explaining evil is completely asinine to the Christian myth of Heaven." is an argumentum ad hominem of some type, you define a group that disagrees with you, Christians, and then you make sure to mention that Christian beliefs are "myth", you thereby attack the character of Christian belief and dismiss all arguments from that side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Quincunx
Blue Jay
Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What I am saying is that if people really had free will on both Earth and Heaven, it would be reasonable to assume that at some point, there would be evils committed in Heaven.
But, then, why wouldn't God just send the sinner to Hell?
Kind regards,
Chris
_________________
By all means marry. If you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher - Socrates |
|
| Back to top |
|
IgorStop
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Posts: 63
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tim_p wrote:
| Quote: | | I will not speak to the rest of your post for fear of breaking my word to IgorStop, |
I wouldn't hold you to that other than when you were replying to me. No disrespect to anyone is intended here, but I have no interest in discussing the bible, or free will or determinism in relation to it.
As for the Multiverse, or Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, I may start up another thread. I have recently joined a discussion group for the MWI vs the Copenhagen Interpretation. David Deutsch gets involved from time to time as well as other mathematicians and other quantum mechanics experts, so it is interesting but mostly way over my head. One thing struck me; a poll of physicists recently found that most accept the MWI over the CI, which they consider to be discredited, but don't like to talk too much about it outside of the field because the implications are so vast. In other words it is embarrassing to talk about to the general public.
_________________
'Languages are theories. In their vocabulary and grammar, they embody substantial assertions about the world.' David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality |
|
| Back to top |
|
hyperion
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 507
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hellznrg wrote: | IMHO the universe is deterministic... if we had all the information of all the subatomic particles and energy fields and photons, etc.. we could predict with 100% accuracy the fate of the universe and also small-scale predictions...
unforttunately to record all this information would require a computer that was OUTSIDE our universe, to avoid influencing the outcome of the universe.
however, just because this is an impossible hurdle, doesn't magically make the universe non-deterministic.. there's no reason to wheel out the god of the gaps.
why cannot computers generate random numbers? they can only generate pseudo-random numbers |
THis hypothetical computer sounds vaguely like God |
|
| Back to top |
|
one1ai
Sea Gull
Joined: Mar 04, 2005
Posts: 229
Location: Greece
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What does the question "do you believe in determinism?" mean? |
|
| Back to top |
|
hyperion
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 507
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| could the interaction of quantum universes create free will? also charge bends space and your brain has a lot charge. Dont forget the concept of a paradox, two contridictory statements that are both true. Like general relativity and quantum physics. THey have and require a greater logical relationship than either or. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
