God is the one that wills the chemistry behind man's freewill.
If we cannot override G-d's influence, we are a falling rock that cannot escape the gravitational pull of God's chemistry.
He even goes a step further and gives us prophets to prove He knows the outcome of our freewill.
Why work if one's income was decreed at birth? You can argue that our actions nullify decrees but God willed the system.
God foresaw every choice that every one of His creations would ever make and directly willed them by creating us likewise.
God created us good and evil alike and concealed our faith from us with a barrier called time.
Every choice that we will ever make is part of a long chemical reaction including the chemistry behind choice itself.
One's reaction to this post also have to do with simpler things such as ego and beliefs which are part of an even longer chain that ultimately start with God.
I'd conclude that freewill is irrelevant in contrast with destiny because we are His puppets every step of the way and our faith is beyond time so we cannot change it.
Why concentrate on 'chemistry'? Ultimately chemistry is just quantum physics with a few shortcuts thrown in 
(Paraphrased from the late great Dr Feynman). In our concept of time, something happens -> you know about it. That's not how it works for God.
i'm... confused.
The original post is just a little bit rambling and incoherent... but i think the gist of it is that there is no such thing as free will - it's only an illusion we have due to the fact we don't see the whole picture - and our destinies are predetermined by God. Yes?
Alright, ok, let's go with that.
Say i were to walk out of my apartment right now, kick a puppy, murder a child, and rape somebody. By your logic, none of that was my choice. It's all God's plan. Does that sit well with you?
In fact, all bad things that happen, large and small, all suffering, and all misery, is all God's plan. Because if no one has any free will and everything is the "system" God willed, there's no-one else to blame.
And what if i were to shrug and say "****** God", and go about doing my own thing? According to conventional religious beliefs, God will horribly punish me for doing this. But... it wasn't my choice. i was just playing out the script God wrote for me.
i dunno - it doesn't sound like something that works out to me.
| Indi wrote: |
i'm... confused.
The original post is just a little bit rambling and incoherent... but i think the gist of it is that there is no such thing as free will - it's only an illusion we have due to the fact we don't see the whole picture - and our destinies are predetermined by God. Yes?
Alright, ok, let's go with that.
Say i were to walk out of my apartment right now, kick a puppy, murder a child, and rape somebody. By your logic, none of that was my choice. It's all God's plan. Does that sit well with you?
In fact, all bad things that happen, large and small, all suffering, and all misery, is all God's plan. Because if no one has any free will and everything is the "system" God willed, there's no-one else to blame.
And what if i were to shrug and say "****** God", and go about doing my own thing? According to conventional religious beliefs, God will horribly punish me for doing this. But... it wasn't my choice. i was just playing out the script God wrote for me.
i dunno - it doesn't sound like something that works out to me. |
I agree. I do somewhat believe in a "God's Plan", but I also believe that the consequences of your free will decide whether or not you will choose to meet your destiny. I think of it as a path, one huge straight line going up. That is your destiny, hopefully in your lifetime you will meet and reveal it. Along this straight path though, your choices dictate whether you veer off from your path or not. You can take many backroads and even seem lost, but the right decisions when given the choices will lead you back to your destiny. This is why I think they say "The universe will unfold as it should." Karma plays a role in it as well. God I believe has the power to nudge you in the right direction back towards your path. Evil also has an influence as well.Your 'destiny' is where you will end up. It is not where you 'might' or 'should' end up. It is your 'destination'.
Destiny is generally supposed to be a force or fate which is beyond human control to influence, so the idea that you can choose to 'veer off' from your destiny seems flawed to me.
I think what you are describing could be better termed 'potential'.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Your 'destiny' is where you will end up. It is not where you 'might' or 'should' end up. It is your 'destination'.
Destiny is generally supposed to be a force or fate which is beyond human control to influence, so the idea that you can choose to 'veer off' from your destiny seems flawed to me.
I think what you are describing could be better termed 'potential'. |
Well... i'm not so sure. This is why i'm usually such a stickler for getting precise definitions down right out of the gate.
Destiny and fate are not necessarily the same thing. Your fate may indeed be beyond your control. Your destiny may not. Your destiny may be avoided. Your fate cannot be avoided.
Put that way, Bryan_Bezzle has a point, insofar as your destiny may be determined by a god though you are not obligated to meet that destiny. i don't think that solves any problems - in fact, i think it introduces a whole host of new ones - but it does at least make it semantically consistent.
i think we should probably agree on a more precise definition for destiny if we want to keep tossing it around. | Indi wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | Your 'destiny' is where you will end up. It is not where you 'might' or 'should' end up. It is your 'destination'.
Destiny is generally supposed to be a force or fate which is beyond human control to influence, so the idea that you can choose to 'veer off' from your destiny seems flawed to me.
I think what you are describing could be better termed 'potential'. |
Well... i'm not so sure. This is why i'm usually such a stickler for getting precise definitions down right out of the gate. |
Hmm.....looks like I must concede this one. Having checked I find that there are indeed two ways of defining destiny so Indi has a valid objection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DestinyI dont think god (if he exists) would make such rules: If someone would do some really bad stuff, killing and worse. Why is there a hell? He "made those people do that" so he should go to hell not those people (Unless we have a sadistic god).
But I dont believe in god and I DO believe in free will.
Of course you can not believe in god and not believe in freewill but I like to believe that what I do is chosen by me and that I can influence my own destiny.
Some philosofical references from wikipedia.
| Quote: |
Determinism is roughly defined as the view that all current and future events are necessitated by past events combined with the laws of nature. Neither determinism nor its opposite, non-determinism, are positions in the debate about free will.
Compatibilism is the view that the existence of free will and the truth of determinism are compatible with each other.
Incompatibilism is the view that there is no way to reconcile a belief in a deterministic universe with a belief in free will.
Hard determinism is the version of incompatibilism that accepts the truth of determinism and rejects the idea that humans have any free will.
Metaphysical libertarianism topically agrees with hard determinism only in rejecting compatibilism. Since libertarians accept the existence of free will, they must reject determinism and argue for some version of indeterminism that is compatible with freedom.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freewill#Free_will_in_philosophy
Debating on this is in fact really hard since there's no way to prove or disprove it. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
Debating on this is in fact really hard since there's no way to prove or disprove it. |
Much like a lot of debates on this site
I believe in free will, but within limitations because people's behaviour is affected by things that have happened already.
For example, I believe I am free to go out and murder someone, but actually I'm not sure I could. For one thing I don't actually want to, having been brought up to believe that such a thing would be immoral, illegal and pointless. You could say that means I don't have free will.
A better example is this. I can choose what to have dinner tomorrow, but it will be influenced by what is in the fridge and what I feel like having. What I feel like having will depend on what I had for lunch and other things. So it's not a totally free choice. But maybe that's just another way of saying that even with free will people always have to have reasons for making a choice. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Debating on this is in fact really hard since there's no way to prove or disprove it. |
Oh ye of little faith. ^_^;
i can quite easily provide a very simple proof. You're just not gonna like the implications of it. | Indi wrote: |
i can quite easily provide a very simple proof. You're just not gonna like the implications of it. |
Go on then. I'd be very interested to hear it. | mraek wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
i can quite easily provide a very simple proof. You're just not gonna like the implications of it. |
Go on then. I'd be very interested to hear it. |
Alrighty.
First, let's think about an action that is completely determined, meaning that it is absolutely predictable if only you know the starting conditions and the rules. In other words, if you gave me all of the positions and attitudes of all of the people and things in the local universe, i could predict whether Joe would steal a watch. i could write it out as a mathematical formula, or a computer program. "IF Joe is poor AND Joe really needs watch AND no one is looking THEN Joe will steal watch".
What that means is that a god or prophet can see the future action, and then speak it in the present, and it will always come to pass as predicted - because the future is fixed, is set by the rules and the initial conditions. That is a determined action.
A determined action cannot be as a result of free will, because it is determined by the state and laws of the universe. Joe did not "choose" to steal the watch - the laws were set up so that he would, whether he would have wanted to or not. Joe could not possibly have chosen not to steal the watch... that action was determined before he even saw the watch.
Therefore, there can be no free will if actions are determined.
So, you say, actions are not determined then. Ah, but here's the rub. If an action is not determined, it must be random. If it is not random, then it can be determined. Therefore, if the action is not a determined action, it must be a random action.
If it is a random action, then it cannot have been caused by anything (that would make it determined). Therefore, it cannot have been caused by Joe willing it. It happened randomly. There was a 50% chance that Joe would steal the watch, and a 50% chance that he would not, and he didn't determine the odds, or determine the result. Therefore, the act cannot have been due to free will.
Therefore, there can be no free will if actions are random.
In summary:
1.) An action is either determined, or random.
2.) If the action is determined, it cannot be due to free will.
3.) If the action is random, it cannot be due to free will.
Therefore, no action can be due to free will.
Or, put another way: free will is an illusion. It does not exist.Now, should I respond to this or should we see if mraek can come back ?
I think the latter, but perhaps with a hint. Are the only two choices determinism or randomness? | Indi wrote: |
| mraek wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
i can quite easily provide a very simple proof. You're just not gonna like the implications of it. |
Go on then. I'd be very interested to hear it. |
Alrighty.
First, let's think about an action that is completely determined, meaning that it is absolutely predictable if only you know the starting conditions and the rules. In other words, if you gave me all of the positions and attitudes of all of the people and things in the local universe, i could predict whether Joe would steal a watch. i could write it out as a mathematical formula, or a computer program. "IF Joe is poor AND Joe really needs watch AND no one is looking THEN Joe will steal watch".
What that means is that a god or prophet can see the future action, and then speak it in the present, and it will always come to pass as predicted - because the future is fixed, is set by the rules and the initial conditions. That is a determined action.
A determined action cannot be as a result of free will, because it is determined by the state and laws of the universe. Joe did not "choose" to steal the watch - the laws were set up so that he would, whether he would have wanted to or not. Joe could not possibly have chosen not to steal the watch... that action was determined before he even saw the watch.
Therefore, there can be no free will if actions are determined.
|
Fair enough so far.
| Indi wrote: |
So, you say, actions are not determined then. Ah, but here's the rub. If an action is not determined, it must be random. |
Why? If an action is not determined, all that says is that the rules of the universe do not decide what happens. What about if Joe has his own rules - he's not poor and doesn't need a watch, maybe he just likes stealing. Then it's not random and it's not determined.
| Indi wrote: |
If it is not random, then it can be determined. Therefore, if the action is not a determined action, it must be a random action.
|
Yes if it is not random then it can be determined - but by who? By the universal determined laws of the universe, or by free will?
Now show how much free will you have and reply to this post I dont agree with Indi its not a 50/50 percent chance that Joe will steel the watch. Even if he's really really poor he can decide NOT to steal the watch. He decides according to al sort of factors:
Mood, education, how he was brought up etc. etc. and if he is not poo he also can decide to steal it becaues it makes him feel good, because he is greedy or has some small mental illnes which "makes" him steel.
That "equation" of yours is not true people can still disagree with that theory.
Further there are more forms of determinism.
Not only 2 opposites.
"There's always a middle road"
Oh err. Not quite where I was thinking you might go with the hint. I suspect Indi will have little trouble defeating this objection
<sits back to enjoy> | mraek wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
So, you say, actions are not determined then. Ah, but here's the rub. If an action is not determined, it must be random. |
Why? If an action is not determined, all that says is that the rules of the universe do not decide what happens. What about if Joe has his own rules - he's not poor and doesn't need a watch, maybe he just likes stealing. Then it's not random and it's not determined. |
Oh, piffle. ^_^; By introducing fairy universes or spiritual dimensions you don't change anything, except now i have to type more. All you have to do is replace every instance of "the universe" with "all universes" and note that includes any and all universes that your decision making process might take place in. Observe:
An action is determined if it can be perfectly predicted given the current state and the laws in all universes (including whatever universe your "soul" or "mind" resides in). Or, stated the other way around, if all of the causes of an action are previous actions or states in any universe then that action is determined.
Following that, any action that is not determined must be random, and so on. And you end up with the same thing again.
Taking your example: "What about if Joe has his own rules - he's not poor and doesn't need a watch, maybe he just likes stealing." What caused Joe to want to steal the watch? Was it random, or was it determined by the fact that he likes stealing? If it was random, game over - it can't be free will. If it was determined by the fact that he likes stealing, what caused Joe to like stealing - was it random, or was it something to do with how he was raised or his biology or the vibrations in the spirit universe where his soul resides? If it was caused by any of those things, they are all out of Joe's control, are they not? In that case, Joe couldn't have freely chosen anything, he was a victim of his determined circumstance. In other words, no free will - even if you include other universes.
| mraek wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
If it is not random, then it can be determined. Therefore, if the action is not a determined action, it must be a random action.
|
Yes if it is not random then it can be determined - but by who? By the universal determined laws of the universe, or by free will?
Now show how much free will you have and reply to this post |
i'm not clear about any of your questions. If something is determined, it is not determined by anyone. It is determined by the state of the universe(s) before that something, and the rules of the universe(s). If something is determined, there is no room for free will - there is no room for free anything. It is set to happen, and cannot be avoided. It will happen, with absolute and total certainty, no matter how anyone feels about it. That is what determined means.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
I dont agree with Indi its not a 50/50 percent chance that Joe will steel the watch. Even if he's really really poor he can decide NOT to steal the watch. He decides according to al sort of factors:
Mood, education, how he was brought up etc. etc. and if he is not poo he also can decide to steal it becaues it makes him feel good, because he is greedy or has some small mental illnes which "makes" him steel. |
*shrug* Then it's an 80/20 chance. Or 60/40. Or maybe 20% that he'll steal the watch, 70% that he won't and 10% that both him and the watch will vanish in a puff of logic before anything else can happen.
Doesn't matter. Random is random, no matter how you set the odds. The point is that he did not cause himself to choose to steal the watch, some random blip did. And if he didn't cause himself to choose to steal the watch, he can't have freely chosen to do it, now can he?
Take a look at the language you are using. First you say that even if Joe is poor he can "freely" choose not to steal, then as evidence for his "freedom", you just list a different set of causes (besides being poor). i see no "freedom" there. All i see is you substituting one cause for another.
One way or the other, you are either going to have to list a chain of causes that led Joe to steal (determinism), or you will have to stop at some point and say "this has no cause" (which would make it random). Either way, there is no room for free will.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
That "equation" of yours is not true people can still disagree with that theory.
Further there are more forms of determinism.
Not only 2 opposites.
"There's always a middle road" |
i'm not sure what "equation" you mean, and i am not sure what "forms" of determinism you are talking about. Why don't you clarify?I meant this, I couldn't think of an other word at the time.
| Quote: |
In summary:
1.) An action is either determined, or random.
2.) If the action is determined, it cannot be due to free will.
3.) If the action is random, it cannot be due to free will.
Therefore, no action can be due to free will. |
And the part before
As for the middle road(S): (I thought it was obvious)
If something isn't determined it doesn't mean that it is Random.
if something is not A it musn't be B it also can be C,D,E,....
You think there's no middle road and other people disagree with you. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
I meant this, I couldn't think of an other word at the time.
| Quote: | In summary:
1.) An action is either determined, or random.
2.) If the action is determined, it cannot be due to free will.
3.) If the action is random, it cannot be due to free will.
Therefore, no action can be due to free will. |
And the part before
As for the middle road(S): (I thought it was obvious)
If something isn't determined it doesn't mean that it is Random.
if something is not A it musn't be B it also can be C,D,E,....
You think there's no middle road and other people disagree with you. |
You can disagree with anything. That doesn't make your disagreement meaningful.
There is not always a "middle road". For any clearly defined X, something is either X or not-X. There are no other options.
The universe is either determined, or it is not determined. Those are the only two options. There is no "maybe, sorta, kinda, probably determined". It's yes, all the way, all the time... or it's no (because a universe that is determined "most of the time" but not always is not determined). If it's no, then it must be random, because random and non-determined are the same thing - they are just different words for the same idea. In other words: "If something isn't determined it doesn't mean that it is Random." is wrong. If something isn't determined then it means exactly that it is random. Random == non-determined.
So no, there is no "middle road". The universe is either determined or it is not determined. And not determined is the same as random. | Indi wrote: |
The universe is either determined, or it is not determined. Those are the only two options. There is no "maybe, sorta, kinda, probably determined". It's yes, all the way, all the time... or it's no (because a universe that is determined "most of the time" but not always is not determined). If it's no, then it must be random, because random and non-determined are the same thing - they are just different words for the same idea. In other words: "If something isn't determined it doesn't mean that it is Random." is wrong. If something isn't determined then it means exactly that it is random. Random == non-determined.
So no, there is no "middle road". The universe is either determined or it is not determined. And not determined is the same as random. |
Using logic there are 3 possible types of universes:
1) a universe with laws for everything: everything can be predicted to the last detail, all is fully determined, no departure from the "script" => a DETERMINED universe
2) a universe with no laws: one totally random, everything is a wild guess: from an urn with 1 white ball and 1 black ball you will extract a pink cube => a RANDOM universe
3) a universe with some laws but not for all things: some things can be determined, some partially random, but no purely random things (1 law is enough to remove complete randomness but some degrees of randomness are still present), that is no pink cube!
You claim that type 2 and type 3 are the same!
I think that our universe is of type 3.
To be on topic I guess that there is free will. There's always a choice but the number of options is small and the choosing process heavily influenced by external factors. Yes, man is a choosing machine but a very predictable one. | Indi wrote: |
You can disagree with anything. That doesn't make your disagreement meaningful.
There is not always a "middle road". For any clearly defined X, something is either X or not-X. There are no other options. |
What I said if something is not A then it doesn't mean it is B it also can be C,D,E ...etc
| Indi wrote: |
The universe is either determined, or it is not determined. Those are the only two options. There is no "maybe, sorta, kinda, probably determined".
It's yes, all the way, all the time... or it's no (because a universe that is determined "most of the time" but not always is not determined). If it's no, then it must be random, because random and non-determined are the same thing |
Wel this is all about belief. You think there's nothing between I think there is.
When you look at soccer matches, its not random who wins, but I don't think its determined a gazillion years ago.
| Indi wrote: |
- they are just different words for the same idea. In other words: "If something isn't determined it doesn't mean that it is Random." is wrong. If something isn't determined then it means exactly that it is random. Random == non-determined.
So no, there is no "middle road". The universe is either determined or it is not determined. And not determined is the same as random. |
Looking grammatically and mathematically at Philosophical stuff won't always turn out with right answers. Its not black and white its just not known to us. As I said this is a never ending discussion. Its like a Fundumental Muslim and a Fundumental Christian trying to persuade each other why their god is the real one. Otherwise it wouldn't be philosofical.
| smarter wrote: |
Using logic there are 3 possible types of universes:
1) a universe with laws for everything: everything can be predicted to the last detail, all is fully determined, no departure from the "script" => a DETERMINED universe
2) a universe with no laws: one totally random, everything is a wild guess: from an urn with 1 white ball and 1 black ball you will extract a pink cube => a RANDOM universe
3) a universe with some laws but not for all things: some things can be determined, some partially random, but no purely random things (1 law is enough to remove complete randomness but some degrees of randomness are still present), that is no pink cube!
You claim that type 2 and type 3 are the same!
I think that our universe is of type 3.
To be on topic I guess that there is free will. There's always a choice but the number of options is small and the choosing process heavily influenced by external factors. Yes, man is a choosing machine but a very predictable one. |
Thats right, just like poker, the cards you get are random but when a player gets bad cards they usually fold.
And just to make clear the whole free will debate can be understood by people differenly:
| Quote: |
In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.
In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought. |
| Indi wrote: |
The universe is either determined, or it is not determined. Those are the only two options. There is no "maybe, sorta, kinda, probably determined". It's yes, all the way, all the time... or it's no (because a universe that is determined "most of the time" but not always is not determined). If it's no, then it must be random, because random and non-determined are the same thing - they are just different words for the same idea. In other words: "If something isn't determined it doesn't mean that it is Random." is wrong. If something isn't determined then it means exactly that it is random. Random == non-determined.
So no, there is no "middle road". The universe is either determined or it is not determined. And not determined is the same as random. |
That's true if you use that definition of 'random'. The word random implies something more chaotic and unpredictable, which is why I disagreed earlier.
I take your point about Joe stealing the watch, your argument is sound that it could be pre-determined. Many things are obviously pre-determined - if I let go of an object, it will fall.
But other things are much much more complex. Realistically Joe is not going to steal just because he's poor. There will be thousands, even millions of events which will have shaped his character, led him to be in that particular position at that time, with the intent to steal that watch. To be able to predict that he would steal it would be beyond anyone (except no doubt the theoretical 'god').
So although the universe may be determined, we will never be able to predict it. So effectively it makes no difference whether we have free will or not - because who can tell the difference between free will and the illusion of free will. | mraek wrote: |
| That's true if you use that definition of 'random'. The word random implies something more chaotic and unpredictable, which is why I disagreed earlier. |
A couple of points. Firstly chaotic and random are not the same thing. Chaotic behaviour is not random - the behaviour can often be modelled with very simple equations. Neither, however, is it predictable since tiny changes in the initial state result in different behaviours.
Secondly, where does probabilistic behaviour fit in? Take, for example, quantum events. Aim a stream of photons (light beam) at a sheet of glass. Some photons will pass through and some will reflect. There is no way, for individual photons, to predict which will happen. You can, however, say with some certainty that a certain percentage will reflect back (0-16%). | Bikerman wrote: |
| Take, for example, quantum events. Aim a stream of photons (light beam) at a sheet of glass. Some photons will pass through and some will reflect. There is no way, for individual photons, to predict which will happen. |
I think you've just given an example of why the universe is not determined. Because by Indi's argument earlier, if just one thing is random, then the entire universe cannot be determined. | mraek wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Take, for example, quantum events. Aim a stream of photons (light beam) at a sheet of glass. Some photons will pass through and some will reflect. There is no way, for individual photons, to predict which will happen. |
I think you've just given an example of why the universe is not determined. Because by Indi's argument earlier, if just one thing is random, then the entire universe cannot be determined. |
But you are conflating random and probabilistic - two different things. If the behaviour of the photons were random then the probability would be 50%
PS - this is wrong. See later posting.
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:47 pm; edited 1 time in totalEr, there are a lot of terms being thrown around by different people - and some are being used quite badly.
Deterministic: Outcome not random, probability of one.
Probabilistic (or stochastic): Outcome random, probability between zero and one.
Chaotic: Outcome not random, probability of one. But it is so sensitive to fluctuation that it looks random.
Chaos has nothing to do with this discussion.
Random has nothing to do with 50%. (The number that comes up on fair die is random, and the chance of any number is not 50%.)
| smarter wrote: |
Using logic there are 3 possible types of universes:
1) a universe with laws for everything: everything can be predicted to the last detail, all is fully determined, no departure from the "script" => a DETERMINED universe
2) a universe with no laws: one totally random, everything is a wild guess: from an urn with 1 white ball and 1 black ball you will extract a pink cube => a RANDOM universe
3) a universe with some laws but not for all things: some things can be determined, some partially random, but no purely random things (1 law is enough to remove complete randomness but some degrees of randomness are still present), that is no pink cube!
You claim that type 2 and type 3 are the same! |
No, i don't claim that 2 and 3 are "the same". i claim that they are both non-deterministic, or in other words, random.
i'll show you. Let's start at A and go to B in the three different types of universes you describe. Every green arrow is a deterministic step, every red is a stochastic step.
1) A → → → → → B : Result - determined (probability of specific B is 1)
2) A → → → → → B : Result - random (probability of specific B is the product of all probabilities, and is between zero and one)
3) A → → → → → B : Result - random (probability of specific B is the product of all probabilities - in this case, there's only the one - and is between zero and one).
In universe 1, A is the direct and only cause of B. In universes 2 and 3, A may influence B, but whether or not B happens is random.
In this case, A is the "will" to do a thing, and B is the thing. i hope it's clear now that in a non-deterministic universe - whether it's totally random or only partially does not matter - whether or not B will happen is not a function of A, it is a random outcome.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| What I said if something is not A then it doesn't mean it is B it also can be C,D,E ...etc |
Which is not always true. Sometimes it can only be A or B, and nothing else. You have to look at the specific case and find out if that's true, you can't just say it is and not be challenged.
In this case, you are wrong. It can only be determined or random. That is a mathematical fact that you cannot escape.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Wel this is all about belief. You think there's nothing between I think there is.
When you look at soccer matches, its not random who wins, but I don't think its determined a gazillion years ago. |
No, it is not about belief unless you want to ignore reason and evidence.
Whether you think the winner of your soccer match was determined a gazillion years ago or not is irrelevant. The plain fact is that if the universe is determined (and was around that long ago), then it was decided then. That's just something you will have to deal with, whatever you want to believe. However, if the universe is not determined, then the outcome of the match is not known until the last stochastic event passed (that is, until the only remaining factors are all non-stochastic). Until that point, the outcome is random.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Looking grammatically and mathematically at Philosophical stuff won't always turn out with right answers. Its not black and white its just not known to us. As I said this is a never ending discussion. Its like a Fundumental Muslim and a Fundumental Christian trying to persuade each other why their god is the real one. Otherwise it wouldn't be philosofical. |
"Looking grammatically and mathematically" may not always turn up the right answers... but giving up and saying "anyone can believe whatever they want" is not going to turn up any answers.
Also, i don't know where you get your definition of philosophical, because nothing you have described has anything to do with philosophy. That is religion, not philosophy. If either the fundamentalist Christian or the fundamentalist Muslim could provide a reason why their god is the "real one" - and i don't mean a "claim" that they make, i mean a well-argued, well-evidenced, logical reason - then it would be philosophy, and they could get an answer. But in real life, all you will have is two people who have no reason to believe their beliefs are right - both relying on faith - so any discussion they have will not be philosophical.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
And just to make clear the whole free will debate can be understood by people differenly:
| Quote: | In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.
In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought. |
|
You are misunderstanding that quote. i don't even know where it is from or what the context is, but i can see plainly that whatever came before it is basically stating "Assume free will exists...". The "it" in those sentences probably refers to free will. If free will exists, then it may mean that individuals can be held morally responsible. And if free will exists, then there must be some part of the mind that is not wholly physical. None of that implies free will does exist.
As i just showed, free will cannot exist. It simply does not work. That means that there cannot be moral responsibility. And there is no need to assume a non-physical part of the mind.
The "whole free will debate" can be understood any way you want to understand it, if you are willing to ignore the evidence. If you are not willing to ignore the evidence then you are left with two options. Either accept free will does not exist. Or, redefine it (see compatibilism).
| mraek wrote: |
| I think you've just given an example of why the universe is not determined. Because by Indi's argument earlier, if just one thing is random, then the entire universe cannot be determined. |
Correct. One of the biggest upsets of modern physics was the destruction of the previously held beliefs that the universe is deterministic. Einstein himself could not handle this conclusion for many years. If quantum physics is right, our universe is not deterministic.
However. In practise, the probabilities are so astronomically small that when they are combined we can treat them as determined events. That's why our universe appears determined at the macroscopic scale. But it's not, and quantum randomness can and does have macroscopic effects sometimes. | Indi wrote: |
Er, there are a lot of terms being thrown around by different people - and some are being used quite badly.
Deterministic: Outcome not random, probability of one.
Probabilistic (or stochastic): Outcome random, probability between zero and one.
Chaotic: Outcome not random, probability of one. But it is so sensitive to fluctuation that it looks random.
Chaos has nothing to do with this discussion.
Random has nothing to do with 50%. (The number that comes up on fair die is random, and the chance of any number is not 50%.) |
No, but in the example I gave there are two possible outcomes. The equivalent would be a coin-toss which should, all things being equal, be 50%. It's my fault for using the word 'random' in a sloppy manner. I used it to mean equal chance of all possible outcomes. That is incorrect (funny how misconceptions can lurk for years in the brain - until they are revealed in this type of discussion 
).
You are correct, of course, to point out that anything which is non deterministic is random.
PS On reflection this is an interesting semantic matter. Random is generally used to mean having no specific pattern, or | Quote: |
| relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely |
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not using a dictionary definition to prove a point, that way lies madness. It is, however, interesting that there is no word I can think of that applies to a weighted outcome. Take the example of the coin toss. In an ideal situation the outcome would be 50-50. We could, however, weight the coin in such a way that the outcome was, say, 70-30 or 90-10. In both cases the outcome of a toss would be random but clearly in the second case you would know more about the scenario by knowing that the coin was weighted and would be able to predict the outcome of a toss with a greater than 50% accuracy.
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:47 pm; edited 1 time in totalJust to clarify
| Indi wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | And just to make clear the whole free will debate can be understood by people differenly:
| Quote: | In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.
In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought. |
|
You are misunderstanding that quote. |
eeeh what???? I just gave the quote I said nothing about it. How on earth would you know I understand it or nor, I just gave it. I just chucked it in on the end of my post.
Further I want to say that I looked at it in a philosophical way and you then everything more from a mathematical way. And yes I didn't gave an argument,
Now the discussion;
Firstly I don't believe that everything is random because if I let go (and also everyone else on this planet) of something it won't "fall up". It always randomly falls down. ( 
Always and random (in this way) don't fit together).
Let's say that the universe is entirely determined.
If the universe is 100% determined it could be either by some sort of god or spiritual power who/witch steers everything.
Or by laws that have determined where every molecule photon etc. will fly for eternity.
But up till now no one found a real answer for the half life of isotopes. If you have 1 molecuul of uramium you don't know when it will fall apart, it could be now our after a million years, if the universe is so determined how do you explain this? Since all atoms are the same. (At least as far as we know). | Klaw 2 wrote: |
Let's say that the universe is entirely determined.
If the universe is 100% determined it could be either by some sort of god or spiritual power who/witch steers everything.
Or by laws that have determined where every molecule photon etc. will fly for eternity.
But up till now no one found a real answer for the half life of isotopes. If you have 1 molecuul of uramium you don't know when it will fall apart, it could be now our after a million years, if the universe is so determined how do you explain this? Since all atoms are the same. (At least as far as we know). |
This is dealt with in the previous posting. It is true that quantum events are random but the randomness tends to cancel out as we move to the 'macro' world. If you take a kilo of uranium, rather than a single atom, you can be pretty precise about how much of it will decay over time using the half-life.
(Not all atoms are the same, btw)."we cannot override G-d's influence, we are a falling rock that cannot escape the gravitational pull of God's chemistry.
He even goes a step further and gives us prophets to prove He knows the outcome of our freewill.
Why work if one's income was decreed at birth? You can argue that our actions nullify decrees but God willed the system.
God foresaw every choice that every one of His creations would ever make and directly willed them by creating us likewise.
God created us good and evil alike and concealed our faith from us with a barrier called time.
Every choice that we will ever make is part of a long chemical reaction including the chemistry behind choice itself.
One's reaction to this post also have to do with simpler things such as ego and beliefs which are part of an even longer chain that ultimately start with God.
I'd conclude that freewill is irrelevant in contrast with destiny because we are His puppets every step of the way and our faith is beyond time so we cannot change it."
dont you realize that it is entirely pointless to determine if fate exists? even if fate does exist that really doesnt change anything. We can never "change" fate.
It depends on your outlook. For me it is never 'pointless' to know something. The point is knowing. There may be no practical use for the knowledge but, for me, there does not have to be.
Bikerman, if you value knowledge, perhaps you should visit here (click on Absolute Truth Exists). | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Bikerman, if you value knowledge, perhaps you should visit here (click on Absolute Truth Exists). |
That's not knowledge, it's a semantic game, nothing more. | Bikerman wrote: |
PS On reflection this is an interesting semantic matter. Random is generally used to mean having no specific pattern, or | Quote: | | relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely |
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not using a dictionary definition to prove a point, that way lies madness. It is, however, interesting that there is no word I can think of that applies to a weighted outcome. Take the example of the coin toss. In an ideal situation the outcome would be 50-50. We could, however, weight the coin in such a way that the outcome was, say, 70-30 or 90-10. In both cases the outcome of a toss would be random but clearly in the second case you would know more about the scenario by knowing that the coin was weighted and would be able to predict the outcome of a toss with a greater than 50% accuracy. |
It's true that laypeople generally use random with the understanding that it means "all possible outcomes are equally probable", but that is not correct. Even if I were to take a fair six-sided die, the probability of an outcome >1 is not equal to the probability of an outcome <=1. Or, maybe you don't like that wording? Maybe you would prefer if i had said the probability of an even number vs. the the probability of an odd number are equal, so you have a "random" chance of getting an even number? All true... if it's a six-sided die and not a five- or seven- sided one. But does changing the number of sides and nothing else suddenly make it non-random?
i contend that you are misstating what you say about the weighted coin. i say that you have exactly the same amount of information whether the coin is weighted or fair. The only difference if if the coin is weighted 90-10, you can use that information better... but only for your particular goal (betting on a single toss). In another situation, that information may provide no help at all (for example, if you are asked to guess at the number of heads in a million tosses).
i've never been a big fan of mathematical terminology - believe it or not, there is actually a point where i think you can get too precise - so i can't say off the bat what the correct term for a situation where every result is equally likely. i imagine there must be a name for it, because it certainly simplifies the math.
But the outcome of a 90-10 split is just as random as the outcome of a 50-50. Sure, the odds are better if you're betting on a single toss in the first case, but other than that... there's no difference. In both cases you cannot determine the outcome beforehand, you can only lay odds. 90% is better odds than 50%, but it's still odds.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Just to clarify
| Indi wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | And just to make clear the whole free will debate can be understood by people differenly:
| Quote: | In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.
In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought. |
|
You are misunderstanding that quote. |
eeeh what???? I just gave the quote I said nothing about it. How on earth would you know I understand it or nor, I just gave it. I just chucked it in on the end of my post. |
i am not going to comment on the irresponsibility of "just chucking" stuff into a post without understanding it. What i am going to say is: on the contrary, you did say something about it. You said: "And just to make clear the whole free will debate can be understood by people differenly." and then you offered that quote.
Well, despite what you said, that quote does not make clear that different people "understand" the debate different. That quote says exactly the same thing i say, only from a different direction, and not as completely. That quote says "if free will exists, determinism does not", etc. i say "if determinism exists, free will does not". There is no difference of opinion. i just go a step further and say that even if determinism does not exist, free will still can't.
That quote is not evidence of people "understanding" the debate differently, as you implied it was. Hence, i say you misunderstood it.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Further I want to say that I looked at it in a philosophical way and you then everything more from a mathematical way. |
Philosophy is logic. So is math. Most of the greatest philosophers were mathematicians. Get used to it.
You seem to believe as many people do that philosophy is just a bunch of big heads sitting around saying whatever they feel like saying. It's not. Every philosophical argument is rigorously backed up... with mathematical rigour. That's how philosophy works.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Firstly I don't believe that everything is random because if I let go (and also everyone else on this planet) of something it won't "fall up". It always randomly falls down. ( Always and random (in this way) don't fit together). |
Always is not the opposite of random. Besides, how can you be sure it always falls down? Have you dropped things a million times? A trillion? A googolplex? It only takes one failure to be random. The entire lifetime of humanity of Earth has only a been a blip in the life of the universe. If it happens rarely enough, you can hardly say that it is impossible simple because you haven't seen it yet. (And, incidentally, according to modern physics... it is possible - not probable, but possible - for something to go up when you drop it. It's even possible that when you drop a rock, it turns into a piece of cheese on your breakfast table the next morning - not probable, but possible. Quantum mechanics is a weird place.)
Anyway, you're still using "random" badly. Random does not mean that anything can happen, or that anything that can happen is equally likely. As you say, it always (as far as you have seen) randomly falls down. There's nothing strange there.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
Let's say that the universe is entirely determined.
If the universe is 100% determined it could be either by some sort of god or spiritual power who/witch steers everything.
Or by laws that have determined where every molecule photon etc. will fly for eternity.
But up till now no one found a real answer for the half life of isotopes. If you have 1 molecuul of uramium you don't know when it will fall apart, it could be now our after a million years, if the universe is so determined how do you explain this? Since all atoms are the same. (At least as far as we know). |
Your logic is flawed - just because we don't know how to calculate when an atom will decay today, that does not mean that it is not determined. We may figure out the law that determines the decay of an atom tomorrow.
However, according to our current science, the universe is not determined... so i don't really see what your point is?
| videoguy wrote: |
| dont you realize that it is entirely pointless to determine if fate exists? even if fate does exist that really doesnt change anything. We can never "change" fate. |
Pointless? Are you ok with punishing people that were forced to commit a crime? Don't you want to know whether it is just to blame someone for their sins? Don't you care about any of those things, or about the possibility of true freedom and self-determination? And if fate does exist, whether we're truly powerless to change it or not? And if not, at least know what it is so we can enjoy what life we have without living in fear of possibilities that can never happen (for example, if you're fated to die of old age, why not go base jumping)?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | Bikerman, if you value knowledge, perhaps you should visit here (click on Absolute Truth Exists). |
That's not knowledge, it's a semantic game, nothing more. |
That's not even a semantic game. ^_^; That's just stupidity hiding behind verbosity.
Did you see the conclusion? "The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything."
The irony of this conclusion is completely lost on the website's creator. ^_^; | Indi wrote: |
| i contend that you are misstating what you say about the weighted coin. i say that you have exactly the same amount of information whether the coin is weighted or fair. The only difference if if the coin is weighted 90-10, you can use that information better... but only for your particular goal (betting on a single toss). In another situation, that information may provide no help at all (for example, if you are asked to guess at the number of heads in a million tosses). |
Yes, once again, on reflection, I did indeed mis-state. There is no extra information contained in the weighted situation since it is just one of an infinite number of possible cases (.90-.10, .95-.05 etc) and each one contains the same amount of information.
Well - that's one deep seated misconception cleared out of the old bonce...it's always good to learn
dude why are you hammering on the quote:
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
And just to make clear the whole free will debate can be understood by people differenly:
| Quote: | In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.
In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought. |
|
Someone can say I think that peps are morally accountable for what they do, like every law system in the world does.
And in the other that everything is determined.
So what didn't I understand. But that's beside the whole argument. Lets just pretend I never said that. Okay?
| Indi wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Firstly I don't believe that everything is random because if I let go (and also everyone else on this planet) of something it won't "fall up". It always randomly falls down. ( Always and random (in this way) don't fit together). |
Always is not the opposite of random. Besides, how can you be sure it always falls down? Have you dropped things a million times? A trillion? A googolplex? It only takes one failure to be random. The entire lifetime of humanity of Earth has only a been a blip in the life of the universe. If it happens rarely enough, you can hardly say that it is impossible simple because you haven't seen it yet. (And, incidentally, according to modern physics... it is possible - not probable, but possible - for something to go up when you drop it. It's even possible that when you drop a rock, it turns into a piece of cheese on your breakfast table the next morning - not probable, but possible. Quantum mechanics is a weird place.) |
Wel I haven't tried that but I do believe that if I would do that little experiment a googolplex number of times it would always fall down. If you believe something could fall up try it yourself (I got enough things to do).
For example, I believe that that if you have 2 masses there will be a gravitational force witch (tries) to pull them together. Since no one has proven otherwise.
And I never said they were opposites I just made a little joke.
| Indi wrote: |
| Anyway, you're still using "random" badly. Random does not mean that anything can happen, or that anything that can happen is equally likely. As you say, it always (as far as you have seen) randomly falls down. There's nothing strange there. |
I never even said that, at least not intentionally and like that. Maybe whatever i said can be interpretered in more than one way.
| Indi wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | Let's say that the universe is entirely determined.
If the universe is 100% determined it could be either by some sort of god or spiritual power who/witch steers everything.
Or by laws that have determined where every molecule photon etc. will fly for eternity.
But up till now no one found a real answer for the half life of isotopes. If you have 1 molecuul of uramium you don't know when it will fall apart, it could be now our after a million years, if the universe is so determined how do you explain this? Since all atoms are the same. (At least as far as we know). |
Your logic is flawed - just because we don't know how to calculate when an atom will decay today, that does not mean that it is not determined. We may figure out the law that determines the decay of an atom tomorrow.
However, according to our current science, the universe is not determined... so i don't really see what your point is? |
Well if you invent something wich can show when idividual particals will fall apart. But some people say it is impossible and some don't.
Well my point is to point out that I don't believe the universe is entirely random nor is it completely determined. And I said that because if I said that according to our current science, the universe is not determined. Some one would ask me to prove it, show an link or whatever. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | i contend that you are misstating what you say about the weighted coin. i say that you have exactly the same amount of information whether the coin is weighted or fair. The only difference if if the coin is weighted 90-10, you can use that information better... but only for your particular goal (betting on a single toss). In another situation, that information may provide no help at all (for example, if you are asked to guess at the number of heads in a million tosses). |
Yes, once again, on reflection, I did indeed mis-state. There is no extra information contained in the weighted situation since it is just one of an infinite number of possible cases (.90-.10, .95-.05 etc) and each one contains the same amount of information.
Well - that's one deep seated misconception cleared out of the old bonce...it's always good to learn
|
Just a quickie note:
i'm guilty, too - i don't really bother to remember the precise terminology, and do occasionally use "random" to mean specifically events with equal probabilities. i even did it in this thread (and when cornered, i used the phrase "totally random").
i swallowed my pride and my good sense, grit my teeth... and actually went and talked to a mathematician about this....
... luckily i came out alive. -_-
The name of a random variable where every possibility is equally probably is a uniformly distributed random variable. The possible results on a fair die are random, but uniformly distributed. The possible results on a loaded die are random, but non-uniformly distributed. | Indi wrote: |
| The name of a random variable where every possibility is equally probably is a uniformly distributed random variable. The possible results on a fair die are random, but uniformly distributed. The possible results on a loaded die are random, but non-uniformly distributed. |
Ahh...another thing learned. Shame it's not a bit more 'snappy' but that will do nicely sir.
Careful with those Mathematicians though...that's a very slippery negative gradient | Indi wrote: |
| smarter wrote: | Using logic there are 3 possible types of universes:
1) a universe with laws for everything: everything can be predicted to the last detail, all is fully determined, no departure from the "script" => a DETERMINED universe
2) a universe with no laws: one totally random, everything is a wild guess: from an urn with 1 white ball and 1 black ball you will extract a pink cube => a RANDOM universe
3) a universe with some laws but not for all things: some things can be determined, some partially random, but no purely random things (1 law is enough to remove complete randomness but some degrees of randomness are still present), that is no pink cube!
You claim that type 2 and type 3 are the same! |
No, i don't claim that 2 and 3 are "the same". i claim that they are both non-deterministic, or in other words, random.
i'll show you. Let's start at A and go to B in the three different types of universes you describe. Every green arrow is a deterministic step, every red is a stochastic step.
1) A → → → → → B : Result - determined (probability of specific B is 1)
2) A → → → → → B : Result - random (probability of specific B is the product of all probabilities, and is between zero and one)
3) A → → → → → B : Result - random (probability of specific B is the product of all probabilities - in this case, there's only the one - and is between zero and one).
In universe 1, A is the direct and only cause of B. In universes 2 and 3, A may influence B, but whether or not B happens is random.
In this case, A is the "will" to do a thing, and B is the thing. i hope it's clear now that in a non-deterministic universe - whether it's totally random or only partially does not matter - whether or not B will happen is not a function of A, it is a random outcome.
|
You don't understand universe 3! You confuse one thing in the universe (in our case the free will) with the whole universe!
Then you confuse free will (the way) with the initial state (the starting point).
A is not the will it's the initial state!
B is the result/final outcome!
Part of the path (both green and red arrows) represents the FREE WILL!
That means the FREE WILL is not absolute (it is "free" between some LIMITS).
Whether it is the a) OR b) scenario depends on A AND B:
3a) the "random" part affects the outcome
A → → C→D → → B : Result - random!
3b) the random part DOESN'T affect the final outcome (all outcomes of the random part lead to B)
A → → C→D → → B : Result - determined!
A → → C→E → → B : Result - determined!
Therefore in the 3a) case the free will is manifested! | smarter wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
| smarter wrote: | Using logic there are 3 possible types of universes:
1) a universe with laws for everything: everything can be predicted to the last detail, all is fully determined, no departure from the "script" => a DETERMINED universe
2) a universe with no laws: one totally random, everything is a wild guess: from an urn with 1 white ball and 1 black ball you will extract a pink cube => a RANDOM universe
3) a universe with some laws but not for all things: some things can be determined, some partially random, but no purely random things (1 law is enough to remove complete randomness but some degrees of randomness are still present), that is no pink cube!
You claim that type 2 and type 3 are the same! |
No, i don't claim that 2 and 3 are "the same". i claim that they are both non-deterministic, or in other words, random.
i'll show you. Let's start at A and go to B in the three different types of universes you describe. Every green arrow is a deterministic step, every red is a stochastic step.
1) A → → → → → B : Result - determined (probability of specific B is 1)
2) A → → → → → B : Result - random (probability of specific B is the product of all probabilities, and is between zero and one)
3) A → → → → → B : Result - random (probability of specific B is the product of all probabilities - in this case, there's only the one - and is between zero and one).
In universe 1, A is the direct and only cause of B. In universes 2 and 3, A may influence B, but whether or not B happens is random.
In this case, A is the "will" to do a thing, and B is the thing. i hope it's clear now that in a non-deterministic universe - whether it's totally random or only partially does not matter - whether or not B will happen is not a function of A, it is a random outcome.
|
You don't understand universe 3! You confuse one thing in the universe (in our case the free will) with the whole universe!
Then you confuse free will (the way) with the initial state (the starting point).
A is not the will it's the initial state!
B is the result/final outcome!
Part of the path (both green and red arrows) represents the FREE WILL!
That means the FREE WILL is not absolute (it is "free" between some LIMITS).
Whether it is the a) OR b) scenario depends on A AND B:
3a) the "random" part affects the outcome
A → → C→D → → B : Result - random!
3b) the random part DOESN'T affect the final outcome (all outcomes of the random part lead to B)
A → → C→D → → B : Result - determined!
A → → C→E → → B : Result - determined!
Therefore in the 3a) case the free will is manifested! |
i have no idea what you are talking about. ^_^; Where did C, D and E come from? And if the random part doesn't determine the outcome, then why did you include it?A, B, C, D, E, ... are states of the universe.
The arrows are changes from one state to another.
In a universe of type 3 (defined in a previous post) some changes are deterministic, some are not.
Free will can only occur when we have at least one non-deterministic change between the first state (A) and the last state (B). In the example the change after state C is non-deterministic. The next state can be D, E, etc. The point is sometimes it doesn't matter because the last state (B) is still the same (that means there's no free will), but other times the last state in the chain can't be determined. Both situations occur in this type of universe.
My point is there is free will but it is (severely) limited by the deterministic laws of the universe. Sometimes you have a choice.
| smarter wrote: |
A, B, C, D, E, ... are states of the universe.
The arrows are changes from one state to another.
In a universe of type 3 (defined in a previous post) some changes are deterministic, some are not.
Free will can only occur when we have at least one non-deterministic change between the first state (A) and the last state (B). In the example the change after state C is non-deterministic. The next state can be D, E, etc. The point is sometimes it doesn't matter because the last state (B) is still the same (that means there's no free will), but other times the last state in the chain can't be determined. Both situations occur in this type of universe.
My point is there is free will but it is (severely) limited by the deterministic laws of the universe. Sometimes you have a choice. |
You've lost me here. Why would both D and E (different) states then reconverge to the same final state? Unless, of course, you assume that all previous states are irrelevant and that B will be the outcome whatever happens...
Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:24 pm; edited 1 time in total | smarter wrote: |
A, B, C, D, E, ... are states of the universe.
The arrows are changes from one state to another.
In a universe of type 3 (defined in a previous post) some changes are deterministic, some are not.
Free will can only occur when we have at least one non-deterministic change between the first state (A) and the last state (B). In the example the change after state C is non-deterministic. The next state can be D, E, etc. The point is sometimes it doesn't matter because the last state (B) is still the same (that means there's no free will), but other times the last state in the chain can't be determined. Both situations occur in this type of universe.
My point is there is free will but it is (severely) limited by the deterministic laws of the universe. Sometimes you have a choice. |
Well, alright, it sounds like you're throwing too many ideas in at once.
First, let's get rid of this:
| smarter wrote: |
3b) the random part DOESN'T affect the final outcome (all outcomes of the random part lead to B)
A → → C→D → → B : Result - determined!
A → → C→E → → B : Result - determined! |
No.
The result is not determined, it is still non-determined. It just so happens that all of the random possibilities give the same result. That doesn't suddenly make it determined. If it was determined, there would not be two paths to the result, there would only be one.
Don't believe me? Well, think of it like this. Pretend that our universe is not determined. Pretend that random things happen all the time. i can turn left, or i can turn right, and there is no way to predict which - it's totally random.
Now, no matter which way i choose to go... the universe will end in a few trillion years.
So! Our map looks like this:
A → → C→D → → B
A → → C→E → → B
where:
A: The big bang
B: The end of the universe
C: Indi coming to an intersection
D: Indi turning left
E: Indi turning right
No matter what i do, B will happen. Does that mean B is determined? No. It means B is inevitable, but not determined. If something is determined it is inevitable. If something is inevitable is might be determined, but it does not have to be.
If something is determined:
- It will happen.
- It will happen exactly one way. (For example, you will die, but because there are a number of possible ways you could die, it is not determined. A die will roll a number between 1 and 6, but it is certainly not determined, it is purely and totally random (assuming its fair) how it will roll that 6.)
That example above fails because B can happen more than one way - it can happen via D, or it can happen via E. So it is not determined.
Using the illustration, this:
A → → C→D → → B
A → → C→E → → B
is really just this:
A → → → → → B-via-D
A → → → → → B-via-E
To say it again, clearly: if any step of a process is random - even if it is just one step, and even if all outcomes of that random effect give the same end result - then that process is not a deterministic process.
----------------------------------
Anyway, all of that is just mathematical nitpicking that does not effect the free will question. You, i believe, claim that free will exists in this case:
A → B → C → D
For example:
(see money) → (want money) → (choose to steal money) → (steal money)
Now, because the second step is stochastic - wanting the money does not cause you to steal it - you claim free will has intervened.
Sorry, no.
Let me show you why not. Suppose i asked: why did you choose to steal the money? The answer is... it was a fluke. You had no control over it. You could have just as easily flipped the other way and chosen not to steal the money. Nothing about your character, your desires, or anything about you at all made you choose to steal the money. It was totally random (hence, the red arrow).
Where is free will in that? You didn't freely will anything. You were just on one side of a coin flip. To put it another way, suppose you were a mindless robot with no free will at all, and you saw the money, desired the money (because you have been programmed to believe that money is good), and then flipped a coin - heads you steal it, tails you leave it. Where is the free will in that? But it is exactly the same as the case with you, who supposedly has free will, in that case described.
At this point, you're in trouble (and you're not alone - Einstein got stuck here and agonized over it for most of his later life). You say, ok, well this makes no sense for my choice to be totally random, and not be caused by my desires or character. Therefore, it can't be stochastic, it has to be deterministic, determined by my personality. But... you already know a deterministic situation doesn't allow free will either.
So, determined doesn't work, random doesn't work... thus, no free will. It doesn't exist.What do I read here ??? | Bikerman wrote: |
| Why concentrate on 'chemistry'? Ultimately chemistry is just quantum physics with a few shortcuts thrown in |
Actually, without chemistry many of the predictions from the quantum theory cannot be proven experimentally. It's just a worthless theory then. I can think of any wavefunction I want and run operators on them - have a math party. But in quantum chemistry, it's the hydrogen atom that gets focus. Why - because the model describes a real system. Without practical chemistry, the hydrogen atom psi would be as meaningless as any random function.
| Quote: |
| (Paraphrased from the late great Dr Feynman). |
Not paraphrased from Erwin Schrödinger, about quantum mechanics:
I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.
Which brings me to question... whoever seriously solved a Schrödinger equation before, raise your hand?
Last edited by Arnie on Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:58 pm; edited 1 time in total | Arnie wrote: |
What do I read here ??? | Bikerman wrote: | | Why concentrate on 'chemistry'? Ultimately chemistry is just quantum physics with a few shortcuts thrown in |
Actually, without chemistry many of the predictions from the quantum theory cannot be proven experimentally. It's just a worthless theory then. I can think of any wavefunction I want and run operators on them - have a math party. But in quantum chemistry, it's the hydrogen atom that gets focus. Why - because the model describes a real system. Without practical chemistry, the hydrogen atom psi would be as meaningless as any random function. |
Fair point, but the fact remains that quantum theory is the 'fundamental' theory and chemistry 'merely' provides one method to validate the theory. By that I mean that observations in chemistry are all explained by quantum theory. (I didn't mean to belittle chemistry or the study of it).
| Quote: |
| Now for a little test: whoever solved a Schrödinger equation before, raise your hand. |
Nope....my math is not up to the task.There's nothing absolutely fundamental about quantum mechanics. As long as it covers the experimental data it will last, but as soon as a better theory is found QM will either be rejected or incorporated. Chemistry is a lot more lasting; obviously you're better off being a chemist when job security is concerned!
On a more serious note, for systems with more than 1 electron QM cannot provide exact solutions to the Schr. equation and thus only give expected values for the energy. They usually match experimental data, but a lot of approximation is involved.
And you should give me a little more time to edit my posts as I'm accustomed to 
Last edited by Arnie on Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:08 am; edited 1 time in total My choice of words was ambiguous. I meant that quantum theory is the fundamental theory of chemistry at the moment. It may, of course, change, but whatever replacement came along would then be the fundamental theory. Experimental chemistry will then provide the evidence for the new theory as it currently does for quantum theory and the new theory will stand or fall by experimental evidence.
The question arises, however, is there any prediction or observation from chemistry that is not explained by QM?
I'm not sure about that. It's interesting though, if I remember I'll ask our eccentric quantum chem. prof (see photo) tomorrow at the quantum chem. lecture... that will keep us busy for another 30 minutes.
But my gut feeling tells me there will surely be cases where the supercomputer spits out weird stuff. Well, I'll be most interested to hear what the prof has to say.
| Arnie wrote: |
| Which brings me to question... whoever seriously solved a Schrödinger equation before, raise your hand? |
i'd raise my hand, because i have solved the Schrödinger equation for several different potentials. However, i was giggling like a school girl as i did it, so i don't know if it can be called "serious".
-----------------
Anyway, i think you have a peculiar definition of "fundamental". Quantum mechanics is certainly more fundamental than chemistry, because all of chemistry can be explained in terms of quantum mechanics - even if we can't solve for exact solutions due to the complexity of the math, we can solve numerically in many cases - but none of quantum mechanics can be explained in terms of chemistry.
What you are describing - using chemistry knowledge to support quantum mechanics - has nothing to do with which is more fundamental. In fact, QM is. Experimenters use QM to predict the chemistry behaviours, then observe them. If they match expectations, that provides support for QM. It doesn't make chemistry the basis for QM. | Indi wrote: |
| The result is not determined, it is still non-determined. It just so happens that all of the random possibilities give the same result. |
LOL... complete nonsense!
| Quote: |
That doesn't suddenly make it determined. If it was determined, there would not be two paths to the result, there would only be one. |
Forced to repeat myself: you confuse different notions. This time you confuse the result with the chain of events that lead to it (path).
| Quote: |
Don't believe me? Well, think of it like this. Pretend that our universe is not determined. Pretend that random things happen all the time. i can turn left, or i can turn right, and there is no way to predict which - it's totally random.
Now, no matter which way i choose to go... the universe will end in a few trillion years.
So! Our map looks like this:
A → → C→D → → B
A → → C→E → → B
where:
A: The big bang
B: The end of the universe
C: Indi coming to an intersection
D: Indi turning left
E: Indi turning right
No matter what i do, B will happen. Does that mean B is determined? No. It means B is inevitable, but not determined. If something is determined it is inevitable. If something is inevitable is might be determined, but it does not have to be.
If something is determined:
- It will happen.
- It will happen exactly one way. (For example, you will die, but because there are a number of possible ways you could die, it is not determined. A die will roll a number between 1 and 6, but it is certainly not determined, it is purely and totally random (assuming its fair) how it will roll that 6.)
That example above fails because B can happen more than one way - it can happen via D, or it can happen via E. So it is not determined.
Using the illustration, this:
A → → C→D → → B
A → → C→E → → B
is really just this:
A → → → → → B-via-D
A → → → → → B-via-E
To say it again, clearly: if any step of a process is random - even if it is just one step, and even if all outcomes of that random effect give the same end result - then that process is not a deterministic process.
|
Pure nonsense! "B-via-D" and "B-via-E" are still the same result: B.
Being known as the exact result, evidently B is determinable!Ooops...you are quite wrong. I'll leave Indi to reply in detail but here's a definition for you
| Quote: |
| A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. |
Since you have a random process which leads to either D or E then the system is not deterministic, even though the final outcome (B) is predictable or even inevitable. | smarter wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | The result is not determined, it is still non-determined. It just so happens that all of the random possibilities give the same result. |
LOL... complete nonsense! |
If you say so.
| smarter wrote: |
| Quote: |
That doesn't suddenly make it determined. If it was determined, there would not be two paths to the result, there would only be one. |
Forced to repeat myself: you confuse different notions. This time you confuse the result with the chain of events that lead to it (path). |
i confuse nothing. i said it quite clearly. In a determined system there is - by definition - one and only one path to the one and only result state. In a non-determined system there may be more than one path and/or more than one result. So a system with more than one path but only one result is - by definition... mathematical and philosophical definition, however much you refuse to accept it - not determined.
| smarter wrote: |
Pure nonsense! "B-via-D" and "B-via-E" are still the same result: B.
Being known as the exact result, evidently B is determinable! |
Is that so?
You agree that a fair die is a totally non-deterministic system, right (ignoring the fact that the result is determined by physics)? If i roll a die, i can get one of six results:
R → 1
R → 2
R → 3
R → 4
R → 5
R → 6
So you agree that a die is not a deterministic system, i hope.
Now, what if i said i wanted a result state B where the result is a whole number. Now look what happens:
R → 1 → B
R → 2 → B
R → 3 → B
R → 4 → B
R → 5 → B
R → 6 → B
What happened? Did our non-deterministic die suddenly become deterministic?
Let's make it real. According to quantum mechanics, the universe is non-deterministic - we cannot determine any events that are at the subatomic level, and even some at the macroscopic level (like radioactive decay or tunnelling in a modern computer processor). No problems so far. However... the universe will end some day, let's say by heat death. No matter what happens to a decaying atom today, the universe will end the same way... so by your argument that would make the universe determined. But... didn't we just say the universe was not-determined? It's your paradox, you solve it. ^_^;Well, I asked the professor today (forgot about it last week) and he said the last time that a quantumchemical calculation didn't match experimental values was 30 years ago, when Polish scientists found a different energy value for H2 than expertiments determined. The practical experiment was performed again and it turned out that the former experiment was wrong.
However, he continued, for larger elements relativistic effects make QM calculations less accurate (as they generally cannot be included). There are also thermodynamical effects (entropy etc.) governing chemical reactions. | Indi wrote: |
| all of chemistry can be explained in terms of quantum mechanics |
So no, it cannot. | Arnie wrote: |
Well, I asked the professor today (forgot about it last week) and he said the last time that a quantumchemical calculation didn't match experimental values was 30 years ago, when Polish scientists found a different energy value for H2 than expertiments determined. The practical experiment was performed again and it turned out that the former experiment was wrong.
However, he continued, for larger elements relativistic effects make QM calculations less accurate (as they generally cannot be included). There are also thermodynamical effects (entropy etc.) governing chemical reactions. | Indi wrote: | | all of chemistry can be explained in terms of quantum mechanics |
So no, it cannot. |
You are taking that quote out of context. It was in answer to the question of whether chemistry is more fundamental than QM. Obviously QM can't explain everything because QM itself is an incomplete theory. But - and you pointed this out yourself - everything in chemistry can be explained by quantum mechanics within the limitations of QM theory (incidentally, entropy - all of thermodynamics - is well-explained by QM... only general relativity does not jive with QM). Nothing in QM depends on chemistry. Therefore QM is more fundamental.
That was the only issue being discussed there, nothing more. | videoguy wrote: |
| Quote: | we cannot override G-d's influence, we are a falling rock that cannot escape the gravitational pull of God's chemistry.
He even goes a step further and gives us prophets to prove He knows the outcome of our freewill.
Why work if one's income was decreed at birth? You can argue that our actions nullify decrees but God willed the system.
God foresaw every choice that every one of His creations would ever make and directly willed them by creating us likewise.
God created us good and evil alike and concealed our faith from us with a barrier called time.
Every choice that we will ever make is part of a long chemical reaction including the chemistry behind choice itself.
One's reaction to this post also have to do with simpler things such as ego and beliefs which are part of an even longer chain that ultimately start with God.
I'd conclude that freewill is irrelevant in contrast with destiny because we are His puppets every step of the way and our faith is beyond time so we cannot change it. |
dont you realize that it is entirely pointless to determine if fate exists? even if fate does exist that really doesnt change anything. We can never "change" fate. |
Precisely!
We cannot change fate.
Fate and freewill contrast each other like two sides of a coin:
From God's perspective: Our freewill is nothing but determinism following the rules He set.
From our perspective: Freewill gives us the power to write the future.
Of coarse our freewill comes with limits to our influence on the world. Astrology seems to play a big role in this area. Then karma is the other factor and how others react to our deeds.
Last edited by Aredon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:17 pm; edited 3 times in total | Aredon wrote: |
| Of coarse our freewill comes with limits to our influence on the world. Astrology seems to play a big role in this area. Then karma is the other factor and how others react to our deeds. |
Astrology? LOL.
http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/AstroSkc.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/17/nstars17.xml@Indi: I'm not taking that quote out of context, because if you were solely intending to show that QM is more fundamental there wouldn't be a need to say "quantum mechanics is certainly more fundamental than chemistry, because all of chemistry can be explained in terms of quantum mechanics". That's clearly a statement of itself. "Much of" would have been a lot better.
Anyway, enough of the off-topic. In practice, QM plays an important role in chemistry but (thankfully) not a dominant one. That's what I was trying to make clear.
Last edited by Arnie on Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
Astrology has an influence on us but is prone to error in predicting the future since the future takes into account our deeds as heavenly decrees override the influence of the stars hence why my sentence also included karma. Even if we fail miserably in astrology, they still have an influence on us. | Aredon wrote: |
| Astrology has an influence on us but is prone to error in predicting the future since the future takes into account our deeds as heavenly decrees override the influence of the stars hence why my sentence also included karma. Even if we fail miserably in astrology, they still have an influence on us. |
And you know this because? Ahhh...because you believe it. The fact that there is no evidence to show that it has any predictive powers at all doesn't matter because you believe it. The fact that repeated studies show that it is no better than plain guessing doesn't matter because you believe it.
Well OK, if you want to put Astrology in the same category as religion (ie a matter of faith) then fine. The fact is, however, that most Astrologers make claims about being actually able to do something useful - like predict the future. Those claims are bogus, as has been repeatedly demonstrated. If you want to believe that the stars and planets influence your life, but that any predictions you make from those same stars and planets are actually no better than sticking a pin in a list, then go ahead - fill your boots.
Seems a pretty useless belief to me, but I don't believe it, so maybe I'm missing something.
Reminds me a bit of the story of the Yorkshire man who spent his days stamping his foot on the ground. When asked why he did this he replied
"to scare away Elephants."
When it was pointed out that there are no wild Elephants in the UK his reply ?
"See...it works!" | Bikerman wrote: |
| Aredon wrote: | | Astrology has an influence on us but is prone to error in predicting the future since the future takes into account our deeds as heavenly decrees override the influence of the stars hence why my sentence also included karma. Even if we fail miserably in astrology, they still have an influence on us. |
And you know this because? Ahhh...because you believe it. The fact that there is no evidence to show that it has any predictive powers at all doesn't matter because you believe it. The fact that repeated studies show that it is no better than plain guessing doesn't matter because you believe it.
Well OK, if you want to put Astrology in the same category as religion (ie a matter of faith) then fine. The fact is, however, that most Astrologers make claims about being actually able to do something useful - like predict the future. Those claims are bogus, as has been repeatedly demonstrated. If you want to believe that the stars and planets influence your life, but that any predictions you make from those same stars and planets are actually no better than sticking a pin in a list, then go ahead - fill your boots.
Seems a pretty useless belief to me, but I don't believe it, so maybe I'm missing something.
Reminds me a bit of the story of the Yorkshire man who spent his days stamping his foot on the ground. When asked why he did this he replied
"to scare away Elephants."
When it was pointed out that there are no wild Elephants in the UK his reply ?
"See...it works!" |
Kabbalah finds its way into many religions and goes into depth explaining how astrology influences us and how much it influences us. Just because science lingers behind doesn't disprove it either. The stars aren't the only thing that influence the future so we cannot predict the future accurately with only the stars since they have only so much influence. Our freewill also has limited influence otherwise one could predict the future by one's freewill. (i.e. the first person desiring to kill everyone else in the world would be successful.) The stars impact our personality and freewill while our deeds impact how if it will influence us - good or evil.
Qi(pronounced chi) in Chinese medicine is another concept not accepted by western society, yet.
Acupuncturists have finally found acceptance in western society by healing patient after patient although their concepts have not.
Last edited by Aredon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:52 pm; edited 1 time in total | Aredon wrote: |
| Kabbalah finds it's way into many religions and goes into depth how astrology influences us and how much it influences us. Just because science lingers behind doesn't disprove it either. |
If it can say how it influences us, and how much, then it can be tested can't it? So why not tell us how it influences us, and then we can setup a test? Of course you can't, because Kabbalah is a religion and cannot make any useful predictions in that way. If Kabbalah can say anything useful about astrology then it can be tested. If it can't, then why believe it? It's useless.
Science proves that astrologers are frauds. That doesn't mean that astrology doesn't work but it does mean that the people practicing it have never managed to demonstrate that it does anything at all. Science is not lagging behind Astrology - it's left it WAY behind.
| Quote: |
| The stars aren't the only thing that influence the future so we cannot predict the future accurately with only the stars since they have only so much influence. Our freewill also has limited influence otherwise the first person desiring to kill everyone else in the world would be successful. That is where the stars have influence on the future. |
This is a nonsense argument. The fact is that it is impossible for a single person to kill everyone in the world - it is nothing to do with freewill, it is simply a physical limitation. If the US President went bonkers he could (if he willed it) kill a good proportion of people, but not everyone (probably). It has nothing to do with the stars and everything to do with the amount of available firepower.
| Quote: |
Qi(pronounced chi) in Chinese medicine is another concept not accepted by western society, yet.
Acupuncturists have finally found acceptance in western society by healing patient after patient although their concepts have not. |
Quite right. Chi is not generally accepted in the West. Why? Because there is no good evidence for it.
Acupuncture certainly 'works'. We know that because studies have shown that it has an effect - that's how we tell. That does not mean that Chi exists. There are several possible explanations for acupuncture - placebo effect (and possibly pain-receptor path blocking) being the most likely IMHO.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7011738.stm
That does not compare with Astrology since many studies into Astrology have shown that it does NOT work.
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:31 pm; edited 7 times in totalAcupuncturists have found acceptance? Well, not with me for sure. On the contrary, I don't like them.
| Quote: |
| Science proves that astrologers are frauds. That doesn't mean that astrology doesn't work but it does mean that the people practicing it have never managed to demonstrate that it does anything at all. |
The "astrologers" might have been frauds or they might have been presenting the wrong "argument" to prove astrology.
In fact astrology has been put on debate in a court room by western society in the past.
The astrologer was given information on a sheet of paper and the astrologer predicted his or her cause of death.
The judge told him that the person was related to him and the astrologer was correct.
That is how astrology made it's was to your local bookstore in the first place.
I saw it on the history channel, I don't remember the names. If sounds like it's worth researching, although besides the point.
If one person in every thousand is a pure saint, thus the stars have absolutely no influence on him, he would seem to counter astrology. On the contrary, astrology would contradict freewill if it's influence couldn't be overridden.
| Quote: |
| Science is not lagging behind Astrology - it's left it WAY behind. |
Science lingers behind because it is skeptic of ancient cultures. Chronic illness e.g. western society has no cure for. The Chinese use arts like Qigong and tai chi to overcome chronic illness as well as to strengthen the meridians and reduce qi stagnation and strengthen targeted organs. Astrology is a great way to come to knowledge of oneself, that is what it is best at. The future takes into account too many factors for man to be able to prognosticate without divine assistance.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | The stars aren't the only thing that influence the future so we cannot predict the future accurately with only the stars since they have only so much influence. Our freewill also has limited influence otherwise the first person desiring to kill everyone else in the world would be successful. That is where the stars have influence on the future. |
This is a nonsense argument. The fact is that it is impossible for a single person to kill everyone in the world - it is nothing to do with freewill, it is simply a physical limitation. If the US President went bonkers he could (if he willed it) kill a good proportion of people, but not everyone (probably). |
You are taking the stars' influence for granted so it isn't a nonsense argument. If our influence on the world wasn't limited by the stars' influence that scenario would be possible. It is like comparing the free will of two flies fighting to the freewill of two enemies that got their hands onto some tanks fighting. The stars' influence the "power" entrusted to us so we don't engulf each other in an instant. | Aredon wrote: |
| The "astrologers" might have been frauds or they might have been presenting the wrong "argument" to prove astrology. |
No - they were frauds. They made claims that they could not substantiate. If all the astrologers tested were frauds (which they were) then it is pretty reasonable to assume that astrology itself is a fraud since nobody can demonstrate that it works. All that supporters of astrology have to do is find one single astrologer who can do it properly and let him/her be tested. Hasn't happened.
| Quote: |
In fact astrology has been put on debate in a court room by western society in the past.
The astrologer was given information on a sheet of paper and the astrologer predicted his or her cause of death.
The judge told him that the person was related to him and the astrologer was correct.
That is how astrology made it's was to your local bookstore in the first place.
I saw it on the history channel, I don't remember the names. If sounds like it's worth researching... |
It's not really worth my time since I'm quite happy with the results of the extensive and long-running surveys outlined in the links already provided. If you want to provide a link then I'll look at it.
There will always be anecdotal reports of astrology working - just like UFO abductees, divine prophets, crystal healing, and other claptrap. The fact is that when the claims are subjected to serious scientific analysis they turn out to be bogus - every time.
| Quote: |
| If one person in every thousand is a pure saint, thus the stars have absolutely no influence on him, that would seem to counter astrology. |
What? Pure saint? What's one of them? Why are saints immune to Astrology? This makes no sense at all to me. | Quote: |
| Astrology would contradict freewill if it's influence couldn't be overriden. |
What I am saying is that it has NO influence at all, not that it can be over-ridden. We can easily counter astrology. What you do is ask as many astrologers to make predictions as possible, and then you test those predictions. That is exactly what has BEEN done. The other way to test it was outlined in the second link I provided. You track people who were born at the same time and see if they share similar behaviours and traits (which astrology predicts they should). They tracked 2000 people over 30 years. Guess what? Totally negative results. Conclusive.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Science is not lagging behind Astrology - it's left it WAY behind. |
Science lingers behind because it is skeptic of ancient cultures. Chronic illness e.g. western society has no cure for. The Chinese use arts like Qigong and tai chi to overcome it to strength the meridians and reduce qi stagnation and strengthen targeted organs to overcome chronic illness. |
Science is sceptical of every claim, not just ancient cultures. That's how we sort out the stuff that works from the stuff that doesn't.
| Quote: |
| You are taking the stars' influence for granted so it isn't a nonsense argument. If our influence on the world wasn't limited by the stars' influence that scenario would be possible. It is like comparing the free will of two flies fighting to the freewill of two enemies that got their hands onto some tanks fighting. The stars' influence the "power" entrusted to us so we don't engulf each other in an instant. |
No - I am saying that the stars have no influence. The power we have to kill others is limited by our access to weapons with which to do so, and our intent (free will) to commit murder. I can go next door now and kill several people if I want to. What stops me is not the stars but my 'choice' not to. What stops the President of the US from pressing the button is not the stars, but pragmatic considerations. There is absolutely no need to assume that the stars have any influence on us since everything you have described can be explained without any such influence. Adding a new factor is uneccessary and adds no new information (since you cannot make any useful predictions from astrology, as has been demonstrated). We therefore apply Occam's Razor and ditch astrology.
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:32 pm; edited 1 time in totalWestern society hasn't done enough research in astrology to call it bogus because of lack of funding. Every advanced civilization has a system of astrology:
The Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Aztec, etc.
On wikidpedia alone there is Babylonian, Indian, Egyptian, Hellenistic, Arab and Persian, Chinese. Despite the lack of funding, there is even a bit on Western astrology. If you believe that astrology is bogus without reading into it, you might as well believe that every other civilization is bogus and that billions before you were built on delusions. Proving it bogus means living the rest of your life researching all the other systems in all the others civilizations and proving them wrong with their own logic.
Not everything can be proven or disproven with western logic.
Last edited by Aredon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:38 pm; edited 2 times in total | Aredon wrote: |
| Western society hasn't done enough research in astrology because of lack of funding. |
Nonsense - I just provided a link to a 30 year definitive study.
| Quote: |
| Every advanced civilization has a system of astrology: |
So what? | Quote: |
| If you believe that astrology is bogus without reading into it, you might as well believe that every other civilization is bogus and that billions before you were built on delusions. |
I have read into it and it is bogus. Is the Earth flat? Does the sun revolve around the earth? Many people thought both these were true so, by your argument, they must be true. It has nothing to do with civilisations being 'bogus' (whatever that might mean). It has everything to do with certain beliefs which those civilisations held being wrong.
| Quote: |
| Not everything can be proven or disproven with western logic. |
No - but Astrology can and has been.Who invented the idea of a flat Earth?
The "flat earth" came about due to the misconception of "the four corners of the earth" which was supposed to mean "the four quadrants of the earth" referencing north, south, east, and west. One can easily understand the true shape of the earth from Isaiah 40:22.
Last edited by Aredon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:35 pm; edited 1 time in total That's true - flat earth was a bad example (as I have frequently pointed out to others in the past). Most educated people from ancient greek times onwards did not think the earth was flat.
I could have given many other misconceptions from past times though, such as the Universe was created in 6 days, the Earth is at the centre of the universe - and so on.
The point is that knowledge and science have evolved since more ancient times. We now have the knowledge and tools to test many claims which were previously held to be true. Astrology is one such claim and it fails the test.
The "flat earth" concept driven from "the four corners of the earth" was very close to "the four quadrants of the earth" and not many concepts grew from it. Astrology on the other hand has grown into a fully detailed system. Astrologers even have their roots in bible times as far back as the pharaoh of Egypt foreseeing Moses' downfall through water so he tried drowning him. Moses' downfall did happen through water as well when he tried to hit the rock rather than speak to the rock in order to split the sea. Thus the astrology had foretold the truth.
| Aredon wrote: |
| The "flat earth" concept driven from "the four corners of the earth" was very close to "the four quadrants of the earth" and not many concepts grew from it. Astrology on the other hand has grown into a fully detailed system. Astrologers even have their roots in bible times as far back as the pharaoh of Egypt foreseeing Moses' downfall through water and so he tried drowning him. Moses' downfall did happen through water as well when he tried to hit the rock rather than speak to the rock in order to split the sea. Thus the astrology had foretold the truth. |
Astrology has grown into a very detailed fraud - nothing more.
The idea that Moses' downfall came at the parting of the Red Sea is silly. Firstly you have to accept that it actually happened. Even if we do accept that it happened (a big gimme) then it clearly was NOT his downfall because the Israelites made it across (Moses as well) and the Pharaoh's army was drowned - hardly a downfall. Do you mean Exodus17? | Quote: |
1And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, after their journeys, according to the commandment of the LORD, and pitched in Rephidim: and there was no water for the people to drink.
2Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? wherefore do ye tempt the LORD?
3And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?
4And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me.
5And the LORD said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go.
6Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
7And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not? |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Astrology has grown into a very detailed fraud - nothing more.
The idea that Moses' downfall came at the parting of the Red Sea is silly. Firstly you have to accept that it actually happened. Even if we do accept that it happened (a big gimme) then it clearly was NOT his downfall because the Israelites made it across (Moses as well) and the Pharaoh's army was drowned - hardly a downfall. |
It was a major sin on Moses' part which he was punished for later by not being permitted to lead the Hebrews into the land of Israel and thus Joshua arose and took over. Although the punishment came later, it still caused his downfall.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Do you mean Exodus17? |
No.Ahh....you mean numbers20;
| Quote: |
| "Since you HIT the rock rather than speaking to it, you will not lead the Jewish people into the Land of Israel" |
Well you could equally well say his downfall was a lack of faith, a stone, a staff, or a belligerent God. | Indi wrote: |
You agree that a fair die is a totally non-deterministic system, right (ignoring the fact that the result is determined by physics)? If i roll a die, i can get one of six results:
R → 1
R → 2
R → 3
R → 4
R → 5
R → 6
So you agree that a die is not a deterministic system, i hope. |
Yes, by your definition it is a non-deterministic system with 6 possible results.
| Indi wrote: |
Now, what if i said i wanted a result state B where the result is a whole number. Now look what happens:
R → 1 → B
R → 2 → B
R → 3 → B
R → 4 → B
R → 5 → B
R → 6 → B
What happened? Did our non-deterministic die suddenly become deterministic?
|
This is where your logic fails. It doesn't matter what you say or want: there are 6 different results! They are not the same result because YOU treat them as the SAME! From the point of view of physics they are evidently different!
| Indi wrote: |
Let's make it real. According to quantum mechanics, the universe is non-deterministic - we cannot determine any events that are at the subatomic level, and even some at the macroscopic level (like radioactive decay or tunnelling in a modern computer processor). No problems so far. However... the universe will end some day, let's say by heat death. No matter what happens to a decaying atom today, the universe will end the same way... so by your argument that would make the universe determined. But... didn't we just say the universe was not-determined? It's your paradox, you solve it. ^_^; |
You lump together many possible final states as the same: "death of the universe", when they are different!
Also let's assume that the final state of the universe is the same (that is physically exactly the same and not by your "redefinition"). Than we will have a "deterministic" universe CONCERNING ONLY the final state not the whole system. Therefore no paradox there! | smarter wrote: |
| This is where your logic fails. It doesn't matter what you say or want: there are 6 different results! They are not the same result because YOU treat them as the SAME! From the point of view of physics they are evidently different! |
... what?
Didn't you just say that "Pure nonsense! "B-via-D" and "B-via-E" are still the same result: B."
Didn't i just make up a system with "B-via-1", "B-via-2" and so on... which according to you "are still the same result: B"?
Honestly, dude. ^_^; You have a sum total of zero clue what you're talking about, and you're just going in circles in your confusion. Here's the fact: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic system (philosophy) wrote: |
| A deterministic system is a conceptual model of the philosophical doctrine of determinism applied to a system for understanding everything that has and will occur in the system, based on the physical outcomes of causality. In a deterministic system, every action, or cause, produces a reaction, or effect, and every reaction, in turn, becomes the cause of subsequent reactions. The totality of these cascading events can theoretically show exactly how the system will exist at any moment in time. |
The part in red is the important part. It says that if a system is determined, then you can predict the exact state of the system at any moment in time. If you have "B-via-D" and "B-via-E", then you can not predict the state before B. You can predict B will happen, sure, but you cannot predict whether D or E has happened. Therefore, the system is not determined. Period. End of story.
Still not clear? Here's the mathematical definition of deterministic system: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic system (mathematics) wrote: |
| In mathematics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. Deterministic models thus produce the same output for a given starting condition. |
It can't get any plainer than that. If there's any randomness, it's not deterministic. Simple.i supose that its partially set, atoms move, energy flows... stuff atracts each other and partially we can change that... but there's no way to prove since if you say, oh i'll stay home today and not go to work it could be that its already set in destiny
well after thinking and having read something on the human mind, (I have great interest in psychology). I have to agree, human actions are (at least) mostly deterministic (some may be sort of random), but yes human actions are mostly determined by what information is fed to the human mind, you were right free-will is an illusion.
I believe, last time I read the Bible, from a Christian's point of view...God gave us free will (the Adam and Eve story).
This story holds true for most monotheistic religions.
I don't really understand where or why people started talking about "God's Plan"...if God had a plan, and our destiny was set in stone, why give us the choice between good and evil? There would be no point in living a virtuous life because it would unquestionable.
If Destiny exists and if God exists and if God is good and if God is all-powerful then evil shouldn't exist.
That's a loaded statement, I know...but it's interesting to think about God being an all-power being and the Devil being a quasi-powerful being (he can't physically harm us...only tempt us).
| jsk02a wrote: |
| I believe, last time I read the Bible, from a Christian's point of view...God gave us free will (the Adam and Eve story). |
For the record, the story of Adam and Eve does nothing toward proving that God gave us free will... it is commonly interpreted to imply that humans have free will, but that is not the only implication, and it is contradicted in numerous other verses throughout the Old and New Testaments.
If you want to, it is not hard to interpret it in other ways that do not allow for free will (and actually, it is much easier, because it makes it more consistent with the rest of the Bible if, for example, you assume that God was messing with them when he pretended he couldn't find them and didn't know what they did).
| jsk02a wrote: |
| This story holds true for most monotheistic religions. |
Abrahamic religions. Not most monotheistic religions by a long-shot.
| jsk02a wrote: |
| I don't really understand where or why people started talking about "God's Plan"...if God had a plan, and our destiny was set in stone, why give us the choice between good and evil? There would be no point in living a virtuous life because it would unquestionable. |
The reason is simply because of a catch-22. In short, if you assume that God has no greater plan at all, then all suffering that happens becomes... meaningless. When your child dies, you can't say "it was part of God's plan." And since the fact is that God could theoretically have saved your child, that effectively means that there are only two possible reasons that he did not:
- He did not care.
- He wanted the child dead.
Either way, it kind of destroys the whole "God is good" argument.
Saying "there is a plan, and for some greater good - long-term or short - the child had to die" lets God off the hook. "Yes, he's good, and if he could have saved the child, he would have, but then more suffering would have happened in the long term, so because he's good he did the right thing." (Of course, that justification does not stand up to deeper scrutiny, but then religious people are generally very hostile to having their beliefs scrutinized too deeply, so the shakiness of the argument is not really a problem in practice.)
| jsk02a wrote: |
If Destiny exists and if God exists and if God is good and if God is all-powerful then evil shouldn't exist.
That's a loaded statement, I know...but it's interesting to think about God being an all-power being and the Devil being a quasi-powerful being (he can't physically harm us...only tempt us). |
If you assume that God and the Devil are roughly equal in power - that the Devil can create things and such - that is close to a very old heresy called Manichaeism. Luckily, it's no longer a capital offence.
If you assume that the Devil is significantly weaker - for example, as you say, he cannot do anything but tempt - then all pain and suffering in the world is definitely and completely God's fault. And that poses a real problem for Christianity (and all Abrahamic religions). Christian apologists try to get God off the hook by saying that humans cause all pain and suffering by freely choosing to do evil even though God wants us to choose to do good (but he won't stop us from choosing evil because our choice must be free). But that is complete crap, and easy to show as a hollow claim:
- All suffering does not come from human choices. Whose evil choice caused cancer to exist?
- Even if all suffering did come only from human choices, just because a human chooses to do harm does not mean that it should happen. i can choose to hurt you by... let's say punching you in the face. Once i've made the choice to do that, the sin is done as far as God is concerned. My fist does not need to connect, and you don't need to feel the pain. It is completely unnecessary.
