[quote]pat wrote:<<< It does neither. The existence of freewill does not violate a deterministic universe >>>[/quote]Lemme see if I got this. You are willing to believe in a “deterministic” universe as long as it doesn’t violate your free will? But, you will not believe in the providence of God which also doesn’t violate your will? Neither of which are actually explicable in strictly logical terms?
[/quote]
Well, no you did not get it at all, nowhere near. First, I really am not sure that why you are injecting religion into it, much less how freewill even came into it. Will is a metaphysical construct, not a physical one, so a physical universe bound by it’s own laws and do not possess the trait of will are not capable of doing other than what they are bound to do.
The entire notion of freewill centers around choice. All things being equal, choice between ‘A’ and ‘B’ a freewill can choose either unbound, but could always have chosen otherwise. Unless you are arguing consciousness at a atomic or subatomic level then the physical universe does not possess will and cannot do anything it is not designed to do. That does not mean that simply possessing a will can alter the course of a determined universe. Humans posses a limited freewill. We can act on physical objects with it but we cannot change their nature. I would suggest a separate thread to discuss freewill vs. determinism. It’s a lofty topic on it’s own.
I haven’t read a lot of responses here, but I don’t know if what people think as a Deterministic Universe is exactly. A deterministic universe doesn’t necessarily mean that the universe is acting on a grand plan, which is the way you seem to take it. It does not mean it is not, it just means that the strictest definition of deterministic universe is each ‘moment’ or ‘event’ defines the next, which defines the next. It sounds temporal because of the limitation of language, but it can happen in or out of time.
Now where in the ruddy hell did you ever get that I do not believe in the divine providence of God??? Also a completely separate topic, you are either projecting, or assuming I believe something that I do not. As far as I know, God intervening in the physical universe is not the topic of this threadâ?¦.Feel free to start one
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I agree that we can’t know anything with absolute certainty. My point was that logic, reason, and science get us a hell of a lot (Tirib will appreciate the term) closer to understanding and predicting reality than religious faith ever will.
Just because we can’t know everything perfectly doesn’t mean there is no predictability at all. Where there is no predictability, the most honest and accurate position is acknowledged ignorance, not faith based on what people want to be true.[/quote]
Correct. I agree, I don’t know how religion got in to the thread, really. Faith is not a predictive tell-all about the universe. That’s a gross misuse of religious faith. At it’s core religious faith is a belief in a creative force and believing you can interact with it, that’s it.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< It does neither. The existence of freewill does not violate a deterministic universe >>>[/quote]Lemme see if I got this. You are willing to believe in a “deterministic” universe as long as it doesn’t violate your free will? But, you will not believe in the providence of God which also doesn’t violate your will? Neither of which are actually explicable in strictly logical terms?
[/quote]
Your idea of the providence of God does violate free will. You said yourself that you did NOT want God to save you. It was CONTRARY to your will that God saved you. It was predestined, and you had NO CHOICE.[/quote]
Divine predestination of your immortal soul is so unrelated to scientific causation it’s not even funny. Divine predestination is fatalistic and introduces huge ethical problems, but what that has to do with this I don’t know.
QM does support the idea that the universe is not deterministic but one would need a good grasp of mathematics to understand why – in more simple terms it comes down to the principle of uncertainty which states that when certain attributes of a particle are known there must be other aspects that remain unknown. You can find various derivations of the Schroedinger equation into the Heisenberg formulation all over the internets.
What some people seem to forget (or not understand) is that particles and the human free will are distinct; what can be statistically applied to particles cannot be applied to humans – which is why economics cannot be supported by positivism.
I don’t know why anyone would make the argument that because the universe is not predetermined humans must have a free will. Non sequitur for sure.
I do believe that consciousness is a material entity in the human mind that must follow the laws of physics but I wouldn’t make the argument that a non predeterminsitic universe must lead to a human free will because of that.[/quote]
I would argue that a lack of predictability does not make the universe non-deterministic, just unpredictable. It seems to identify a paradox, like you cannot determine position and momentum simultaneously… Also, I agree with Einstein’s criticism that we just don’t know enough about the system, but somewhere, somehow there is a solution…
I thought we were talking about free will. If the decisions people make are the input values, you still have a deterministic universe driven by those decisions.
People advocating free will suffer from the same logical fallacy as people advocating a god: in both cases, they fail to explain what created the original input values. Unless you believe free will is created ex nihilo, then it really isn’t free, and is dependent on whatever created it.[/quote]
Oh? Where did determinism come from then? What are ‘it’s’ original input values?
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
if you believe in free will you are believing in something that can not be explained by a complete fundamental theory.[/quote]
Aren’t most a priori propositions like that?[/quote]
Yes, if its a priori its not part of science. If you believe in it then you accept something unexplainable by science. The conclusion for you seems to be that you don’t believe in free will. That’s fine. But then you have no reason or even ability to really believe science either.[/quote]
QM does support the idea that the universe is not deterministic but one would need a good grasp of mathematics to understand why – in more simple terms it comes down to the principle of uncertainty which states that when certain attributes of a particle are known there must be other aspects that remain unknown. You can find various derivations of the Schroedinger equation into the Heisenberg formulation all over the internets.
What some people seem to forget (or not understand) is that particles and the human free will are distinct; what can be statistically applied to particles cannot be applied to humans – which is why economics cannot be supported by positivism.
I don’t know why anyone would make the argument that because the universe is not predetermined humans must have a free will. Non sequitur for sure.
I do believe that consciousness is a material entity in the human mind that must follow the laws of physics but I wouldn’t make the argument that a non predeterminsitic universe must lead to a human free will because of that.[/quote]
I would argue that a lack of predictability does not make the universe non-deterministic, just unpredictable. It seems to identify a paradox, like you cannot determine position and momentum simultaneously… Also, I agree with Einstein’s criticism that we just don’t know enough about the system, but somewhere, somehow there is a solution…[/quote]
Its predictable to a degree of uncertainty otherwise QM is useless.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
if you believe in free will you are believing in something that can not be explained by a complete fundamental theory.[/quote]
Aren’t most a priori propositions like that?[/quote]
Yes, if its a priori its not part of science. If you believe in it then you accept something unexplainable by science. The conclusion for you seems to be that you don’t believe in free will. That’s fine. But then you have no reason or even ability to really believe science either.[/quote]
Logic is not your strong suit is it?[/quote]
Why do people post like that when they can’t see a way out?
Guys, I’m not trying to change anyone’s view, I’m just thinking out loud here. If I sound like I’m trying to be an authority its just the way I write, I tend to write conjecture in a “matter of fact” sentence structure. Everything I write should be prefaced with “in my opinion” or “what do you think”.
My premise has been that some Atheists will use the argument that God is not the topic for scientific discussion because God is non-falsefiable, not-subject to test.
My conjecture was that many of these people, if asked if they believe that they have freedom to make choices of actions would say “yes” but our ability to make choices, to influence the path of the Universe is not something that can be explained by science because there (according to a common model of QM) are no hidden variables (QM) that explain why one outcome occurs instead of another, IN SOME CASES.
So free will to make one choice over another is as unfalsefiable as God.
Now I have to grant that everyone feels like they have evidence that choice happens. I mean, lets test it: I want to type something on the page, and it happens, but there isn’t a way to test and see if I could have made a different choice.
I thought we were talking about free will. If the decisions people make are the input values, you still have a deterministic universe driven by those decisions.
People advocating free will suffer from the same logical fallacy as people advocating a god: in both cases, they fail to explain what created the original input values. Unless you believe free will is created ex nihilo, then it really isn’t free, and is dependent on whatever created it.[/quote]
Oh? Where did determinism come from then? What are ‘it’s’ original input values?[/quote]
If no objects exist, does the law of gravity still exist, which describes how objects would interact if they did exist?
I thought we were talking about free will. If the decisions people make are the input values, you still have a deterministic universe driven by those decisions.
People advocating free will suffer from the same logical fallacy as people advocating a god: in both cases, they fail to explain what created the original input values. Unless you believe free will is created ex nihilo, then it really isn’t free, and is dependent on whatever created it.[/quote]
Oh? Where did determinism come from then? What are ‘it’s’ original input values?[/quote]
If no objects exist, does the law of gravity still exist, which describes how objects would interact if they did exist?[/quote]
It has been speculated that the input value, the constant G would actually vary depending upon the amount of matter present in the Universe. If there were no particles, then G might be zero, or infinite. Then again we still have a law, and can use different hypotheticals however, G only exists to the precision that can be probed within quantum limitations. All of our input values will always have some uncertainty-in the current model.
Also, how can we test the theory if there is no matter to make instruments from?
I thought we were talking about free will. If the decisions people make are the input values, you still have a deterministic universe driven by those decisions.
People advocating free will suffer from the same logical fallacy as people advocating a god: in both cases, they fail to explain what created the original input values. Unless you believe free will is created ex nihilo, then it really isn’t free, and is dependent on whatever created it.[/quote]
Oh? Where did determinism come from then? What are ‘it’s’ original input values?[/quote]
If no objects exist, does the law of gravity still exist, which describes how objects would interact if they did exist?[/quote]
It has been speculated that the input value, the constant G would actually vary depending upon the amount of matter present in the Universe. If there were no particles, then G might be zero, or infinite. Then again we still have a law, and can use different hypotheticals however, G only exists to the precision that can be probed within quantum limitations. All of our input values will always have some uncertainty-in the current model.
Also, how can we test the theory if there is no matter to make instruments from?[/quote]
I wasn’t asking about G, but about the law determining how G would vary depending on the amount of matter in the universe. Does that law exist, in the absence of a universe? What does it mean for a law to exist, anyway?
[quote]forlife wrote:Pat, I agree that we can’t know anything with absolute certainty. >>>[/quote]And there we have it boys n girls. Aristotle and Aquinas hand in hand. [quote]pat wrote:<<< I don’t know how religion got in to the thread, >>>[/quote]Oh I know you don’t
I for one happen to feel like material determinism is highly likely. Just basically impossible to conclude, because of the calculation problem that is involved. I would think given perfect knowledge you might be able to accurately predict things. Obviously this is unlikely to ever occur. But unpredictability absolutely does not imply free will. I cannot predict the outcome of a coin toss, but I would hardly say the coin has free will.
Anyway T, what frustrates me sometimes is not that your act high and mighty. I see that as a form of posturing indiginous to the religious mindset that has taken over the host-mind, and uses this form of posturing for self-defense.
What irritates me sometimes is that it’s not quid-pro-quo with you in discussions. You dance around issues avoiding the difficult questions, all the while acting high and mighty.
Then debating becomes a chore. Same thing with mertdawg. This is not a game to me, or at least; i’m not playing a game here.
Before this becomes too serious. Did you know it’s Christopher Hitchens’ birthday? Best wishes to him, eh?