Our Actions Are Predetermined

[Oblivion]

The big bang created every particle in existance. The movement of these particles was dictated by the big bang. They moved and collided with one-another based on their original vectors, and created new vectors and new particles. On the large scale, galaxies were formed, and they interacted with one-another based on the physical laws set forth. Following the big bang, more and more variables were created (variables meaning a particle, or molecule or solar system...anything in existance), but they can all be traced back to the big bang by looking at the preceding variable, and the one before it, and before it, etc. You can follow the movement of matter and energy all the way down to the creation of earth and the dawn of human civilization. At this point there are billions of different variables in existance, earth and everything on it being a few of those, and all of those billions of variables are colliding to make new ones.

To put this into context: we are here as a result of our parents, their parents before them etc. We have the talents we do, due to our genetic makeup, places we have been, things we have done etc. These were all due to preceding variables. We think the thoughts we do, because of a combined number of variables preceding the thoughts. Think about it like nuclear fission: one particle goes to make 2 more. Each of those make 2 more etc. but each one can be traced back to the original particle by looking at the previous fission. Does this not seem to dictate that all events have unfolded in a mathematical way, defined by the big bang? Does this not also seem to dictate that the future must follow this same complex mathematical equation? Therefore, are all things not predetermined?

[diverz]

Yes in a way things are predetermined.

However, living things have the special innate ability to think and choose and with this variable involved, it is possible to alter the predetermined future.

However, I said things are predetermined in a way because many living things with the innate ability to think does not realise that ability in their lifetime and so they follow set paths determined by the pre-variables.

Well its damn difficult to change the future anyway because so many factors are involved.

Interesting question you have there.

[Mentat]

Well, you make a good point, Oblivion. But, what about the Uncertainty principle? If we are speaking in purely scientific terms, as per current theory on the subject, there were no completely determined actions, on the part of fundamental particles, at the moment of the big bang (nor have there been since).

[Iacchus32]

These are nothing but the cold, dark, intellectual reasonings which occur during winter. But what happens when the sun reemerges in the spring, and we begin to "feel" a renewed vitality in all that life has to offer? Are we bound by determinism at this point?

Indeed, there's quite a contrast between the two states, and yet it's the very contrast that exists between the way we think and the way we feel ... Where our thoughts have a sense of orderliness and determinism about them, and our feelings can become quite volitile, indeed.

So, is there some way that we can strike an accord between the two? Or, do we continute to insist that it must be one or the other?

[wasteofo2]

Of course you could say that "In Augutst 14, 2045, at 4:12:24 eastern time the moon will be in position x" due to several calculations, but what if some lunatic decides to blow up the moon? Are you saying that there would be some way, if you could compute the huge amount of variables in the entire universe that you could predict the actions of all humans? Are you saying that due to the movement of particles released during the big bang that a dog chased it's own tail?

[Pyrite]

In short, yes. We could never see the infinite variables, nor could we predict how they will interact, but things all already have a set path. Even these people with the innate ability to think past this, as you call it, would only be reinforcing it, as this ability was gained through the endless mathematical proceedure that rules the universe. think of it this way, If I were to roll five balls on a pool table, the way they would interact is determined by their speed, acceleration, and vector. we could predict the outcome, but only with a complete understanding of all forces and objects involved. the universe is much the same, only with a near infinite number of balls, working under laws that we do not fully understand. so yes, if someone nuked the moon, and this threw your equation, it was not because the world was not predetermined, it is just because you did not account for the man pointing his homemade nuke at the moon.

[wasteofo2]

What if you subscribe to the many worlds theory?

[wasteofo2]

Damnit, some mod needs to move this to the skepticism/debunking forum, I know there's a good reason why all our actions aren't predetermined by the inertia of some particles 15 billion years ago, and I'm sure someone can think of some way to prove it.

It makes logical sense to me, but there's some part of my brain that just rejects it totally.

[Iacchus32]

Consciousness ... It doesn't exist in the past or in the future, but in the present. And this is where we decide how we're going to get on with the rest of our lives.

Life is always being reborn, and with each "conscious moment" comes a new beginning.

It's just like they say, "Today is the first day of the rest of your life."

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Pyrite
In short, yes. We could never see the infinite variables, nor could we predict how they will interact, but things all already have a set path. Even these people with the innate ability to think past this, as you call it, would only be reinforcing it, as this ability was gained through the endless mathematical proceedure that rules the universe. think of it this way, If I were to roll five balls on a pool table, the way they would interact is determined by their speed, acceleration, and vector. we could predict the outcome, but only with a complete understanding of all forces and objects involved. the universe is much the same, only with a near infinite number of balls, working under laws that we do not fully understand. so yes, if someone nuked the moon, and this threw your equation, it was not because the world was not predetermined, it is just because you did not account for the man pointing his homemade nuke at the moon.

Again I ask, what about Uncertainty? Quantum Mechanics requires the Uncertainty principle, and that principle allows for some cases of pure randomness...ergo, you could (in principle) calculate everything in the Universe to a very good level of accuracy, and thus make predictions that are almost always accurate; but you could never (not even in principle) calculate, to a complete level of accuracy, the behavior of subatomic particles (in fact, the more precise you try to measure one aspect, the less precise your measurements will be on another aspect), and thus there's always the chance (note: "chance"; probability...which is undetermined) that the guy did send a nuke up toward the moon, but the nuke disappeared and reappeared on Mars (the chances are unbelievably negligible, but they exist).

[Oblivion]

What I was originally getting at Mentat, is that if you knew every variable in play and the mathematical equation that describes each of them, there would be no more uncertainty, in any aspect. However, due to the fact that we do not know this equation, uncertainty continues to exist in almost every system and every scenario.

[Sikz]

Heh, very interesting. Seems logical too- mostly. What Oblivion is trying to say is that since all physical systems are governed by the laws of physics, if we knew everything about every piece of energy in the universe (at any time in the past) we could predict the entire future into infinity. Naturally we cannot know all of these variables, but the idea he is getting at is that they DO exist and thus everything is preditermined.

About the arguments set forth that free will can alter this preditermined universe (such as the example with the moon being destroyed)... Living things are made up of particles and energy that is subject to the same laws of physics as the particles and energy in nonliving things. Every thought in an organism's mind, every action it takes, are determined by a pattern of electrons and/or proteins in the organism's brain. Electrons (and proteins, since they are molecules) are subject to the laws of physics- therefore every thought and action that occurs is determined by the dynamics of every other thing in the universe- all the variables. So thoughts and actions are preditermined as well.

This all seems very logical. However, there is the Uncertainty principle. For those who aren't familiar with it, it essentially says (this is very basic and approximate, but it is the general importance of the principle) that some things are true random. You cannot know the position and velocity of a particle at the same time. This isn't due to any lack of data, such as in dice rolling, it is simply that these variables don't exist, there IS a true element of random. To clarify: If you roll a die on a table, we say the outcome is "random" and subject to the laws of probability. There is a 1/6 probability you will roll a 1, 1/6 that you will roll a 2, 1/6 that you will roll a 3, and so on. However, that is only due to lack of data; if we knew the position, temperature, etc of every atom and every subatomic particle in the table and the die as well as the velocity and angle we threw the die at and the strength of the gravitational field of the earth, we could predict with perfect accuracy the number our roll would come up with. The uncertainty principle isn't like that though. According to it, the outcome truly IS random, truly is unknowable; there are no unknown variables that would render the outcome predictable.

For this reason (and I'm sure there are other logical arguments, although I am not aware of them) the universe's future cannot be preordained, cannot be predicted. Assuming, of course, that our physics are correct- which they appear to be at the current time.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Oblivion
What I was originally getting at Mentat, is that if you knew every variable in play and the mathematical equation that describes each of them, there would be no more uncertainty, in any aspect. However, due to the fact that we do not know this equation, uncertainty continues to exist in almost every system and every scenario.

This still doesn't work. According to QM, the probability is the reality. Thus, you might get to know every variable, but you could never solve the whole thing, since solving one aspect to a greater level of accuracy lessens the level of accuracy with which you can solve another aspect.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Oblivion
What I was originally getting at Mentat, is that if you knew every variable in play and the mathematical equation that describes each of them, there would be no more uncertainty, in any aspect. However, due to the fact that we do not know this equation, uncertainty continues to exist in almost every system and every scenario.

I've addressed this question many times before:

The question is essentially phrased like this:
"If we knew every variable in the universe, we could predict the future, therefore our actions are predetermined".

I'll keep my answer short and sweet...

1. I dont see how predicting the future implies all actions are ascribed before they occur (i.e. predetermined).

2. Humans possess a quality that allows them to make decisions at their own accord (i.e. Free Will).

3. See Compatibilism (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism). Compatibilism states that given the same inner and outer circumstances, the situation will unfold yielding the same scenario. However, Compatibilism states that it is hypothetically possible that a person will have chosen different given that the inner or outer circumstances were different, this is how determinism and Free Will are compatible.

4. The "variables" involving the universe around us and cognition are not comparable, the systems involved are not the same. The Laws of Physics are inappropriate for describing Cognition. Your variables suddenly start to take on values that look like questionmarks. So its not even possible to know all the "variables".

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]I've addressed this question many times before:

The question is essentially phrased like this:
"If we knew every variable in the universe, we could predict the future, therefore our actions are predetermined".

I'll keep my answer short and sweet...

1. I dont see how predicting the future implies all actions are ascribed before they occur (i.e. predetermined).


Well, if one can predict the future, then that means that there is a certain way that the future was definitely going to turn out, right?


2. Humans possess a quality that allows them to make decisions at their own accord (i.e. Free Will).


How do you know that?


3. See Compatibilism (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism). Compatibilism states that given the same inner and outer circumstances, the situation will unfold yielding the same scenario. However, Compatibilism states that it is hypothetically possible that a person will have chosen different given that the inner or outer circumstances were different, this is how determinism and Free Will are compatible.


What are "inner and outer circumstances"? and what happens if someone knows both?


4. The "variables" involving the universe around us and cognition are not comparable, the systems involved are not the same. The Laws of Physics are inappropriate for describing Cognition.


That's a rather anti-scientific claim. I don't know if that was your intention, but most scientists believe that all physical phenomena can be explained scientifically.

[MythioS]

Maybe he's from the church of scientology. Anyone seen the movie Pi?

Theres one side of this you could look at. If you say that the future isnt predictable,but god should definatly in his 'infinite wisdom' know 'all' the variables then would he be able to tell what the future holds?

Psychologically for me i dont have as much of a problem admitting that some higher being might know whats in store but for us to start debating that our mere flesh can comprehend what only god can see...?

lol doesnt really help the debate, actually makes it worse

MythioS

[Another God]

This thread is right where it belongs.

Quantum Physics doesn't refute Determinism in any way.

to be determined, or to not be determined is still a philosophical discussion.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Another God
This thread is right where it belongs.

Quantum Physics doesn't refute Determinism in any way.

to be determined, or to not be determined is still a philosophical discussion.

I only mentioned Quantum Physics because Oblivion seemed to think that science could discover a determined nature of the Universe. In the realm of science, the Universe cannot be deterministic. In the realm of philosophy, it can be whatever, and probably is.

[Another God]

science is within the realm of philosophy [:D]

[Sikz]

Philosophy is coming to conclusions through reason. Science is coming to conclusions through observation. Art is coming to conclusions through creativity.

[Another God]

And you think coming to conclusions through observation can be done without reasoning?

[Sikz]

To be technical, any conclusion reached in that way would be philosophy, not science. Science is really all of the observations themselves (which is why any further scientific conclusion is only temporary and can never be truly proven). Of course, it makes no sense to list, as the laws of science, that "paper is attracted to the Earth", "paper is attracted to the moon", "frogs are attracted to the Earth" and so on. We inductively come to a philosophical conclusion that "All matter is attracted to all other matter", and the infinite number of scientific conclusions are thus summarized by the single philosophical conclusion. In popular use then, "science" denotes true Science as well as shallower philosophy (in which the conclusion is not a great number of steps beyond the observation), and in which observations of physical occurrences almost exclusively come into play (nonphysical in this instance reffers to the framework of logic and the idea of duality, etc, which help define physical phenomina).

Philosophy stands on a foundation of Observations (true Science). "Science" is shallower philosophy. Deeper philosophy is the objective foundation of Observations (true Science)- yet Observations are required in order for us to reason out the tenets of deep philosophy.

Deeper Philosophy
Science
Shallower Philosophy

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Another God
science is within the realm of philosophy [:D]

As is religion, mysticism, and every other possible pursuit of knowledge in existence. What I was saying was that pure philosophy is much too broad, while science offers certain confines that I find very useful.

[The Opiner]

Another God said, Quantum Physics doesn't refute Determinism in any way.

Whoa! I have been posting questions as to the present-day justification of determinism (of which I am one, still) for over a year now on these forums. The topic keeps coming up over and over again, everywhere from the Math and Statistics forum to Physics, Biology and Philosophy. So I gather that I am not the only one out here with a lot of interest in the basic dichotomy: The concept of underlying causation via universal physical law governing absolutely everthing as vs inherent probability at the sub-atomic level.

Still, it seems that the great majority of physicists believe in subatomic "randomness" (read "indeterminate behavior").

Your comment gives me more hope. Can you elaborate on your statement and list other physics-knowlegeable people who believe that determinism has not been relegated to the dustbin of history. I would be more confident in my lifelong core belief to hear that some professional physicists are with me.

Praise be to Einstein. :)

[Canute]

Generally philosophers argue that quantum indeterminism doesn't offer much of a opening for freewill. I think that this is precisely because because quantum events are indeterminate.

The real difficulty for freewill is that (it appears that) every physical event is explicable post hoc in physically causal terms. If this is true then either freewill does not exist, or somehow it operates without contradicting the logical rules of physical cause and effect.

Perhaps we can do what we like as long as, by strictly deterministic physical principles, what we do might have happened anyway, but would not necessarily have happened.

That is, perhaps for any physical event physical causes are necessary, but not always sufficient. Perhaps there are times that more than outcome is possible without breaking any deterministic rules.

[olde drunk]

from the perspective of all future probabilities exist, the future is predetermined.

what if our future probabilities are infinite??? in an expanding universe isn't the infinite possibilty more probable?

how bout we say, all infinite future probablities exist but we have free will to decide which future probabilty threads to experience?????

with these assumptions, a predetermined future is out there, based on your actions in the past and present. the instant you change your perception of the past or present, you change the predetermined future.

but then again this is an olde damaged brain at work,

[raptor5618]

I have been very interested in the premise that started this thread. Finding this site and then this thread really has given me food for thought. However, I still see that a dilemma exists. I believe that objects move or do not move based upon specific laws where their motion can be exactly determined if we were capable of knowing all forces in play and the exact information about everything involved. Of course this is not possible and probably never will be. Sure we could predict an event with a very high degree of precision however over a long period of time I am sure that the level of precision would decrease due to effects still not known or understood. But if this is true I agree that at the moment of the big bang everything that is occurring now is based upon all these interactions and in a sense unalterable making the future predetermined. I think in the light of what I said above that this makes very good sense.

Ok some are saying that in quantum physics or mechanics that the behavior of subatomic matter is random. Now without having read about this and if I had probably still not understanding it I find this to be quite a problem. If this tiny bits of matter could be moving in a straight line and then without any force being applied turn around and move in the opposite direction sure seems to totally disprove the conservation of energy laws. I am sure that finding a way to capture the sum of all these random motions would be a godsend, as the total energy would be gathered at no cost at all. I kind of put this in the category with those other subatomic bits of matter that move at the same time no matter how distant they are from each other. Perhaps they have proof, but I find it hard to swallow. So if it were true is the force needed to move this object twice what it would be to to move just one of the items.

I think it only is random because some force that is known, or understood is taking place. Ok at this point it seems I am 100 percent behind predeterminism. But I also find that pretty hard to accept. If everything is operating strictly upon physical laws I think that events would be common that would not be predictable because outside events would have control over all things. Therefore I think you would see people walking into walls or acting in a more random patter. Our behavior would be even more predictable in that if 100 people were exposed to the same exact thing then they would all react about the same. But people and animals act in some very specific ways and it is rare that something happens that is beyond normal as it is caused from some interaction outside of the organism.

So It is my belief that living things are drawing on some other source of energy that is not understood. I think we have the ability to make choices that counters the belief that everything is already predetermined. There has to be something else going on. While I am not what you would call religious my thoughts on this seem to point that there is indeed a higher power of some sort. Weather this is a god who rules over us or just a force that allows for the ability to exert control over how matter behaves, living matter anyway. As I thought more and more about this topic it actually became my proof that there is indeed some form of higher power that exists and endows us with the ability to escape the forces that rule over non living things.

I think one other thought on this is when watching animals take actions that are frivolous to their existence. Perhaps all this is just one big contradiction but I think there still is one big missing component that has yet to be seen.

[Canute]

I agree, although I suspect all your arguments above are inconclusive. In a way the really big question is why, if freewill exists, is it impossible to prove that it does.

[olde drunk]

Why must we complicate every concept. The mere fact that "I choose whether or not to punch you in the mouth" is proof enough for me. LOL,

I have total control of my next moment of experience. I can stick my hand in the fire or i may not; my choice. regardless of the external influences, it is all my doing. if you choose to punch me in the mouth, it will not occur without my attracting the event and agreeing to it's physicalization.

this is complete freewill. we think that when a negative event happens that we were subjected to that occurrence. it comes into our experience because we have freewill on the conscious, unconscious, subconscious and whatever level we exist.

for me, when i do not limit freewill, it becomes a much easier concept to believe or accept; the proof is in the history of my experiences.

it may seem budensome to be totally responsible for your life; in practice, it is a relief.

peace,

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by raptor5618
I believe that objects move or do not move based upon specific laws where their motion can be exactly determined if we were capable of knowing all forces in play and the exact information about everything involved. Of course this is not possible and probably never will be. Sure we could predict an event with a very high degree of precision however over a long period of time I am sure that the level of precision would decrease due to effects still not known or understood. ...

Ok some are saying that in quantum physics or mechanics that the behavior of subatomic matter is random. Now without having read about this and if I had probably still not understanding it I find this to be quite a problem. If this tiny bits of matter could be moving in a straight line and then without any force being applied turn around and move in the opposite direction sure seems to totally disprove the conservation of energy laws. I am sure that finding a way to capture the sum of all these random motions would be a godsend, as the total energy would be gathered at no cost at all. I kind of put this in the category with those other subatomic bits of matter that move at the same time no matter how distant they are from each other. Perhaps they have proof, but I find it hard to swallow. ...

Perhaps all this is just one big contradiction but I think there still is one big missing component that has yet to be seen.

First, your starting premise is wrong. QM denies your view of the universe explicitly. You need to read up on it more and familiarize yourself with these concepts: indeterminancy, uncertainty, etc. It is NOT conceptually correct to say: if you knew all the variables you could predict all the outcomes, and we just don't know all the input variables. Reality is not like that. See for example: EPR, Bell's Theorem and Alain Aspect.

Second, your objections to QM are well known and have been thoroughly addressed through the years. This includes the idea of the "missing" component of QM, which has also been debunked.

I used to believe exactly as you describe, when I too was ignorant of the existence of QM. Makes me mad that students are exposed to relativity in high school but not QM. Surprisingly, we live in a universe in which free will seems possible since there is indeterminancy. Go figure.

[Another God]

Originally posted by olde drunk
Why must we complicate every concept. The mere fact that "I choose whether or not to punch you in the mouth" is proof enough for me. LOL,

www.determinism.com

"A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
- Schopenhauer

"I am a determinist. ...The real issue, so far as the will is concerned, is not whether we can do what we choose to do, but whether we can choose our own choice, whether the choice itself issues in accordance with law from some antecedent."
- Brand Blanshard

Still so sure?

[Another God]

Originally posted by DrChinese
First, your starting premise is wrong. QM denies your view of the universe explicitly. You need to read up on it more and familiarize yourself with these concepts: indeterminancy, uncertainty, etc. It is NOT conceptually correct to say: if you knew all the variables you could predict all the outcomes, and we just don't know all the input variables. Reality is not like that. See for example: EPR, Bell's Theorem and Alain Aspect.
What happens if we drop the 'knew all the variables' phrase and just stated that the universe is all the variables and as such acts accordingly. We don't need to know anything about it for it to act in a predetermined way, it just needs to act so. Even if we never can calculate it.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Another God
www.determinism.com

"A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."
- Schopenhauer

"I am a determinist. ...The real issue, so far as the will is concerned, is not whether we can do what we choose to do, but whether we can choose our own choice, whether the choice itself issues in accordance with law from some antecedent."
- Brand Blanshard

Still so sure?
Great quotes. But the first is unproved (and rather incoherent imho) and the second simply restates the question.

[Another God]

well in my mind they justify the skepticism over free will perfectly. Oh sure, it 'seems' like we make our own choices...but where do those choices come from? How do we know what it is that we want?

I am just responding to Olde Drunk;s claim that the answer is obvious to him. I'm just providing a different angle on it so that he can understand why it isn't necessarily so easy in the big picture.

[Canute]

I think he's got a point. After all what reason do we have to doubt that we have freewill? The fact that we can't explain it? It's a bit of a feeble reason really.

[Another God]

how about the fact that as far as we can see, every action has an equal and opposite reaction? The fact that for every event, there is a cause? The fact that even human actions, although much more complicated, can in general still be predicted.

If you are my friend, then I will predict you will be nice to me. If you are my best friend, then chances are I will even know mannerisms that are common to your behaviour, I will expect certain utterances to escape your mouth. I will expect you to behave a certain way. Even in this world where we all believe we are choosing every action we undertake, we still act in an entirely predictable way. Why is it predictable, because we are acting in accordance with, and in responce to our determinants. Our genetic makeup, our social situation, the people who we hang out with, our parents, our culture and our economic situation to name the obvious.

We are chemical reactions, reacting to external physical stimuli in predictable ways. No matter how pretty the outcome is, the reality remains.

That is why I do not believe in free will.

[Canute]

Fair enough. I don't think that there's any way of proving you wrong.
But regularity of behaviour dosn't disprove freewill. Neither does the fact of everyday physical cause and effect. If you think it doesn't exist then you're making an assumption on less evidence than the opposite assumption.

[olde drunk]

nother god: Still so sure?

drunk: why not? the basic premise was that if everything was created at the big bang then all probabilities exist.

can you envision that the big bang happened in nothing? no matter how you look at it you end up saying that the 'physical world' was created at the big bang. the universe(s) include the physical.

while all physical probabilities may have been created at the bang, our choice of which future to experience is infinite. the odds of the physical being broken down and/or combined into other forms is infinite. IOW, the future moment to be experienced is a matter of choice (freewill).

predetermined future can only occur within a closed system.

our physical world is nestled within our universe, I suspect that our universe is nestled within another universe(s). even our universe expands. expands within WHAT?


IMHO, freewill exists as a function of what i want to experience. it is an attribute of my consciousness.

peace,

[raptor5618]

DrChinese you are right I do not have knoledge of QM, hell I am not 100% certain I know what you even mean by QM. So I will trust you that knowing more about it would lead me to a better insight into this question. However, QM, relativity or any other concept all may be proved with some beautiful math and logic but from the things I have read most of them fall apart when approached from a different slant. I just read the book Faster than the speed of light and they feel they have some convincing evidence that the speed of light varies which blows relativity out of the water or not. Yes some people falling on the VSL side are trying to work it into Relativity. Also in the physics journal I looked at yesterday they had an article about a double quasar and all that it meant. Well two groups looked at the exact same data and came to two opposite conclusions. So I think that it is important to keep an open mind. I will look into QM as you suggested.

Another God your reasoning is why I tend to believe that there is cause to believe in free will. That human interation is predictable to me proves that it cannot be the result of just cause and effect. To think that external factors, internal chemical interations and physical effects all combine and result in people working in an organized way just does not make sense to me. What factors would cause people from all over the country to end up marching in line in front of a drill sergent as they get ready to go off to war.

Or take the instance of a football game where everyone there is exposed to very similar situations. Yet everyone reacts differently. I agree that my reasoning is not conclusive. However even though I believe that there is such a think as free will I have to admit that all our actions are realted to real physical cause and effects which seems to be a contradition to my belief. But I believe that there is some process that allows us to choose a or b and that choice is not just a chain reaction that given the same circumstances will always net the same result.

[Another God]

accepting that the physical universe obeys strict physical laws, them to propose free will to propose something that acts outside those strict physical laws.

There is no way that the chemical complexes which give rise to our brain are able to 'choose' which interaction to do next. Chemicals behave like chemicals. If you want to believe you have a 'choice' in the matter, than you are proposing that there is some force which alters physical reality.

Simple as that.

And I am not yet ready to propose such a thing.

[Canute]

Raptor

I think you've got a point. I haven't come across your argument in the literature, it's always taken as obvious that our brains are so complex and so free of mechanical error that it is sufficient to explain explain every detail of our behaviour. But it is a bit remarkable when you think about it.

Originally posted by Another God
accepting that the physical universe obeys strict physical laws, them to propose free will to propose something that acts outside those strict physical laws.
Not at all. It all depends on the nature of those physical laws. If freewill exists it is presumably the result of fundamental laws.

There is no way that the chemical complexes which give rise to our brain are able to 'choose' which interaction to do next.Chemicals behave like chemicals.
OK. Nobody would argue with that.

If you want to believe you have a 'choice' in the matter, than you are proposing that there is some force which alters physical reality.
Exactly.

And I am not yet ready to propose such a thing.
Fair enough, it's your choice. [:D]

[jackle]

Not every event has a physical cause. What is the physical cause of the big bang?

If this universe came out of nothing, there isn't any information about how it will turn out inside the nothing. If it came out of a god then there is your information but it isn't physical.

This aspect of quantum mechanics shows up very clearly in the big bang thoery because a cause has to preceed the effect but space and time were created at the moment of the big bang. There is no "time before time".

[Another God]

i don't know what caused the Big Bang, neither do you, or anyone else for that matter. I don't consider such details to be an argument, because they are inconclusive. I am still far from convinced that the Big Bang is even the begining of the universe. It seems unignorable that it happened, but claiming that it was the begining of everything is a huge leap IMHO.

[jackle]

Is there any need to believe in a larger universe or preceeding universe than what is derivable from observation?

Scientists thoerize a universe out of nothing using quantum mechanics. This contradicts the first post on this topic. The universe and its outcome, and our actions need not be predetermined at all.

[Another God]

It seems to me like you are using an argument derived from something that no one really knows anything about (Who really knows how the universe started???!?!?!?) and ignoring the way the universe is right now: What we can directly see and measure without doubt.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction... that sort of stuff. Everything working like clockwork. Cause to cause to cause...

[qwantum_phlux]

i like the Slaughterhouse V take on things...

in the book Billy, the main character, is being held by 4th dimensional beings of time. realizing that they have unlimited knowledge he asks...
"do you know how the universe ends?"
"yes" respond the beings
"does the earth cause it?"
"no far from it, in your year 2021 one of our experimental flying saucers was using a new warp drive, and when the pilot presses the ignition button... the universe ceases to exist..." said the aliens

stunned billy asks "if you know this why dont you stop it??? there is still 50 years!"
----(punch line)----
"because billy, the pilot always will press the button, he did press the button, and he is pressing the button. it is right for the moment..."

if the universe has a beggining (big bang) lets call it A. and an end wether utter entropy or big crunch there is still an end B lets say.
then there is a course from start to finish. we being players in this universal game cannot control the pathof happenings to reach B, but to someone not bound to time... there is a set order of operations from a to b. Time is defined as the change of position of objects in an XYZ universe. we cant see or control where the objects go for the most part, but in the end, the story of the universe is that of a novel with individual pages that contain set information of the position of the universe particles.

[Another God]

And that is precisely how I currently understand our universe.

I think of TIME as the fourth dimension literally....Just like driving from Sydney to Melbourne: When I leave Sydney, I know I am heading for melbourne. Melbourne exists at coordinates xyz, sydney exists at different coordinates, but they both exist. My presence in either city though also includes the variable t...time. Give me any t value, and the universe will tell you the xyz values appropriate for my position.

That t value was written the second our universe started. Our apparent 'travelling forwards' through time is an illusion. Time is. Just like Sydney and Melbourne are. (at least they are at this particular instance of t)

[jackle]

It seems to me like you are using an argument derived from something that no one really knows anything about (Who really knows how the universe started???!?!?!?) and ignoring the way the universe is right now: What we can directly see and measure without doubt.

Quantum mechanics describes the way the universe is right now very accurately.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction... that sort of stuff. Everything working like clockwork. Cause to cause to cause...

Quantum mechanics doesn't work like clockwork at all. It has randomness built into it. So does the universe.

[Another God]

if the universe is random, then why is everything so damn coherent and predictable?

[Canute]

Originally posted by jackle
Quantum mechanics describes the way the universe is right now very accurately.
What does quantum mechanics have to say about how you know that? Or isn't the fact that you know it part of the way the universe is right now? Quantum mechanics explains next to nothing. It describes the behavior of quanta, not their existence or essence.

[jackle]

Originally posted by Another God
if the universe is random, then why is everything so damn coherent and predictable?

If you spin a billion billion dice and plot them on a bar chart, the bar chart will be damn coherent and predictable. It will look exactly like:

1/6 landed on 1
1/6 landed on 2
1/6 landed on 3
1/6 landed on 4
1/6 landed on 5
1/6 landed on 6

It is simply statistics. You will not notice any randomness until you look at it in a tiny level of detail. The universe is the same. Examining it at a tiny level of detail (sub atomic detail) it is actually very unpredictable. If you doubt me research the uncertainty principle.

[jackle]

Originally posted by Canute
What does quantum mechanics have to say about how you know that? Or isn't the fact that you know it part of the way the universe is right now? Quantum mechanics explains next to nothing. It describes the behavior of quanta, not their existence or essence.

Quantum mechanics explains lots of things. Famous examples include:
.Stability of the atom
.Black body radiation
.Photo electric effect

Actually the list is almost endless and quantum mechanics does also teach us about the existence and essence of sub-atomic particles. For example, they exhibit:
.wave-particle duality
.uncertainty
.tunneling

[Canute]

It's not a big issue, but if you look closely you'll find that this does not disagree with what I said.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by The Opiner
Still, it seems that the great majority of physicists believe in subatomic "randomness" (read "indeterminate behavior").


One way to look at quantum theory is that it is random in classical dynamical variables (position and momentum, time and energy, components of angular momentum,...). But a way to rescue determinism is to turn the question upside down: What's so damn special about classical variables that I should expect the universe to respect them?

Quantum mechanics is a deterministic theory. It is just deterministic in a different set of variables, namely the wavefunction and its conjugate. Its time evolution is completely determined by the Hamiltonian, and it satisfies a differential equation that is identical to the heat equation (albeit with imaginary time).

edit: typo

[selfAdjoint]

Yeah, but then there's that non-unitary "collapse". That was the dilemma that lead Everett to his own interpretation: the beautiful deterministic wave function never collapses, but observations coexist, orthogonal to each other.

[jackle]

Quantum mechanics [i]is a deterministic theory. It is just deterministic in a different set of variables, namely the wavefunction and its conjugate. Its time evolution is completely determined by the Hamiltonian, and it satisfies a differential equation that is identical to the heat equation (albeit with imaginary time).

edit: typo [/B]

So as a scientist Tom, where was the information that determined everything hiding at the moment of the big bang?

[Moon]

Even if our actions are predetermined, from our perspective we still have the impression that we make choices.

Since we can never view any situation from both perspectives at once, it is therefore our illusion that we have freewill. We can never know...

[jackle]

Legal systems tend to rely rather heavily on the concept of free-will.

"I was pre-determined to kill them, why should I go to jail?" doesn't usually work. There have however, been court cases where people have killed someone accidently in their sleep and have been let off.

The decision making part of their brain wasn't active, so it makes no sense to punish them for their sleep walking. Making an example of them wouldn't reduce the number of occurances and I don't think it is likely that they would be unlucky enough to do it again. The concept of free-will seems like a useful one in this context.

[Another God]

The usefullness of the free will concept to the legal system is irrelevent to the natural laws of the Universe. Besides the law is built on that system because that is the system that everyone assumed to be the way things are. If you start looking at how things are slowly changing in the legal system though you will notice that more effort is being put into reformation that 'punishment' though... What is the point of reformation if people can just choose to break the law again?!?!?!

Have a look at www.determinisim.com and you will find the society of natural science which is an advocate of acknowledging that people are determined in their actions, and as such all legal consequences of breaking the law should be fine tuned towards reforming the people who broke it, and not in any way dedicated to 'punishing' the individuals. They did afterall break the law on account of the fact that ....the company they kept was bad company, their parents were drug addicts, they had no money, they were addicted to some drug...etc whatever. It was only for their situation (combined with their genetic dispositions) that they did what they did. Instead of punishing them for their situations, change it. Put them into a better situation where breaking the law isn't so possible.

[Qurious]

The approach that free-will does not exist and that we are all pre-determined is still shaky. The assumption is, every single relevant measurable object from the large to the infinite can be measured by some sort of equation, for ease lets say 2+2=4. Now though this might explain simply the efforts of those who support determism, there still is the underlying problem, which is no different than the people who advocate that we possess free will which is: assumption. Assumption underlies the entire argument from the very beginning. Another God stated that agruing that what caused the big bang is irrelevant because the answer to what came before is inconclusive, however, that is rather hypocritical of the fact that the arguing that we are all determined is also inconclusive.

Lets look objectively at some statements.

Another God: Everything in the universe is determined because the universe is all the variables of the universe, and if known, we could predict every single action implying that we are all pre-determined.

I'm not sure why no one caught this, but this has a much relevancy to prove the position that we are determined and that free will is inconsistant with physical laws as I am to say

Qurious: The entire universe can be codified into a matematical equation, except for our coinciousness and the will to choose. These equations (the equation of free will) were specifically made by god itself and are entirely random. The very essence of being, the very essence of god, of an emergent property bound by no determinism except of an emergence from nothing is tantamount to consciousness and our ability to choose.

Now logically thinking, you cannot seriously say that Another God's position holds any more sound reasoning than mine. The assumptions of the determinists: we can codify the entire universe into an equation and that no equations within the one that would be part of the larger equation are completely random and this implies that we are completely determined.

Finally, the fact of the matter is that to believe that we dont have free-will seems counterintuitive. Though I accede the fact that it is POSSIBLE that we are determined, until I have overwhelming evidence I will follow my feelings because though we might be determined I cannot predict what is going to happen next and therefore I perceive that I have free-will, and perception is all that matters, its what describes our reality.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Qurious
assumption. Assumption underlies the entire argument from the very beginning. Assumption is present as a part of life. We have to start somewhere. I'll never deny that anything I say is based on some assumption...
Another God stated that agruing that what caused the big bang is irrelevant because the answer to what came before is inconclusive, however, that is rather hypocritical of the fact that the arguing that we are all determined is also inconclusive. I never meant to say that arguing over what caused the big bang was irrelevent (in itself), what I did mean to say was that Arguing about what caused the big bang, with the aim of undermining determinism is irrelevent.

We are trying to argue over whether we are determined or not. That is the argument at hand that we are trying to solve to some degree. To do that we need to use logic and factual tidbits of evidence that build an inductive picture. To use these tools, by perhaps pointing out that "God created the universe with a word, God gave us freewill, therefore you are wrong", you would have to have everyone agree to the premise that God gave us freewill. In the case of the big bang, I don't know what the big bang is, when it occured, or what its 'true' relevence is to 'The Universe' (in the uppermost sense of the word), so using it as a premise for an argument is lost until it is clarrified exactly what it is. Unfortunately, I am not willing to get into an argument about the big bang here. I have heard enough and unless someone has some earth shattering insight, I am certain no ground will be made beyond pure speculation.

Lets look objectively at some statements.

Another God: Everything in the universe is determined because the universe is all the variables of the universe, and if known, we could predict every single action implying that we are all pre-determined.
That is a paraphrase of me isn't it? I had to check, because if I did write that, then I apologise, because it is confusing of what I actually mean. If I didn't write it, then I will explain exactly why I wouldn't say that right now.

The universe is determined Because it is (or isn't, whatever...). The reason the universe is determined is not something I have attempted to explain, justify, to talk about. I am purely describing what I believe the unvierse to be, not explaining why it is that way.

If I am correct, then in being so determined the implication is that for any given moment: The Laws of the universe combined with the precise position of everything within the universe will determine exactly where everything will be in the next moment, and every moment there after (aswell as everymoment before). KNowledge need have nothing to do with this, but the implication for knowledge is obvious: If you 'know' the laws and location of everything, then you could predict the future, and predict the past precisely.

Just to clarify, none of the last two paragraphs are evidence for determinism. They are simply explanations of what determinism are, and what it entails. This isn't my argument for a belief in determinism at all.

I'm not sure why no one caught this, but this has a much relevancy to prove the position that we are determined and that free will is inconsistant with physical laws as I am to say

Qurious: The entire universe can be codified into a matematical equation, except for our coinciousness and the will to choose. These equations (the equation of free will) were specifically made by god itself and are entirely random. The very essence of being, the very essence of god, of an emergent property bound by no determinism except of an emergence from nothing is tantamount to consciousness and our ability to choose. Hopefully you will now understand that you needn't demonstrate how the above isn't an argument. It was never meant to be an argument. It was a clarrification of what the argument was about. You're example just there is simply a claim as to what you (or someone) may beleive, it is neither an argument (obviously), nor is it a description of what God is, what is entailed by this belief, or what consciousness is.

Now logically thinking, you cannot seriously say that Another God's position holds any more sound reasoning than mine. The assumptions of the determinists: we can codify the entire universe into an equation and that no equations within the one that would be part of the larger equation are completely random and this implies that we are completely determined. That is the determinist claim, it is not in itself reasoning. I can give u my reasoning for it again if you want, I don't mind, but I won't do it until someone asks, to save everyone else the boredom of reading it all again...

Finally, the fact of the matter is that to believe that we dont have free-will seems counterintuitive. Though I accede the fact that it is POSSIBLE that we are determined, until I have overwhelming evidence I will follow my feelings because though we might be determined I cannot predict what is going to happen next and therefore I perceive that I have free-will, and perception is all that matters, its what describes our reality. SO in the end, you haven't undermined any of my arguments, and your argument in reply is that 'it seems like we do'. "It seems like we do" is not a convincing argument at all sorry.

[Canute]

It baffles me why people who don't believe in freewill should argue about it, nobody's free to change their minds. Still, I suppose they have no choice.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Canute
It baffles me why people who don't believe in freewill should argue about it, nobody's free to change their minds. Still, I suppose they have no choice. Exactly.

It continues to baffle me why people can't get their head around that fact either. Ironicly, you have shown that you have to some extent got your head around it, yet something inside of you won't let you accept that that is the case. Just because people don't have the "Free choice" to change their mind, doesn't mean that their situation can't alter their minds. I thought this point would be obvious by now, particularly by my last post made RE the society of natural science.

[jackle]

The Laws of the universe combined with the precise position of everything within the universe will determine exactly where everything will be in the next moment

No, position is a classical variable and quantum mechanics isn't deterministic in classical variables:

Quantum mechanics is a deterministic theory. It is just deterministic in a different set of variables, namely the wavefunction and its conjugate.

See!

I have heard a little bit about this type of quantum determinism, but it isn't classical (newtonian) determinism. The deterministic wavefunction relates to probabilities that help predict outcomes. It is quite random still.

In short, I disagree.

[Another God]

Originally posted by jackle
In short, I disagree.

Position doesn't always need to be taken in terms of 'Classical physics' vs 'Quantum Physics' etc. You could just take it as lay speak for 'Where stuff is'.

If you would like, I will re-state it, once again:

The Laws and the state of the universe will determine exactly how the next moment will be.

Seriously though, its the concept you need to grasp, not the semantic nuances.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Another God
Exactly.

It continues to baffle me why people can't get their head around that fact either. Ironicly, you have shown that you have to some extent got your head around it, yet something inside of you won't let you accept that that is the case. Just because people don't have the "Free choice" to change their mind, doesn't mean that their situation can't alter their minds. I thought this point would be obvious by now, particularly by my last post made RE the society of natural science. [/B]
You've interpreted my post in an odd way. My point was that a wordl in which people argue that there is no such thing as freewill and that our every action is involuntary, being entirely phsyically determined, is a very strange place. Why ever would the question come up in the first place? It makes the world an even stranger place than it would be if freewill existed.

Still, when you say - "The Laws and the state of the universe will determine exactly how the next moment will be" I wouldn't disagree. It does not exclude the possibility of consciousness and freewill.

[olde drunk]

Canute, Another God: I prefer my definition of freewill to include making the choice to be in the physical framework. Once here, i will then obey the rules, etc of the physical world. BUT - I also suspect that we can change some of the Laws and State of the Universe as we go along. We only need to learn/discover/rediscover the process.

Why limit our views to the physical universe where we have a body? my consciousness is beyond physical. let's use our resources to expand our abilities. why argue for limitations? need i repeat the old saw?

my personal experience has been that the more i ask myself to accomplish the more success i have. this includes thinking 'outside ANY box'.

peace,

[jackle]

Originally posted by Another God
Position doesn't always need to be taken in terms of 'Classical physics' vs 'Quantum Physics' etc. You could just take it as lay speak for 'Where stuff is'.

But stuff is made out of sub-atomic components and these are not necessarily at a definite point in space or if they are, they may be travelling with any old momentum. This is the basics of the uncertainty principle.

The Laws and the state of the universe will determine exactly how the next moment will be.

Scientists who have studied physics for their whole lives still question this.

Seriously though, its the concept you need to grasp, not the semantic nuances.

I do grasp the concept. As a youth, I found the newtonian world view was so compelling that I came to your conclusion. It seemed obvious and easy to prove. When I studied modern physics, I realized that determinism (especially the type I believed in) need not hold true at all.

[Canute]

olde drunk

I can go along with that. Do you know Sartre?

[Another God]

Originally posted by Canute
Why ever would the question come up in the first place? It makes the world an even stranger place than it would be if freewill existed. Funnily enough, it actually needn't change anything...IN fact, that is precisely my belief, that things ARE as they are, and we ARE determined. So that we should as this question isn't so strange, it is precisely the sort of question our minds are prone to ask (ie: Predestined to ask). If you elvove a mind like our, one which has to achieve certain things (calculating the distance and flight time of a spear or a rock etc), and you push that brain a little bit further, you get a mind which works in a particular way. The fact that we ask any questions of our universe has to be accepted as the sort of thing we do, and that one question such as this has come up is inevitable. It is simply how the biochemistry of our brain works. We needn't free will ourselves into asking it, it is just what we ask by our brains very nature.


Still, when you say - "The Laws and the state of the universe will determine exactly how the next moment will be" I wouldn't disagree. It does not exclude the possibility of consciousness and freewill. [:D] I love it when people say that. It sort of amuses me. I mean...OK, i can agree with what you said...but I don't really know exactly what you have in mind by 'it does not exclude the possibility of consciousness and freewill'. Because if the very next moment is precisly determined, then so are our actions....and so by deduction, obviously we cannot change that fact. So if by 'possibility to have free will' you mean 'Possibility to do the thing that our brain tells us to do (which we believe we are choosing)', then SURE, I agree completely. We have 'free will' (which I call lack of free will.)

[Canute]

Originally posted by Another God
Funnily enough, it actually needn't change anything...IN fact, that is precisely my belief, that things ARE as they are, and we ARE determined. So that we should as this question isn't so strange, it is precisely the sort of question our minds are prone to ask (ie: Predestined to ask).
That's not quite what I meant. Things are certainly as they are, and according to the physical evidence we may or may not have freewill.

But a world in which automata argue about whether they are automata or not is a strange one. Why would they do it? In particular, why is not possible to prove it one way or the other? It should be trivial matter to disprove freewill. After all if it doesn't exist in humans, who feel that it does, then it probably doesn't exist at all. In this case it seems certain that it is impossible for it to exist. If it cannot possible exist we ought to be able to prove it.

This doesn't prove anything, but it's strange world that let's us hold a delusion of freewill consistently over evolutionary time without it ever once contradicting the evidence, without it bestowing any evolutionary advantage, and without one single example of a human who felt like they didn't possess and exercise it.

[:D] I love it when people say that. It sort of amuses me. I mean...OK, i can agree with what you said...but I don't really know exactly what you have in mind by 'it does not exclude the possibility of consciousness and freewill'. Because if the very next moment is precisly determined, then so are our actions....and so by deduction, obviously we cannot change that fact. So if by 'possibility to have free will' you mean 'Possibility to do the thing that our brain tells us to do (which we believe we are choosing)', then SURE, I agree completely. We have 'free will' (which I call lack of free will.) [/B]
The apparent contradiction arises from the difference between causes that are sufficient and causes that are necessary. Physically determinate causes (or contingent conditions) are clearly necessary to account for our actions and reactions. The question is whether they are sufficient to account for it.

[selfAdjoint]

Canute, I'd like to ask you if you think animals have free will (let's leave consciousness out of it, because that starts hares with the PETA enthusiasts)? Is humanity the only species that has free will? Did free will evolve (heh, as Dennett titles his latest book)? Where does the line lie between free-willing and non-freee-willing, or can we conceive of a continuum?

[olde drunk]

do we believe that we are the product of the physical world? OR, do we believe that we created the physical world?

i suspect that the latest info (science and metaphysics) is highly in favor of the concept that we create the physical world throught our consciousness. hence, no prdetermination.

[Canute]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Canute, I'd like to ask you if you think animals have free will (let's leave consciousness out of it, because that starts hares with the PETA enthusiasts)? Is humanity the only species that has free will? Did free will evolve (heh, as Dennett titles his latest book)? Where does the line lie between free-willing and non-freee-willing, or can we conceive of a continuum?
I can't answer these I'm afraid. I suspect that we're looking at it in the wrong way.

But I don't believe in some God who made humans conscious and gave them freewill and nobody else. We are animals, if we have freewill then animals have freewill, if we don't they don't.

The continuum idea is nearest my conjecture.

Don't tell me Dennett has written another one. I've given him every chance, this one I'm definitely not reading.

[selfAdjoint]

I read it. It's called Freedom Evolves. It's a, well mostly, Darwinist defense of compatibilism. Reminds me of somebody's description of Edwards speaking in New Hampshire; while I was reading Dennett I was almost persuaded of his argument. But after I finished the book, I concluded his arguments were special pleading, if not obfuscation. I put this book way below Consciousness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

[jackle]

[i]i suspect that the latest info (science and metaphysics) is highly in favor of the concept that we create the physical world throught our consciousness....[/B]

No, I wouldn't go that far. I don't know any scientists who think that the physical world is created through our consciousness.

[Canute]

Originally posted by jackle
No, I wouldn't go that far. I don't know any scientists who think that the physical world is created through our consciousness.

You might be surprised, there are a few, and the ideas of physics seem to be converging on it as a solution.

“The system of shared experience which we call the world is viewed as building itself out of elementary quantum phenomena, elementary acts of observer-participancy. In other words, the questions that the participants put – and the answers they get – by their observing devices, plus their communication of their findings, take part in creating the impressions which we call the system: that whole great system which to a superficial look is time and space, particles and fields.”
John Wheeler (from Martin Rees ‘Before the Beginning’ Simon and Schuster 1997 London

"Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge....It has nothing to do with the individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion. Indeed in a certain sense two ‘I’s’ are identical, namely, when one disregards all their special content—their Karma.....When a man dies, his karma lives and creates for itself another carrier."
Erwin Schroedinger.

“The idea behind modern phenomenalism would be that neither the transcendental object not subject exists in any concrete sense. Instead, one would postulate various possible combinations of phemomenal objects, the most coherent, complex and structured of which could be viewable as constituting emergent conceptual minds such as our own. In this case, the universe could be seen as fundamentally rooted in phenomena or mind.”
Edward Barkin (Journal of Consciousness Studies 2003 Vol 10, 8 p 5)

[Sikz]

If everything is predetermined, what point in time was it all determined at? It can't be determined at any point in time, because then the portion before it was not predetermined. If it wasn't determined at a point of time, that's just another way of saying "it has not ever been determined" in which case it is not predetermination.

So EVERYTHING cannot be predetermined- but perhaps everything after a certain point can. But what sense does that make? The insant everything was predetermined has to be the same instant it was decided to be predetermined, and nothing could have lead up to that. It had to be pure random.

So pure random decided what will be preditermined (since if anything led up to what will be preditermined, that was the actual moment of predetermination). If pure random decided what will be predetermined... Isn't that the same as saying whatever happens is random, which is the same as saying it ISN'T preditermined?

[Canute]

I think you have a point about the regression of causes. But randomness does not imply lack of determination.

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by jackle
No, I wouldn't go that far. I don't know any scientists who think that the physical world is created through our consciousness.


as QM progresses, more and more 'modern scientific' thought, via super string and M theories, the "observer" becomes the creator of the observed or measured.

the olde tree falling in the woods doesn't make a sound because it doesn't exist unless someone is there to see (create) it.

i believe Brian Greene will be publishing a new book which may expand the above.

[jackle]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sikz
[B]If everything is predetermined, what point in time was it all determined at? It can't be determined at any point in time, because then the portion before it was not predetermined.[QUOTE]

Imaginary time again? Where's Tom?

[qwantum_phlux]

someone indulge me...

Define Randomness...

then "Chaos"...

[FZ+]

Randomness:
the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan

Chaos:
Of a system having a sensitivity to perturbances in an exponential fashion. A positive lyapunov exponent.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Sikz
If everything is predetermined, what point in time was it all determined at? It either was always determined, or it never will be.

[Sikz]

It either was always determined, or it never will be.

I think you've missed some of my point- it can't be "always" determined. If the determination occurred out of time, we can correctly say it never happened (since if something has not happened in the past it has "never happened, by definition). If the determination occurred within time there is one point in time that we can designate as the time determination occurred. But whatever point we label as that will have a reason for being that point and points before it that decided what would be determined; and THOSE points should be the real point of determination. If we trace that line back to the very earliest determination of all the other determination, that determination must NOT be decided by anything else (or the decisive factor would be the actual determination point)- therefore what is determined has to be random, which is the same as saying what happens is random, which is the same as saying what happens is not determined.


Random: "The quality of lacking any predictable order or plan."

I would dissagree; that definition is the one used when discussing dice rolls and such, which in actuality are predictable if we have the data. The philosophical definition, then, has to be different. I would propose:

Random: "The quality of lacking any order or plan."

A fox's next action may not be predictable, but that is due to limited knowledge; philosophicly a lack of knowledge on our part does not cause the event we lack knowledge of to be random.


EDIT: I fixed the quote problem.

[Canute]

Sikz

I agree that's the normal definition. But I also agree with jackle. By this definition the first cause (or first effect) must have been random since no order or plan could have existed before it.

The idea of a 'First Cause' doesn't make much sense in a strictly physically determined universe.

[Sikz]

Indeed. And if the first cause was random, and all other things folllowed from that cause (we can say that all other things were encoded in that cause), then all other things must be random- and thus no predestination.

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Sikz
Indeed. And if the first cause was random, and all other things folllowed from that cause (we can say that all other things were encoded in that cause), then all other things must be random- and thus no predestination.

This doesn't work. If Lady Luck rolled the dice in the beginning and we wound up in a random universe, but that universe is predetermined within itself, then since we can't go back and reroll the dice, we're stuck in predetermination again.

[Sikz]

This doesn't work. If Lady Luck rolled the dice in the beginning and we wound up in a random universe, but that universe is predetermined within itself, then since we can't go back and reroll the dice, we're stuck in predetermination again.

Depending on how you look at it. If we look at time as linear, with the first event being random, then you are correct. But we could say, equally correctly, that the first event was all events encoded into one- and as such its random composition is a random composition of all events. Is there actually a difference, if we view things as utterly causal, between the first event encoding, and thus being, all other events- in which case time is a sort of illusion and the random element is still being implemented into the code- and the first event triggering, encoding, other events but being somehow sepearate?

If the first event contains all information necessary to construct the entirety of the universe at any time, then what reason have we to assume we exist as an "actual" universe apart from that information?

[jackle]

Originally posted by Canute
You might be surprised, there are a few, and the ideas of physics seem to be converging on it as a solution.


My QM lecturer suffered from ontological doubt, but that's about it. He spent too many long hours studying - needed to get out more!

[:D]

[Canute]

Seems to me that an event requires the existence of time and space.

[TampaUSA]

Originally posted by Canute
Seems to me that an event requires the existence of time and space.

I agree but does this mean they need to meet? I think the only explanation is parallelism. Running all in parallel with life, consciousness is that entire area that lies between time and space including Time Space. Everything in the universe has a certain level of consciousness. Why humans are conscious at most known levels is the golden question.. I also think that there are other levels of consciousness that we are not privy to.

-Peace

[Canute]

I agree, except that I'd argue we are privy to those levels.

[Another God]

I disagree, but this isn't really the thread to start up that discussion.

[dune]

Originally posted by jackle
Legal systems tend to rely rather heavily on the concept of free-will.

"I was pre-determined to kill them, why should I go to jail?" doesn't usually work. There have however, been court cases where people have killed someone accidently in their sleep and have been let off.

The decision making part of their brain wasn't active, so it makes no sense to punish them for their sleep walking. Making an example of them wouldn't reduce the number of occurances and I don't think it is likely that they would be unlucky enough to do it again. The concept of free-will seems like a useful one in this context.

...Jackle, you must admit though, that the mere existence of the penal system is certainly an "input" or stimulus to the brain, which does affect our actions.

As a determinist, I would argue that each of my actions is based on (i) stimuli in the present (or very recent past) and (ii) the accumulated experience which is stored in my memory. (Really, memory is also a stimuli in the present). The way I see it, these two together dictate my every decision.

From the perspective of justice (if there is such a thing), it makes no sense to punish a person for their predetermined actions. However, it seems that humans over the millenia have unwittingly come up with a way (i.e. punishment) of minimizing destructive human behavior. I say "minimizing" because there are always those for whom other stimuli will outweigh the fear stimulus of future punishment.

Given this line of thought, I don't see the need to invoke free will.

[dune]

Determinism (or not) seems to hinge on the existence of chance, free will, and miracles. This thread has rightfully focused on the chance and free will components. (who has witnessed a miracle??)

Also, it seems that some have argued that QM introduces an emement of chance or randomness that makes free will a physical possibility.
Although I am not an expert in QM, I fail to see how randomness at such a small scale could provide a mode by which free will operates. There are two difficulties for me: (i) randomness and chance appear to be incompatible with the organized and predictable quality of free will, and (ii) the scale at which the randomness is manifested doesn't appear to be the scale at which thoughts, decisions, actions are made. My understanding of QM is that randomness in "fundamental" partical behavior gets lost in the presence of many other particles, i.e. randomness gets averaged out of the equation on the scale of electrical impulses travelling through our neural networks.

Am I out on a limb here??

[Crammitgandy]

That nothing is really predetermined (otherwise free will would not exist). We can decide on a set plan, but we may change our minds later, or we may not. free will is a complete and utter impossibility if all things are predetermined.

[Another God]

Dune: now that I can agree with.

Crammitgrandy: I also agree that predetermination would preclude free will (though many disagree with me), but that is not an argument againstr predetermination, mearly a description of one of its predictions.

I am yet to see evidence in favour of free will: Thus one of the falsifiability claims made by the determinist doctrine still stands awaiting its knockdown.

[dune]

Originally posted by Crammitgandy
That nothing is really predetermined (otherwise free will would not exist). We can decide on a set plan, but we may change our minds later, or we may not. free will is a complete and utter impossibility if all things are predetermined.

...but, isn't it possible that each thought in your brain is the result of stimuli from your present experience of the world filtered and moderated by your memory (which is the accumulation of all past experiences and thoughts)?

[Another God]

Originally posted by dune

Am I out on a limb here??
I don't think so.

I have always found it amusing that there are two major descriptions of our universe on a physical level. That of 'direct cause and efffect - The newtonian universe', and that of 'random interactions - quantum mechanics'. To my mind neither of those allow the possibility of free will.

Either the universe follows strict rules, in which case our brain/mind is just as much a prisoner of those laws as every other particle in the universe (and so cannot deviate from the path it must follow)

OR

the universe is random, in which case there is no way that we could 'control' the random particles in a way that free will indicates is required. If we, the particles of this universe, may exert control over ourselves then we are no longer random. Paradox.

The only way free will can weasle its way into the picture is by denying universal causality of our universe and by denying universal randomness and to claim that some things are determined, and some things are random, and then there is the mind. Which in turn equates to an awefully fractured universe, not one coherent picture at all.

This isn't impossible...but well, the whole idea is very strange. I think settling with determinism and no free will is the most straight forward option atm.

[Canute]

I don;t believe that we can provethe existence of freewill. To do so we'd have to prove the existence of causal consciousness and for lengthy reasons i don't believe we can do this. If we could I'm sure we would have done it by now. However...

Described in a recent BBC Horizon programme investigating the Atkins diet (which has been proven to work) was a controlled study in which all participants were fed what appeared to be precisely the same food as each other over a sustained period. However for selected participants, and unknown to them, the fat content disguised in their meals was consistently and significantly enhanced. The idea was to study how fat intake correlates to weight change and eating habits.

Scientifically the results were unsurprising. People in the group that ate more fat over a sustained period, but who did not know that they were doing it, did not lose weight and did not eat less. They did precisely and exactly the opposite, just what one would expect from a scientific point of view.

This result makes the success of the Atkins diet even less scientifically plausible than ever. Why do Atkins dieters not react in the same way as these volunteers?

The evidence is not conclusive but it seems likely that in order to lose weight on the Atkins diet you have to know that you are on it. If you do not know that you are on it does not work.

If this is true then might it suggest something about consciousness and freewill?

[Another God]

no, not at all. It suggests something that every scientist has known since early education: The Placebo effect is a very real very strong effect. A false belief of the mind can have just as much effect as many true beliefs.

[Canute]

But, strange to say, according to science our beliefs have no effect whatsoever on our behaviour.

[Another God]

who says that?

Why do you think they have controls? It is to level the play field in experiments. Our beliefs change everything in our behaviour. What they don't change is the reality of the world, but they can drastically change our behaviours, and affect the internal systems of the body.

[dune]

Originally posted by Another God
who says that?

Why do you think they have controls? It is to level the play field in experiments. Our beliefs change everything in our behaviour. What they don't change is the reality of the world, but they can drastically change our behaviours, and affect the internal systems of the body.

I agree. Beliefs, moods, psychological health all affect the chemical balances in the brain and body. What is a belief? It isn't a "ghost" thought that dwells in a fifth dimension or other world. It is a physical phenomenon - primarily electrical impulses as are all other less sublime thoughts.

The outer world + memory affect thoughts through perception / thoughts or mental health in turn affect chemical balances / chemical balances affect ones health. Clear cause and effect.

[Canute]

I completely agree that out beliefs determine our behaviour. However the dictionary definition of belief makes it clear that one cannot have a belief unless one is conscious. If this is true then then consciousnes is causal. As science is adamant that consciousness is not causal then science states that beliefs do NOT affect out behaviour. Either beliefs do not determine behaviour or science is wrong.

Perhaps the neural correlates (or whatever) of beliefs have an effect, but not the beliefs themselves.

To be honest I don't understand how science reconciles the placebo affect with physicalism. I might start a thread to ask.

[Another God]

well, your first mistake is accepting a dictionary definition as a scientificly or philosophically examinable concept. A dictionary definition is a definition which allows you to have a vague idea of what is being spoken about. Philosophical definitions are much more rigourous.

Secondly, I don't know where you get the idea that consciousness cannot be causal. No one even knows what consciousness even is, how can claims be made about the causality of it. If consciousness is a direct corelate to brain function, then consciousness can be said to be as equally causal as brain state is.

Do you believe that brain states are causal?
Oh:
Perhaps the neural correlates (or whatever) of beliefs have an effect, but not the beliefs themselves.
yeah, exactly. The brain state that = x belief is the causal factor. but we don't even know whether 'the belief itself' is any different to the brain state x.

As you know, this how consciousness/brain state stuff is very confusing and almost not at all understood, so it is hard to go and make any claims based on it. The fact exists though, beliefs are directly correlated to the brain in some way, and whatever belief a brain holds has a direct consequence on other aspects of the brain and body.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Another God
well, your first mistake is accepting a dictionary definition as a scientificly or philosophically examinable concept. A dictionary definition is a definition which allows you to have a vague idea of what is being spoken about. Philosophical definitions are much more rigourous.
I think you'll find that any definition of 'belief' will imply consciousness. It's pretty obvious really.

Secondly, I don't know where you get the idea that consciousness cannot be causal.
From science, it's not my idea. It is currently the scientific orthodoxy that the phsyical world is causally complete and that consciousnes is not causal. Argue with scientists not me.

No one even knows what consciousness even is, how can claims be made about the causality of it.
Scientifically speaking I agree.

If consciousness is a direct corelate to brain function, then consciousness can be said to be as equally causal as brain state is.
Not quite. It can be argued that the correlates would function identically if we were not conscious. Whay you say here is true only if consciousness is the correlate.

Do you believe that brain states are causal?
Of course. The question is what they do cause and what they don't.

yeah, exactly. The brain state that = x belief is the causal factor. but we don't even know whether 'the belief itself' is any different to the brain state x.
But we do know this, this is why question arises. You can't argue that something is the correlate of itself.

As you know, this how consciousness/brain state stuff is very confusing and almost not at all understood, so it is hard to go and make any claims based on it.
Surely it is possible to make claims on logical and experiential grounds?

The fact exists though, beliefs are directly correlated to the brain in some way, and whatever belief a brain holds has a direct consequence on other aspects of the brain and body. [/B]
You can state this but that doesn't make it a fact. If you could prove it is a fact, or even that it is a scientifically coherent idea you'd be famous. For science beliefs do not affect brains, the causation is strictly one way.

[olde drunk]

it is my opinion that our physical word and it's reality is driven by beliefs. we will experience the world based on our beliefs. we are born into a physical world that has certian rules of nature that we have agreed to accept.

from that point forward, what we are within our being, is projected outward to create our experience. this happens on many, many levels, to include telepathic communication with those that will assist us in fulfilling our thoughts. if we worry that we will have an accident, our thoughts go out and attract participants, circumstances, etc. again, these thoughts are completed based on our inner beliefs.

a recent study did show that people that felt lucky won more in games of chance. those who felt unlucky had poor results. then they educated the unlucky ones about their beliefs and low and behold, they improved their success.

the power of positive thinking is just the surface, we need to explore BELIEFS and REALITY CREATION more closely.

if i believe i have freewill and i determine all actions, it is so.

peace,

[Canute]

I think that there may be some truth in that, but I suspect it's not so black and white. It's doubtful that either idealism or realism is true since neither can be proved or falsified.

[olde drunk]

canute; i live in a genius' paradise. i believe that i have full control over my reality and i am blessed with freewill.

the alternative is no freewill and my life experiences are imposed on me. gawd, even typing it out makes me want to vomit! that would be a very sad way of going through life.

yeah i know, it is the hedge your bets type of statement. but, since neither can be proven til we pass, it's much more fun and liberating to believe that i am master of my own universe; in fact exhilerating.

you must admit, however, that there is much anecdotal and circumstantial evidence to suggest that i am right. since i already admitted to being a betting man, i'll wager you 2 all expense paid trips to the other side of our galaxy that i am right. (payable at the probable debriefing after death) are we on???


peace,

[Canute]

Ok. But you have to acknowledge that you cannot have freewill without deterministic phsyical causation. Unless physical determinism applies to physical ineractions to some extent then there is no way of exercising freewill, your actions would have no effect. It's surely got to be a synthesis, not all one or the other.

[Dawn183]

I have always found it a mystery as to what was before the Big Bang. How can something be made out of nothing? And if there was something before the Big Bang, then the Big Bang isn't the beginning. And how can you define the beginning of something? How can life be forced into something that has no innate life?
There are other threads on this forum that have introduced the concept of consciousness into their scientific arguments however where did consciousness begin? Even without complex scientific theories surely logic has to come into play to show that consciousness has existed right from the very beginning of 'time'.
To quote Roger S Jones " I had come to suspect, and now felt compelled to acknowledge, that science and the physical world were products of human imagining - that we were not the cool observers of that world, but its passionate creators. We were all poets and the world was our metaphor"
So if we are passsionate creators how can our actions be predetermined? Surely it is more exciting to create than to move on a predetermined path.
There is a body of Material that explores consciousness and all its implications called the Seth Material. There is also an extremely useful website, www.sethworx.com that explains more about this Material and how it is being backed up by findings within Quantum Physics. It certainly helped make the Big Bang theory make sense to me!

[Dawn183]

In reply to olde drunk, I also agree that I create my own reality and that it is based on my beliefs! And I agree that 'you get what you concentrate on'.
We each have free will in all our actions, however the hardest part to explain is that of how we see 'other people' within our reality.
What also seems to be difficult within this argument is how to explain consciousness within the concept of the brain, for really it should be discussed within the framework of the mind.
To quote Schrodinger "Consciousness is that by which this world first becomes manifest, by which indeed, we can quite calmly say, it first becomes present; that the world consists of the elements of consciousness......."
However there is a very exciting course that explains more about the nature of reality, have a look at www.sethworx.com