Are All Events Predetermined By The Big Bang?

[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]

chance, free will and miracles

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" particle 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 traveling through our neural networks.

Am I out on a limb here??

 

[Crammitgandy]

One of the cornerstones of my philosophy is...

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]

GET READY !

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