Are All Events Predetermined By The Big Bang?

[Oblivion]

The big bang created every particle in existence. 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 existence), 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 existence, 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 realize 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 don't see how predicting the future implies all actions are ascribed before they occur (i.e. predetermined).

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

3. See 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
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 don't 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 possesses a quality that allows them to make decisions at their own accord (i.e. Free Will).

How do you know that?

3. See 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 isn't 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 don't have as much of a problem admitting that some higher being might know what's in store but for us to start debating that our mere flesh can comprehend what only god can see...?

lol doesn't 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

 

[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

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 everything 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 possibility 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]

canute

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.

 

[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 theory 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 beginning of the universe. It seems unignorable that it happened, but claiming that it was the beginning 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 don't 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) let's call it A. and an end wether utter entropy or big crunch there is still an end B let's 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 can't 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.