Determinism

Post Reply New Topic

Tim_p

....argumentum ad baculum. It would be a shame if you left the debate since, at the very least, I am learning latin. Yes, we do seem to be stuck on point one, and while I see no reason to give ground, I would much rather move on to the more complex question of whether determinism 'rules the universe,' or not. Plenty of other people agree with you that it does.

In the course of our debate on free will I admit that I have been in combative mode, and that there are statements that you have made that I have agreed with, but have refrained from saying so because it would have muddied the waters. I would prefer to discuss ideas and issues in a less rigid way, but before I defined 'scientific determinsim' you did accuse me of making circular arguments and not backing them up when I was not debating things in any kind of a formal manner.

Please note that I have not argued that nothing in the universe is determined. Obviously many things are determined to some extent. My genes dictate many things about me, both physical and mental. But not everything. Genes are constantly switched on and off by the influence of the environment.

Free will is very difficult to define, which is why I reached for the dictionary. In a formal debate you have to define your terms and keep to them, otherwise 'fuzzy logic' ensues, and the argument can get lost in a sea hazy definitions. If you don't agree with the Collins version, fair enough. But I do not agree that it implies random noise. I agree that what we value about free will is not randomness, but that it is self determined. This self determination does not exist without reference to the rest of the universe, of course, and I have never said that it did. I am not arguing for some kind of 'absolute free will,' which rules over everything else. It is simply my contention that free will, cause and effect, randomness and probability co-exist. Some things are predetermined and some things aren't. Science does its best to study those things which explain most about the world, and this means sifting those things that are determined out from the random. You may not agree. I would be surprised if you do.

As far as I am concerned we can agree to disagree with no hard feelings. If you want to continue the debate more as a discussion, that would be fine by me, since I have not really had the chance to discuss any of the ideas that really interest me as yet. Let us agree to move on.

Good idea. A change of tone from debate to more casual discussion might just free us from this sort of intellectual trench warfare that we're stuck in now. I'll resist the overwhelming urge to try and have the last word.

What ideas were you wanting to bring up?

Tim_p wrote:

At the risk of sounding patronizing, well done. It would not be an easy thing for me to let someone else have the last word either. You may have noticed.

What else would I like to discuss? Well, Hyperion brought up the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics. The book I quote from as my signature attempts to formalize a theory that accepts an infinity of universes. It is certainly a breathtaking concept, since most of us have enough trouble dealing with the one we already know about.

These other universes interact weakly at the quantum level, Deutsch believes, producing the kind of interference effects seen in the famous 'double slit' experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

http://naturalscience.com/ns/books/book02.html

What do you think?

Interesting, but I don't see it as necessary to explain wave-particle duality, and applying Occam's razor I think other theories with more predictions (or at least potential for prediction) should take precedent at the forefront of research.

Well, a little off-topic, but I wrote a theis proposal paper on this:

A brief survey into freewill while following the belief of the Christian God:

Rom 8:29-28; "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined
to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might
be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined,
these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified;
and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

Predestination: Your fate has been chosen for you. That, which goes against the God-given, a priceless, irrevocable, most important gift He has given us, "free will", which leads to you having no chance of salvation. Either God has chosen (predestination) for you to be saved, or not.

Furthermore, it states in the above passage that God chose only some to be saved, but in the following collected passages, it clearly states that God wants everyone to be saved.

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive." (I Corinthians 15:22)

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some
count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not
willing that any should perish but that all should
come to repentance." (II Peter 3:9)

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God
our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to
come unto the knowledge of the truth." (I Timothy
2:3,4)

Moreover, according to scripture, it claims God knows everything. That means your actions and events in life are predestined to become; you have no choice in the matter. But, as already pointed out, this goes against the notion of free will.

Every human decision is based off of certain things - your environment (social and physical, beginning at birth), which will dictate your options and opinions, ultimately, your personality. Your personality is usually determined by a plethora of things, but mainly your past experiences and your biological composition.

Your environment and biological chemistry is not a choice, but both determine your actions. Therefore, your actions aren't "free"- they're determined before you were born, in your biological makeup.

This leads to two problematic instances. First, and foremost, it shows that there is no free will like Christians claim there is. Second, the "cause" of your biological makeup is the Christian God, and the Christian God is powerful and all knowing, therefore, he forces your life to be precisely the way it is.

Lastly, free will and the Christian conception of Heaven: The Christian God guarantees us free will, so that means there will be free will in Heaven. However, evil exists, and there is free will in this world. So, to ensure there is no evil, the Christian God will have to remove free will in Heaven. This is completely ludicrous to all Christian's claims. Therefore, the claim of "free will" explaining evil is completely asinine to the Christian myth of Heaven.

Kind regards,
Chris

I will not speak to the rest of your post for fear of breaking my word to IgorStop, but I do have a complaint with this statement.

In the first part the conclusion "... to ensure there is no evil, the Christian God will have to remove free will in Heaven." simply does not follow from the premise "... evil exists, and there is free will in this world.".

And this "Therefore, the claim of "free will" explaining evil is completely asinine to the Christian myth of Heaven." is an argumentum ad hominem of some type, you define a group that disagrees with you, Christians, and then you make sure to mention that Christian beliefs are "myth", you thereby attack the character of Christian belief and dismiss all arguments from that side.

What I am saying is that if people really had free will on both Earth and Heaven, it would be reasonable to assume that at some point, there would be evils committed in Heaven.

But, then, why wouldn't God just send the sinner to Hell?

Kind regards,
Chris

Tim_p wrote:

I wouldn't hold you to that other than when you were replying to me. No disrespect to anyone is intended here, but I have no interest in discussing the bible, or free will or determinism in relation to it.

As for the Multiverse, or Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, I may start up another thread. I have recently joined a discussion group for the MWI vs the Copenhagen Interpretation. David Deutsch gets involved from time to time as well as other mathematicians and other quantum mechanics experts, so it is interesting but mostly way over my head. One thing struck me; a poll of physicists recently found that most accept the MWI over the CI, which they consider to be discredited, but don't like to talk too much about it outside of the field because the implications are so vast. In other words it is embarrassing to talk about to the general public.

THis hypothetical computer sounds vaguely like God

What does the question "do you believe in determinism?" mean?

could the interaction of quantum universes create free will? also charge bends space and your brain has a lot charge. Dont forget the concept of a paradox, two contridictory statements that are both true. Like general relativity and quantum physics. THey have and require a greater logical relationship than either or.