Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
[quote=Bronze Medal;146174]When you consider all of the ouside influences being applied at once, you'll see that have only one choice. The choice you do make at any given instance is the only choice you have.
[QUOTE/]
I must ask, how does that disprove what I argue?
I read the rest of your post, and the end of your quote goes against the rest of what you said, that we don't understand the human mind.
And also, I don't think that humans are complete slaves to their environment when it comes to thought. Rocks are not conscious beings, they are not faced with choices, living things are.
On the topic of a coin: when it has been flipped, there are two possibilities, whether it will be heads or tails has not been decided yet. The fact that there can be only heads or tails does not make a case for determinism. There is the possibility of landing on the edge.
__________________
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil"
-Winston Churchill
"It is dangerous to be right on matters where the established authority is wrong."
-Voltaire
There is a difference between our percieved probability and ability to predict, and the universe being 'deterministic'.
I do not see lack of predictive ability as restoring
that which concerns me most- the human initiative
and responsibility that I mentioned earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
If you flip a coin it is "destined" to land on a specific side due to the cause and effect nature of reality, just because we aren't psychic and we don't know which side it's going to land on doesn't mean it isn't going to land a predetermined side. Whenever you see scientists claiming determinism is false because they cannot measure and perfectly predict an outcome does not mean it's false, it just means our measurement and calculations are imperfect.
You may be right, you may be wrong.
There is a considerable body of scientific opinion,
perhaps the majority opinion, which considers
indeterminacy to be a fundamental characteristic
of nature. It has been so for about 80 years.
...the mutual uncertainties in position and momentum or energy and time really do exist. They are not the fault of the experimenter or the apparatus. They are a fundamental consequence of the quantum equations, built into every experiment in which quantum mechanics comes into play...
The true quantum interaction, and the true uncertainty associated with it, cannot be demonstrated with any kind of picture that looks like everyday colliding objects. To get the actual result you must work through the formal mathematics that calculates probabilities for abstract quantum states. Clever experiments on such interactions are still being done today. So far the experiments all confirm Heisenberg's (ca. 1927- USV) conviction that there is no "real" microscopic classical collision at the bottom...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
What 'randomness' does is suggest that there are uncaused effects, which defies everything we understand about the universe and physics.
I believe the idea behind the physics is that regardless
of the causes, and even if we know all there is to know
about the causes, the effects include an intrinsic indeterminacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
But we aren't here to argue determinsism we are here to argue free-will, and as I've said before determinism or no determinism there still is no free will. If determinism is false and there is physical randomness, that doesn't make our choices 'free', it just means they are dictated by radomness instead of physics.
I tend to agree that indeterminacy does not ensure
free will. It do not see how it could forbid it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
Free will is an empty concept, it requires there to be some sort of magical realm that one can acess unfettered, uninflueced thought to make a decision and that doesn't happen. Thought is entirely based on outside influences, even if one of those influences is randomness. Choice is a slave to reallity, it's a slave to the enviroment, a slave to present conditions. There is no freedom of choice, it's just seems like there is.
This is merely a declaration.
I may as easily declare that I can make an unfettered,
uninfluenced decision to do any number of things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronze Medal
We are subject completely to our enviroment, if we have free-will than so do rocks. We are not special, we are made of physical matter, atoms and chemicals. All motion and action we do that we percieve as 'choices' is dictated by something else.
Our minds and our physiology allow us infinite freedom
of action compared to any inanimate object.
__________________ From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord deliver us.
There are three scenarios in this question of free-will.
1. God. If there is an omniscient and omnipotent god, than at the point in which he created the universe he already knew what choices we were going to make so he effectively made our choices for us. In his perspective the future has already happened, he lives outside of time, so when he created the universe he created the universe's past present and future in the same moment.
No Free Will.
2. Determinism. The laws of physics are absolute. All causes have one effect and one effect only. The future has only one possible outcome because there is no such thing as randomness. Our bodies are made of atoms and are wholey subject to the laws of physics. So we have no more choice than a rock has a choice to fall in a parabola.
No Free Will.
3. Quantum. Quantum theory suggest (they haven't really proven anything yet) that there is a such thing as randomness on the sub-atomic level. That to a small degree there are no cause and effect absolutes. There are two ways to debunk that this signifies free will.
A. Randomness does not constitute as 'free will' anyway, If all your choices were 100% based on flipping a coin, what 'choice' do you have?
No Free Will
B. Randomness dissipates at the atomic level and above. Even if there is randomness at that level, it doesn't change anything at the level we exist on. The laws of physics (and Determinism) is completely uneffected by any randomness that may exist on the quantum level.
No Free Will
I have a good friend who is a determinist by belief and he's educated me and encouraged me to read up on such philosophies. The ironic thing about determinisim is that it produces a major self-paradox--which this friend of mine actually informed me of. Determinism suggests that everything we do and everything we will do, say, think etc. is pre-determined and is influenced by previous events from a pre-determined timeline. It negates free will in that everything is said to be "determined" or "pre-determined." However, for "everything" to be determined, the actual reality of determinism itself (for those who would believe in it) must also have have been "pre-determined" by that belief system, which is paradoxical, suggesting no genesis or beginning to this theory or belief system. It produces a sort of bizarre illogical loop that by the standards of determinism state that determinism itself was "pre-determined" making it an unreliable and sketchy theory at best.
As for quantum, it's a fascinating area, but like you said, there's nothing that's been achieved on an evidentiary standard thus far to solidify it as a theory--or rather this confirms why theories themselves can't ever really be considered "fact."
Personally, I believe in free-will. I see no other reasonable explanation for why we do what we do. I also believe in God. I believe God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, but I do not believe he created our choices for us. Of course this leaves some explaining, and I've tried for hours with some good friends to theorize how he could be omnipresent, yet leave our choices up to us--it's an ongoing process and mind boggling at times, but it's intriguing all the same to think about.
^^-- That problem with god is easy, either god is not a being in the way that we think, or a more likely possibility which is god is everything, and we are a part of god.
__________________
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil"
-Winston Churchill
"It is dangerous to be right on matters where the established authority is wrong."
-Voltaire
^^-- That problem with god is easy, either god is not a being in the way that we think, or a more likely possibility which is god is everything, and we are a part of god.
Yes, I suppose. I've thought of that, too. But I've run into problems with it because it conflicts with science in and that if science studies the universe and living things within, wouldn't science then be considered the study of God? And then how different would it be from not believing in him? I know exactly what you're saying, and actually you might be on to something. Do you watch Futurama? There was a great episode that actually got me thinking about some of this. Here, this is kind of interesting--it goes along with what you're saying--and it's funny too :
I will say this though, I give much more creedance to philosophy and epistemology in the field of detemrinism versus indeterminism than I do to science. The only way science could disprove or prove determinism is if someone was omniscient. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, so philosophical deduction and reasoning will have to suffice.
Okay, so what about determinism's huge self-created paradox--one that with "philosophical deduction" and reasoning can be used to show how unreliable and illogical such a theory really is? Here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke9-05
The ironic thing about determinism is that it produces a major self-paradox--which this friend of mine actually informed me of. Determinism suggests that everything we do and everything we will do, say, think etc. is pre-determined and is influenced by previous events from a pre-determined time line. It negates free will in that everything is said to be "determined" or "pre-determined." However, for "everything" to be determined, the actual reality of determinism itself (for those who would believe in it) must also have have been "pre-determined" by that belief system, which is paradoxical, suggesting no genesis or beginning to this theory or belief system. It produces a sort of bizarre illogical loop that by the standards of determinism state that determinism itself was "pre-determined" making it an unreliable and sketchy theory at best.
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then to have free-will would require us to make a decision outside of his influence, and because his influence is infinite, we cannot.
Who said anything about his influence being "infinite." If god is omnipotent and omniscient, it means he knows all, if he's omnipotent, he's all-powerful. What if his "all-knowing" refers to God knowing all "possibilities" of choice and the ability to move at an omnipresent angle throughout time? Maybe as a being, he chooses to remain behind the scenes, so to speak, influencing no one, or influencing very little. Listen, as a disclaimer, I'm theorizing here like everyone else--and some of them may seem weird, and to some people they might seem dumb, but be nice or at least don't be rude. I'm really glad this topic got started, by the way, good idea points to the OP.
This is where ontological nihilism comes into play. The 'paradox' you speak of also applies to the idea of existence (Why is there something instead of nothing?). Either existence begot itself from nothingess or it has always exist and has no origin. Neither makes sense. How does 'something' come from nothing? And what would cause the properties of this 'something' to be what they are if it spawned from nothing? (Like, if the universe came from nothing, what caused the gravitaion constant to be the specific number it is?). But if existence has no origin at all, again how could it's dynamics have been determined and by what force if nothing came before it?
Are you prepared to say existence is an unreliable and illogical theory?
The bottom line is, humans do not know and never will. Paradoxes of origin will never be solved. We just have to accept that philosophical burden.
Power is influence. And God cannot selectively withdrawl his influence, there is no 'behind the scene' if your presence is infinite. Well, at least that's what I reckon.
Ah, then I suppose that would be a point where we would have to agree to disagree. I see God as a being with major influence, but choice as to how to apply that influence. As a God with "all-power" I take that to mean a God who is all-powerful, but not constantly exerting that power or influence. It's just like anything else in the world of someone who believes in free-will, I suppose. I may have strength and the potential to exert a force, but it's my belief that I choose when and how much of that force to exert. I see the same idea applying to God, and in terms of overall influence (when referring to omnipotence).
If determinism is true, then it's just another fundamental dynamic of reality, like the gravitational constant, or maximum velocity or speed of light, and like all dynamics of reality, it's origin will always be a mystery.
Yes, that is true. I suppose I hadn't thought of that to the extent that I should have and was caught there for a moment because of it.
These philosophies often depress me, ironically. Too many questions, not enough answers. It's as if we're leading lives without knowing why we're living them. Actually, it's not "as if" we are--we pretty much are. That's how I feel sometimes, anyway. We'll probably never find any universal purpose for humanity, as to do that, we'd need to find out the true origin of humanity and the answer to what happens after death--if anything significant.
:
Too many questions, not enough answers. It's as if we're leading lives without knowing why we're living them. Actually, it's not "as if" we are--we pretty much are. That's how I feel sometimes, anyway. 
Linear Mode
