John Page

In the context of quantum physics, do you mean "randomness" in the sense of "unpredictable" or in the sense of "uncaused" (or some other meaning?

Cheers, john

Nowhere357

Good question. Unpredictable, yes. Uncaused, no.

Unpredictable even in theory? Maybe.

Caused by means we'll eventually understand? I think so.

Of course, I also think we have a spiritual reality, and free will is an expression of that reality. So I guess that makes me a fair target. <sigh>

John Page

Let's not be hasty!

Carl Treetop

Agreed, Bill. We can certainly work on it. But it looks like it will be a long time before determinism is even understood, and longer before accepted by society. (I would guess a century at least.)

BTW, the fact that you are interested in improving society indicates that you are a psychologically healthy individual. (This desire is in synch with evolution.)


To the first question:
Easily! It already is a determinist reality, people just don’t realize it. But even for those who do realize it, we still cannot reliably predict outcomes. And we still do not have much of a knowledge of the cause and effect chains that determine our own beliefs and ways of thinking. Also, whether determinist or free-willer, we all make decisions according to the pleasure/pain principle. Errors and incorrect decisions will still occur for determinists. (But should be reduced.)

Second question:
It is people who can learn to "know better" by first aligning themselves closer to reality - one step of which is accomplished by the realization and acceptance of the fact of determinism.


I have addressed the first point in my posts of Apr 26th and Apr 30th. Please read, and either ask questions or refute.

Blame is not averted. With determinism, people are still responsible for their actions. Painful consequences would still be an option as a means of encouraging people to behave in such a way as to not injure others. The difference is that people who wrong others would not be shamed along with the blame because it would be recognized that it was a mechanistic process that caused the erroneous act(s). So "punishment" would be geared more toward rehabilitation than merely for the infliction of pain, and revenge would be considered pointless.


That seems to be about the best argument that free-willers can offer. "I can decide to do x and then I do it, including defying god. This indicates that free-willers are more comfortable with the free-will belief they have grown up with, so naturally they choose it, which is nicely in accord with the pleasure/pain principle. You can defy the mythical god of the bible, no problem. But if you defy reality you only detract from your own strength. The evidence indicates that our choices are determined.


Determinism does not rule out spirituality. Nor does it rule out a sense of freedom.

To illustrate, here are quotes from someone you all know. He believes in Determinism, freedom, and has a profound sense of spirituality/religiosity.

"Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper."

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is
determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people."

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these
aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere
of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."

"My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can
comprehend of reality."

"To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself
as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are
intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is
the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense
alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men."

One guess as to who I'm quoting.

- - - - - - - -

One more point: Someone mentioned "fate" as if it was synonymous with determinism. It is not. Even if we could figure out the determinants of a given individual to the degree that the choices for any situation could be predicted, there still would be no way of predicting what challenges and events that individual would encounter in life.

cobrashock

John Page- I don't propose to understand The quantum physics of this issue so I flew it by someone that does. His reply to my statement above was that it is valid as far as we NOW know the physics. Remember too that our language and math is a repesentaton of this physical condition. And that is the problem I'm having with your backwards time condition. Back in 90's Steven Hawking and others talked of time arrows. Today we know that the math used to predict that possibility was flawed and that math predicted a false possibility. The math wasn't flawed though, it just didn't fit the actual physical condition. And that's the quandry we are in isn't it?
Nowhere 357 ask the right question on his reply. To that I would add that it is consistant with what we observe. And that is my reply.
As for virtual particals that can go faster than light, well the physics don't exclude that possibility. Fact is, its thought that we have crossed that realm experimentally. It does involve a mass-less partical under controled conditions though.
But back to a more sublimed level. When I get up in the morning I am going to choose either a white or red shirt to put on. Agreed I am pre-ordained to wear a shirt in the first place. But the physics say I do indeed have that choice and it could be a random choice. To assume otherwise is rational philosophy, and I'm all ears.
cobrashock

John Page

Cobra:

I'm not sure exactly what your point is but I will gladly agree that one can have two sets of facts and they can be interpreted in different ways. Math is a way of using numbers to interpret the environment we live in. One could say that the earth is the center of the universe and that orbital mechanics are just a little more complicated than this circular motion stuff.....

This leaves our minds striving for what is consistent, coherent and elegant in their understanding.

Cheers, John

cobrashock

John- Agreed,(I think), but it more like one problem with two sets of math. And that's the free will part of this thing.
Now if I can just get the other part of this sorted out in my mind, the determinsm half. Seems to me it boils down to options. By that I mean a caveman didn't have the option to drive a car to work. So his choices were limited somehow. We have more options today but it COULD be said that our choices are still finite.
That would give us a closed system and mean some sort of determinsm is valid. We would have choice, but within a closed system. If the options were infinite though it would be a open system. So we would have choice but with infinite options so there could be no determinism.
But the universe as we observe it is finite, or so we think anyhow.
Looks like option #1 wins at least for now, and maybe forever. Now if only we could pin it all on the big guy in the sky. As for me, I really don't care, option number three.
cobrashock

John Page

I think a closed system implies determinism but in an open system it cannot be determined if determinism applies.

We do have choices so determinism is not fatalism (although we can become fatalistic through passivity). IOW, not caring can be tantamount to passiveness and this is why the eternal rebel needs a cause... and this is the cause of rebellion.

Cheers, John

Clutch

Of course there is free will. We know what it is because we have it; and we know, for at least many cases, when we or others lack it.

We act freely when we do what we want to, because we want to. The dispute over whether there exists free will is a confusion: the real debate is over the implementation of the phenomenon. Is it implemented by a strictly causal neurological process, or by magic volitional fairy dust? (Guess my own view...). To equate the existence of free will with the existence of the magic volitional fairy dust is to pointlessly buy into the core fairy dust claim!

We might as well have framed the debate over the existence of elan vital as a debate over the existence of life. But that's crazy. Of course there's life: the question is whether it's implemented physically, or by vital spirits. Same for free will, mutatis mutandis.

cobrashock

John- Agreed, but don't ask me about the implied ethics of this mess.
cobrashock