Off the wall question: If God flips a meta-physical coin in his meta-physical world, does he necessarily know how it is going to land?
Christianity says that people have souls and that those souls (for believers) will go to be with God when we die. For our souls to literally "be with God", they must be part of the meta-physical world in which he exists. This raises in interesting questions with respect to the ralationship between our physical and our meta-physical selves.
In many ways the virtual worlds created within some video games are analogous to the concept of God creating our universe. Let's consider two different styles of such games.
First, The SIMS.
One could view the creator of the popular game The SIMS as being "god" with respect to the realm in which they exist. He defined every aspect of their virtual world as well as defined their automaton driven behavior.
This scenario is very much like the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent god who created our physical universe. Since the creator knows everything about his virtual creations and the world in which they exist, they should in a sense be able to predict how a given simulation will play out. And by carefully setting up the initial conditions within that virtual world, they effectively pre-ordain everything that will happen once the simulation begins.
The virtual people go about their virtual lives doing virtual activities all in a prescribed and predictable manner.
Second, Everquest or World of Warcraft.
In this scenario the virtual world is constructed. Rules are put in place as to how things operate. But the actors are actually driven by beings that exist outside of the virtual world (i.e. in some meta-virtual one like our physical one). To the extent that the physical world people who are controlling the actions of the virtual world people have free will, so do their virtual world counterparts.
This is a distinctly different perspective than the one above. Here the actors within the virtual world do not have any pre-programmed behavior so the outcomes in the virtual world are not pre-ordained.
I would argue that a pure science perspective implies a universe or reality for us that is more like that of The SIMS in this case. The actors are created, initial conditions are established, and the whole thing is pretty much predictable from there on out.
I would argue that any religion that believes in a meta-physical soul of sorts operates in a manner somewhat similar to that of Everquest. Constraints and limits are placed on the operations within the virtual world, but the actors are somehow controlled by meta-virtual world beings.
I don't really have a point to this post other than to offer it up for your consideration and to see if it generates any additional discussion. It is late. I am rambling.
Good night.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Christianity says that people have souls and that those souls (for believers) will go to be with God when we die. For our souls to literally "be with God", they must be part of the meta-physical world in which he exists. This raises in interesting questions with respect to the ralationship between our physical and our meta-physical selves.
to energy. To provide light and heat through the fact that opposites attract.
The negative charge and the postive charge and the flow of energy. Like magnents that repel and attract.
Your question, "If God flips a metaphysical coin does he know how it will land."
First why would "God" flip a coin?
Second who or what is "God".
Why would "God" care how it landed?
If the bible is a parable, then the story of Adam and Eve is the story of opposites, male-female (energy) one created from a piece of the other.
The forbidden fruit is a choice, or the choices we make. God gives us the free will to chose. He does not have control over which way the coin flips, that is up to you. "God" doesn't care how the coin lands, or what choices you make.
That is our "free will". The energy you choose is yours to keep. Choose happiness.
...but don't feel bad, so do Islam and Judaism. Any philosophy that includes an omniscient omnipotent omnipresent creator god cannot logically allow for freewill. Demonstrating this is fairly simple.
Let us imagine a situation where you have a time machine allowing you to freely revist a moment in time.
You sit and watch as a man walks up to a stream. He is faced with a decision which he makes of his own free will: to continue on or go back. Seeing no dry way across he goes back.
You now jump in your time machine and go back one hour. You drag a log so that it crosses the stream at the location where the man will approach it. You wave to yourself and sit down to watch.
The man approaches and finding a way across decides to cross the stream.
Back to the time machine back an hour again. Laugh politely as your previous incarnations make a joke about it getting crowded in here. And then...
What? What do you do? Do you put the log where he can find it or remove it? By doing so you determine the man's actions because you already know how he responds to the give stimuli. Free will for the man is an illusion based on his ignorance of your power to control the scenario he finds himself in.
You know how the subject will behave under give circumstance. God (omniscient) knows how everyone will ever behave under every possible circumstance.
You have the power to control the circumstances and thereby determine his action. God (omnipotent) has the power to control every circumstance and thereby determine every action.
You have access (via the time machine) to the instance in question. God (omnipresent in time and space) has access to every instant everwhere.
The only question is if you choose to exercise your power by creating a scenario, meanwhile God (creator) has created the scenario by creating the universe, nothing happens in it that he did not choose to have happen
By having the power to create how everything starts and the infinite knowledge to know exactly how everey possible start ends up god precludes freewill. Which for a Christian I imagine means some uncomfortable issues. It means everything done has been done because god planned it. Lucifer's fall was god's choice. God set Judas and Caine up to fail. They are murderers because it was convenient to god's plan.
I need to think on it a bit and get back to you. I'm not sure that I completely agree with this logic but I can't immediately put my finger on why.
Part of my objection is the observation that even though God could consciously manipulate scenarios as you suggest that does not necessarily imply that he/she does.
I would argue that God himself must be inherently meta-physical in the sense that he cannot exist as part of the universe he created. Thus, god must be separate and apart from the physical universe as we know it.
Likewise with the angels. Here is a gap in my knowledge of Christianity. Did God create the Angels ... and therefore Lucifer? I don't recall hearing any such thing but I certainly could have missed it.
All I seem to recall is that God was God and the Angels worshipped him, and Lucifer was cast down for aspiring to replace God (or something along those lines).
So, if God didn't create Lucifer and the other Angels, then he cannot have pre-ordained their actions or activities. In that sense the Angels at least have just as much free will as God does, and they all presumably exist in some meta-physical world with respect to our physical universe.
So, while God may be omniscient and omnipotent with respect to the comings and goings within our own physical universe he isn't necessarily so with respect to his other worldly meta-physical universe.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Part of my objection is the observation that even though God could consciously manipulate scenarios as you suggest that does not necessarily imply that he/she does.
But they did. At least if you believe them to be a creator god they did. You could have an omniscient omnipotent omnipresent passivegod and still have freewill but once that god becomes active (and by creating the universe of course god was active) they have meddled with the universe such that free will becomes an illusion.
So, while God may be omniscient and omnipotent with respect to the comings and goings within our own physical universe he isn't necessarily so with respect to his other worldly meta-physical universe
God was supposed to have created the angels but your point here is interesting. However it would imply that only other metaphysical beings could have free will. Which means god would be off the hook for Lucifer's fall but not Caine's or Judas'.
Not to harp, but you're confusing your religions here. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Catholic theology is based on the idea of and necessity of free will. It is only the Protestant faiths that get all wrapped up in an active, all-controlling, knows-what-color-my-socks-are version of God.* Just keep that in mind when you use the term Christianity. Not all Christians believe like you think they do. (And for the record, Catholic doctrine thinks Darwin's theory of evolution is just fine and should be taught in schools.)
For a very interesting take on the role of good, evil, God, Lucifer, angels, etc., I suggest Anne Rice's book Memnoch the Devil. It's a great read and very thought provoking. You don't need to have read any other of her books to understand Memnoch.
(*We could spend hours discussing the fine points of Catholic theology, but for the purposes of this discussion I think I've expressed the spirit and intent adequately. The Church's recently published Catecism is available to those who wish to delve deeper.)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Unless I am severely misremembering my study of catholicism they do believe in an omniscient god. In fact they even believe in an infallible Pope. Now maybe they fudge it a bit but at the end of the day either god is omniscient or he is not.
The concept of infallibility of the Pope relates to his proclaimations about tenets of the faith, not about his personal attributes. It is an important distinction but one that might be hard to grasp. As a conduit of explanation of obscure theological points, he is assumed to be "correct" in his analyses. As a person, he is as fallible as the next man.
Omnicience is different from omnipotence. Here's what you said with regards to free will
You could have an omniscient omnipotent omnipresent passivegod and still have freewill but once that god becomes active (and by creating the universe of course god was active) they have meddled with the universe such that free will becomes an illusion.
God may be considered omnicient ("all knowing"), but free will still exists because in the Catholic faith, predestination does not exist. God may have ignited the big bang but he has not written the entire history of this planet. Men, through acts of free will, do so. We are not helpless actors on some grand stage. We create our own destiny.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
God may be considered omnicient ("all knowing"), but free will still exists because in the Catholic faith, predestination does not exist. God may have ignited the big bang but he has not written the entire history of this planet. Men, through acts of free will, do so. We are not helpless actors on some grand stage. We create our own destiny.
But that argument is simply a statement with no underlying logic. You claim freewill exists despite the apprent logical incompatibility of this claim with other claims you hold true (assuming you are Catholic).
In other words while I understand that Catholics believe in freewill I think they have simply not thought the matter through logically. Either their concept of god or their concept of freewill must be faulty. The two are mutually exclusive.
Of course there may be an error in my analysis in which case their views may in fact be internally consistent. But I need more than "because they say so" in order to see that it is my reasoning rather than theirs that is in error.
I've tried to demonstrate how, by creating the big bang, God did indeed choose every future action of every being in the universe. Can you show me where my argument is wrong?
nor do the major philosophers of the Catholic church. If you really want to get into it, check out people like Augustine - who strikes me as a terrible person (my bias) but a profound thinker and philosopher.
Consider it this way: if you pull out a treat for your dog, you can be certain your dog is going to eat it. Does that mean the dog was predestined/predetermined to eat it? Not really, even though you knew that would be the eventual result.
The question of omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresecence (the 3O god, as my colleagues refer to him) seems imcompatible with evil and free choice, but Augustine argues - slightly dishonestly, but bear with me - that evil doesn't exist at all. It's a turning away from God - a lack.
The reason I call that "slightly dishonest" is because that implies that God isn't 100% Omni. Apparently there are vaccuums that He doesn't fill - although it's not a present vaccuum so much as an act: as he says, a turning away.
Augustine argued this way because other Christian sects were trying to claim that evil was both a real and necessary force in the world: that the world we live in is really a balance of good and evil, blah blah blah (I don't want to get too off topic).
In fact, though you see a contradiction here, the Catholic view has never bothered me. It's the predestination side of Christianity that does: what good is redemption, supplication, philanthropy if it's all been decided beforehand. Even worse, it makes a farce out of life: you're just a cog that's going to come out the way He has decided.
If I ever rediscover religion (which I doubt), that's likely to be the last side I'd go to.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Consider it this way: if you pull out a treat for your dog, you can be certain your dog is going to eat it. Does that mean the dog was predestined/predetermined to eat it? Not really, even though you knew that would be the eventual result.
If you could really absolutely predict the dog's actions then yes I would say it was predestined by your choice of actions.
Put it this way: how can you say you have freewill if another has utter and absolutel control over what you do? We aren't talking about influence here but total control. They can select any of the possible results they want from you and bring about the circumstances that cause you to act that way.
What is freewill if not the ability to decide a thing for yourself in spite of the wishes of all around you?
The question of omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresecence (the 3O god, as my colleagues refer to him) seems imcompatible with evil and free choice, but Augustine argues - slightly dishonestly, but bear with me - that evil doesn't exist at all. It's a turning away from God - a lack.
This strikes me as shallow sophistry on the part of Augustine. He is stuck with an internally inconsistent religion and so rather than have the courage to say that something is wrong he fudges the rules. God is omniscient except when he isn't.
In fact, though you see a contradiction here, the Catholic view has never bothered me. It's the predestination side of Christianity that does: what good is redemption, supplication, philanthropy if it's all been decided beforehand. Even worse, it makes a farce out of life: you're just a cog that's going to come out the way He has decided.
Part of the problem though is that it is also the catholic view, they just don't realize it. Like an alcoholic claiming they don't have a problem, popes claim they do have freewill. The denial, and even their belief in it, is immaterial. The situation remains. Christianity (except fro some of the more esoteric subcults) excludes freewill.
But honey that little 20 something lady was sooo attractive, and sooo willing, my response was guaranteed by the situation, I just had no free will at all.......
Probably more actual fact than not, but it still won't get you off the hook.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
for one thing, the notion of the 3O God isn't born with Christianity - it takes a while to develop. Augustine, who comes a little later, is actually trying to develop a pretty sophisticated argument that God can be both omniscient and free will can exist, all at once. My bland distillation may come across as a sophistry, but his actual writings are rhetorically impressive. The Confessions are pretty short: you should give them a read (link )
I think you're running on an oversimplification of Christian theology here:
Put it this way: how can you say you have freewill if another has utter and absolutel control over what you do? We aren't talking about influence here but total control. They can select any of the possible results they want from you and bring about the circumstances that cause you to act that way.
Most Catholics would argue that God can but doesn't interfere. Actually, so would many Orthodox. It's the crux of Dosteovsky's argument in The Brothers Karamazov that God allows human beings free will - though he doesn't have to - because otherwise the notion of redemption and worship would be meaningless (link , although I re-translated part of this for clarity's sake):
You did not come down from the Cross when they shouted to You, mocking and reviling You, "Come down from the cross and we will believe that You are He." You did not come down, for again You would not enslave man by a miracle, and did crave faith given freely, not based on miracle. You craved for free love and not the base raptures of the slave before the might that has overawed him for ever.
Going back to the dog metaphor, I disagree with you 100%. Backing up a bit - knowing all the variables involve doesn't predestine a response: that's also the root of science. According to the scientific method, no matter how much you know the circumstances of an experiment, no matter how positive you are of the results, you always consider it a hypothesis: even laws are subject to change. The reason is that we as a limited species can never claim confidence in the results, but I think it's also important to consider this a metaphor for causality: even if we know what the results are going to be, the process has to play itself out on its own.
I'd read omniscience in the same way: knowing the results doesn't mean the process isn't playing itself out in its own terms.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
for one thing, the notion of the 3O God isn't born with Christianity - it takes a while to develop.
Are you sure about that? I thought the 3O concept pre-dated christianity having originated in Judaism and was subsequently absorbed into Christianity with most of the rest of the Judaic theology at the time.
Most Catholics would argue that God can but doesn't interfere.
But that requires you to ignore the ultimate interference: the creation.
Going back to the dog metaphor, I disagree with you 100%. Backing up a bit - knowing all the variables involve doesn't predestine a response: that's also the root of science. According to the scientific method, no matter how much you know the circumstances of an experiment, no matter how positive you are of the results, you always consider it a hypothesis: even laws are subject to change. The reason is that we as a limited species can never claim confidence in the results, but I think it's also important to consider this a metaphor for causality: even if we know what the results are going to be, the process has to play itself out on its own.
But that is where we diverge from God. He does know absolutely and with no question at all the results for every instance, or he is not omniscient. Omniscience is defined is having all possible knowledge, thus it is impossible for there to be anything any result an omniscient being does not know before hand, QED. Were we omniscient not only would science not need bother with hypotheses but we need not bother with science.
Science exists because we are aware of limited understanding and have sought to create a system by which to learn, as bias free as possible, the truths of the universe. Such an endeavor is meaningless to a being that inherently knows all of these truths.
Let me directly ask you this: how do you define freewill such that the absolute control of another over your actions does not violate it?
the God of Jewish scripture - the Old Testament - isn't any of the 3Os, especially in the earlier books. In fact, he isn't even the only God for a while; only later does the religion start to adopt the idea that he's the only real god, and the notion of Omni really doesn't come into play that much. There are hints of it in Job, but even that's a limited form: God seems to be all-powerful, but not all-knowing. 3O takes a long while to develop, and it's largely through the increasing abstraction of Christian philosophy. Borges made the point that God has been abstracted to the point of nothingness by now.
I recognize the unevenness of my comparison with science, but the segment I wanted to highlight is the last one:
even if we know what the results are going to be, the process has to play itself out on its own.
And that's true. Foreknowledge does not equal control. I'll give you an example: let's imagine we found a way to communicate faster than the speed of light. I could tell my friend in another universe exactly what I'm seeing here on my planet, so while he and his buddies watch my planet, they'll already know everything that's going to happen before it does. Granted, they don't have the power to interfere, but it's like watching a television show you taped the night before.
I don't see why this is a sticking point. That's why I can't answer your question about free will and total control: Catholics don't believe that God has total control over our decisions. Knowledge doesn't equal control: he's watching the tape he's already seen, but the actors still play the roles of their choosing.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
It was my earliest understanding that the whole "we are in a video game run from outside" thing was a Manichean invention, and thus the 3-O ideology an adoption of their thinking, but poking Jesus, and Judiasm in the appropriate boxes.
I realize that is gross oversimplification, but I find it interesting how the "video game" reality, arose and overcame the more here and now concepts that seem so much less dysfunctional for their societies.
You seem to have had a lot of deep studies in this area while mine have been more sketchy.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
the God of Jewish scripture - the Old Testament - isn't any of the 3Os, especially in the earlier books. In fact, he isn't even the only God for a while; only later does the religion start to adopt the idea that he's the only real god, and the notion of Omni really doesn't come into play that much. There are hints of it in Job, but even that's a limited form: God seems to be all-powerful, but not all-knowing. 3O takes a long while to develop, and it's largely through the increasing abstraction of Christian philosophy.
Interesting.
I recognize the unevenness of my comparison with science, but the segment I wanted to highlight is the last one:
even if we know what the results are going to be, the process has to play itself out on its own.
And that's true.
It is only true for us because our foreknowledge is imperfect. If we had true foreknowledge (omniscience) then events do not need to play themselves out because we in fact do know the result. Omniscience can never be wrong, by definition, and so actually doing the experiment is a waste of time in terms of learning.
I'll give you an example: let's imagine we found a way to communicate faster than the speed of light. I could tell my friend in another universe exactly what I'm seeing here on my planet, so while he and his buddies watch my planet, they'll already know everything that's going to happen before it does. Granted, they don't have the power to interfere, but it's like watching a television show you taped the night before.
By itself omniscience is not control, true. As I said the god has to have all four attributes: the knowledge, the power, the opportunity, and finally the actual act. But once those four come into play there is no possibility of any meaningful manner of freewill.
Again I ask you to define freewill for me. I can demonstrate to you a situation where I get total control in determining your actions (with the fictional conceit of a time machine) and yet you say you still have freewill, I'd like to know how you define the term that that is possible.
Knowledge doesn't equal control: he's watching the tape he's already seen, but the actors still play the roles of their choosing.
But god isn;t just watching the tape. He selected the script, chose the actors, and created the scenery. He isn;t just omniscient but he is also the creator. He selected the circumstances knowing at the time the inevitable results based on how he chose to start things. If he had wanted us to be blue skinned asexual amphibeans he would have changed the distribution of mass and energy at the big bang just slightly. Or altered any of dozens of physical quantities by whatever minute or gross amount needed to. He can do that because he knows absolutely the result of any given starting condition right down to the exact arrangement of atoms at the heat death of the universe. And because he knows, and because he has the position and power to choose any starting condition there is no single thing that happens in this universe that is not his will. His choice. Not ours. Our freewill is an illusion caused by our limited knowledge of what is, and was and how that has shaped the future.
Our freewill is an illusion caused by our limited knowledge of what is, and was and how that has shaped the future.
From a scientific, as opopsed to a religious, perspective I think that this sums the situation up quite well. This is the essence of the point I was trying to make!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
It is only true for us because our foreknowledge is imperfect. If we had true foreknowledge (omniscience) then events do not need to play themselves out because we in fact do know the result. Omniscience can never be wrong, by definition, and so actually doing the experiment is a waste of time in terms of learning.
Actually no, and I think you contradict yourself here (sort of): The events do have to play themselves out, otherwise your foreknowledge would be wrong.
To use an example from literature, Oedipus kills his father not because he's bound to a fate predicted by an oracle at his birth, but because he lets his temper get the best of him while passing his (unbenknownst to him) father on the road. The Greeks had no trouble balancing foreknowledge with a notion of free will.
If I have time when I get back later tonight, I'll actually go rummage through and pull up my worn old copy of Augustine, before I bastardize him any more than I already have. Suffice to say that part of his argument has to do with linking free will to temporality - which is only a small part of God. In other words, time - and everything which is bound by time - is not eternal. God lives in a state of absolute simultanaeity, so his foreknowledge is not one of stacking the deck at the Bang (as deists would believe) but of full knowledge and presence at every moment of time, all at once. Causality, therefore, is something that only mortal creatures can experience, which is why the process of decision-making is so messily bound up in our experience.
Blech, I'm going to have to dig up the relevant text.
This is a great exercise, though: thanks. As an atheist, it's not so often I have to mount a defense/explanation/apologia for Christian theology... lol
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Actually no, and I think you contradict yourself here (sort of): The events do have to play themselves out, otherwise your foreknowledge would be wrong.
I don't see how you can say that. Any prediction made by an omniscient source is automatically true/will happen assuming the conditions of the prediction are met. An omniscient god can look at a firecraker and tell you exactly how loud the bang will be if it is lit under a given set of circumstances. In fact they can tell you how loud it will be under every possible set of circumstances (assuming you have time enough to listen to all the permutations). And they cannot be wrong about any one of them because they are omniscient.
To use an example from literature, Oedipus kills his father not because he's bound to a fate predicted by an oracle at his birth, but because he lets his temper get the best of him while passing his (unbenknownst to him) father on the road. The Greeks had no trouble balancing foreknowledge with a notion of free will.
But look at the differences here: the oracle in this case has no power to force Oedipus into a situation where he will get angry at his father. On the other hand God in that situation has in fact not only forseen that eventuality but every other eventuality that will come to pass depending on how they choose to start the universe, and ultimately they pick one. Everything after that is a function of God's will simply because he selected the outcome he wanted when he put the whole thing in motion.
In one scenario you are a world famous pop star, in another you are a hobo, in another you are a missionary in bora bora...and so on. But it isn't your choice even though it may seem that way. The result depends on outside factors that are entirely under his control.
God lives in a state of absolute simultanaeity, so his foreknowledge is not one of stacking the deck at the Bang (as deists would believe) but of full knowledge and presence at every moment of time, all at once.
WHile I agree that omnipresence pretty much requires this I don't see how it negates what I have said. Yes God experiences time as a synthesis rather than a line but the end result is the same.
On a side note this is another area I imagine must be hard for christians- their description of god is utterly alien and yet they always depict him as throughly human. The contrast is irreconcilable as far as I can see.
This is a great exercise, though: thanks.
I'm glad you are enjoying it, I hope it contiues to be useful. I'm enjoying it to, although work stupidity is putting a damper on my enjoyment of anything at the moment.
But look at the differences here: the oracle in this case has no power to force Oedipus into a situation where he will get angry at his father. On the other hand God in that situation has in fact not only forseen that eventuality but every other eventuality that will come to pass depending on how they choose to start the universe, and ultimately they pick one. Everything after that is a function of God's will simply because he selected the outcome he wanted when he put the whole thing in motion.
In one scenario you are a world famous pop star, in another you are a hobo, in another you are a missionary in bora bora...and so on. But it isn't your choice even though it may seem that way. The result depends on outside factors that are entirely under his control.
I think that we have two very interesting alternatives at play here between yourself and pico.
From a scientific perspective I have been assuming as you have that God has explicitly chosen the starting state at the big bang, and therefore having known the laws of the universe as he defined/understood them was, in effect, pre-ordaining every action of every particle and from the beginning to end of our universe.
This is based on one specific view of what it means to be omniscient. I think that pico is offering a different, but potentially equally valid, perspective.
Implicit in your argument is an assumption that God is omniscient not only for things related to our universe, but his meta-universe as well. And that when he created the universe he consciously selected the starting state at the big bang.
This goes back to my question about whether God could flip a meta-physical coin in his meta-physical universe and not know the outcome. In other words, is there any sense of random chance in Heaven even with respect to God?
If there is, then God certainly could have created the universe through the big bang but left the initial state up to the flip of a meta-physical coin in which case he, strictly speaking, has not pre-ordained the outcome of anything.
Next we must consider the omniscience of god w.r.t. the laws governing the universe. If he specifically selected and constructed every such law then by definition he would be able to immediately predict the resulting outcomes once the initial state was known and there would be no need to "let things play out". He would just know the result.
But what if God also left the specifics of the laws of the universe up to the flip of a meta-physical coin? I suppose in some sense once those too became known he would simply "know" the results. But this scenario also alludes to the concept that I think pico may be describing ... i.e. one in which even God has to let things "play out".
Assuming that the existence of God in his meta-phsyical universe transcends the existence of our own universe (which is not unreasonable), then the notion of omniscience described by pico has some meaning. God ends up being omniscent about what happens by virtue of having an existence that transcends our own (i.e. he exists simultaneously throughout our own concept of time) but even he has to wait to see what happens. Only after things completely play out is he omniscent w.r.t. our universe.
This is clearly a different notion of omniscience than what you (and I) have been assuming, but it to be an equally valid alternative interpretation as far as I can tell.
Are you following any of this? It is difficult to describe sometimes.
The bottom line, I think, comes down to whether you assume that God is omniscient w.r.t. just our universe, or is even omniscient regarding his own meta-physical one. In this latter case I would argue that random chance does not exist for God, but in the former it certainly could which could give rise to the scenario described above.
Why, you might ask, would God leave these things up to random chance? Well think about it. Being otherwise all knowing must be very boring indead. Perhaps he created the universe and let the initial conditions be random merely as a form of entertainment ... very much like playing "The Sims"! :-)
Actually, now that I am thinking about it, are we (or at least the programmer) not omniscent w.r.t. the "universe" that the Sims inhabit?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
you're not kidding on that one. Especially for someone who doesn't believe in God to have to argue the Catholic side of the equation!
I think Catholics would argue that God's omniscience encompasses time, since time is only a minor part of God's timelessness. So He does know the way things will turn out, even if those things have to happen on their own. The alternative - that he sets the initial conditions and leaves some things to chance - seems like what the Deists proposed.
Personally, from my Godlessness perspective (the least of the sins I'm living in, I'm sure), I'm more sympathetic to what people have suggested upthread: the brain is a computer so stunningly complex that, even if it is all programmed to operate a certain way, we can't possibly grasp the programming. Hofstadter would take that a step further and argue that our programming language is inconsistent by nature, so that is what possibly gives us the ability to engage in what appears to be decision-making.
Although I prefer to believe in free will - even if I'm wrong - because otherwise notions of personal responsibility become arbitrary. Whatever the existentialist movement did or did not accomplish, they did try to make this point and reestablish the role of responsibility in/for everyday actions.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
OK, maybe I'm getting a better picture why you're confused about this.
Put it this way: how can you say you have freewill if another has utter and absolutel control over what you do? We aren't talking about influence here but total control. They can select any of the possible results they want from you and bring about the circumstances that cause you to act that way.
Catholics don't say that "another . . . can select any of the possible results they want from you and bring about the circumstances that cause you to act that way." God doesn't work that way. Instead, life provides you with options and you act based on your conscience.
You might argue that your interpretation is implied in the definition of the word "omnipotent" or "omniscient." Maybe, but the definition of "God" is more complex than just those few words.
Sounds like you and Augustine should spend some time together. He may have covered all of your questions in his tomes, 1,600 years ago. Or maybe Pico can explain better than I can. Philosophy is not my strong suit and I have to quit this for the day.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Catholics don't say that "another . . . can select any of the possible results they want from you and bring about the circumstances that cause you to act that way."
Ah, but they do say it when they say god is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent and created the universe. They just don't realize they said it. It is one of those unforseen consequences. You cannot have a 3O creator god without implicitly saying this, unless you can demonstrate an error in my argument above.
You might argue that your interpretation is implied in the definition of the word "omnipotent" or "omniscient." Maybe, but the definition of "God" is more complex than just those few words.
That doesn't matter, so long as the definition contains those four attributes I mention the end result is inescapable. Whatever else god is doesn't matter to the argument so long as he is also a creator and also omniscient et cetera.
You define omniscient as having all possible knowledge, thereby implying that not all knowledge is possible. It is completely rational to believe that an omnipotent god can create a universe in which future events are not 100% predictable, and thus knowledge of the future does not need to be included in omniscient knowledge. Such a universe would indeed allow for an omipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent god, and free will.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
You define omniscient as having all possible knowledge, thereby implying that not all knowledge is possible.
Well in this case "impossible" knowledge is what we would call false. And yes it is impossible for an omniscient god to "know" such things.
It is completely rational to believe that an omnipotent god can create a universe in which future events are not 100% predictable, and thus knowledge of the future does not need to be included in omniscient knowledge.
But as before god is not a linear entity in time, there are no surprises for it. It views the universe from every moment simultaneously. Absolutely everything is 100% predictable to it or it cannot be both omniscient and omnipresent.
Actually now that I think of it there is one scenario in which you could have those four attributes and still have freewill. That is if we do in fact live in an irrational universe. Since this is a rational argument it only holds true if the initial assumptions are true and if the underlying logical operations are valid. I have to give credit to Pico, I wouldn't have thought of that if not for his exploration of the meaning of rationality.
Before the "creation event" there was no time, so there was no future to know. At the moment god created the universe, all became clear and known to him throughout time, but what became known to him was the result of our free will acting on the universe just created. So yes, this god knows everything that will happen, but that is only because, from god's point of view, it has already happened.
Taking god out of the picture for a moment... I know that the Patriots beat the Jets last weekend. Because I know it now does not make it predestined then.
God just has a more expansive "now" then I do, but what god knows now does not require predestiny as the events occur.
You may say, but god would have known all before the creation event, because he is omniscient. But no, there was nothing to know before the event, so not knowing that does not preclude omniscience. God knew all once time was created, but once time was created, everything had already happened, from god's point of view.
Of course, I am pretty much making this up as I go along. I don't actually believe in a 3O god, so it isn't easy for me to come up with these arguments!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Before the "creation event" there was no time, so there was no future to know.
God still existed and still acted. The creation story is written as if time existed in some sense before god creates everything. While we can chalk this up to the limited perceptions of the authors we still have a situation of god acting before creation. And even before time existed God would have to know what would happen when he created it, or he is not omniscient.
At the moment god created the universe, all became clear and known to him throughout time, but what became known to him was the result of our free will acting on the universe just created.
That requires us to say that god was not omniscient before the creation.
I know that the Patriots beat the Jets last weekend. Because I know it now does not make it predestined then.
But again omniscience is not the only factor. There are four attributes involved: the three O's and an action. If you knew how to fix the game so that the Jets would win, and it was within your power to do so, and you were in the right place to do so, and you did act, then the Jet's winning or losing is predetermined. You decided whether or not to let them win, to make them win, and acted accordingly.
But no, there was nothing to know before the event, so not knowing that does not preclude omniscience.
Of course there was something to know. There was the answer to "what happens if I create space time?" If god cannot answer that question then he is not omniscient. Just as God has to know the answer to the question "What happens if I create Adam" before he actually creates him.
There are four attributes involved: the three O's and an action. If you knew how to fix the game so that the Jets would win, and it was within your power to do so, and you were in the right place to do so, and you did act, then the Jet's winning or losing is predetermined. You decided whether or not to let them win, to make them win, and acted accordingly.
I think what we're running into here are two separate problems, not only for Christian theology, but also for our understanding of human beings (which you allude to elsewhere).
The first is omnipotence, which hasn't been addressed much directly. The key difference between your discussion of the Jet's game and ours is this phrase: "and you did act". That entirely differentiates your version from ours: God did act. Catholics would argue that God created the universe and all the conditions of the context, but human beings still have the ability to navigate themselves through that universe. God knows how we'll do it, but it's still our decision and responsibility to make those choices, just like knowing the result of the Jet's game from yesterday doesn't predetermine its results (because God stands outside of time, all football games are known to him as if watching from afterwards). But Catholics would argue that setting the conditions doesn't precondition the actors, insofar as free will is a more or less independent factor.
Which brings us to free will, and where the bigger sticking point is. Does the context predetermine the choicemaking abilities of the actors involved? This isn't just a problem for Catholics or Christians: this is the fundamental crisis of 20th century psychology, history, sociology, and beyond. To what extent are human beings responsible for their actions, when so many of their decisions can be attributed to biology, income level, education level, environmental factors, etc.? If so many of these factors can be explained, what right does Justice have to punish/exult people for acting in a way that seems almost preconditioned? On the other hand, if we treat actions as preconditioned, to what extent are we avoiding our responsibilities as choicemakers?
So it seems like God is not the only one whose position is compromised here.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Catholics would argue that God created the universe and all the conditions of the context, but human beings still have the ability to navigate themselves through that universe. God knows how we'll do it, but it's still our decision and responsibility to make those choices,
I really don't get how you can say this. Go back to my initial example-
1) do you agree that the time traveler has complete control over the subject's actions (at least his action during the observed decision)?
2) if so, do you agree that this complete control represents an automatic negation of the subject having freewill in any meaningful sense?
3) if so, then how does that situation vary form god's position?
If you can tell me where in this chain you disagree with me maybe we can make more head way.
Does the context predetermine the choicemaking abilities of the actors involved?
I would say no, but with an important caveat: if the context is determined by an actor who knows the result of your action based on the context then yes.
Here's how I say that: any given decision you make will be influenced by untold millions of little bits of context. For human beings while we may strongly influence by using various psychological levers we cannot ever truly control because the range of permutations is simply outside of our ability to consider much less know. But if someone did somehow know what contexts lead to what decision and they can create any context they want and they do, then I don't see how any conclusion is possible but that you are a puppet on their string. They decide what action you will take, not you. They decide. You think you decided but really you were just responding in the way they knew you would respond. That is control. And control is antithetical to freewill.
Damn Pico, you're not just good, you're real good. If I were in Michigan I'd audit your classes.
Does the context predetermine the choicemaking abilities of the actors involved? This isn't just a problem for Catholics or Christians: this is the fundamental crisis of 20th century psychology, history, sociology, and beyond. To what extent are human beings responsible for their actions, when so many of their decisions can be attributed to biology, income level, education level, environmental factors, etc.? If so many of these factors can be explained, what right does Justice have to punish/exult people for acting in a way that seems almost preconditioned? On the other hand, if we treat actions as preconditioned, to what extent are we avoiding our responsibilities as choicemakers?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
While this discussion has gone beyond my ability to provide the detail you're looking for, there's a small mischaracterization your last post.
The creation story is written as if time existed in some sense before god creates everything.
Catholics do not interpret the creation story literally. God did not really create the world in seven days, nor was Eve really created from Adam's rib. Those stories (as are many others from the Old Testament) are allegories, not literal truth.
I was serious about reading St Augustine. You've obviously spent some time thinking about this and might find the logic that's eluding you there.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
...From some time spent at the Catholic answers forum I do know that at least some self described Catholics take it as literal but I'll take your word for it that that is not the doctrinal position.
Catholics who believe in the literal word of Genesis, and none of them were priests or clergy. The vast majority, including the Popes, teach the figurative version.
One of the reasons for this is that one of the most powerful Catholic sects - the Jesuits - are, for all their faults, heavy proponents of science, research, and education.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
If God is who most religions claim him to be, all mighty, all powerful and ALL knowing, nothing could possibly be beyond his understanding. Lets turn the tables, does God have free will?
An interesting question... I'd have to think about it. Off hand I'd say no as a technicality. If we are defining freewill as the ability to make decisions independent of outside influence and god doesn't really make decisions as we understand it then the term probably becomes meaningless in regards to him. But I'd need to think about it more.
I'm not attempting to argue the logic of the belief. If that's what you want, there's a 600+ page Catechism you can peruse at your leisure, as well as numerous apologists whose paragraphs you can explore. I am simply correcting an incorrect assumption on your part about Catholicism and free will.
I don't see how this logically conflicts with anything, but that may be because I don't really, um, care. The world we inhabit----not just the physical, the whole enchilada----is not logical, nor are people generally (in my experience).
I just didn't want you walking around thinking that the outcome of the Reformation was just some nail holes in a church door. There are significant theological differences between Catholicism and the Protestant faiths. Most of what one sees and hears as "religion" is a Protestant version.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I certainly understand that Catholic doctrine says that they have freewill, I just don't see how they can justify this belief.
Ultimately they can believe whatever they want, one of the perks of faith, but I strenuously object to your contention that the world is not rational. It is, painfully so. People are often not, but the physical processes of the universe march on in lockstep hard rationality.
Ironically I'm listening to Rush, "Freewill," at the moment.
quantum physics disagrees with you on that one. Rationalism is predicated on the notion that A + B = C, and if all outside variables are known, A + B will always = C. Certain functions of quantum mechanics operate randomly, backwards in time, and - for lack of a better word - irrationally.
It may be that we'll discover deeper causes that will change that belief, but so far, all indications are that sometimes, God does play dice with the universe.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Not really. Quantum is still extremely rational. It is just counter-intuitive a lot of the time, but those aren't the same thing. Our intuition tells us how we think the world works and has developed based on our experience witht he world. It is not too surpriseing, and hardly irrational, that this understanding of the world breaks down when trying to predict situations that are vastly outside of our experience, as both Quantum and Relativity are.
It sounds like you're running into a tautology, by saying that anything natural is, by definition, rational.
Rational = a human process of quantifying and qualifying experience. It doesn't exist in the natural world. I'm saying quantum is "irrational" because it runs counter to our mechanisms for quantifying and qualifying.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
It sounds like you're running into a tautology, by saying that anything natural is, by definition, rational.
Rational means it is internally consistent. That no part of the whole violates any other part of the whole. We can furthermore go on to require rational arguments to agree with the facts such as they are. Intuition then is often counter-rational. Quantum is not.
Consider the idea that a cannon ball will fall faster than a tennis ball. This idea is very intuitive, and yet it is not rational in either the sense of fitting with the rest of our physical understanding of the universe nor is it rational in the sense of fitting with the facts (if you were to try the experiment).
In order to 'judge' something like that, you'd have to define the consistency in human terms - and that, in and of itself, becomes a process of human organization, not reflection of the natural state.
That's why it's a tautology: the natural world is internally consistent because it is. It can't not be. If it were otherwise, that state would be still be internally consistent simply by being. Donuts raining down from the sky are internally consistent in a system in which donuts raining down from the sky are a natural phenomenon. If a tennis ball fell slower than a bowling ball, that would be internally consistent, too - because that's how things would be.
The problem comes when we try to establish rules for understanding it. Right or wrong, our systems for understanding are always slightly misleading (Hofstadter gets into this a little in Godel, Escher, Bach, when he notes that large-scale human thought systems are either inconsistent or incomplete, but cannot be neither).
What I'm arguing is that randomness can occur in quantum mechanics, and that makes inconsistency a constant in our universe. It's not a well-oiled machine at all.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
In order to 'judge' something like that, you'd have to define the consistency in human terms
I don't see that that is true. A computer can be programed to evaluate the consistency of a series of statements and yet it has no humanity, merely a series of logic functions: AND, OR, NOT, NOR...
That's why it's a tautology: the natural world is internally consistent because it is. It can't not be.
Of course it could be. We could wake up one morning and find that gravity was repulsive instead of attractive. If something like that suddenly changes (not that we misunderstood it but that it actually changed) then it is very inconsistent. Of course in such a chaotic world life would likely not survive long enough to produce sentience.
If it were otherwise, that state would be still be internally consistent simply by being.
That's just not true. A transient system is not consistent by definition. Yes if donut-rains had always been possible then it would be internally consistent, but if the rules change such that today donut-rains are impossible and tomororow they happen then the world is not rational.
If a tennis ball fell slower than a bowling ball, that would be internally consistent, too - because that's how things would be.
No it wouldn't because it would violate newton's laws of motion (combined with the formula for gravitational attraction) while that same law is supported a million other places. Unless some correction is found that we simply never knew about for some reason (as was the case with both quantum and relativity because their effects happen in regimes we don't directly experience) then we have to conclude that the world is irrational. Granted the initial assumption is going to be one of "we're missing something" because our experience says that the world is in fact orderly. But it needn't be that way.
What I'm arguing is that randomness can occur in quantum mechanics, and that makes inconsistency a constant in our universe. It's not a well-oiled machine at all.
No. I'm sorry to be blunt here but I have a degree in physics. While there certainly is a degree of randomness in QM it is extremely consistent. For any given particle you can define the schrodinger equation. Hell, in P-chem they do the schrodinger equation for simple molecules. This equation then tells you the probability of finding the particle in a given region. The randomness comes in in the fact that it is a probability but it is still extremely orderly.
To give a more accessable example the rules of thermodynamics are all based on probabilities. There is nothing physically to prevent all the air in the room you sit in from happening to get move into one corner leaving a vacuum elsewhere. It is possible, but extraordinarily unlikely. And yet the distribution of a gas in a room is a very orderly thing. You do not suffocate because all the air happened to leave your vicinity. This has never happened to you or anyone else, nor is it likely ever going to happen to anyone because the odds against it are so astronomically unlikely. Despite the reliance on probability we can create any number of technologies that rely on vacuum or air pressure and that work consistently. Randomness doesn't mean chaos. Randomness can be orderly.
In order to 'judge' something like that, you'd have to define the consistency in human terms
I don't see that that is true. A computer can be programed to evaluate the consistency of a series of statements and yet it has no humanity, merely a series of logic functions: AND, OR, NOT, NOR...
But those "logic functions" are programmed in according to a human system of understanding: "and", "or", "not" and "nor" do not exist outside of our conceptions of them. Every programming language is a human-created language, so the computer is only evaluating what we create it to evaluate.
That's why it's a tautology: the natural world is internally consistent because it is. It can't not be.
Of course it could be. We could wake up one morning and find that gravity was repulsive instead of attractive. If something like that suddenly changes (not that we misunderstood it but that it actually changed) then it is very inconsistent.
It only appears inconsistent because it doesn't match up with our current universe's rules. If we someone developed a sentient species in a universe in which gravity "suddenly changes", we'd expect that that species would develop an understanding of the universe in which random fluctuations of gravity are understood as consistent with that universe.
We develop a notion of consistency based on the world we're given. Even that changes over time, based on increasingly sophisticated observation: Newton would have been horrified to find his universe was based on probability rather than clean, precise equations.
Naturally I have to defer to your expertise in physics, but the revolution in 20th century science was the understanding that our universe may be a function of probabilities rather than absolutes, and if you're a pre-20th century human being, that's excruciatingly inconsistent. Again: the notion of consistency is inextricable with one's understanding of the universe.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
But those "logic functions" are programmed in according to a human system of understanding: "and", "or", "not" and "nor" do not exist outside of our conceptions of them.
Let me ask you this: does 1+1=2 exist outside of our concept of it? I assume you agree that it does, that although some other race might have different words they would explicitly understand the arrangement in precisely the same terms we do. The logic functions are really no different. There is a fundamental truth to the proper use of them that, like algebra, transcends mere human conception.
It only appears inconsistent because it doesn't match up with our current universe's rules.
No it is inconsistent because the actual rules are changing. As I said if it had always been possible to have donut-rains then yes such a rain would be consistent. But if it is impossible one day and happens thenext then the universe is inconsistent.
If we someone developed a sentient species in a universe in which gravity "suddenly changes", we'd expect that that species would develop an understanding of the universe in which random fluctuations of gravity are understood as consistent with that universe.
But again if that was the constant then that's fine. But if there exists a universe with rules that are set, and then not-set, and then set again, or set in one place and not-set in another without some underlying explanation then the universe as a whole is simply irrational. It is very possible to imagine an inconsistent universe, although a person living in one may not be able to prove the mater (because of their inability to prove that the fundamental laws are changing).
We develop a notion of consistency based on the world we're given.
Are you sure though? If we lived in a world that was demonstrably inconsistent are you sure we wouldn't notice? See because we have in fact developed in a universe that seems to be very consistent with regards to the natural laws that govern it it is hard to say that. Like the child of rich parents speculating on how poor people live.
Here is a serious question for the science minded. I have a lot of science and engineering background and I am not religious.
To illustrate the point I am about to make, do the following:
1) Hold your right index finger in front of your face.
2) Repeatedly touch the tip of your index finger to the tip of your nose.
Now, let us analyze this activity scientifically from the perspective of free will.
Basic biology and physiology shows us that in order to accomplish this feat the muscles in your hand and arm need to be fired in a distinct and coordinated fashion.
These same disciplines show us that the muscular contractions required here are controlled by the operation of the nervous system through the firing of synapses between the brain and the muscles in question through the so called motor neurons.
We also know that the firing of these neurons is triggered through varying neurotransmitter chemical concentrations at the synapses within the brain, and the chemical interactions which occur between them. These chemical interactions are governed by the fundamental properties described by biochemistry and, even more fundamentally, chemistry based on the basic chemical properties of the atomic structures which comprise those neurotransmitters.
These basic chemical properties are, in turn, governed by the fundamental physical laws of the universe on both an inter-atomic as well as an intra-atomic level. Thus, to some small extent, every piece of matter in the universe exhibits an influence on the chemical interactions due to the operational effects of gravitation. More significantly, these chemical properties are being controlled by the intra-atomic forces which come into play between all of the various sub-atomic particles that have be discovered as part of Quantuum Mechanics.
Now, to accomplish the task of touching your finger to your nose an entire cascade of activity needs to be carefully controlled and coordinated on levels ranging from the Quantuum to the Universal and all of which are based on well established scientific laws and none of which are subject to the whim of a human thought.
So, I ask you, where is the source of man's so-called free will? To exhibit free will, I must be able to effect conscious actions upon the real world (i.e. like deciding to touch my finger to my nose or not). If all of these laws on all of these levels have to converge to produce the motion that touches my finger to my nose, how is it that I can accomplish this feat purely through the power of my will to make them happen?
Would this not imply that I, through the mere power of my will, have the ability to force events on an atomic or even a sub-atomic level to converge such that the necessary chemical interactions occur to cause the proper neurons to fire to cause the proper muscles to contract to cause my finger to touch my nose? Scientifically speaking this seems to be quite the feat to accomplish through something as effortless as a thought.
No, the scientists of the world believe that the positions and states of the atoms in question are all governed by physical laws which leave no room for something like my free will to come along and just move things about willy nilly at my whim. Therefore, as a scientist, the only conclusion left to me is that we do not, in fact, have free will.
All of our thoughts, and all of our actions have been pre-ordained by the physical laws of the Universe as they have been playing out ever since the Big Bang. The positions and the states of the atoms that make up our nervous systems are merely a product of the state of the Universe as it existed at the Big Bang coupled with the natural laws which have governed them ever since.
Free will is only an illusion.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
we agree 100% on this issue so far. I would jump in, but you are doing an excellent job form what I've read so far and I really need to finish up some grading here first.
You might not like some of the political implications of your argument. I'll attempt to address those later (hint: they lead to liberal ideas for the most part).
since humans do not have free will, they are not responsible for what happens to them and thus should be taken care of regardless. This is where the church and liberals come together in a nice mutual .... fill in the blank.
Absurd on the face of it. There has to be something guiding us, supernatural or not, there is a human spirit in all of us that is responsible for what we do. We are not part of a hive mind moving along like puppets.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I may be misunderstanding your comment, but the concept of the individual having and exercising free will is central to Roman Catholic beliefs. There is no magic hand in the Church -- you actively choose your path. Hopefully, one uses an informed conscience as a guide when faced with choices, but at all times the individual has free will.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
but technically doesn't God know everything that will happen, which means that everything is predetermined and therefore no free will, but an illusion thereof?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Predestination is a Protestant belief, not a Catholic one.
Here are some quotes from the official Catechism (Article 3: Man's Freedom):
God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator. . .
Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness. . .
Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary . . .
The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in religious and moral matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of man. But the exercise of freedom does not entail the putative right to say or do anything.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
We are not part of a hive mind moving along like puppets.
Previously, you have argued that "liberals do THIS" or "liberals do THAT," acting as if liberals were part of a hive. In fact, I think you may have even described the denizens of Daily Kos in that manner.
I'm glad to note that you seem to have seen the light.
Progress.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
The fundamental question is, how would you know? If all "thinking" is merely an illusion that was, in effect, pre-ordained all the way back to the Big Bang then how do you know that these "thoughts" are, in fact, "yours" in that you are somehow in control of them (as opposed to they just happened based on chemical interactions in your brain that make you "feel" like you "thought" them)?
It's devilishly tricky. :-)
I wonder if this is what lead to the famous quote, "I think, therefore I am!"
In one way this line of reasoning calls the very foundation for that notion into question, but on a practical level it still remains true!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
is Descartes' attempt to escape from a puppet-master determinism, but many philosophers including Kierkegaard showed faults in his logic through similar process to what you just did here. I can give book titles if anyone wants to read this dry, but interesting stuff.
so a lot of the various concepts are strange and new to me, which is why I am easily surprised on this topic. Also why I have no clue which philosopher I am closest to in my views - but then again my philosophical views are rather unformed.
I am definitely inclined to think that we have an absolute free will, but that is an ideological convenience and proving it seems far from simple.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think up things as I go along and it feels new and creative only to obviously find out that some medieval idiot thought of it before :) Regardles, I am reasonably sure that I have plenty of original ideas :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I was thinking more in terms of moral relativism, but you are on the right track.
I'll get to it when I can.
P.S. Just because you don't like the implications of something does not make it untrue or absurd. That's been the religious argument against atheists since they started rejecting the concept of God. You must first tackle the premise before you can claim the conclusion is absurd or show how the conclusion does not fall from the premise. You can't just say I don't like the conclusion; therefore it is false.
Moral relativism. I can see that here. On a related note, is there any absolute definition of "good" and "evil"? I can't think of one.
My favorite example is Klingons. By most standards their way of life and some of the things that they believe in would be considered "bad" by our standards but "good" by theirs. Is there any reason to logically consider "us" right and "them" wrong?
Perhaps this is what you mean by moral relativism in the first place?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Vulcans, Klingons, and Ferengi, and the rest, were all inventions as parts and philosophies of humans. By writing the shows various writers explored the aspects, and indeed came up with a number of Universal truths (though arguably driven by the producers and others, even their own culture (American) that cannot help but influence the results.
Much of Klingon "honor" especially as they believed, rather than as practiced, turned out to be quite universal, as even Quark, and the shapeshifters discover, they cannot operate without it. Even Q and the Borg find it after a fashion.
Likewise while "pure logic" is the Vulcan goal, Spock becomes quite maimed trying to stick to it. As a result they invented Data as the anti-Spock who is purely logical, but attempts to be human, and discover the proper nature of illogic.
The fact that they addressed those issues at all, made them among the best shows on television, as indeed all the other "best" were pretty much likewise.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
humans are just flopping around following some predetermined atomic level positioning without any control over the situation whatsoever. I still do not see why those forces that you are describing are all so unchangeable in the way they interact with other forces.
If there are all these layers that the motion has to go through before it is actually accomplished (starting with a though or other brain activity) then why can't it simply work as a domino theory with higher level processes nudging lower ones into action. Like the way software is structured with the laws of the universe written in machine code and our brains being the application level?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
An interesting analogy, I need to think that through a bit and get back to you. In the mean time consider the following.
You are correct that there is an implication of people going through pre-determined motions based on things occuring at an atomic level. That is the fundamental point of this line of reasoning. And because of that there is no place in a world governed solely by physical laws.
For the sake of discussion, let's simplify things a tad. Let's say that in any given instance the act of touching your nose can ultimately be traced back to a single interaction between two molecules in your brain. If the interaction occurs, you touch your nose. If the interaction does not occur then you don't touch your nose. Let us say that from that single molecular interaction (or lack thereof) all of the other physical processes required to make your finger touch your nose are completely controlled and explanable via the physical laws of the Universe and the resulting chemical properties and interactions which derive therefrom.
So now we look at the notion of free will (i.e. the ability to choose to touch your nose or not). In this scenario your conscious mind must have control over whether that single molecular interaction will take place or not because with it the finger touches the nose and without it the finger stays put.
Science would tell us that whether or not that interaction occurs is actually a function of the state of every piece of matter in the Universe, and that if it were actually possible to know all of that state and apply the known (and any possibly yet to be discovered) physical laws that we should be able to predict what is going to happen. The interaction, based on this state and the laws in question, really has no choice according to science. It either will, or will not, occur based on the gravitational fields, electrical fields, and so forth that are in play based on that Universal state.
Therefore, there is no possible mechanism according to science as we know it today for anything like our conscious minds to force that molecular interaction to either occur or not based on the outcome of our "decision". Hence, we cannot have free will.
More thoughts and caveats:
1) Quantum Mechanics.
When you take this thinking to the next level, namely the sub-atomic world of Quantum Physics, things are a little less clear. In the sub-atomic world of Quantum Physics most particle interactions are controlled by probabililty functions. This gives rise to the possibility of varying outcomes, at least, even for a given known state of the Universe at the beginning of our hypothetical scenario.
It is worth noting, however, that even under this model the varying outcomes are at best random, as opposed to consciously controlled, and random behavior is not the same thing as free will.
2) Effects of oversimplification.
This description is over simplified in that it boils everything down to a single molecular interaction which is unrealistically simplistic. On the other hand, the primary point being illustrated in this simple example still remains the primary point in a more complex model: the mind must have the ability to control the physical world in ways that run counter to a view of that world as being governed solely by physical laws (i.e. science as we know it today).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
our mind cannot directly make those molecules interact, it can set forces in motion that going through the various levels from the top, passing commands along in a language each successive layer can understand, will eventually come to a layer that is capable of manipulating those molecules.
So first layer is our conscious thought - 2nd sending the command to the finger - 3rd traversing from the nerve to the muscle - 4th muscle to the muscle fiber - 5th muscle fiber to muscle cells - 6th cells to molecules - 7th molecules to atoms or whatever (I forgot all that stuff I took in college).
There still has to be that something that gives the initial command, as I pointed out in my other comments but the moving of stuff on the atomic or molecular level is not that difficult per say.
Am I missing your point?
I read a bit on quantum physics but really not enough to speak with any kind of authority - perhaps tlaloc can enlighten us here. But isn't it partly a basis of theory that with every choice a new universe is created so both choices are actualized?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
But isn't it partly a basis of theory that with every choice a new universe is created so both choices are actualized?
Not really. The paradox by which entangled particles in superposition (imagine a particle in superposition = 50% in one state 50% in another (say spin) that is then split. The two particles are entangled in that if you know one's state, you'll know the others) 'communicate' the fact that they have been measured to the other particle is the basis for this conjecture. Relativistic shenanigans have actually been performed so that such communication would not only have to be a few billion times faster than light, it would actually appear to come 'from the future'
The explanation you mention is that when the particle 'chooses' its state, it actually chooses both states (as does the other particle) and the universe 'splits' at the speed of light like two sheets of cellophane being pulled apart.
Even with this explanation, the universe only needs to split to deal with quantum effects, not all choices.
But all of the levels are "encoded" into the state of the matter that makes up your brain. As such, everything that occurs at any of the levels is ultimately made up of matter and is therefore constrained by the physical laws of the Universe which ultimately leave no room for an outside force (i.e. your conscious mind) to actively control outcomes at any of these physical levels.
I think I understand the point that you are trying to make but I am merely saying that since the levels are ALL controlled by the physical laws there is no room for choice. Any "choice" at any level must ultimately be manifested by some change in state (in the physical matter that makes up the brain). This is what prevents free will as we are discussing it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Actually there are two points I would make, in the easy case quantum mechanics operates at the sub atomic level, so since you are talking about chemistry, and not radiation, quantum mechanics is largely out of the picture.
There is however a similar point that is much more relevant and that is the so called "butterfly" effect. Essentially that in a repetitive equation (and thinking is nothing if not at least a massive repetitive equation of neurons firing caused by other neurons firing) the tiniest difference can have a massive effect and a totally different outcome.
To take your nose touching experiment as an example (and trying to simplify a lot), merely reading it, causes the thought about doing so to occur, the tiniest memories and predispositions, would easily push your likeliness to do so, into all sorts of possibilities, from nothing to some bizzare insanity, but also the possibility of thinking about doing it again, and having the same set of possibilities occur all over again.
In the end you still cannot escape the Manichean dilemma, you can only choose which side you wish to live on (no matter where that choice originates).
Of course to actually choose you have to understand what the Manichean dilemma is, make a rational choice, and work out the various implications of that choice.
Or you can just receive and replay the programming without exercising any free will.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Actually there are two points I would make, in the easy case quantum mechanics operates at the sub atomic level, so since you are talking about chemistry, and not radiation, quantum mechanics is largely out of the picture.
Nor do I want to be one. I will say up front that I have no formal training in it, so my impressions are necessarily based on a lay person's understanding based on some informal reading, that coupled with college level physics and chemistry.
Quantum Mechanics, however, is related to chemistry as far as I can tell. Didn't it grow out of Neils Bohr's uncertainty principle (i.e. you can know an electron's speed or its position but not both at the same point in time)? My understanding is that Quantum Mechanics is sort of at the nexus between particle theory (i.e. chemistry) and wave theory (i.e. radiation), but perhaps I misunderstand.
For example, "classical science" has shown that under some circumstances an electron acts like a particle, but under other conditions it acts like a wave. So which is it? Well, if I understand correctly according to Quantum Mechanics it is actually both and its behavior can be described via probability functions or some such.
To me Quantum Mechanicists (is that a term?) are very much like Insurance Actuaries. They make lots of observations, they tabulate the results, and they come up with interesting and useful statistics about how their theoretical sub-atomic particles behave. They see the sub-atomic world in terms of probability functions where the outcomes of interactions are to some degree random, but predictably so.
I argue that even though they can make reliable predictions about various behaviors (much as the insurance actuary can make reliable predictions about how many people will die next year) that they don't actually know squat about the laws that make their sub-atomic particles work.
In this sense I am on the side of Albert Einstein who, I believe, is attributed with the comment "God does not roll dice" (paraphrased). By this he meant that he too did not believe that Quantum Mechanics (or its precursors at the time) provided an accurate theory to explain the behavior of the universe at a sub-atomic level. Creating actuarial tables, while useful for making predictions, is not the same thing as providing a theory to explain the observed behaviors.
I only raise the issue of Quantum Mechanics in this context because it is the next logical level of discussion "below" chemistry AND because the results being described at this level show some amount of unpredictability which might have been seen as a potential "source" for the all elusive "consciousness". I merely want to make the point that at best this randomness would explain people acting, well, randomly which is a far sight different than exhibiting free will and a conscious control over one's environment.
There is however a similar point that is much more relevant and that is the so called "butterfly" effect. Essentially that in a repetitive equation (and thinking is nothing if not at least a massive repetitive equation of neurons firing caused by other neurons firing) the tiniest difference can have a massive effect and a totally different outcome.
I agree with your point about the so called butterfly effect. Clearly the human brain represents a massive number of neural interconnections with highly complex feedback mechanisms all of which makes it highly susceptible to the butterfly effect in a pragmatic sense at the higher order levels of neural chemical processes.
A hand full of key events at the atomic and sub-atomic levels could clearly lead to widely varying effects at the higher-order brain functions because those events could end up setting off massive domino cascades along the neural pathways that would lead to who knows what at a conscious level.
On the other hand, science as we know and understand it today will still say that if we knew the exact state of the universe at some point in time and could apply all of the relevant physical laws that the outcome would be predictable, or at least all possible outcomes could be assigned appropriate probabilities. So again we are left with no free will ... if all you believe in is science.
Or you can just receive and replay the programming without exercising any free will.
And I believe that this is precisely the view that our current level of scientific understanding suggests. The "scientist" part of me simply says that we are all merely automatons who have been "programmed" by the accumulation of our individual experiences which have been duly encoded in our brains (by a combination of basic memory functions as well as neural morphology which is also a function of individual experience).
I believe that it is this accumulated experience which gives each and every one of us a predisposition to react a certain way when presented with certain stimuli. At some level, if it were possible to understand these encodings and the basic operations that apply to them, then an individual's reaction to a given stimulus should be inherently predictable. A simplistic example would be Pavlov's Dogs.
This is sort of the higher-level perspective or implication of all of the physical laws working at the lower levels. I don't say that I have everything figured out, obviously, but again from a scientific perspective this makes sense to me.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Quantum mechanics operates at the physics level rather than at the chemistry level (there being no chemicals involved)
To me Quantum Mechanicists (is that a term?) are very much like Insurance Actuaries.
...
I argue that even though they can make reliable predictions about various behaviors (much as the insurance actuary can make reliable predictions about how many people will die next year) that they don't actually know squat about the laws that make their sub-atomic particles work.
Yes, you are no expert and yet are willing to argue that nobody else is either.
Quantum Physicists do a lot more than act as actuaries. Albert Einstein's Nobel Prize was for understanding the quantum laws that created the photo-electric effect (and not for relativity) I suggest you do some reading on quantum computing and quantum encryption. Even though the fields are just starting, quantum computers have already managed to solve NP problems in polynomial time see Shor's Algorithm . In other words, their are both quantum scientists AND quantum engineers.
the achievements of Quantum "Physicists". Clearly they have made significant contributions to science and engineering. I just don't believe that the universe operates the way that they believe it does.
God does not roll dice. The universe does not operate randomly.
I am aware of (the existence of) the advancements and some of the on-going research that you refer too. I have not looked into the details behind those achievements.
Yes, you are no expert and yet are willing to argue that nobody else is either.
I don't believe that I have argued that there are no experts on Quantum Mechanics. Clearly there are or the whole topic would not even exist.
I admit that I am not an expert in the field. That does not mean that I am completely ignorant of it either. I have done sufficient reading on the topic to convince myself that while it provides a useful description of behavior at a sub-atomic level I don't believe that it provides a fundamental or satisfactory explanation for why things are operating the way that they are at that level.
But that is just my simple lay person's opinion. Perhaps I am too old school at this point. I don't mind if others choose to believe differently. I am posting on a philosophical thread on a political website so I don't expect that my rantings here will make it into any scientific journals of note. And any Quantum Physicists that rely on anything that I have to say on the topic probably shouldn't be published either. :-)
Do you, per chance, have any formal background in physics and quantum mechanics? Just for future reference?
Quantum mechanics operates at the physics level rather than at the chemistry level (there being no chemicals involved)
I am not trying to claim that "chemicals" are involved in Quantum Mechanics. Traditional chemistry inherently begins at the atomic level (correct?) which is where we even begin to have the notion of "chemicals" (i.e. specific atomic structures and properties of elements).
My understanding was that Quantum Mechanics tries to explain the physics that operates fundamentally at a sub-atomic level, and that they have "discovered" many sub-atomic particles and the "forces" that govern the interactions thereof. Is this not correct?
So (and this maybe where I am off), isn't Quantum Mechanics fundamentally about explaining the inner workings of atoms which, by definition, are the fundamental building blocks of Chemistry? Isn't Quantum Mechanics about describing the physics that underlies the properties of atoms (and therefore Chemistry)?
Do you see any relationship between the work of Quantum Physicists and the work of Chemists?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
so for there to be a free will there must be this "operator" / soul / spirit that is not constrained by the physical properties that would require it to adhere to the physical laws of the universe. It is that force that guides our mind through the thought process, uses it if you will to make rational decisions etc, but ultimately has to be self-aware.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Some men put the super into the natural, and create God's of all sorts. And then use them cynically at times to manipulate groups of people. Have a drink of kool-aid and the space ship will come. Believe in Jesus and you will rise out of your grave.
To me it is the power of the mind that is liberated of the illusion of it's physical limits, that we see focused as faith in the spirit. It you believe it is true. Then it is true, no matter what name you give this power.
Would this not imply that I, through the mere power of my will, have the ability to force events on an atomic or even a sub-atomic level to converge such that the necessary chemical interactions occur to cause the proper neurons to fire to cause the proper muscles to contract to cause my finger to touch my nose? Scientifically speaking this seems to be quite the feat to accomplish through something as effortless as a thought.
But they can "see" (crudely) what thoughts you are thinking by examing brain scans, and observe actual physical actions occuring (neurons firing) when you think. I don't know about the free will bit but it sure is fascinating to consider just what, exactly, our minds are. How do we become self-aware? Probably just a different way of getting at your question, I realize, but I don't have any answers...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
But they can "see" (crudely) what thoughts you are thinking by examing brain scans, and observe actual physical actions occuring (neurons firing) when you think.
This is a good observation. I guess the question we are randomly poking at is this: Is our "thinking" causing the neurons to fire, or is our "perception of thinking" merely a side effect of the neurons firing the way that they are?
Which is the cause and which is the effect. My point above is that science could only accept the latter. The brain chemistry is doing whatever it is doing because of the physical laws of the universe, therefore the "perception of thinking" must be the illusion.
This is all consistent with the automaton view I described above, BTW. In the types of studies that you refer to, the subjects are presented with some sort of stimulus (i.e. they are shown a picture, or asked a question, or whatever) and the results are observed on the brain scans.
I would argue that the stimulus (visual, auditory, tactile) starts the whole cascade of neurons firing within the brain and that the outcome of that cascade will be determined by the individual's accumulated experiences as they have been encoded in their memories and their neural network. The applicable sensory neurons (which have been excited via a physical stimulus in the eyes, or the ears, or whatever) feed a stimulus into the neural network which then just does whatever it does according to the neural pathways that exist and the accumulated memories that have been stored there.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
That is my choice, no matter how many chemical reactions are involved.
You are talking of purely physical earthly matters.
What about your soul, your spirit, your drive.
This is the most fatalistic, hopeless vision.
Why bother getting out of bed.
My fate is pre-ordained.
I have no control.
Why should I bother pulling myself up by my bootstraps.
Why did you choose to post these thoughts?
My free will has been affected by you.
I chose to respond.
What if I hadn't responded.
Why did you choose me?
of taking science to its natural logical conclusion. For anyone who does not believe in the supernatural AND firmly believes in scientific thought this is the only natural conclusion to come to.
My mind tells me I can touch my nose or my elbow.
That is my choice, no matter how many chemical reactions are involved.
If you are to believe in science and the laws of the physical Universe as the only explanation for how things occur, then you have no free choice. The point is not how many chemical reactions it takes to accomplish a given task, the point is that somehow, if you have free will, there has to be a mechanism by which you set those chemical reactions into play at a physical level. This implies that by making a decision to have your finger touch your nose you were somehow able to manipulate matter at a physical level in such a way that your conciousness CAUSED those reactions to take place. Presumably if you had NOT made the decision to touch your nose the requisite reactions would NOT have taken place AND your finger would likewise NOT have touched your nose. This is the fundamental effect of having free will as far as I can tell from a philisophical perspective.
So when I say that free will is only an illusion, I mean that chemical reactions in your brain are creating your thoughts (based on the scientific principles at play), not the other way around. You only think that you actually have thoughts, but you don't. You can't actually be in control of your thoughts because you have no mcehanism by which your conscious mind could be manipulating the molecules in your brain to make them interact so as to effect the touching of your nose.
You are talking of purely physical earthly matters.
What about your soul, your spirit, your drive.
Well, strictly speaking, science has no place for anything but the physical. There is no soul according to science. That is sort of the point of this post, I guess. Science for all the good it does has a long way to go, so is it really a good thing to elevate it to the levels that some on the left tend to do?
This is the most fatalistic, hopeless vision.
Why bother getting out of bed.
My fate is pre-ordained.
I have no control.
Why should I bother pulling myself up by my bootstraps.
Yes, this is fatalistic and hopeless, but I wouldn't exactly call it a vision. This is, however, what we are left with if all we want to believe in is science.
As for the dragging yourself out of bed goes, it is all an illusion. There is no "you" making any of the decisions. The chemistry in your brain does what it does based on physical laws NOT by any supernatural "soul" that is somehow guiding it, or so the scientists would tell us.
You couldn't stop your body from getting out of bed if you wanted to. And you would just "think" that you decided to do so when it did, hence the illusion.
Why did you choose to post these thoughts?
As I said, I am not sure. I just thought it was an interesting philosophy meets science question for people to ponder.
My free will has been affected by you.
I chose to respond.
What if I hadn't responded.
Why did you choose me?
The point of the question would respond that your actions were caused by chemical reactions in your brain, not by any independently operating consciousness with free will. You only "THINK" that you were in control as an after effect.
I'm not really saying that this is the true nature of things. I don't actually even profess to know what is. I am just posting something for people to think about carefully.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Different elements INTERreacting in different ways.
A true scientist is not inspired by this dry, souless vision of the world you have written about.
He sees the magic of zero's, and one's and is AMAZED!
He sees that chemical elements have inspiring numberical souls and primary divisions and correlations.
And there are those that believe in the paranormal, that we have more senses than we realize.
Have you heard of the string theory???
The ultimate explanation (there never will be one because there is no such thing as perfection). Einstein was always looking for that universal equation that unified our interactions. E=MC squared wasn't it.
But he kept searching.
Why do we search? Ah that is the soul seeking to know it's origins.
It is interesting I agree.
But your world with no free will. Well I don't live there.
That is a world without hope.
Besides since your a winger, I am suspicious that this is a lead in to the theories of Intelligent Design, and creationism that doesn't even believe in carbon dating!
What, no philosophical thoughts lately? I know pico is a bit busy now but the rest of you wannabe philosophers should be eager to discuss your theories on life, universe and everything.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Sophism
A clever argument used by idealogues to deliberately deceive those whose philosophy is not rooted in the laws of nature.
The idealogues have used sophisticated language to convince us that only they know perfection.
The philosophers study the nature of knowledge in a context that acts as a set of guiding principles for attaining wisdom.
The idealogues unbending definition of perfection will be defeated by the philosophers willingness to embrace the slow climb to knowledge and understanding of how things work.
The idealogue starts with an assumption of perfection.
The philosopher looks at the world to find wisdom.
The rules of survival say that it is not the strongest that survive but those that can adapt to their surroundings.
The idealogues will fall. There is no such thing as freedom from defect,
The philosophers will survive. They understand that nothing is ever complete.
The downfall of the idealogues known as the neoconservatives, seeking perfect freedom for a people whose philosophy they never even pretended to understand.
Their fallicious assumptions have led to the conquering of a country that is now ruled by strawmen.
Let the true philosophers come in and blow these sophists from their thrones of straw.
Predeterminism is the only conclusion to the questions of the external world. Soon there will be computers powerful enough to simulate universes and ultimatley tell us the future. The question is not whether free will exists but does it make a difference if it didn't? We have to believe in free will, we have no choice.
Black, white, grey... wtf? Absolute truth exists within the cogito. As Descartes puts it, even if I were being decieved about everthing I would still have to exist to be decieved. I think therefore I am is an absolute truth, it cannot be refuted by any living human, to deny it is to affirm it.
Soon there will be computers powerful enough to simulate universes and ultimatley tell us the future.
As long as such computers have a limit to their precision, they can never do any such thing. You can bring a computer to ten decimals, and measure the existing forces and reality every few hundred miles or so, and then create a weather profile say, about as accurate and far seeing as they are today, as that is approximately what we do.
But if you were able to have a weather station measuring at every ten feet, side to side and up and down, to ten to the tenth power of decimals, rounding errors would still build up, and the space five feet from your measuring device would hold surprises, and a butterfly deciding to turn right or left would have an effect, eventually a massive one, on the outcome of your predictions.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
If the simulator encompused every movement of every particle (which it would have to do in order to fit the defintion we have given it) then that would include the measurements of yours and every other butterfly which ever existed. They're actions as much a part of a predetermined path as the winds'. Only a metaphysical or an unidentified action could create a truely random event, and for that science would have to accept what it was created to destroy.
No matter what you measured or how many decimal points you measured to, it would only be to the level of precision of your measurement and only calculated to the level of precision of your computer.
If you carried your precision to ten decimal points or ten billion you would not have the "real" numbers, and the errors caused by those tiny errors would build up to massive amounts, after several billion calculations.
Even the distance between calculations, every second, even every 1 billionth of a second, would show significant error over time. It is that, not any actual butterfly, that is the point.
Your simulator would have passed way beyond absurd, and still the butterfly effect would make the results only an estimate.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Simulations are my specialty so, I can definitely agree that this is impossible if the universe is as current theory states. specifically, the uncertainty principle simply destroys the idea.
You would need to both capture the entire state of the universe, which thanks to the UP, cannot be done. You would then need accurate models for every process that were guaranteed to exactly mimic the real processes, many of which are random.
As an example, leaving my complete expertise and going to the hobby,
the processes embodied in quantum mechanics appear to have a strong degree of randomness in them. There is no reason that the Uranium decays at time X0 and not X1 other than randomness. Vacuum fluctuations which influence many of these quantum events also occur randomly and, again, thanks to the uncertainty principle, cannot be perfectly predicted.
Which from a simulator's point of view is fine. A simulator isn't supposed to be a crystal ball that will tell you what will happen. Very few analysis simulations are ever run once. You run them multiple times with diffferent random seeds and you analyse the trends.
A simulation like a Jet flight trainer would be a very different thing than a weather simulation. As long as you did not have critical numbers, or there were not a lot of iterations, that last decimal point is pretty ignorable, but if you have both accuracy can degrade rather quickly over time.
In hurricanes it is pretty easy to see, some behave and go where they are expected, in others the arrival of a front at a location by a difference of minutes can make a difference of hundreds of miles as to where the hurricane lands.
The nice thing about computer simulations is that if you enter the same numbers, you get exactly the same result, but then all your data is with some multiple of an integer and not real numbers.
You can use it for fancy arithmetic, and then check against reality to see what you might be missing. You can even add pseudorandom numbers to simulate unknowns, so you can see a range of possibilities, but the butterflies are always lurking to surprise you.
The January Hurricane some call "Storm of the Century" was just such an event.
BTW while some butterfly uncertainty on the molecular level might conceivably be driven by quantum uncertainty, it is more than swamped by Brownian uncertainty, and has virtually zero effect above the atomic level, and on chemical reactions.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
BTW while some butterfly uncertainty on the molecular level might conceivably be driven by quantum uncertainty, it is more than swamped by Brownian uncertainty, and has virtually zero effect above the atomic level, and on chemical reactions.
Oh absolutely, the uncertainty principle is simply a hard limit. You CANNOT get any more precision than that defined by planck's constant regardless of how good your calculating machine and how amazing your measurements are. The idea of actually performing measurements on macroscopic objects that are so precise the the uncertainty principle actually impacts you is pretty ludicrous, but that is for practical rather than theoretical reasons.
Soon there will be computers powerful enough to simulate universes and ultimatley tell us the future.
Assuming that you are talking about our actual universe, I argue that this is actually impossible. While we can agree that (according to science) the universe is made up of matter and energy which are governed by physical laws, in order to accurately simulate the universe one would (presumably) need to know the exact state of every entity in the universe at some point in time in order to predict the states at some future point in time, correct? So the question is "where would our knowledge of that state information be stored?"
This raises two fundamental problems for any attempts to simulate the universe by anyone who is actually part of the universe:
First, the information in question must be encoded someplace. If it is encoded using matter that is, itself, part of the universe to be simulated then the simulation actually begins to play an active role in determining the outcomes it is trying to predict. This isn't necessarily a show stopper, but one doesn't typically consider the "simulator" itself as having an effect on the outcome of the "simulation".
Second, assuming that every "thing" (i.e. particle of matter or energy) which comprises the universe can assume multiple "states", the encoding of that information would require multiple bits of information for each such "thing". Since each such bit would need to be stored somewhere it would require more phsyical "things" to store the state information than actually exist in the universe.
Therefore, if we view the universe as a kind of closed system, only someone outside of that system would be able to create such a simulator and predict the future (on a universal scale, of course).
The question is not whether free will exists but does it make a difference if it didn't?
This is a very good point. Obviously to us, it does not matter as we already "believe" that we have free will. We could not believe otherwise even if "we" existed to ask the question! :-)
I guess a related question is "what do we mean by we?" Are we refering to the physical us or are we referring to the illusion that is our conscious mind?
As Descartes puts it, even if I were being decieved about everthing I would still have to exist to be decieved. I think therefore I am is an absolute truth, it cannot be refuted by any living human, to deny it is to affirm it.
Strictly speaking, this is a proof of existence but not of free will, do you agree?
I am curious, what does "I think, therefore I am" mean to you?
Does the term "I think" refer to the physical or the meta-physical, and is the term "I am" meant to imply merely existence or an independent free will as well?
The assertion "I think, therefore I am" in no way implies the existence of a meta-physical self which possesses free will.
If the conscious mind is merely an illusion created by the checmical processes within the physical brain, then the "thoughts" of that conscious mind are under the complete control and direction of those chemical processes which, in turn, are under the complete control and direction of the physical laws of the universe. In that sense, you only "think" that you have "independent thought" but it is an illusion being constructed by the physical brain.
So while this is undeniably a proof that you "exist", it in no way is a proof that your have control over your thoughts.
What do you think?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Soon there will be computers powerful enough to simulate universes and ultimatley tell us the future.
Assuming that you are talking about our actual universe, I argue that this is actually impossible.
Who'd a thunk! Perhaps if we explore enough we can find other places where realities of the left and right coincide, and by vigorous logic stitch them into one!...Nah!.. ....... it would never work.........
Still you do not escape the Manichean Dilemma... everyone you see and talk to might not actually exist, the whole thing could be a crazed computer game, played by some maniac, who himself actually does not exist except in the preprogrammed mind of another greater maniac, and so on and so on ...all the way back.
The only possible answer to the Manichean Dilemma is what you choose to do about it. Catatonia is an answer, but not a very good one, and would probably get you a pretty low score when the game is over in any case. The same would be true of nihilistic evil.
That careful thought is also a dilemma, as it requires both a lot of work, and time, and even given that, there is little assurance of an accurate answer. That is why those answers need as much challenge as you can afford to give them, and even after life has given as much wisdom as can be managed, it kills every student, but at least they will have some real wealth to take with them, ....if they ever go anywhere.
(edited to include the quote, noting that I had said a very similar thing before reading his post)
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
In theory it is not unimaginable that over time someone somewhere may work out a way of making one. But your second point is reasoned. Although if the simulator is in any way possible it raises a serious problem, and one which we may never solve. Everything would be just as real for a person within the simulation as the origanal beings who created the simulator, a carbon coby. At an inevitable time the simulator will come to a moment when it itself was created. At that point the simulator within the simulator will create another universe, and with that universe another simulator is created, so on and so on. The probability of us being the origanal beings who first created the simulator are quite low, and the chances are we may be just a simulation within a simulation within a simulation within a simulation.
What does "I think therefore I am" mean to me? I wasn't really using it in this debate. Before I posted this blog I was reading someone else's about morality being techni-coloured and something about "there were no such things as absolute truths". I can't remember which one but its got a chess board illussion on it. But in a way the cogito does prove free will, or at very least it offers a possible non-predeterminist stand point. Existence before essence is the only truth and it does not rely on science merely a self aware consious. What I mean by this is that science and our understanding could all be a fabrication, like a dream. What I try to achieve is a mild skeptisism, one in which opinions are freely changed and belief rarely held. One step beyond nihilism. Free will does not matter
In theory it is not unimaginable that over time someone somewhere may work out a way of making one. But your second point is reasoned.
Agreed.
Although if the simulator is in any way possible it raises a serious problem, and one which we may never solve. Everything would be just as real for a person within the simulation as the origanal beings who created the simulator, a carbon coby. At an inevitable time the simulator will come to a moment when it itself was created. At that point the simulator within the simulator will create another universe, and with that universe another simulator is created, so on and so on. The probability of us being the origanal beings who first created the simulator are quite low, and the chances are we may be just a simulation within a simulation within a simulation within a simulation.
:-) I like this description and agree with your analysis of the implications of such a thing.
Existence before essence is the only truth and it does not rely on science merely a self aware consious. What I mean by this is that science and our understanding could all be a fabrication, like a dream.
I think that we must be close to a common understanding here and that perhaps you are saying the same thing as I am trying to ... but not exactly.
Self-awareness is clearly a proof of existence, agreed? I cannot even contemplate my own existence without somehow "existing"! :-)
The question at hand is whether we have free will in the sense that we can exert conscious control over our observed environment.
I am merely stating the logical implication that if one only believes in science and, therefore, that the universe (i.e. the observed environment) is inherently controlled by the state of matter and physical laws then there is no room for a true concept of free will and, therefore, logically free will must merely be an illusion of some sort (i.e. a fabrication as you call it above). It is a mere trick of the mind.
On the other hand, if you choose to believe that free will actually exists then you have to accept the logical conclusion that the universe is not inherently controlled by physical laws alone because the source of your consciousness (and the free will that it exerts) must exist outside of the physical universe (where it would by definition be subject to the physical laws of nature) AND that your consciousness has some ability to influence the outcomes of events on a physical level.
This sounds a lot like a "soul" to me, although I am not religious by nature. Also, at an atomic and sub-atomic level the ability to influence the outcomes of events must, for all intents and purposes, appear to be "miraculous" in that certain outcomes don't conform to the physical laws described by science.
So, our logical choices seem to come down to:
1) Free will exists and, therefore, our conscious mind must be meta-physical in nature with an ability to influence the outcomes of events (i.e. perform "miracles") on an atomic and sub-atomic level within the physical universe.
2) We are mindless automatons trapped by the laws of the physical universe and we only "perceive" some notion of having free will and it is all just an illusion created as a side-effect of the chemical processes within our brains.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
There are probably a million conclusions, each of them posing another problem, which at best waste our time. It is not our questions which need answering, it is our answers which need questioning (I'm copy righting that phrase if it's possible). If we start from the cogito, what philosophy, science or religion has conclusivly answered the questions Descartes sets out (and ironically fails to answer) in the Meditations? If the Bible were the Apology by Plato this world would be a much nicer place. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
First, on simulations, the universe could, in fact BE a simulation. Vacuum fluctuations act in a fashion with frightening similarity to the fashion that we gather statistics from a simulation.
On the free-will vs metaphysics options... hard to say. Since we are on the subject of quantum mechanics, one has to ask if randomness exists. When an electron has a 50/50 chance of going left or right (and in effect goes both until measured) is the collapse to left or right random or predetermined but unpredictable? If the former, then matter and energy are taking a state based on something other than the state of matter and energy but there is nothing like a 'mind' involved.
Since we are on the subject of quantum mechanics, one has to ask if randomness exists.
This is a fundamental point which is part of why I don't favor the Quantum Mechanics view of the universe.
I would argue that it does not, which I guess puts me in a camp that favors "predetermined but unpredictable" in your scenario above.
I prefer to believe that even the sub-atomic world operates according to physical laws just like everything else appears to. The problem is that we can't "observe" the sub-atomic particles and forces without disturbing them the way that we can do at the macro level.
For example, when Newton observed the Apple falling from the tree the effects of the photons that enabled him to make the observation had no discernable effect on the outcome for all practical purposes. In fact the effect of millions and billions of photons bouncing off of that apple was negligible for the effect being observed.
At the sub-atomic level, however, this is not the case. A single photon on something the size of an electron can push it around. The mere act of observing it (in the conventional sense) increases its energy level and changes the whole scenario and where it is. As far as I can tell, this is sort of the basis for the Uncertainty Principle. (I know I may be over simplifying a bit.)
It is this inability to observe things at the sub-atomic level without affecting them that impedes our ability to define a theory to explain how things work (in a more conventional sense) and leads us to come up with notions like infinite universes that collapse as soon as someone observes them. Personally, I find this particular notion to be absurd in any real theoretical sense. As far as I am concerned the particles do what they do because of natural laws and there is none of this they don't "decide" until someone looks at them.
Just because we can't observe the particles and forces in action does not mean that they don't actually exist. I contend that the spin on an electron would be predictable if we were able to actually know the applicable states of every relevant particle in the universe along with the natural laws that govern the behavior of those particles. But since we can't possibly know the state of the entire universe, we can't possibly make the required prediction. Hence my contention that the outcome is pre-ordained but unpredictable.
Now, where Quantum Mechanics comes in is to answer the question of what to do when we cannot make the predictions. For practical and pragmatic purposes it doesn't hurt to think of the electron as being in both states until it is observed (I just don't believe that it really works that way). If these "made up" mechanisms provide a valuable framework around which we can reason about the practical outcomes of certain events then that is perfectly fine from an engineering perspective. We can use those models to make real-world advancements even though they don't necessarily describe the "true reality" of what is transpiring from the perspective of sub-atomic particles and forces.
In my mind using the concepts put forth by Quantum Mechanics to drive engineering advancements is basically analogous to using actuarial tables to determine insurance rates. Both are useful in a real world sense, but neither describes the mechanisms that control/define the statistics and probability functions found in each.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
To answer you other question, my formal training in quantum mechanics is limited but present (I just started when a professor was so annoying that I didn't want to study with him anymore, so I went into mathmatics) but I've continued studying it as a hobby.
For practical and pragmatic purposes it doesn't hurt to think of the electron as being in both states until it is observed
Quantum mechanics has pretty well established (experimentally as well as theoretically) that the electron is actually simultaneously in both states until it is measured (if it isn't measured, it will actually interfere with itself both constructively and destructively, but if it IS measured then it will have mysteriously taken one path even if it turns out to be the path that wasn't measured. That is the freaky thing. By puting a detector across one of the two possible paths, you remove the interference even though you don't detect anything (in the case that the electron took the path where there was no detector)
Radioactive half-lives are based upon the math of quantum mechanics and if you measure an individual isotope and it has not yet decayed, the 'clock' starts over and the distribution resets to 0% decayed/100% undecayed. The whole reason that Shor's algorithm works is because the qubit is able to carry information in a fashion that the bit is not.
I am very flattered that you chose to respond to this.
I am not sure I agree with your assessment of predetermination. The physical may be predetermined, but I do believe that human beings make choices.
The secret may be the beauty of the paradox, when we deny something are we actually affirming it.
BTW! Welcome to Swords Crossed. Don't be shy about posting. It's always good to have another progressive voice, especially one from across the pond.
Is not the mind physical? If we take science as gospel then ideas are mere reflections of reality and are subject to the same cause and effect as the external world. I didn't choose to eat, and even my favourite food is predetermined by my tastebuds which were predetermined by preceeding events beyond my control. The choice (if such a thing exists) is stark. We can believe in science and loose are free will, or we can believe in our freedom to choose but contradict an essential part of human knowledge. In either case morality and near to all value will be stripped from us. Soon mankind will face what it has been running from all of its existance, nothingness, nihilism. I say bring it on, the more we run the further from the truth we get. Let us hope that the people of the future do not repeat our mistakes by creating meaning to combat meaningless, the last thing we need is another religion or an over emphasis on science.
......have left us arguing many issues that have run on ad nauseum for a few thousand years in China, and points west, Taoist, and Confucian thought particularly, have no need for a planner or reason to exist, only a path that is beneficial to all humanity.
Mani might have been the ultimate P. T. Barnum, to say nothing of inventing the video game a couple millennia before it could be demonstrated, but it is not a requirement the the only alternative to a Manipulator be Nihilism.
Confucian thought requires free will, but demonstrates that acting intelligently improves your world and that Nihilistic selfishness is at best short sighted, and works against you and everyone else in the long run.
It is deeply embedded in its Chinese origins, and thus not what I would wish to take in whole, but a much better starting point than any Manichean Matrix, no matter how good or bad you imagine the Caretakers.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Whether or not Socrates and the early skeptics of ancient greece were influenced a century or so ago by confusionism is beside the point. I get the feeling you believe the latter is somehow "recently" new in western philosophy. I would argue the core principles of both philosophies are identical (and have been since before modern christianinty).
Our knowledge is a paradox in itself. The only thing we know for certian is that we exist by thinking in the present. EVERYTHING else is an assumption. We should not believe in nihilism, confuscianism, atheism or anything other than ourselves. Skeptisism has given us science and religion, the two most threatening forces humanity faces, but it gives us a third option. The hardest thing to fight for is pointlessness, but it is the only point worth fighting for right now.
Nihilism has a rather bad reputation, the kind of religion born of severe depression, self destructive, bad acting out, Ted Bundy kind of religion, if it could be called so at all.
Now the Straussians lay claim to it among themselves (and is a good reason to oppose them, if no other ) But their idea is to hide the fact and manipulate others with grand ideas of patriotism, and piety, because they know how the world treats such depraved types when they are caught.
Is that the Nihilism you are talking about? Or is it some other?
The core principals of Manichean type Religions is that this life is a video game and the insiders know the cheat codes (that they will let on to you if you give them power and a lifestyle they would like to be accustomed to)
The core principals of Confucian type Religions is that they are concerned with principals that work to make everyones life better, with little or no concern for "Mystic Understanding".
That is perhaps the simplistic and extreme cases at each end of a spectrum, but very different "core principals".
A very thoughtful nihilist could come to a Confucian type religion, by deeply considering the long term results of his actions, as I suspect many have, thus becoming no longer nihilist. That is why there was a tradition in the east of hermits who have done just that over many years.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
The nihilism I refer to is the rejection of knowledge or supposed knowledge of the majority. The mass realisation of pointlessness to life. How the world evolves out of this will depend on the few who know. There are no hidden codes or cheats, only truth, and a limited truth at that. But from this truth springs humanities only hope to conquer the nihilistic future it was destined to one day face. By nihilism I mean the stripping of all values and morals, the rejection of truth and the real great depression. If this is mankinds destiny (it's never "woman kind", you'd think since they came around the same time) it is up to the skeptics (ironically seen as the destroyers of knowledge) to prove that there is a way to overcome this. Unfortunetly it is us who are in the middle of a battle about to be fought between the athiests and the theists, both killing in the name of unfounded belief. Where they fight for that belief we must fight for the non belief. Of course it is easier to fight for something than nothing, but even though the truth may be limited, it is all there is.
... thousands of years ago, and perhaps every generation since, some folks re-invent the wheel, some just kick about the ones already about.
The great advantage of our civilization is that many facts that could only be speculated about before can now be unambiguously demonstrated. But that great advantage is also a great weakness. The old adage that "having only a hammer makes every problem look either like a nail, or not an interesting problem" is only accentuated by the amazing power of our "hammer".
Chinese philosophy is particularly interesting on that point, because they had different tools, and several thousand years of conversation. Consequently they came to not just different answers but different questions and different approaches.
Acupuncture is an easy example, I have studied it some, but while they can make predictions and see those results happen it is utterly incompatible to western thought. Neither seems able to enlighten the other, and to understand one you need to forget all you know about the other.
Fortunately the philosophical differences are not so incompatible, but since they are not subject to experimentation misunderstanding is less noticeable.
Our conversations, in western thought go back mostly 500 years or so, there are speakers as far back as a couple thousand years, but they are mostly unknown in our own history and "rediscovered" only "lately".
Also every step has been in response to the "video game" theory of reality, such that looking at actual reality is a very recent thing. Our technical achievements are an amazing result, but immense subtleties and butterfly effects are missed in that approach, that an extra few thousand years of conversation might make more plain.
Nihilism is an excellent example of that short sightedness, if all that stuff about a video game was a lie, then there is no "game" and thus everything is pointless. Without an alternative on hand, some redouble their insistence that the "game" is real, others flail about trying to reinvent everything from scratch, or find a different case of the "game".
The Chinese had several thousand years of skeptics picking apart ideas that were better founded in reality to start with. The result was a Chinese result, as incompatible with Western thought as acupuncture, but a much better starting point than Nihilism or any theism.
Among the first realizations should be that if you try to have any sort of "insider" conspiracy, you doom yourself and wreck havoc everywhere. The whole Neocon fiasco should prove that, if it needed any more proof.
Even in Western Philosophy it is well understood that Plato's "Philosopher Kings" required inhuman competence, that the very act of self selection would guarantee against.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
it is always being fought. The basic metaphysical questions which gave life to philosophy, religion and science, are no closer to answers than they were to start with. In our search for meaning we have been, are and quite possibly will remain stuck at square 1. There is no insider trick, this is the skeptical mind set inherent in every lost and last human being. I do not support nihilism but I accept its' presence and potential for harm. It is a stage humanity must get past. Religion denies it, science tries to out do it, but skepticism is the only way foward. We can be sure of two things; that we exist, and that with our existence we are accomponied with perceptions. An indubitable basis for philosophical inquiry which at once beats nihilism, and both taken from western philosophy. Socrates over "Confusion-ism" any day
Yes the physical determines some things, brown eyes etc. yet experience (pain, pleasure) and how we respond to it (environment) helps shape our physical reality.
Comments :
it almost seems like
you guys need another philosophy thread. If you need me to substitute this one with a fresh one (with a link to the old) just tell me.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yeh, start a couple if you can
Suggested topics; Ethics and morality, Philosophy in everyday life, Ancient Philosophy, the philosophy of science, free will continued
Off the wall thoughts...
Off the wall question: If God flips a meta-physical coin in his meta-physical world, does he necessarily know how it is going to land?
Christianity says that people have souls and that those souls (for believers) will go to be with God when we die. For our souls to literally "be with God", they must be part of the meta-physical world in which he exists. This raises in interesting questions with respect to the ralationship between our physical and our meta-physical selves.
In many ways the virtual worlds created within some video games are analogous to the concept of God creating our universe. Let's consider two different styles of such games.
First, The SIMS.
One could view the creator of the popular game The SIMS as being "god" with respect to the realm in which they exist. He defined every aspect of their virtual world as well as defined their automaton driven behavior.
This scenario is very much like the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent god who created our physical universe. Since the creator knows everything about his virtual creations and the world in which they exist, they should in a sense be able to predict how a given simulation will play out. And by carefully setting up the initial conditions within that virtual world, they effectively pre-ordain everything that will happen once the simulation begins.
The virtual people go about their virtual lives doing virtual activities all in a prescribed and predictable manner.
Second, Everquest or World of Warcraft.
In this scenario the virtual world is constructed. Rules are put in place as to how things operate. But the actors are actually driven by beings that exist outside of the virtual world (i.e. in some meta-virtual one like our physical one). To the extent that the physical world people who are controlling the actions of the virtual world people have free will, so do their virtual world counterparts.
This is a distinctly different perspective than the one above. Here the actors within the virtual world do not have any pre-programmed behavior so the outcomes in the virtual world are not pre-ordained.
I would argue that a pure science perspective implies a universe or reality for us that is more like that of The SIMS in this case. The actors are created, initial conditions are established, and the whole thing is pretty much predictable from there on out.
I would argue that any religion that believes in a meta-physical soul of sorts operates in a manner somewhat similar to that of Everquest. Constraints and limits are placed on the operations within the virtual world, but the actors are somehow controlled by meta-virtual world beings.
I don't really have a point to this post other than to offer it up for your consideration and to see if it generates any additional discussion. It is late. I am rambling.
Good night.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Christianity says that
Zarathustra explores the Biblical origins of the human soul evolving from animal to psyche to life force.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Can you just boil this down
to energy. To provide light and heat through the fact that opposites attract.
The negative charge and the postive charge and the flow of energy. Like magnents that repel and attract.
Your question, "If God flips a metaphysical coin does he know how it will land."
First why would "God" flip a coin?
Second who or what is "God".
Why would "God" care how it landed?
If the bible is a parable, then the story of Adam and Eve is the story of opposites, male-female (energy) one created from a piece of the other.
The forbidden fruit is a choice, or the choices we make. God gives us the free will to chose. He does not have control over which way the coin flips, that is up to you. "God" doesn't care how the coin lands, or what choices you make.
That is our "free will". The energy you choose is yours to keep. Choose happiness.
I'm only half stupid
Christianity precludes freewill...
...but don't feel bad, so do Islam and Judaism. Any philosophy that includes an omniscient omnipotent omnipresent creator god cannot logically allow for freewill. Demonstrating this is fairly simple.
Let us imagine a situation where you have a time machine allowing you to freely revist a moment in time.
You sit and watch as a man walks up to a stream. He is faced with a decision which he makes of his own free will: to continue on or go back. Seeing no dry way across he goes back.
You now jump in your time machine and go back one hour. You drag a log so that it crosses the stream at the location where the man will approach it. You wave to yourself and sit down to watch.
The man approaches and finding a way across decides to cross the stream.
Back to the time machine back an hour again. Laugh politely as your previous incarnations make a joke about it getting crowded in here. And then...
What? What do you do? Do you put the log where he can find it or remove it? By doing so you determine the man's actions because you already know how he responds to the give stimuli. Free will for the man is an illusion based on his ignorance of your power to control the scenario he finds himself in.
You know how the subject will behave under give circumstance. God (omniscient) knows how everyone will ever behave under every possible circumstance.
You have the power to control the circumstances and thereby determine his action. God (omnipotent) has the power to control every circumstance and thereby determine every action.
You have access (via the time machine) to the instance in question. God (omnipresent in time and space) has access to every instant everwhere.
The only question is if you choose to exercise your power by creating a scenario, meanwhile God (creator) has created the scenario by creating the universe, nothing happens in it that he did not choose to have happen
By having the power to create how everything starts and the infinite knowledge to know exactly how everey possible start ends up god precludes freewill. Which for a Christian I imagine means some uncomfortable issues. It means everything done has been done because god planned it. Lucifer's fall was god's choice. God set Judas and Caine up to fail. They are murderers because it was convenient to god's plan.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
This is an interesting post.
I need to think on it a bit and get back to you. I'm not sure that I completely agree with this logic but I can't immediately put my finger on why.
Part of my objection is the observation that even though God could consciously manipulate scenarios as you suggest that does not necessarily imply that he/she does.
I would argue that God himself must be inherently meta-physical in the sense that he cannot exist as part of the universe he created. Thus, god must be separate and apart from the physical universe as we know it.
Likewise with the angels. Here is a gap in my knowledge of Christianity. Did God create the Angels ... and therefore Lucifer? I don't recall hearing any such thing but I certainly could have missed it.
All I seem to recall is that God was God and the Angels worshipped him, and Lucifer was cast down for aspiring to replace God (or something along those lines).
So, if God didn't create Lucifer and the other Angels, then he cannot have pre-ordained their actions or activities. In that sense the Angels at least have just as much free will as God does, and they all presumably exist in some meta-physical world with respect to our physical universe.
So, while God may be omniscient and omnipotent with respect to the comings and goings within our own physical universe he isn't necessarily so with respect to his other worldly meta-physical universe.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4the creation...
But they did. At least if you believe them to be a creator god they did. You could have an omniscient omnipotent omnipresent passivegod and still have freewill but once that god becomes active (and by creating the universe of course god was active) they have meddled with the universe such that free will becomes an illusion.
God was supposed to have created the angels but your point here is interesting. However it would imply that only other metaphysical beings could have free will. Which means god would be off the hook for Lucifer's fall but not Caine's or Judas'.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Freewill
Not to harp, but you're confusing your religions here. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Catholic theology is based on the idea of and necessity of free will. It is only the Protestant faiths that get all wrapped up in an active, all-controlling, knows-what-color-my-socks-are version of God.* Just keep that in mind when you use the term Christianity. Not all Christians believe like you think they do. (And for the record, Catholic doctrine thinks Darwin's theory of evolution is just fine and should be taught in schools.)
For a very interesting take on the role of good, evil, God, Lucifer, angels, etc., I suggest Anne Rice's book Memnoch the Devil. It's a great read and very thought provoking. You don't need to have read any other of her books to understand Memnoch.
(*We could spend hours discussing the fine points of Catholic theology, but for the purposes of this discussion I think I've expressed the spirit and intent adequately. The Church's recently published Catecism is available to those who wish to delve deeper.)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
How so?
Unless I am severely misremembering my study of catholicism they do believe in an omniscient god. In fact they even believe in an infallible Pope. Now maybe they fudge it a bit but at the end of the day either god is omniscient or he is not.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Infallibility
The concept of infallibility of the Pope relates to his proclaimations about tenets of the faith, not about his personal attributes. It is an important distinction but one that might be hard to grasp. As a conduit of explanation of obscure theological points, he is assumed to be "correct" in his analyses. As a person, he is as fallible as the next man.
Omnicience is different from omnipotence. Here's what you said with regards to free will
God may be considered omnicient ("all knowing"), but free will still exists because in the Catholic faith, predestination does not exist. God may have ignited the big bang but he has not written the entire history of this planet. Men, through acts of free will, do so. We are not helpless actors on some grand stage. We create our own destiny.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Faith vs Reason
But that argument is simply a statement with no underlying logic. You claim freewill exists despite the apprent logical incompatibility of this claim with other claims you hold true (assuming you are Catholic).
In other words while I understand that Catholics believe in freewill I think they have simply not thought the matter through logically. Either their concept of god or their concept of freewill must be faulty. The two are mutually exclusive.
Of course there may be an error in my analysis in which case their views may in fact be internally consistent. But I need more than "because they say so" in order to see that it is my reasoning rather than theirs that is in error.
I've tried to demonstrate how, by creating the big bang, God did indeed choose every future action of every being in the universe. Can you show me where my argument is wrong?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Not sure I agree with that,
nor do the major philosophers of the Catholic church. If you really want to get into it, check out people like Augustine - who strikes me as a terrible person (my bias) but a profound thinker and philosopher.
Consider it this way: if you pull out a treat for your dog, you can be certain your dog is going to eat it. Does that mean the dog was predestined/predetermined to eat it? Not really, even though you knew that would be the eventual result.
The question of omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresecence (the 3O god, as my colleagues refer to him) seems imcompatible with evil and free choice, but Augustine argues - slightly dishonestly, but bear with me - that evil doesn't exist at all. It's a turning away from God - a lack.
The reason I call that "slightly dishonest" is because that implies that God isn't 100% Omni. Apparently there are vaccuums that He doesn't fill - although it's not a present vaccuum so much as an act: as he says, a turning away.
Augustine argued this way because other Christian sects were trying to claim that evil was both a real and necessary force in the world: that the world we live in is really a balance of good and evil, blah blah blah (I don't want to get too off topic).
In fact, though you see a contradiction here, the Catholic view has never bothered me. It's the predestination side of Christianity that does: what good is redemption, supplication, philanthropy if it's all been decided beforehand. Even worse, it makes a farce out of life: you're just a cog that's going to come out the way He has decided.
If I ever rediscover religion (which I doubt), that's likely to be the last side I'd go to.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Consider it this way: if you
If you could really absolutely predict the dog's actions then yes I would say it was predestined by your choice of actions.
Put it this way: how can you say you have freewill if another has utter and absolutel control over what you do? We aren't talking about influence here but total control. They can select any of the possible results they want from you and bring about the circumstances that cause you to act that way.
What is freewill if not the ability to decide a thing for yourself in spite of the wishes of all around you?
This strikes me as shallow sophistry on the part of Augustine. He is stuck with an internally inconsistent religion and so rather than have the courage to say that something is wrong he fudges the rules. God is omniscient except when he isn't.
Part of the problem though is that it is also the catholic view, they just don't realize it. Like an alcoholic claiming they don't have a problem, popes claim they do have freewill. The denial, and even their belief in it, is immaterial. The situation remains. Christianity (except fro some of the more esoteric subcults) excludes freewill.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The perfect alibi
But honey that little 20 something lady was sooo attractive, and sooo willing, my response was guaranteed by the situation, I just had no free will at all.......
Probably more actual fact than not, but it still won't get you off the hook.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
A little ahistorical:
for one thing, the notion of the 3O God isn't born with Christianity - it takes a while to develop. Augustine, who comes a little later, is actually trying to develop a pretty sophisticated argument that God can be both omniscient and free will can exist, all at once. My bland distillation may come across as a sophistry, but his actual writings are rhetorically impressive. The Confessions are pretty short: you should give them a read (link
)
I think you're running on an oversimplification of Christian theology here:
Most Catholics would argue that God can but doesn't interfere. Actually, so would many Orthodox. It's the crux of Dosteovsky's argument in The Brothers Karamazov that God allows human beings free will - though he doesn't have to - because otherwise the notion of redemption and worship would be meaningless (link
, although I re-translated part of this for clarity's sake):
Going back to the dog metaphor, I disagree with you 100%. Backing up a bit - knowing all the variables involve doesn't predestine a response: that's also the root of science. According to the scientific method, no matter how much you know the circumstances of an experiment, no matter how positive you are of the results, you always consider it a hypothesis: even laws are subject to change. The reason is that we as a limited species can never claim confidence in the results, but I think it's also important to consider this a metaphor for causality: even if we know what the results are going to be, the process has to play itself out on its own.
I'd read omniscience in the same way: knowing the results doesn't mean the process isn't playing itself out in its own terms.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
for one thing, the notion of
Are you sure about that? I thought the 3O concept pre-dated christianity having originated in Judaism and was subsequently absorbed into Christianity with most of the rest of the Judaic theology at the time.
But that requires you to ignore the ultimate interference: the creation.
But that is where we diverge from God. He does know absolutely and with no question at all the results for every instance, or he is not omniscient. Omniscience is defined is having all possible knowledge, thus it is impossible for there to be anything any result an omniscient being does not know before hand, QED. Were we omniscient not only would science not need bother with hypotheses but we need not bother with science.
Science exists because we are aware of limited understanding and have sought to create a system by which to learn, as bias free as possible, the truths of the universe. Such an endeavor is meaningless to a being that inherently knows all of these truths.
Let me directly ask you this: how do you define freewill such that the absolute control of another over your actions does not violate it?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Some clarification:
the God of Jewish scripture - the Old Testament - isn't any of the 3Os, especially in the earlier books. In fact, he isn't even the only God for a while; only later does the religion start to adopt the idea that he's the only real god, and the notion of Omni really doesn't come into play that much. There are hints of it in Job, but even that's a limited form: God seems to be all-powerful, but not all-knowing. 3O takes a long while to develop, and it's largely through the increasing abstraction of Christian philosophy. Borges made the point that God has been abstracted to the point of nothingness by now.
I recognize the unevenness of my comparison with science, but the segment I wanted to highlight is the last one:
And that's true. Foreknowledge does not equal control. I'll give you an example: let's imagine we found a way to communicate faster than the speed of light. I could tell my friend in another universe exactly what I'm seeing here on my planet, so while he and his buddies watch my planet, they'll already know everything that's going to happen before it does. Granted, they don't have the power to interfere, but it's like watching a television show you taped the night before.
I don't see why this is a sticking point. That's why I can't answer your question about free will and total control: Catholics don't believe that God has total control over our decisions. Knowledge doesn't equal control: he's watching the tape he's already seen, but the actors still play the roles of their choosing.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
At what point do the Manicheans influence?
It was my earliest understanding that the whole "we are in a video game run from outside" thing was a Manichean invention, and thus the 3-O ideology an adoption of their thinking, but poking Jesus, and Judiasm in the appropriate boxes.
I realize that is gross oversimplification, but I find it interesting how the "video game" reality, arose and overcame the more here and now concepts that seem so much less dysfunctional for their societies.
You seem to have had a lot of deep studies in this area while mine have been more sketchy.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Hrrrm...
Interesting.
It is only true for us because our foreknowledge is imperfect. If we had true foreknowledge (omniscience) then events do not need to play themselves out because we in fact do know the result. Omniscience can never be wrong, by definition, and so actually doing the experiment is a waste of time in terms of learning.
By itself omniscience is not control, true. As I said the god has to have all four attributes: the knowledge, the power, the opportunity, and finally the actual act. But once those four come into play there is no possibility of any meaningful manner of freewill.
Again I ask you to define freewill for me. I can demonstrate to you a situation where I get total control in determining your actions (with the fictional conceit of a time machine) and yet you say you still have freewill, I'd like to know how you define the term that that is possible.
But god isn;t just watching the tape. He selected the script, chose the actors, and created the scenery. He isn;t just omniscient but he is also the creator. He selected the circumstances knowing at the time the inevitable results based on how he chose to start things. If he had wanted us to be blue skinned asexual amphibeans he would have changed the distribution of mass and energy at the big bang just slightly. Or altered any of dozens of physical quantities by whatever minute or gross amount needed to. He can do that because he knows absolutely the result of any given starting condition right down to the exact arrangement of atoms at the heat death of the universe. And because he knows, and because he has the position and power to choose any starting condition there is no single thing that happens in this universe that is not his will. His choice. Not ours. Our freewill is an illusion caused by our limited knowledge of what is, and was and how that has shaped the future.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Nice concise summation.
From a scientific, as opopsed to a religious, perspective I think that this sums the situation up quite well. This is the essence of the point I was trying to make!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Pretzel logic, here:
Actually no, and I think you contradict yourself here (sort of): The events do have to play themselves out, otherwise your foreknowledge would be wrong.
To use an example from literature, Oedipus kills his father not because he's bound to a fate predicted by an oracle at his birth, but because he lets his temper get the best of him while passing his (unbenknownst to him) father on the road. The Greeks had no trouble balancing foreknowledge with a notion of free will.
If I have time when I get back later tonight, I'll actually go rummage through and pull up my worn old copy of Augustine, before I bastardize him any more than I already have. Suffice to say that part of his argument has to do with linking free will to temporality - which is only a small part of God. In other words, time - and everything which is bound by time - is not eternal. God lives in a state of absolute simultanaeity, so his foreknowledge is not one of stacking the deck at the Bang (as deists would believe) but of full knowledge and presence at every moment of time, all at once. Causality, therefore, is something that only mortal creatures can experience, which is why the process of decision-making is so messily bound up in our experience.
Blech, I'm going to have to dig up the relevant text.
This is a great exercise, though: thanks. As an atheist, it's not so often I have to mount a defense/explanation/apologia for Christian theology... lol
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Double post. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
And a triple post. blech! -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I don't see how this follows...
I don't see how you can say that. Any prediction made by an omniscient source is automatically true/will happen assuming the conditions of the prediction are met. An omniscient god can look at a firecraker and tell you exactly how loud the bang will be if it is lit under a given set of circumstances. In fact they can tell you how loud it will be under every possible set of circumstances (assuming you have time enough to listen to all the permutations). And they cannot be wrong about any one of them because they are omniscient.
But look at the differences here: the oracle in this case has no power to force Oedipus into a situation where he will get angry at his father. On the other hand God in that situation has in fact not only forseen that eventuality but every other eventuality that will come to pass depending on how they choose to start the universe, and ultimately they pick one. Everything after that is a function of God's will simply because he selected the outcome he wanted when he put the whole thing in motion.
In one scenario you are a world famous pop star, in another you are a hobo, in another you are a missionary in bora bora...and so on. But it isn't your choice even though it may seem that way. The result depends on outside factors that are entirely under his control.
WHile I agree that omnipresence pretty much requires this I don't see how it negates what I have said. Yes God experiences time as a synthesis rather than a line but the end result is the same.
On a side note this is another area I imagine must be hard for christians- their description of god is utterly alien and yet they always depict him as throughly human. The contrast is irreconcilable as far as I can see.
I'm glad you are enjoying it, I hope it contiues to be useful. I'm enjoying it to, although work stupidity is putting a damper on my enjoyment of anything at the moment.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
This is a very interesting thread.
I think that we have two very interesting alternatives at play here between yourself and pico.
From a scientific perspective I have been assuming as you have that God has explicitly chosen the starting state at the big bang, and therefore having known the laws of the universe as he defined/understood them was, in effect, pre-ordaining every action of every particle and from the beginning to end of our universe.
This is based on one specific view of what it means to be omniscient. I think that pico is offering a different, but potentially equally valid, perspective.
Implicit in your argument is an assumption that God is omniscient not only for things related to our universe, but his meta-universe as well. And that when he created the universe he consciously selected the starting state at the big bang.
This goes back to my question about whether God could flip a meta-physical coin in his meta-physical universe and not know the outcome. In other words, is there any sense of random chance in Heaven even with respect to God?
If there is, then God certainly could have created the universe through the big bang but left the initial state up to the flip of a meta-physical coin in which case he, strictly speaking, has not pre-ordained the outcome of anything.
Next we must consider the omniscience of god w.r.t. the laws governing the universe. If he specifically selected and constructed every such law then by definition he would be able to immediately predict the resulting outcomes once the initial state was known and there would be no need to "let things play out". He would just know the result.
But what if God also left the specifics of the laws of the universe up to the flip of a meta-physical coin? I suppose in some sense once those too became known he would simply "know" the results. But this scenario also alludes to the concept that I think pico may be describing ... i.e. one in which even God has to let things "play out".
Assuming that the existence of God in his meta-phsyical universe transcends the existence of our own universe (which is not unreasonable), then the notion of omniscience described by pico has some meaning. God ends up being omniscent about what happens by virtue of having an existence that transcends our own (i.e. he exists simultaneously throughout our own concept of time) but even he has to wait to see what happens. Only after things completely play out is he omniscent w.r.t. our universe.
This is clearly a different notion of omniscience than what you (and I) have been assuming, but it to be an equally valid alternative interpretation as far as I can tell.
Are you following any of this? It is difficult to describe sometimes.
The bottom line, I think, comes down to whether you assume that God is omniscient w.r.t. just our universe, or is even omniscient regarding his own meta-physical one. In this latter case I would argue that random chance does not exist for God, but in the former it certainly could which could give rise to the scenario described above.
Why, you might ask, would God leave these things up to random chance? Well think about it. Being otherwise all knowing must be very boring indead. Perhaps he created the universe and let the initial conditions be random merely as a form of entertainment ... very much like playing "The Sims"! :-)
Actually, now that I am thinking about it, are we (or at least the programmer) not omniscent w.r.t. the "universe" that the Sims inhabit?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It IS difficult to describe;
you're not kidding on that one. Especially for someone who doesn't believe in God to have to argue the Catholic side of the equation!
I think Catholics would argue that God's omniscience encompasses time, since time is only a minor part of God's timelessness. So He does know the way things will turn out, even if those things have to happen on their own. The alternative - that he sets the initial conditions and leaves some things to chance - seems like what the Deists proposed.
Personally, from my Godlessness perspective (the least of the sins I'm living in, I'm sure), I'm more sympathetic to what people have suggested upthread: the brain is a computer so stunningly complex that, even if it is all programmed to operate a certain way, we can't possibly grasp the programming. Hofstadter would take that a step further and argue that our programming language is inconsistent by nature, so that is what possibly gives us the ability to engage in what appears to be decision-making.
Although I prefer to believe in free will - even if I'm wrong - because otherwise notions of personal responsibility become arbitrary. Whatever the existentialist movement did or did not accomplish, they did try to make this point and reestablish the role of responsibility in/for everyday actions.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
A final attempt
OK, maybe I'm getting a better picture why you're confused about this.
Catholics don't say that "another . . . can select any of the possible results they want from you and bring about the circumstances that cause you to act that way." God doesn't work that way. Instead, life provides you with options and you act based on your conscience.
You might argue that your interpretation is implied in the definition of the word "omnipotent" or "omniscient." Maybe, but the definition of "God" is more complex than just those few words.
Sounds like you and Augustine should spend some time together. He may have covered all of your questions in his tomes, 1,600 years ago. Or maybe Pico can explain better than I can. Philosophy is not my strong suit and I have to quit this for the day.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Unforseen consequences
Ah, but they do say it when they say god is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent and created the universe. They just don't realize they said it. It is one of those unforseen consequences. You cannot have a 3O creator god without implicitly saying this, unless you can demonstrate an error in my argument above.
That doesn't matter, so long as the definition contains those four attributes I mention the end result is inescapable. Whatever else god is doesn't matter to the argument so long as he is also a creator and also omniscient et cetera.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Your own definition provides the error in your argument
You define omniscient as having all possible knowledge, thereby implying that not all knowledge is possible. It is completely rational to believe that an omnipotent god can create a universe in which future events are not 100% predictable, and thus knowledge of the future does not need to be included in omniscient knowledge. Such a universe would indeed allow for an omipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent god, and free will.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
A new name!
Welcome!
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
You define omniscient as
Well in this case "impossible" knowledge is what we would call false. And yes it is impossible for an omniscient god to "know" such things.
But as before god is not a linear entity in time, there are no surprises for it. It views the universe from every moment simultaneously. Absolutely everything is 100% predictable to it or it cannot be both omniscient and omnipresent.
Actually now that I think of it there is one scenario in which you could have those four attributes and still have freewill. That is if we do in fact live in an irrational universe. Since this is a rational argument it only holds true if the initial assumptions are true and if the underlying logical operations are valid. I have to give credit to Pico, I wouldn't have thought of that if not for his exploration of the meaning of rationality.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
How about this then
Before the "creation event" there was no time, so there was no future to know. At the moment god created the universe, all became clear and known to him throughout time, but what became known to him was the result of our free will acting on the universe just created. So yes, this god knows everything that will happen, but that is only because, from god's point of view, it has already happened.
Taking god out of the picture for a moment... I know that the Patriots beat the Jets last weekend. Because I know it now does not make it predestined then.
God just has a more expansive "now" then I do, but what god knows now does not require predestiny as the events occur.
You may say, but god would have known all before the creation event, because he is omniscient. But no, there was nothing to know before the event, so not knowing that does not preclude omniscience. God knew all once time was created, but once time was created, everything had already happened, from god's point of view.
Of course, I am pretty much making this up as I go along. I don't actually believe in a 3O god, so it isn't easy for me to come up with these arguments!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Yes, But... (tm)
God still existed and still acted. The creation story is written as if time existed in some sense before god creates everything. While we can chalk this up to the limited perceptions of the authors we still have a situation of god acting before creation. And even before time existed God would have to know what would happen when he created it, or he is not omniscient.
That requires us to say that god was not omniscient before the creation.
But again omniscience is not the only factor. There are four attributes involved: the three O's and an action. If you knew how to fix the game so that the Jets would win, and it was within your power to do so, and you were in the right place to do so, and you did act, then the Jet's winning or losing is predetermined. You decided whether or not to let them win, to make them win, and acted accordingly.
Of course there was something to know. There was the answer to "what happens if I create space time?" If god cannot answer that question then he is not omniscient. Just as God has to know the answer to the question "What happens if I create Adam" before he actually creates him.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
a few responses:
I think what we're running into here are two separate problems, not only for Christian theology, but also for our understanding of human beings (which you allude to elsewhere).
The first is omnipotence, which hasn't been addressed much directly. The key difference between your discussion of the Jet's game and ours is this phrase: "and you did act". That entirely differentiates your version from ours: God did act. Catholics would argue that God created the universe and all the conditions of the context, but human beings still have the ability to navigate themselves through that universe. God knows how we'll do it, but it's still our decision and responsibility to make those choices, just like knowing the result of the Jet's game from yesterday doesn't predetermine its results (because God stands outside of time, all football games are known to him as if watching from afterwards). But Catholics would argue that setting the conditions doesn't precondition the actors, insofar as free will is a more or less independent factor.
Which brings us to free will, and where the bigger sticking point is. Does the context predetermine the choicemaking abilities of the actors involved? This isn't just a problem for Catholics or Christians: this is the fundamental crisis of 20th century psychology, history, sociology, and beyond. To what extent are human beings responsible for their actions, when so many of their decisions can be attributed to biology, income level, education level, environmental factors, etc.? If so many of these factors can be explained, what right does Justice have to punish/exult people for acting in a way that seems almost preconditioned? On the other hand, if we treat actions as preconditioned, to what extent are we avoiding our responsibilities as choicemakers?
So it seems like God is not the only one whose position is compromised here.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Catholics would argue that
I really don't get how you can say this. Go back to my initial example-
1) do you agree that the time traveler has complete control over the subject's actions (at least his action during the observed decision)?
2) if so, do you agree that this complete control represents an automatic negation of the subject having freewill in any meaningful sense?
3) if so, then how does that situation vary form god's position?
If you can tell me where in this chain you disagree with me maybe we can make more head way.
I would say no, but with an important caveat: if the context is determined by an actor who knows the result of your action based on the context then yes.
Here's how I say that: any given decision you make will be influenced by untold millions of little bits of context. For human beings while we may strongly influence by using various psychological levers we cannot ever truly control because the range of permutations is simply outside of our ability to consider much less know. But if someone did somehow know what contexts lead to what decision and they can create any context they want and they do, then I don't see how any conclusion is possible but that you are a puppet on their string. They decide what action you will take, not you. They decide. You think you decided but really you were just responding in the way they knew you would respond. That is control. And control is antithetical to freewill.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Wow
Damn Pico, you're not just good, you're real good. If I were in Michigan I'd audit your classes.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Another minor correction
While this discussion has gone beyond my ability to provide the detail you're looking for, there's a small mischaracterization your last post.
Catholics do not interpret the creation story literally. God did not really create the world in seven days, nor was Eve really created from Adam's rib. Those stories (as are many others from the Old Testament) are allegories, not literal truth.
I was serious about reading St Augustine. You've obviously spent some time thinking about this and might find the logic that's eluding you there.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Literal genesis...
...From some time spent at the Catholic answers forum I do know that at least some self described Catholics take it as literal but I'll take your word for it that that is not the doctrinal position.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I've known very few
Catholics who believe in the literal word of Genesis, and none of them were priests or clergy. The vast majority, including the Popes, teach the figurative version.
One of the reasons for this is that one of the most powerful Catholic sects - the Jesuits - are, for all their faults, heavy proponents of science, research, and education.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Link to Doctrine
Who'd have thought -- here's a link to the Catechism
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
It's probably a better source than a forum ;}
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Surely
If God is who most religions claim him to be, all mighty, all powerful and ALL knowing, nothing could possibly be beyond his understanding. Lets turn the tables, does God have free will?
Lets turn the tables, does
An interesting question... I'd have to think about it. Off hand I'd say no as a technicality. If we are defining freewill as the ability to make decisions independent of outside influence and god doesn't really make decisions as we understand it then the term probably becomes meaningless in regards to him. But I'd need to think about it more.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Oooh
you're good. I would've had to spend ages looking that up.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Ha, well
I did teach Augustine last year, so it's still fresh on my brain. I hope I'm not misrepresenting him, at is is!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Logic vs Explanation
I'm not attempting to argue the logic of the belief. If that's what you want, there's a 600+ page Catechism you can peruse at your leisure, as well as numerous apologists whose paragraphs you can explore. I am simply correcting an incorrect assumption on your part about Catholicism and free will.
I don't see how this logically conflicts with anything, but that may be because I don't really, um, care. The world we inhabit----not just the physical, the whole enchilada----is not logical, nor are people generally (in my experience).
I just didn't want you walking around thinking that the outcome of the Reformation was just some nail holes in a church door. There are significant theological differences between Catholicism and the Protestant faiths. Most of what one sees and hears as "religion" is a Protestant version.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Catholicism
I certainly understand that Catholic doctrine says that they have freewill, I just don't see how they can justify this belief.
Ultimately they can believe whatever they want, one of the perks of faith, but I strenuously object to your contention that the world is not rational. It is, painfully so. People are often not, but the physical processes of the universe march on in lockstep hard rationality.
Ironically I'm listening to Rush, "Freewill," at the moment.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Eh...
quantum physics disagrees with you on that one. Rationalism is predicated on the notion that A + B = C, and if all outside variables are known, A + B will always = C. Certain functions of quantum mechanics operate randomly, backwards in time, and - for lack of a better word - irrationally.
It may be that we'll discover deeper causes that will change that belief, but so far, all indications are that sometimes, God does play dice with the universe.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
quantum physics disagrees
Not really. Quantum is still extremely rational. It is just counter-intuitive a lot of the time, but those aren't the same thing. Our intuition tells us how we think the world works and has developed based on our experience witht he world. It is not too surpriseing, and hardly irrational, that this understanding of the world breaks down when trying to predict situations that are vastly outside of our experience, as both Quantum and Relativity are.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
How are you defining "rational"?
It sounds like you're running into a tautology, by saying that anything natural is, by definition, rational.
Rational = a human process of quantifying and qualifying experience. It doesn't exist in the natural world. I'm saying quantum is "irrational" because it runs counter to our mechanisms for quantifying and qualifying.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Rationality
Rational means it is internally consistent. That no part of the whole violates any other part of the whole. We can furthermore go on to require rational arguments to agree with the facts such as they are. Intuition then is often counter-rational. Quantum is not.
Consider the idea that a cannon ball will fall faster than a tennis ball. This idea is very intuitive, and yet it is not rational in either the sense of fitting with the rest of our physical understanding of the universe nor is it rational in the sense of fitting with the facts (if you were to try the experiment).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
What do you mean by this?
In order to 'judge' something like that, you'd have to define the consistency in human terms - and that, in and of itself, becomes a process of human organization, not reflection of the natural state.
That's why it's a tautology: the natural world is internally consistent because it is. It can't not be. If it were otherwise, that state would be still be internally consistent simply by being. Donuts raining down from the sky are internally consistent in a system in which donuts raining down from the sky are a natural phenomenon. If a tennis ball fell slower than a bowling ball, that would be internally consistent, too - because that's how things would be.
The problem comes when we try to establish rules for understanding it. Right or wrong, our systems for understanding are always slightly misleading (Hofstadter gets into this a little in Godel, Escher, Bach, when he notes that large-scale human thought systems are either inconsistent or incomplete, but cannot be neither).
What I'm arguing is that randomness can occur in quantum mechanics, and that makes inconsistency a constant in our universe. It's not a well-oiled machine at all.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
In order to 'judge'
I don't see that that is true. A computer can be programed to evaluate the consistency of a series of statements and yet it has no humanity, merely a series of logic functions: AND, OR, NOT, NOR...
Of course it could be. We could wake up one morning and find that gravity was repulsive instead of attractive. If something like that suddenly changes (not that we misunderstood it but that it actually changed) then it is very inconsistent. Of course in such a chaotic world life would likely not survive long enough to produce sentience.
That's just not true. A transient system is not consistent by definition. Yes if donut-rains had always been possible then it would be internally consistent, but if the rules change such that today donut-rains are impossible and tomororow they happen then the world is not rational.
No it wouldn't because it would violate newton's laws of motion (combined with the formula for gravitational attraction) while that same law is supported a million other places. Unless some correction is found that we simply never knew about for some reason (as was the case with both quantum and relativity because their effects happen in regimes we don't directly experience) then we have to conclude that the world is irrational. Granted the initial assumption is going to be one of "we're missing something" because our experience says that the world is in fact orderly. But it needn't be that way.
No. I'm sorry to be blunt here but I have a degree in physics. While there certainly is a degree of randomness in QM it is extremely consistent. For any given particle you can define the schrodinger equation. Hell, in P-chem they do the schrodinger equation for simple molecules. This equation then tells you the probability of finding the particle in a given region. The randomness comes in in the fact that it is a probability but it is still extremely orderly.
To give a more accessable example the rules of thermodynamics are all based on probabilities. There is nothing physically to prevent all the air in the room you sit in from happening to get move into one corner leaving a vacuum elsewhere. It is possible, but extraordinarily unlikely. And yet the distribution of a gas in a room is a very orderly thing. You do not suffocate because all the air happened to leave your vicinity. This has never happened to you or anyone else, nor is it likely ever going to happen to anyone because the odds against it are so astronomically unlikely. Despite the reliance on probability we can create any number of technologies that rely on vacuum or air pressure and that work consistently. Randomness doesn't mean chaos. Randomness can be orderly.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Disagree completely here:
But those "logic functions" are programmed in according to a human system of understanding: "and", "or", "not" and "nor" do not exist outside of our conceptions of them. Every programming language is a human-created language, so the computer is only evaluating what we create it to evaluate.
It only appears inconsistent because it doesn't match up with our current universe's rules. If we someone developed a sentient species in a universe in which gravity "suddenly changes", we'd expect that that species would develop an understanding of the universe in which random fluctuations of gravity are understood as consistent with that universe.
We develop a notion of consistency based on the world we're given. Even that changes over time, based on increasingly sophisticated observation: Newton would have been horrified to find his universe was based on probability rather than clean, precise equations.
Naturally I have to defer to your expertise in physics, but the revolution in 20th century science was the understanding that our universe may be a function of probabilities rather than absolutes, and if you're a pre-20th century human being, that's excruciatingly inconsistent. Again: the notion of consistency is inextricable with one's understanding of the universe.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Well it is the philosophy section...
Let me ask you this: does 1+1=2 exist outside of our concept of it? I assume you agree that it does, that although some other race might have different words they would explicitly understand the arrangement in precisely the same terms we do. The logic functions are really no different. There is a fundamental truth to the proper use of them that, like algebra, transcends mere human conception.
No it is inconsistent because the actual rules are changing. As I said if it had always been possible to have donut-rains then yes such a rain would be consistent. But if it is impossible one day and happens thenext then the universe is inconsistent.
But again if that was the constant then that's fine. But if there exists a universe with rules that are set, and then not-set, and then set again, or set in one place and not-set in another without some underlying explanation then the universe as a whole is simply irrational. It is very possible to imagine an inconsistent universe, although a person living in one may not be able to prove the mater (because of their inability to prove that the fundamental laws are changing).
Are you sure though? If we lived in a world that was demonstrably inconsistent are you sure we wouldn't notice? See because we have in fact developed in a universe that seems to be very consistent with regards to the natural laws that govern it it is hard to say that. Like the child of rich parents speculating on how poor people live.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Do we have free will?
Here is a serious question for the science minded. I have a lot of science and engineering background and I am not religious.
To illustrate the point I am about to make, do the following:
1) Hold your right index finger in front of your face.
2) Repeatedly touch the tip of your index finger to the tip of your nose.
Now, let us analyze this activity scientifically from the perspective of free will.
Basic biology and physiology shows us that in order to accomplish this feat the muscles in your hand and arm need to be fired in a distinct and coordinated fashion.
These same disciplines show us that the muscular contractions required here are controlled by the operation of the nervous system through the firing of synapses between the brain and the muscles in question through the so called motor neurons.
We also know that the firing of these neurons is triggered through varying neurotransmitter chemical concentrations at the synapses within the brain, and the chemical interactions which occur between them. These chemical interactions are governed by the fundamental properties described by biochemistry and, even more fundamentally, chemistry based on the basic chemical properties of the atomic structures which comprise those neurotransmitters.
These basic chemical properties are, in turn, governed by the fundamental physical laws of the universe on both an inter-atomic as well as an intra-atomic level. Thus, to some small extent, every piece of matter in the universe exhibits an influence on the chemical interactions due to the operational effects of gravitation. More significantly, these chemical properties are being controlled by the intra-atomic forces which come into play between all of the various sub-atomic particles that have be discovered as part of Quantuum Mechanics.
Now, to accomplish the task of touching your finger to your nose an entire cascade of activity needs to be carefully controlled and coordinated on levels ranging from the Quantuum to the Universal and all of which are based on well established scientific laws and none of which are subject to the whim of a human thought.
So, I ask you, where is the source of man's so-called free will? To exhibit free will, I must be able to effect conscious actions upon the real world (i.e. like deciding to touch my finger to my nose or not). If all of these laws on all of these levels have to converge to produce the motion that touches my finger to my nose, how is it that I can accomplish this feat purely through the power of my will to make them happen?
Would this not imply that I, through the mere power of my will, have the ability to force events on an atomic or even a sub-atomic level to converge such that the necessary chemical interactions occur to cause the proper neurons to fire to cause the proper muscles to contract to cause my finger to touch my nose? Scientifically speaking this seems to be quite the feat to accomplish through something as effortless as a thought.
No, the scientists of the world believe that the positions and states of the atoms in question are all governed by physical laws which leave no room for something like my free will to come along and just move things about willy nilly at my whim. Therefore, as a scientist, the only conclusion left to me is that we do not, in fact, have free will.
All of our thoughts, and all of our actions have been pre-ordained by the physical laws of the Universe as they have been playing out ever since the Big Bang. The positions and the states of the atoms that make up our nervous systems are merely a product of the state of the Universe as it existed at the Big Bang coupled with the natural laws which have governed them ever since.
Free will is only an illusion.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Good Article
explaining the complexity and consensus
of this topic from some very bright minds in various fields.
Basically it says, "No, we don't have free-will, but since we are so complicated and will never attain 100% mastery of ourselves, it does not matter."
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Surprisingly
we agree 100% on this issue so far. I would jump in, but you are doing an excellent job form what I've read so far and I really need to finish up some grading here first.
You might not like some of the political implications of your argument. I'll attempt to address those later (hint: they lead to liberal ideas for the most part).
Great job.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
the liberal ideas like
since humans do not have free will, they are not responsible for what happens to them and thus should be taken care of regardless. This is where the church and liberals come together in a nice mutual .... fill in the blank.
Absurd on the face of it. There has to be something guiding us, supernatural or not, there is a human spirit in all of us that is responsible for what we do. We are not part of a hive mind moving along like puppets.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Free will and the Catholic Church
I may be misunderstanding your comment, but the concept of the individual having and exercising free will is central to Roman Catholic beliefs. There is no magic hand in the Church -- you actively choose your path. Hopefully, one uses an informed conscience as a guide when faced with choices, but at all times the individual has free will.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I am no expert on the Catholic Church
but technically doesn't God know everything that will happen, which means that everything is predetermined and therefore no free will, but an illusion thereof?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Predestination is a Protestant belief
Predestination is a Protestant belief, not a Catholic one.
Here are some quotes from the official Catechism (Article 3: Man's Freedom):
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
You must have recently had an awakening.
Previously, you have argued that "liberals do THIS" or "liberals do THAT," acting as if liberals were part of a hive. In fact, I think you may have even described the denizens of Daily Kos in that manner.
I'm glad to note that you seem to have seen the light.
Progress.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Playing devil's advocate here.
The fundamental question is, how would you know? If all "thinking" is merely an illusion that was, in effect, pre-ordained all the way back to the Big Bang then how do you know that these "thoughts" are, in fact, "yours" in that you are somehow in control of them (as opposed to they just happened based on chemical interactions in your brain that make you "feel" like you "thought" them)?
It's devilishly tricky. :-)
I wonder if this is what lead to the famous quote, "I think, therefore I am!"
In one way this line of reasoning calls the very foundation for that notion into question, but on a practical level it still remains true!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I think, therefore I am
is Descartes' attempt to escape from a puppet-master determinism, but many philosophers including Kierkegaard showed faults in his logic through similar process to what you just did here. I can give book titles if anyone wants to read this dry, but interesting stuff.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
I never really read philosophy
so a lot of the various concepts are strange and new to me, which is why I am easily surprised on this topic. Also why I have no clue which philosopher I am closest to in my views - but then again my philosophical views are rather unformed.
I am definitely inclined to think that we have an absolute free will, but that is an ideological convenience and proving it seems far from simple.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Interesting.
And I "thought" that I had "thought" this up on my own. I guess I am in good company!
Some titles might be nice, but there is no hurry.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4most of the time
I think up things as I go along and it feels new and creative only to obviously find out that some medieval idiot thought of it before :) Regardles, I am reasonably sure that I have plenty of original ideas :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Kind of but not exactly
I was thinking more in terms of moral relativism, but you are on the right track.
I'll get to it when I can.
P.S. Just because you don't like the implications of something does not make it untrue or absurd. That's been the religious argument against atheists since they started rejecting the concept of God. You must first tackle the premise before you can claim the conclusion is absurd or show how the conclusion does not fall from the premise. You can't just say I don't like the conclusion; therefore it is false.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
OK
Moral relativism. I can see that here. On a related note, is there any absolute definition of "good" and "evil"? I can't think of one.
My favorite example is Klingons. By most standards their way of life and some of the things that they believe in would be considered "bad" by our standards but "good" by theirs. Is there any reason to logically consider "us" right and "them" wrong?
Perhaps this is what you mean by moral relativism in the first place?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Klingons
Vulcans, Klingons, and Ferengi, and the rest, were all inventions as parts and philosophies of humans. By writing the shows various writers explored the aspects, and indeed came up with a number of Universal truths (though arguably driven by the producers and others, even their own culture (American) that cannot help but influence the results.
Much of Klingon "honor" especially as they believed, rather than as practiced, turned out to be quite universal, as even Quark, and the shapeshifters discover, they cannot operate without it. Even Q and the Borg find it after a fashion.
Likewise while "pure logic" is the Vulcan goal, Spock becomes quite maimed trying to stick to it. As a result they invented Data as the anti-Spock who is purely logical, but attempts to be human, and discover the proper nature of illogic.
The fact that they addressed those issues at all, made them among the best shows on television, as indeed all the other "best" were pretty much likewise.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Close enough
it deals with context but it does not necessarily mean that anything goes in any situation.
Sorry, I have to get back to work, but I'll try to post a few thoughts later.
Glad to see this thread being used. :)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
good point :) n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
the way you portray it
humans are just flopping around following some predetermined atomic level positioning without any control over the situation whatsoever. I still do not see why those forces that you are describing are all so unchangeable in the way they interact with other forces.
If there are all these layers that the motion has to go through before it is actually accomplished (starting with a though or other brain activity) then why can't it simply work as a domino theory with higher level processes nudging lower ones into action. Like the way software is structured with the laws of the universe written in machine code and our brains being the application level?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Hmmm.
An interesting analogy, I need to think that through a bit and get back to you. In the mean time consider the following.
You are correct that there is an implication of people going through pre-determined motions based on things occuring at an atomic level. That is the fundamental point of this line of reasoning. And because of that there is no place in a world governed solely by physical laws.
For the sake of discussion, let's simplify things a tad. Let's say that in any given instance the act of touching your nose can ultimately be traced back to a single interaction between two molecules in your brain. If the interaction occurs, you touch your nose. If the interaction does not occur then you don't touch your nose. Let us say that from that single molecular interaction (or lack thereof) all of the other physical processes required to make your finger touch your nose are completely controlled and explanable via the physical laws of the Universe and the resulting chemical properties and interactions which derive therefrom.
So now we look at the notion of free will (i.e. the ability to choose to touch your nose or not). In this scenario your conscious mind must have control over whether that single molecular interaction will take place or not because with it the finger touches the nose and without it the finger stays put.
Science would tell us that whether or not that interaction occurs is actually a function of the state of every piece of matter in the Universe, and that if it were actually possible to know all of that state and apply the known (and any possibly yet to be discovered) physical laws that we should be able to predict what is going to happen. The interaction, based on this state and the laws in question, really has no choice according to science. It either will, or will not, occur based on the gravitational fields, electrical fields, and so forth that are in play based on that Universal state.
Therefore, there is no possible mechanism according to science as we know it today for anything like our conscious minds to force that molecular interaction to either occur or not based on the outcome of our "decision". Hence, we cannot have free will.
More thoughts and caveats:
1) Quantum Mechanics.
When you take this thinking to the next level, namely the sub-atomic world of Quantum Physics, things are a little less clear. In the sub-atomic world of Quantum Physics most particle interactions are controlled by probabililty functions. This gives rise to the possibility of varying outcomes, at least, even for a given known state of the Universe at the beginning of our hypothetical scenario.
It is worth noting, however, that even under this model the varying outcomes are at best random, as opposed to consciously controlled, and random behavior is not the same thing as free will.
2) Effects of oversimplification.
This description is over simplified in that it boils everything down to a single molecular interaction which is unrealistically simplistic. On the other hand, the primary point being illustrated in this simple example still remains the primary point in a more complex model: the mind must have the ability to control the physical world in ways that run counter to a view of that world as being governed solely by physical laws (i.e. science as we know it today).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4well even though
our mind cannot directly make those molecules interact, it can set forces in motion that going through the various levels from the top, passing commands along in a language each successive layer can understand, will eventually come to a layer that is capable of manipulating those molecules.
So first layer is our conscious thought - 2nd sending the command to the finger - 3rd traversing from the nerve to the muscle - 4th muscle to the muscle fiber - 5th muscle fiber to muscle cells - 6th cells to molecules - 7th molecules to atoms or whatever (I forgot all that stuff I took in college).
There still has to be that something that gives the initial command, as I pointed out in my other comments but the moving of stuff on the atomic or molecular level is not that difficult per say.
Am I missing your point?
I read a bit on quantum physics but really not enough to speak with any kind of authority - perhaps tlaloc can enlighten us here. But isn't it partly a basis of theory that with every choice a new universe is created so both choices are actualized?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Quantum Universes
Not really. The paradox by which entangled particles in superposition (imagine a particle in superposition = 50% in one state 50% in another (say spin) that is then split. The two particles are entangled in that if you know one's state, you'll know the others) 'communicate' the fact that they have been measured to the other particle is the basis for this conjecture. Relativistic shenanigans have actually been performed so that such communication would not only have to be a few billion times faster than light, it would actually appear to come 'from the future'
The explanation you mention is that when the particle 'chooses' its state, it actually chooses both states (as does the other particle) and the universe 'splits' at the speed of light like two sheets of cellophane being pulled apart.
Even with this explanation, the universe only needs to split to deal with quantum effects, not all choices.
You can hypothosize as many levels as you like.
But all of the levels are "encoded" into the state of the matter that makes up your brain. As such, everything that occurs at any of the levels is ultimately made up of matter and is therefore constrained by the physical laws of the Universe which ultimately leave no room for an outside force (i.e. your conscious mind) to actively control outcomes at any of these physical levels.
I think I understand the point that you are trying to make but I am merely saying that since the levels are ALL controlled by the physical laws there is no room for choice. Any "choice" at any level must ultimately be manifested by some change in state (in the physical matter that makes up the brain). This is what prevents free will as we are discussing it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Mysticism vs Chemistry
Actually there are two points I would make, in the easy case quantum mechanics operates at the sub atomic level, so since you are talking about chemistry, and not radiation, quantum mechanics is largely out of the picture.
There is however a similar point that is much more relevant and that is the so called "butterfly" effect. Essentially that in a repetitive equation (and thinking is nothing if not at least a massive repetitive equation of neurons firing caused by other neurons firing) the tiniest difference can have a massive effect and a totally different outcome.
To take your nose touching experiment as an example (and trying to simplify a lot), merely reading it, causes the thought about doing so to occur, the tiniest memories and predispositions, would easily push your likeliness to do so, into all sorts of possibilities, from nothing to some bizzare insanity, but also the possibility of thinking about doing it again, and having the same set of possibilities occur all over again.
In the end you still cannot escape the Manichean dilemma, you can only choose which side you wish to live on (no matter where that choice originates).
Of course to actually choose you have to understand what the Manichean dilemma is, make a rational choice, and work out the various implications of that choice.
Or you can just receive and replay the programming without exercising any free will.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Hey, I'm no expert on Quantum Mechanics!
Nor do I want to be one. I will say up front that I have no formal training in it, so my impressions are necessarily based on a lay person's understanding based on some informal reading, that coupled with college level physics and chemistry.
Quantum Mechanics, however, is related to chemistry as far as I can tell. Didn't it grow out of Neils Bohr's uncertainty principle (i.e. you can know an electron's speed or its position but not both at the same point in time)? My understanding is that Quantum Mechanics is sort of at the nexus between particle theory (i.e. chemistry) and wave theory (i.e. radiation), but perhaps I misunderstand.
For example, "classical science" has shown that under some circumstances an electron acts like a particle, but under other conditions it acts like a wave. So which is it? Well, if I understand correctly according to Quantum Mechanics it is actually both and its behavior can be described via probability functions or some such.
To me Quantum Mechanicists (is that a term?) are very much like Insurance Actuaries. They make lots of observations, they tabulate the results, and they come up with interesting and useful statistics about how their theoretical sub-atomic particles behave. They see the sub-atomic world in terms of probability functions where the outcomes of interactions are to some degree random, but predictably so.
I argue that even though they can make reliable predictions about various behaviors (much as the insurance actuary can make reliable predictions about how many people will die next year) that they don't actually know squat about the laws that make their sub-atomic particles work.
In this sense I am on the side of Albert Einstein who, I believe, is attributed with the comment "God does not roll dice" (paraphrased). By this he meant that he too did not believe that Quantum Mechanics (or its precursors at the time) provided an accurate theory to explain the behavior of the universe at a sub-atomic level. Creating actuarial tables, while useful for making predictions, is not the same thing as providing a theory to explain the observed behaviors.
I only raise the issue of Quantum Mechanics in this context because it is the next logical level of discussion "below" chemistry AND because the results being described at this level show some amount of unpredictability which might have been seen as a potential "source" for the all elusive "consciousness". I merely want to make the point that at best this randomness would explain people acting, well, randomly which is a far sight different than exhibiting free will and a conscious control over one's environment.
I agree with your point about the so called butterfly effect. Clearly the human brain represents a massive number of neural interconnections with highly complex feedback mechanisms all of which makes it highly susceptible to the butterfly effect in a pragmatic sense at the higher order levels of neural chemical processes.
A hand full of key events at the atomic and sub-atomic levels could clearly lead to widely varying effects at the higher-order brain functions because those events could end up setting off massive domino cascades along the neural pathways that would lead to who knows what at a conscious level.
On the other hand, science as we know and understand it today will still say that if we knew the exact state of the universe at some point in time and could apply all of the relevant physical laws that the outcome would be predictable, or at least all possible outcomes could be assigned appropriate probabilities. So again we are left with no free will ... if all you believe in is science.
And I believe that this is precisely the view that our current level of scientific understanding suggests. The "scientist" part of me simply says that we are all merely automatons who have been "programmed" by the accumulation of our individual experiences which have been duly encoded in our brains (by a combination of basic memory functions as well as neural morphology which is also a function of individual experience).
I believe that it is this accumulated experience which gives each and every one of us a predisposition to react a certain way when presented with certain stimuli. At some level, if it were possible to understand these encodings and the basic operations that apply to them, then an individual's reaction to a given stimulus should be inherently predictable. A simplistic example would be Pavlov's Dogs.
This is sort of the higher-level perspective or implication of all of the physical laws working at the lower levels. I don't say that I have everything figured out, obviously, but again from a scientific perspective this makes sense to me.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No expert at all
Quantum mechanics operates at the physics level rather than at the chemistry level (there being no chemicals involved)
Yes, you are no expert and yet are willing to argue that nobody else is either.
Quantum Physicists do a lot more than act as actuaries. Albert Einstein's Nobel Prize was for understanding the quantum laws that created the photo-electric effect (and not for relativity) I suggest you do some reading on quantum computing and quantum encryption. Even though the fields are just starting, quantum computers have already managed to solve NP problems in polynomial time see Shor's Algorithm
. In other words, their are both quantum scientists AND quantum engineers.
I don't mean to belittle
the achievements of Quantum "Physicists". Clearly they have made significant contributions to science and engineering. I just don't believe that the universe operates the way that they believe it does.
God does not roll dice. The universe does not operate randomly.
I am aware of (the existence of) the advancements and some of the on-going research that you refer too. I have not looked into the details behind those achievements.
I don't believe that I have argued that there are no experts on Quantum Mechanics. Clearly there are or the whole topic would not even exist.
I admit that I am not an expert in the field. That does not mean that I am completely ignorant of it either. I have done sufficient reading on the topic to convince myself that while it provides a useful description of behavior at a sub-atomic level I don't believe that it provides a fundamental or satisfactory explanation for why things are operating the way that they are at that level.
But that is just my simple lay person's opinion. Perhaps I am too old school at this point. I don't mind if others choose to believe differently. I am posting on a philosophical thread on a political website so I don't expect that my rantings here will make it into any scientific journals of note. And any Quantum Physicists that rely on anything that I have to say on the topic probably shouldn't be published either. :-)
Do you, per chance, have any formal background in physics and quantum mechanics? Just for future reference?
I am not trying to claim that "chemicals" are involved in Quantum Mechanics. Traditional chemistry inherently begins at the atomic level (correct?) which is where we even begin to have the notion of "chemicals" (i.e. specific atomic structures and properties of elements).
My understanding was that Quantum Mechanics tries to explain the physics that operates fundamentally at a sub-atomic level, and that they have "discovered" many sub-atomic particles and the "forces" that govern the interactions thereof. Is this not correct?
So (and this maybe where I am off), isn't Quantum Mechanics fundamentally about explaining the inner workings of atoms which, by definition, are the fundamental building blocks of Chemistry? Isn't Quantum Mechanics about describing the physics that underlies the properties of atoms (and therefore Chemistry)?
Do you see any relationship between the work of Quantum Physicists and the work of Chemists?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4right and I understand what you are saying
so for there to be a free will there must be this "operator" / soul / spirit that is not constrained by the physical properties that would require it to adhere to the physical laws of the universe. It is that force that guides our mind through the thought process, uses it if you will to make rational decisions etc, but ultimately has to be self-aware.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
ok I guess the question is
who is actually entering commands at the application level... Very interesting.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
the soul does not have to be supernatural
it is just an operator of the brilliant machinery we call our human bodies. If our body cannot do it on its own, this operator has to exist.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Speaking of control
Look what Ender did and the power that he has.
All he had to do was post "calling all brainiacs".
I'm only half stupid
it's not about power
but sometimes all you need is just a little push in the right direction to get the ball rolling :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Obviously not free will.
It was predetermined by GoRights molecular masterminds.
I'm only half stupid
The soul is just natural
Some men put the super into the natural, and create God's of all sorts. And then use them cynically at times to manipulate groups of people. Have a drink of kool-aid and the space ship will come. Believe in Jesus and you will rise out of your grave.
To me it is the power of the mind that is liberated of the illusion of it's physical limits, that we see focused as faith in the spirit. It you believe it is true. Then it is true, no matter what name you give this power.
And just for the record. I do believe in God.
I'm only half stupid
It does, doesn't it
But they can "see" (crudely) what thoughts you are thinking by examing brain scans, and observe actual physical actions occuring (neurons firing) when you think. I don't know about the free will bit but it sure is fascinating to consider just what, exactly, our minds are. How do we become self-aware? Probably just a different way of getting at your question, I realize, but I don't have any answers...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Cause or effect?
This is a good observation. I guess the question we are randomly poking at is this: Is our "thinking" causing the neurons to fire, or is our "perception of thinking" merely a side effect of the neurons firing the way that they are?
Which is the cause and which is the effect. My point above is that science could only accept the latter. The brain chemistry is doing whatever it is doing because of the physical laws of the universe, therefore the "perception of thinking" must be the illusion.
This is all consistent with the automaton view I described above, BTW. In the types of studies that you refer to, the subjects are presented with some sort of stimulus (i.e. they are shown a picture, or asked a question, or whatever) and the results are observed on the brain scans.
I would argue that the stimulus (visual, auditory, tactile) starts the whole cascade of neurons firing within the brain and that the outcome of that cascade will be determined by the individual's accumulated experiences as they have been encoded in their memories and their neural network. The applicable sensory neurons (which have been excited via a physical stimulus in the eyes, or the ears, or whatever) feed a stimulus into the neural network which then just does whatever it does according to the neural pathways that exist and the accumulated memories that have been stored there.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I freely disagree
My mind tells me I can touch my nose or my elbow.
That is my choice, no matter how many chemical reactions are involved.
You are talking of purely physical earthly matters.
What about your soul, your spirit, your drive.
This is the most fatalistic, hopeless vision.
Why bother getting out of bed.
My fate is pre-ordained.
I have no control.
Why should I bother pulling myself up by my bootstraps.
Why did you choose to post these thoughts?
My free will has been affected by you.
I chose to respond.
What if I hadn't responded.
Why did you choose me?
I'm only half stupid
I just thought it was an interesting implication
of taking science to its natural logical conclusion. For anyone who does not believe in the supernatural AND firmly believes in scientific thought this is the only natural conclusion to come to.
If you are to believe in science and the laws of the physical Universe as the only explanation for how things occur, then you have no free choice. The point is not how many chemical reactions it takes to accomplish a given task, the point is that somehow, if you have free will, there has to be a mechanism by which you set those chemical reactions into play at a physical level. This implies that by making a decision to have your finger touch your nose you were somehow able to manipulate matter at a physical level in such a way that your conciousness CAUSED those reactions to take place. Presumably if you had NOT made the decision to touch your nose the requisite reactions would NOT have taken place AND your finger would likewise NOT have touched your nose. This is the fundamental effect of having free will as far as I can tell from a philisophical perspective.
So when I say that free will is only an illusion, I mean that chemical reactions in your brain are creating your thoughts (based on the scientific principles at play), not the other way around. You only think that you actually have thoughts, but you don't. You can't actually be in control of your thoughts because you have no mcehanism by which your conscious mind could be manipulating the molecules in your brain to make them interact so as to effect the touching of your nose.
Well, strictly speaking, science has no place for anything but the physical. There is no soul according to science. That is sort of the point of this post, I guess. Science for all the good it does has a long way to go, so is it really a good thing to elevate it to the levels that some on the left tend to do?
Yes, this is fatalistic and hopeless, but I wouldn't exactly call it a vision. This is, however, what we are left with if all we want to believe in is science.
As for the dragging yourself out of bed goes, it is all an illusion. There is no "you" making any of the decisions. The chemistry in your brain does what it does based on physical laws NOT by any supernatural "soul" that is somehow guiding it, or so the scientists would tell us.
You couldn't stop your body from getting out of bed if you wanted to. And you would just "think" that you decided to do so when it did, hence the illusion.
As I said, I am not sure. I just thought it was an interesting philosophy meets science question for people to ponder.
The point of the question would respond that your actions were caused by chemical reactions in your brain, not by any independently operating consciousness with free will. You only "THINK" that you were in control as an after effect.
I'm not really saying that this is the true nature of things. I don't actually even profess to know what is. I am just posting something for people to think about carefully.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Chemistry Is magic!
Different elements INTERreacting in different ways.
A true scientist is not inspired by this dry, souless vision of the world you have written about.
He sees the magic of zero's, and one's and is AMAZED!
He sees that chemical elements have inspiring numberical souls and primary divisions and correlations.
And there are those that believe in the paranormal, that we have more senses than we realize.
Have you heard of the string theory???
The ultimate explanation (there never will be one because there is no such thing as perfection). Einstein was always looking for that universal equation that unified our interactions. E=MC squared wasn't it.
But he kept searching.
Why do we search? Ah that is the soul seeking to know it's origins.
It is interesting I agree.
But your world with no free will. Well I don't live there.
That is a world without hope.
Besides since your a winger, I am suspicious that this is a lead in to the theories of Intelligent Design, and creationism that doesn't even believe in carbon dating!
And that the choices I make create my reality.
I'm only half stupid
hey brainiacs
What, no philosophical thoughts lately? I know pico is a bit busy now but the rest of you wannabe philosophers should be eager to discuss your theories on life, universe and everything.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I want to start a knock down drag em out...
...on moral absolutism vs relativism, but I just don;t have the mental energy at the moment.
Consider this a rain check.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Sophism
I hear the wind blowin' through the straw.
Sophism
A clever argument used by idealogues to deliberately deceive those whose philosophy is not rooted in the laws of nature.
The idealogues have used sophisticated language to convince us that only they know perfection.
The philosophers study the nature of knowledge in a context that acts as a set of guiding principles for attaining wisdom.
The idealogues unbending definition of perfection will be defeated by the philosophers willingness to embrace the slow climb to knowledge and understanding of how things work.
The idealogue starts with an assumption of perfection.
The philosopher looks at the world to find wisdom.
The rules of survival say that it is not the strongest that survive but those that can adapt to their surroundings.
The idealogues will fall. There is no such thing as freedom from defect,
The philosophers will survive. They understand that nothing is ever complete.
The downfall of the idealogues known as the neoconservatives, seeking perfect freedom for a people whose philosophy they never even pretended to understand.
Their fallicious assumptions have led to the conquering of a country that is now ruled by strawmen.
Let the true philosophers come in and blow these sophists from their thrones of straw.
Beware strawman. I hear the wind.
I'm only half stupid
Excellent post ML
I guess that only Leo Strauss would put Plato and Sophistry back into a single Philosophy, unless calling it philosophy is not just another sophistry.
Can you imagine our culture if they were able to figure out a way to ban it, or make it flash lights or something.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Predeterminism is the only
Predeterminism is the only conclusion to the questions of the external world. Soon there will be computers powerful enough to simulate universes and ultimatley tell us the future. The question is not whether free will exists but does it make a difference if it didn't? We have to believe in free will, we have no choice.
Black, white, grey... wtf? Absolute truth exists within the cogito. As Descartes puts it, even if I were being decieved about everthing I would still have to exist to be decieved. I think therefore I am is an absolute truth, it cannot be refuted by any living human, to deny it is to affirm it.
Butterflys destroy predeterminism
As long as such computers have a limit to their precision, they can never do any such thing. You can bring a computer to ten decimals, and measure the existing forces and reality every few hundred miles or so, and then create a weather profile say, about as accurate and far seeing as they are today, as that is approximately what we do.
But if you were able to have a weather station measuring at every ten feet, side to side and up and down, to ten to the tenth power of decimals, rounding errors would still build up, and the space five feet from your measuring device would hold surprises, and a butterfly deciding to turn right or left would have an effect, eventually a massive one, on the outcome of your predictions.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Reality
If the simulator encompused every movement of every particle (which it would have to do in order to fit the defintion we have given it) then that would include the measurements of yours and every other butterfly which ever existed. They're actions as much a part of a predetermined path as the winds'. Only a metaphysical or an unidentified action could create a truely random event, and for that science would have to accept what it was created to destroy.
The problem is in the decimal points.
No matter what you measured or how many decimal points you measured to, it would only be to the level of precision of your measurement and only calculated to the level of precision of your computer.
If you carried your precision to ten decimal points or ten billion you would not have the "real" numbers, and the errors caused by those tiny errors would build up to massive amounts, after several billion calculations.
Even the distance between calculations, every second, even every 1 billionth of a second, would show significant error over time. It is that, not any actual butterfly, that is the point.
Your simulator would have passed way beyond absurd, and still the butterfly effect would make the results only an estimate.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Simulators vs Emulators
Simulations are my specialty so, I can definitely agree that this is impossible if the universe is as current theory states. specifically, the uncertainty principle simply destroys the idea.
You would need to both capture the entire state of the universe, which thanks to the UP, cannot be done. You would then need accurate models for every process that were guaranteed to exactly mimic the real processes, many of which are random.
As an example, leaving my complete expertise and going to the hobby,
the processes embodied in quantum mechanics appear to have a strong degree of randomness in them. There is no reason that the Uranium decays at time X0 and not X1 other than randomness. Vacuum fluctuations which influence many of these quantum events also occur randomly and, again, thanks to the uncertainty principle, cannot be perfectly predicted.
Which from a simulator's point of view is fine. A simulator isn't supposed to be a crystal ball that will tell you what will happen. Very few analysis simulations are ever run once. You run them multiple times with diffferent random seeds and you analyse the trends.
Simulations
A simulation like a Jet flight trainer would be a very different thing than a weather simulation. As long as you did not have critical numbers, or there were not a lot of iterations, that last decimal point is pretty ignorable, but if you have both accuracy can degrade rather quickly over time.
In hurricanes it is pretty easy to see, some behave and go where they are expected, in others the arrival of a front at a location by a difference of minutes can make a difference of hundreds of miles as to where the hurricane lands.
The nice thing about computer simulations is that if you enter the same numbers, you get exactly the same result, but then all your data is with some multiple of an integer and not real numbers.
You can use it for fancy arithmetic, and then check against reality to see what you might be missing. You can even add pseudorandom numbers to simulate unknowns, so you can see a range of possibilities, but the butterflies are always lurking to surprise you.
The January Hurricane some call "Storm of the Century" was just such an event.
BTW while some butterfly uncertainty on the molecular level might conceivably be driven by quantum uncertainty, it is more than swamped by Brownian uncertainty, and has virtually zero effect above the atomic level, and on chemical reactions.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Just pointing out the hard limit
Oh absolutely, the uncertainty principle is simply a hard limit. You CANNOT get any more precision than that defined by planck's constant regardless of how good your calculating machine and how amazing your measurements are. The idea of actually performing measurements on macroscopic objects that are so precise the the uncertainty principle actually impacts you is pretty ludicrous, but that is for practical rather than theoretical reasons.
Heres one for free will
Don't read this sentence. Ah too late
Too funny!
I'm only half stupid
Yes, welcome.
Although I too am realtively new to this site.
A few things to ponder for you...
Assuming that you are talking about our actual universe, I argue that this is actually impossible. While we can agree that (according to science) the universe is made up of matter and energy which are governed by physical laws, in order to accurately simulate the universe one would (presumably) need to know the exact state of every entity in the universe at some point in time in order to predict the states at some future point in time, correct? So the question is "where would our knowledge of that state information be stored?"
This raises two fundamental problems for any attempts to simulate the universe by anyone who is actually part of the universe:
First, the information in question must be encoded someplace. If it is encoded using matter that is, itself, part of the universe to be simulated then the simulation actually begins to play an active role in determining the outcomes it is trying to predict. This isn't necessarily a show stopper, but one doesn't typically consider the "simulator" itself as having an effect on the outcome of the "simulation".
Second, assuming that every "thing" (i.e. particle of matter or energy) which comprises the universe can assume multiple "states", the encoding of that information would require multiple bits of information for each such "thing". Since each such bit would need to be stored somewhere it would require more phsyical "things" to store the state information than actually exist in the universe.
Therefore, if we view the universe as a kind of closed system, only someone outside of that system would be able to create such a simulator and predict the future (on a universal scale, of course).
This is a very good point. Obviously to us, it does not matter as we already "believe" that we have free will. We could not believe otherwise even if "we" existed to ask the question! :-)
I guess a related question is "what do we mean by we?" Are we refering to the physical us or are we referring to the illusion that is our conscious mind?
Strictly speaking, this is a proof of existence but not of free will, do you agree?
I am curious, what does "I think, therefore I am" mean to you?
Does the term "I think" refer to the physical or the meta-physical, and is the term "I am" meant to imply merely existence or an independent free will as well?
The assertion "I think, therefore I am" in no way implies the existence of a meta-physical self which possesses free will.
If the conscious mind is merely an illusion created by the checmical processes within the physical brain, then the "thoughts" of that conscious mind are under the complete control and direction of those chemical processes which, in turn, are under the complete control and direction of the physical laws of the universe. In that sense, you only "think" that you have "independent thought" but it is an illusion being constructed by the physical brain.
So while this is undeniably a proof that you "exist", it in no way is a proof that your have control over your thoughts.
What do you think?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wow!... agreement predetermined by actual reality..
Who'd a thunk! Perhaps if we explore enough we can find other places where realities of the left and right coincide, and by vigorous logic stitch them into one!...Nah!.. ....... it would never work.........
Still you do not escape the Manichean Dilemma... everyone you see and talk to might not actually exist, the whole thing could be a crazed computer game, played by some maniac, who himself actually does not exist except in the preprogrammed mind of another greater maniac, and so on and so on ...all the way back.
The only possible answer to the Manichean Dilemma is what you choose to do about it. Catatonia is an answer, but not a very good one, and would probably get you a pretty low score when the game is over in any case. The same would be true of nihilistic evil.
You could follow the prescriptions of others, as laid out in old or new books, but without careful thought, you could just be trading your own nihilistic evil for someone else's.
That careful thought is also a dilemma, as it requires both a lot of work, and time, and even given that, there is little assurance of an accurate answer. That is why those answers need as much challenge as you can afford to give them, and even after life has given as much wisdom as can be managed, it kills every student, but at least they will have some real wealth to take with them, ....if they ever go anywhere.
(edited to include the quote, noting that I had said a very similar thing before reading his post)
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
In theory it is not
In theory it is not unimaginable that over time someone somewhere may work out a way of making one. But your second point is reasoned. Although if the simulator is in any way possible it raises a serious problem, and one which we may never solve. Everything would be just as real for a person within the simulation as the origanal beings who created the simulator, a carbon coby. At an inevitable time the simulator will come to a moment when it itself was created. At that point the simulator within the simulator will create another universe, and with that universe another simulator is created, so on and so on. The probability of us being the origanal beings who first created the simulator are quite low, and the chances are we may be just a simulation within a simulation within a simulation within a simulation.
What does "I think therefore I am" mean to me? I wasn't really using it in this debate. Before I posted this blog I was reading someone else's about morality being techni-coloured and something about "there were no such things as absolute truths". I can't remember which one but its got a chess board illussion on it. But in a way the cogito does prove free will, or at very least it offers a possible non-predeterminist stand point. Existence before essence is the only truth and it does not rely on science merely a self aware consious. What I mean by this is that science and our understanding could all be a fabrication, like a dream. What I try to achieve is a mild skeptisism, one in which opinions are freely changed and belief rarely held. One step beyond nihilism. Free will does not matter
Interesting
Agreed.
:-) I like this description and agree with your analysis of the implications of such a thing.
I think that we must be close to a common understanding here and that perhaps you are saying the same thing as I am trying to ... but not exactly.
Self-awareness is clearly a proof of existence, agreed? I cannot even contemplate my own existence without somehow "existing"! :-)
The question at hand is whether we have free will in the sense that we can exert conscious control over our observed environment.
I am merely stating the logical implication that if one only believes in science and, therefore, that the universe (i.e. the observed environment) is inherently controlled by the state of matter and physical laws then there is no room for a true concept of free will and, therefore, logically free will must merely be an illusion of some sort (i.e. a fabrication as you call it above). It is a mere trick of the mind.
On the other hand, if you choose to believe that free will actually exists then you have to accept the logical conclusion that the universe is not inherently controlled by physical laws alone because the source of your consciousness (and the free will that it exerts) must exist outside of the physical universe (where it would by definition be subject to the physical laws of nature) AND that your consciousness has some ability to influence the outcomes of events on a physical level.
This sounds a lot like a "soul" to me, although I am not religious by nature. Also, at an atomic and sub-atomic level the ability to influence the outcomes of events must, for all intents and purposes, appear to be "miraculous" in that certain outcomes don't conform to the physical laws described by science.
So, our logical choices seem to come down to:
1) Free will exists and, therefore, our conscious mind must be meta-physical in nature with an ability to influence the outcomes of events (i.e. perform "miracles") on an atomic and sub-atomic level within the physical universe.
2) We are mindless automatons trapped by the laws of the physical universe and we only "perceive" some notion of having free will and it is all just an illusion created as a side-effect of the chemical processes within our brains.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Apology
There are probably a million conclusions, each of them posing another problem, which at best waste our time. It is not our questions which need answering, it is our answers which need questioning (I'm copy righting that phrase if it's possible). If we start from the cogito, what philosophy, science or religion has conclusivly answered the questions Descartes sets out (and ironically fails to answer) in the Meditations? If the Bible were the Apology by Plato this world would be a much nicer place. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
You are skipping a few options
First, on simulations, the universe could, in fact BE a simulation. Vacuum fluctuations act in a fashion with frightening similarity to the fashion that we gather statistics from a simulation.
On the free-will vs metaphysics options... hard to say. Since we are on the subject of quantum mechanics, one has to ask if randomness exists. When an electron has a 50/50 chance of going left or right (and in effect goes both until measured) is the collapse to left or right random or predetermined but unpredictable? If the former, then matter and energy are taking a state based on something other than the state of matter and energy but there is nothing like a 'mind' involved.
:-)
See my post above
.
This is a fundamental point which is part of why I don't favor the Quantum Mechanics view of the universe.
I would argue that it does not, which I guess puts me in a camp that favors "predetermined but unpredictable" in your scenario above.
I prefer to believe that even the sub-atomic world operates according to physical laws just like everything else appears to. The problem is that we can't "observe" the sub-atomic particles and forces without disturbing them the way that we can do at the macro level.
For example, when Newton observed the Apple falling from the tree the effects of the photons that enabled him to make the observation had no discernable effect on the outcome for all practical purposes. In fact the effect of millions and billions of photons bouncing off of that apple was negligible for the effect being observed.
At the sub-atomic level, however, this is not the case. A single photon on something the size of an electron can push it around. The mere act of observing it (in the conventional sense) increases its energy level and changes the whole scenario and where it is. As far as I can tell, this is sort of the basis for the Uncertainty Principle. (I know I may be over simplifying a bit.)
It is this inability to observe things at the sub-atomic level without affecting them that impedes our ability to define a theory to explain how things work (in a more conventional sense) and leads us to come up with notions like infinite universes that collapse as soon as someone observes them. Personally, I find this particular notion to be absurd in any real theoretical sense. As far as I am concerned the particles do what they do because of natural laws and there is none of this they don't "decide" until someone looks at them.
Just because we can't observe the particles and forces in action does not mean that they don't actually exist. I contend that the spin on an electron would be predictable if we were able to actually know the applicable states of every relevant particle in the universe along with the natural laws that govern the behavior of those particles. But since we can't possibly know the state of the entire universe, we can't possibly make the required prediction. Hence my contention that the outcome is pre-ordained but unpredictable.
Now, where Quantum Mechanics comes in is to answer the question of what to do when we cannot make the predictions. For practical and pragmatic purposes it doesn't hurt to think of the electron as being in both states until it is observed (I just don't believe that it really works that way). If these "made up" mechanisms provide a valuable framework around which we can reason about the practical outcomes of certain events then that is perfectly fine from an engineering perspective. We can use those models to make real-world advancements even though they don't necessarily describe the "true reality" of what is transpiring from the perspective of sub-atomic particles and forces.
In my mind using the concepts put forth by Quantum Mechanics to drive engineering advancements is basically analogous to using actuarial tables to determine insurance rates. Both are useful in a real world sense, but neither describes the mechanisms that control/define the statistics and probability functions found in each.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Qubits vs bits
To answer you other question, my formal training in quantum mechanics is limited but present (I just started when a professor was so annoying that I didn't want to study with him anymore, so I went into mathmatics) but I've continued studying it as a hobby.
For practical and pragmatic purposes it doesn't hurt to think of the electron as being in both states until it is observed
Quantum mechanics has pretty well established (experimentally as well as theoretically) that the electron is actually simultaneously in both states until it is measured (if it isn't measured, it will actually interfere with itself both constructively and destructively, but if it IS measured then it will have mysteriously taken one path even if it turns out to be the path that wasn't measured. That is the freaky thing. By puting a detector across one of the two possible paths, you remove the interference even though you don't detect anything (in the case that the electron took the path where there was no detector)
Radioactive half-lives are based upon the math of quantum mechanics and if you measure an individual isotope and it has not yet decayed, the 'clock' starts over and the distribution resets to 0% decayed/100% undecayed. The whole reason that Shor's algorithm works is because the qubit is able to carry information in a fashion that the bit is not.
Wow! Nice to meet you Martin!
I am very flattered that you chose to respond to this.
I am not sure I agree with your assessment of predetermination. The physical may be predetermined, but I do believe that human beings make choices.
The secret may be the beauty of the paradox, when we deny something are we actually affirming it.
BTW! Welcome to Swords Crossed. Don't be shy about posting. It's always good to have another progressive voice, especially one from across the pond.
I'm only half stupid
Thanks for the warm welcome
Thanks for the warm welcome MissL.
Is not the mind physical? If we take science as gospel then ideas are mere reflections of reality and are subject to the same cause and effect as the external world. I didn't choose to eat, and even my favourite food is predetermined by my tastebuds which were predetermined by preceeding events beyond my control. The choice (if such a thing exists) is stark. We can believe in science and loose are free will, or we can believe in our freedom to choose but contradict an essential part of human knowledge. In either case morality and near to all value will be stripped from us. Soon mankind will face what it has been running from all of its existance, nothingness, nihilism. I say bring it on, the more we run the further from the truth we get. Let us hope that the people of the future do not repeat our mistakes by creating meaning to combat meaningless, the last thing we need is another religion or an over emphasis on science.
Free markets ARE free, to exploit
Western ignorance and arrogance.....
......have left us arguing many issues that have run on ad nauseum for a few thousand years in China, and points west, Taoist, and Confucian thought particularly, have no need for a planner or reason to exist, only a path that is beneficial to all humanity.
Mani might have been the ultimate P. T. Barnum, to say nothing of inventing the video game a couple millennia before it could be demonstrated, but it is not a requirement the the only alternative to a Manipulator be Nihilism.
Confucian thought requires free will, but demonstrates that acting intelligently improves your world and that Nihilistic selfishness is at best short sighted, and works against you and everyone else in the long run.
It is deeply embedded in its Chinese origins, and thus not what I would wish to take in whole, but a much better starting point than any Manichean Matrix, no matter how good or bad you imagine the Caretakers.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
We are all Ignorant
Whether or not Socrates and the early skeptics of ancient greece were influenced a century or so ago by confusionism is beside the point. I get the feeling you believe the latter is somehow "recently" new in western philosophy. I would argue the core principles of both philosophies are identical (and have been since before modern christianinty).
Our knowledge is a paradox in itself. The only thing we know for certian is that we exist by thinking in the present. EVERYTHING else is an assumption. We should not believe in nihilism, confuscianism, atheism or anything other than ourselves. Skeptisism has given us science and religion, the two most threatening forces humanity faces, but it gives us a third option. The hardest thing to fight for is pointlessness, but it is the only point worth fighting for right now.
Reality is only bias to those who believe in it
Nihilism
Nihilism has a rather bad reputation, the kind of religion born of severe depression, self destructive, bad acting out, Ted Bundy kind of religion, if it could be called so at all.
Now the Straussians lay claim to it among themselves (and is a good reason to oppose them, if no other ) But their idea is to hide the fact and manipulate others with grand ideas of patriotism, and piety, because they know how the world treats such depraved types when they are caught.
Is that the Nihilism you are talking about? Or is it some other?
The core principals of Manichean type Religions is that this life is a video game and the insiders know the cheat codes (that they will let on to you if you give them power and a lifestyle they would like to be accustomed to)
The core principals of Confucian type Religions is that they are concerned with principals that work to make everyones life better, with little or no concern for "Mystic Understanding".
That is perhaps the simplistic and extreme cases at each end of a spectrum, but very different "core principals".
A very thoughtful nihilist could come to a Confucian type religion, by deeply considering the long term results of his actions, as I suspect many have, thus becoming no longer nihilist. That is why there was a tradition in the east of hermits who have done just that over many years.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
The nihilism I refer to is
The nihilism I refer to is the rejection of knowledge or supposed knowledge of the majority. The mass realisation of pointlessness to life. How the world evolves out of this will depend on the few who know. There are no hidden codes or cheats, only truth, and a limited truth at that. But from this truth springs humanities only hope to conquer the nihilistic future it was destined to one day face. By nihilism I mean the stripping of all values and morals, the rejection of truth and the real great depression. If this is mankinds destiny (it's never "woman kind", you'd think since they came around the same time) it is up to the skeptics (ironically seen as the destroyers of knowledge) to prove that there is a way to overcome this. Unfortunetly it is us who are in the middle of a battle about to be fought between the athiests and the theists, both killing in the name of unfounded belief. Where they fight for that belief we must fight for the non belief. Of course it is easier to fight for something than nothing, but even though the truth may be limited, it is all there is.
That fight has been fought....
... thousands of years ago, and perhaps every generation since, some folks re-invent the wheel, some just kick about the ones already about.
The great advantage of our civilization is that many facts that could only be speculated about before can now be unambiguously demonstrated. But that great advantage is also a great weakness. The old adage that "having only a hammer makes every problem look either like a nail, or not an interesting problem" is only accentuated by the amazing power of our "hammer".
Chinese philosophy is particularly interesting on that point, because they had different tools, and several thousand years of conversation. Consequently they came to not just different answers but different questions and different approaches.
Acupuncture is an easy example, I have studied it some, but while they can make predictions and see those results happen it is utterly incompatible to western thought. Neither seems able to enlighten the other, and to understand one you need to forget all you know about the other.
Fortunately the philosophical differences are not so incompatible, but since they are not subject to experimentation misunderstanding is less noticeable.
Our conversations, in western thought go back mostly 500 years or so, there are speakers as far back as a couple thousand years, but they are mostly unknown in our own history and "rediscovered" only "lately".
Also every step has been in response to the "video game" theory of reality, such that looking at actual reality is a very recent thing. Our technical achievements are an amazing result, but immense subtleties and butterfly effects are missed in that approach, that an extra few thousand years of conversation might make more plain.
Nihilism is an excellent example of that short sightedness, if all that stuff about a video game was a lie, then there is no "game" and thus everything is pointless. Without an alternative on hand, some redouble their insistence that the "game" is real, others flail about trying to reinvent everything from scratch, or find a different case of the "game".
The Chinese had several thousand years of skeptics picking apart ideas that were better founded in reality to start with. The result was a Chinese result, as incompatible with Western thought as acupuncture, but a much better starting point than Nihilism or any theism.
Among the first realizations should be that if you try to have any sort of "insider" conspiracy, you doom yourself and wreck havoc everywhere. The whole Neocon fiasco should prove that, if it needed any more proof.
Even in Western Philosophy it is well understood that Plato's "Philosopher Kings" required inhuman competence, that the very act of self selection would guarantee against.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
The fact is....
it is always being fought. The basic metaphysical questions which gave life to philosophy, religion and science, are no closer to answers than they were to start with. In our search for meaning we have been, are and quite possibly will remain stuck at square 1. There is no insider trick, this is the skeptical mind set inherent in every lost and last human being. I do not support nihilism but I accept its' presence and potential for harm. It is a stage humanity must get past. Religion denies it, science tries to out do it, but skepticism is the only way foward. We can be sure of two things; that we exist, and that with our existence we are accomponied with perceptions. An indubitable basis for philosophical inquiry which at once beats nihilism, and both taken from western philosophy. Socrates over "Confusion-ism" any day
Nice!
I'm only half stupid
Free Markets ARE free, to exploit
We agree by choice or by chance!
Yes the physical determines some things, brown eyes etc. yet experience (pain, pleasure) and how we respond to it (environment) helps shape our physical reality.
I'm only half stupid