ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 28th January 2019, 06:50 AM   #161
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,907
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Personally, I think things make more sense if you think of existence first being in a timeless state
I've highlighted the two incompatible words which make this a nonsensical statement.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 06:55 AM   #162
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,784
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I know this may seem like nonsense to you, but I would say that existence was first timeless before there was time and so God existed timelessly and not for an infinite period of time which leads to contradictions.

How can a being existing timelessly exercise free will?

If there is free will there is willful effect. If there is effect there is change. If there is change there is time. Which contradicts a condition of timeless existence.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 07:02 AM   #163
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,816
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Reality must obey logic. .
No that's backwards.

Logic is a way we describe our observations of how reality works. If reality does not appear to obey logic then logic can be wrong.

Also, there is no reason to think that logic applies to the creation of the universe since logic is an observation of how the universe goes, not necessarily how a 'not a universe' goes.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 07:08 AM   #164
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,816
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
with a mind.
As far as we know minds need brains. Minds can only exist in the presence of physical matter. Therefore there cannot be minds that exist prior to the existence of physical matter.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 07:09 AM   #165
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 601
It seems to come down to:

1. Every event needs a cause.

2. The exercise of free will is an event that does not need a cause.

Seems logically inconsistent to me.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 07:41 AM   #166
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,524
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Reality must obey logic. Experience can not contradict a correct formulation of logic, as both are reality. I have some of the logic (at least in my opinion) but I'm skeptical of some experiments built to demonstrate quantum randomness or doing so as a byproduct since they seem to be say that reality essentially contradicts itself. Reality must be entirely self-consistent. I think that these experiments are missing something.
Again, you need to demonstrate this contradiction.

In order to demonstrate the contradiction you need to show that some premise results in "P and not P"

You seem to be confusing "it is counter-intuitive" with "it is illogical"
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 07:47 AM   #167
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,524
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
No that's backwards.

Logic is a way we describe our observations of how reality works. If reality does not appear to obey logic then logic can be wrong.

Also, there is no reason to think that logic applies to the creation of the universe since logic is an observation of how the universe goes, not necessarily how a 'not a universe' goes.
Actually, despite what some people claim, we have never discovered any situation that doesn't appear to obey logic.

Quantum physics, for example, obeys good old classical logic just fine.

(edit) But I will agree that if we found we could describe reality better by sometimes ditching logic, then that is just what we should do.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 28th January 2019 at 07:51 AM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 08:02 AM   #168
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 601
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
And by free will I mean self-caused events.
So free will are events that cause themselves! Like the universe popping into existence because it popped into existence.

Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
...it is caused by an agent.
So those events are not caused by themselves. You need a soul or god to cause them. Doesn't this contradict the first statement?
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 08:45 AM   #169
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,907
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
You seem to be confusing "it is counter-intuitive" with "it is illogical"
Bingo.

So many people assume that anything that seems obvious to them must be true. I usually counter by pointing out that it's obvious that the earth is flat, and that the sun goes round the earth. Most of modern physics - quantum theory, relativity, cosmology - is counter-intuitive. In order to begin to grasp any of them you need to leave your common sense at the door.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 09:27 AM   #170
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,816
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Actually, despite what some people claim, we have never discovered any situation that doesn't appear to obey logic.

Quantum physics, for example, obeys good old classical logic just fine.

(edit) But I will agree that if we found we could describe reality better by sometimes ditching logic, then that is just what we should do.
Indeed i was just pointing out that logic, mathematics, physical laws etc are descriptive rather than proscriptive. reality always trumps them.

its fine to be sceptical of something which appears to violate well established laws because at a first pass it is probably wrong but if the evidence truly shows that reality was illogical we would need to dump logic or at least expand it to include this new event.

when we are talking about the creation of the universe all bets are off anyway as we cannot use obsevations of what happens in the universe to proscribe what must happen outside it, before it, or whatever (whatever those terms even mean)
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 11:41 AM   #171
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,161
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Nothing can come from nothing. Therefore, if there was ever nothing, there'd be nothing now. So since there is now something, there must've always been something. There must be something eternal for anything to exist at all. So I'd say that the first thing must've ultimately been an eternal being, since free will is needed for the first event, and therefore needed for everything that comes into existence by means of an event.
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I don't remember saying God is not a person, but I'll say it now that I believe God is a person. And by person I don't mean a human, but rather a being with a mind and free will. What a person is, I'm not entirely sure, but persons are not contained in the body and are not reducible to physical or ethereal substances. A person is not reducible to anything else. People are most fundamentally people.

I say a person is not reducible a substance because substances ultimately have no personhood, they are basically inanimate objects and therefore incapable of having free will.
Addressing both of these quotes:

then once again you're ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics as I pointed out on page one which you've steadily ignored.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 12:30 PM   #172
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Besides the other valid objections which you've failed to overcome, you still haven't addressed the issue of how a high-entropy "being" could have come before the low-entropy Big Bang (violating the Law of Entropy, IOW).
Can you explain why the being must be high entropy?
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 12:58 PM   #173
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,951
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I define causation by determinism as external causation. Under external causation, events are caused by something outside themselves. Because this applies to every event, no event is able to serve as a beginning to all other deterministic events, instead forming an infinite regress which I argue is impossible based on the impossibility of actualizing infinity (you can not have a largest number). Therefore, God can not be brought about by this means.

Indeterminism I define as randomness, or events having no cause. I rule this out because it amounts to events happening without a mechanism, which in turn just amounts to a contradiction. So, God can not come about through indeterminism.

This leaves free will as the thing you must first bring events about with and since everything prior to this must come about through events, that makes (at least one of the first things as far as I know) the first thing to exist a being with free will.

You've lost me but I think Porpoise of Life has a handle on it.

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Your argument amounts to "Everything has to be caused, except for God. Therefore God is real and also the creator of the Universe"
Not only does your conclusion not follow from your premise, you don't have any evidence for your premise either.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 01:15 PM   #174
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,161
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Can you explain why the being must be high entropy?
It's all about ordered versus un-ordered systems; you're saying in effect that a high-ordered system (a mind) was begun/started before the low-ordered beginning of the universe (the big bang) which goes against the laws of physics as we know them.

So it's another in a long line of contradictions that you're unable to deal with.

I've read some of your intervening posts and you've talked about logic too. So you'll need to explain, logically, how a complex entity exists before a simple entity (that happens to encompass everything; i.e., the universe) in order for the simple entity to be created, but you'll also have to explain, logically, how something can create (take action) with no time in which to do so.

If time only began to exist with the beginning of the universe, there cannot be something 'before time.'

Anyway, unless you invoke magic, your creator being cannot exist.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 01:20 PM   #175
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
It's all about ordered versus un-ordered systems; you're saying in effect that a high-ordered system (a mind) was begun/started before the low-ordered beginning of the universe (the big bang) which goes against the laws of physics as we know them.

So it's another in a long line of contradictions that you're unable to deal with.

I've read some of your intervening posts and you've talked about logic too. So you'll need to explain, logically, how a complex entity exists before a simple entity (that happens to encompass everything; i.e., the universe) in order for the simple entity to be created, but you'll also have to explain, logically, how something can create (take action) with no time in which to do so.

If time only began to exist with the beginning of the universe, there cannot be something 'before time.'

Anyway, unless you invoke magic, your creator being cannot exist.
A complex being would be low entropy, not high.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 03:10 PM   #176
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Normally "eternal" does not refer to an infinite duration, but something atemporal. Aquinas defines it as "Doesn't begin to exist, doesn't cease to exist and there is no succession"

That is fine as far as it goes but there doesn't seem to be any necessity that an "eternal" thing must have a mind, or any sensible way of attributing a mind to something like that.

If the Universe began to exist from some "eternal" state then it would seem unlikely that it arose from the action of a mind.

The quantum soup or foam hypotheses seem to fit the bill better as something "eternal".

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
I've heard of quantum foam but I'm not too familiar with it. Quantum foam acts indeterministically, right?

If it truly does act indeterministically, then I'd say that perhaps the universe can begin through events due to the quantum foam.

Tell me if you agree with this.

To happen, an event must have an underlying mechanism that allows it to happen.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 03:26 PM   #177
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The more I read this kind of argument, the dafter it gets, I swear. And you know an argument is daft when it needs to arbitrarily redefine words to even seem like it has a point.

Determinism and non-determinism do NOT mean whether it has a cause or underlying mechanism or not. It means whether the result is always the same or not. Even taking it as causal determinism, which is the usual take, does NOT mean whether it has a cause or not, but whether the cause-effect relationship if deterministic, as in it always has the same effect for the same cause.

E.g., Newtonian acceleration is deterministic. If I'm far out in space, without gravity or matter to brake it, and I push a 1 kg object with a force of 1 Newton, it ALWAYS will accelerate 1m/s2 in the same direction as the force.

On the other hand Quantum indeterminacy explicitly does not fit that kind of determinism. There are ways that philosophical determinism handwaves around it, as basically, eh, quantum doesn't matter at large scales. But simply filing it under determinism because it still has an underlying mechanism is just daft nonsense.

In fact, there's a fundamental way it even PREVENTS any kind of workaround to get more accurate readings, much less anything even vaguely resembling determinism. See for example the EPR Paradox.
The essence of the paradox is that particles can interact in such a way that it is possible to measure both their position and their momentum more accurately than Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows, unless measuring one particle instantaneously affects the other to prevent this accuracy, which would involve information being transmitted faster than light as forbidden by the theory of relativity ("spooky action at a distance"). This consequence had not previously been noticed and seemed unreasonable at the time; the phenomenon involved is now known as quantum entanglement.

I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about this, but doesn't quantum entanglement resolve the paradox?

By the way, you said that indeterminism is not about whether or not an event has an underlying cause or not and that it's more about whether the result is always the same, but how would you define indeterminism explicitly?
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 03:28 PM   #178
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
At which point it becomes clear why that daft redefinition of words was even needed. Because it's just trying to rephrase Kalam, in a nutshell. Except instead of some smart way to come up with another version of Kalam, it's just renaming caused and uncaused to deterministic and non-deterministic, and hoping nobody notices.
That was not my intention and I don't think that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a good argument.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 03:44 PM   #179
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,524
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
To happen, an event must have an underlying mechanism that allows it to happen.
I don't think it is always possible to disentangle the "what it does" from "what it is".

For example when you can't describe walking without describing legs and no description of legs would be complete without a description of walking.

There must be some level of reality where you can't drill down any further and the "what it does" is simply a description of "what it is".

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 03:49 PM   #180
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Because a set and its opposite compose all possible things. There's nothing left.

"My pet is either: 1) a dog or; 2) not a dog." That's all there is. There is no third option. You are trying to shoehorn in a third thing where there's no room for it. All possibilities have already been accounted for. You are saying, "My pet is either: 1) a dog; 2) not a dog or; 3) a hamster. The third option is already included in the second.

You've created this category of "free will" with absolutely no experimental evidence or even the possibility of creating an experiment. And it appears that the only reason you've done so is so you can shoehorn in your concept of a god. You've started from your conclusion and worked backwards. That's not logic. That's wishful thinking.

If you'd like to state that you believe in a creator, go right ahead. I, for one, have no problem with whatever you choose to believe. But don't pretend there's any logic to it. There isn't.
I suppose you can say that free will is determined in the sense that it is determined by an agent.

In the context of this argument, determinism means something like "mechanical process." I don't have a very good definition of it, but what I mean is something like how inanimate objects behave and how they are governed by the laws of physics and can not do other than what the laws of physics dictate. Think of something like a plastic bag being blown in the wind or a slinky falling down stairs, as opposed to a person dancing or doing something like juggling, which are better seen as free actions, in the context of this argument. So if free will exists, however you conceive of it, it would be different than a slinky falling down stairs because THAT is dictated by the laws of physics, while actions are not precisely dictated by physical laws.

As far as indeterminism, I'd be interested in how you define it and contrast it with free will. Only if you don't mind, of course.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 04:01 PM   #181
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by SusanB-M1 View Post
Existence is not "about" anything, it just is. Once you face the fact that there is no reason or purpose apart from those we choose anddecide on for ourselves, then things become clear and sensible.
You may believe that existence is not about anything. But do you know that it is not?

Phenomena like near death experiences, children remembering past lives, out of body experiences, etc. have not yet been disproven. They may have taken some damage, but they have yet to be disproven.

Yes it may seem very much like God is not needed, but take into account that there are people who have investigated the paranormal and the supernatural in-depth and questioned their beliefs over and over again only to remain a believer.

That may be the conclusion you have come to, but other people who question their beliefs have come to different conclusions, who's to say who's really right in the absence of 100% proof? Maybe it just comes down to your temperament.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 04:12 PM   #182
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,951
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
You may believe that existence is not about anything. But do you know that it is not?
Huh?

Quote:
Phenomena like near death experiences, children remembering past lives, out of body experiences, etc. have not yet been disproven. They may have taken some damage, but they have yet to be disproven.

Yes it may seem very much like God is not needed, but take into account that there are people who have investigated the paranormal and the supernatural in-depth and questioned their beliefs over and over again only to remain a believer.

That may be the conclusion you have come to, but other people who question their beliefs have come to different conclusions, who's to say who's really right in the absence of 100% proof? Maybe it just comes down to your temperament.

The onus of proof is on the one making the claim.

Arguments stating that so and so did this and that and still clung to their woo are not convincing arguments. You have to do better than this.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 04:34 PM   #183
Robin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,524
My definition of (libertarian) free will:

"A person has free will if there are at least some times when that person is choosing between more than one ostensibly possible course of action that:
1. All those courses of action are still possible and;
2. The reason that one is picked over the others is that it was the conscious intention of that person"

Determinism: "There is only one possible next state"
Indeterminism: "There is more than one possible next state"

As I see it indeterminism would be necessary for libertarian free will but not sufficient (is a random fork is not free will)

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 04:51 PM   #184
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
You can't have a free will event unless you already have a mind capable of taking action.

And you have to have that mind first form an intention.
I agree, you have to have a mind that is capable of taking action.

You seem to be saying that intentions cause action, but what is the difference between the intending of an action and the willing of it? I can intend to do the dishes at some point, but not do them now. But I can't will myself to do the dishes unless it's right now. The act of willing, whatever that is, is free will in action. Thus, the intention does not determine the act of willing.


Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Again, you can't just say something is incoherent, you have to show that it is.
1. Only events that have mechanisms behind them are coherent. (This statement should be self-evident)(By coherent I mean that it makes sense, it is self-consistent) (If you freeze ice, for it to freeze at all it has to freeze in a way in which it can actually accomplish freezing (which is the way that makes sense). Freezing in any other way that doesn't accomplish freezing is a way that doesn't make sense and is ultimately incoherent.)

2. Random events don't have mechanisms behind them. (It's the definition of random)

3. Therefore random events are incoherent.

4. Incoherent things can not exist. (Again, this should be self-evident, I don't know how to break this down into anything simpler.)(Think of a ball that is all white and all black at the same time, how could this exist?)

I don't really know how to break down the idea that random or indeterministic events are incoherent or that incoherent things can not exist. To me, it is self-evident, but it's hard to explain how it is self-evident.


Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Something indeterministic is something not deterministic.

So if free will is neither deterministic nor indeterministic then it is not deterministic and not not deterministic.

The "nots" cancel out so free will would be both not deterministic and deterministic.

Now *that's" incoherent.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
What is your definition of indeterminism?
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 05:26 PM   #185
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,672
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
If that's "obvious" to you, you must be way better informed than I am. I mean, maybe it's obvious to Stephen Hawking, but without his actual knowledge it's far from obvious to me. So I wonder, how did you become well-informed enough to arrive at the point where it's obvious to you? What is obvious is that very smart cosmologists have concluded it could have happened, and obviously they know more than I do, and I trust them not to have ulterior motives, so it's obvious to me that I have good reason to trust them on this. But it's still trust driving me, not some kind of self-evident conclusion I arrived at independently.
What is obvious is the reason why the premise "the universe must have come into existence deterministically" is incorrect, because it is possible for the universe to have come into existence indeterministically. The way it actually occurred is, I agree, not obvious.

Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I really would like to know how I can reach the level of understanding that allows non-physicists to speak confidently about what is a plausible origin of the universe. Is there a shortcut? How can I get there?
It's quite possible to come to a lay understanding of deep cosmological science simply by reading some of the many popular science books available at your local bookstore or online shop. If you want the mathematical details, then there's no shortcut for that.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 05:28 PM   #186
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,672
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Phenomena like near death experiences, children remembering past lives, out of body experiences, etc. have not yet been disproven. They may have taken some damage, but they have yet to be disproven.
Yes they have. To the greatest extent that it is possible for science to "disprove" anything, the things you list here have been disproven.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 05:46 PM   #187
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
There is nothing at all in the definition of "deterministic" which implies that the determinant must have a cause.

So if you have "A deterministically caused B", that does not imply that A has a cause, nor does it imply that if A has a cause then it must have been a deterministic cause.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
I agree, the determinant must not be a deterministic cause, leaving free will and indeterminism. Since indeterminism isn't an option, that leaves free will. However, if there is no free will to cause an event, if an event's cause was another deterministic event, then the chain continues backward into eternity.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 05:49 PM   #188
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,672
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
If I'm wrong, please show me. But just saying "but he was wrong, and so are you" is not helpful because it's not self-evident and you didn't provide any proof.
A full and complete proof will require a five-year university degree plus several more years in a graduate program, culminating in a PhD. Are you sure you want to get into that? I mean, if you do, more power to you. But don't ask for the proof if you can't handle it. Here's a layman's explanation:

Indeterminate (ie, uncaused) events are observed in laboratories all the time. It is very well-established that at any time, a particle-antiparticle pair can burst into existence, uncaused. No-one can predict when such an event is going to occur. These quantum fluctuations are observed in a laboratory as the Casimir Effect, which is a real, measurable force.

Uncaused events occur all the time. Atoms can spontaneously decay into other, lighter atoms. We call this radioactivity, and while it occurs at a specific rate, no-one can predict exactly when a single atom will do it. It is uncaused. Technically it is stochastic.

Remember, these links are to Wikipedia, so if you want proof of these, you need to scroll to the bottom of the page and check the references.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 05:53 PM   #189
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
An intention does not precede a free will action?
Intentions are not free will if you imagine that intentions just happen to us, sort of like how an idea will just pop into your head seemingly without cause. The use of will is free will. Intentions do not cause actions as you can intend to do something but not do it.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 05:57 PM   #190
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Take a dead body. A dead body is pretty much just an inanimate object. While alive it is no different, just animated by free will. However, because the body can be considered inanimate, this means that it has no mind or will just as a rock has no mind or will. Therefore, physical substance can't have free will. Rather, it must be the person who has free will. Meaning, the person is not reduced to anything simpler or any kind of physical substance. It is ultimately a person. This means that free will can not be "evolved" because what evolution evolves are bodies which are just physical objects. So you'd need something like a soul for free will. This is where we run into problems however. I don't know what kind of deal the soul is, but I'm thinking that the soul is fundamentally a person rather than a substance. How that works, I'll have to get back to you on.

Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
If we assume for the moment that free will exists and that your definition if same holds water, the logic above still doesn’t work, as it’s an emergent property of being a live. Throwing a soul in there is a bit of a non sequitur...
Are you saying free will is an emergent property of being alive if one assumes free will exists?
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 06:06 PM   #191
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Please explain the mechanism which causes one uranium atom to spit out an alpha particle whilst the atom next to it does not, even though nothing happens to the first atom that doesn't happen to the second.
If that's true, then indeterminism might be true. But I still can't help but think that it defies reality. It's like you take a fact from reality that says "every event must have a mechanism" and you take another fact, the observation of the uranium atoms that doesn't have a mechanism, and they contradict each. Reality ultimately can not contradict itself, yet another thing I take to be true. But to be honest, I'm a little more suspicious of the experiment than I am of the idea that everything must be coherent. Who knows what you're really looking at when you look at the quantum realm. I would probably have to see some papers that leave no room for other outcomes before I start to believe that reality can essentially defy itself.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 06:12 PM   #192
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Let's take these two together:





You realize that you just disproved your whole setup, ad-absurdum style, right? That is, still assuming you're not going for an "I don't understand QM, therefore it doesn't exist" argument, a la Pixie Of Key.

The fact of the matter is that there are events -- in fact, just about everything in QM -- that DO have an underlying mechanism, but the result is fundamentally non-deterministic. There's a reason I linked to quantum indeterminacy earlier in the thread. Not only there is no way to actually make those deterministic, but you're fundamentally prevented from even getting past a degree of accuracy, no matter how cleverly roundabout you go about it. E.g., if you try to increase the accuracy of measuring where a particle is and what it's doing, by also measuring the effect on another one, you find that now you're more limited in measuring the second one too.

But anyway, there is fundamentally no way to make quantum events deterministic, even though they do have well understood underlying mechanisms.

And anyway, the problem is that your arbitrary dividing nature into those categories is in effect denying reality. And an argument based on being just disconnected from reality isn't taking you very far.


But generally, even allowing for a limited time on your part and all, I would suggest you actually read the answers so far instead launching into more of the same just repeating the same nonsense over and over again. We're not in "The Hunting Of The Snark", and you're not the bellman. A piece of nonsense doesn't become true if you repeat it three times or more.

So, yeah, I would at the very least suggest reading up a bit on QM before launching into more nonsense argumentation that boils down to it being either deterministic, or impossible.

And I would also suggest reading the Kalam cosmological argument, and making sure that you actually HAVE an own argument worth discussing. Because so far you're just doing some unimpressive handwaving around that broken argument, which really isn't impressing anyone around here, by just renaming its stuff. All you've done so far was literally take the "caused" and "uncaused" categories that one uses, and renamed it to "deterministic" and "free will" (but only for God), plus a nonsense third category which you argue is outright impossible. So basically that one is there as, err... what? Smoke screen so it's not that obvious that you're just rehashing Kalam with two words changed?
I think I will read up on some Quantum Mechanics.

And I did not make this argument as a revision of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I don't really like that argument.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 06:16 PM   #193
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
If so then Occam's Razor says that the universe/multiverse is that "something eternal".
Is there something in Occam's Razor that necessitates the simplest explanation being the right explanation? Doesn't it mean that it just is the most likely?
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 06:18 PM   #194
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,672
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I think I will read up on some Quantum Mechanics.
That's a good idea. Make sure you look at some good sources. I recommend In Search of Schrodinger's Cat by John Gribbin. It's well-written for a lay audience, and while it is a bit old now (pub. 1984), the concepts it discusses are still valid.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 06:21 PM   #195
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
We need to sort out these terms

Deterministic means there is exactly one possible next state.

Indeterministic means there is more than one possible next state, and you have now agreed that this is coherent.

You seem to be using "indeterministic" to mean "uncaused" which is not what it means.

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
Yes, I am using the term indeterministic as "uncaused." Indeterminism can describe both randomness and free will. But that's an important distinction to be made. Free will is not randomness. That is why I tried to distinguished them.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 07:15 PM   #196
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
If "having no antecents" is incoherent then everything must have at least one antecedent.

If everything has at least one antecedent then, by definition you have an infinite regress.


Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
An event caused deterministically is externally caused, meaning that it needs something other than it to cause it to happen.

An event caused by free will is caused internally.

Both have antecedents, but free will is not susceptible to infinite regress.

The reason free will is not susceptible to infinite regress is because there is no chain of events of one causing another, rather, just the continuous use of free will.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 07:23 PM   #197
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Not so, the new momentum is a function of both the mass shape and velocity of the cue as well as the mass shape and velocity of the ball itself.


Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
Yes, but the movement is not a choice to move, that is what I mean by internal vs. external causation.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 07:30 PM   #198
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
And again, can you explain why an actual infinity would require there to be a largest number?

Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
Just imagine one apple being created every one second. Since infinity has no end, how could you get an infinite number of apples after an infinite number of seconds? You couldn't get to the point to where it is infinite, all you would have is a continuously growing finite set of apples.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 07:34 PM   #199
Wonder234
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
1. There are three ways that events come about in the world: free will, determinism and indeterminism.

2. Krakatoa erupted.

3.The eruption of Krakatoa is an event.

4. The eruption of Krakatoa can not be due to determinism. (This is because every deterministic event requires a prior event to bring it about and that event requires another event and so on to infinity. A deterministic system can not just initiate action out of nowhere or from a state of rest.)

5. The eruption of Krakatoa can't be due to indeterminism (Since the macroscopic world is largely deterministic rather than indeterministic, what I'm referring to with this premise is the quantum or sub-atomic world. The reason the quantum world can not be indeterministic is because indeterminacy is incoherent and incoherent things can not exist. This turns quantum indeterminacy into determinism since it has causes rather than not having causes and since determinacy has already been ruled out as causing the eruption of Krakatoa, so too is the option of the Krakatoa from quantum mechanical events ruled out.)

6. Therefore, Krakatoa must have erupted through an act of free-will.(This is because there are only three ways events can happen and because determinism and determinism are insufficient, the only other thing that can cause Krakatoa to erupt is free will. Free will works because it avoids the problem of determinacy (always needing prior events) by being able to begin a chain of events without needing a prior event.)

7. Only beings have free will. (Free will requires a mind in order to judge various options and choose)

8. Therefore, a being is responsible for the eruption of Krakatoa. (Since this description matches the idea of God, we can call this being God. But if not God then the being who caused Krakatoa to erupt.



Sent from my Moto C using Tapatalk
You're forgetting that a being can set in motion a series of deterministic events. Think of a person pushing over the first domino of a line of dominos.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2019, 07:35 PM   #200
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,633
Saying "infinite number" means you need to look up a few things about infinity.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.