• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

  • The rule regarding AI content has been updated. The rule now rules as follows:

    Be sure to credit AI when copying and pasting AI sources. Link to the site of the AI search, just like linking to an article.

Free will is bogus

Chany

Uncertain Absurdist
Nov 29, 2011
6,428
228
In bed
✟30,379.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That is part of the paradox: just because your existence is qualatatively or quantitatively determined doesn't mean you are excused from responsibility.

Everything that you have ever done, and everything that you will do has already happened. The paradox of time is that the future, present and past do not exist. They are conveniences to help non-immortal, created beings perceive their existence.

You have already chosen how to react to and done what you will do in half an hour. The fact that "space-time" has perceivably "unfolded" to provide you with a view of the evolution of events that leads you to each temporal point is for your cosmic benefit.

The paradox says it is an illusion because in a large way it is an illusion since time is an illusion. On the other hand, the lack of free will as determined by the stasis of creation, and existence is a consequence of existence itself - existing all the time in every way.

We are cells in the universal body.

How? You say it is a paradox, but you do nothing to alievate the paradox or show what you say makes me resposible if I'm programmed to be what I am prior to my existence. It's like saying "Married bachelors are paradoxes, but still, married bachelors exist."

I don't care about your B-theory of time or how everything is one, as it does not explain how I am responsible, even if I assume it to be true. In fact, saying the future is fixed is exactly what a deterministic argument desires.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Chany

Uncertain Absurdist
Nov 29, 2011
6,428
228
In bed
✟30,379.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There's a difference between knowing what another being will do and controlling what another being will do.

Your view seems to be that God knows what everyone will do and therefore controls everyone's actions, leaving them not responsible for their actions, but this is not the view that Christians take of God, we view God as having knowledge of all our actions and this is how He ultimately rewards or punishes us with perfect and complete justice.

No, that is not my view at all. The very first line of my post is "It has nothing to do with future knowledge at all". I am discussing determinism. The question of determinism and divine foreknowledge is an entirely seperate issue. I am saying that if determinism is true, then moral responsibility appears to be an illusion, just like the notion of free will and control would be.
 
Upvote 0

tatteredsoul

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2016
1,942
1,035
New York/Int'l
✟29,634.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I wasn't intending to describe quantum mechanics particularly, I was talking philosophically; but it comes to the same thing in this case.

That would be contrary to both classical and quantum physics, and there's no plausible evidence for it.

Not necessarily,

QM chromodynamics, accelerators and lensing are breaking into the science of the future, and future information exchange. Elementary quantum mechanics is elementary; what was determined in 1935 is quickly being intellectually innovated, corrected and expanded upon.

If movies are being made about these techniques, you can bet grant money is, and has been being distributed to study and expand upon the subject. I had the option of studying this particular path in university. Science hasn't quite caught up to what people call "magic" yet.

I don't see that that follows except as cultural convention; we trivially have objective physical responsibility for our actions, but moral responsibility is a subjective abstract construct of social consciousness, reasoning thought, and intelligence. Are subjective conceptual abstractions real? it depends what you mean by 'real'.

I said morality, and other subjective principles because I was in mixed spiritual company on the thread. I personally don't worry about morality because of its subjectivity, and I believe other philosophies that incorporate morality (such as spiritual principles) do more than enough to cover morality.

Morality in an of itself is for morals - entities that die. I stated it for that reason also, but certainly each living entity has its own definition of the principles for which mortal being's live and interact in life (morality.)

The overall point is knowledge of future, the collapse of time, bilocation and perception into the fabric of space-time, and other predictive "magics" do not negate personal responsibility for one''s preceived choices.
 
Upvote 0

tatteredsoul

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2016
1,942
1,035
New York/Int'l
✟29,634.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
How? You say it is a paradox, but you do nothing to alievate the paradox or show what you say makes me resposible if I'm programmed to be what I am prior to my existence. It's like saying "Married bachelors are paradoxes, but still, married bachelors exist."

I don't care about your B-theory of time or how everything is one, as it does not explain how I am responsible, even if I assume it to be true. In fact, saying the future is fixed is exactly what a deterministic argument desires.

You arent programmed against aNY faculties of your existence now, or in the future. The paradox is everything you have done, and will do has already been done. I think you are mixing your "programmed life" with a disqualification of responsibility on your part.

You will lie in four hours because from the foundation of the universe (however billions of years ago you think that is) you already did that.

13 billion years ago, you replied to me.

13 billion years ago, you wrote a reply to this message.

Time is ironically what makes things confusing because 1) it is an allusion, and 2) our actions, and the intelligence and reason for our actions are erroneously attached to this illusion.

This also adds to the paradox of free will - especially if you only think of it in current or temporal frames. You already did everything you will ever do in your entire life. It was done at the foundation of the universe. That doesn't mean your life was dictated by unfair forces beyond your control. You are just experiencing those decisions now.

The paradox has always been attempted to be solved the same way: through an "enlightenment" beyond basic carnal thinking and living. It is the attempt to become unity with everything - to successfully reach the point where time does not exist, and you are in unity with some manifold of thoughtform outside of your own existence.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,407
8,144
✟358,196.00
Faith
Atheist
Apologies for all the questions, but clarification is required.

Not necessarily
How so?

QM chromodynamics, accelerators and lensing are breaking into the science of the future, and future information exchange. Elementary quantum mechanics is elementary; what was determined in 1935 is quickly being intellectually innovated, corrected and expanded upon.
So ? Are you suggesting that the fundamentals of quantum field theory are likely to change to make those fantasies possible?

"Elementary quantum mechanics is elementary" - tautology is tautologous.

If movies are being made about these techniques, you can bet grant money is, and has been being distributed to study and expand upon the subject.
Movies, therefore grants? Are you sure that's how it works?

I had the option of studying this particular path in university.
OK; and what was name of that particular path you studied?

Science hasn't quite caught up to what people call "magic" yet.
Can you be more specific?

Morality in an of itself is for morals - entities that die.
Do you mean mortals?

... certainly each living entity has its own definition of the principles for which mortal being's live and interact in life (morality.)
Even living entities that don't have brains to think with?

The overall point is knowledge of future, the collapse of time, bilocation and perception into the fabric of space-time, and other predictive "magics" do not negate personal responsibility for one''s preceived choices.
Are you sure it's possible to have knowledge of the future ? What do you mean by 'the collapse of time' ?
 
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟82,927.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
No, that is not my view at all. The very first line of my post is "It has nothing to do with future knowledge at all". I am discussing determinism. The question of determinism and divine foreknowledge is an entirely seperate issue. I am saying that if determinism is true, then moral responsibility appears to be an illusion, just like the notion of free will and control would be.

Nah. It wouldn't be an illusion. It would simply play out through the same deterministic paradigms. It would merely be competing deterministic sequences that collide and result in some ultimate outcome. A job of a cop is to recognize and catch criminals. Thus they would do just that. Moral responsibility is a retrospective judgement, so it wouldn't suffer in this case.
 
Upvote 0

tatteredsoul

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2016
1,942
1,035
New York/Int'l
✟29,634.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Apologies for all the questions, but clarification is required.

How so?

So ? Are you suggesting that the fundamentals of quantum field theory are likely to change to make those fantasies possible?

It is already happening, it just isn't mainstream yet.

But yes.

"Elementary quantum mechanics is elementary" - tautology is tautologous.

Indeed. But, I think people forget how young quantum mechanics is - how elementary it is - and they hear quantum and think the highest possible paradigm of scientific possibility. It is just the beginning, and a lot has been changed since 1935.

Movies, therefore grants? Are you sure that's how it works?
Let's keep the context: in order for a movie to posit their fantasies, they need to have a measure of scientific truth(iness) to them. Real scientists are often hired to consult scripts, providing possible (not necessarily real) options that would work with the plot.

Gene Roddenberry hired top level physicists for Star Trek, and one of his consultant noted for creating the equation that determines the number of species in a galaxy actually made several drafts of the mathematics used to determine this on the show.

And, during this time similar military projects were created that exploited the possibility and practicality of these fantasies. Some of these projects are declassified. That, of course, is just in the States.

So, no movies don't equate to grant money, but art imitates life. Someone with enough money can privately fund scientists in order to indulge their fantasies no matter how fantastic - and they do. Public and government grant money is a small percentage of grant money compared to private interests.


OK; and what was name of that particular path you studied?

I could have gone into cracking CTCs and quantum superposition, but I chose to go into quantum chromodynamics instead. If I had actually gone that route I may have been on a team that worked to debunk the paradox of backward time travel in the late 2000s.

Can you be more specific?

On the magic? A contextual extrapolation may be different in the form of an analogy:

600 years ago, if you told someone that you could manipulate the flow of electrons and produce light without fire, you would be considered a magician or demonic ally possessed. 400+ years ago, you were considered "woo woo, heretical, silly, stupid, and downright demonic" if you suggested that little living organisms caused most all illnesses in the human body. 40 years ago, you would lose your reputation, and possibly even have scholarly articles pulled if you went against the status quo, and suggested many ulcers are caused by the H. pylori bacteria, and not stress or spicy food.

Right now, with quantum mechanics, we are at another stage of witch trial in which the impossible is impossible to the contemporary population (including scientists) because that is the status quo.

"Magic" like dark matter manipulation, reverse direction CTCs, and EM remote viewing will be as obviously possible as light switches - as soon as the physics convinces people it isn't magic, but nature.

Do you mean mortals?

Yes. Autocorrected by mistake.

Even living entities that don't have brains to think with?

Every living entity can think; human arrogance and perceived intelligence totems intelligence and consciousness on very crude, rudimentary categories (like the reflection self-aware test.) In reality, we do not know whether or not an ant, or protozoa has any more or less "consciousness" and ability to think than we do. We just assume so based on size, activity, behavior, and other factors calibrated to the measure of our own rubric for consciousness and cognition. So, yes even protozoa may reason and have a sense of "morality." We see this in the animal kingdom all the time - interspecies care for example implies compassion, which implies thinking, which implies consciousness.

Are you sure it's possible to have knowledge of the future ? What do you mean by 'the collapse of time' ?

Yes it is possible to have knowledge of the future - with variable precision and accuracy. Magic(k)ians - dark magicians - have practiced divination and Oracle reads f or thousands of years with commendable precision and accuracy. Prophets have done this throughout time. Persons claiming enlightenment have been shown to have measures of precognition. There exists people with psionic abilities that have been used by the CIA and government in their remote viewing programs - fighting against Russia's and China''s own remote viewing program. Physics has caught up to the "soothsayers, oracles, prophets and enlightened," in one of the most fantastic mainstream ways of providing insight on the possibility of backward CTC travel - despite what the early "fathers" of special relativity and QM adamantly spoke against.
 
Upvote 0

tatteredsoul

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2016
1,942
1,035
New York/Int'l
✟29,634.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Another movie that touches on this - less on the science but more on the morality and possibility of bilocation, grandfather paradox and so on is

"Predestination" with Ethan Hawke. Really good movie.

There is also a movie with Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt about paradoxes called "Looper."

These movies specifically talk on the subject of "free will," how unrestricted it is, and the responsibility of the individual despite participating in temporal kinetics.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,407
8,144
✟358,196.00
Faith
Atheist
It is already happening, it just isn't mainstream yet.
...
...
OK, thanks; that tells me all I need to know.

E.T.A. incidentally, Rodenberry faked the Drake Equation when he pitched Star Trek to the studios... just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

toLiJC

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2012
3,041
227
✟35,877.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Free will is bogus, why you say, consider freewill is merely the claimed right one’s own judgement of what is good for one’s self. But if two or more people coexist then that isn’t true anymore, because coexistence requires agreement. And that agreement is the choice for what is good for all participants.

Therefore, a true freewill believer is what some would call a sociopath. He would do according to his own judgment of what is good for himself, and not what is agreed as good for the group at large.

even more interesting is the question how some people choose one thing, while others - another?!, where does the choice come from?!, what makes people (including identical twins, triplets, etc.) choose different things?!

Blessings
 
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟82,927.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
"Magic" like dark matter manipulation, reverse direction CTCs, and EM remote viewing will be as obviously possible as light switches - as soon as the physics convinces people it isn't magic, but nature.

Generally, from what I've seen about "Magick" .... there's generally a lot of QM woo to justify something like reducing some thought to a symbol rather arbitrarily, and then claim that that symbol has some power. It seems like a rather subjective projection of "super-human abilities" on ordinary events. So far no one has been able to demonstrate the abilities you are talking about.
 
Upvote 0

tatteredsoul

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2016
1,942
1,035
New York/Int'l
✟29,634.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Generally, from what I've seen about "Magick" .... there's generally a lot of QM woo to justify something like reducing some thought to a symbol rather arbitrarily, and then claim that that symbol has some power. It seems like a rather subjective projection of "super-human abilities" on ordinary events. So far no one has been able to demonstrate the abilities you are talking about.

And, no one will demonstrate the abilities I talk about until the maximum amount of money can be made over the longest period of time. When a technology or energy source is released en mass to the public, it has been around for sever decades.

Right now, there is no incentive to power a layperson - especially billions of them. So, you won't see it. That doesn't mean it isn't here and we'll understood. It is part of covert ops, and private industry. Neither industry has an obligation to talk about, reveal the details, or detail a public opening on said tech.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
If free will is an illusion, then it would appear the moral responsibility (i.e. responsible for our actions) that is tied to is also an illusion. That's ths big issue. Some philosophers consider that loss of responsibility alone an argument against incompatibilist determinism.
Argument from consequence, anyone?

Btw, I actually don´t even see the problem with the loss of "responsibility (based on the assumption of free will)".
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
even more interesting is the question how some people choose one thing, while others - another?!, where does the choice come from?!
From north of the northpole. ;)
what makes people (including identical twins, triplets, etc.) choose different things?!
I´m not sure i understand why that´s even a question: different genetics, different experiences, different conditions, different situations...
Actually, I would find it more in need of an explanation if everyone would choose the same.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
34,084
21,112
Orlando, Florida
✟1,611,385.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I think the issue is actually theological, not anthropological. The anthropological pessimism comes from the theology and flawed spirituality, ultimately.

The determinism hinted at in some Christian theologies, the denial of human freedom implies God just hates some people and wants them damned no matter what they want.

I don't find this compatible with reading early church fathers like Athanasius. Athanasius says because God is perfectly good and noble, he is the lover of mankind, even though they have fallen into corruption and turned away from him, he cannot despise what he has made. That's far and away from the frequent depiction of God as burning angry with wrath at sinners.
 
Upvote 0

toLiJC

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2012
3,041
227
✟35,877.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
From north of the northpole. ;)

there has also been a south - get serious if you are not

I´m not sure i understand why that´s even a question: different genetics, different experiences, different conditions, different situations...
Actually, I would find it more in need of an explanation if everyone would choose the same.

and where and what were we the humans before God created us from scratch?!, were we able to think, know and choose then?!

Blessings
 
Upvote 0

Chany

Uncertain Absurdist
Nov 29, 2011
6,428
228
In bed
✟30,379.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Argument from consequence, anyone?

Btw, I actually don´t even see the problem with the loss of "responsibility (based on the assumption of free will)".

Without another starting point for responsibility, we would lose the notion of desert (deserving something) when it comes to our actions and all the things that depend on it.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
Without another starting point for responsibility, we would lose the notion of desert (deserving something) when it comes to our actions and all the things that depend on it.
And that would be a "loss" exactly how?
If these are untenable concepts - why not replace them with more appropriate concepts?
 
Upvote 0

Chany

Uncertain Absurdist
Nov 29, 2011
6,428
228
In bed
✟30,379.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
And that would be a "loss" exactly how?
If these are untenable concepts - why not replace them with more appropriate concepts?

First, on a personal level, anyone who is aware free will is an illusion now knows that whatever they do was determined by a roll of the dice, so they do not deserve praise or blame for their actions. You intentionally hurt someone? You are not really responsible for your action; you do not deserve blame for your actions, because you are just following the cards that were set before you. Now, people can still judge your character and say it is bad, but they can't blame you for it; in that sense, you are as innocent as an animal or a newborn infant. The same goes for praise for a good action. The same is for my introspection on myself and my own actions.

Second, the notion of social and legal punishment becomes hard to justify philosophically. Deterrence theory has a lot of problems and rehabilitation is only so effective. The only other option is quarantine theory, but this only works for extreme cases.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
First, on a personal level, anyone who is aware free will is an illusion now knows that whatever they do was determined by a roll of the dice,
"Roll of the dice"? How did you from determinism to randomism??
so they do not deserve praise or blame for their actions.
Sounds fine to me.
You intentionally hurt someone? You are not really responsible for your action;
I asked you what exactly you mean by "responsible". It seems to be a buzz-word more than anything else.
you do not deserve blame for your actions,
Yes. How´s that a problem?
because you are just following the cards that were set before you.
We aren´t talking about randomism, we are talking about determinism.
Now, people can still judge your character and say it is bad, but they can't blame you for it;
Even upon the third time you mention this, I don´t see why that´s a problem.
in that sense, you are as innocent as an animal or a newborn infant.
Actually, guilt and innocence wouldn´t be workable concepts anymore.
The same goes for praise for a good action.
So what?
The same is for my introspection on myself and my own actions.
I can do what I have always done: Look at my actions, judge them good or bad, receive the consequences, and premeditate whether or not to change my behaviour.

Indeed, it would only make sense to praise or criticize the action. Now, how´s that a problem? Sure, it will require us to change some moral paradigms - but, well, that´s actually how we deal with things when we learn that our concepts are inaccurate. We typically don´t say "Let´s keep to our inaccurate preconceptions, because else we would have to change something."
(Btw. most definitely you can blame someone or praise someone - it wouldn´t be your "responsibility", either. ;) )

Second, the notion of social and legal punishment becomes hard to justify philosophically. Deterrence theory has a lot of problems and rehabilitation is only so effective. The only other option is quarantine theory, but this only works for extreme cases.
Actually, we don´t have any problem reacting decisively against things and beings aren´t considered to have free will.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0