Free will and determinism

[Neogaia777]

This was covered waaay back in the thread. By pointing out that the reason we know that there was a BB is because everything is deterministic. We can work backwards from each point in time, to investigate what caused each event. It's the very basis of the cosmological argument.

If the universe wasn't deterministic then there'd be no basis on which to base the conclusion.

Yep, that is all very, very true, etc. But he was talking about trying to use the BB as an "uncaused cause" thing though, and that's always going to be pure speculation either way, etc. Thing is though, if he has to go that far back for a "uncaused cause", etc, then, I wonder, is he automatically admitting that it/that can't ever be found except for that, etc?

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yep, that is all very, very true, etc. But he was talking about trying to use the BB as an "uncaused cause" thing though, and that's always going to be pure speculation either way, etc. Thing is though, if he has to go that far back for a "uncaused cause", etc, then, I wonder, is he automatically admitting that it/that can't ever be found except for that, etc?

Take Care.

Well, I'm bored now, so I'll just indulge in a little bit of speculation for a bit, about the BB and what might have been before it for a bit.

There are differing views on how the universe will end. The most prevailing view is that it will end dead, and cold, and with a bunch of big black holes and hardly any stars or matter by the end of it, due to the view that they think the universe is increasing and speeding up in it's expanding, etc. But then there are some who think it doesn't end that way, but that it ends in a "big crunch" with everything being drawn back together eventually into a single point before the end, etc. The former view, which is the most prevailing view right now, has the problem of not being able to explain where the very first particles came from, or how they first started, or came to be, etc. While the latter view at least offers an explanation of how the universe might have very first started or came to be, which was from the ending of a former universe, and without the need of having to have a "God" or whatever to explain how the BB first started or came to be, which is what the former (and most prevailing right now) is lacking right now currently, etc. The former almost has to point to "something else" that caused the very first particles to come to be, etc, but that many are very, very hesitant to call some kind of "God", or other causal explanation, or whatever, etc, but they are essentially saying it came from "nowhere" and "no one" and "nothing", etc, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, etc. This is resolved if the universe was to always end in a big crunch though, but this is not the most prevailing view right now currently, etc.

Anyway, like I said, alot, lot of "pure speculation", etc, because "nobody knows", etc, but it is sometimes fun to consider, or think about sometimes right now currently, etc.

But the only reason we can even know about a BB, is only because of determinism, and determinism only, etc, and @Bradskii is absolutely 100% correct about that, etc.

As for the universe, I guess it depends on which force you think is more, or stronger? The forces expanding, or the gravity trying to draw everything back together, or in on itself, and which one you think will win, or win out, in or by the end. Right now it's difficult to tell if you ask me. I think it's expanding at an equal rate equally everywhere, and is not actually speeding up, or increasing, etc, and because of that, I think that there is an equal amount of chance that gravity could win out in or by the end maybe? Or that both forces could be perpetually equally balanced maybe, but that's pure theory/speculation on my part right now currently, and is a whole other subject entirely.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Well, I'm bored now, so I'll just indulge in a little bit of speculation for a bit, about the BB and what might have been before it for a bit.

There are differing views on how the universe will end. The most prevailing view is that it will end dead, and cold, and with a bunch of big black holes and hardly any stars or matter by the end of it, due to the view that they think the universe is increasing and speeding up in it's expanding, etc. But then there are some who think it doesn't end that way, but that it ends in a "big crunch" with everything being drawn back together eventually into a single point before the end, etc. The former view, which is the most prevailing view right now, has the problem of not being able to explain where the very first particles came from, or how they first started, or came to be, etc. While the latter view at least offers an explanation of how the universe might have very first started or came to be, which was from the ending of a former universe, and without the need of having to have a "God" or whatever to explain how the BB first started or came to be, which is what the former (and most prevailing right now) is lacking right now currently, etc. The former almost has to point to "something else" that caused the very first particles to come to be, etc, but that many are very, very hesitant to call some kind of "God", or other causal explanation, or whatever, etc, but they are essentially saying it came from "nowhere" and "no one" and "nothing", etc, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, etc. This is resolved if the universe was to always end in a big crunch though, but this is not the most prevailing view right now currently, etc.

Anyway, like I said, alot, lot of "pure speculation", etc, because "nobody knows", etc, but it is sometimes fun to consider, or think about sometimes right now currently, etc.

But the only reason we can even know about a BB, is only because of determinism, and determinism only, etc, and @Bradskii is absolutely 100% correct about that, etc.

As for the universe, I guess it depends on which force you think is more, or stronger? The forces expanding, or the gravity trying to draw everything back together, or in on itself, and which one you think will win, or win out, in or by the end. Right now it's difficult to tell if you ask me. I think it's expanding at an equal rate equally everywhere, and is not actually speeding up, or increasing, etc, and because of that, I think that there is an equal amount of chance that gravity could win out in or by the end maybe? Or that both forces could be perpetually equally balanced maybe, but that's pure theory/speculation on my part right now currently, and is a whole other subject entirely.

Take Care/God Bless.

While I'm on the subject of "speculating", If there is a God of this entire universe, and He is responsible for all the deterministic processes that we see, etc, then I don't think He's literally Jesus, or God in the OT, if God in the OT exists, etc (I say this due to all the non-believers out there, etc) But that God in the OT, if he exists, is a/the God of this world, or this solar system maybe, and is the one referred to by Jesus as God the Holy Spirit, who is/has been just as much as in a process of "becoming" from the beginning just as much as any of us are, or ever were, or is, etc. But that the God of the/this whole entire universe, if such a God/Being exists, (who is responsible for all the determinism, etc) (and was who Jesus said he was like, and could show us to through himself, etc) (and claimed to come from/be sent directly from, etc) was who he (Jesus) referred to as "God the/our Heavely Father", in the NT. Who has always been very much different from either of them, or different from Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Spirit/God in the OT, if such a God/God's exist, etc.

Anyway, that should hopefully give you a taste of an idea about some of my theology surrounding this that we are discussing maybe, etc.

The God the Heavenly Father is so far removed from being like a human, that my idea is that He had to have these other two in order for Him to be able to introduce Himself to us, etc, and that's my "why" for the other two right now currently, if any of these God's exist, etc. (Again, I say this only for those of you right now who do not as of yet believe, etc).

Jesus had the exact same revelations about God that I am right now having, etc. Only he had them way back then, etc. And built a whole new theology around it/based upon it, etc. And "nobody saw it", etc. Until today that is, etc.

It's a very good thing Jesus backed up all of his words with the super, or "other-natural", or we'd all be "messed", etc. (would like to use another word, but can't do that here)

God Bless.

 

[o_mlly]

The one event wasn't one of the determining factors in the other? It most definitely was. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever. Could you have predicted the one from the other? Of course not. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever as well.

So is it shown that an inability to to predict an outcome means that it wasn't determined. Of course not.

Now instead of simply repeating variations of 'Oh no it isn't' or 'Oh yes it is' depending on what is being presented, could you address the point that was made and put forward an argument against it?

Feel free (pun intended) to continue to believe in this fairytale you propose.

I missed this, but I'd love a post number so I can check it out.

He weaves his "string to croissant" story throughout the thread. Try #145. CAUTION: RECOMMEND TWO X-TRA STRENTGH ASPIRINS BEFORE STARTING.

He doesn't read my posts....he has me on ignore.

Did you have to pay him for that upgrade?

 

[Aaron112]

Try #145. CAUTION: RECOMMEND TWO X-TRA STRENTGH ASPIRINS BEFORE STARTING.

Warning: Taking <any> asp causes internal bleeding (smallest blood vessels in the brain) so tylenol if needed may be better choice.

 

[o_mlly]

Warning: Taking <any> asp causes internal bleeding (smallest blood vessels in the brain) so tylenol if needed may be better choice.

Thank you. Change "aspirin" to "analgesic". We have enough bleeding brains in this thread.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In the past, a lot of people have had to agree with me on many of my ideas whether they were absolute truths, or where I would stipulate that they are at least either the most likely possibilities right now, or that they were sometimes the only possibility if this or that right now, each of which I would be sure to be honest about, and stipulate, and be very, very clear about, etc. In order to demonstrate, I would have to have you read entire recorded conversations between me, and some other people, and I doubt you are willing to get that deeply vested, or invested in it, etc..

I only meant that it doesn't take an overly deep understanding to at least see/understand the concept, and it's thoughts, and it's arguments, and ideas, etc. Which is why I'm wondering why it seems to be so very difficult for some of you, etc. And the only thing I can come up with is that you're biased, and you only want completely free will choices/decisions to be true, even if they are more than likely not true, etc.

I don't see what Hume's philosophical ideas has to do with this, etc. Most of this has to do with modern day science, and scientific discoveries, and not philosophical ideas, etc.

If they had the same level of scientific knowledge/understanding that we have now today, or have had or have discovered since their day, and if they were truly unbiased thinkers, then I think they would be forced to conclude that determinism is the most likely explanation/possibility of or for or to our reality right now at present currently, etc.

Take Care.

This is an appeal to science as an authority.

Now watch this....

Everything that everything is made up can be shown to be 100% without a doubt always deterministic 100% of the time and always, and I suspect that's what most of them mean when they say "everything", etc. But if not, it's what I mean if I say it at least, etc. How do you get a 100% non-deterministic "thing" from "things/everything" that always, always makes up it, that is always, always, beyond any kind of a shadow of any kind of a logical or reasonable doubt, 100% deterministic always, and that is already way, way beyond proven already, and can be 100% demonstrated/shown already, etc? The answer is you can't ever. It's just 100% not ever possible ever, etc. And that's the scientific argument about it, etc.

And it's already been discussed why we can't use the BB, and it's because nobody knows, etc. But we do know that everything from the very, very first start of it has all been deterministic, and has to have continued to be all deterministic, from the instant it first started, and the very first particles were "excited", or were very first set in motion/started, etc, and from a purely physical standpoint, or as just pure physics, so has everything else been since then, etc.

Just to note, I have been on these forums a very, very long time, and in that amount of time, I've never, ever put anyone on ignore yet, etc. If I want to ignore them, I just ignore them, or mark their posts with a "friendly", and give up for the moment, or let the matter drop for the moment, and go on to other subjects/people, or other things that I think are more worthy of my attention and/or time, etc. I have absolutely no problems with sometimes leaving other people to whatever makes them happy, or their all too comfortable illusions/delusions sometimes, etc. Can't always expect the truth to always be well relieved by absolutely everybody 100% of the time and always, etc. And I try to be fine with that sometimes maybe, etc. I "try" anyway, etc.

Take Care.

This is a denial of scientific authority.

Causes precede effects....temporally. Along a timeline, you won't discuss effects that were followed by their causes...that's not because some significant difference exists between causes and effects....in fact, we can say effects will be causes and causes were once effects.

Regardless....the problem isn't that "nobody knows". Regarding what we do know, there's no time that existed prior to the Big Bang. Spacetime didn't exist prior to the BB....which means there is no time which we can possibly label as "prior to the BB".

Again...no such time as "prior to the BB".

If the BB had a "cause" it would have to have happened after the BB. I get that you don't understand the scientific position on this....but that's ok. If you're appealing to science....the BB is an uncaused effect.

Again, it's really difficult to understand...but since you're appealing to science, and you want an uncaused effect...the BB would certainly count. It's not merely a matter of scientists saying "I don't know"....it's a matter of scientists agreeing "there is no before the BB".

If you want, I'll try to find one of those really smart scientists to explain it for you.

Yep, that is all very, very true, etc. But he was talking about trying to use the BB as an "uncaused cause" thing though, and that's always going to be pure speculation either way, etc.

You're complaining about pure speculation? The entirety of your position rests on pure speculation. I'm pointing out the part that isn't speculated on at all.

Thing is though, if he has to go that far back for a "uncaused cause", etc, then, I wonder, is he automatically admitting that it/that can't ever be found except for that, etc?

Perhaps you haven't really considered your position but the main reason you have to insist that everything is deterministic is because if 1 single thing isn't....then none of it is. There's simply no telling how much would be different if not for that one thing.

 

[Bradskii]

Feel free (pun intended) to continue to believe in this fairytale you propose.

I've not experienced so many posts in a thread that have made no attempt to address the topic. Isn't there some argument that you could put forward? Anything at all? That was really the purpose of starting the thread. I really hoped someone would come up with something worthwhile. Something that could actually challenge the position. This constant reptition of variations of 'oh yes we do' is a complete waste of time.

I mean, please make some sort of effort.

 

[Bradskii]

Warning: Taking <any> asp causes internal bleeding (smallest blood vessels in the brain) so tylenol if needed may be better choice.

Thanks for the heads up. And hey, as I'm here, maybe you could address one point that was raised a little while back. Do you think that Aquinas' cosmological argument is flawed? Or is it a reasonable attempt to reach an understanding of a first cause?

 

[Neogaia777]

This is a denial of scientific authority.

No, it's not actually.

Causes precede effects....temporally. Along a timeline, you won't discuss effects that were followed by their causes...that's not because some significant difference exists between causes and effects....in fact, we can say effects will be causes and causes were once effects.

Every effect is always preceeded by causes in this reality going all the way back except for speculating if anything was before the BB.

Regardless....the problem isn't that "nobody knows". Regarding what we do know, there's no time that existed prior to the Big Bang. Spacetime didn't exist prior to the BB....which means there is no time which we can possibly label as "prior to the BB".

Again...no such time as "prior to the BB".

If the BB had a "cause" it would have to have happened after the BB. I get that you don't understand the scientific position on this....but that's ok. If you're appealing to science....the BB is an uncaused effect.

Causes don't happen after effects, and no one knows if there was anything before the BB.

Causes were once effects, but that were caused by prior causes, going all the way back to the BB. Except for from before that event maybe (which we don't know) all present effects have always been caused/determined by prior causes going all the way back to that event.

Again, it's really difficult to understand...but since you're appealing to science, and you want an uncaused effect...the BB would certainly count. It's not merely a matter of scientists saying "I don't know"....it's a matter of scientists agreeing "there is no before the BB".

No one knows if there was anything before the BB or not, or if there can even be such a thing. But there could be though. But nobody knows though.

If you want, I'll try to find one of those really smart scientists to explain it for you.

I'm game.

You're complaining about pure speculation? The entirety of your position rests on pure speculation. I'm pointing out the part that isn't speculated on at all.

No, it does not, it is a clear scientific fact that everything that makes up everything in this universe is 100% deterministic, and that part is not speculation at all, but is 100% scientific fact.

Perhaps you haven't really considered your position but the main reason you have to insist that everything is deterministic is because if 1 single thing isn't....then none of it is. There's simply no telling how much would be different if not for that one thing.

Nothing is, except for maybe speculating if there is anything outside of this spacetime, or before the BB.

Take Care

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it's not actually.

Of course it is.

Every effect is always preceeded by causes

Except for the BB....there's no "time" before the BB...therefore there's no "before the BB".

I understand that may be difficult to wrap your mind around but that's the scientific concensus.

before the BB.

There's no such time as "before the BB".

What you're speculating about doesn't exist. You would need space and time to already exist to have a time before the BB....and the BB created all space and time.

Causes were once effects, but that were caused by prior causes, going all the way back to the BB. Except for from before that event maybe

Again, how can there be a "before the BB" if time doesn't exist until after the BB?

I'm game.

Shortest, simplest explanation.

No, it does not, it is a clear scientific fact

Please quit talking about facts. You've made assertions, proven nothing.

Nothing is, except for maybe speculating if there is anything outside of this spacetime, or before the BB.

Well that makes a "cause" for the BB impossible then.

 

[Neogaia777]

Of course it is.

No, It's not, and I'm not.

Except for the BB....there's no "time" before the BB...therefore there's no "before the BB".

"If" there was anything quote/unquote "before" the BB, it is right now not knowable to or for us right now, which is why it's pointless to discuss, or to try to use as evidence for a thing that has no cause, because, right now, none of us knows, or can know that right now currently, etc.

I understand that may be difficult to wrap your mind around but that's the scientific concensus.

I think you're the one who is having difficulties with their mind. But, "whatever"...

There's no such time as "before the BB".

What you're speculating about doesn't exist. You would need space and time to already exist to have a time before the BB....and the BB created all space and time.

Use any word you want to, or whatever kind of words you think are applicable, because the real truth is that none of them might not entirely applicable right now currently, etc, since we are beings of our space-time, and only what we can know of that only right now currently, etc. And the evidence all says that that (the universe, or anything that is made up of space-time) is all pretty much entirely deterministic right now currently BTW.

Again, how can there be a "before the BB" if time doesn't exist until after the BB?

If any person or scientist is going to be 100% honest, then they must conclude that we don't know if there was quote/unquote is/was anything quote/unquote before/outside of/above/beyond, etc, etc, etc, the BB or not, or quote/unquote beyond our space-time or not, etc.

Again, it's pointless to discuss, let alone to try and use as evidence for an "uncaused cause", etc. Because we just "don't know", etc.

Shortest, simplest explanation.

Quote/unquote "before" is not the only term we can try to use, but none of our current words/terms may be adequate right now, as I have already said, and/or discussed.

Words/terms/defintions confined or invented inside our time and space might not ever be adequate, etc. But there always might could have been/may be "something" rather than "nothing", etc. You can say "before", "beyond", "outside of", "above", and none of these terms may apply, as they only apply to our understanding within our own space-time, and are only often used to describe what is only within our own space-time, etc. And no one who is ever being intellectually honest or otherwise about anything right now can ever definitively say there was for 100% sure "nothing", or can ever definitively for 100% sure say there was "something", as right now it is a just a definitively 100% for sure "unknown" to all of us right now currently.

So talking about what was quote/unquote "before it" is kind of pointless to talk about right now currently, until we have any kind of proof of that, if we ever do ever, etc. Because until then, we don't ever, and may not ever right now currently, etc.

And absolutely no one with half a brain can certainly try to use it as "proof of an non-deterministic universe", etc, as the universe has already been proven to be deterministic by science, etc. It's even how we can even know about a BB, etc.

Please quit talking about facts. You've made assertions, proven nothing.

Science has proven that everything that makes up everything is always deterministic always, and you're going to call that and "assertion" or "assumption"??? Just where is that planet that you come from that tries to change, not what I have proven, or am trying to prove, but what science has already shown/proven for quite some time now, etc? Because I might like to visit it sometime, as long as you promise me I won't be affected/infected by it's madness or insanity, etc.

Back to subject, you cannot get non-deterministic processes from what is/are the building blocks of which are always, always 100% deterministic, and you cannot try and change the fact that science has already proven that by just the words coming out of your mouth that it hasn't, etc.

Well that makes a "cause" for the BB impossible then.

We can still speculate, but we might never know for a long time yet, and maybe might not ever know maybe, etc, and that is the only honest conclusion right now for anyone who is being intellectually honest whenever talking about whatever was quote/unquote "before" the BB.

But, if the universe is ever shown to end in a big crunch, then we would have a plausible explanation for it maybe, etc. But untl then, we don't right now know, and might not ever know, right now currently, etc.

Take Care.

 

[Bradskii]

And absolutely no one with half a brain can certainly try to use it as "proof of an non-deterministic universe", etc, as the universe has already been proven to be deterministic by science, etc. It's even how we can even know about a BB, etc.

If we couldn't work backwards to determine what caused this current condition and then back from then to determine what caused the previous condition then it would not be possible to determine what was the 'first cause'. Or at least the point at which we can go back no further. An acceptance that there was a Big Bang, or a starting point, or a point at which we can go back no further or an original uncaused cause has to accept that from that point on the universe is deterministic.

 

[o_mlly]

This constant reptition of variations of 'oh yes we do' is a complete waste of time.

The above sums up your "argument" quite well.

 

[Bradskii]

The above sums up your "argument" quite well.

Then reply to the point about the cosmological argument. Are the premises valid?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, It's not, and I'm not.

I'm sure you think that.

"If" there was anything quote/unquote "before" the BB, it is right now not knowable to or for us right now, which is why it's pointless to discuss, or to try to use as evidence for a thing that has no cause, because, right now, none of us knows, or can know that right now currently, etc.

I gave you a hypothetical about 2 doors and causes....you had no problem declaring a specific cause for each door despite not knowing the cause.

Now you don't know and it's a big mystery.

Use any word you want to, or whatever kind of words you think are applicable, because the real truth is that none of them might not entirely applicable right now currently, etc, since we are beings of our space-time, and only what we can know of that only right now currently, etc.

You can only know of right now currently, but are certain of what was and will be.

Ok.

Again, it's pointless to discuss, let alone to try and use as evidence for an "uncaused cause", etc. Because we just "don't know", etc.

Well we know it happened....don't know of a cause.

Words/terms/defintions confined or invented inside our time and space might not ever be adequate, etc. But there always might could have been/may be "something" rather than "nothing", etc. You can say "before", "beyond", "outside of", "above", and none of these terms may apply, as they only apply to our understanding within our own space-time

Or "cause" and "effect".

Science has proven that everything that makes up everything is always deterministic always, and you're going to call that and "assertion" or "assumption"???

Yeah....unless you have the scientific research paper "proving everything deterministic"....it's an assertion.

Back to subject, you cannot get non-deterministic processes

Except for the BB.

We can still speculate

Speculation is all you've done....you can restate the same assertion 100 times, it doesn't magically become fact.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If we couldn't work backwards to determine what caused this current condition

Sigh....

If we were to consider the number of times we've been successful in "working our way backwards" to determine what caused this current state....

And count those times against all the times we got it wrong.

It would seem that at any given time, our model of the universe is more likely incorrect.

Regardless, you can't work your way backwards to determine what caused a single behavior.....forget everything else.

Your confidence is misplaced.

 

[o_mlly]

Then reply to the point about the cosmological argument.

Why cite an argument whose conclusion you reject?

Try reading the Angelic Saint's argument for free will -- ST I-I, Q 83.

 

[Bradskii]

Why cite an argument whose conclusion you reject?

Try reading the Angelic Saint's argument for free will -- ST I-I, Q 83.

I'm interested to know if you'll accept the premise. I'm not really interested in his conclusion. So do you think his premise is sound?

 

[Stephen3141]

All decisions we make are determined by existing and prior influences. There has been an effectively infinite chain of events which has resulted in me sitting here writing this sentence. They have all led to this point. From the major events - I was born at a specific time and place, to the minor ones - it's raining today, to the seemingly inconsequential - I broke a string on my guitar last night.

There is no way that existence cannot be described other than determined.

The question is then not whether we make decisions that affect the trajectory of future events - I obviously decided to do this rather than something else. But if free will is defined as the ability to make decisions that are not determined by prior events and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision, then something actually needs to be different. But rerunning it exactly as it happened means that nothing is different.

So free will cannot be compatible with determinism. And if existence is deterministic then free will is an illusion.

I think that you have some problems, with your argument.

There is a difference between the assertions...

1 My decisions are determined, on a very low level, by the chemical conditions
in my brain....

2 My decisions are determined by the previous events that have happened in
my life (determined, somehow)...

3 Previous events that have happened in my life, are a consideration (perhaps)
to the decisions that I am making, now

4 Different individuals IDENTIFY different previous events that are meaningful
to them, or not meaningful to them, when they are making decisions...

5 Orthodox Christians OUGHT TO identify certain previous events that have
happened in their life, which SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN
THEY MAKE CURRENT DECISIONS...

The assertion that we make decisions currently, that are DETERMINED by
previous events in our life, bypasses the hugely important topic of how we
identify "events", and how we choose to sort them into the bins of "events
that are relevant to my decision making now", and "events that are not
relevant to my decision making now".

I think that you are artificially SIMPLIFYING the intellectual choices that
we make, and avoiding the valuation systems, and way we perceive our
shared reality, into some sort of fake "I'm making a decision now"
operation.

Many of the younger generations have an attention span problem. They have
not seriously developed their virtue of self-control, to carefully listen to and
mentally follow careful arguments. As a result, "events" that are careful,
logical arguments that they HAVE ENCOUNTERED, they probably perceive
as NOT HAVING HAPPENED at all, besides, not being relevant to their
decision making.

I think that you need to deal with the problem of how our choices, create
preferences, and how our preferences then affect whether we seek truth,
or avoid truth, or honestly recognize truth when we encounter it.