Free will and determinism

[QvQ]

determinism on at least a limited timescale,

Act of God
God created Heaven and Earth (space and matter)
God set creation in motion (curvature of space/time)

Will of God
If "will is defined as a navigation system
The WIll of God is the navigation system for His creation.

The universe would still require a hierarchical first cause, which like the linear first cause one may or may not identify as God. But it HAS to be there whether determinism is true or not.

Hawkings said, "if nothing goes on long enough, something will happen" (Big Bang)
Probability to Hawking was the First Cause

 

[partinobodycular]

Hawkings said, "if nothing goes on long enough, something will happen" (Big Bang)
That to Hawking was the First Cause which makes probability the "first cause."

Well then that would make Hawking's 'nothing' God. Be it a quantum field or whatever. But it also means that that quantum field, i.e. God, is still there, and reality can't exist without Him. So "He is only required at the beginning" is simply wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

Keep in mind that there are two first causes, a linear first cause which implies determinism on at least a limited timescale, and a hierarchical first cause which makes no reference at all to determinism.

It doesn't need to. It considers things at any given moment in time. For a cause and an effect to have any meaning, a static moment in time isn't relevant. A hierarchical first cause isn't an alternative to a linear one (determinism). It's a different concept entirely. It might have some limited use in a rather poor argument for God being what's 'holding everything up'.

And I have no idea what you mean by 'limited time scale'. If you use determinism to posit a first cause then you are starting from the present moment and working back to the very first moment. That obviously encompasses all of time.

 

[Bradskii]

The radio silence is because of that proof of God causal argument, so determinism is the tradition
But then there must be free will or God becomes the "cause of sin."

Well, that's your problem. Not mine. I'm not interested in theological arguments for or against free will.

 

[Bradskii]

Determism proves God if you believe God set the ball rolling, took off His bowling shoes and left the alley
Then God may exist but not as an effective agent in the subsequent scheme of things.
He is only required at the beginning.

First up...my bad. I said 'So determinism is therefore false'. That should have obviously said 'So determinism is therefore true'.

And determinism only 'proves' God as a first cause if you accept that for every event there is a cause. From right now back to the creation. If you get to God as being the first cause then you have accepted determinism. There's no getting around that. The 'proof' depends on it.

And free will is an illusion if you believe you can do anything you want, anytime you want.

No. There are obviously things that you cannot do whether free will exists or not. Believing that you can is irrelevant (and nonsensical). We most definitely feel as if it exists but unless someone can disprove determinism or put forward a reasonable explanation of how free will is compatible with it, then it is indeed an illusion.

There are other proofs of God. Most Christians have likely never heard of deteminism and free will arguments. Doesn't seem to matter one whit to the Faithful

As long as they don't think about it. Personally I think that anyone who believes that God was the first cause and he created us with free will has a problem with which to contend. But as I say, that doesn't concern me.

 

[Bradskii]

It is true that there is an unbroken chain of space/time from now back to then.
That isn't determinism because determinism implies causes as the engine of motion.
However, curvature of space/time
"Matter tells space how to bend and space tells matter how to move."

That's worthless pseudo science.

It is an illusion that man has free will.

I wish you'd pick a lane and stick to it...

 

[partinobodycular]

A hierarchical first cause isn't an alternative to a linear one (determinism). It's a different concept entirely.

True. I pointed it out simply to counter @QvQ's comment that:

Determism proves God if you believe God set the ball rolling, took off His bowling shoes and left the alley
Then God may exist but not as an effective agent in the subsequent scheme of things.
He is only required at the beginning. The clockwork universe and God is the clockmaker.

Even if determinism is true you still need a hierarchical first cause to sustain it.

It might have some limited use in a rather poor argument for God being what's 'holding everything up'.

True. Then again I find all metaphysical arguments for God to be rather poor. But if you're gonna use'em, get'em right.

And I have no idea what you mean by 'limited time scale'. If you use determinism to posit a first cause then you are starting from the present moment and working back to the very first moment. That obviously encompasses all of time.

You yourself pointed out the problem. Determinism only applies from the present moment in time back to the first moment in time. Therefore the presence of time would be a rather obvious limiting factor. Unless time is infinite.

Which I admit does puzzle me concerning Hawking's theory of the spontaneous creation of something from nothing, if 'nothing' simply lasts long enough. How does one measure time if nothing exists by which to measure it? The only logical conclusion that my lack of education can reach, is that given a lack of scalars, all time would exist at the same time, therefore the probability of something spontaneously fluctuating into existence from nothing would always be 100%, and the amount of time that one would have to wait for this to happen is always zero. Therefore something has always existed, and the only real 'first cause' is that hierarchical first cause. I.E Hawking's 'time', from which reality fluctuates into existence. So if you want to find God, look to physics, not metaphysics.

I realize that that is so confusing as to border on madness. (Or cross it) But that's what happens when you spend too much time outside of the box.

 

[QvQ]

I wish you'd pick a lane and stick to it...

You cannot reduce the argument to one liners
Or take a quote out of context and ascribe a position thereby

Determinism Causal Chain
Jim's cause of death: tree falling on him, soft soil, cardiac arrest. wind storm + all causes for Jim being there...ad infinitum
This is a descriptive not a dynamic model

Scientific Determinism Laws of Physics
"Feyman proposed that a system got from a state A, to a state B, by every possible path or history. Each path or history has a certain amplitude or intensity, and the probability of the system going from A- to B, is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path."

A person comes to a T cross intersection where the road ahead ends.
He can go left or right
The amplitude or intensity of the path decides the path.

However:
Man has a will, to act of necessity, not compulsion

The amplitude or intensity is equal for both paths.
It is the person who chooses or decides.
A person wants to go to the back of the store
He can go down Aisle A or Aisle B
The person, as navigator, decides

Or a path is of great amplitude or intensity
A person subject to torture will not speak

IT is scientific determinism, according to the laws of physics
And what is willed is of necessity and not compelled.
A person is not a tree. A person is bound by space and time.
Within that he navigates with some degree of autonomy, which is Will.

 

[Reneep]

Time is our illusion because God made a round planet to spin. He is outside of the illusion
Everything only exists in the mind of God.

 

[Bradskii]

You cannot reduce the argument to one liners
Or take a quote out of context and ascribe a position thereby

Determinism Causal Chain
Jim's cause of death: tree falling on him, soft soil, cardiac arrest. wind storm + all causes for Jim being there...ad infinitum

It's a sequence of events. It's a list of antecedent conditions. You are telling me what caused Jim's death. The coronor will report that those conditions determined his death. It couldn't be any more obvious.

 

[QvQ]

It's a sequence of events. It's a list of antecedent conditions. You are telling me what caused Jim's death. The coronor will report that those conditions determined his death. It couldn't be any more obvious

I would think that Feyman's proposal is in Your Op. Did you read my entire post? #3728

"Feyman proposed that
A system got from a state A, to a state B, by every possible path or history.
Each path or history has a certain amplitude or intensity,
And the probability of the system going from A- to B, is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path."

Exactly
I disagree with "cause' and "caused"as it implies that "cause" is the engine of motion. And a cause is an isolate, rather than as component being additonal to the amplification of each path.
I do agree man has a Will or some autonomy within the system

 

[Bradskii]

Sequentially, Jim always walked under that tree on Tuesday. So it was Tuesday that caused Jim's death.
To make a chain of causes is to isolate one possibility from an infinite list of possibles
And the cause of death is always, sudden unexpected cardiac arrest, because until the heart stops...
Gravity was the cause of death and that isn't a sequential chain at all. It is a condition of the time.

Your honour, it's obvious that my client didn't cause the man's death by throwing him off the roof. It was gravity that was the cause. Oh, and the fact that it was Tuesday.

Abject nonsense.

 

[QvQ]

Your honour, it's obvious that my client didn't cause the man's death by throwing him off the roof.

Your Honour, his client caused the man's death by throwing him off the roof.
SO you are admitting Free Wll? An accountable agency?

Are we discussing Determinism v Free Will
Or are we going to argue endlessly about cause and effect?
See Post #3731

 

[Bradskii]

Your Honour, his client caused the man's death by throwing him off the roof.

Good. I'm glad that's obvious to you.

SO you are admitting Free Wll? An accountable agency?

I'm telling you the proximate cause of the man's death. What determined it.

Are we discussing Determinism v Free Will
Or are we going to argue endlessly about cause and effect?

We'll argue about cause and effect each time you argue that it doesn't exist. If you accept that it does we can then discuss the implications for free will. We can't do the latter until the former is settled.

 

[QvQ]

We'll argue about cause and effect each time you argue that it doesn't exist. If you accept that it does we can then discuss the implications for free will. We can't do the latter until the former is settled.

Scientific Determinism Laws of Physics
"Feyman proposed that a system got from a state A, to a state B, by every possible path or history. Each path or history has a certain amplitude or intensity, and the probability of the system going from A- to B, is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path."

That is not cause and effect. That is all the factors of amplification and intensity.
Cause and effect is maybe yes, may be no. It is true in theory but not always in practice.

"It may have appeared from where the witness was standing, that my client pushed the man off the roof but the man slipped and fell. My client never actually touched him"
In Physics, cause and effect is limited to frame of reference.

I stated my arguments for Scientific Determinism and Free Will in post #3728
Either one of two things is happening here.
You scan my posts and cherry pick what you think it means
Or I could C/P your OP and you would call it abject nonsense, in which case it is personal.

 

[Bradskii]

Scientific Determinism Laws of Physics
"Feyman proposed that a system got from a state A, to a state B, by every possible path or history. Each path or history has a certain amplitude or intensity, and the probability of the system going from A- to B, is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path."

He's referencing quantum effects. They are irrelevant to matters in the macro world. This has been discussed at some length in the thread. And it would help if you linked to any quotes that you use so they can be read in context.

Stephen Hawking Estate

You read umpteen pages on an obscure lecture on the origin of the universe to get that quote?

 

[QvQ]

He's referencing quantum effects. They are irrelevant to matters in the macro world. This has been discussed at some length in the thread. And it would help if you linked to any quotes that you use so they can be read in context.

"In order to understand the Origin of the universe, we need to combine the General Theory of Relativity with quantum theory. The best way of doing so seems to be to use Feynman's idea of a sum over histories." Hawking

"The probability for a state of the universe at the present time is given by adding up the amplitudes for all the histories that end with that state." Hawking

Hawking's combined micro and macro, as he added Frenman's idea of sum over history to determine the state of the universe at the present time.

A Sum Over Histories:
"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.""

That is better represented by Feynman than Classical Mechanics
The last quote is yours, btw

 

[Bradskii]

"In order to understand the Origin of the universe, we need to combine the General Theory of Relativity with quantum theory. The best way of doing so seems to be to use Feynman's idea of a sum over histories." Hawking

"The probability for a state of the universe at the present time is given by adding up the amplitudes for all the histories that end with that state." Hawking

Hawking's combined micro and macro, as he added Frenman's idea of sum over history to determine the state of the universe at the present time.

Utterly irrelevant.

 

[QvQ]

Utterly irrelevant.

Not quite...
Classic Mechanics, cause and effect
You hit a ball, it flies and falls
There is cause and effect , the collision, force, motion, trajectory,
But if the ball falls in the weeds, that is the end of it. No more sequence, no more cause and effect.
That is real and we agree that there is cause and effect but it is limited to the frame of reference

What Hawking is proposing is there is a sum of histories
There isn't any single "cause" or any specific event, it is the sum of histories.

A person drives to a T intersection where the road ends
He can go right or left
The amplitude or intensity determines the path

That amplitude of the histories..going to work amplifies left, just out for a drive, better scenery amplifies right.
IT is not classic mechanical cause and effect.
It is a better model for the given state of the universe at the present time

 

[Bradskii]

Not quite...
Classic Mechanics, cause and effect
You hit a ball, it flies and falls
There is cause and effect , the collision, the force, the trajectory,

Your posts are all over the place. Whether you think that there is cause and effect seems to be a random event.

But if the ball falls in the weeds, that is the end of it. No more sequence, no more cause and effect.
That is real and we agree that there is cause and effect but it is limited to the frame of reference.

If something is just sitting there then it's not having an effect on something. And..?

What Hawking is proposing is there is a sum of histories
There isn't any single "cause" or any specific event, it is the sum of histories.

Nobody has argued that there is a single cause. The causes are effectively infinite. It's just that some are more obvious. Some are proximate.

A person drive to a T intersection where the road ends
He can go right or left
The amplitude or intensity determines the path

That amplitude of the histories..going to work amplifies left, just out for a drive, better scenery amplifies right.
IT is not classic cause and effect.

So we now randomly have no cause and effect. Which is patently nonsensical. What determined I turned right? Well, it was the direction I needed to take to get to work. That I intended going to work, that it was my preference over going anywhere else, that determined which way I went.

I mean, really...what is it about this that you are finding so difficult?