• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.


Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by anonymouswho, Jan 3, 2016.

  1. katerinah1947

    katerinah1947 Well-Known Member Supporter


    And Joshua, today one who thought he was lost to themselves told me that.

    Then I remembered. I said this:

    No one. None. I also never heard of one. No one that I know of has ever been given access to their own true selves, as I saw them one day in "The grace to see and talk to souls."

    I was given that ~grace~ for awhile until I learned. It is now somewhere else.

    I don't think any person ever changes. Instead, your soul talks to your body, which is your other abode. The other place you live. The soul cannot normally be heard, as even a muscle moving makes more noise than the loudness of the voice of your soul.

    Your soul though, requests anyway and continuously for you to be, the soul.

    ****, your God and mine gave me this ability for awhile to talk to souls, when I talked to people.

    I don't think you, have changed by life. You are the same. Integration, of your soul and your body again, is done by doing what God actually says is correct. Not people, but God.

    Even twins have a unique non shared soul.

    A soul though by this definition. You, who you are, you that is so unique, envy and jealousy are not possible, your soul, you, is wonderful, beautiful actually also, but only seen if Gid gives one the ability.

    Twins, will have different souls, but the same DNA.

    Also, atoms have interchangeable parts. Of all the electrons, and up quarks and down quarks, which make up Protons and Neutrons, any can substitute for any others, in all the atoms of the Universe, as we understand Atoms today.

    Rather, marriage is a reuniting, of that which was rendered apart, for awhile.

    Male and female, become one, not two or three or more. One.

    This is not for understanding now. That comes later. Now, if you know, of if you just believe, or even if you do not oppose that concept of the two becoming one, that is enough.

    If though, you wish to know more, to become one with God, or anyone, is not to become them, but to become like them in morals, ethics and even reactions to things, like love of others.

    To become one is to love and like that which the other one loves and likes, for me, and I see that in all other females so far.

    I do not know what 'the two becoming one' means to males. And, I don't want to guess, as that is normally not allowed, when there are observations to be had at hand.

  2. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    As I see it, an influence is a partial determinant. The sum of all influences determines the outcome. If I have a particular preference, I want that to be a factor in determining my choice.

    The influences are often complex - I may be aware that I have a bias that I wish to overcome, so I will try to compensate for that bias in my decision. I may be able to do that if I'm feeling mentally strong enough - or I may not. For example, whether I decide to eat that last doughnut will be determined by a complex interplay of conflicting influences that will vary even while I'm pondering the decision.

    OK, there are some fine semantic distinctions here, e.g. between determinism (everything that happens is part of a causal sequence), and pre-determinism (the idea that all events are determined in advance) - that way lies the potential for fatalism. But we could be arguing definitions forever, so, for the sake of avoiding all that, I'll concede that my actions (in fact all events) would, in principle, be determined by how the universe started out.

    However, this doesn't make my choices predictable (even in principle), and - because they're the choices I make, they're still my choices, regardless of the history underlying them. Under this regime, I'm a complex and unpredictable but deterministic agent (as is everyone else).

    The key point here is that it really makes no difference; I still make decisions and choices based on the influences of my preferences and experiences, I still feel like I'm acting with free will - because I'm not aware of all the complex determinants of my actions, and I can't enumerate all the influences in my current mental and physical state, let alone their convoluted histories. To do that I would have to know every detail of every experience I'd ever had, and every thought I'd had about it, conscious and subconscious, and how they all came to set my mind and body in its current state, and having that knowledge would itself radically change my decisions; but that's impossible - all I'm consciously aware of is a rough summary of the options subconscious processing has made available, and whatever conscious deliberations I can keep track of - a trivial subset of all the actual influences.

    The real world, being built on stochastic quantum mechanics, isn't really classically deterministic at heart - although at macro (e.g. human) scales it's a very close approximation. If it wasn't, biological organisms couldn't function, nor could our technology.
  3. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    United States
    Let influences be understood as partial determinants, but whether the sum of all influences--apart from the "influence" of free choice--determines the outcome seems to be at the heart of the issue.

    Okay good, so I take it you are conceding pre-determinism.

    I disagree that they would not be predictable in principle, and even the author of the article you cite does not seem to make that claim, as he shies away when "infinite precision" is considered. Exhaustive knowledge of the computer program would result in knowledge of what it will produce in any given circumstance, and running the same program twice will produce the same result, no?

    They are the choices you make in one sense but not another. The sense in which they are not the choices you make is precisely the sense that almost everyone assumes is entailed by the very fact of making a choice (i.e. having the ability to make a contrary choice). So I don't think you would find very many people who would grant that a pre-determined system could generate choices flowing authentically from the agent. That is because the agent is not truly self-moving, but rather a cog in the machine.

    When Joe hits the cue ball into the 3-ball, which then pockets the 9, we could say that the 3-ball moved the 9-ball. But no one thinks that the 3-ball moves the 9-ball in the same way that Joe moves his pool cue. In the parlance of contemporary philosophy, we could say that there is thought to be a qualitative difference between agent causation and event causation. Your scenario eliminates this essential difference.

    Why do you say that? Have you seen both, compared them, and noted that there is no difference?

    Two related points:
    1. Clearly there is a difference between one feeling that something is the case and something being the case, and oftentimes in life we are more concerned with realities than feelings/perceptions. A post of yours reminds me of the Experience Machine. If you really think it makes no difference, then would you hook yourself up?
    2. No one wants to be deceived, yet your solution rests on deception. Your life finds meaning in light of a free will that does not exist but is somehow believed to exist.

    So it is not clear that it would make no difference according to one's experience, but even if that is granted it is still false that one is indifferent to unknown deception. They are unaware, but not indifferent in intention. It is like the husband who considers telling his blissfully ignorant wife about his infidelity. He might think that it really makes no difference, but the wife would disagree both with respect to reality and with respect to her intentions/desires.

    Causation doesn't imply determinism.
  4. joshua 1 9

    joshua 1 9 Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    My wife and I do not have any problem becoming one, until we start to talk then we have problems.

    You do not think people change? What is the purpose of life if we do not change?
  5. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    What is meant by 'free choice' in this context?
    For the sake of argument, yes.
    Yes, you're right - my mistake; what I meant is that, even given indefinite precision, and complete knowledge of the starting conditions, there is no way to discover a future state other than running through the entire process up to the relevant point. Imagine someone predicted the result of the n'th iteration of a chaotic function, and on iterating it, you found they were correct and asked them how they knew; if they told you they'd done the same thing just before you arrived, I suspect you'd see it more as a post-diction than a prediction... but, whatever, that's an incidental.
    I think the concept of being able to make a contrary choice is at the heart of the it, and at the heart of the popular conception of free will. When someone says they made a choice, and that it was an expression of free will, they usually mean that they could have made a different choice at that time. The (often unspoken) rider is, 'if they had wanted/been brave enough/been strong enough/etc., to', in other words, if their state of mind had been different; or, more bluntly, if the circumstances had been different. This is correct, but misses the point, which is that in the circumstances that held when they made that choice, their state of mind was such that they made the choice they did; that's why they made that choice. By failing to include their own mental state in the circumstances of their choice, they miss the point and are effectively saying, 'if things (i.e. my state of mind) were different, I could have made a different choice', which resolves to the almost tautological, 'if things were different, things could have been different'.
    What many people would grant isn't always a reliable guide, and we're talking about a system unimaginably more complex than a cog in a machine; but I don't know what you mean by, 'flowing authentically', and 'truly self-moving'. What makes the flow authentic? what distinguishes the truly self-moving, from the self-moving?

    Perhaps if you walked through an example decision and pointed out where these elements are involved; i.e., the points where a deterministic explanation is insufficient?
    You say there is an essential difference, but what might a highly advanced observer see, reviewing the pot?

    Joe's arm muscles have moved the arm holding the cue, on signals from nerves leading from the motor cortex of his brain, which was stimulated, in turn, by the results of coordinated activity in numerous other parts of his brain - visual cortex, vestibular cortex, frontal cortext, etc., activity that could be traced back to his shot selection, based on his analysis of the current position, modeling of optimal future positions, his skill level, confidence level, experience of the way the table is playing, stored experience of similar situations, analysis of his opponent's strengths & weaknesses, etc.

    It's a far more complicated causal sequence, involving many different elements, types of element, and levels of abstraction, and so it is qualitatively different in mechanism and complexity, but still looks like a (complex) sequence of simple causal events. It's understandable that it's seen as qualitatively different from a distance, but is it really, on close examination? If so, how, where?
    Clearly not, the real world is as it is; what I'm saying is that I see no way that I, as an agent, can distinguish whether the universe is deterministic (leaving quantum mechanics to one side) or not, in respect of my choices and capability to choose. If you can suggest a way, I'm interested to hear it.
    How do I know I'm not already hooked up, having artificially generated experiences, e.g. in the Matrix? We have to take the world as we find it. Personally, I don't think I'd choose the Experience Machine, but I'm not talking about having that choice here, I'm exploring the POV of an agent with experience of only that universe.
    I'd rather not call it a deception here, as there is no deceiver; it's just a misinterpretation, an error. The agent finds himself in a universe in which he weighs up his options and makes choices that, as far as he can tell, are free; he can change his mind, and he sees others doing the same. So, from his POV, he has free will - that's how it feels. If you ask him whether he could have chosen differently on any particular occasion, he'd probably say, "Yes, if I'd wanted to." If you were to tell him that it wasn't really free will because, at the time, his mental state was such that he didn't want to make a different choice, what do you think he'd say?

    Perhaps he'd say, "Ah, but the difference is that I'm truly self-moving, my choices flow authentically" ;)
    I'm open to suggestions for telling the difference.
    There is no deception in the scenario I have in mind; just a deterministic world and an agent that interprets it. You could say he deceives himself, because what he sees is entirely consistent with a deterministic universe without free will, but - ironically - he has no choice but to act as if he does have free will; even if you tell him that he's a deterministic agent in a deterministic universe, he still has to make his choices, he still doesn't know all their determinants, and he still can't predict the future...

    Believing in things that are false does not necessarily mean we've been deceived; we may just be wrong.
    True; which is why, if nothing else, quantum mechanics makes our universe non-deterministic.
  6. katerinah1947

    katerinah1947 Well-Known Member Supporter


    You and your wife are one. It only takes about seven years.

    Oneness was the consequence of your Free Will choice to Marry.

    Even verbally, it starts instantly with her yes to you, with caveats.

    The caveats are, both of you wanted to, both of you were capable emotionally, and both of you entered into the arrangement, honestly, and under no duress, even emotional or societal pressures.

    In my case, I did want to marry my guy. I just kept it from myself and from Him also.

    He wanted me. I did actually not know my feelings, as I had hidden this so well even from myself. He asked me. And, I still did not know that I did want to marry That Guy.

    So, the feelings between us, were mutual, and I never let on and neither did He. So, duress was never there.

    I freely chose what I wanted. I did. He was never ever told by me, of my feelings, and I had little to do with Him, on a personal level, in fact Nothing ever happened between us on a personal level.

    So, there was no hint from Him, and there was no hint from me. In working with and for Him, I was rather stunned at something He did to another man.

    I kept telling myself, not understanding. Him? Him! Her also. He sent me in on him.

    That man was so far out, from any recognizable goodness, that after I was done, in that assignment, I just kept being pleased in how deep He would go, and to whom He would go to do things for, for some reason, such as He is just that Good of a Guy.

    Before I was asked, those who knew me, and liked and Loved Him, came to me, told me nothing, but cleared the way for Him to be able to ask me. (All guys do that)

    In my final clearance, I had told His Son, that I just don't want anything from anybody or even Him long term.

    I would not know till later, that what I was actually saying, is there is no one to love and no one to love me, and I am perfectly okay with that.

    Free Will was all over my marriage proposal. I did though trust, in my guy, that somehow if I wanted this, to be married to him, it would all work out somehow.

    I did want to marry him. I was scared. I did say YES!, not yes. It has worked out. Not everyday seems perfect, but I would have it no other way. I love being married to my guy. Every normal girl feels the same way.

    What most marriages get in trouble with, I think, is each person not allowing for natural differences, because of eventually wanting a perfect marriage, and accidentally thinking that will come from he becoming more like her gender emotion and thinking wise, and her becoming more like him gender emotion and thinking wise.

    The most mature relationships are not based on understanding each other in those ways, it is in understanding that those ways make zero difference except, in allowing him to be him, and her to be her, in ways each of you will normally never, ever understand.

    Guys, just really want women to be women, but forget that. Women just want guys to be guys, but forget that in time also.

    Those years of, she must be and understand me, for guys, and he must understand and be me emotionally for women, are the hard years.

    Usually, it takes another woman to straighten out the errant woman. Usually it takes another man to straighten out the errant man.

    And when each realizes their true contribution to the marriage, such as most men think deeply about a single subject and most women think broadly about a lot of subjects, even that makes a difference. Women can normally handle tons of inputs, thus continual constant and overlapping inputs from the house, children, the husband, etc etc etc, and the husband can handle the deep thinking, to help and guide and yes even direct those male centric items, necessary to survival,,,,,also.

    Free will, in this case, might be: Will I accept or not, the way things actually are, versus the way I think they could or should be?

    With God, it is up to a person to Honestly or not, accept what the person knows of the likelihood or not of the existence of God, whether or not they understand What God is yet, sufficient to have the proof.

    Do we have Free Will, it seems that we do have.

    Only our attempts at Absolute Honesty in all things and with all people, result in our knowing or not God exists, if that is God's Will on that item also, for us now.

    Last edited: Jan 9, 2016
  7. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    United States
    I take it to be a commonsensical incompatibilist instance of libertarian free will in which one's ability to do otherwise (call it the ATDO) is central.

    By "running through the entire process" do you mean actually running the computer program or simply performing the iterations that the computer program would perform? In principle, with perfect knowledge and infinite computational power, you could predict a future iteration of the program with perfect precision. I grant for the sake of argument that you would have to "run through the entire process" in one way or another, but prediction would technically require running it before the process itself completed, which seems to be possible in principle.

    I don't know if you're saying something otherwise? Are you standing by or abandoning your claim that it could not be predicted, even in principle?

    I agree.

    I disagree...

    When people say they could have made a different choice, I believe they mean that they could have made a different choice without any change of circumstances. It is curious that you yourself allude to this above when you say, "...they usually mean that they could have made a different choice at that time." Philosophically, this is one of the things meant by libertarian free will, and I think it tracks common opinion.

    But it provides some degree of reliability, and absent some other guide must be given weight.

    I think the central point is the ATDO, but also the ability to cease from action.

    First I just want to say that I'm not convinced that the general method you're pursuing will provide adjudication on this question, especially since you yourself have claimed that the two explanations will result in the exact same reality (i.e. "the key point here is that it really makes no difference"). If it makes no difference, then why expect observations and hypotheticals to provide adjudication?

    On to your analysis. You covered a lot of ground, and I don't intend to address each point, but in general the obvious difference between the two acts is that one was necessary and one was not. The difference has nothing to do with relative complexity, it has to do with necessity. Given the antecedent conditions, Joe's pushing of his cue did not need to come about. Yet given the antecedent conditions, the relevant movement of the 9-ball did need to come about. I do not see what bearing complexity has on this.

    While I don't find the analysis of complexity particularly relevant, it may seem to you that I am somehow begging the question. My intention in the pool example was to illustrate the common difference acknowledged by most (all?) between a pre-determined event and an event that is not pre-determined, thus giving an indication of what is meant by the self-movement I referred to.

    But if you can see no way to distinguish whether the universe is deterministic, then why are you a determinist? Are you a determinist?

    But my point was that if you truly see no difference between "feeling" that you are doing something and actually doing it, then what reason would you have not to hook up? You claimed it makes no difference, yet you don't want to hook up. Apparently it does make a difference of some kind, else why not hook up?

    That's fine. It seems like semantics to me. Even if phrases such as, "My eyes/heart/ears deceived me" are in some way metaphorical, they are still common usage.

    Two considerations:

    The first is in keeping with my point about deception. If the two explanations are symmetrical and indistinguishable (as you claim), then why choose the one that entails a fundamental rational error?

    Second, why deny the man's inference, even if it is somewhat immediate? You have the burden of proof, not him. If I infer that I see the color red, there is no essential and universal reason to doubt that I do. I I infer that I have made a free choice, there is no essential and universal reason to doubt that I have. Denying this would result in an untenable global skepticism. We ought only doubt our faculties of sense and reason in particular circumstances for particular reasons, for they are generally reliable.

    It seems to me that you are telling the man claiming to see red that he's really seeing green without providing any reason. In fact it's even more than that. You are telling the man claiming to see red that he's really seeing green and at the same time claiming that whether he is seeing red or green is indistinguishable to you. ;)

    Do you have any reason to support your own claim that the two are indistinguishable? (I will leave this for the next in the interest of space)

    Have you ever noticed that when one is unable to even pretend that something is true, it is likely false? Maybe two plus two actually equals five, and the universe is strangely situated in such a way that it not only appears to be four, but cannot be denied to be four given the unfortunate circumstances! Love for conspiracy theories is a strange phenomenon. :)

    For the record though, I will counter-assert that a non-deterministic universe would be completely different. There would be no humans, and the highest form of life would be animals. So far the only argument I have given for my thesis is the reliability of the human intellect and the consensus among humans. I am not sure if you have provided any argument for yours?

    Out of curiosity, what is your field of study?

    I should point out that tomorrow is the last day I will have internet until some time in February. I would say "sorry" but the reprieve is probably welcome. :D
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2016
  8. timewerx

    timewerx the village i--o--t--

    Christian Seeker
    You can change the present based on the past. And from the perspective of the past, the present is the future.

    The fact however, is that you will only see and have memories of the altered reality. You will not be aware of the "original unaltered timeline" if it ever existed.

    By the uncanny hand of fate, you will come to realization why you should time travel to the past or send a message back. It's like having an idea that pops out of nowhere.

    Experiencing it for yourself, you will have one out of many reasons why freewill is probably just an illusion.

    This might sound silly but the numbers 666 in Hebrew would either look like 111 or 777 in Roman numbers. If 111 is a binary number, the decimal equivalent is 7.

    Could it be the Boeing 777 airliner? It sure is a beast... Powered by a pair of the world's most powerful aircraft jet engines. The massive engines does look like great iron teeth when viewed from the front.... Throw anything to it and it comes out on the back in pieces. Pretty sure it will also flatten out everything under its landing gear due to the massive ground pressure. It has 8 flap servos that look like horns.... Also the rear stabilizers look like horns. So it could easily be around 10 horns. It took an international effort to conceptualize the Boeing 777.

    The AI theory is not far-fetched either. Silicon in pure form looks like polished iron. So it could be a "silicon-entity".

    It could also break any information into bits (binary data)....

    Then I could assure you that theory may need some revision.

    There's nothing complicated, nor inherently dangerous about altering timelines. The "original timeline" simply never existed not even in the memory of the time traveler.

    Einstein had a more fluid theory of gduty than most stories fictions. But I think he got it right.

    I use a computer-generated code. Theoretically, it should allow me to authenticate the message is coming from myself in the future and also to enable me to accurately select which point in time I'd like to hear about.

    So far, it hasn't wsearched.... The code that was being sent to me was presented in binary... It was supposed to be in decimal form for me to easy to remember. Apparently, the codes are being transformed into binary.

    This means, I'll have to do some alterations in my code.

    It may sound difficult to accept but this is reality.

    So why or how would you "go back" to warn your past self when you have already saved yourself from the poison? Don't ask me, ask gduty... gduty made the Universe this way, I'm just a witness. :)

    The hand of fate will make you go back. You won't be able to fight it, I promise you. ;)

    The "alternate reality" that you drank the poison never existed.

    There is only one reality and that you always went back in time to save yourself.

    Yes, the cycle will repeat ad infinitum.... but you'll only get to experience it twice. First when your future self saved you and the second when you saved yourself from the poison.

    No problem but I don't think any of this is important. There is only one future and we are all headed to it.

    God Bless you too!
  9. anonymouswho

    anonymouswho Active Member

    Hello friend. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the Pilot-Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

    God bless.
  10. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    I suspect you're indirectly challenging my statement that the universe is non-deterministic - and you're right, I should qualify that statement. The Pilot-Wave interpretation is a rather neglected one that takes the Schrodinger wave function as a feature of reality rather than a purely mathematical abstraction (the other, more popular, interpretation that takes the wave function literally is Everettian Many Worlds). It is true that both these interpretations are, in their own ways, entirely deterministic, avoiding mysterious unexplained wave function collapse, and so they contradict the idea of a non-deterministic universe; however, in both interpretations, the deterministic aspect is hidden from us - in PWT the observer cannot know the particle position and momentum between measurements - so, for all practical purposes, our experience of the universe remains a stochastic, probabilistic one. That is really what I meant by a 'non-deterministic' universe.

    Pilot Wave theory seems to have a fair bit going for it - it was dropped from the mainstream fairly early on because of some misunderstandings, particularly about hidden variables (like it or not, it's a hidden variable interpretation), but Feynman seemed to like it (a big plus in my book!), it avoids the (perceived) ontological excess of Many Worlds, and it works - although there seem to be a few unresolved wrinkles. Just incidentally, there's an interesting macro-scale wave/droplet analogue which may be relevant (or may be a massive red-herring!) - see Walking Droplets.

    On the negative side, there are a few features of PWT that make physicists uncomfortable, such as the lack of interaction between particle and field dynamics; how to interpret the conscious observer's awareness of an interaction outcome; and that it (arguably) allows empty or 'ghost' waves, with no energy, momentum, or particle; and there's the question why the particle can be observed, but the equally real wave(function) can't - perhaps it would be better to keep the concept of wave-packets. It's also been argued that it can't be confirmed or refuted, because you can always posit unobservable (i.e. arbitrary) causes (e.g. hidden variables) for stochastic events.

    There's some well-informed opinion suggesting that PWT and Many Worlds are closely related interpretations, and that PWT really is an incomplete form of MW...

    I don't know enough about the underlying mathematical formalism and arguments to do much more than report what I read from people who work in the field, and I think this is a common problem in assessing popular interpretations of QM; there's a tendency to produce catchy, intuitively appealing, maths-free, misleading simplifications of ideas that are really complex and inevitably counter-intuitive. Those of us who only have the descriptive simplifications to work with are usually arguing about artifacts of the simplifications rather than the meat of the underlying mathematical representations.
  11. myownmynativeland

    myownmynativeland Active Member

    Sounds like you are claiming God is NOT God. He Knows just what you will freely choose in any given situation. He so Arranged events so thyour choice would be perfectly natural for you.
  12. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    I've yet to properly grasp how that's supposed to work.
    What I mean is that there's no way to get the results by any short-cut or approximation (I was basically using a restricted meaning of 'predict' - I can't think of a better word). You have to run the full program (or an exact logical equivalent - the hardware is irrelevant) to discover the result(s). In the real world, this would mean running an exact emulation with every particle, registered to infinite precision, for the required simulated time, to give you a certain knowledge of the outcome.
    My point is that, at that time, they chose A rather than B for some reason involving their mental state (e.g. thought processes); if that reason hadn't held, i.e. if their mental circumstances had been different, they would have chosen B. In other words, their mental state, the thought processes that led them to choose A rather than B, are part of the circumstances of their choice.
    That's what I asked you to explain in the first place...
    I'm saying that I don't see how to distinguish between them - it appears that determinism alone accounts perfectly well for the subjective sense of free choice and free will, and so is a simple parsimonious explanation. You've suggested there's something more, so I'm asking if you can give a way to tell that there really is something more, a reason to think that determinism alone is not sufficient.
    I suspect that complexity masks the issue of necessity - an apparently simple, single causal event of one ball hitting the other is obviously necessary. The complex cascade of events resulting in Joe's movement is not so obvious, but it resolves to interacting sequences of simple causal events, each necessary (assuming determinism), most of them in the brain and unavailable for inspection.
    It's not an illustration that clarifies the difference for me.
    Yes and no (mainly yes). No, to the extent that quantum mechanics (even if possibly deterministic 'behind the scenes') allows us only a stochastic (probabilistic) view of the universe; yes to the extent that, at macro scales, quantum mechanics gives a very close approximation to determinism, and I see no evidence of any other non-deterministic influences.
    Because from the outside, I can see that one is artificial and one natural, so if offered the choice, my predilection for natural experience over artificial experience would influence my decision. From the inside, one would be unaware of the source of the experiences, and there is no choice to make.
    Yes; I wanted to avoid potential equivocation of 'deceive' to invoke an external deceiver.
    What rational error - that he was truly self-moving, and his choices flowed authentically? I can't really answer for the people that do, but as I say, subjectively that's how it feels to them, they may not be aware of the alternative view, and broadly speaking, it probably wouldn't change their behaviour if they did know (although it might, in some respects).
    Ockham's Razor - if his experience can be fully explained by determinism alone, why invoke additional explanatory entities?
    That's arguable - from my POV, the claim that there is something more than simple determinism at work needs substantiating; a clear description of what more is involved would be a start.
    I'm not denying that you feel you made a free choice, I'm questioning whether the claim that it is not ultimately deterministic is justified. It seems to me that an agent whose choices are purely deterministic, but who has limited awareness of the detail of the deterministic influences on those choices, would feel that their choices (if unconstrained and uncoerced) were free. I'm asking what more you think is involved - and why you think that.
    If you think that, you've entirely missed my point - or I've completely failed to make it.
    Only that I can't think how they might be distinguished - that's why I'm asking for input.
    OK; I take it you don't want to take this any further.
  13. anonymouswho

    anonymouswho Active Member

    I think I understand what you're saying, but this is just hard for me to accept. I think my problem is, I don't understand the reason behind it all. To say that time travel is possible is to say that right now, God is making Adam, He is talking to Abraham, He is giving the Law to Moses, and He is warning all the prophets. It's to say that the past still exists, and God is continously doing everything over and over again. I wouldn't have a problem if mankind could did this if there is no God, but I don't understand why such a thing is necessary.

    One thing I really have a hard time understanding is, what really happened in that time-frame between seeing yourself in the future, and when you decide to send yourself back.

    Let's say you're on a date with the love of your life. You're very nervous, and by the end of the night, you never even hold her hand. She decides not to see you anymore. Several years later, you are alone, constantly wondering "what if?" These past few years have consisted of you interacting with people, affecting their lives; and the girl also interacting with people, affecting their lives.

    One day, you discover the ability to time travel. You go back in time to convince yourself to have confidence. Because your future self talked to you, you do hold the girl's hand, and she decides to date you again. Several years later, the two of you get married and have children, who go out into the world and likewise affect many people's lives.

    Now imagine millions of people doing this inew the future. The whole world would constantly be affected by the actions of whatever the people of the future decide to do. It seems it would be chaotic.

    You should look into pilot-waves. I honestly do not believe they will help you deliver messages into the past, but perhaps they could be used to determine what will happen in the future. I believe only a miracle of God could make this possibility happen, but I definitely believe in miracles.

    Oops, I sent this too early. Sorry about that. God bless you my friend.
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2016
  14. anonymouswho

    anonymouswho Active Member

    Hello and thank you. I'm not sure what you mean that I'm claiming God is not God. I believe God knows all things, and has determined all things. Free will would mean that there is a god, but he made billions of tiny gods that can constantly thwart everything thing he has planned or purposed, and change anything at any given time. That god may lose, or he may win; who knows? The God of Scripture always wins, and He always gets all He desires. He is the Most High, most Sovereign God, the only true God. That is the God I believe in. Thank you friend and God bless.
  15. anonymouswho

    anonymouswho Active Member

    Thank you for such a detailed reply! I can tell this is something that interests you. This is one of my favorite topics, because I love talking about the Sovereignty of God.

    I really like Pilot Waves. The most interesting thing about it is that Louis deBroglie figured it out back in the 1920's. I can only imagine what kind of world we'd live in if the scientific community had accepted Pilot Waves, but I understand why this was not the path that God had determined.

    Have you ever read this interview with Niels Bohr:


    For me, this explained everything. I kept asking myself, "why would the men that discovered Quantum Mechanics believe in zombie-cats, when there is a perfectly logical explanation?" Then I read this interview, and it all made sense. I now understand why the most intelligent men in the world believe in utter nonsense; because men want to be gods.

    Thank you and God bless you my friend.
  16. Joyful Mama

    Joyful Mama Member

    God knew what choice you were going to make, but you still made that choice for yourself. It doesn't mean that he influenced you to make that choice, he just knows. Remember that God is outside time.
  17. myownmynativeland

    myownmynativeland Active Member

    Free Will simply means the ability to choose. God does nothing to thwart that. He takes our choices into account and uses them to fulfill His Plan.
  18. timewerx

    timewerx the village i--o--t--

    Christian Seeker
    They are earlier "instances" of God from our perspective/frame of reference. But I have no idea what goes one from God's frame of reference.

    I also don't know why it's necessary. All I know is that it happens.

    Brilliant case you brought up here!

    In this scenario, you will still go back in time to deliver the *same* message you have received before from your future self. Believe it or not, events in between (no matter how huge it has changed from your perspective due to a message from the future) will "conspire" so that you arrive at the same point into the future where you go back in time to deliver the same message.

    The alternate reality that you never had the 2nd date simply never existed.....It will only exist as an idea or a concept that was never realized.

    The words Prophet and Mad is actually the same thing.... Prophets who claim to be sane, they are probably fakes! :D

    It's just the way it is. It may seem to serve no purpose but the mechanism seems to work so well.

    The process can simulated smoothly using MS Excel's circular referencing formulas. The algorithm seem to only work in MS excel.

    There is no "new" or "altered" future or present etc. As I've said earlier, the other possible scenarios as a result of time travel only existed a concept that was never realized. A design that never left the drawing board...

    We have been "time traveling" since the beginning ever since there were prophets and prophecies and we're still fine. However, my experiences seem apparent that an intelligence is strongly affecting/supervising the chain-reaction of events. It might as well be a possible hard evidence of God.

    I determine what will happen to the future by sending messages to the past. Thus, from my past perspective, it seems like I'm receiving messages from the future.

    Clever, huh? There's a limitation though. I could only see the future as far as I'm alive. If I died in 2050, this means, I won't be able to receive messages beyond that time.

    It is still experimental. I simply use codes or past memories to send messages to and fro at specific dates. Which time in the future I receive depends on the discretion of my future self and it most certainly is relevant to significant events in the future.

    I'm not really confident at proceeding with the experiments. It is scary at times. The codes I prepared would just appear out of nowhere and sometimes, they look quite distorted. Other weird stuff happening and causing electromagnetic anomalies. I may need to proceed further in a more controlled environment with other people around to monitor and record events but certainly not by myself.

    No problem about the early sent....time is irrelevant my friend (bad pun!) and God Bless you too!
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2016
  19. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    United States
    The problem with time is that our absolute velocity through space can never be determined – and therefore the true rate of time that has passed since the beginning of the universe can also never be determined.

    "The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration."


    "It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes."

    The only changes of speed in a universe “claimed” to be continuing to increase in acceleration is an increase in speed - and therefore an increase in energy and an increase in mass. The problem is that in this accelerating universe in which acceleration is increasing, only by ignoring that acceleration can sameness be counted as valid. Everything is increasing in energy - our measuring devices also increasing "proportionally" to that energy.

    The same for time. Clocks slow and rulers shrink under acceleration. The only logical deduction is that time and therefore decay rates occurred faster in the past when the acceleration was less. This increase in mass from energy gained is why life has become smaller since the age of the dinosaurs.

    The accelerating twin sees no changes in his clocks - yet when he returns to a stationary frame all are aware that time passed differently for him - as he is now younger than the twin that was not accelerating. The fact that the twin does not measure this change - does not preclude the fact that it was occurring as he was accelerating and was maintained upon reaching the stated velocity. One simply can not use the rate at which clocks tick today to calculate into the past to determine the age of the universe or the mass of things when that acceleration was less than it was today. One will always get the wrong answers - as the twin in the ship would get the wrong answers if he tried to determine how long he has been alive before and after acceleration began without adjusting his clocks for the time spent in the stationary frame or i.e. at a lesser velocity. His clocks while under acceleration would give him the wrong time while he was in the non-accelerating frame. Just as his calculations of his current mass would give him the wrong answers for his mass while at a lesser velocity or stationary.

    These corrections must be done exponentially since the acceleration of the universe began faster than c to begin with and has only continued to increase, so that a day today would be as a 1000 years at a point in the recent past. And decay rates would indicate an age of billions of years in 6,000 years of today's time. And hence the confusion as to the earth being but 6,000 years old while appearing to be billions. Clocks have not been properly adjusted for the time dilation that has occurred.

    Time is a big illusion on our part. Science has shown that in accelerating frames clocks slow and rulers shrink. It does so because of added energy which changes clocks and rulers.

    "It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes."

    The problem is that if one accepts the Big Bang theory in a universe that is increasing in acceleration - then clocks today MUST tick slower than clocks in the past. The only change in speed in an accelerating universe is an increase in speed - so an increase in energy as well. This energy causes clocks to slow by changing the Bohr radius of the electron; it oscillates slower as the orbital radius of the electron is increased. Magic spacetime has nothing to do with it. Contrary to modern belief it is an artifact of clocks and rulers - but proportionally to energy gained.

    The flaw in understanding stems from Einstein’s thought experiment. In this thought experiment point A and B are 10 light years apart to the stationary frame. They then calculate the same 10 light year distance in the accelerating frame. Yet they also tell you the accelerating frames rulers have shrunk. The accelerating frame actually measures a larger distance between points A and B as its rulers are now shorter that it measures this distance with. They shrink the space while leaving the rulers the same length - even if we understand it is the rulers that measure this distance that have shrunk, not the space between the two points.

    Light is constant in all frames because each frame measures a separate distance and time traveled by light based upon the energy content of the devices used to measure this time and distance. The distance light travels in the stationary frame is not the same distance it travels in an accelerating frame. The accelerating frame uses a shorter ruler - it CAN NOT measure the same distance as the longer ruler in the stationary frame. They measure PROPORTIONAL distances and times based upon the energy gained during acceleration. But because they still call a shorter ruler a meter and a longer tick of time a second - they confuse proportional as being sameness.

    They attempt to cover up their error by telling you it is not the clock and ruler that is at error, that both are equally accurate that both measure the same time and distance - yet in their very next breath will tell you rulers shrink and clocks slow under acceleration. Then refuse to shrink those rulers and slow those clocks and tell you A and B are 10 light years apart in both frames. Absurdities - shorter rulers do not measure the same distance as longer rulers. Longer ticks of time do not measure the same elapsed period of time as shorter ticks of time. They are measuring proportional distances and times for the path traveled by light and thinking they are the same because they refuse to call two different length rulers by different names. Refuse to call two different ticks of time by different names - and so entire generations have grown up thinking light travels the same distance in all frames.

    The speed of c is not the "same" in all frames. It is "proportional" to the energy gained from acceleration. A second hand on a clock demonstrates this well.

    A point near the hub (stationary observer) measures a completely different distance and elapsed time than a point near the tip (accelerating observer) We call both the same thing - even if we understand they are in reality "proportional" arcs of time and distance, not the same distance and elapsed period of time.

    So if you accept expansion and therefore accept E's postulate that rulers shrink and clocks slow as acceleration increases,


    You must then also accept the reverse of that postulate:

    That as things slow - rulers get bigger and clocks tick faster. So as you try to calculate backwards in time - rulers were bigger and clocks ticked faster. I.e. the oscillation and decay rate of an atom increase as you go backwards in time. That the further back you go - the faster the age appears, because we still use clocks that tick at today's rate - to calculate decay rates that must by postulate of current theory - have been faster the further one goes back in time.

    The age of the universe is calculated using clocks that tick at today's rate: Not clocks that increase in elapsed time the further one goes backwards in time. Because by postulate of modern theory - they must have been faster to get to their present rate - since expansion has been continuing to increase.
  20. myownmynativeland

    myownmynativeland Active Member

    How does the above apparently off-topic ramble connect to a discussion of free will?