NationStates Jolt Archive

There are two major views on pre-determination which I have run across.

1) Religious, old Puritan train of thought. God has already chosen who goes to heaven and not. We are just slaves to what this choice was.

2) Scientifc, pool table analogy. This typically goes as followed. The universe is essentially a giant expanding box with all the matter existing before the big bang or whatever started the expansion. Collision theory supports that if we know the intial momentum and mass (special relativity defines the innate relationship between the two and energy) then we shall know the final mass, energy, and momentum. Similar to a pool table, you set the initial conditions, strike the balls and you could (with difficulty) simulate the motion of all the balls. According to believers of this idea, we are all just creations of this pre-determined set of consecutive collisions.

Then there is always the idea of screwing pre-determination and love the free will.

So, do you have some sort of question or opinion about these things, or did you just want to demonstrate that you've learned something?

There are two major views on pre-determination which I have run across.

1) Religious, old Puritan train of thought. God has already chosen who goes to heaven and not. We are just slaves to what this choice was.

2) Scientifc, pool table analogy. This typically goes as followed. The universe is essentially a giant expanding box with all the matter existing before the big bang or whatever started the expansion. Collision theory supports that if we know the intial momentum and mass (special relativity defines the innate relationship between the two and energy) then we shall know the final mass, energy, and momentum. Similar to a pool table, you set the initial conditions, strike the balls and you could (with difficulty) simulate the motion of all the balls. According to believers of this idea, we are all just creations of this pre-determined set of consecutive collisions.

Then there is always the idea of screwing pre-determination and love the free will.


I'd have to say that number 2 well represents the inanimate universe. However, to take into account humans (and free will) you have to apply the mathematics of Chaos Theory. Doing this you can see that free will exists and pre-determination, on a human small scale, does not.

Read Robots, Empire and Foundation by Asimov.

I'd have to say that number 2 well represents the inanimate universe. However, to take into account humans (and free will) you have to apply the mathematics of Chaos Theory. Doing this you can see that free will exists and pre-determination, on a human small scale, does not.

Read Robots, Empire and Foundation by Asimov.

Asimov is a joke. Chaos theory is a joke, for the most part. Chaos exists but a theory of it is a joke when it comes to saying anything useful.

Chaos theory is a joke, for the most part. Chaos exists but a theory of it is a joke when it comes to saying anything useful.
Random question:
Do you actually know what chaos theory is about, or are you rejecting it becase of the name?

Random question:
Do you actually know what chaos theory is about, or are you rejecting it becase of the name?

Chaos theory originated as a sidestep to saying they didn't know what the hell was going on. Not until fractal mathematics appeared and then a bunch of scientists was like, yea yea that's it. Chaos Theory is solely mechanical whereas the structure and development of the universe is highly mathematical. Chaos Theory DOES NOT dissolve theory #2. We can still use certain aspects of Chaos Theory to predict physics, so if it has predictability it falls solely in line with theory #2. Either way, #2 has not been disproven.

Chaos theory originated as a sidestep to saying they didn't know what the hell was going on. Not until fractal mathematics appeared and then a bunch of scientists was like, yea yea that's it. Chaos Theory is solely mechanical whereas the structure and development of the universe is highly mathematical. Chaos Theory DOES NOT dissolve theory #2. We can still use certain aspects of Chaos Theory to predict physics, so if it has predictability it falls solely in line with theory #2. Either way, #2 has not been disproven.
Are you sure you know what chaos theory is about? Chaos theory has much mathematics in it, and I believe fractals fall under the jurisdiction of chaos theory as well.
Of course, it's not like I am a professor or student of it or anything, I have just read casually about it. So I may be wrong.

Are you sure you know what chaos theory is about? Chaos theory has much mathematics in it, and I believe fractals fall under the jurisdiction of chaos theory as well.

Very true. But the math behind it holds with mechanical systems. I know I was a bit ambiguous in the first thread; I had no real intention of limiting the example to mechanics, just using it as an example of predictability in physics. Now leaving the realm of mechanics, universe theory is typically excluded from mechanics, Chaos Theory begins to lose a little bit of weight. All examples of Chaos Theory that I have been taught come from mechanics.

See, the math generates Chaos Theory, Chaos Theory is not the math.

I never understood the idea behind religious determinism. If you believe your fate is already chosen, why bother to worship God and obey him at all? If you're chosen, you will go to heaven, anyway, and if you're not, you have 70 years before you suffer for all eternity.

Given that, I think I would just try to get my money's worth. If God cares so little about me to send me to hell no matter what I do, why should I care what he thinks?

I never understood the idea behind religious determinism. If you believe your fate is already chosen, why bother to worship God and obey him at all? If you're chosen, you will go to heaven, anyway, and if you're not, you have 70 years before you suffer for all eternity.

Given that, I think I would just try to get my money's worth. If God cares so little about me to send me to hell no matter what I do, why should I care what he thinks?

That way the leaders can chose who is already damned, call them a witch and burn then at the stake!!!!! AHAHAHAHA!!!!!

If I may shed my experiences on this topic. The idea of scientific predestination is perfectly plausible. Chaos theory is simply a logical conclusion derived from experimental data changing due to unseen variables. If all variables were known in a certain situation, then yes, the situation could accurately be predicted 100% of the time. However, this sort of knowledge would require an innate omniscience. Thus stated, predestination, while existing scientifically, can never truly be predicted due to the infinite amount of variables existant in the universe.
So are we predestined to do certain things? Yes, however, the idea of predestination is a very broad one in that nothing can fully be predicted, the predestination simply is.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

If I may shed my experiences on this topic. The idea of scientific predestination is perfectly plausible. Chaos theory is simply a logical conclusion derived from experimental data changing due to unseen variables. If all variables were known in a certain situation, then yes, the situation could accurately be predicted 100% of the time. However, this sort of knowledge would require an innate omniscience. Thus stated, predestination, while existing scientifically, can never truly be predicted due to the infinite amount of variables existant in the universe.
So are we predestined to do certain things? Yes, however, the idea of predestination is a very broad one in that nothing can fully be predicted, the predestination simply is.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say exactly. I suck with words.

If I may shed my experiences on this topic. The idea of scientific predestination is perfectly plausible. Chaos theory is simply a logical conclusion derived from experimental data changing due to unseen variables. If all variables were known in a certain situation, then yes, the situation could accurately be predicted 100% of the time. However, this sort of knowledge would require an innate omniscience. Thus stated, predestination, while existing scientifically, can never truly be predicted due to the infinite amount of variables existant in the universe.
So are we predestined to do certain things? Yes, however, the idea of predestination is a very broad one in that nothing can fully be predicted, the predestination simply is.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan
So, scientific predestination is irrelevant... I'd agree with that.

So, scientific predestination is irrelevant... I'd agree with that.

maybe irrelevant, but I argue doen't mean it isn't happening. Doesn't mean we really have free choice. Just that we do not know how we are being guided or what force (variable) is at work. And for some that may be a god to them, for Einstein and I it's physics.

maybe irrelevant, but I argue doen't mean it isn't happening. Doesn't mean we really have free choice.
Doesn't mean squat. Truth that is not demonstratable is nothing.

Just that we do not know how we are being guided or what force (variable) is at work. And for some that may be a god to them, for Einstein and I it's physics.
So are you saying that religion and science are basically the same thing, both guided by an unknowable force?

So are you saying that religion and science are basically the same thing, both guided by an unknowable force?

Both attempt to explain the unknown, correct? One is just more experimental.

Both attempt to explain the unknown, correct? One is just more experimental.
Religion is not about explaining the world, it is about relating to it and participating in it.

I'm all for free will - although there are some theories which say that a human doesn't really have a free will, it just acts upon feelings (whatever your body is up to, the mind follows - e.g. body "hungry" -> mind "go get food").
You do have a right to veto any decisions, though - thus making you able to consciously stop what your body was up to.

(I've had this in some philosophy class, also interwoven with some biological testing like a action potential before someone gets aware of something...).

Interesting stuff indeed.

Anyway - screw it all, I luuuuuuv me free will! :D

It's not that I'm saying that it's not possible for destiny and other such things to be pre-determined... but I don't like the idea of not being in control of my own life

Religion is not about explaining the world, it is about relating to it and participating in it.

All known religions were originally created to explain what occurs after death. From pre-historic remains people have noticed the start of religions always were found in burial sites. Yea, science has come much farther much faster than religion, but they have similar roots.

Even if mathematically it were posiible to predict all the variables in the universe (thus disregarding most of quantum mechanics) you would need a computer at least as big as the universe to make predictions. So we can never have one. Scientific determinism is therefore irrelevant.

As for religious determinism, if any organised religion stated your life was totally predetermined, there'd be no need of religion and it would kill itself off. Why change your lifestyle to suit the religion if you don't really have a choice?

I suspect we behave according to stimuli and pre-set chemical routines, but it is so complex it might as well be unpredictable.

All known religions were originally created to explain what occurs after death. From pre-historic remains people have noticed the start of religions always were found in burial sites. Yea, science has come much farther much faster than religion, but they have similar roots.
On the contrary, many of the earliest religions were about participation in life, in the form of Mother Earth, and ressurection as opposed to existing in an "afterlife". We know this because of hymns and prayers, ideas that were handed down into newer religions as each generation built on the prior ones.

Pre-historic remains are found in burial mounds mostly because that is all that survives of those cultures. The burial process preserves the bones and artifacts from environmental destruction.

On the contrary, many of the earliest religions were about participation in life, in the form of Mother Earth, and ressurection as opposed to existing in an "afterlife". We know this because of hymns and prayers, ideas that were handed down into newer religions as each generation built on the prior ones.

Pre-historic remains are found in burial mounds mostly because that is all that survives of those cultures. The burial process preserves the bones and artifacts from environmental destruction.

Well believe what you preach. No evidence, no truth. The evidence says they contemplated death. And still the Mother Earth argument falls perfectly with what I'm saying. They didn't understand the world, so you make a god to fill the gap.

To reply to some previous comments about free will. Indeed, no one likes to be under someone else's control. The idea of scientific predetermination however is so broad and so enormous that for all practical purposes you have free will. That is the key, though you do not technically have free will, for all purposes beyond being omniscient, you do.

In relation to another comment earlier, yes, you do have the ability to veto any decision. However, what causes that veto? And what causes that cause? You see, everything is interwoven in strands of cause and effect into a sheet of infinitely long fabric of existence. The chemical reactions causing that veto were started by yet another reaction, which, if previously known, could say that you would veto the impulse.

Religious or scientific, all forms of predetermination are so huge that, failing omniscience, it can not play a role in our lives and therefore should be ignored almost entirely.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

Well believe what you preach. No evidence, no truth. The evidence says they contemplated death. And still the Mother Earth argument falls perfectly with what I'm saying. They didn't understand the world, so you make a god to fill the gap.
The "Mother Earth argument" isn't about explaning the world, either. It's about being one with her in life. There is no "gap" to fill when you participate in the world.

I am sorry if I "preach"; I was just supplying a summary from my studies in mythology. If you'd like to learn more, I can find some mythological-archaeological links for you. I especially recommend the work of Marijah Gimbutas, but that just because her work fascinates me.

To reply to some previous comments about free will. Indeed, no one likes to be under someone else's control. The idea of scientific predetermination however is so broad and so enormous that for all practical purposes you have free will. That is the key, though you do not technically have free will, for all purposes beyond being omniscient, you do.

If you don't really have free will, though, then aren't you not responsible for your actions? If you didn't really make a choice, then how can you be blamed for it?

If you don't really have free will, though, then aren't you not responsible for your actions? If you didn't really make a choice, then how can you be blamed for it?

Well, if we don't have free will, then your punisment and punishers have no real choice either. Apparently punishment then is one's fate as determiend by the universe.

Since the universe is both infinitely large and infinitely detailed, I don't believe that pre-destination even theoretically exists (that it exists but we could never express it). I figure that the infinite complexity actually cancels any possible pre-destination, since pre-destination would require an exact (and thus finite) set of objects to control.

I'm no quantum mechanic, but this is my layperson take on predestination.

Though it is non existant, the idea of infinity exists, does it not? Would this not be similar in nature, being impossible to ever reach, yet still existing? What you described is a being of infinite knowledge, thus Omniscient.

To respond to the question of morality in a predestined universe I would state that you miss the point of the vastness of this predestination. Everything appears to be free, and thus due to our limited understanding and lack of ability to grasp the infinite-ness we must assume free will exists so as to function in everyday society. So are you responsible for your actions? According to any human, yes. According to an omniscient being, probably not. That is the difference, perspective.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

If you don't really have free will, though, then aren't you not responsible for your actions? If you didn't really make a choice, then how can you be blamed for it?
Punishment is just to create a causal chain with a good effect. The necessity of punishment is to create new pre-determined actions that are considered to be good or at least according to my thoughts on the deterministic universe.

If I may shed my experiences on this topic. The idea of scientific predestination is perfectly plausible. Chaos theory is simply a logical conclusion derived from experimental data changing due to unseen variables. If all variables were known in a certain situation, then yes, the situation could accurately be predicted 100% of the time. However, this sort of knowledge would require an innate omniscience. Thus stated, predestination, while existing scientifically, can never truly be predicted due to the infinite amount of variables existant in the universe.
So are we predestined to do certain things? Yes, however, the idea of predestination is a very broad one in that nothing can fully be predicted, the predestination simply is.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

Whoa. I had no idea other people had come up with this. I've been explaining this to people one by one for the last few years (I also do other stuff, but this is a good conversation piece) and it always makes them either very disturbed or very cross-eyed. It's actually so cool to discover that other people have come up with this train of thought as well, as I thought I was alone up till this point. You guys have made my day.

Whoa. I had no idea other people had come up with this. I've been explaining this to people one by one for the last few years (I also do other stuff, but this is a good conversation piece) and it always makes them either very disturbed or very cross-eyed. It's actually so cool to discover that other people have come up with this train of thought as well, as I thought I was alone up till this point. You guys have made my day.
Glad to help out. Yea, people around here get a good headscratchin too.

To respond to the question of morality in a predestined universe I would state that you miss the point of the vastness of this predestination. Everything appears to be free, and thus due to our limited understanding and lack of ability to grasp the infinite-ness we must assume free will exists so as to function in everyday society. So are you responsible for your actions? According to any human, yes. According to an omniscient being, probably not. That is the difference, perspective.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan
The illusion of free will is not free will. Acting as if we have free will is not having free will. Determination is circumstance in control of everything. Free will is you in control of the things you do. Free will is "I did it"; it is knowing that you are the cause of, and responsible for, the wilful decisions you make. If circumstance is creating those decisions and controlling the outcomes, then you are not. You cannot have it both ways; either you are responsible for the things you do, or you have the illusion of free will. If reality is as you say, and you truly believe it, then you can no longer claim responsibility for the things "you do" or blame anyone else for the things "they do", because it's not them doing it, it's circumstance.

Well, if we don't have free will, then your punisment and punishers have no real choice either. Apparently punishment then is one's fate as determiend by the universe.
Then there is no morality.

...you can no longer claim responsibility for the things "you do" or blame anyone else for the things "they do", because it's not them doing it, it's circumstance.
Done. Try it some time. Life is much more peaceful this way.

There are two major views on pre-determination which I have run across.

1) Religious, old Puritan train of thought. God has already chosen who goes to heaven and not. We are just slaves to what this choice was.

2) Scientifc, pool table analogy. This typically goes as followed. The universe is essentially a giant expanding box with all the matter existing before the big bang or whatever started the expansion. Collision theory supports that if we know the intial momentum and mass (special relativity defines the innate relationship between the two and energy) then we shall know the final mass, energy, and momentum. Similar to a pool table, you set the initial conditions, strike the balls and you could (with difficulty) simulate the motion of all the balls. According to believers of this idea, we are all just creations of this pre-determined set of consecutive collisions.

Then there is always the idea of screwing pre-determination and love the free will.
Baptists and many other denominations do not fit onto your poll…

Then there is no morality.

In a pre-determined world, who needs morality. Morality is a basis of how to make decisions and if we don't really make decisions, who needs morality.

I have always tried to see the religous view on predestination more like this..
You have complete control over what you are doing/about to do next, you get to make the choices, it is just that God knows exactly what choices you are going to be presented and then which one you will pick.

That's not how the Puritans taught it!

And if you wanted to talk about God knowing since creation who will go to heaven and who won't, I would say...
God knows who everyone is that will make the choice to be a Christian, but he still allows everyone to have the chance.

In a truly objective universe, indeed, we do not need morality. However you miss the point. What would our world be without morality, without a sense of right and wrong, without a judicial system? You see, morality is needed to help us subjective creatures, even though it might not realistically exist. But yes, you are right, decisions are ultimately not moral or immoral, they simply are.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

In a pre-determined world, who needs morality. Morality is a basis of how to make decisions and if we don't really make decisions, who needs morality.
...but then the punishment makes no sense.

...but then the punishment makes no sense.

As I said before, obviously then, punishment is the universal fate of those who do social wrong. Weird huh.

...but then the punishment makes no sense.
Punishment is only a means for us to cause people to behave in ways that we like. We can never know if this system we live in is deterministic nor does it really make a difference. In a deterministic system punishment causes future events to happen.

The problem that most people have with determinism is that they can not understand the way that it still allows people to make choices but that these people still do not actually make choices. If I am going to go to heaven in a God determined system then I will actually deserve it, there is no choice for me to be evil if that is the belief. If I choose to punish someone then it will determine future events, whether this world is deterministic or not is an abstraction. It is like asking if this world is real, this world acts real but it could be the Matrix or something but this fact has no bearing on whether I should eat or not.

As I said before, obviously then, punishment is the universal fate of those who do social wrong. Weird huh.
What is a "universal fate"?

What is a "universal fate"?

Whatever this predetermined outcome is. Obviously it includes the punishment then.

Punishment is only a means for us to cause people to behave in ways that we like. We can never know if this system we live in is deterministic nor does it really make a difference. In a deterministic system punishment causes future events to happen.

The problem that most people have with determinism is that they can not understand the way that it still allows people to make choices but that these people still do not actually make choices. If I am going to go to heaven in a God determined system then I will actually deserve it, there is no choice for me to be evil if that is the belief. If I choose to punish someone then it will determine future events, whether this world is deterministic or not is an abstraction. It is like asking if this world is real, this world acts real but it could be the Matrix or something but this fact has no bearing on whether I should eat or not.
If this determinism works as they say, then there is no such thing as behaviour that people "do"; everything is caused by circumstance, so people don't "do" things, they are just pushed along by fate, like litter on a windy street.

What you suggest is a logical contradiction: allowing people to make choices while they do not make choices. They either make choices, or they do not.

If you do something that causes future events, that contradicts the suggestion that fate/circumstance causes them.

Whatever this predetermined outcome is. Obviously it includes the punishment then.
If the outcome is predetermined, and everyone knows it because they've all bought into this philosophy of yours, then why does anyone need to be punished? Nothing "wrong" was done.

If the outcome is predetermined, and everyone knows it because they've all bought into this philosophy of yours, then why does anyone need to be punished? Nothing "wrong" was done.

That's exactly what I'm saying. No one can control the fact that they are punishing the person. The punishment supercedes the punisher. It is built into the predestination.

That's exactly what I'm saying. No one can control the fact that they are punishing the person. The punishment supercedes the punisher. It is built into the predestination.
So, even though they are aware that there is no need for punishment, they will be forced to impose the punihsment on the innocent victim, much to their horror?

You are making people into conscious automatons.

There is no predetermined outcome for the universe. Those who think so need to fast-forward a hundred years of scientific discovery. Under classical mechanics, all matter and energy react to eachother in very specific and exact ways. However classical mechanics is dead wrong. Most, if not all, goings-on at the atomic and subatomic levels are completely random. Whether you believe God controls these or they are truly random is a matter of faith, but it is impossible to tell with absolute certainty what will happen. All we can determine is the most likely course of events. Example: When you drop a rock, the energy of its motion is transformed into sound and heat when it hits the ground, usually. It is impossible, although ridiculously unlikely, that the rock would simply bounce up into the air. Predeterminism are teh suck!!!!!111shiftoneshiftone

If this determinism works as they say, then there is no such thing as behaviour that people "do"; everything is caused by circumstance, so people don't "do" things, they are just pushed along by fate, like litter on a windy street.

What you suggest is a logical contradiction: allowing people to make choices while they do not make choices. They either make choices, or they do not.

If you do something that causes future events, that contradicts the suggestion that fate/circumstance causes them.
I make the decision but the action I choose is predetermined so therefore in our sense of the word decision I make a choice but in the overall picture I was going to do that anyway. So therefore I make decisions it is just that my decision's outcome is determined before it happened.

I do not suggest a logical contradiction: we make choices but we do not have free will so those choices are as much choices as falling is a choice that leaves make. Choice is a word that only describes human action and exists nowhere else, people make these choices but according to deterministic philosophy there was no free will involved only processes that led to a result like a math problem does.

Things do cause other things to happen in nature. A rock falling from the sky crushed Johnny's head, the rock did something that caused something else to happen but there was no free will involved. Thought could be as deterministic as the rock, the rock is bound to hit a certain location based on various factors just as the thought is bound towards a certain idea.

There is no contradiction it is just that determinism is incredibly hard to comprehend in the entirety of all it could mean. When I first conceived the idea of a deterministic world the implications of it made me feel sort of ill until I sorted them all out, there is no bad logic just really weird logic.

There is no predetermined outcome for the universe. Those who think so need to fast-forward a hundred years of scientific discovery. Under classical mechanics, all matter and energy react to eachother in very specific and exact ways. However classical mechanics is dead wrong. Most, if not all, goings-on at the atomic and subatomic levels are completely random. Whether you believe God controls these or they are truly random is a matter of faith, but it is impossible to tell with absolute certainty what will happen. All we can determine is the most likely course of events. Example: When you drop a rock, the energy of its motion is transformed into sound and heat when it hits the ground, usually. It is impossible, although ridiculously unlikely, that the rock would simply bounce up into the air. Predeterminism are teh suck!!!!!111shiftoneshiftone

But clearly, you are not learned enough in the matter to know that it still holds predictability which typically is rock solid. Else, how would you ever explain chemistry?

But clearly, you are not learned enough in the matter to know that it still holds predictability which typically is rock solid. Else, how would you ever explain chemistry?
Heh, "rock" solid. LOL. But seriously, this sort of thing has been proven. Read In Search of Shrodinger's Cat. That's where I learned all this crazy stuff. And while yes, you could spend millions of years dropping rocks and having none of them bounce back up, somewhere in the universe there will be a particle behaving in a way obnoxiously contrary to Newton's mechanics. That's particles gravitational feild will effect all other matter in the universe, thus altering fate forever, and this kind of thing happens all the goddamned time.

So, even though they are aware that there is no need for punishment, they will be forced to impose the punihsment on the innocent victim, much to their horror?

You are making people into conscious automatons.
They are not aware that there is no need and that is why they punish and there could actually be a need. Punishment is taken into account when finding the result, punishment affects the outcome if you are considering the punishment to be the start of the analysis but all the things that lead to this could still be deterministic as well as the results. Larry Joe is a criminal and this is due to poor education and family and the fact that he has a mental disorder. Curtis Retchens believes in rehabilitating people which stems from his family's liberal attitudes, his high level of education, his knowledge of psychiatry and so on and so forth. Curtis helps Larry by giving him treatments, these treatments make Larry a contributing part of society. Both men were pre-determined, the choices were the same and the result was pre-determined from all of the previous.

No one is an automaton but instead they act as they think that they should and all of this is pre-determined.

I make the decision but the action I choose is predetermined so therefore in our sense of the word decision I make a choice but in the overall picture I was going to do that anyway. So therefore I make decisions it is just that my decision's outcome is determined before it happened.

I do not suggest a logical contradiction: we make choices but we do not have free will so those choices are as much choices as falling is a choice that leaves make. Choice is a word that only describes human action and exists nowhere else, people make these choices but according to deterministic philosophy there was no free will involved only processes that led to a result like a math problem does.
Sorry, but that is still a logical contradiction. Leaves do not make choices, hence a choice that is "like" that is not a choice at all.

Choice is a word that describes self-determination, the ability to chart our own wilful course. That is what makes us responsible for the things we choose: the fact that it is we who choose them.

Things do cause other things to happen in nature. A rock falling from the sky crushed Johnny's head, the rock did something that caused something else to happen but there was no free will involved. Thought could be as deterministic as the rock, the rock is bound to hit a certain location based on various factors just as the thought is bound towards a certain idea.

There is no contradiction it is just that determinism is incredibly hard to comprehend in the entirety of all it could mean. When I first conceived the idea of a deterministic world the implications of it made me feel sort of ill until I sorted them all out, there is no bad logic just really weird logic.
Things do cause other things to happen in nature. We observe this going on objectively, apart from ourselves. Then, on the other hand, there is our self, which is apart from nature. It is spiritual, it is above and apart from nature ("super"-natural), hence the reason it can observe nature as something other than itself.

The rock does not have free will. The conscious self does. The thought that is a result of natural causes is not a result of will. You can't have it both ways.

Heh, "rock" solid. LOL. But seriously, this sort of thing has been proven. Read In Search of Shrodinger's Cat. That's where I learned all this crazy stuff. And while yes, you could spend millions of years dropping rocks and having none of them bounce back up, somewhere in the universe there will be a particle behaving in a way obnoxiously contrary to Newton's mechanics. That's particles gravitational feild will effect all other matter in the universe, thus altering fate forever, and this kind of thing happens all the goddamned time.

I have read In Search of Shroedinger's Cat and I can actually see it sitting on my book shelf. Those 'thought experiments' are highly hypothetical and nothing more. Most were actually to attempt to make Heisenberg not so uncertain. The point was to show that by observing you change the system. Much of the research I do now unfortunately is affected by that. Though without observing, you do not change the system, so hypothetically, if we knew what was going on without having to observe, we could make the correct predictions 100% of the time.

Things do cause other things to happen in nature. We observe this going on objectively, apart from ourselves. Then, on the other hand, there is our self, which is apart from nature. It is spiritual, it is above and apart from nature ("super"-natural), hence the reason it can observe nature as something other than itself.

The rock does not have free will. The conscious self does. The thought that is a result of natural causes is not a result of will. You can't have it both ways.

This is only if you are willing to throw out the possiblity of scientific predetermination.

This is only if you are willing to throw out the possiblity of scientific predetermination.
In favour of free will that I demonstratably have? Darned tootin' I am.

Sorry, but that is still a logical contradiction. Leaves do not make choices, hence a choice that is "like" that is not a choice at all.

Choice is a word that describes self-determination, the ability to chart our own wilful course. That is what makes us responsible for the things we choose: the fact that it is we who choose them.

Things do cause other things to happen in nature. We observe this going on objectively, apart from ourselves. Then, on the other hand, there is our self, which is apart from nature. It is spiritual, it is above and apart from nature ("super"-natural), hence the reason it can observe nature as something other than itself.

The rock does not have free will. The conscious self does. The thought that is a result of natural causes is not a result of will. You can't have it both ways.
Choice is the convenient word that I use because of the difficulty in describing human action without it. It is simply easier to use choice than to go on about deterministic processes, besides choice is the common term for what I am describing. Because I am using that word does not mean that there is any inherent flaw in my argument only that I use the word in a manner that you disagree with.

There is no proven supernatural and the supernatural could still be deterministic it is just that it is a lot harder to argue about that which you can not sense. Processing information is the process of thought, computers in their own little way think but it is less complex than our own processes. We could still input variables into our mind give them their own weight and get our decision based on how we process these variables, our choice and ideas could be similar to how a computer does math problems or graphing or something else.

I do not propose having it both ways, it is just that you see contradictions due to the difficult nature of determinism, determinism is a more complex thought than time travel and it is also a more logical one than time travel. I can think in how we tend to think of thinking but this act that we call thinking could simply be the input of variables into our own little fuzzy equations. I suppose that from your line of thinking I argue that choice and thought do not exist and that I should not use the words but these words describe life no matter the form and because of their ease are still words that I would use to describe a deterministic universe despite the fact that they seem to support the philosophy of free-will.

In favour of free will that I demonstratably have? Darned tootin' I am.

How do you know that even the urge to do something random to prove you free will isn't predetermined. You have no proof against it. For all we know this entire conversation is predetermined. Sucks to think we are just puppets to greater forces, doesn't it?

DAmn I've heard less technobabble from a Star Trek Episode!

I won't touch on the scientific aspect of pre-determination, current debates aside. Actually I never ever heard of it as a scientific aspect till now.

On the religious side however....
some on already touched on this briefly but I'll expand on it as I see it.

Pre-determination is not so much that God (replace with Deity of choice) has determined whether or not you go to Heaven or Hell. It is that He knows already.

I explain it like this. First if you accept the concept of God as an Omnicient, Omnipitant, and Omnipresent then you have to accept that He exsists outside of linier time (which would also explain how He can have no beginning and no end). Given this He can see what we chose long before we are born.

Some one once explained this to me as God making a cake. He can see all the steps at once so as He see flaws develop in the final result then He can take steps to correct it.

Now granted He can't do that with us, or rather He won't. Followers are meaningless if they are forced to worship you. Thus we have free will.

You can also thing of pre-determination like this:

Asssume you have a time machine (and throw out all the other quantim and Hesienburg and Shrodingers and other theories previously discussed for the moment). I decide to murder Joe Shmoe. After witnessing me doing so, you hop into your handy dandy time machine and go back to before the murder. Assuming you don't interfeer, you watch me from a diffrent angle. You knew what was going to happen. Was that murder predestination or was it still Free Will.

Thus Free Will and Pre-Destiniation can simultaniously exsist religiously.

Choice is the convenient word that I use because of the difficulty in describing human action without it. It is simply easier to use choice than to go on about deterministic processes, besides choice is the common term for what I am describing. Because I am using that word does not mean that there is any inherent flaw in my argument only that I use the word in a manner that you disagree with.
Then perhaps you should find some words that mean what you need them to say. Otherwise, you have compromised consciousness for this new philosophy.

There is no proven supernatural and the supernatural could still be deterministic it is just that it is a lot harder to argue about that which you can not sense. Processing information is the process of thought, computers in their own little way think but it is less complex than our own processes. We could still input variables into our mind give them their own weight and get our decision based on how we process these variables, our choice and ideas could be similar to how a computer does math problems or graphing or something else.
There is no proven supernatural; it is unreal. Philosophical only. That's rather beside the point, as we are discussing philosophies. How can something that is not real be deterministic (effected by cause-and-effect that occurs in the physical world)? It is equally as unlikely as saying that something unreal can effect a cause in the physical world.

When I say, "I do something," I am not talking cause-and-effect. There is no "cause" behind the self. I am talking "me" (body and mind) having an effect from a particular perspective; this is "self"-caused things, taking things from the subjective perspective where there is no causation except self. You can talk about people being driven by circumstance, or you can talk about self-caused decisions and actions. There are only two perspectives (subjective and objective) and, until things change, only those two possible ways of looking at it.

But if you do someday find a way to explain how the unreal self can be effected by real events, I promise to be suitably impressed.


I do not propose having it both ways, it is just that you see contradictions due to the difficult nature of determinism, determinism is a more complex thought than time travel and it is also a more logical one than time travel. I can think in how we tend to think of thinking but this act that we call thinking could simply be the input of variables into our own little fuzzy equations. I suppose that from your line of thinking I argue that choice and thought do not exist and that I should not use the words but these words describe life no matter the form and because of their ease are still words that I would use to describe a deterministic universe despite the fact that they seem to support the philosophy of free-will.
No, I see contradictions due to my limited philosophical thinking, that only takes into account logic and the two perspectives mentioned above, things we know to work truthfully. I cannot see the logic in something being and not being at the same time.

How do you know that even the urge to do something random to prove you free will isn't predetermined. You have no proof against it. For all we know this entire conversation is predetermined. Sucks to think we are just puppets to greater forces, doesn't it?
Because I am the one who has that urge. The key word is "I". If there is an "I", then there is a wilful conscious mind.

Well then, let me try this once more. First, to comment on the religious post above. Interesting post, theologically sound. However, I think this is still best approached in the scientific manner.

The idea I think we are trying to get across, Willamena, is that while you have the choice, the choice is already known. Let me try this example. You are in a room and given a choice: would you rather have steak or pasta for dinner? You haven't had steak in a while, so you choose steak. Now, your memory is wiped and all traces of that encounter are gone. The person you were when you entered the room is perfectly duplicated. You get the question again, would you rather have steak or pasta? What would you choose?
School of thought 1: You would choose pasta
School of thought 2: You would choose steak due to your wanting steak because you haven't had it in a while. This shows a biological predetermination of your steak choice, even though you are choosing steak.
- Brian Chut
Official Religious Emissary

Asimov is a joke. Chaos theory is a joke, for the most part. Chaos exists but a theory of it is a joke when it comes to saying anything useful.

Chaos Theory is no joke. I don't think it is appropriately named, however, it's application is highly useful.

Of course calling it The Mathematics of the Theoretical Inclusion of Chaos to Entropic Natural Systems was just too cumbersome.

Very true. But the math behind it holds with mechanical systems. I know I was a bit ambiguous in the first thread; I had no real intention of limiting the example to mechanics, just using it as an example of predictability in physics. Now leaving the realm of mechanics, universe theory is typically excluded from mechanics, Chaos Theory begins to lose a little bit of weight. All examples of Chaos Theory that I have been taught come from mechanics.

See, the math generates Chaos Theory, Chaos Theory is not the math.

Actually, historically, Chaos Theory was developed as a way to predict weather patterns. It had nothing to do with a mechanical application. It has been joined to mechanics, but originated in mathematics.

And never call Asimov a joke. He was a brilliant man. That is akin to calling Stephen Hawking an idiot.

Well then, let me try this once more. First, to comment on the religious post above. Interesting post, theologically sound. However, I think this is still best approached in the scientific manner.

The idea I think we are trying to get across, Willamena, is that while you have the choice, the choice is already known. Let me try this example. You are in a room and given a choice: would you rather have steak or pasta for dinner? You haven't had steak in a while, so you choose steak. Now, your memory is wiped and all traces of that encounter are gone. The person you were when you entered the room is perfectly duplicated. You get the question again, would you rather have steak or pasta? What would you choose?
School of thought 1: You would choose pasta
School of thought 2: You would choose steak due to your wanting steak because you haven't had it in a while. This shows a biological predetermination of your steak choice, even though you are choosing steak.
- Brian Chut
Official Religious Emissary
Whether or not I have the ability to choose is not dependent upon the choice I make.
School of thought 3: Whatever choice I make, I am the one who makes it.

Whether or not I have the ability to choose is not dependent upon the choice I make.
School of thought 3: Whatever choice I make, I am the one who makes it.

Yes, but there is only one real choice you can make. Agree or disagree: the choices you make come from a sum of all your past experiences.

Yes, but there is only one real choice you can make. Agree or disagree: the choices you make come from a sum of all your past experiences.
There is not only one choice in the experiment as described, because the conditions of the experiment are not repeated exactly.

In fact, I can tell you that if the experiment is conducted as described 3 or 4 times the likelihood that I would choose pasta instead of steak increases with each subsequent trial, regardless of brain wipe.

One order of scrambled brains coming up...

1) Religious pre-determinism, I assume from your poll option, is the decision already having been made as to who gets into heaven and who doesn't. This sounds like a singular example of pre-destination, whereby all your actions have already been decided in advance by God. As has already been said, it's not that God decides, it's that He already knows. Simple explanation for this too:

God made the universe, i.e. time and space. Therefore God is not bound by time and space (you can't be bound by something you created...). Therefore, God's view of the universe is different to ours, and every place / moment is accessible to Him at, in our understanding, the same time. So free will exists, you have a choice, it's just God doesn't have to wait and see what choice you make - He can already see it.

2) Scietific predeterminism. Big problem here - and to start us off, here's some background:
Religion goes 'here's how the universe is'
Science says: 'hang on, let's look into this...'
Science discovers universal laws etc. etc. etc.
Science says 'Yay - now we know how the universe works, and it has nothing to do with God at all. It's all goverened by laws'
Someone says 'Hang on - who decided what those laws should be? (or more accurately - who decided what the arbitrary constants within those laws should be) - it can't be turtles all the way down'
Science says 'bugger - you're right' and goes away to scratch its head awhile.
Science comes back and says 'Got it! Every possible variation of those laws exists. Therefore we don't need God again, we can just have infinite universes all with different laws. It's just you can't see them and we're stuck in this one which just happens to have THESE laws'
I say: 'sounds like that needs an equal amount of faith to me, but that's beside the point'

The point is, according to the only scientific theory which totally precludes a creator / supreme being / arbitrary constant decider, there are infinite possibilities and every time you make a decision, the universe branches again and again and again. So it's not that the initial circumstances of the universe pre-determine your actions, but rather your action determine the branch the universe takes within the multiverse.

Or something.

Can I have fries to go with my scrambled brain please...?

Actually, scratch that (the sciencey bit). Reading through all that again, I think there was a leap from infinite variations in arbitrary constants to infinite universes based on outcomes of our decisions.

Actually, scientific pre-determinism still stands (or rather, isn't floored by this point), just within the context of the universe we happen to be in governed by the laws containing the particular arbitrary constants it just happens to have.

I think I've been reading too much Pratchett again...

Carry on.

There is not only one choice in the experiment as described, because the conditions of the experiment are not repeated exactly.

In fact, I can tell you that if the experiment is conducted as described 3 or 4 times the likelihood that I would choose pasta instead of steak increases with each subsequent trial, regardless of brain wipe.

But you do agree that if all variables are the same you will make the same choice, right?

Perhaps, I misunderstand the concept of free will, but it seems to me that it implies that a person can make a choice without regard to the environment/circumstances surrounding them. The fact that they might make the choice based upon the environment/circumstances surrounding them doesn't invalidate free will. However:

A quadripalegic will never be an Olympic swimmer. This is regardless of free will. The quadripalegic can never choose to be an Olympic swimmer. How, then, does free will exist?

But you do agree that if all variables are the same you will make the same choice, right?
Alright. In such an impossible situation, I might make the same decision. But that's a fantasy, and examining impossible hypotheticals in no way demonstrates any "real" predetermination.

Perhaps, I misunderstand the concept of free will, but it seems to me that it implies that a person can make a choice without regard to the environment/circumstances surrounding them. The fact that they might make the choice based upon the environment/circumstances surrounding them doesn't invalidate free will. However:

A quadripalegic will never be an Olympic swimmer. This is regardless of free will. The quadripalegic can never choose to be an Olympic swimmer. How, then, does free will exist?
The quadripalegic is free to be whatever he can be. This is not free will, but freedom in general.

Will is what your consciousness does when it asserts itself. You make a wilful choice when YOU make a choice, as opposed to when someone else chooses for you. You do something wilfully when YOU do it, as opposed to someone else grabbing your arm and hitting you with your own appendage ("against your will").

Free will was a concept developed for discussions about Predestination, the idea that God determines a destiny for us. If we determine our own destiny, then our will is free.

2) Scientifc, pool table analogy. This typically goes as followed. The universe is essentially a giant expanding box with all the matter existing before the big bang or whatever started the expansion. Collision theory supports that if we know the intial momentum and mass (special relativity defines the innate relationship between the two and energy) then we shall know the final mass, energy, and momentum. Similar to a pool table, you set the initial conditions, strike the balls and you could (with difficulty) simulate the motion of all the balls. According to believers of this idea, we are all just creations of this pre-determined set of consecutive collisions.

I'm afraid you got it wrong.

For two reasons:

1) Try to solve the "4 bodies" problems (example: four planets).
2) Uncertainty Principle (momentum-space and time-energy).

Will is what your consciousness does when it asserts itself. You make a wilful choice when YOU make a choice, as opposed to when someone else chooses for you. You do something wilfully when YOU do it, as opposed to someone else grabbing your arm and hitting you with your own appendage ("against your will").People become quadripalegics against their will. Hell, people are born against their will.


Free will was a concept developed for discussions about Predestination, the idea that God determines a destiny for us. If we determine our own destiny, then our will is free.So then I was right, and that being born a quadripalegic isn't an example of free will.

Personally, I'm arguing for the middle ground between predestination and free will: randomness.

People become quadripalegics against their will. Hell, people are born against their will.

So then I was right, and that being born a quadripalegic isn't an example of free will.
Being born and being a quadripalegic are not examples of free will, right. What the quadripalegic chooses to do with his life is an example of free will.

Personally, I'm arguing for the middle ground between predestination and free will: randomness.
Randomness rocks.

Alright. In such an impossible situation, I might make the same decision. But that's a fantasy, and examining impossible hypotheticals in no way demonstrates any "real" predetermination.

Except it demonstrates the point quite well. It shows that our decisions are based on the sum of everything that came before them, which is the first step towards pre-determination, wouldn't you agree?

Except it demonstrates the point quite well. It shows that our decisions are based on the sum of everything that came before them, which is the first step towards pre-determination, wouldn't you agree?
The situation of encountering exact circumstance over again would require a repeat of a moment in time. In the case that reality is warped in this way, the same moment in time repeated however many times, the same decision will be seen to be made over and over, not because the circumstance made it happen over and over, but because the same moment in time is being repeated, like a video rewound and played over again.

This does not demonstrate that the choice made at that instant was determined by the circumstance, it only demonstrates that that choice was made in that moment of time.

i.e. It doesn't demonstrate the choice made each time, but a repeat of the choice made once.

The situation of encountering exact circumstance over again would require a repeat of a moment in time. In the case that reality is warped in this way, the same moment in time repeated however many times, the same decision will be seen to be made over and over, not because the circumstance made it happen over and over, but because the same moment in time is being repeated, like a video rewound and played over again.

This does not demonstrate that the choice made at that instant was determined by the circumstance, it only demonstrates that that choice was made in that moment of time.

i.e. It doesn't demonstrate the choice made each time, but a repeat of the choice made once.

Except that if we could manipulate circumstances to be the exact same, and I'm not saying we can, but if we could we could expect you to do the exact same thing, right?

Except that if we could manipulate circumstances to be the exact same, and I'm not saying we can, but if we could we could expect you to do the exact same thing, right?
You could never manipulate all the circumstances to duplicate the experiment, there will always be variables, such as aging, that you have no control over. If something internal causes hunger where it didn't exist in the prior iteration of the experiment, the circumstances have changed. If a mote of dust gets in my eye, and causes me to point left instead of right, the circumstances have changed. Etc. Etc.

What you suggest is a fantastic scenario, and I maintain that it does not demonstrate any real determinism.

Except it demonstrates the point quite well. It shows that our decisions are based on the sum of everything that came before them, which is the first step towards pre-determination, wouldn't you agree?
With this argument one could point out that the body processed the steak and therefore even if you mind wipe the person the variables in the body have changed and thus the person might pick pasta instead. Or after picking steak so many times pasta will slowly become the more frequent choice.

The illusion of free will is not free will. Acting as if we have free will is not having free will. Determination is circumstance in control of everything.
Determination is not control, it is the limits of causes in either causing or not causing effects. One effect of the causes and their limitations in causing or not causing things is free will.

With this argument one could point out that the body processed the steak and therefore even if you mind wipe the person the variables in the body have changed and thus the person might pick pasta instead. Or after picking steak so many times pasta will slowly become the more frequent choice.

But even that admits that the process is not determined by any random firings of the brain but rather the deliberate and measurable effects of incentive and disincentive upon the body. Every action we choose to take is taken after measuring costs and benefits, be it consciously or subconciously, from whether or not we steal from the cookie jar to whether or not we get married. Every reaction we perform is determined by physics and biology, from pulling our hand away from a hot element as we touch it to tossing and turning in bed at night. Every random event is determined by physics, from the flip of a coin being affected by which way the wind is going to you accidently bumping into a lamp because of its location in relation to yours. Now, in fairness, we can't measure very many of these things, but remember that in theory every concept can be operationalized, or turned into a measurable factor, with the right tools. Thus, the future, a product of every current concept, from actions to reactions to random events, is, in theory, knowable.

Determination is not control, it is the limits of causes in either causing or not causing effects. One effect of the causes and their limitations in causing or not causing things is free will.
That which determines things has control, even if it is chaos.

Every cause has an effect, otherwise it is not a cause.

Free will is the conscious individual causing things, as opposed to circumstances.

That which determines things has control, even if it is chaos.
Perhaps, I dont think that's going to determine free will for us though...I think your other comments are probably a better route to understanding what each other is intending.

Every cause has an effect, otherwise it is not a cause.
That is a limitation of cause. Something that must cause something cant not cause it, just as an effect cannot be the result of something that cannot cause it. ;)

Free will is the conscious individual causing things, as opposed to circumstances.
Do you mean being an agentitive cause or being the only cause operating without the usual limits of 'causes'? The latter seems implausible mystification to me.

Free will if you mean something mystical like the ability to manifest what one wills freely doesnt exist. I dont think that the notion free will was ever intended to mean that because if it did mean that, why would people even be debating? It's as easy to prove as to will a giant gold egg to appear and note that it doesnt happen.

So what is a sensible interpretation that cannot so obviously be disproven that no one would even bother considering that there could be free will? I consider that it means the capacity to intervene in one's own will. To free one's will from 'external stimulus - internal reaction - possible external act' chain of events (causes and effects) being the extent of our will in determining our will our actions, by inserting between internal reaction and possible external reaction 'introspection' and to make decisions based on introspection that can be internalised to form part of one's furture internal reaction (ie to know somewhat of our own will and to be able to make choices that can then be causes of our own will).

Basically it is a skill. That means it is constrained by the limits of cause and effect, not evenly dispersed throughout any particular group of persons or within one person over their lifetime, and that it is subject to our own practises as well as external factors.

Unless you want to posit some implausible meaning (something that ignores the fact that we obviously cannot will to be freely, either ourselves or the world around us), then you must assume the ordinary known material cause effect relationships and consider what might be meant by the term within those constraints. I take it that free refers to 'will' not being completely constrained rather than free refering to an ability to will anything and have it be so, or even an ability to determine without any constraint what our will is. I dont take free to mean 'free for all' but rather a limitation on constraint.

Perhaps, I dont think that's going to determine free will for us though...I think your other comments are probably a better route to understanding what each other is intending.
Eh, probably. :)

That is a limitation of cause. Something that must cause something cant not cause it, just as an effect cannot be the result of something that cannot cause it. ;)
If it's not causing an effect, what is it the cause of?

Do you mean being an agentitive cause or being the only cause operating without the usual limits of 'causes'? The latter seems implausible mystification to me.

Free will if you mean something mystical like the ability to manifest what one wills freely doesnt exist. I dont think that the notion free will was ever intended to mean that because if it did mean that, why would people even be debating? It's as easy to prove as to will a giant gold egg to appear and note that it doesnt happen.

So what is a sensible interpretation that cannot so obviously be disproven that no one would even bother considering that there could be free will? I consider that it means the capacity to intervene in one's own will. To free one's will from 'external stimulus - internal reaction - possible external act' chain of events (causes and effects) being the extent of our will in determining our will our actions, by inserting between internal reaction and possible external reaction 'introspection' and to make decisions based on introspection that can be internalised to form part of one's furture internal reaction (ie to know somewhat of our own will and to be able to make choices that can then be causes of our own will).

Basically it is a skill. That means it is constrained by the limits of cause and effect, not evenly dispersed throughout any particular group of persons or within one person over their lifetime, and that it is subject to our own practises as well as external factors.

Unless you want to posit some implausible meaning (something that ignores the fact that we obviously cannot will to be freely, either ourselves or the world around us), then you must assume the ordinary known material cause effect relationships and consider what might be meant by the term within those constraints. I take it that free refers to 'will' not being completely constrained rather than free refering to an ability to will anything and have it be so, or even an ability to determine without any constraint what our will is. I dont take free to mean 'free for all' but rather a limitation on constraint.
I mean just what I said: the conscious individual causing things, because if that individual can say, after the act, "I did that," they have committed a wilful act. It's all about taking responsibility. Either you did it, or circumstance did; in the latter case, you cannot take responsibility.

The ability to manifest imagined things is not what I mean. Will is a philosophical stance, for lack of a better word, part of a larger philosophical outlook on life*. I have defined it as an action of consciousness, because everything we think, everything we choose, is done wilfully if "I did it" --and will is always free (the only place you can find will that is not free is in speculation about God or Fate, or the new version, Determinism: "Did I do it, freely of my own will, or has God determined all that would be even before I was born?").

It doesn't matter how many physical or circumstantial causes compounded to share responsibility for an effect, if the individual consciously (or subconsciously) asserts him or herself as "the cause" of his or her action, then a wilful act took place.

We cannot consciously deny consciousness (the ability to be aware) and where there is consciousness there is will. It's been equated with wants and desires in the sense of the intent to make something thought of happen ("where there's a will there's a way"); and it's been equated with choice in the sense that there's always something we could have done a bit differently in the execution of a wilful act, even if it's just "Do it, or do nothing?" We are never without choice in a matter of will.

This is how I understand the concept.


*EDIT: Literally an "outlook"; looking out from the mind of a conscious individual.