NationStates Jolt Archive

I was having another discussion, and in the discussion was a major debate on Free-Will vs. Determinism. I had written a paper this semester against Determinism...so I figured I might as well share it with the rest of you. My sources are "A History of Philosophy" by Fredrick Copleston and the Bible. Enjoy:

O Blessed and Immortal God, hear how the lying Determinist heretics rail against Thy great majesty, who say that all things are causally necessitated! Illuminate me, O Lord, and permit me to approach Thy Sacred Mysteries, not like the traitor Judas, who handed Thee over with a kiss, but may my inquiries be offered up to Thee as sweet incense: O Lord, who sayest to us "Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you," I beseech Thee that believing, I may understand these things: What the problem is, what Thou art, whether the claims of the lying heretics are compatible with Thy great Goodness, whether Thou doth what Thou doth solely by chance, and how I might answer the problem at hand.

Again, I ask Thee, O Mighty One, illuminate me, and enable me to rightly place down the problem. I know, Divine Master, that we, made in Thy image and likeness, have in us freedom of the will, just as your Divine Will, O Lord, is free. Yet, the heretic sayeth that all things are causally determined. Therefore, there is either free will or causal determination. Yet, it is conceivable, prima facie, for the insipiens, the fool, who sayeth in his heart there is no God, that we are neither free nor determined, that all things happeneth by chance. The trilemma therefore, O Lord, is this: there is free will, or all things are causally determined, or all things happeneth by chance.

Yet, My God, how am I to answer the problem, how am I to arrive at this particular truth, if I know not first what truth is. Reading the Gospels, I see myself in the words of Pontius Pilate: "What is truth?" Yet, I confess, O Lord, that Thou alone are "the way, the truth, and the life." Now I see; it is so very clear! If first I know Thee, then I know the truth, for Thou art the Truth. Yet, as soon as I thought I have come to a solution, I realize how great the labor is which remaineth: What might we predicate of Thee? Perhaps if I first look at myself, whom Thou madest in Thy image and likeness, then perhaps I might see some vestige of what truly belongeth most fully only to Thee, and only in part to me: I exist.

This truth, that I exist, I cannot doubt, for in doubting there is a proof I exist, for did I not exist, I could not doubt. Yet, it is not necessary that I exist, for I could have not existed, and it is conceivable, prima facie, that I might cease to exist. Therefore, while I exist, existence is not my essence. Existence, though I do exist, is not of me, but borrowed by me, and so it is for every contingent thing. Everything, then, borroweth its existence, but if all things are contingent, from what borrw they? On account of Thee alone, O Lord, whose essence is Thy existence, as Thou Thyself sayest, "I am who am," is anything at all. I praise Thee, O Lord, for Thy illumination: "Thou art He who is, or as the Neo-Platonists say, "The One is-though, indeed, God is beyond being, One, indivisible, unchanging and eternal, without past or future, a constant self identity."

The lying Determinists say that all things are causally necessitated. Yet, My Lord, if this is true, then Thou, who created the world, art the cause of all that happens. However, I consider my own life and see in myself that which ought not to be. I see in myself a poor, wretched sinner. Art Thou, my God, the cause of my sins? Forgive me, my God, for the moment the question arose, the absurdity of it was made present. Thou art who are, and sin is that which is not...How poorly I have phrased it! St. Augustine knew it better than I: "Evil, then, is 'that which falls away from essence and tends towards not being...It tends to make that which is cease to be.'" Thou art, O Lord, that which is, and evil is that which is not, and in causing anything, Thou formest after what Thou knowest first in Thyself: "God, then, in knowing Himself knows all the ways in which His divine essence can be mirrored externally. He knows all the finite good things which will be realized in time...He knows too, not only all the good things which have been, are and will be in the course of time, but also all the evil things...Needless to say, St. Bonaventure does not mean to imply that Evil has its exemplary idea in God: evil is rather the privation in the creature of that which it ought to have according to its idea in God. God knows to all possible things..." If, then, Thou caused evil, then first Thou wouldst have had to have seen evil in Thyself: He whose very essence it is to be first would have had to have seen in Himself that which is not: How great is this absurdity! Clearly, determinism is a blatant lie.

Yet, my God, the question remaineth whether everything happeneth solely by chance. Indeed, the question need not be treated at length before it be dismissed, for it is obvious there is deliberation in Thee, and Thy great acts have a causal relation to Thy deliberation: Thou speakest, and it is; Thou decidest, and it happens. All which is Thou hast ordained from all eternity...even our Salvation, Our Redemption on the Cross by "The Lamb of God, who was slain from the foundation of the world." Indeed, all which Thou hast done was done with the Sacrifice of Our Blessed Lord, the "Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world" in mind. Is this accidental only? Is this coincidence only? It cannot be so!

All praise to Thee, my God, for bringing me to a right answer to the problem at hand. At the beginning of this dialogue, I established that eitehr there is free will, or determinism, or chance. Yet, O Lord, Thou hast made clear for me that Determinism is a lie, and all things cannot be governed solely by chance. I therefore must conclude that there is free will in a way not compatible with Determinism. Thou art truth, O Lord, and Thou hast made man with a libertarian free will.

You wrote a paper against determinism, and towards the end conclude that all things exist because god created it, and deliberated on their creation, so as to create them in just that way, stating:

He knows all the finite good things which will be realized in time...He knows too, not only all the good things which have been, are and will be in the course of time, but also all the evil things

...

Yet, my God, the question remaineth whether everything happeneth solely by chance. Indeed, the question need not be treated at length before it be dismissed, for it is obvious there is deliberation in Thee, and Thy great acts have a causal relation to Thy deliberation: Thou speakest, and it is; Thou decidest, and it happens. All which is Thou hast ordained from all eternity...even our Salvation.

So in attempting to argue against determinism, you argue for determinism.

An "F" would be generous.

What class was this for, exactly?

You wrote a paper against determinism, and towards the end conclude that all things exist because god created it, and deliberated on their creation, so as to create them in just that way.

So in attempting to argue against determinism, you argue for determinism.

An "F" would be generous.

That God created an agent does not mean that God necessitated the actions of the agent in question.

I think a more appropriate thread title would be "Anti-Determinism Prayer"

What class was this for, exactly?

It was for some philosophy class.

That God created an agent does not mean that God necessitated the actions of the agent in question.

no. But that god created an agent AND god knew exactly what that agent would do AND that god could have created the agent differently if he wanted (all of which you admit) does.

and wait wait, this was the entirety of a paper, for college? What the fuck crap ass college do you go to where 1000 words without any proper citation format constitutes a paper?

no. But that god created an agent AND god knew exactly what that agent would do AND that god could have created the agent differently if he wanted (all of which you admit) does.

Does or does not St. Augustine show (at least to my satisfaction) in De Libertate Arbitrii that God's foreknowledge is compatible with freedom of the will?

Does or does not St. Augustine show (at least to my satisfaction) in De Libertate Arbitrii that God's foreknowledge is compatible with freedom of the will?

you want me to tell you whether augustine satisfies something to YOUR satisfaction?

Why the fuck should I know or care whether he shows it to YOUR satisfaction? I'm sure David Copperfield can quite convince a retarded child that he really did make the statue of liberty disappear....

Augustine certain as hell doesn't show it to MY satisfaction.

you want me to tell you whether augustine satisfies something to YOUR satisfaction?

Yes. :)

Yes. :)

I don't really give a fuck whether he satisfies it to your satisfaction. As I said, I'm sure a competant magician can convince a retarded child that he really did saw the pretty lady in half.

I'm sure he does do so to YOUR satisfaction, but let me give you a hint. The lady isn't REALLY cut in half. The child is merely stupid enough to believe that she was.

Likewise, just because you believe it doesn't mean it's right. It just means you're deficient enough to believe that it is.

Leave off the character attacks, Neo Art.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

I think a more appropriate thread title would be "Anti-Determinism Prayer"

/thread

I think a more appropriate thread title would be "Anti-Determinism Prayer"

I think it needs a warning about how it may be difficult to read and understand unless you're an inhabitant of 15th century England.

I think it needs a warning about how it may be difficult to read and understand unless you're an inhabitant of 15th century England.

hmmm...

Warning: contents severely outdated, do not read unless you secretly fantasize about being a fransiscan monk.

and wait wait, this was the entirety of a paper, for college? What the fuck crap ass college do you go to where 1000 words without any proper citation format constitutes a paper?Agreed.

Also without a clearly defined argument, assuming it's for a philosophy class. As well as the, you know, completely biased presentation, if you can call it that, of what you are arguing against. And, you also fail to present and counter possible responses to your position.

If it was for a philosophy course, it deserves a D because you, at least, turned something in.

Some weird creative writing elective, maybe?

I think it needs a warning about how it may be difficult to read and understand unless you're an inhabitant of 15th century England.

I didn't have any trouble understanding it.

I was just wondering what university he attends. None of my philosophy professors would have given me higher than an F on that paper. And only one of them would have accepted a paper written in a prayer format.

The actual paper had citations. I just didn't feel like writing them completely out on this forum.

Agreed.

Also without a clearly defined argument, assuming it's for a philosophy class.

There was a clearly defined argument.

1) Assume the world is deterministic, then all things are caused.
2) God, being first cause, caused all things.
3) If all things are caused, then our acts of the will are caused.
4) Our acts of the will include evil.
5) God therefore causes evil.
6) In creating anything, God sees first what is created in His own Being.
7) God would have had to have first seen evil in Himself in order to create it in the world.
8) God by definition is The Good, and He is Who Is.
9) He who Is therefore would have had to have seen in Himself that which is not, The Good would have had to have seen evil in Himself, and this is a contradiction.
10) Premise 1 is false.

For the record, I'd like to point out that it was only about 1000 words because it was for an introductory level philosophy course, and the max was about that much.

The actual paper had citations. I just didn't feel like writing them completely out on this forum.

So how many references to you have? One?

I agree with the others. If I had submitted that paper, I would have been lucky to get an F.

What "college" do you go to and what is the class?

So how many references to you have? One?

There were like 16 citations.

What "college" do you go to and what is the class?

It was a State University, and it was a 1000 level intro course.

It was for some philosophy class.

i find that hard to believe. not that you answered the question.

did you get graded on this paper? if so, what grade were you given for it?

unless you are in bible college, i dont see a paper written as a prayer being a part of any possible assignment in a philosophy class.

did you get graded on this paper? if so, what grade were you given for it?

It hasn't yet been graded, but I'm pretty sure that it's going to get a very high grade.

unless you are in bible college, i dont see a paper written as a prayer being a part of any possible assignment in a philosophy class.

Aside from the fact that the paper was written as a prayer (Which, for the record, was common until the 13th century, and which I did personally as a salute to St. Augustine's Confessions), do you find any other problems with it?

There were like 16 citations.

It was a State University, and it was a 1000 level intro course.

Ok. Put a couple up. You don't have to explicit by the page number, etc. Titles do the job just fine.

Which University? It's not like we can track you down.

Finally, you are chatting with people that have taken a few courses in philosophy. Some even have a degree I think.

That's why they are here and not working. :D

Your argument is crap, typically, but you do write with a nice elegance which I applaud you for. You do really sound like a philosopher from the middle ages.

Gens Romae, you've claimed that we live in the best of all possible worlds.

If we live in the best of all possible worlds, that means that we can make no choice to make it better.

It also means, if this is the best of all possible worlds, we can make no choice to make it worse.

So if we can't make things better, or worse, no choice would have any real meaning. You're contradicting yourself again.

I am underwhelmed by your brilliance, GR.

Ok. Put a couple up. You don't have to explicit by the page number, etc. Titles do the job just fine.

Which University? It's not like we can track you down.

Finally, you are chatting with people that have taken a few courses in philosophy. Some even have a degree I think.

That's why they are here and not working. :D

Well I had given the general places from which I got the stuff. All of my citations were either from the Bible, or from the first or second volume of Fr. Frederick Copleston's History of Philosophy. For example, the Bonaventure stuff is coming from Volume II, the section entitled "St. Bonaventure: God and Creatures."

It hasn't yet been graded, but I'm pretty sure that it's going to get a very high grade.



Aside from the fact that the paper was written as a prayer (Which, for the record, was common until the 13th century, and which I did personally as a salute to St. Augustine's Confessions), do you find any other problems with it?

its too unreadable to last long enough to find out what points you made.

Does or does not St. Augustine show (at least to my satisfaction) in De Libertate Arbitrii that God's foreknowledge is compatible with freedom of the will?

You're going to quote Augustine as a support against determinism, the same guy who argued AGAINST the "free-will" doctrines of Pelagianism? Augustine believed in "free-will" in the same sense that the reformers did, that what is known in modern circles as "free-agency"... He was still, by modern standards at least, a determinist.

O Blessed and Immortal God, hear how the lying Determinist heretics rail against Thy great majesty

See, there's your problem from the start. How can you write a paper about Determinism if you refuse to consider the possibility that Determinism may be valid? How can you possibly refute something without first considering its validity? Your methodology is appalling.

Worse still, you call them "liars", which implies that they are insincere. The very basis of your method should have been to try and understand why anyone may sincerely believe in Determinism.

I would give you a fail.

Aside from the fact that the paper was written as a prayer (Which, for the record, was common until the 13th century, and which I did personally as a salute to St. Augustine's Confessions), do you find any other problems with it?

The fact that the paper was written as a prayer is a problem, as it is stylistically horrible. But if you wish for me to go through the litanny of problems with it, so be it:

1) your citations are lacking. I have a hard time believing that you cut and pasted this entire thing, yet you neglected the citations

2) your paper, not only as prayer, is written as dialogue. This isn't the 13th century

3) You begin with a premise (IE god) without providing an adequate foundation for that premise, nor recognizing that you have done so

4) You do not give adequate consideration to oppositional arguments, nor even recognize they exist

5) you do not spend any effort refuting such arguments

6) you do not address the logical problems in your assertions, nor recognize they exist

7) you provide no foundational elements towards your claims

8) given a strict page limit, you attempt to delve into a topic for which you have no where near adequate space to discuss. You picked a topic wholy inappropriate for the length of the paper, and do not in any way give it the consideration it deserves to form a proper and cohesive argument.

In short, you commit just about every error in the book. Your paper lacks proper foundation, is not structured properly, does not address each stepwith sufficient methodology, does not address counter arguments, and does not attempt to make any effort to prove its underlying claims. Your only positive quality is that you appear to have run a spell checker.

Ignoring the fact that I fundamentally disagree with your premise, the paper is simply of very poor quality.

There was a clearly defined argument.

1) Assume the world is deterministic, then all things are caused.
2) God, being first cause, caused all things.

Not all determinists assume a God. I'm not a determinist myself, but many determinists believe in a perpetually iterated past and future (which is no more unreasonable than to think God was never born and will never die), which means there was no first cause any more than there is a largest positive integer or a lowest negative integer.


3) If all things are caused, then our acts of the will are caused.
4) Our acts of the will include evil.
5) God therefore causes evil.
6) In creating anything, God sees first what is created in His own Being.

That doesn't follow, either. If your God can't create something distinct from himself, he's just a regurgitator. A real God could imagine something original and different from itself. If it can't, its no more creative than a person.


7) God would have had to have first seen evil in Himself in order to create it in the world.

Your God can't imagine anything other than traits he himself posesses? If he can understand Good, and understand the idea of an opposite, why couldn't he create evil without having it in himself? Is the idea of an "opposite" to much for your version of God?


8) God by definition is The Good, and He is Who Is.
9) He who Is therefore would have had to have seen in Himself that which is not, The Good would have had to have seen evil in Himself, and this is a contradiction.
10) Premise 1 is false.

For the record, I'd like to point out that it was only about 1000 words because it was for an introductory level philosophy course, and the max was about that much.

So, you took a premise, polluted it with several non-sequitors, applied enough limitations to your God for it to be a paradox, and called it a paper deserving of a Good Grade.

I'm going to check around and find a philo prof that would give this a good grade.

Either he didn't write it, or he wrote it a month ago and also posted it on another forum (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43180).

Either he didn't write it, or he wrote it a month ago and also posted it on another forum (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43180).

Excellent sleuthing!

Either he didn't write it, or he wrote it a month ago and also posted it on another forum (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43180).

Interesting. I didn't think of looking on the Net.

Ok GR, are you the author?

Either he didn't write it, or he wrote it a month ago and also posted it on another forum (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43180).

from that forum:

You realize, of course, that you are speaking to a philosopher sophomore with a full year of logic under his belt?

Oh, it's definitly him. Fucking priceless

Either he didn't write it, or he wrote it a month ago and also posted it on another forum (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43180).

Arridia, I don't know you, your positions, your politics, or your stance on "The Big Lebowski", but your Kung Fu is strong.

Here we all were wasting time on systematic, sound dissection of Gens Romae on this and other threads, when all we had to do was check around and he was all the way full of it.

I shall now compose a Prayer to Gens Romae...

I shall now compose a Prayer to Gens Romae...

Make sure to do it in the original latin (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42845). *snickers*

It hasn't yet been graded, but I'm pretty sure that it's going to get a very high grade.


You've been revealed to have posted it a month ago elsewhere, and it still hasn't been graded? Pretty close to the end of the semester, for a State University...

You'd think he'd have gotten sick of getting blasted the first time around...

Real sucker for punishment. Must be that whole religious masochism thing.

You've been revealed to have posted it a month ago elsewhere, and it still hasn't been graded? Pretty close to the end of the semester, for a State University...

especially for a 1000 word paper in an intro class. Fuck, it took less time for my readers to comment on my thesis.

Real sucker for punishment.

*thinks of comment*

*resists*

too easy...

Make sure to do it in the original latin (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42845). *snickers*

I think Esperanto is more fitting for prayer to Gens Romae...its a complete made up language, it should resound with him.

I notice everybody shredded his argument pretty thoroughly over in his Marcus Aurelius thread, no wonder he abandoned it for this one...

heehee..."A sophomore with a full year of philosophy under my belt"...

Somewhere, the great minds, who struggled mightily for a lifetime, are ashamed that they didn't have it all figured out their second year in college...

Somewhere, the great minds, who struggled mightily for a lifetime, are ashamed that they didn't have it all figured out their second year in college...

Or, perhaps more likely, ashamed that they thought they did.

*thinks of comment*

*resists*

too easy...

:P

Some people like whips and chains, others like to have their 'literary works' torn apart on public fora.

especially for a 1000 word paper in an intro class. Fuck, it took less time for my readers to comment on my thesis.

The academic rigor of peer-reviewed publication aside, I think Gens Romae probably has taken a year of intro philosophy. Only someone clutching the fetus of an abortive education can be that pretentious, that insistent, and that fragile in his argument, all at the same time.

Okay, that was a bit flamey, my bad.

:P

Some people like whips and chains, others like to have their 'literary works' torn apart on public fora.

there's a reason I will never post anything I wrote in college/grad school (except, perhaps, some day if threads like this become more common, in an effort to show them how it's done)

there's a reason I will never post anything I wrote in college/grad school (except, perhaps, some day if threads like this become more common, in an effort to show them how it's done)

We still haven't established whether he plagiarized it, or whether he's lying about not getting a grade, or whether he really is responsible for that paper.

If he's not, I'd like to meet the person who actually wrote it, just to see how they would defend its various flaws (not to mention grotesque stylistic faults).

Where's 'e gone?

Where's 'e gone?

Flagellating.

We still haven't established whether he plagiarized it, or whether he's lying about not getting a grade, or whether he really is responsible for that paper.


I'm quite sure he is the actual author, the "I am a sophmore with a full year of logic under my belt!" is sufficiently like his personality to convince me they are one and the same.

Where I am NOT convinced is that this was written for any college course. Over a month has gone by on a 1000 word paper and he has yet to get a grade? No, this was not written for any college course, and no self respecting college professor would have ever accepted it.

This was written for the poster to show case his self assured brilliance. Not for any college class, but for this, and other, internet forums, so that he can post it, under pretense of being "a paper he wrote for college" so that we may all see it, bask in his intellect and, for those of us who disagree, to be immediatly converted by his great wisdom.

He wrote it so that we'd tell him how very smart he is.

Unfortunatly...the paper...is really very bad.

Flagellating.

that's hot.

Flagellating.

You know what, I actually wouldn't put that past him. He does seem determined to replicate an early European die hard Catholic theologian.

I'm quite sure he is the actual author, the "I am a sophmore with a full year of logic under my belt!" is sufficiently like his personality to convince me they are one and the same.

Where I am NOT convinced is that this was written for any college course. Over a month has gone by on a 1000 word paper and he has yet to get a grade? No, this was not written for any college course, and no self respecting college professor would have ever accepted it.

This was written for the poster to show case his self assured brilliance. Not for any college class, but for this, and other, internet forums, so that he can post it, under pretense of being "a paper he wrote for college" so that we may all see it, bask in his intellect and, for those of us who disagree, to be immediatly converted by his great wisdom.

He wrote it so that we'd tell him how very smart he is.

Unfortunatly...the paper...is really very bad.

He may not have handed it in yet. It may be different in the US but I used to get my essay titles at the start of the trimester and would often write eassays a couple of months in advance and then alter them as the deadline approached and I learned more.

I was having another discussion, and in the discussion was a major debate on Free-Will vs. Determinism. I had written a paper this semester against Determinism...so I figured I might as well share it with the rest of you. My sources are "A History of Philosophy" by Fredrick Copleston and the Bible. Enjoy:

The archaic language is really bothering me. I'd almost prefer it if you wrote it in French.

First of all: your assumption that God exists as revealed in Bible is untenable, especially in philosophy. You provide no logical proof for God's existence, nor any evidence. You take the holy writ, and assume it's validity. That's perfectly valid in Theology, but untenable in Philosophy.

Secondly, the counterpoint to Free Will is not determinism; the antithesis of Free Will is Predestination. Free Will is in the realm of theology, and finds itself in opposition to Predistination, which states that a persons life and decisions are predestined, and everyone has a unrevealed destiny that they cannot escape. Determinism, in its various forms, is based on a materialist conception of the universe, assuming that the only relevant factors are matter and energy, and that the existence of Super Nature is irrelevant. There is no one one form of determinism, either.

Finally, you are grasping at some universal truth, declaring God's revelations to be that universal truth. My question to you is this: How can humans, as subjective beings, hope to understand the universal, even if it does exist?

He may not have handed it in yet. It may be different in the US but I used to get my essay titles at the start of the trimester and would often write eassays a couple of months in advance and then alter them as the deadline approached and I learned more.

If this is the case, for his own sake, I hope he at least heeds some of the advice in this thread about what might make a stronger paper.

The prayer format aside, he does little to make any kind of diligent examination of the opposing position, nor to refute it in any substantive way.

Finally, you are grasping at some universal truth, declaring God's revelations to be that universal truth. My question to you is this: How can humans, as subjective beings, hope to understand the universal, even if it does exist?

Yeah, Gens Romae already backed into himself on that point on another thread.

He talks about how possibilities are infinite, and human understanding is finite, so we therefore cannot affirm any conclusions thereto. Then he proceeds to make a number of categorical statements on exactly those subjects.

Yeah, Gens Romae already backed into himself on that point on another thread.

He talks about how possibilities are infinite, and human understanding is finite, so we therefore cannot affirm any conclusions thereto. Then he proceeds to make a number of categorical statements on exactly those subjects.

No no, don't you understand? There are infinite possibilities which are not conceivable by our finite minds, so we cna not possible conceive of such things.

Unless, of course, the bible describes it for us.

If this is the case, for his own sake, I hope he at least heeds some of the advice in this thread about what might make a stronger paper.

The prayer format aside, he does little to make any kind of diligent examination of the opposing position, nor to refute it in any substantive way.

Does anyone know what level this was written at? Again, I state my ignorance of the US eduactional system but I don't remember being asked to write such a short essay since I was about 14.

No no, don't you understand? There are infinite possibilities which are not conceivable by our finite minds, so we cna not possible conceive of such things.

Unless, of course, the bible describes it for us.

Oh, right, gotcha, yeah...forgot, Bible...s'right.

So far, I'm liking the Koran better, but I can't read Arabic, so I'm told I'm just reading a sort of commentary on the Koran.

If the Koran doesn't fulfill me, the only thing left I haven't tried is L.Ron.Hubbard, and I really think that the one thing most religions agree on is it might be better to do the Heaven's Gate thing than to go with Scientology.

Does anyone know what level this was written at? Again, I state my ignorance of the US eduactional system but I don't remember being asked to write such a short essay since I was about 14.

He claims a collegiate level introductory philosophy course, "1000 level", I believe he said, which is lower division in most systems.

Either he didn't write it, or he wrote it a month ago and also posted it on another forum (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43180).

I post as Traditio on TOL. See proof here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1609662#post1609662)

I post as Traditio on TOL. See proof here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1609662#post1609662)

So, you posted it a month ago, and haven't gotten it back yet?

I post as Traditio on TOL. See proof here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1609662#post1609662)

So why don't you have a grade for that paper yet?

I'm quite sure he is the actual author, the "I am a sophmore with a full year of logic under my belt!" is sufficiently like his personality to convince me they are one and the same.

Where I am NOT convinced is that this was written for any college course. Over a month has gone by on a 1000 word paper and he has yet to get a grade? No, this was not written for any college course, and no self respecting college professor would have ever accepted it.

This was written for the poster to show case his self assured brilliance. Not for any college class, but for this, and other, internet forums, so that he can post it, under pretense of being "a paper he wrote for college" so that we may all see it, bask in his intellect and, for those of us who disagree, to be immediatly converted by his great wisdom.

He wrote it so that we'd tell him how very smart he is.

Unfortunatly...the paper...is really very bad.

I wrote it a month before it was actually due.

So why don't you have a grade for that paper yet?

Well, I was aware that the paper was going to be assigned, and so I wrote it a very, very long time in advance. I actually handed it in several weeks ago, but it was only actually due on the 29th of November. I did however ask the prof about it today, and he said I'll probably get a very high grade on it.

Granted, the Modernist professor of mine also didn't like the writing style. So I wrote a second paper to justify the writing style of the first, and a third paper in answer to the content of objections.

Well, I was aware that the paper was going to be assigned, and so I wrote it a very, very long time in advance. I actually handed it in several weeks ago, but it was only actually due on the 29th of November. I did however ask the prof about it today, and he said I'll probably get a very high grade on it.

Several weeks to grade 1000 words?

Okay, could be.

But you haven't addressed the many, many glaring issues that have brought up on this thread, both stylistically and in content.

Not to mention the several fallacies that have been pointed out on this and other threads.

Well, I was aware that the paper was going to be assigned, and so I wrote it a very, very long time in advance. I actually handed it in several weeks ago, but it was only actually due on the 29th of November. I did however ask the prof about it today, and he said I'll probably get a very high grade on it.

What was the brief it was written to?

Well, I was aware that the paper was going to be assigned, and so I wrote it a very, very long time in advance. I actually handed it in several weeks ago, but it was only actually due on the 29th of November. I did however ask the prof about it today, and he said I'll probably get a very high grade on it.

Granted, the Modernist professor of mine also didn't like the writing style. So I wrote a second paper to justify the writing style of the first, and a third paper in answer to the content of objections.

Well, in that case, defend your paper against these accusations by a proud determinist heathen. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13268077#post13268077).

Well, I was aware that the paper was going to be assigned, and so I wrote it a very, very long time in advance. I actually handed it in several weeks ago, but it was only actually due on the 29th of November. I did however ask the prof about it today, and he said I'll probably get a very high grade on it.

Granted, the Modernist professor of mine also didn't like the writing style. So I wrote a second paper to justify the writing style of the first, and a third paper in answer to the content of objections.

And were those <1000 words as well? By all means, post 'em!

Especially where you address the "content of objections" since more then one poster has ruptured your arguments on this thread, and the Marcus Aurelius thread.

Like, say for instance, you talk about how our finite minds can't make any firm conclusions about the infinite, yet you've done so repeatedly when it suits you.

Or the numerous non-sequitors that were illustrated to be pervasive in your 10 point breakdown of your own argument.

T
In short, you commit just about every error in the book. Your paper lacks proper foundation, is not structured properly, does not address each stepwith sufficient methodology, does not address counter arguments, and does not attempt to make any effort to prove its underlying claims. Your only positive quality is that you appear to have run a spell checker.
.

yeah, i don't like postmodernists either, but unfortunately, they're immune to causality (http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_031.htm)

He claims a collegiate level introductory philosophy course, "1000 level", I believe he said, which is lower division in most systems.

Lower division is actually 100 level. Never heard of a 1000 level.

Lower division is actually 100 level. Never heard of a 1000 level.

Sorry, I should clarify. A few schools are on a 1000 to 4000 system, I think University of Northern Texax, maybe CSM if I remember right.

EDIT: Okay, sorry, the 1000 to 4000 spiel is for Texas schools and some in Colorado, not for most systems. My bad.

Sorry, I should clarify. A few schools are on a 1000 to 4000 system, I think University of Northern Texax, maybe CSM if I remember right.

I fear I must ask more questions.

How does the 1000 to 4000 work?

I fear I must ask more questions.

How does the 1000 to 4000 work?

http://www.unt.edu/catalogs/2005-06/ucmath.html

Its not dissimilar to the 100 to 400 system, where the first number tells you roughly the year it fits into an undergraduate program.

So, for example, Math 1350 is a freshman level math class, and Math 4xxx is a senior level math class.

I was all excited for a physics/philosophy of consciousness discussion. I was ready for a Dennett-based defense of compatibalism, then the physicists kids coming in with a quantum theory of how neurons in the brain aren't exempt from the rules of movement. But what I got was this shit that should have been labeled predestination. Fine, here we go:

1. You assume the existence of god as a premise, with no justification.

2. You assume a separate existence for the metaphysical, (good/evil are real things that can be used to disprove certain actions), with no justification.

3. You never define free-will.

4. You take no account of physics or rationality, both of which are pretty much dead if a non-deterministic action was possible.

So sky fairies, magic, loose definitions, and a complete disregard for the world as it has been revealed. I don't know the outlook of your philosophy professor, but i can't imagine a school of thought (other than your own Berkeley-like theism) finding any of this legitimate.

http://www.unt.edu/catalogs/2005-06/ucmath.html

Its not dissimilar to the 100 to 400 system, where the first number tells you roughly the year it fits into an undergraduate program.

So, for example, Math 1350 is a freshman level math class, and Math 4xxx is a senior level math class.

Fair enough. I'm more used to the points system where 360 points equates to a BA/Sci as long as certain course restrictions are met.

I post as Traditio on TOL. See proof here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1609662#post1609662)

Take this, Arridia.

Once you learn how to spell, how to understand the meaning of "or he wrote it a month ago and also posted it on another forum", and how to write a quality essay, then you can gloat. In the meantime, my point (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13267948&postcount=32) stands.

I was all excited for a physics/philosophy of consciousness discussion. I was ready for a Dennett-based defense of compatibalism, then the physicists kids coming in with a quantum theory of how neurons in the brain aren't exempt from the rules of movement. But what I got was this shit that should have been labeled predestination. Fine, here we go:

1. You assume the existence of god as a premise, with no justification.

2. You assume a separate existence for the metaphysical, (good/evil are real things that can be used to disprove certain actions), with no justification.

3. You never define free-will.

4. You take no account of physics or rationality, both of which are pretty much dead if a non-deterministic action was possible.

So sky fairies, magic, loose definitions, and a complete disregard for the world as it has been revealed. I don't know the outlook of your philosophy professor, but i can't imagine a school of thought (other than your own Berkeley-like theism) finding any of this legitimate.

I looked over the board where he originally posted his paper, and the people there basically eviscerated his paper, some surgically, some brutally, but he wasn't really able to make any kind of response.

Bear in mind, Gens Romae is a guy who argues for free will (which is fine), but then claims we live in the best of all possible worlds, as if free will doesn't create a range of possibilities, the "best" of which is ill defined, and even if you came up with a definition of "best", who would claim that all people make the best possible excercise of free will at all times?

Fair enough. I'm more used to the points system where 360 points equates to a BA/Sci as long as certain course restrictions are met.

In most systems I've been in, at least at the undergraduate level, a given class is worth 3 to 5 "hours", and 124 or so "hours" is a BS, with a certain portion mandated to be upper division, etc.

I looked over the board where he originally posted his paper, and the people there basically eviscerated his paper, some surgically, some brutally, but he wasn't really able to make any kind of response.

Bear in mind, Gens Romae is a guy who argues for free will (which is fine), but then claims we live in the best of all possible worlds, as if free will doesn't create a range of possibilities, the "best" of which is ill defined, and even if you came up with a definition of "best", who would claim that all people make the best possible excercise of free will at all times?

Thanks. I know gens romae's type well, although the lack of internal consistency is a little surprising. That inconsistency isn't going to stop me (or you, from what I've seen) from laying into him hard when I disagree with his ideas. He's gotta learn somehow, it might as well be us to give him a lesson. Also I was a little upset that I didn't get the physics discussion that I wanted.

Also, if its not clear yet, I'm a logical-positivist myself, so no metaphysics, no "best" or "evil," no gods, only empirically validated science. I'm perfectly willing to entertain other schools of thought of course, but you gotta know your stuff, at least to some extent. You know, at least enough to not post travesties like this and then be PROUD of it.

Thanks. I know gens romae's type well, although the lack of internal consistency is a little surprising. That inconsistency isn't going to stop me (or you, from what I've seen) from laying into him hard when I disagree with his ideas. He's gotta learn somehow, it might as well be us to give him a lesson. Also I was a little upset that I didn't get the physics discussion that I wanted.

Also, if its not clear yet, I'm a logical-positivist myself, so no metaphysics, no "best" or "evil," no gods, only empirically validated science. I'm perfectly willing to entertain other schools of thought of course, but you gotta know your stuff, at least to some extent. You know, at least enough to not post travesties like this and then be PROUD of it.

Eerily, a few of his paragraphs were EXTREMELY similar to what I'm reading in the Koran, and amounted to little more than condemnation of the opposing viewpoint, without any support argument as to why.

Eerily, a few of his paragraphs were EXTREMELY similar to what I'm reading in the Koran, and amounted to little more than condemnation of the opposing viewpoint, without any support argument as to why.

It's called fundamentalism for a reason: it's too simple of an idea for there to be much variation.

1. You assume the existence of god as a premise, with no justification.

Proven from Contingency. See the...third paragraph, I think?

4. You take no account of physics or rationality, both of which are pretty much dead if a non-deterministic action was possible.

Why? If anything, non-determinism makes more sense and seems to be the more rational explanation for phenomena; otherwise, there would have to be some kind of initial set of conditions that designed themselves to ensure that everything developed along some kind of plan that wrote itself in to existence.

Determinism when reduced to its origins doesn't make a lot of sense, at least from a naturalistic perspective. Non-determinism effectively leaves all options open, making it a lot simpler to construct a coherent theory without running in to the problems associated with any kind of deterministic system.

and wait wait, this was the entirety of a paper, for college? What the fuck crap ass college do you go to where 1000 words without any proper citation format constitutes a paper?
Bible College?

Bear in mind, Gens Romae is a guy who argues for free will (which is fine), but then claims we live in the best of all possible worlds, as if free will doesn't create a range of possibilities, the "best" of which is ill defined, and even if you came up with a definition of "best", who would claim that all people make the best possible excercise of free will at all times?

Well, in his defense, his argument was that we don't have the faculties to rule out that we are in the best of all possible worlds, so any Argument from Evil is an inductive argument.

Of course he also said that God is bound by logical constraints, so I would assume that we DO have the faculties to understand God's actions and creations.

Well, in his defense, his argument was that we don't have the faculties to rule out that we are in the best of all possible worlds, so any Argument from Evil is an inductive argument.


If we lack the faculties to reasonably imagine better worlds, or to make assertions about any other "infinite possibilities" with our finite minds, wouldn't we also lack the faculties to make several of the categorical assumptions he makes about God?

As I said, if this is really the best God can do (being held to the standard of an ostensibly perfect being), then we must have gotten the special ed God.

In the end, free will includes the ability to make things better or worse, and if we can make things better or worse, then the only way we live in the best of all possible worlds would be if we all made the best decisions, all the time. He's Catholic, he buys into sin, so he's already contradicted himself.

Well, in his defense, his argument was that we don't have the faculties to rule out that we are in the best of all possible worlds, so any Argument from Evil is an inductive argument.

That clearly only works in the other direction... we "don't have the faculties to rule out" that there might be a possible world better than ours.

We do, of course, have the faculties to imagine such a world, so that issue doesn't even come up. But even if we didn't, the possibility would still be there... the argument otherwise would be inductive ("we've imagined all of these worlds, and none of them yet have been better") and therefore not certain.

That clearly only works in the other direction... we "don't have the faculties to rule out" that there might be a possible world better than ours.

We do, of course, have the faculties to imagine such a world, so that issue doesn't even come up. But even if we didn't, the possibility would still be there... the argument otherwise would be inductive ("we've imagined all of these worlds, and none of them yet have been better") and therefore not certain.

S'good point, there.

On this issue of imagination, creation, and possibilities, Gens Romae has argued that God can only create things that he first sees in himself (I use the male pronoun generically here, God could be female or omnigendered, or whatever).

Would a real God be so limited? Could it only create Evil if it sees Evil in itself? Couldn't it just see Good in itself, understand the simple concept of an opposite, and develop the idea of Evil accordingly?

By Gens Romae's argument, if God can only create what it sees in itself, it must be imperfect since it created imperfect beings.

That clearly only works in the other direction... we "don't have the faculties to rule out" that there might be a possible world better than ours.

That is why he added the argument that God is bound by logical consistency, so that he could then counter all arguments in saying that getting rid of one evil may only come at the cost of increased evil.

That is why he added the argument that God is bound by logical consistency, so that he could then counter all arguments in saying that getting rid of one evil may only come at the cost of increased evil.

Someone understands my genius! :p

If we lack the faculties to reasonably imagine better worlds, or to make assertions about any other "infinite possibilities" with our finite minds, wouldn't we also lack the faculties to make several of the categorical assumptions he makes about God?

Yes.

In the end, free will includes the ability to make things better or worse, and if we can make things better or worse, then the only way we live in the best of all possible worlds would be if we all made the best decisions, all the time. He's Catholic, he buys into sin, so he's already contradicted himself.

He treats free will as a prerequisite for good: If there is no free will, then there is no good or evil, and therefore sin is permitted in his best of all worlds.

This falls apart of course when one considers that God has already placed natural boundaries on human action (as Soheran so aptly pointed out when he tried to fly) without decimating free will, and that while natural disasters are neither good or evil in themselves, the conscious intent behind them makes their cause evil (if there exists such a God that would intentionally create them, he must be evil).

so that he could then counter all arguments in saying that getting rid of one evil may only come at the cost of increased evil.

How can he know that? Even if it weren't obviously untrue--we can easily imagine a world with less evil--we still couldn't rule out the possibility that such a world could exist.

Who knows? Maybe some very imaginative individual would come up with such a world the next year.

No, "This is the best of all possible worlds" must necessarily be an inductive argument... unless perhaps you could prove the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent deity.

Someone understands my genius! :p

Either that or some of us have debated these issues ad nauseum and know what arguments get used and for what purpose they're used.

How can he know that?

He can't. But apparently he thinks that it makes the statement that this world is insufficient also a statement of probability and not plain truth.

That is why he added the argument that God is bound by logical consistency, so that he could then counter all arguments in saying that getting rid of one evil may only come at the cost of increased evil.

But a God bound by rules of logic is bound by all other physical laws. What then is God, who cannot do anything which wouldn't happen anyway.?

Oh, it's a rich vein of bullshit for sure.

But a God bound by rules of logic is bound by all other physical laws. What then is God, who cannot do anything which wouldn't happen anyway.?

A God bound by rules of logic is not necessarily bound by all other physical laws. When I say "God is bound by the laws of logic," I mean merely that God cannot contradict Himself, or do that which is contrary to Him. There's no reason to go from there to "God has an infinite gravitational pull, for he is infinite."

A God bound by rules of logic is not necessarily bound by all other physical laws. When I say "God is bound by the laws of logic," I mean merely that God cannot contradict Himself, or do that which is contrary to Him. There's no reason to go from there to "God has an infinite gravitational pull, for he is infinite."

Lol. You want to discuss it with ME now? You can't answer Vittos, or Hammurab, or Reasonstanople or a long list of debaters before them, but you reckon you might take down this pesky wabbit.

What are you aiming for now? Coming sixth? Seventh?

Oh, and you know I'm Nobel Hobos, right?

Oh, and you know I'm Nobel Hobos, right?

No shit? Well, how about that...

Was this paper greeted with an awkward silence?

My sources are "A History of Philosophy" by Fredrick Copleston and the Bible. Enjoy:

Your sources are not enough for any decent discussion on determinism or free will. Copleston is fine, but you're not even scratching the surface.

Why? If anything, non-determinism makes more sense and seems to be the more rational explanation for phenomena; otherwise, there would have to be some kind of initial set of conditions that designed themselves to ensure that everything developed along some kind of plan that wrote itself in to existence.

Determinism when reduced to its origins doesn't make a lot of sense, at least from a naturalistic perspective. Non-determinism effectively leaves all options open, making it a lot simpler to construct a coherent theory without running in to the problems associated with any kind of deterministic system.

This is complicated, so strap yourself in. Determinism is argued thus:

First, the macro scale:

The big bang happened, and that is your underlying set condition. I'll get back to the big bang in a second. The universe runs on natural laws. Laws like matter cannot be created or destroyed, energy seeks equilibrium (entropy) and different forces like heat, gravity, and the kasimir effect (the force that pushes electrons away from an atom, rather than gravity pulling the pieces of an atom together) are affecting the matter of our universe. Matter is probably what happens when energy slows down a lot.

All that matter and energy and laws came from the big bang. At the time of the big bang, the laws (with the exception of entropy) and the distinctions between energy didn't exist. They came later (as in hundreds of thousands of years later) as energy became more spread out and less chaotic, once order became possible. Why these laws in particular arose is subject to much debate: the most simple explanation is that these were the most simple laws--byproducts of the original big bang itself. Think of them as what arises when entropy shuffles energy down after a certain point. theoretical models exist for the nature of the big bang itself, such as the multiple worlds theory, which holds that multiple universes have had their own big bangs that happened under different circumstances, each of which may have led to different sets of natural laws, but that's beyond my purposes here.

Anyway, all our most accurate human observations, following the bias-eliminating rules of science, tell us that when we study these natural processes, we get repeatable results. The same circumstances and variables will have the same outcome, no matter how many times they're repeated. In other words, no force known as 'random' has been reliably demonstrated. So all that is why physics requires determinism. Natural situations only have one outcome, so if an agent could truly know every variable involved in a situation, one could determine the outcome.

The micro level:

Human concepts like reason and logic are based on what we've observed of these repeatable processes, our sense of 'the way things work.' Without those repeating patterns, there's nothing to understand; there's chaos, or at the very least we have a physical world that we cannot trust or reliably manipulate.

we, as human beings, are totally and completely part of the physical world. This includes our brains, which are made of neurons that fire electronic signals in various patterns. It's comparable to a computer. Electronic signals either activate a node or they don't, and the pattern of nodes activated leads to everything that happens on the computer, including software. Human consciousness is, in effect, evolved biological software, designed to allow us to interact with the real world. This is why we see rocks as solid rather than a collection of atoms forming a pattern: seeing rocks as solid is enough for us to interact with the rock and get by in the world. This is also why psychoactives change your senses and perceptions; the software is being manipulated, like a cheat code for a video game.

So our brains are part of the physical world, with parts following natural processes. Natural processes only has one outcome, so the parts involved with the neurons and they're electricity only have one outcome. If someone could truly know all the variables involved with those parts, one could accurately determine human actions. The perception of free agency is just an illusion of the programming, useful for some evolutionary reason or other.

And that's the thinking behind determinism. Sorry this was so long and not as lucid as I would like, but it's a tough concept, both intellectually and emotionally. The collection of wiki articles on it are informative, if not exactly as direct as I've been here. This is long enough, and I don't subscribe to it, but the rival theory is compatibalism, and Daniel Dennett is probably the guy to look up for info.

No shit? Well, how about that...

I got sick of my old name is all.

Proven from Contingency. See the...third paragraph, I think?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'proven from contingency,' since contingency is something that might or might not be. If you mean that it's not logically necessary to demonstrate god, then I think I see where you're coming from. Like your going back to the old argument of whether God grants free will, which in theology is opposed by fatalism, not determinism, but no big deal on the vocab there. All that is fine and an appropriate scope for a philosophy paper, although you should make it clear at the beginning that your argument makes certain assumptions and argues within the limited scope of a certain field, and is not applicable to discussions of truth or reality. My complaints were of the truth and reality variety, since your paper seemed to come across as something regarding 'absolute truth' as it were.

Your third paragraph is similar to the 'argument from design,' but with the added circular logic that the bible says you're made in god's image, so when you see your image you've proven god! I think your paper would've been stronger without this part. In fact, the whole thing would be stronger if you set up your own paper's limitations explicitly. That may seem counterintuitive, but basically what you wanna do is define your playing field and set your own goal posts--that way, as long as you're consistent, you can't really be wrong, since you're admitting that the right and wrong you're using exist within the bounds of your paper, rather than in the bounds of reality.

See? I can write posts without anger and vitriol, and even attempt to give you some constructive criticism. I'm a nice guy, really.

*snip*

See? I can write posts without anger and vitriol, and even attempt to give you some constructive criticism. I'm a nice guy, really.

I would certainly reply if this was addressed to me.
Your plain meaning is refreshing.

That may seem counterintuitive, but basically what you wanna do is define your playing field and set your own goal posts--that way, as long as you're consistent, you can't really be wrong, since you're admitting that the right and wrong you're using exist within the bounds of your paper, rather than in the bounds of reality.

The problem is, writing a paper, any paper really, set within the bounds not of actual existance, but within the bounds of magical make believe land doesn't make for a good academic thesis.

The problem is, writing a paper, any paper really, set within the bounds not of actual existance, but within the bounds of magical make believe land doesn't make for a good academic thesis.

Someone is a science major! Don't you know us humanities kids make up our own rules?

But seriously, every paper makes assumptions and has limitations to what it can do. Academia is about investigating ideas, right? Its really not a divide between fact and fiction here; even science papers require axioms.

Say you're writing about the fitness of a gene that gives a strain of iguana's a longer tongue than normal. That's a fairly significant topic, looking at an idea about genetics and natural selection and um, tongues, but you're only going to establish the setting by other recent developments in evolution. You wouldn't try to re-justify the scientific method or the value of accepting the universe is real. Even sticking just to science, you wouldn't go back and argue that darwin's ideas are indeed reality, that those ideas themselves were established by our planet's position relative to the sun and by the processes that made life possible, and how that relates to cosmic processes, and on and on. You take those things as axioms, as a given. The most you may do is mention an overall idea like natural selection just to establish a broader setting.

With ideas in things like philosophy or literature, the rules about which axioms you can use for a setting are less strict, as long as the idea you're exploring has merit. All i was suggesting to Gens was that if he got his act together about the setting where he was arguing, his argument would be easier to support, since most of our complaints are against the things he took for granted.

If he did do all that defining and still posted it here of course, there'd be nothing wrong with us still attacking what he takes for granted. But he wouldn't have to defend both the paper and his assumptions, and the conversation would have been a lot clearer on what we didn't like.

A God bound by rules of logic is not necessarily bound by all other physical laws. When I say "God is bound by the laws of logic," I mean merely that God cannot contradict Himself, or do that which is contrary to Him. There's no reason to go from there to "God has an infinite gravitational pull, for he is infinite."

When you argue this, you are branching into a Spinozan god that has a nature and is bound by that nature. However, Spinoza was a determinist who went so far as to say that it was this god's nature to create the world, and even it didn't have a choice. Ultimately, I think it would be reasonable to say that God cannot intervene into this in one way and in the opposite way simultaneously, but if you apply God's previous decisions to all subsequent decisions, I don't see how you can avoid a result like Spinoza.

You then went into mirroring externality and I thought you might be throwing monads in there and somehow trying to rectify Spinoza and Leibniz. I started to expect you to start in on substance, but I really think you were just trying to save your argument as you went along.

When you argue this, you are branching into a Spinozan god that has a nature and is bound by that nature.

Not really. I am merely saying that contradictions are impossible absolutely, and God's omnipotence means being able to do all that is possible. Contradictions are not possible. This is not the same thing as saying that God has a nature (If we mean nature in the Aristotelian sense). I say that God is entirely boundless within the realm of things that are possible.

Perhaps this would make more sense.

1. God is who is.
2. A Contradiction cannot be.
3. God does not do contradictions.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'proven from contingency,' since contingency is something that might or might not be. If you mean that it's not logically necessary to demonstrate god, then I think I see where you're coming from.

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that God's existence is proved from the fact that there are contingent things.

1) Everything with which we are familiar is contingent (We can conceive of it not existing).
2. Every contingent thing borrows its existence either from something contingent or necessary.
3. Assume that it is borrowed from another contingent thing. That contingent thing borrows its existence from something else.
4. This cannot go on ad infinitum, or else nothing exists.
5. There must be a necessary being.

Not really. I am merely saying that contradictions are impossible absolutely, and God's omnipotence means being able to do all that is possible. Contradictions are not possible. This is not the same thing as saying that God has a nature (If we mean nature in the Aristotelian sense). I say that God is entirely boundless within the realm of things that are possible.

Perhaps this would make more sense.

1. God is who is.
2. A Contradiction cannot be.
3. God does not do contradictions.

i find it rather prideful to suggest that anyone can know the nature of god and thus know what is and is not contrary to his nature.

god is not bound by human logic nor human understanding of contradiction.

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that God's existence is proved from the fact that there are contingent things.

1) Everything with which we are familiar is contingent (We can conceive of it not existing).
2. Every contingent thing borrows its existence either from something contingent or necessary.
3. Assume that it is borrowed from another contingent thing. That contingent thing borrows its existence from something else.
4. This cannot go on ad infinitum, or else nothing exists.
5. There must be a necessary being.

You do realize that you're debating with a number of people who can conceive of God as not existing, and that even were they to accept your reasoning, they would not have to conclude that God exists, just that something necessary exists?

Well I had given the general places from which I got the stuff. All of my citations were either from the Bible, or from the first or second volume of Fr. Frederick Copleston's History of Philosophy. For example, the Bonaventure stuff is coming from Volume II, the section entitled "St. Bonaventure: God and Creatures."

Philosophy is not my area of research (I am a University Professor,though), but here are some general thoughts. First, the Bible is a horrible source. There is absolutely no central thread/argument and you can find pretty much anything to quote that will support practically any position.

Next, I am an Economic Geographer, a social scientist, where I must be very careful about making assumptions within my research. When doing research or constructing any academic argument, you need to minimize your assumptions. Baseless (even ones based on something baseless) are exactly where any argument will fall apart; even one assumption can negate any subsequent argument. You make whole hell of a lot of assumptions in your argument, which was even more clear in you breakdown of that argument. The classification of Good vs. Evil is a fundemental fallacy in your argument, as is the nature of God.

This work my be a valuable first step in you exploring your philosophical viewpoints of God, but misses in terms of academic rigor...from what I can tell. I would not make an assumption of the grade you deserve because I do not know the nature of the course and materials covered, however, I believe you probably think you are much more clever than you actually are.

Good luck in your studies!

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that God's existence is proved from the fact that there are contingent things.

1) Everything with which we are familiar is contingent (We can conceive of it not existing).
2. Every contingent thing borrows its existence either from something contingent or necessary.
3. Assume that it is borrowed from another contingent thing. That contingent thing borrows its existence from something else.
4. This cannot go on ad infinitum, or else nothing exists.
5. There must be a necessary being.

Statement four is false because it fails to recognize that perception is something that can exist. Therefore, the simple fact that one can conceive of something not existing means that ones perception exists. This cycle can not go on ad infinitum because something is already known to exist if statement one is true.

If in this logic perception did not exist then statement one would be false, therefore, one has to assume perception exists thus making statement four false (or rather, completely unnecessary).

If statement four is false then statement five is unnecessary. If statement one is false then any other statement based on it is also false, thus making statement five unnecessary and/or false.

Unless of course, the one perceiving is the necessary being...

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that God's existence is proved from the fact that there are contingent things.

1) Everything with which we are familiar is contingent (We can conceive of it not existing).
2. Every contingent thing borrows its existence either from something contingent or necessary.
3. Assume that it is borrowed from another contingent thing. That contingent thing borrows its existence from something else.
4. This cannot go on ad infinitum, or else nothing exists.
5. There must be a necessary being.

Another clear example of logical fallacy. You speak of the existence of things being contingent, but this is argued from the viewpoint of human beings' method of understanding of the world. The argument would be that things don't necessarily exist because we have a contingent method of understanding their existence....it is only contingent in human understanding not physical reality. This reminds me of "irreducible complexity" presented by intelligent designers...which has empirically and logically proven to be absolute bunk.

You are trapped in your own flawed logic...you need to step out of your own traps. No matter how many times you repeat it, does not make it so. Take something out of some of this forum's responses, there are fundamental problems with your argument.

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that God's existence is proved from the fact that there are contingent things.

1) Everything with which we are familiar is contingent (We can conceive of it not existing).
2. Every contingent thing borrows its existence either from something contingent or necessary.
3. Assume that it is borrowed from another contingent thing. That contingent thing borrows its existence from something else.
4. This cannot go on ad infinitum, or else nothing exists.
5. There must be a necessary being.

You're confusing what is known by the big vault of human knowledge with what is reality. Simply put, just because we don't know the details of something doesn't mean that those details aren't there. the contents of my dinner tonight is contingent, but what i will end up eating already exists, taking up physical space and all that. It's not in some state of quantum flux waiting to be observed, or erm, eaten. Furthermore, I can conceive of not eating at all, but that doesn't change anything. some piece of food may not be defined as 'my' dinner anymore, but the matter in the universe stays the same, the arrangement of the molecules of some lucky grilled cheese just get to stay together longer.

If there were no human abstract thinking, even if there was no human knowledge at all, the existence of stuff would be at the same exact level. Arranged differently perhaps, but all stuff still exists.

Edit: Ninja'd by indepence on the point I make. I'm not taking my response down though, cause I'm proud of mixing dinner and quantum uncertainty.

Philosophy is not my area of research (I am a University Professor,though), but here are some general thoughts. First, the Bible is a horrible source. There is absolutely no central thread/argument and you can find pretty much anything to quote that will support practically any position.

Next, I am an Economic Geographer, a social scientist, where I must be very careful about making assumptions within my research. When doing research or constructing any academic argument, you need to minimize your assumptions. Baseless (even ones based on something baseless) are exactly where any argument will fall apart; even one assumption can negate any subsequent argument. You make whole hell of a lot of assumptions in your argument, which was even more clear in you breakdown of that argument. The classification of Good vs. Evil is a fundemental fallacy in your argument, as is the nature of God.

This work my be a valuable first step in you exploring your philosophical viewpoints of God, but misses in terms of academic rigor...from what I can tell. I would not make an assumption of the grade you deserve because I do not know the nature of the course and materials covered, however, I believe you probably think you are much more clever than you actually are.

Good luck in your studies!

QFT

yeah, i don't like postmodernists either, but unfortunately, they're immune to causality (http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_031.htm)
Hilarious and makes me wish one of my bazillion philosophy courses would have covered Spinoza. Honestly, the very little I know of him was learned completely independent of my classes, yet he is an extremely important and influential philosopher, in the scheme of things. *sigh*
Next, I am an Economic Geographer, a social scientistWhat does that actually entail? I'm actually starting work on my econ degree and hoping to focus on more international trade related issues so any inspiration that doesn't include management/accounting for businesses after graduation intrigues me. =p

What does that actually entail? I'm actually starting work on my econ degree and hoping to focus on more international trade related issues so any inspiration that doesn't include management/accounting for businesses after graduation intrigues me. =p

What I love about Geography in general, is that I can make anything that I am interested in a geographic question and therefore valid research. My fundamental training is in classic location theory, which is what postmodern geographers love to hate.

I dub my personal specialization the "social geography of economic development." Basically, I am concerned with how patterns of people and groups are affected by economic structures. My current research utilizes the context of Neoliberal economic pressures to explore local consequences of these market forces of privatization on public school districts. Basically, are student populations being segregated by "school choice."

There was a split between classic econonmics and economic geography in academia because modeling was limited to either addressing time or space, but not both (Development, Geography, and Economic Theory - Paul Krugman). Now these can be handled together with the use of more sophisticated techniques that rely upon computer power. I would suggest trying to take an economic geography course where you will probable focus on larger models of economic development, which will provide a different, but not exclusive, viewpoint of economic processes. I would also look into taking a course in Geographic Information Systems.

Sorry all...for the long windedness.

Edit: Ninja'd by indepence on the point I make. I'm not taking my response down though, cause I'm proud of mixing dinner and quantum uncertainty.

Is that referring to the consumption of Heisenberg's brain?!?!?!

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that God's existence is proved from the fact that there are contingent things.

1) Everything with which we are familiar is contingent (We can conceive of it not existing).
2. Every contingent thing borrows its existence either from something contingent or necessary.
3. Assume that it is borrowed from another contingent thing. That contingent thing borrows its existence from something else.
4. This cannot go on ad infinitum, or else nothing exists.
5. There must be a necessary being.

Thank you for proving that the universe exists. Your logic in no way leads to the conclusion that there must be a God.

Next!

Is that referring to the consumption of Heisenberg's brain?!?!?!

yep. but it must be cooked in an opaque box with a large amount of unsafe radioactive material. Cat optional.

Thank you for proving that the universe exists.

The universe itself is contingent. We can conceive of it as not existing.

You do realize that you're debating with a number of people who can conceive of God as not existing, and that even were they to accept your reasoning, they would not have to conclude that God exists, just that something necessary exists?

I agree with St. Anselm in this respect. Sure, you can say with your lips "God does not exist," but I am not certain that you can understand what is meant by "God," and fully understanding what God is assert the denial thereof. For example, if by God it is meant "Necessary being," it is to contradict oneself to say "The Necessary Being who cannot not exist does not exist." For this reason, the Psalmist says "Only the fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'"

It's much like this: Can a person say "Yes" to the question "Can there exist a round square?" Well sure...if the person doesn't fully understand the definition of round and the definition of square. But a person who, understanding the definition of round, and the definition of square, cannot possibly say without contradiction that there can exist a round square.

I was having another discussion, and in the discussion was a major debate on Free-Will vs. Determinism. I had written a paper this semester against Determinism...so I figured I might as well share it with the rest of you. My sources are "A History of Philosophy" by Fredrick Copleston and the Bible. Enjoy:

It's like reading a Litany of Dolor,... painful, like it's determined and intended to be.

I agree with St. Anselm in this respect. Sure, you can say with your lips "God does not exist," but I am not certain that you can understand what is meant by "God," and fully understanding what God is assert the denial thereof. For example, if by God it is meant "Necessary being," it is to contradict oneself to say "The Necessary Being who cannot not exist does not exist."

good thing that that isn't the definition of god then, eh? also, i can easily argue that even if god is defined as a necessary being, he doesn't exist. all i need is the premise "there is no such thing as a necessary being, and anything claimed to be one doesn't exist."

I agree with St. Anselm in this respect. Sure, you can say with your lips "God does not exist," but I am not certain that you can understand what is meant by "God," and fully understanding what God is assert the denial thereof. For example, if by God it is meant "Necessary being," it is to contradict oneself to say "The Necessary Being who cannot not exist does not exist." For this reason, the Psalmist says "Only the fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'"

It's much like this: Can a person say "Yes" to the question "Can there exist a round square?" Well sure...if the person doesn't fully understand the definition of round and the definition of square. But a person who, understanding the definition of round, and the definition of square, cannot possibly say without contradiction that there can exist a round square.

Really, words are just symbols. You really seem to think that words are magical. we can define squares and circles however we want. we can define the mathematics behind geometry however we want (off topic: lots of mathematician types write they're own system of geometry for fun. I guess something about geometry lends itself to that kind of reprogramming. I will never understand math kids). Fuck, we can take a square and round off the corners. Just because you call god a 'necessary being' in no way proves that god is necessary. The history of progress itself is the story of people coming up with explanations for aspects of the world absent of god(s).

Feel free, though, to try to justify your term 'necessary,' and present something observable that just doesn't work without the presence of a divine hand.

And read a book on computational linguistics, for darwin's sake. Here, I'll help you take the first step, with the power of wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_linguistics).

good thing that that isn't the defnition of god then, eh?

St. Anselm used the definition "That than which nothing greater can be conceived."

St. Anselm used the definition "That than which nothing greater can be conceived."

i can always make a thing greater. that's what's fun about infinity.

besides, anselm's argument is a joke.

i can always make a thing greater. that's what's fun about infinity.

Therefore that which nothing greater can be conceived is infinite. Conceive of something greater than infinity?

besides, anselm's argument is a joke.

Right, and I find it utterly hilarious how it pwns you all. :D

i can always make a thing greater. that's what's fun about infinity.

besides, anselm's argument is a joke.

god+1 > god

I win.

god+1 > god

I win.

Infinity + 1 > Infinity?

Or, y'know, not.

Right, and I find it utterly hilarious how it pwns you all. :D


Not to be the angry humanist here, but you just use a pronoun for a person that works for a dog turd, i.e. don't step in it

Not to be the angry humanist here, but you just use a pronoun for a person that works for a dog turd, i.e. don't step in it

Probably because of the lack of gender neutral personal pronoun.

As a transhumanist,... I'm amused to see that a dog turd can pwn us all.

Infinity + 1 > Infinity?

Or, y'know, not.

Again, you clearly think you are more clever than you are...especially considering you continue to champion an argument that is based upon a philosophical assumption. Many here are attempting to simply poke the obvious holes in your argument that you fail to recognize. Assuming you are arguing from your own belief system, you do not seem to be interested in the education that you are pursuing. True education requires you to put aside your own beliefs, if only temporarily, or you won't learn a damn thing. Please note that if my assumption is incorrect, my following statements that are based upon that assumption are negated...as we see in your own argument.

The universe itself is contingent. We can conceive of it as not existing.

Unless we are God, we can't.

Therefore that which nothing greater can be conceived is infinite. Conceive of something greater than infinity?

People can't conceive of infinity itself in anything other than an abstraction. For any concrete that can be conceived, something greater can be conceived.

Probably because of the lack of gender neutral personal pronoun.

As a transhumanist,... I'm amused to see that a dog turd can pwn us all.

I am actively procrastinating towards a 10 page paper on transhumanism. I just know that if i start working again i'm gonna get all wrapped up in kurzweil and boom! 7 hours gone.

Infinity + 1 > Infinity?

Or, y'know, not.

You want infinity math? you got it.

Science vs. religion with limits!

(*) f'(x) = lim_{god -> 0}[f(x+h) - f(x)]/god

as science advances, our idea of god gets smaller and smaller, approaching zero, but never actually gets there cause no forum board is complete without a resident jesus.

Ok so i admit it: I haven't slept in 31 hours.

2. Every contingent thing borrows its existence either from something contingent or necessary.

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!

Infinity + 1 > Infinity?

Or, y'know, not.

Actually, some infinites can be larger than others.

Georg Cantor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor)

Set Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory)

I used to get my essay titles at the start of the trimester and would often write eassays a couple of months in advance and then alter them as the deadline approached and I learned more.

Ive read some posts in this thread that made me boggle but this seemed to have slipped by unremarked. Umm. Are you serious? Not to be mean or anything but did you have any friends in college? Who the hell has time to do assignments in college MONTHS in advance??? [/Boggle]

I typically do some of my assignments months in advance. :confused:

Why is that so odd. :eek:

Ive read some posts in this thread that made me boggle but this seemed to have slipped by unremarked. Umm. Are you serious? Not to be mean or anything but did you have any friends in college? Who the hell has time to do assignments in college MONTHS in advance??? [/Boggle]

you're on the internets. There be nerds and dweebs here.

*raises hand*

You wrote a paper against determinism, and towards the end conclude that all things exist because god created it, and deliberated on their creation, so as to create them in just that way, stating:



So in attempting to argue against determinism, you argue for determinism.

An "F" would be generous.

Knowing that something will happen a certain way is different than preventing an alternative. Free will is difficult to parse--since we only ever make one choice, is it the fact that we had the option of making another that makes it free will or is it deterministic because that is the choice that would have always been made?
I don't know, and I don't think that man will ever know.

I didn't see any many of quantum mechanics in the OP when I skimmed, so I will give it an automatic fail.

Knowing that something will happen a certain way is different than preventing an alternative. Free will is difficult to parse--since we only ever make one choice, is it the fact that we had the option of making another that makes it free will or is it deterministic because that is the choice that would have always been made?
I don't know, and I don't think that man will ever know.

Free will? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition)

I didn't see any many of quantum mechanics in the OP when I skimmed, so I will give it an automatic fail.

behold, a wise man

EDIT: possibly a wise woman. I should not have assumed gender based on the subject.

Nonsense.

What does he mean by "borrows its existence"?

It would seem that something that is contingent would have some prerequisite in order to exist, and he made a seemingly good dichotomy between contingent things and "necessary" (perhaps ultimate?) things.

behold, a wise man

EDIT: possibly a wise woman. I should not have assumed gender based on the subject.

His argument was for the libertarianism side against determinism. He was discussing free will and what does quantum mechanics have to do with free will?

It would seem that something that is contingent would have some prerequisite in order to exist

Why?

behold, a wise man

EDIT: possibly a wise woman. I should not have assumed gender based on the subject.

Wise man. And thank you. :)

His argument was for the libertarianism side against determinism. He was discussing free will and what does quantum mechanics have to do with free will?

Well, it does provide pretty strong evidence that determinism is an invalid position. That doesn't mean free will exists, but that actions are not predetermined.

This is complicated, so strap yourself in. Determinism is argued thus:

First, the macro scale:

The big bang happened, and that is your underlying set condition. I'll get back to the big bang in a second. The universe runs on natural laws. Laws like matter cannot be created or destroyed, energy seeks equilibrium (entropy) and different forces like 1. heat, gravity, and the 2. kasimir effect (the force that pushes electrons away from an atom, rather than gravity pulling the pieces of an atom together) are affecting the matter of our universe. Matter is probably what happens when energy slows down a lot.

All that matter and energy and laws came from the big bang. At the time of the big bang, the laws (with the exception of entropy) and the distinctions between energy didn't exist. They came later (as in hundreds of thousands of years later) as energy became more spread out and less chaotic, once order became possible. Why these laws in particular arose is subject to much debate: the most simple explanation is that these were the most simple laws--byproducts of the original big bang itself. Think of them as what arises when entropy shuffles energy down after a certain point. theoretical models exist for the nature of the big bang itself, such as the multiple worlds theory, which holds that multiple universes have had their own big bangs that happened under different circumstances, each of which may have led to different sets of natural laws, but that's beyond my purposes here.

Anyway, all our most accurate human observations, following the bias-eliminating rules of science, tell us that when we study these natural processes, we get repeatable results. The same circumstances and variables will have the same outcome, no matter how many times they're repeated. In other words, no force known as 'random' has been reliably demonstrated. So all that is why physics requires determinism. Natural situations only have one outcome, so if an agent could truly know every variable involved in a situation, one could determine the outcome.

The micro level:

Human concepts like reason and logic are based on what we've observed of these repeatable processes, our sense of 'the way things work.' Without those repeating patterns, there's nothing to understand; there's chaos, or at the very least we have a physical world that we cannot trust or reliably manipulate.

we, as human beings, are totally and completely part of the physical world. This includes our brains, which are made of neurons that fire electronic signals in various patterns. It's comparable to a computer. Electronic signals either activate a node or they don't, and the pattern of nodes activated leads to everything that happens on the computer, including software. Human consciousness is, in effect, evolved biological software, designed to allow us to interact with the real world. This is why we see rocks as solid rather than a collection of atoms forming a pattern: seeing rocks as solid is enough for us to interact with the rock and get by in the world. This is also why psychoactives change your senses and perceptions; the software is being manipulated, like a cheat code for a video game.

So our brains are part of the physical world, with parts following natural processes. Natural processes only has one outcome, so the parts involved with the neurons and they're electricity only have one outcome. If someone could truly know all the variables involved with those parts, one could accurately determine human actions. The perception of free agency is just an illusion of the programming, useful for some evolutionary reason or other.

And that's the thinking behind determinism. Sorry this was so long and not as lucid as I would like, but it's a tough concept, both intellectually and emotionally. The collection of wiki articles on it are informative, if not exactly as direct as I've been here. This is long enough, and I don't subscribe to it, but the rival theory is compatibalism, and Daniel Dennett is probably the guy to look up for info.

Not to be a bother, but:

1. Heat is not a force, but a process of energy transfer.

2. The Casimir Effect is not involved in electron-nucleus interactions. That is the electroweak, or weak nuclear force, propagated by W and Z bosons. The Casimir Effect is actually an effect observed as a result of ground state fluctuations in quantum systems. Vaccuum energy, essentially.


Other than that, you've done a good job of critiquing his argument, my personal views on determinism aside.

Other than that, you've done a good job of critiquing his argument, my personal views on determinism aside.

I think the only flaw, from what I've seen, is presuming that just because a given outcome is repeatable that it will always have that outcome. This is, of course, an assumption that is not really valid; it's possible that with sufficient testing, a different outcome will occur that will be caused by a previously unaccounted for and unpredictable random action (if there are any certainties, this would definitely be one).

Of course, the invalidity of determinism doesn't mean free will exists. It merely means things aren't determined, which from there can be developed along any number of potential angles.

I think the only flaw, from what I've seen, is presuming that just because a given outcome is repeatable that it will always have that outcome. This is, of course, an assumption that is not really valid; it's possible that with sufficient testing, a different outcome will occur that will be caused by a previously unaccounted for and unpredictable random action (if there are any certainties, this would definitely be one).

Of course, the invalidity of determinism doesn't mean free will exists. It merely means things aren't determined, which from there can be developed along any number of potential angles.

That's sort of my one objection to determinism. Especially given QM, and the resulting understanding that our interaction with the world around necessarily follows probabilistic models that are only Classical as particular limits.

That's sort of my one objection to determinism. Especially given QM, and the resulting understanding that our interaction with the world around necessarily follows probabilistic models that are only Classical as particular limits.

I have the same position. Mind you, I don't necessarily embrace free will wholeheartedly (what role conscious thought plays in determining the world around us is still unknown), but I don't believe determinism is an accurate position to hold in light of advances in fields like quantum mechanics.

From an aesthetic standpoint, free will is of course far more attractive than the thought that everything is predetermined and we are merely the product of our environment.

More free will? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)

More free will? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)

Not really. It's true that QM is a good argument against determinism, but it's a real piss-poor argument for free-will. At least until someone can actually work out the biology of the brain fully and completely.

Not really. It's true that QM is a good argument against determinism, but it's a real piss-poor argument for free-will. At least until someone can actually work out the biology of the brain fully and completely.

True, because free will implies a "will" of some kind is responsible. Since this may not be so, that statement is completely correct.

If, however, quantum mechanics has a considerable effect on the brain's function as a whole then it would be a very good argument for free will, or at least a random "will" (for lack of a better word) of some kind. Since the brain is made of atoms, this seems probable...

However, this is more of a musing than an actual argument and thus it should be taken with a grain of salt.

His argument was for the libertarianism side against determinism. He was discussing free will and what does quantum mechanics have to do with free will?

absolutely nothin'. but it meant i wasn't the only one here who wanted a science discussion about determinism

Not really. It's true that QM is a good argument against determinism, but it's a real piss-poor argument for free-will. At least until someone can actually work out the biology of the brain fully and completely.

I don't see why necessarily. The Uncertainty princple merely states that any attempt to observe will alter the outcome. However the whole theory rests on having an omniscient perspective. IF you could know the position, velocity, and energy of every particle, and had sufficient understanding of algebra, one could predict everything that would ever happen, so the theory goes.

Now the uncertainty principle prevents us from HAVING that knowledge, but that does not change the underlying concept. The uncertainty principle is merely a limitation on getting the relevant knowledge, not a prevention on making accurate calculations once you have it.

Not to be a bother, but:

1. Heat is not a force, but a process of energy transfer.

2. The Casimir Effect is not involved in electron-nucleus interactions. That is the electroweak, or weak nuclear force, propagated by W and Z bosons. The Casimir Effect is actually an effect observed as a result of ground state fluctuations in quantum systems. Vaccuum energy, essentially.


Other than that, you've done a good job of critiquing his argument, my personal views on determinism aside.

you are absolutely correct. In my defense, I had not slept, nor eaten, for quite some time when I wrote that. (heat? where did that come from?)

I think the only flaw, from what I've seen, is presuming that just because a given outcome is repeatable that it will always have that outcome. This is, of course, an assumption that is not really valid; it's possible that with sufficient testing, a different outcome will occur that will be caused by a previously unaccounted for and unpredictable random action (if there are any certainties, this would definitely be one).

Of course, the invalidity of determinism doesn't mean free will exists. It merely means things aren't determined, which from there can be developed along any number of potential angles.

Well what would make things happen differently? Unless you're going to deny cause, there has to be something there for 1+1=2 the first time and 1+1=3 a second time. We've never found any hard evidence of something analogous to randomness, so causality is still on it's thrown.

More free will? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)

Nope. Uncertainty principle is about our understanding, our own measurements working against us, not really anything subjective about sub-atomic particles.

True, because free will implies a "will" of some kind is responsible. Since this may not be so, that statement is completely correct.

If, however, quantum mechanics has a considerable effect on the brain's function as a whole then it would be a very good argument for free will, or at least a random "will" (for lack of a better word) of some kind. Since the brain is made of atoms, this seems probable...

However, this is more of a musing than an actual argument and thus it should be taken with a grain of salt.

I think there's some confusion here about quantum mechanics. things are still completely deterministic on the subatomic level. The problem is that stuff is too small for any type of tool to measure those particles effectively. So the equations involved with quantum phenomenon are just ways to make the most out of the limited information we can glean.

The same idea, with much easier math would be the way we use statistics to find out trends when it would be impractical to get hard data on every individual involved in whatever event it is your looking at. Those individuals aren't in a state of unknown, being tossed into categories according to what the percentages and chance say: there's individual motivations and reasons. But when you can't know everyone's reason, the next best thing is to see what reasons are popular these days.

Well what would make things happen differently? Unless you're going to deny cause, there has to be something there for 1+1=2 the first time and 1+1=3 a second time. We've never found any hard evidence of something analogous to randomness, so causality is still on it's throne.

There can be hard evidence for randomness?

I'm not sure there can be. We would need perfect science for that. Otherwise, the observer will always say "there must be some factor at work which I don't understand yet."

Nope. Uncertainty principle is about our understanding, our own measurements working against us, not really anything subjective about sub-atomic particles.

Fair enough...

It seems that it is easy to apply quantum mechanics to philosophy much too liberally because of its abstract nature. Apologies for this error in judgment are extended.

However, outside the realm of quantum mechanics this argument begs a few questions…

What exactly does free will entail?

If free will determines how one acts, then how is it actually free will?

There can be hard evidence for randomness?

I'm not sure there can be. We would need perfect science for that. Otherwise, the observer will always say "there must be some factor at work which I don't understand yet."

If there was something where science failed, despite strictly following the scientific method, would be evidence. Not just one failure either, if randomness exists, its not a stretch to say that there would randomly be something that should work, but never did.

You know what, the incompatibility of relativity and quantum theory may qualify by that definition. If those aren't resolved within, say, the next 30 years, i will concede that randomness exists.

I think there's some confusion here about quantum mechanics. things are still completely deterministic on the subatomic level. The problem is that stuff is too small for any type of tool to measure those particles effectively. So the equations involved with quantum phenomenon are just ways to make the most out of the limited information we can glean.

The same idea, with much easier math would be the way we use statistics to find out trends when it would be impractical to get hard data on every individual involved in whatever event it is your looking at. Those individuals aren't in a state of unknown, being tossed into categories according to what the percentages and chance say: there's individual motivations and reasons. But when you can't know everyone's reason, the next best thing is to see what reasons are popular these days.

Isn't that hidden variable theory?

Edit:

If those aren't resolved within, say, the next 30 years, i will concede that randomness exists.

Why? It isn't likely that things will be any more or less random if an arbitrary date is placed on the subject. They will be what they are, so if the dispute isn't solved then it could just mean that no one has found the answer yet. It would be a big leap to just assume otherwise "when the time is right".

I think there's some confusion here about quantum mechanics. things are still completely deterministic on the subatomic level.

I query that.

*calls for physicist*

The problem is that stuff is too small for any type of tool to measure those particles effectively. So the equations involved with quantum phenomenon are just ways to make the most out of the limited information we can glean.

It seems significant that observations can't be made without changing what is being observed. That clearly applies at the particle level of our world, and perhaps at higher levels.


Determinism doesn't look like being proved or disproved any time soon.
The simplest observable thing, a particle, isn't that simple and we can't properly observe it.


Are these facts related?

And don't come with the strings. They're also not simple, and aren't observable at all.

*looks around warily for physicists*

Fair enough...

It seems that it is easy to apply quantum mechanics to philosophy much too liberally because of its abstract nature. Apologies for this error in judgment are extended.

However, outside the realm of quantum mechanics this argument begs a few questions…

What exactly does free will entail?

If free will determines how one acts, then how is it actually free will?

Can't really blame ya. Its fun to think about: If we can only give a statistical likelihood that the smallest particles are there, then we really can't say we know that there's anything there, so OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL SOMEONE'S DREAM!!!! That was my first reaction to quantum physics anyway.

And there are important philosophical points that are raised. For instance, why is there a smallest unit of matter? shouldn't there be infinite variation? and what's up with energy waves anyway?

Plus, you know, quantum entanglement is like the universe pulling a magic trick.

As to free will, I don't think there is a clear definition. I'm not really motivated to give it too much thought, but you'd have to define the individual in some philosophically satisfying way. I'd suggest saying we're individual patterns, or segments of different waves of energy. Then you'd have to pick some actions of that individual that you want to attribute to will. Then you'd have to establish what caused those actions, and why that cause is worthy of consideration beyond other causes.

Why? It isn't likely that things will be any more or less random if an arbitrary date is placed on the subject. They will be what they are, so if the dispute isn't solved then it could just mean that no one has found the answer yet. It would be a big leap to just assume otherwise "when the time is right".

Physicists feel that they're rather close to establishing a link between these, and I was most definitely promised a 'unified theory of everything' within the next 20 years. I thought I'd add ten on to that to give the scientists some slack. Both of those results are expected, and either one would remove the possibility of two seemingly related fields not ever crossing paths for no discernible reason

Can't really blame ya. Its fun to think about: If we can only give a statistical likelihood that the smallest particles are there, then we really can't say we know that there's anything there, so OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL SOMEONE'S DREAM!!!! That was my first reaction to quantum physics anyway.

And there are important philosophical points that are raised. For instance, why is there a smallest unit of matter? shouldn't there be infinite variation? and what's up with energy waves anyway?

Let's start with IS there a smallest unit of matter? Then move on to OMG, THIS MATTER STUFF -- WTF? And suppose we settle on "matter is a form of energy" we still have the question ENERGY WTF?

You know, even if particle physicists proved or (more likely) disproved causality, it would be decades before anyone took them seriously. :p

Plus, you know, quantum entanglement is like the universe pulling a magic trick.

Very entertaining for the kiddies. *nod*

Tightass grownups might find it a bit spooky.

It seems significant that observations can't be made without changing what is being observed. That clearly applies at the particle level of our world, and perhaps at higher levels.


Determinism doesn't look like being proved or disproved any time soon.
The simplest observable thing, a particle, isn't that simple and we can't properly observe it.


Are these facts related?

Well think about legos and marbles for a minute. each lego piece takes up a definite amount of space. if you have a marble, and you want to put it where the red lego is, even temporarily, that red lego has gotta move.

Alright, now think of a flashlight in a pitch dark room. When you turn on that light, it's not changing the color scheme of everything around you, that electric bulb is sending out light that's coming back to you.

Finally, back to legos and marbles, except instead of legos, make it quarks, and instead of marbles, make it photons. to see something, we have to send something out that will bounce back at us, like with the flashlight. But the quark is so small, like the lego, that even a photon of light will push it away, like the marble. And with the quark moving, the photon is coming back on a crooked path, and you don't get an accurate reading. The solution, it would seem, would be to send out more than one photon, let the quark bounce around all of them, and then triangulate its position based on comparing all the photons you sent out. The freaky part of it all is that on the previously blank display, suddenly eight different quarks show up, all at once.

It's called quantum physics for a reason; it deals with a definite (really small) size, rather than the previously accepted infinitely variabled sizes.

Physicists feel that they're rather close to establishing a link between these, and I was most definitely promised a 'unified theory of everything' within the next 20 years. I thought I'd add ten on to that to give the scientists some slack. Both of those results are expected, and either one would remove the possibility of two seemingly related fields not ever crossing paths for no discernible reason

Doesn’t it seem illogical to make a prediction about how one's understanding of physics will change (or not) based on the fact that they are "expected" to change? This expectation may make something probable, but it does not make it fact.

Just because one can not know the reason as to why the seemingly related fields wouldn’t cross paths does not mean that a reason does or does not exist. Conceding that a reason (for the fields not to cross paths) exists because events did not unfold within a certain time frame seems...silly.

Fair enough...

It seems that it is easy to apply quantum mechanics to philosophy much too liberally because of its abstract nature. Apologies for this error in judgment are extended.

:eek: Amazing!

However, outside the realm of quantum mechanics this argument begs a few questions…

What exactly does free will entail?

If free will determines how one acts, then how is it actually free will?

While all very arguable questions, the simplest attack on determinism is to demonstrate some kind of random element in reality, at a simple level not tied into our own subjectivity.

I suppose demonstrating the existence of a free will would also overturn it, but reaching a level of proof comparible to particle observations doesn't seem likely.

*gets nervous about philosophers now*

:eek: Amazing!

???

While all very arguable questions, the simplest attack on determinism is to demonstrate some kind of random element in reality, at a simple level not tied into our own subjectivity.

I suppose demonstrating the existence of a free will would also overturn it, but reaching a level of proof comparible to particle observations doesn't seem likely.

*gets nervous about philosophers now*

Attacking determinism was not the intended goal. Defining free will (weather it exists or not) was the goal.

Let's start with IS there a smallest unit of matter?

That's the general idea, yes. We're not really sure why it's like that, but the math that goes with it is so amazingly accurate its scary, so we're going with it.

Then move on to OMG, THIS MATTER STUFF -- WTF?

Do you ever think about the way that none of the matter in your body from seven years ago is still there? Even your brain! You from seven years ago is completely dead, in every way. So who are you, then? should we get new names every seven years?


And suppose we settle on "matter is a form of energy" we still have the question ENERGY WTF?
We've been over this a few times on this forum already. Big bang. Shit went everywhere. Calling it energy. But I'm pretty sure we have a smallest packet of energy too. Wait, then what happens when wave functions collapse? I need to go do some reading.


You know, even if particle physicists proved or (more likely) disproved causality, it would be decades before anyone took them seriously. :p


What would disproving determinism look like? Science is built around the idea that the universe is knowable, and hence, causal. Our very methods of 'proving' something relies on determinism.

I know determinism leaves a bad taste in your mouth, and maybe even makes you feel physically ill, since it feels like your humanity has died. But the universe has too many moving parts going too fast for dirty mean scientists to pull out their calculators and tell us the exact time every milestone in our lives will occur, including when we'll die. All determinism really means is that the universe has to be consistent, and if we find something that's not consistent, then there's a more subtle, more complicated consistancy that we didn't see before.

things are still completely deterministic on the subatomic level.

not on the dominant understandings of qm. quantum indeterminism is a real feature of the universe as far as anyone can tell.

Doesn’t it seem illogical to make a prediction about how one's understanding of physics will change (or not) based on the fact that they are "expected" to change? This expectation may make something probable, but it does not make it fact.

Just because one can not know the reason as to why the seemingly related fields wouldn’t cross paths does not mean that a reason does or does not exist. Conceding that a reason (for the fields not to cross paths) exists because events did not unfold within a certain time frame seems...silly.

I'm really sure that this knowledge is heading down the pipe. We're gaining knowledge faster than we ever have before, and this is an area under a whole lot of research. Do you know how much money there is for the person who connects Einstein to Bohr? Pretty much the only way its not happening is if science has been fundamentally wrong in some way.

What would disproving determinism look like?

demonstrating that one single thing in the universe behaved probabilistically, rather than being causally determined by prior states.

demonstrating that one single thing in the universe behaved probabilistically, rather than being causally determined by prior states.

but so far everything observed that has had a probabilistic cause has had a more complicated deterministic cause. You'd have a better chance of finding a truly random event than you would of finding a probabilistic--but not deterministic--event

That's the general idea, yes. We're not really sure why it's like that, but the math that goes with it is so amazingly accurate its scary, so we're going with it.

"We" ? I certainly don't claim to follow it.

Do you ever think about the way that none of the matter in your body from seven years ago is still there? Even your brain! You from seven years ago is completely dead, in every way. So who are you, then? should we get new names every seven years?

I prefer to remember that somewhere in my body is an atom that was once in Albert Einstein. It's more comforting.

We've been over this a few times on this forum already. Big bang. Shit went everywhere. Calling it energy. But I'm pretty sure we have a smallest packet of energy too. Wait, then what happens when wave functions collapse? I need to go do some reading.

How could you forget a basic thing like that? When wave functions collapse, your head explodes. Silly!

What would disproving determinism look like? Science is built around the idea that the universe is knowable, and hence, causal. Our very methods of 'proving' something relies on determinism.

Yes, I was allowing for a proof only to be polite, and am very dubious about the existence of a disproof either.

Of course, believing in God would complicate this question. Not our problem.

I know determinism leaves a bad taste in your mouth, and maybe even makes you feel physically ill, since it feels like your humanity has died.

I'm afraid you're thinking of someone else. I'm not even arguing against determinism, just trying to make some meaningful link between the philosophical question and some possible scientific experiment.

But the universe has too many moving parts going too fast for dirty mean scientists to pull out their calculators and tell us the exact time every milestone in our lives will occur, including when we'll die.

Or put another way, even if the entire universe was made out of my brain, I still couldn't predict the future

On a more stoner level: the entire universe is a machine for predicting the future, and it's working as hard as it can.

All determinism really means is that the universe has to be consistent, and if we find something that's not consistent, then there's a more subtle, more complicated constancy that we didn't see before.

I'm really sure that this knowledge is heading down the pipe. We're gaining knowledge faster than we ever have before, and this is an area under a whole lot of research. Do you know how much money there is for the person who connects Einstein to Bohr? Pretty much the only way its not happening is if science has been fundamentally wrong in some way.

Why is that so unbelievable? Nothing conceived of by man has been proven to be perfect yet, why should science (and/or any interpretation of it) be the exception?

Also, some people may trust someone that is "really sure". However, some people don't trust anyone about anything, ever.

you are absolutely correct. In my defense, I had not slept, nor eaten, for quite some time when I wrote that. (heat? where did that come from?)

I'd be chuckling harder at your predicament if my upcoming QM final wasn't at 8:30 in the morning. And my Optics finals.

It's going to be a loooong two weeks.

???

Oh, I don't think I've ever seen a poster apologize sincerely for making a mistake in thinking. It's really the tiniest thing, but congrats on holding yourself to such a standard.


Attacking determinism was not the intended goal. Defining free will (weather it exists or not) was the goal.

OK. I did read the OP but it was a while ago, I guess I was relying on the thread title.

I'm really sure that this knowledge is heading down the pipe. We're gaining knowledge faster than we ever have before, and this is an area under a whole lot of research. Do you know how much money there is for the person who connects Einstein to Bohr? Pretty much the only way its not happening is if science has been fundamentally wrong in some way.

Not entirely true. It's entirely possible (even likely) that the predictions of a concise and consistent GUT that have no already been explained by other, non-unified theories lie outside our present realm of experimentation and observation.

This is an issue run into constantly with string theory. The predictions it makes, while novel, lie outside our ability to test for and verify in the reasonably near future. So while a consistent string theory model may be correct, we may not ever find out that it is, in fact, correct.

Our ability to gather knowledge about our universe is predicated on the tools we have available to acquire that knowledge. If we hit a bottleneck in technological advance, we'll hit a bottleneck in scientific research.

but so far everything observed that has had a probabilistic cause has had a more complicated deterministic cause. You'd have a better chance of finding a truly random event than you would of finding a probabilistic--but not deterministic--event

if it is probabilistic, it is not deterministic. thus far, we have lots of things that behave probabilistically and theoretical reasons for believing them to be truly probabilistic.

determinism was only plausible because things on the macro level (other than our subjective experience) appeared to conform to it. that was the only thing giving it any sway at all. it is not a demonstrated law of the universe that everything must somehow be deterministic. so when we find things that appear non-deterministic, and have no good reason to think that they are really determined by hidden variables or something, why should we not believe the evidence?

OK. I did read the OP but it was a while ago, I guess I was relying on the thread title.

The OP has nothing to do with it. The goal in the post you had quoted was to define free will.

I'd be chuckling harder at your predicament if my upcoming QM final wasn't at 8:30 in the morning. And my Optics finals.

It's going to be a loooong two weeks.

Could you give us a quick answer on whether the collapse of the wave function means "unpredictable behavior" (ie true randomness)?

I understand there's a computability objection, in that the quantum description of a particle interaction is extremely complicated. But is it theoretically possible to predict -- say -- random pair creation ?

Of course, the invalidity of determinism doesn't mean free will exists. It merely means things aren't determined, which from there can be developed along any number of potential angles.

sure, but without the 'everything is determined' line, we're back to our very powerful and immediate subjective experience of free will. the only argument against it was that there was no room for it in a deterministic universe.

Could you give us a quick answer on whether the collapse of the wave function means "unpredictable behavior" (ie true randomness)?

I understand there's a computability objection, in that the quantum description of a particle interaction is extremely complicated. But is it theoretically possible to predict -- say -- random pair creation ?

the question is whether random pair creation is truly random. Which is to say, if we could take a set of identical particles, expose them to identical conditions, and have identical results. It's possible that the collapse of the wave function is predictable, IF you know all the variables. However we can't know all the variables.

I don't see why necessarily. The Uncertainty princple merely states that any attempt to observe will alter the outcome. However the whole theory rests on having an omniscient perspective. IF you could know the position, velocity, and energy of every particle, and had sufficient understanding of algebra, one could predict everything that would ever happen, so the theory goes.

Now the uncertainty principle prevents us from HAVING that knowledge, but that does not change the underlying concept. The uncertainty principle is merely a limitation on getting the relevant knowledge, not a prevention on making accurate calculations once you have it.

Not exactly. In fact, the entire point of the uncertainty principle is that in any uncertaint relation (whether a position-momentum uncertainty or a time-energy uncertainty), as the limit of your uncertainty of one component goes to zero, the value of your uncertainty for the other component goes to infinity.

As an example, take the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle people are familiar with: dxdp>/h/2, where dx is your uncertainty in the position of object, dp is your uncertainty in the momentum (in the x direction) of the object, and h/2 is the Dirac constant over two, not to be confused with the Planck constant, which is off from the Dirac constant by a factor of 2 Pi. The >/ represents a greater than or equal to, since I can't find an actual symbol for it anywhere.

So if you reorder this to express the uncertainty in the momentum as a function of position: dp >/ h/2*dx, and take the limit as dx goes to zero, dp goes to infinity.

One can reason the physicality of this by applying uncertainty to a bus. If you freeze the bus at a particular point in time, you may know the position of the bus precisely (this itself is not entirely true practically, as the precision of your measuring tool in determining the position of the bus generates uncertainty), as it is unmoving and fixed at a particular location from your perspective. However as it is not moving from your perspective, you know nothing at present about which direction it is moving, or if it is moving at all, and therefore know absolutely nothing about its momentum.

I don't know how to explain this sufficiently, but uncertainty isn't just a reflection of our inability to know. It's a fundamental property of nature that has certain important implications in QM.

Could you give us a quick answer on whether the collapse of the wave function means "unpredictable behavior" (ie true randomness)?

I understand there's a computability objection, in that the quantum description of a particle interaction is extremely complicated. But is it theoretically possible to predict -- say -- random pair creation ?

Well, the thing is that any quantum mechanical system is described by a wave function with a corresponding probability distribution function, which is the "magnitude" of the wave function. You could think of this as the square root of the wave function squared, but it'd be more precise to say it's the square of the wave function dotted to its complex conjugate, as it is possible for a wave function to be complex.

This probability distribution function then represents the probabilities of finding the particle represented by the wave function at a point in space and time when the wave function is collapsed. In other words, until an observation is made on the system, the PDF represents the regions of space that the particle could be when the wave function is collapsed, but it is understood to be at ALL points within that PDF until the wave function is collapsed.

In the end, you can never accurately predict exactly where the particle will be. Only where it is likely to be. In fact, this is sort of how quantum tunnelling works. For a particle in a well of finite potential, the resulting PDF extends beyond the confines of the well, such that there is a non-zero probability that the particle will appear outside the well. While it is therefore predictable that the particle will be able to appear outside the well, you will never know precisely which measurement (and which resulting wavefunction collapse) will result in a tunnelled particle.

I'm not sure how satisfactory an answer that is.

if it is probabilistic, it is not deterministic. thus far, we have lots of things that behave probabilistically and theoretical reasons for believing them to be truly probabilistic.

determinism was only plausible because things on the macro level (other than our subjective experience) appeared to conform to it. that was the only thing giving it any sway at all. it is not a demonstrated law of the universe that everything must somehow be deterministic. so when we find things that appear non-deterministic, and have no good reason to think that they are really determined by hidden variables or something, why should we not believe the evidence?

After poking around, it appears you're right. I'm fairly sure I've read a convincing defense of why quantum phenomenon are deterministic, but I can't for the life of me find the source, and it appears to be the minority opinion. I'm going to do some more looking.

Not exactly. In fact, the entire point of the uncertainty principle is that in any uncertaint relation (whether a position-momentum uncertainty or a time-energy uncertainty), as the limit of your uncertainty of one component goes to zero, the value of your uncertainty for the other component goes to infinity.

As an example, take the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle people are familiar with: dxdp>/h/2, where dx is your uncertainty in the position of object, dp is your uncertainty in the momentum (in the x direction) of the object, and h/2 is the Dirac constant over two, not to be confused with the Planck constant, which is off from the Dirac constant by a factor of 2 Pi. The >/ represents a greater than or equal to, since I can't find an actual symbol for it anywhere.

So if you reorder this to express the uncertainty in the momentum as a function of position: dp >/ h/2*dx, and take the limit as dx goes to zero, dp goes to infinity.

One can reason the physicality of this by applying uncertainty to a bus. If you freeze the bus at a particular point in time, you may know the position of the bus precisely (this itself is not entirely true practically, as the precision of your measuring tool in determining the position of the bus generates uncertainty), as it is unmoving and fixed at a particular location from your perspective. However as it is not moving from your perspective, you know nothing at present about which direction it is moving, or if it is moving at all, and therefore know absolutely nothing about its momentum.

I don't know how to explain this sufficiently, but uncertainty isn't just a reflection of our inability to know. It's a fundamental property of nature that has certain important implications in QM.

Yes, but it doesn't mean those properties don't exist (I do have a minor in physics so I can carry the conversation fairly well :p) To go back to the bus, if we freeze it, we may only KNOW one of the properties of the bus, but that doesnt mean those properties don't exist. They do. The nature of our observation prevents us from knowing what they are, but they exist.

This probability distribution function then represents the probabilities of finding the particle represented by the wave function at a point in space and time when the wave function is collapsed. In other words, until an observation is made on the system, the PDF represents the regions of space that the particle could be when the wave function is collapsed, but it is understood to be at ALL points within that PDF until the wave function is collapsed.


Basically, superposition...

True, because free will implies a "will" of some kind is responsible. Since this may not be so, that statement is completely correct.

If, however, quantum mechanics has a considerable effect on the brain's function as a whole then it would be a very good argument for free will, or at least a random "will" (for lack of a better word) of some kind. Since the brain is made of atoms, this seems probable...

However, this is more of a musing than an actual argument and thus it should be taken with a grain of salt.I think there's some confusion here about quantum mechanics. things are still completely deterministic on the subatomic level. The problem is that stuff is too small for any type of tool to measure those particles effectively. So the equations involved with quantum phenomenon are just ways to make the most out of the limited information we can glean.

The same idea, with much easier math would be the way we use statistics to find out trends when it would be impractical to get hard data on every individual involved in whatever event it is your looking at. Those individuals aren't in a state of unknown, being tossed into categories according to what the percentages and chance say: there's individual motivations and reasons. But when you can't know everyone's reason, the next best thing is to see what reasons are popular these days.

Fair enough...

It seems that it is easy to apply quantum mechanics to philosophy much too liberally because of its abstract nature. Apologies for this error in judgment are extended.

However, outside the realm of quantum mechanics this argument begs a few questions…

What exactly does free will entail?

If free will determines how one acts, then how is it actually free will?

Now, I don't really agree with Reasonstanople that particle physics is known to be deterministic. I think they're trying to gloss over the incompleteness of any observation by saying it really doesn't matter and there is a certain thing there even though we cannot observe it.

There are people on this board who can answer the bolded part to my satisfaction. Deus Malum certainly knows more about it than I, and is actually in the thread now.

You withdrew what was self-avowedly an idle speculation, but I still find it interesting. I doubt that the brain could make any "use" of meaningless "noise" from quantum froth, but where there is a source of "random information" we must be suspicious that it actually expresses some unknown principle and that the brain could benefit from using it.

We could even justifiably say that the mind is seperate from the body, if the mind is a function of the brain operating on a quantum level, in a world in which such large things don't generally.

After poking around, it appears you're right. I'm fairly sure I've read a convincing defense of why quantum phenomenon are deterministic, but I can't for the life of me find the source, and it appears to be the minority opinion. I'm going to do some more looking.

It really, ultimately depends on how you define deterministic. Or I suppose more precisely which scale you're looking at.

At the microscopic level, quantum interactions are probabilistic, and so each individual interaction is essentially random. However, successive interactions will follow a statistical model of behavior when taken as a whole. This is how statistical mechanics works at the quantum level.

Widening the scale, we see that most quantum mechanical interaction have a classical limit. That is, as your scale increases, the apparent randomness at the quantum level smoothens out into the simple, predictable interactions of classical mechanics.

Why is that so unbelievable? Nothing conceived of by man has been proven to be perfect yet, why should science (and/or any interpretation of it) be the exception?

Also, some people may trust someone that is "really sure". However, some people don't trust anyone about anything, ever.

Well science is self-correcting. And its been self correcting for 400 years now, and you know, they were right about polio, and space ships, and electricity, so I tend to trust science, especially basic science ideas.

Not entirely true. It's entirely possible (even likely) that the predictions of a concise and consistent GUT that have no already been explained by other, non-unified theories lie outside our present realm of experimentation and observation.

This is an issue run into constantly with string theory. The predictions it makes, while novel, lie outside our ability to test for and verify in the reasonably near future. So while a consistent string theory model may be correct, we may not ever find out that it is, in fact, correct.

Our ability to gather knowledge about our universe is predicated on the tools we have available to acquire that knowledge. If we hit a bottleneck in technological advance, we'll hit a bottleneck in scientific research.

When was the last time we had a technology bottleneck?

Yes, but it doesn't mean those properties don't exist (I do have a minor in physics so I can carry the conversation fairly well :p) To go back to the bus, if we freeze it, we may only KNOW one of the properties of the bus, but that doesnt mean those properties don't exist. They do. The nature of our observation prevents us from knowing what they are, but they exist.

You're right about that. The particle still has a momentum, and is still moving. So I suppose if one were to allow for an omniscient observer, the observer could know all properties simultaneously. Still, I'm not sure how to go about proving or disproving that either way.

OT: (It's amazing how many people get minors in physics. None of them will ever be quite as hardcore, or insane, as us true physics majors, but it's still pretty neat how many people dabble in it. It's also mildly disturbing that there are more physics minors at any given time in our department than actual majors.)

sure, but without the 'everything is determined' line, we're back to our very powerful and immediate subjective experience of free will. the only argument against it was that there was no room for it in a deterministic universe.

BS. Here's a nondeterministic argument against free will: define free will.

When was the last time we had a technology bottleneck?

It depends on how you define bottleneck. In a way, we've hit a bottleneck in terms of single-core processor speed.
Which is, to a large extent, where the push toward dual-core and multi-core processing comes in. Though this doesn't then limit the overall speed of newer processors, and one could easily argue (and it would be a point I'd concede) that this does not constitute a true bottleneck, in that the processing capability of newer machines isn't bottlenecked.

Basically, superposition...

For a single-particle or single-entity system, no.

For any system involving particle interactions, yes. Inasmuch as these interactions could be properly understood as the superposition of multiple different wavefunctions.

Edit: Now reviewing my notes. I'm mistaken. Superposition holds for a single-particle system, as well, because of uncertainty relations. One can think of the uncertainty partner of a given observable whose value is known as a superposition of all possible values.

You withdrew what was self-avowedly an idle speculation, but I still find it interesting. I doubt that the brain could make any "use" of meaningless "noise" from quantum froth, but where there is a source of "random information" we must be suspicious that it actually expresses some unknown principle and that the brain could benefit from using it.


Well, even if it was noise then it would still be a part of that individual and therefore it would be in "use" (just like any other physical property that exists within the brain). So, although one could not control the free will that was created from such a happy accident they would still have a free will of sorts.

However the only "pure" free will would be one that does not contradict itself (if free will determines our actions then it is not free will).

The original statement was not withdrawn because of an agreement on uncertainty or particle physics; it was withdrawn because this kind of free will is seemingly impossible when inspected logically. Furthermore, mixing too much philosophy with more objective ideas can distort the information.

It depends on how you define bottleneck. In a way, we've hit a bottleneck in terms of single-core processor speed.
Which is, to a large extent, where the push toward dual-core and multi-core processing comes in. Though this doesn't then limit the overall speed of newer processors, and one could easily argue (and it would be a point I'd concede) that this does not constitute a true bottleneck, in that the processing capability of newer machines isn't bottlenecked.

I would say this was inevitable. The last advantage of our brains over computers is parallel processing, it was only a matter of time before computers took a crack at that advantage.

Well, the thing is that any quantum mechanical system is described by a wave function with a corresponding probability distribution function, which is the "magnitude" of the wave function. You could think of this as the square root of the wave function squared, but it'd be more precise to say it's the square of the wave function dotted to its complex conjugate, as it is possible for a wave function to be complex.

OK, I get that ... just.

This probability distribution function then represents the probabilities of finding the particle represented by the wave function at a point in space and time when the wave function is collapsed. In other words, until an observation is made on the system, the PDF represents the regions of space that the particle could be when the wave function is collapsed, but it is understood to be at ALL points within that PDF until the wave function is collapsed.

OK, so I guess my question is: does the wave function describe precisely the behavior of the particle ? Eg. it's position.

And on a theological note: would the wave function be within the Universe of God, or does the meaning of "creation" only apply to the universe we observe? A "collapsed God" he-he!

In the end, you can never accurately predict exactly where the particle will be. Only where it is likely to be. In fact, this is sort of how quantum tunnelling works. For a particle in a well of finite potential, the resulting PDF extends beyond the confines of the well, such that there is a non-zero probability that the particle will appear outside the well. While it is therefore predictable that the particle will be able to appear outside the well, you will never know precisely which measurement (and which resulting wavefunction collapse) will result in a tunnelled particle.

I'm not sure how satisfactory an answer that is.

It's good. I'm pretty sure that in the determinist's sense, that's a "no" to determinism being true at every level.

Making "determinism" a sort of approximation for levels of more complexity. Very like Newtonian mechanics.

Quantum mechanics for the win!

BS. Here's a nondeterministic argument against free will: define free will.

free will is a capacity held by certain sorts of agents to choose between alternatives.

Well, even if it was noise then it would still be a part of that individual and therefore it would be in "use" (just like any other physical property that exists within the brain). So, although one could not control the free will that was created from such a happy accident they would still have a free will of sorts.

Well, I'm not pedantic about terms so I'll accept that.

However the only "pure" free will would be one that does not contradict itself (if free will determines our actions then it is not free will).

The original statement was not withdrawn because of an agreement on uncertainty or particle physics; it was withdrawn because free will is seemingly impossible when inspected logically.

I'll go and read that over again then. I don't think I'll be trying to disprove that.

Well science is self-correcting. And its been self correcting for 400 years now, and you know, they were right about polio, and space ships, and electricity, so I tend to trust science, especially basic science ideas.

That means that the current version of science (and how it is interpreted) could be flawed.


I'll go and read that over again then. I don't think I'll be trying to disprove that.

Note: Read the edited version of that post.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems unlikely that quantum mechanics is deterministic. Quantum computers work because quantum mechanics is probabilistic. That only works when uncertainty is applied as a physical law, rather than a point of view.

OK, I get that ... just.

Yay! :)

OK, so I guess my question is: does the wave function describe precisely the behavior of the particle ? Eg. it's position.

And on a theological note: would the wave function be within the Universe of God, or does the meaning of "creation" only apply to the universe we observe? A "collapsed God" he-he!

No, not precisely. It merely describes the region where the particle is likely to be, and the associated probabilities. It does not tell you where the particle will be in a given observation. Incidentally one can also determine the wavefunction as a position of both time and space, and determine the probability of finding the particle at a particuar place at a particular time. The function still doesn't tell you precisely where it will be.

Hehe. The Godfunction collapseth.

It's good. I'm pretty sure that in the determinist's sense, that's a "no" to determinism being true at every level.

Making "determinism" a sort of approximation for levels of more complexity. Very like Newtonian mechanics.

Quantum mechanics for the win!

I'm of two minds on that. Yes, in a sense it is made of win. But it's a PAIN IN THE ASS to learn. I'm going to be an alcoholic after this semester.

Not really. I am merely saying that contradictions are impossible absolutely, and God's omnipotence means being able to do all that is possible. Contradictions are not possible. This is not the same thing as saying that God has a nature (If we mean nature in the Aristotelian sense). I say that God is entirely boundless within the realm of things that are possible.

Perhaps this would make more sense.

1. God is who is.
2. A Contradiction cannot be.
3. God does not do contradictions.

So, there are some things that are impossible, even for God.

Therefore, for God, some things are not possible.

Therefore, the statement "All things are possible with God" would be false under what you say.

Better call the Pope.

free will is a capacity held by certain sorts of agents to choose between alternatives.

choices obviously exist, and if that's your definition, then you're not asserting very much.

If you mean that if it were somehow possible to repeat the exact same circumstances of the agent's choice, AND that the agent would choose differently, AND that there was something at work in the agent that was independent of the natural processes that directed that choice, then I would ask, what is that independent something, what's it made of and how does it move physical neurons around?

I agree with St. Anselm in this respect. Sure, you can say with your lips "God does not exist," but I am not certain that you can understand what is meant by "God," and fully understanding what God is assert the denial thereof. For example, if by God it is meant "Necessary being," it is to contradict oneself to say "The Necessary Being who cannot not exist does not exist." For this reason, the Psalmist says "Only the fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'"

It's much like this: Can a person say "Yes" to the question "Can there exist a round square?" Well sure...if the person doesn't fully understand the definition of round and the definition of square. But a person who, understanding the definition of round, and the definition of square, cannot possibly say without contradiction that there can exist a round square.

So basically, you're saying that if you have a certain preconceived notion of God, you can't deny that God exists.

That's really not much of an argument. Perhaps an illustration is in order.

Let's say that I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The definition of the IPU is that it necessarily exists, that it has one horn, and that it cannot be seen by human eyes or other instruments.

If you don't believe in the IPU, you just don't fully understand the definition of the IPU.

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that God's existence is proved from the fact that there are contingent things.

1) Everything with which we are familiar is contingent (We can conceive of it not existing).
2. Every contingent thing borrows its existence either from something contingent or necessary.
3. Assume that it is borrowed from another contingent thing. That contingent thing borrows its existence from something else.
4. This cannot go on ad infinitum, or else nothing exists.
5. There must be a necessary being.

Non-sequitor. The "necessary thing" doesn't have to be a being, or the being you believe in.

Also, ad inifinitum precursors only prohibit finite things. Even if each thing is dependent on a precursor, why can't it go back forever, into infinite cycles of bigbangs/whatever? There doesn't have to be a first mover any more than there has to be a "most negative number".

Was your God ever born? Will he die? If he can go back forever without being created and forward without ending, why can't that same property be ascribed to something other than your version of God?

So basically, you're saying that if you have a certain preconceived notion of God, you can't deny that God exists.


That would explain a lot, actually...

I agree with St. Anselm in this respect. Sure, you can say with your lips "God does not exist," but I am not certain that you can understand what is meant by "God," and fully understanding what God is assert the denial thereof. For example, if by God it is meant "Necessary being," it is to contradict oneself to say "The Necessary Being who cannot not exist does not exist." For this reason, the Psalmist says "Only the fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'"

It's much like this: Can a person say "Yes" to the question "Can there exist a round square?" Well sure...if the person doesn't fully understand the definition of round and the definition of square. But a person who, understanding the definition of round, and the definition of square, cannot possibly say without contradiction that there can exist a round square.

Nice double standard of evidence there. None of us can understand what is meant by "God" enough to refrain from assuming it exists, but you understand it well enough to assume it does.

Also, nice circular logic. You use the "necessary being" schtick to try to prove God, then define "god" as the necessary being to begin with.

Also, look into non-Euclidean geometry.

Seriously, I know you've got that "whole year of philosophy" under your belt, but I wouldn't start writing your senior project just yet.

So, I'm too lazy to read 15 pages tonight. Has GR admitted to just making the OP as a joke yet?

That means that the current version of science (and how it is interpreted) could be flawed.


And everyone I meet from now on could be an android in disguise. Until I actually discover someone plugged in to recharge herself, the default assumption will work fine and free up brain space for more pressing matters.

St. Anselm used the definition "That than which nothing greater can be conceived."

So this is God? So to my dog, I'm God.

In a room of people with acute developmental disorders, anything more fascinating than Disneyland is God.

By this definition, a large portion of the Cthluhu Mythos is God.

Your God is a creature born of the limited imaginations of others. Wow, maybe the definition does work.

So, if I can conceive of a God a bit better than the one you worship, whether you agree with my conception or not, since I can conceive of it, your God is subsumed.

Just because you can't come up with anything greater than a God that demands blood sacrifice, whether of its own child or not, and just because you can't imagine a God great enough to walk in paradox unharmed, doesn't mean nobody else can.

So, I'm too lazy to read 15 pages tonight. Has GR admitted to just making the OP as a joke yet?

No, but many people have presented arguments that have not yet been adressed by GR.

Statement four is false because it fails to recognize that perception is something that can exist. Therefore, the simple fact that one can conceive of something not existing means that ones perception exists. This cycle can not go on ad infinitum because something is already known to exist if statement one is true.

If in this logic perception did not exist then statement one would be false, therefore, one has to assume perception exists thus making statement four false (or rather, completely unnecessary).

If statement four is false then statement five is unnecessary. If statement one is false then any other statement based on it is also false, thus making statement five unnecessary and/or false.

Unless of course, the one perceiving is the necessary being...

So, I'm too lazy to read 15 pages tonight. Has GR admitted to just making the OP as a joke yet?

If its a joke, its fooled me. I actually think he's serious, that he thinks he's as brilliant as he postures himself. If this is a puppet or somebody having a lark, they did their work, including posting the exact same paper on another forum a month ago.

And everyone I meet from now on could be an android in disguise. Until I actually discover someone plugged in to recharge herself, the default assumption will work fine and free up brain space for more pressing matters.

That is a valid point (even if it was made in a rather condescending manner). Another apology is extended for an error in judgment.

Deus Malum

The wiki article on determinism had the POV i was missing earlier, and the extent of the idea is that for QM, the wave itself is deterministic, and that the non-deterministic aspects of QM are only applicable when viewing QM from a classical perspective. I'm officially out of my league. could you help?

Infinity + 1 > Infinity?

Or, y'know, not.

If you want infinity math, check with Georg Cantor. The idea that the simple cardinal infinity of integers is cock-of-the-walk has been challenged.

Besides, if you've even had basic, basic calculus, you should know that some processes of infinity trump others, and some are undefined.

Besides, even if you pull the old "Well, well, my god is so big, you can't even imagine him!!!!!", all a person has to do is conceive of a God who can forgive without bloodshed or be powerful enough that it doesn't need or want worship.

Even if you disagree, those things are greater to me, and I can conceive of them, so by your definition, your god isn't even god anymore.

If you want infinity math, check with Georg Cantor. The idea that the simple cardinal infinity of integers is cock-of-the-walk has been challenged.

Besides, if you've even had basic, basic calculus, you should know that some processes of infinity trump others, and some are undefined.

Besides, even if you pull the old "Well, well, my god is so big, you can't even imagine him!!!!!", all a person has to do is conceive of a God who can forgive without bloodshed or be powerful enough that it doesn't need or want worship.

Even if you disagree, those things are greater to me, and I can conceive of them, so by your definition, your god isn't even god anymore.

Actually, some infinites can be larger than others.

Georg Cantor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor)

Set Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory)

Been there...

Deus Malum

The wiki article on determinism had the POV i was missing earlier, and the extent of the idea is that for QM, the wave itself is deterministic, and that the non-deterministic aspects of QM are only applicable when viewing QM from a classical perspective. I'm officially out of my league. could you help?

I suppose one could think of it as such, but I'm not sure. I think it may be implying that the full wavefunction is deterministic (which I think would hold true, as it itself follows predictable laws based on applied potentia), and that the probabilistic aspect only arises as a result of our observations.

Heh. You can only talk about free will for so long until some physicist comes along and freaks you out. :p I don't understand word one of it, but it's fun anyway.

Been there...

Course, Cantor went from well regarded mathematican to farting in the tub and cackling in a mental institution...

but I'm sure he would have laughed even harder at the OP paper.

That is a valid point (even if it was made in a rather condescending manner). Another apology is extended for an error in judgment.

I didn't mean to be condescending. I use hidden android analogies a lot, actually, i guess i just like the weirdness of it. Didn't mean to step on any toes there.

Course, Cantor went from well regarded mathematican to farting in the tub and cackling in a mental institution...

but I'm sure he would have laughed even harder at the OP paper.

In all fairness he most likely went insane because of the intense and overwhelming criticism placed upon his ideas. Furthermore, unlike many "great thinkers" of the past his biggest critics were people in his field of study.

I suppose one could think of it as such, but I'm not sure. I think it may be implying that the full wavefunction is deterministic (which I think would hold true, as it itself follows predictable laws based on applied potentia), and that the probabilistic aspect only arises as a result of our observations.

Thanks a bunch Deus,

Yay! good enough for me to be a soulless determinst again. All hail the big bang.

Why choose free will or determinist?

If the many worlds interpretation is correct then there are many universes that are all, when observed individually, deterministic. However, when viewed as a multiverse, it is possible for one to have free will because one can slip from one universe to another whenever a decision is made.

If this is true, then the universe is multi-determinist.

Once again, this is simply a musing and not an argument so take it with a grain of salt.

So, I'm too lazy to read 15 pages tonight. Has GR admitted to just making the OP as a joke yet?

The thread was begun as a reference for the "Wisdom from Marcus Aurelius" thread :

I wrote a philosophy paper on this very subject. I'll post it in a different thread.

Posted. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544666)

Most of the cast are the same. I can't decide if this thread is a red-herring, a joke, or the dreaded Help With Homework.

There was this little touch of irony from the OP:

Someone understands my genius! :p

free will is a capacity held by certain sorts of agents to choose between alternatives.

This definition seems to imply a compute has "free will" or even a rock has free will as it apparently chooses to obey gravity rather than jump up three feet. I mean, that's fine if you're willing to commit to it, but I'd rather just trash the entire concept of free will all together as one of those odd nonsensical terms that really only holds weight when put upon a foundation of intuition rather than logical analysis.

Anyway, the physics part of this thread is much more interesting than the philosophy part, I've gotta say. The idea of viewing the wave function, however probabilistic it may be in its workings, as a deterministic agent when judged at the aggregate is very interesting, imo.


Oh, and.....:gundge::sniper::mp5::headbang: for good measure.

I had written a paper this semester against Determinism...so I figured I might as well share it with the rest of you.

I don't follow you.

I don't follow you.

See the ten pages of blood and missing limbs?

He went thattaway!

See the ten pages of blood and missing limbs?

He went thattaway!

/threadwin honorable mention

Cuz I'm sure someone's already been declared winner, but you deserve recognition anyway.

This definition seems to imply a compute has "free will" or even a rock has free will as it apparently chooses to obey gravity rather than jump up three feet. I mean, that's fine if you're willing to commit to it, but I'd rather just trash the entire concept of free will all together as one of those odd nonsensical terms that really only holds weight when put upon a foundation of intuition rather than logical analysis.

rocks have an ability to choose? really?

/threadwin honorable mention

Cuz I'm sure someone's already been declared winner, but you deserve recognition anyway.

Eh, a mean joke isn't a threadwin. That joke didn't address the thread subject, as in fact BSB never did either. Any contribution BSB made was in the thread coda, when the subject had been decided. (Not that we're finished yet, of course. We can reprise all you like.)

The great discovery of the thread was Reasonstanople. Glib like TPC, clearly quite a mature person, not a sore loser, and quite loose in a way which suggests a capacity to be wildly wrong on occasion. Plain in meaning, honest as to limitations. Excellent name, too. Should be great fun!

(OK, Reason'ple, sorry for any disrespect. But your postcount says 'noob')

===================

And if this is true, we have an intellectual resource I wasn't aware of 'til now:

Philosophy is not my area of research (I am a University Professor,though) ...

Next, I am an Economic Geographer, a social scientist, where I must be very careful about making assumptions within my research.

Professors are obliged to profess. "Oh, gee, I was just joking around" isn't an option.

Let us welcome the Professor. :)

rocks have an ability to choose? really?

Of course they do. Ask any rock!

N.B. Rocks don't talk much. It's a lifestyle choice.

choices obviously exist, and if that's your definition, then you're not asserting very much.

If you mean that if it were somehow possible to repeat the exact same circumstances of the agent's choice, AND that the agent would choose differently, AND that there was something at work in the agent that was independent of the natural processes that directed that choice, then I would ask, what is that independent something, what's it made of and how does it move physical neurons around?

why would anyone want free will to be independent of the natural processes that directed a choice? free will is itself a natural process.

and if we are talking about exactly the same circumstances, then i'm not sure that we would do otherwise. after all, without some change in the basis of how we decided, we would probably still freely decide the same way again, except perhaps on decisions that were particularly up in the air and/or ultimately based on whim. but while i doubt that we would choose to do otherwise, we still could. the option was open to me, had i felt differently about it. the decision was still made by me, and if i had decided otherwise, i could have done something else - it is within my general set of powers to have been able to do various things at that point, regardless of what i actually wind up doing.

i can think of at least one way where even a requirement for exactly the same circumstances in the do-over can result in a different outcome. suppose i decided that i was going to use a truly random process to make a decision about what pants to wear. radioactive decay, let say. so i get myself a geiger counter and a very tiny amount of radioactive material, and say that if some of the material decays in the next x minutes, i'm wearing this pair of pants and if it doesn't then i'm wearing this other pair. thankfully for me and this method of decision making, schrodinger was one hell of a snazzy dresser.

Of course they do. Ask any rock!

brings whole new levels of meaning to the libertarian slogan "i'm pro-choice on everything - even rocks!"