Free will and determinism

[psionl0]

Not if you use the time function... unless you can predict the exact time the program is run down to the millisecond before you run it.... can you???

If somebody else wrote the algorithm and set the seed then I would be unable to predict the sequence. Does that prove that nobody wrote a PRN and that the computer was spitting out truly random numbers?

 

[Leumas]

If somebody else wrote the algorithm and set the seed then I would be unable to predict the sequence. Does that prove that nobody wrote a PRN and that the computer was spitting out truly random numbers?

And consequently you believe that someone wrote the universe's program to make the ¹⁴C atoms decay pseudo-randomly instead of truly-randomly????

 

[psionl0]

And consequently you believe that someone wrote the universe's program to make the ¹⁴C atoms decay pseudo-randomly instead of truly-randomly????

That is the stupidest non-sequitur I have ever seen.

Actually it is not. It is on a par with "we don't know the mechanics of radioactive decay and that proves that it is all truly random".

 

[Leumas]

That is the stupidest non-sequitur I have ever seen.

Actually it is not. It is on a par with "we don't know the mechanics of radioactive decay and that proves that it is all truly [pseudo-]random".

IFTFY...

I agree... and both of them are your assertions... the former as is... and the latter as is corrected.

So I am glad you recognize them both as egregious illogic that you stated.... well done!!!


ETA: By the way... do you know what a ? at the end of a sentence signifies??

 

[steenkh]

Yes Einstein and all those who are dejected by randomness and have to insert quotes around the word to alleviate the Cognitive Dissonance pangs it causes are all driven by this...

Pointing out that there could be deterministic laws behind QM is not a theological argument, and it is rather poor form of you to declare it so.

Are you emotionally attached to randomness somehow?

 

[Leumas]

Pointing out that there could be deterministic laws behind QM is not a theological argument, and it is rather poor form of you to declare it so.

Are you emotionally attached to randomness somehow?

Is called Wishful Thinking... and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam... to Rationalize continuing to clench onto a scientifically debunked philosophical conjecture coined by theological agendas centuries ago to rationalize an incessant hope for a possibility of an omniscient Jabberwocky.

So I think it is irrefragably evident that the "poor form and emotional attachment" to being dejected by the scientifically demonstrated and proven and ubiquitously utilized randomness is in fact on the side of the ones who keep insisting on a deterministic claptrap despite it being scientifically demonstrated to be poppycock.

 

[psionl0]

... and both of them are your MY assertions... the former as is... and the latter as is corrected before I altered it.

ftfy.

 

[suren]

The only possible way to be independent of the other processes it is but yet just another element of... is... no way...

Some interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that processes are random on microscale (which makes macro scale processes not exactly deterministic). And in order for this randomness to be possible there must be at least some degree of independence in processes.

Whether the universe we live in is truly random (it may be "pseudo-random", we may simply be unable to detect any patterns through experiments) or whether random quantum processes have something to do with will and consciousness are completely different questions.

 

[Leumas]

A Human organism is an ongoing natural process... part and parcel of the ecosystem it is immersed in... and is itself an ecosystem for other organisms (i.e. other processes) that are on and in it... and so on recursively.

The only possible way to be independent of the other processes it is but yet just another element of... is... no way....

Unless of course one wants to wish and hope for WOO WOO and then believe in it by using "philosophy" to convince oneself that it is not just wishful thinking and arguing from unfalsifiable fallacious argumenta ad ignorantiam.... because... see... it is philosophy after all.

And of course there are the following words of sagacity...

... And natural events don't do anything by "free will".

Some interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that processes are random on microscale (which makes macro scale processes not exactly deterministic). And in order for this randomness to be possible there must be at least some degree of independence in processes.

Whether the universe we live in is truly random (it may be "pseudo-random", we may simply be unable to detect any patterns through experiments) or whether random quantum processes have something to do with will and consciousness are completely different questions.

We have a major ongoing... for Billions of years... experiment to definitively demonstrate the randomness and indeterminism of the universe....

Can you guess what it is....

Yes... Evolution....

It is also a demonstration of the "some degree of independence in processes"...

But yet it is also an affirmation of how "A Human organism is an ongoing natural process... part and parcel of the ecosystem it is immersed in... and is itself an ecosystem for other organisms (i.e. other processes) that are on and in it... and so on recursively".

 

[psionl0]

We have a major ongoing... for Billions of years... experiment to definitively demonstrate the randomness and indeterminism of the universe....

Can you guess what it is....

I would never have guessed that evolution proved randomness.

 

[steenkh]

Is called Wishful Thinking... and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam... to Rationalize continuing to clench onto a scientifically debunked philosophical conjecture coined by theological agendas centuries ago to rationalize an incessant hope for a possibility of an omniscient Jabberwocky.

I have no idea what your logical fallacy is called, but it is definitely a fallacy to claim that because some religious believers claim something, then all others who claim the same must be religious believers.

So I think it is irrefragably evident that the "poor form and emotional attachment" to being dejected by the scientifically demonstrated and proven and ubiquitously utilized randomness is in fact on the side of the ones who keep insisting on a deterministic claptrap despite it being scientifically demonstrated to be poppycock.

I would be very interested in knowing your sources for claiming that it is scientifically proved that there can be no deterministic laws behind QM.

Unlike you, I am not wedded to one or the other, and I’ll be equally happy for a completely indeterministic world as for a deterministic one. I simply state that if we break up quarks and bosons into even smaller parts governed by their own laws, we cannot know if they will be deterministic, or not. No religion involved, even if god-believers would love such a result.

 

[suren]

We have a major ongoing... for Billions of years... experiment to definitively demonstrate the randomness and indeterminism of the universe....

Can you guess what it is....

Yes... Evolution....

It is also a demonstration of the "some degree of independence in processes"...

But yet it is also an affirmation of how "A Human organism is an ongoing natural process... part and parcel of the ecosystem it is immersed in... and is itself an ecosystem for other organisms (i.e. other processes) that are on and in it... and so on recursively".

I'm not sure how evolution proves that our university is truly random instead of pseudo-random. Independence of physical processes is necessary but not sufficient for true randomness to exist.

I'm not implying that universe is deterministic, this is also not proven. We just have no evidence that processes are deterministic because so far we haven't yet observed any patterns (cannot predict outcomes of quantum processes).

 

[Leumas]

I'm not sure how evolution proves that our university is truly random instead of pseudo-random. Independence of physical processes is necessary but not sufficient for true randomness to exist.

I'm not implying that universe is deterministic, this is also not proven. We just have no evidence that processes are deterministic because so far we haven't yet observed any patterns (cannot predict outcomes of quantum processes).

Define Evolution!

 

[psionl0]

Define Evolution!

Evolution happens whenever you have:
- a variable population
- selection
- reproduction with some mutations

No doubt, because the mutations are random you will argue that these are "true random" mutations because - reasons.

 

[Leumas]

Evolution happens whenever you have:
- a variable population
- selection
- reproduction with some mutations

No doubt, because the mutations are random you will argue that these are "true random" mutations because - reasons.

Define mutation!

Define pseudo-random!!

 

[Leumas]

No doubt, because the mutations are random you will argue that these are "true random" mutations because - reasons.

Earlier... you asserted that you made an algorithm to churn out pseudo-random numbers that I cannot predict but you can because YOU made the algorithm of the pseudo-random numbers.

So... who made the algorithm for the mutations that you are claiming are not true random but rather pseudo-random like the numbers you made an algorithm for...

Do you think some omniscient omnipotent programmer out there made the mutations follow a pseudo-random number generator algorithm???



.

 

[psionl0]

Do you think some omniscient omnipotent programmer out there made the mutations follow a pseudo-random number generator algorithm???

No.

Your assertion that if the world is not "truly random" then it was created by an ID (and that would never do) is a false dichotomy.

 

[Leumas]

<snip ad hominems, strawmanning and argumenta ad ignorantiam>

I was going to detail all the fallacies in your post by responding to each part of it... but instead I am going to paraphrase it and the previous one ... in order for you to... perhaps ... hopefully... see the failures in logic in the statements.

Pointing out that there could be a creator behind reality is not a theological argument, and it is rather poor form of you to declare it so.

Are you emotionally attached to naturalism somehow?

I would be very interested in knowing your sources for claiming that it is scientifically proven that there can be no creator behind reality.

Unlike you, I am not wedded to one or the other, and I’ll be equally happy for naturalism as for creationism. I simply state that if we break up quarks and bosons into even smaller parts governed by their own laws, we cannot know if they were created, or not. No religion involved, even if god-believers would love such a result.

I have no idea what logical fallacy it would be called, but it is definitely a fallacy to claim that because some religious believers claim creationism, then all others who claim the same must be religious believers.

 

[Leumas]

No.

Your assertion that if the world is not "truly random" then it was created by an ID (and that would never do) is a false dichotomy.

Yours is a false NO monochotomy at all...

Yours is a false assertion that there is nothing other than pseudo-randomness and that there is no randomness at all.

And it is not MY assertion that the world is not truly random... it is yours.

And you are the one who drew an analogy to YOUR ALGORITHM... so whose algorithm is it if there is no randomness in the universe like in your computer program???

And if like your pseudo-random algorithm prevents ME from guessing the number sequence... BUT YOU CAN.... then who knows and has assigned the algorithmic sequence for mutations and fission and and and and and???

And if you do not know what the sequences is of those RANDOM processes like you do for your computer program... and no human does and there is NOTHING that does... then it is random... no???

And if you cannot tell if it is random from pseudo-random.... then your assertion that it is NOT random is an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.



.

 

[Leumas]

No.

Your assertion that if the world is not "truly random" then it was created by an ID (and that would never do) is a false dichotomy.

Define mutation!!

Define pseudo-random!!!

Define random!!!