Is Randmoness Possible?

[Upchurch]

Uuuh, that's precious, Uppy. I might quote you on that one day, after all, you're sort of the philosopher of the house

Thanks! It's not true, but I'll take the complement.
[fquote]I'm sure you will correct me if I'm at fault here, Upchurch. And you should, because with my back to the wall I have a hard time seeing a way out of a truly deterministic universe. And QM hardly count as evidence of the opposite no more than the weather forecast. I think it's an incomplete theory despite the roar of so many physicians who claim to understand QM in full. [/fQUOTE]Well, if we're talking back against the wall beliefs, I'd have to say I'm a "free will doesn't exist" determinist, but for different reasons that involve the nature of spacetime, the general homogeneity of the universe, and a bastardization of the Many Worlds concept.

And to pic some nits, "physicists" study physics. "physicians" practice medicine.

 

[Kimpatsu]

No, I mean randomness. It doesn't matter if a phenomena is, in theory, predictable if we can't predict it.

Umm... shouldn't that be "phenomenon"...?

 

[Bri]

The only ignorance that has advanced this argument is yours. Obviously you don't know. Perhaps you should just stick with that, instead of projecting your uncertainty (as if you were certain) to others?

Iacchus, I personally believe that you have a right to believe however you do. I can even go so far as to say that your belief in God might actually be correct! However, if you want to prove it to us, at least use proper logic in doing so.

If you're trying to convince intelligent people that God exists because you think he exists or because you would rather believe that God exists over the alternative, then they're simply not going to buy it.

I personally want to hear what you have to say, so please give us some actual logical argument.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

What I cannot understand is why anyone would want a God to exist but that is something I doubt I will ever grasp.

I can think of several possible reasons why someone would want to believe a God exists.

One has to do with exactly what we're discussing here: free will. The notion that there is a God who created the natural world and that we can observe only the natural world (and therefore science can only deal with the natural world) cannot be disproven. It also provides a convenient means of allowing us to control our own destiny and exlains quite well why we all feel as though we can control our own destiny, rather than simply living out a life that we have absolutely no control over.

There are, of course, many other reasons people believe in God too.

Is that any kind of an argument for the existance of God? Of course not. God (and free will) might exist and might not. Reality is reality regardless of what we want it to be. Sure, science has no evidence of God, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It also doesn't mean that God does exist.

-Bri

 

[Kimpatsu]

...It also doesn't mean that God does exist.

But such claims violate Occam's razor.
See my signature block.

 

[Bri]

Fair enough but if using Occam's Razor wouldn't the non existence of God be simpler I guess knowing what we know now?

Yes, of course!

Iacchus believes that "there is a God who has always been in existance who caused the universe come into existance" is somehow simpler than "the universe came into existance" or "the universe has always been in existance."

It's certainly not simpler, although he might believe that the first statement makes more sense to him. Neither would probably make any more sense than the other if you didn't already believe in God for other reasons.

I'm not saying that belief in God is wrong (or right for that matter), just that Iacchus' argument isn't logical.

-Bri

 

[sackett]

P.S.A., I must chide you

P.S.A., I understand and share your cold distaste for Laccass, but:

He actually got off a funny with that King Tut line, not a bad one either, and he followed it with a winking smiley to show that he was just kiddin’.

I don’t say we need to erect a monument to mark the day that YackAtUs displayed (second-hand) wit. Maybe wetting a finger and making a mark on the wall is appropriate?

 

[Bri]

But such claims violate Occam's razor.
See my signature block.

Yes, I know. And I'm sure you know that there are many times when the more complex answer turns out to be the right one.

Occam's Razor says that all else being equal, the simplest explanation is preferred. That doesn't mean the more complex one isn't possible or should be ignored.

Certainly, Occam's Razor does not apply when all things aren't equal. Look at quantum theory. It's obviously more complex than determinism given that it's nearly impossible to understand. However, it explains many things that other theories don't explain.

One could argue that God explains everything, and therefore no other theory could be compared to it unless science were to discover another theory that explains everything. There are certainly refutations to that argument, but I'm not ready to state that it's beyond the realm of possibility that people who believe in God are right.

-Bri

 

[jan]

Re: P.S.A., I must chide you

He actually got off a funny with that King Tut line, not a bad one either, and he followed it with a winking smiley to show that he was just kiddin’.

Lacuna uses winking smileys to indicate that he is just kidding? Who would have "thought" of that?

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, your view of free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. Determinism, by definition, states that EVERYTHING is determined, including what you call "consciousness." How can you have free will if everything you do is determined?

You've contradicted yourself here.

-Bri

What is free will? ... and, in order for it to exist, doesn't it stand to reason that it be maintained by determinism? If free will is the cause, then determinism must be the effect.

 

[Thomas]

Well, if we're talking back against the wall beliefs, I'd have to say I'm a "free will doesn't exist" determinist, but for different reasons that involve the nature of spacetime, the general homogeneity of the universe, and a bastardization of the Many Worlds concept.

That sounds like a book worth, so maybe we shouldn't go there, but I would appreciate it if you would try to explain why the nature of spacetime supports determinism?

And to pic some nits, "physicists" study physics. "physicians" practice medicine.

It always looks so doofus when one makes such a mistake doesn't it? My best reply is that I am a foreign doofus, at least I'm always slightly confused, and I don't even try to do anything about it ^^

 

[sackett]

Re: Re: P.S.A., I must chide you

Lacuna uses winking smileys to indicate that he is just kidding? Who would have "thought" of that?

Look, I'm trying to find something coherent in a Wackkus post. Concepts like "thought" are no help. Jeeze, gimme a little slack here?

 

[Upchurch]

What is free will? ... and, in order for it to exist, doesn't it stand to reason that it be maintained by determinism? If free will is the cause, then determinism is the effect.

???

What definition of determinism are you using? The above makes no sense given the common definition of the word. You're using "determinism" in a way that is synonymous with "causality", which isn't determinism at all.

 

[Iacchus]

???

What definition of determinism are you using? The above makes no sense given the common definition of the word. You're using "determinism" in a way that is synonymous with "causality", which isn't determinism at all.

If God is the original and only cause, it follows suit that everything be determined by that original and only cause.

 

[Upchurch]

If God is the original and only cause, it follows suit that everything be determined by that original and only cause.

Aside from not really defining "determinism" and conflicting with what you said earlier, this implies that only God has the possibility to have free will.

 

[Iacchus]

Aside from not really defining "determinism" and conflicting with what you said earlier, this implies that only God has the possibility to have free will.

No, because everything that proceeds from God, is "of" God. This is what gives us the duality we're looking at.

 

[Thomas]

How to go from physics and philosophy to vulgar theology, part I.

 

[Iacchus]

Indeed, we are all the cause ... of our own effectiveness.

 

[Iacchus]

How to go from physics and philosophy to vulgar theology, part I.

How about, "God for Dummies?"

 

[Thomas]

A question I have asked myself a few times which might be worth asking now: Couldn't infinity have an impact on the structure of the universe in a manner to generate a true randomness in the known universe, beyond our imagination? Given that this universe isn't a completely closed system in a Newtonian sense of course, but has "leaks" somehow.

It's deep, but I think that it's at least worthwhile, because perhaps it is the only way out of true determinism. Not that I don't like determinism, I don't care really, but I do think there's more to infinity than we can ever imagine - for natural reason.

Feel free to ask me to elaborate if something is too hazy, it's a difficult subject since infinity is beyond our understanding of patterns in essence.