• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Universe is Deterministic

Humans beings (and all conscioues entities mind you) prove that the universe is entirely not deterministic and predicated on conscious processes.
(emphasis added)
Can you present your proof that "universe is entirely not deterministic and predicated on conscious processes" because humans beings (and all conscious entities) exist?

The problem I see with this is that the universe changes with the advent of consciousness (however it is defined). There would be a transition between a totally deterministic universe and a universe that is "entirely not deterministic".
This means that the laws of physics change at that point and we should be able to observe this. But the laws of physics seem to have not changed. As an example, quantum tunneling is a process that sets the probabilistic (non-deterministic ) nature of radioactive decay. I am not aware of any evidence that radioactive decay "turned on" X billions of years ago with the advent of consciousness. Perhaps you are?

Then there is the remote possiblity that we are the only conscious entities in the universe. In that case the transition above would be even more recent (100,000 years ago?).
 
'Special status'?

Yes, special status. Let me remind you of what you said:

Humans beings (and all conscioues entities mind you) prove that the universe is entirely not deterministic and predicated on conscious processes.

There is no evidence that anything about the universe is predicated on conscious processes, except consciousness itself (and that's a tautology).
 
*

Can you present your proof that "universe is entirely not deterministic and predicated on conscious processes" because humans beings (and all conscious entities) exist?


Yes.

But you wont like it. This is the science and tech section. Not the philosophy section :)

How do we know anything? eg, We collect data. You may say that a particle accelerator accelerates a particle, captures the collision, prints off the photo, analyses the data, there we go. All recorded and done.

You forgot one vital part of the equation; someone has to consciously look at the result or it aint recorded or useful at all. Same with anything. Everything is filtered through our consciousness whether we like it or not. There is no escaping that.

The problem I see with this is that the universe changes with the advent of consciousness (however it is defined). There would be a transition between a totally deterministic universe and a universe that is "entirely not deterministic".


I dont think that there ever was a deterministic stage, I think that consciousness has always been here, down at the deepest vacuum level (unified field level) and the deterministic processes are just what the consciousness percieves.

Looking at the relationship between consciousness and material reality, you have to consider whether the material world can be derived from a conscious reality, or even whether consciousness itself could be the fundamental building blocks of the universe.

It all comes down to what consciousness is. If your a very materialistic scientist you'll say its just a bunch of neurons acting like a computer. But its impossible to explain how a mass of neurons can ultimately become aware of itself, why computers with similar capabilities dont have conscious attributes, etc.

You need to evaluate reality and what makes something real to us via our senses. If you kick a rock and hurt your toe it feels real, you might hear sounds, bump into people, etc. Experiences are also very consistant, if you see a car driving down a street it just doesn't disappear it keeps going, so there is a consistancy with time. And you also have a cross comparison, I can ask you what you see and you can ask me what I see. Thing is that all of these criteria come back to how real it feels to us, as when I cross reference with you you are part of my reality too. So its still a matter of if I hear someone out there agreeing with me or not it still has to do with what I am perceiving and whether or not what I percieve is real or not.

Imagine mechanistic sun system with planets and no inhabitants. The system is deterministic completely. But what if a passing group of conscious entities came along and inhabited a planet and moved the orbit of some? This has gone from being a mechanical deterministic system to a non determinsitic system by simply adding in consious and free will.

* This post reflects my most extreme possible opinions on this matter, I by no means think the above is beyond dispute or completely right! I haven't gone off the deep end. Yet. :)
 
*
Imagine mechanistic sun system with planets and no inhabitants. The system is deterministic completely. But what if a passing group of conscious entities came along and inhabited a planet and moved the orbit of some? This has gone from being a mechanical deterministic system to a non determinsitic system by simply adding in consious and free will.
I will ignore the philosophy and have a look at this tiny bit of what looks like science. If it is not then you should cease derailing this thread and go to the philosophy section.

The scenerio is wrong for a couple of reasons:
  • You have stated that the system is "mechanistic" and "deterministic completely". Thus by definition nothing that the inhabitants can do can change this. They also will be "deterministic completely".
  • Having entities do stuff does not make the universe deterministic. It makes bit of it manipulated by those entities.
    This thread is about whether the universe is deterministic, i.e. whether the laws of physics are deterministic, not how entities select to use those laws.
 
You have stated that the system is "mechanistic" and "deterministic completely". Thus by definition nothing that the inhabitants can do can change this. They also will be "deterministic completely".


When they come and consciously make changes to the mechanistic/deterministic system then this is when the system turns from mechanistic formalities to the various non-deterministic changes made by the entities.

This thread is about whether the universe is deterministic, i.e. whether the laws of physics are deterministic, not how entities select to use those laws.


Ok fair enough, I guess its easier to leave biological entities and conscious out of physics. They tend to not make much sense. Thus why we have biology and physics as separate disciplines in the first place.

But at some point physics is going to have to try to explain biological creatures too, including free will and how consciousness effects the universe.
 
Last edited:
You forgot one vital part of the equation; someone has to consciously look at the result or it aint recorded

Nonsense. Of course it's recorded (if there's something connected to it). Consciousness has nothing to do with it.

or useful at all. Same with anything. Everything is filtered through our consciousness whether we like it or not. There is no escaping that.

So what? That doesn't mean we can't figure out what's really there. Just because you're a fish doesn't mean you can't eventually figure out there's an atmosphere and then stars and then galaxies and then build yourself a rockettank. You just need some smart fishicists.

But at some point physics is going to have to try to explain biological creatures too, including free will and how consciousness effects the universe.

It doesn't. There, done. That was easy.
 
Everything is filtered through our consciousness whether we like it or not.
Only everything we are conscious of...

I dont think that there ever was a deterministic stage, I think that consciousness has always been here, down at the deepest vacuum level (unified field level) and the deterministic processes are just what the consciousness percieves.
Are you saying you think spacetime itself is conscious? Care to explain what that means? What would you suppose supports this consciousness? How does it sense and think? and most important of all, do you have any evidence that might point that way? and does this hypothesis make any testable predictions?

Looking at the relationship between consciousness and material reality, you have to consider whether the material world can be derived from a conscious reality, or even whether consciousness itself could be the fundamental building blocks of the universe.
I don't see why I have to consider it when there are simpler, more obvious and convincing hypotheses. Care to offer some reasons?

But its impossible to explain how a mass of neurons can ultimately become aware of itself
What makes you think so?

why computers with similar capabilities dont have conscious attributes, etc.
We don't have any computers with remotely similar capabilities, so that's an unjustified speculation - and what makes you think they wouldn't experience consciousness if they had similar capabilities? - after all, if, for the sake of argument, one of the capabilities of a primate brain is consciousness, then such a computer would be conscious by your own definition, because it would have that capability. All the evidence I've seen points to a brain being essential for and generating consciousness, so I'd like to hear your evidence that suggests otherwise, and how it explains the existing evidence.

Have you considered what difference it would make to us if our consciousness and awareness was part of the deterministic processes of the universe? How could we tell whether everything we thought was determined by a sequence of material causality or not? We'd still think we had 'free will' because we'd still make choices based on our needs, preferences and desires. We could still 'change our minds' as a result of internal evaluations. Determinism doesn't necessarily imply predictability.

Your argument appears to be a variation of the 'Argument from Incredulity', but just because you can't conceive how something can occur doesn't mean it's impossible. No offence intended, but that's uncomfortably reminiscent of the 'Irreducible Complexity' argument of ID...
 
Last edited:
Since all the interpretations gives the same predictions for any event, isn't it kind of silly to argue about which one is right and wrong? Personally I'd bet they are all wrong. But who knows.

I suppose that would be the "Shut up and calculate!" interpretation.
 
You must have used different neuroscience and history books than I did.


Your consciousness just effected this forum. And it will effect the world tomorrow depending on what you decide to do.

How can you argue that consciousness does not effect the world?
 
How can you argue that consciousness does not effect the world?

The same way that philosophers and scientists have done for over 2000 years. Don't pretend, Zeuzzz, that you are holding a slam-obviously true view and act incredulous when someone disagrees. The nature of consciousness and free will---are they actual forces changing the course of things, or are they just patterns that form in the clockworks?---are longstanding questions in philosophy. Look it up.
 
The same way that philosophers and scientists have done for over 2000 years. Don't pretend, Zeuzzz, that you are holding a slam-obviously true view and act incredulous when someone disagrees. The nature of consciousness and free will---are they actual forces changing the course of things, or are they just patterns that form in the clockworks?---are longstanding questions in philosophy. Look it up.


I was just trying to have a conversation. If you think that we should not be talking about it and looking it up, then stop posting and do that.

"or are they just patterns that form in the clockworks?"

No. Thats how physics tries to model the universe, it breaks down completely when you bring free will into the equation. There are theories we can discuss the (maybe) quantum consciousness effects that can be derived from the non deterministic aspects of QT (Penrose, et al, 2006).
 
Consciousness does not effect the universe? :eye-poppi

I think someone needs some lessons in neuroscience and history.

If your lessons in neuroscience and history said that consciousness effects the universe, they must have been taught by priests.
 
There are theories we can discuss the (maybe) quantum consciousness effects that can be derived from the non deterministic aspects of QT (Penrose, et al, 2006).
Have you actually read the details of Penrose & Hameroff's 'Orchestrated Objective Reduction' concept?

It's an extraordinary piece of work, that turns science on its head - literally, by working backward from a dubious philosophical argument from incredulity through a speculative tangle of dodgy physics and even dodgier neurophysiology, step by unsubstantiated step, to construct a totally implausible and unnecessary hypothesis, without a shred of evidence for any of it. Bose-Einstein condensates? In dynamically unstable microtubules? It has all the classic hallmarks of woo. I'd have thought it was an elaborate joke, but I'd read his original mention of it, years ago, in "The Emperor's New Mind". How are the mighty fallen...
 
Last edited:
I was just trying to have a conversation. If you think that we should not be talking about it and looking it up, then stop posting and do that.

On a thread on, say, Bigfoot, I don't think we would begin with the statement "Nobody's ever claimed to have seen a Bigfoot". We'd begin with the statement "Everyone has heard of the Patterson-Gimlin film and Bob Heironimus's allegations. What do you think?" If you're aware of the standard debate on free will vs. determinism, that doesn't mean that there's no conversation possible---it means there is some shared knowledge to start the conversation with.

"or are they just patterns that form in the clockworks?"

No. Thats how physics tries to model the universe, it breaks down completely when you bring free will into the equation..

Not if free will doesn't actually exist.
 
Not if free will doesn't actually exist.


If thats the case then we and all conscious entities are merely helpless spectators watching our lives unfold in front of us. You honestly believe that?
 

Back
Top Bottom