Flogging a Deceased Gee-Gee - It's Free Will Syllogism Time [Archive]

CWL

15th February 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Franko
CWL,

It is very simple. If YOU are claiming that probability (or statistics) can exist in a non-deterministic universe it should be an easy thing for you to briefly explain what you mean by non-deterministic probability? How does one compute the probability of an outcome when one has no determined information?

Franko,

I am not a physicist, nor a statistician or mathematician. To the best of my knowledge, modern physics - quantum mechanics included - assumes that the Universe is not deterministic in the classical sense. I am humble and honest enough to admit I may be wrong and - if you can - you are more than welcome to set the record straight. One of the reasons I am here is to learn after all.

My personal view is however that one needs to hold a humble approach to the question as I cannot see that either determinism or indeterminism can be proven.

Determinism seems not to be absolutely provable because it would only take one truly random event to make determinism false, and short of being an all-knowing deity, there is no way one could know that such an event does not exist or has not existed.

Indeterminism on the other hand does not appear to be provable either, because for any event that seems to be without a cause sufficient to produce it, it is possible that we lack sufficiently sophisticated measurement tools to detect its cause or a sufficiently advanced scientific theory to connect its cause to the event. The appearance of indeterminism may in other words be a reflection of our lack of knowledge - not of the "fact" that there are random events.

In other words - I dunno.

But given the above uncertainty, I feel (as I have pointed out on numerous occasions) that it is reasonable to assume that we are in fact making the choices we appear to be making on a daily basis - if for no other reason, than for practical purposes. I have never understood how a determinist can claim responsibility for the actions of an individual - if such individual was not responsible for the "choice" in the first place.

Just my 0.2 SEK.

Beth Paulkey

15th February 2003, 09:33 AM

I have a question. I'd prefer an answer from a physicist but I will take what I can get, and maybe I'll post over in science too.

Determinism is as far as I can tell from my reading, a philosophical doctrine. That would mean it is a metaphysical doctrine. How does one prove a metaphysical theory? What would be a possible counter example to the idea that every event is completely determined by the prior state of the world.

It is not obvious to me, in any way, that the world is deterministic. In fact it looks like some things just happen for no reason at all. That is what I would take to be a default position.

I'd like to see some positive arguments for determinism, rather than arguments that just say, if determinism is false, the world is completely and necessarily random.

Thank you.

MRC_Hans

15th February 2003, 09:51 AM

Determinism (capitalized) is the philosophy that the present state in time, lets call it T, is entirely based on the preceding state, which we could call T-1. This is the basis of Fatalism. Now, obviously, T-1 must be based on T-2, etc. etc. all the way back until, at some arbitrary point, we define a T0, an Initial State. For Determinism, or Fatalism to hold, this Initial State MUST contain all information neccessary to cause the later stages, all the way to the present.

As the Deterministic system unfolds, information becomes available, but it is not created, it has been there all the time, like when you read a book; for each page you turn, new information is disclosed, but it was there all the time.

The Deterministic, or Fatalistic, cosmology really implies the belief in a Deity, a Creator, because, given the degree of order observable in the present, it is next to impossible to imagine that the Initial State should be random.

Since free will is a hot issue around here, it is pertinent to note that the Deterministic system totally precludes free will. It also precludes responsibility, since an entity in this kind of universe has no control over its actions.

So now to the 48,000$ question: Is the Universe we live in Deterministic?

If we are to base our knowledge on observable information, empirical evidence, then the answer is no. Quantum Physics have disclosed a plethora of types of events that are not deterministic, many of them observable on the macro scale.

Since even a single non-deterministic event rules out Determinism, we must conclude that the Universe is not Deterministic. But what is it then? The other end of the scale, so to speak, is total randomness, or chaos. Obviously, this is not what ve observe, either.

If we are to trust empirical evidence, our Universe is probabilistic. This is a mixture of deterministic (non-capitalized) and random factors. The simplest way to show a probabilistic event is to imagine (or do) 100 coin-flips: Each flip has a random outcome (ideally, at least), but after a hundred flips, it is highly probable that you will have close to 50 heads and 50 tails.

The probabilistic cosmology does not preclude free will, but it does not prove or even explain it either.

Hans

15th February 2003, 09:59 AM

----
Explain how probability can exist in a non-deterministic Universe?
----

Well, probability is a model. There is no Probability sitting out in space.

----
You only get probability (or statistics) when you have DETERMINED parameters!
----

I guess I don't understand that. If I have 6 sided object, and I wanted to determine the probability of getting one of the sides, I'd roll the 6-sided object and keep a tally of the long-run frequency to get a good idea of the theoretical probability.

----
Besides, Bayes Theorem proves that so long as you acquire new information, over Time, nothing is random.
----

Can you post what Bayes Theorem is, in symbols, and then explain how it proves what you claim? I don't get it.

Beth Paulkey

15th February 2003, 10:05 AM

Thank you Hans - I will drop this bit from a Catholic site in here:

The opponents of Determinism usually insist on two lines of argument, the one based on the consciousness of freedom in the act of deliberate choice, the other on the incompatibility of Determinism with our fundamental moral convictions. The notions of responsibility, moral obligation, merit, and the like, as ordinarily understood, would be illusory if Determinism were true. The theory is in fact fatal to ethics, as well as to the notion of sin and the fundamental Christian belief that we can merit both reward and punishment.
That is from here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04756c.htm

I would prefer to have an argument that does not depend on Quantum theory, not because I reject it but because many people have rejected strict determinism for a long time before the development of Quantum physics.

You also seem to be saying that Determinism is or might be a doctrine of physics, but that seems strange to me. It just doesn't feel like a scientific theory. Where's the math and the experimental evidence?

As far as free will - I suppose that after an event has happened, you might be able to somehow demonstrate that it could not have happened in any other way (in theory - the practical problem of doing this seems insurmountable) but what will happen in the next moment, or tomorrow, seems open. Even if everything is determined, it won't allow you complete knowledge of the future.

It even seems to me that if determinism is true, then all of the history of the world must be knowable - God would hover over the stream of time and be able to look at any moment and see it in all of its detail. Would that not imply that all of time actually exists at once, in some way and we are just observing its unfolding?

If that is in fact a fair statement of determinism I do not see how it can be proven - a deterministic universe would have nothing to distinguish it from some other kind of universe, to those who dwell therein.

We would have no way of knowing.

hammegk

15th February 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Whodini
----
I guess I don't understand that. If I have 6 sided object, and I wanted to determine the probability of getting one of the sides, I'd roll the 6-sided object and keep a tally of the long-run frequency to get a good idea of the theoretical probability.

The point is 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 ARE all determined.

I suggest that a computer program could be written even with current knowledge of physics that would predict the outcome of a specific roll & throw.

The fact that you or I can't predict it doesn't mean the outcomes are not exactly deterministic -- not "probable" or "random" -- given sufficient knowledge of initial conditions.

And what would you posit as the probable outcome of a die that has faces from -infinity to +infinity? That would be non-deterministic would it not? (Also an actual random number generator ... ;) )

Franko

15th February 2003, 01:22 PM

So now to the 48,000$ question: Is the Universe we live in Deterministic?

If we are to base our knowledge on observable information, empirical evidence, then the answer is no. Quantum Physics have disclosed a plethora of types of events that are not deterministic, many of them observable on the macro scale.

This is False. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ONLY applies when NO OBSERVATION is made. When an Observer is present the outcome is ALWAYS Deterministic.

MRC’s magic powers only work if everyone’s back is turned (including God’s).

Since even a single non-deterministic event rules out Determinism, we must conclude that the Universe is not Deterministic.

Please demonstrate this “Non-Deterministic Event” you refer to. As far as I know not One single A-Theist has EVER proven his whacky religion by producing a genuine Dead-Alive Cat!

But what is it then? The other end of the scale, so to speak, is total randomness, or chaos. Obviously, this is not what we observe, either.

Your theory is slightly backwards. Since even a single non-deterministic event rules out Determinism, this would make the entire Universe completely random and utterly incomprehensible. Essentially to claim Non-Determinism is to claim that the present is NOT based on the past, and that the future will not be based on the present. Insanity.

If we are to trust empirical evidence, our Universe is probabilistic.

Please explain how you can have “probability” without DETERMINED parameters – You cannot.

Probability only exist if Determinism is True. You have a childlike grasp of Determinism MRC.

This is a mixture of deterministic (non-capitalized) and random factors. The simplest way to show a probabilistic event is to imagine (or do) 100 coin-flips: Each flip has a random outcome (ideally, at least), but after a hundred flips, it is highly probable that you will have close to 50 heads and 50 tails.

That is because you know that coins have 2 sides, and these sides are mutually exclusive options. You also know the number of permutations (100). 100/2 = 50-50

Try doing it again when Determinism is NOT TRUE.

I have a blitzendorf (a multi-sided object), if I cast 2 bltzendorfs a random number of times how many times will the STAR symbol come up?

The probabilistic cosmology does not preclude free will, but it does not prove or even explain it either.

Actually even if your “probabilistic cosmology” was True you still wouldn’t have “free will”. Then you would just have “random will”.

I think You are clueless about what your consciousness really is.

Franko

15th February 2003, 01:26 PM

Butch:

I'd like to see some positive arguments for determinism, rather than arguments that just say, if determinism is false, the world is completely and necessarily random.

Hey Bud, good to see you around again.

I personally believe that Determinism can be proven unequivocably by thought experiment alone. However, if you require logic of a more second hand nature ...

Read anything by B.F. Skinner. I don't think anyone can argue with the manner in which Skinner conducted his experiments, and I don't think any rational person can argue with the obvious conclusions.

wraith

16th February 2003, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Free Will is possible in a probabilistic universe
According to modern physics the Universe is probabilistic
Free Will is possible according to modern physics

How about that?

Youre still left having to explain how probability equates to having free-will....

MRC_Hans

16th February 2003, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Beth Paulkey
Thank you Hans - I will drop this bit from a Catholic site in here:

That is from here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04756c.htm

I would prefer to have an argument that does not depend on Quantum theory, not because I reject it but because many people have rejected strict determinism for a long time before the development of Quantum physics.

This is because the non-determinstic character of reality is evident. Quantum Theory was not made to make the Universe non-deterministic, quite the opposite: Quantum Theory was made to explain the OBSERVED lack of determinism.

You also seem to be saying that Determinism is or might be a doctrine of physics, but that seems strange to me. It just doesn't feel like a scientific theory. Where's the math and the experimental evidence?

Mmm, determinism (non-capitalized) is a part of physics. On the macro-scale, a lot of events are deterministic. Almost all of mathematics is deterministic, although, of course, math is not real events.

As far as free will - I suppose that after an event has happened, you might be able to somehow demonstrate that it could not have happened in any other way (in theory - the practical problem of doing this seems insurmountable) but what will happen in the next moment, or tomorrow, seems open. Even if everything is determined, it won't allow you complete knowledge of the future.

It will always be possible to claim that a willed decision was either deterministic or random, what we have to deal with in real life is that we SEEM to have free will: We need to make sensible decisions, otherwise we land in trouble.

It even seems to me that if determinism is true, then all of the history of the world must be knowable - God would hover over the stream of time and be able to look at any moment and see it in all of its detail. Would that not imply that all of time actually exists at once, in some way and we are just observing its unfolding?

If Determinism (capitalized) is true, then we are just watching a movie, and we cant even leave, hehe. But non-determinstic events can be proved to exist, so--

If that is in fact a fair statement of determinism I do not see how it can be proven - a deterministic universe would have nothing to distinguish it from some other kind of universe, to those who dwell therein.

We would have no way of knowing.

Only if we assume that we can trust observations.

Hans

MRC_Hans

16th February 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Franko
This is False. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ONLY applies when NO OBSERVATION is made. When an Observer is present the outcome is ALWAYS Deterministic.

Wrong. Non-determinstic events are observable. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says that you cannot know both the velocity and the position of an elementary particle.

MRC’s magic powers only work if everyone’s back is turned (including God’s).

Why, I'm honored, but its not MY resarch.

Please demonstrate this “Non-Deterministic Event” you refer to. As far as I know not One single A-Theist has EVER proven his whacky religion by producing a genuine Dead-Alive Cat!

Phosphorescense. And radioactive decay, but dont try that at home!

Your theory is slightly backwards. Since even a single non-deterministic event rules out Determinism, this would make the entire Universe completely random and utterly incomprehensible.

Only in your weird binary exclusive universe. In real life it makes things probabilistic. I have proved this to you earlier, but I dont think you understood much of it.

Essentially to claim Non-Determinism is to claim that the present is NOT based on the past, and that the future will not be based on the present. Insanity.

Again only in your wacky private universe. In real life, it means that the present is MOSTLY, but not Totally based on the past.

Please explain how you can have “probability” without DETERMINED parameters – You cannot.

You are right. And I never claimed otherwise.

Probability only exist if Determinism is True. You have a childlike grasp of Determinism MRC.

Only, as I have explained if deterministic (non-capitalized) factors exist, which is what I have explained. You have a childlike grasp of logic, Franko.

That is because you know that coins have 2 sides, and these sides are mutually exclusive options. You also know the number of permutations (100). 100/2 = 50-50

Try doing it again when Determinism is NOT TRUE.

I have a blitzendorf (a multi-sided object), if I cast 2 bltzendorfs a random number of times how many times will the STAR symbol come up?

I dont know, but if I fraggle a schlumbecker twenty times, there is a 60% chance to get a double clorp.

Actually even if your “probabilistic cosmology” was True you still wouldn’t have “free will”. Then you would just have “random will”.

As I said, probabilistic doesnt prove free will. But it makes it possible.

I think You are clueless about what your consciousness really is.

Hans

Franko

16th February 2003, 08:47 AM

MRC:
Wrong. Non-determinstic events are observable. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says that you cannot know both the velocity and the position of an elementary particle.

If I’m Wrong, then how come you CAN know the position and Velocity of a Particle if you take a picture of it? In other words you CAN know well more then the Heisenberg limit about BOTH the Position and Velocity of a Particle, but (apparently) only for a Particle in the Past.

How do you account for that??

MRC:
Again only in your wacky private universe. In real life, it means that the present is MOSTLY, but not Totally based on the past.

Which part of today is NOT based on the Past MRC? If you are claiming that the present is NOT based on the Past, then You must provide evidence for this claim. Why is your nickname still MRC? Why have the Buc’s still won the Super bowl? Why was George Washington still the first U.S. president?

Franko:
Please explain how you can have “probability” without DETERMINED parameters – You cannot.

MRC:
You are right. And I never claimed otherwise.

That’s called … You conceding that without Determinism there is No probability.

Franko:
Probability only exist if Determinism is True. You have a childlike grasp of Determinism MRC.

MRC:
Only, as I have explained if deterministic (non-capitalized) factors exist, which is what I have explained. You have a childlike grasp of logic, Franko.

Franko:
That is because you know that coins have 2 sides, and these sides are mutually exclusive options. You also know the number of permutations (100). 100/2 = 50-50

Try doing it again when Determinism is NOT TRUE.

I have a blitzendorf (a multi-sided object), if I cast 2 bltzendorfs a random number of times how many times will the STAR symbol come up?

MRC:
I dont know, but if I fraggle a schlumbecker twenty times, there is a 60% chance to get a double clorp.

Yes, that is very funny MRC, but I notice that your “probability” abilities seem to vanish when Determinism isn’t True. Why is that?

Franko:
Actually even if your “probabilistic cosmology” was True you still wouldn’t have “free will”. Then you would just have “random will”.

MRC:
As I said, probabilistic doesnt prove free will. But it makes it possible.

If probability is based on the notion that Determinism is True, then how (specifically) does probability make “free will” possible? You are arguing A-Theism (or “free willy”) of the Gaps MRC … nothing more. You have to provide POSITIVE evidence for your claim. You are trying to get me to prove that “free will” doesn’t exist.

Kind of like me claiming that “god” exist unless You can prove that She doesn’t. :rolleyes:

MRC_Hans

16th February 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Franko
If I’m Wrong, then how come you CAN know the position and Velocity of a Particle if you take a picture of it? In other words you CAN know well more then the Heisenberg limit about BOTH the Position and Velocity of a Particle, but (apparently) only for a Particle in the Past.

How do you account for that??

I pointed out that your interpretation of the uncertainty principle was wrong. That all.

Which part of today is NOT based on the Past MRC? If you are claiming that the present is NOT based on the Past, then You must provide evidence for this claim. Why is your nickname still MRC? Why have the Buc’s still won the Super bowl? Why was George Washington still the first U.S. president?

Are you dumb, or are you just pretending? No kind of randomness can change the past. But what does that have to do with Determinism?. The past is part of the present, but the present is not ENTIRELY build on the past. Exite a phosphorous molecule in your "glow in the dark" toy, and NOTHING can tell you exactly when its going to give off a photon.

That’s called … You conceding that without Determinism there is No probability.

Without determinism (non capitalized) there is no probability. You are correct. I'm not conceding, its what I have said all the time.

Yes, that is very funny MRC, but I notice that your “probability” abilities seem to vanish when Determinism isn’t True. Why is that?

Don't you understand anything?

If probability is based on the notion that Determinism is True, then how (specifically) does probability make “free will” possible? You are arguing A-Theism (or “free willy”) of the Gaps MRC … nothing more. You have to provide POSITIVE evidence for your claim. You are trying to get me to prove that “free will” doesn’t exist.

It makes free will possible because the present is not ENTIRELY based on the past. Thus new information can be created.

Kind of like me claiming that “god” exist unless You can prove that She doesn’t. :rolleyes:

So, you claim the coin always lands "heads"??? Well, well, well. :rolleyes:

Hans

Franko

16th February 2003, 01:57 PM

MRC:
In real life, it means that the present is MOSTLY, but not Totally based on the past.

Franko:
Which part of today is NOT based on the Past MRC? If you are claiming that the present is NOT based on the Past, then You must provide evidence for this claim. Why is your nickname still MRC? Why have the Buc’s still won the Super bowl? Why was George Washington still the first U.S. president?

MRC:
Are you dumb, or are you just pretending? No kind of randomness can change the past. But what does that have to do with Determinism?.

YOU (MRC) said: The present is MOSTLY, but not Totally based on the past.

This is YOUR statement. If you are making this claim, then I would think you would have at least ONE clear cut real-world observable example of the present not based on the past. Just because the Buc’s had won the Super Bowl in the Past (yesterday) doesn’t mean that they are still the Super Bowl winners today … does it?

MRC:
The past is part of the present, but the present is not ENTIRELY build on the past. Exite a phosphorous molecule in your "glow in the dark" toy, and NOTHING can tell you exactly when its going to give off a photon.

Okay, so you are claiming that since you don’t fully comprehend things like radioactive decay or phosphorescence perfectly that your incomplete understanding somehow amounts to a “proof” that it is actually a magical “random” process with no determined rules or determined states.

Radioactive halflife is like human longevity. Do all humans live exactly the same amount of Time down to the minute? Why not -- they are All the same species (element/isotope)?? All particles have unique histories regardless of how identical they first appear.

Without determinism (non capitalized) there is no probability. You are correct. I'm not conceding, its what I have said all the time.

Well wasn’t probability one of the cornerstones of your argument for the existence of a non-deterministic Universe?

Franko:
Yes, that is very funny MRC, but I notice that your “probability” abilities seem to vanish when Determinism isn’t True. Why is that?

MRC:
Don't you understand anything?

Don’t you explain anything?

What are you trying to hide MRC? What is your EVIDENCE for a non-deterministic Universe? Suggesting that your incomplete understand of the Universe is “evidence” that the Universe is not Deterministic is even more absurd then claiming that because John Edwards has a T.V. show; his “powers” must be real. Or, because the Bible is the inerrant divinely inspired word of God, evidence indicates that (at least once) Serpents could talk.

If probability is based on the notion that Determinism is True, then how (specifically) does probability make “free will” possible? You are arguing A-Theism (or “free willy”) of the Gaps MRC … nothing more. You have to provide POSITIVE evidence for your claim. You are trying to get me to prove that “free will” doesn’t exist.

It makes free will possible because the present is not ENTIRELY based on the past. Thus new information can be created.[/quote]

What is your Evidence that the present is not based on the Past? Please provide a single example of something observable in the present that was not the direct result of a prior state (a state in the Past known to have occurred)?

Franko:
Actually even if your “probabilistic cosmology” was True you still wouldn’t have “free will”. Then you would just have “random will”.

MRC:
As I said, probabilistic doesnt prove free will. But it makes it possible.

Franko:
If probability is based on the notion that Determinism is True, then how (specifically) does probability make “free will” possible? You are arguing A-Theism (or “free willy”) of the Gaps MRC … nothing more. You have to provide POSITIVE evidence for your claim. You are trying to get me to prove that “free will” doesn’t exist.

Kind of like me claiming that “god” exist unless You can prove that She doesn’t. :rolleyes:

MRC:
So, you claim the coin always lands "heads"??? Well, well, well.

Are you honestly that retarded MRC? HOW SPECIFICALLY DOES PROBABILITY MAKE “free will” POSSIBLE? If Probability only exist because of Determinism, and Determinism prohibits the Past from being random (as YOU suggest it is), then how on Earth does this support your insane and pessimistic little view of the Universe MRC?

Here my evidence that the coin lands HEADS up …

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

What’s your evidence that the coins is going to land TAILS up?

(that you think “magic” happens when no one is watching … ?)

c4ts

16th February 2003, 11:09 PM

Are you sure the paradigm of quantum physics relates to more than individual quantum particles?

CWL

17th February 2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Youre still left having to explain how probability equates to having free-will....

You misunderstand me. I am not saying that a probailistic Universe equates "free will". The point is that it the observation of myself and others choosing between perceived and available options is not refuted by a probabilistic model of the Universe (as apposed to a strictly deterministic model). I am merely saying that Free Will (defined as the ability to make conscious choices between perceived and available options) appears to be possible according to modern physics (to the extent this is based on a probabilistic model).

Just wanted to make that clear. I am no expert on modern physics, so I shall be going into lurk mode and enjoy the learned opinions of others for a while.

Q-Source

17th February 2003, 01:53 AM

Hans,

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Determinism (capitalized) is the philosophy that the present state in time, lets call it T, is entirely based on the preceding state, which we could call T-1. This is the basis of Fatalism. Now, obviously, T-1 must be based on T-2, etc. etc. all the way back until, at some arbitrary point, we define a T0, an Initial State. For Determinism, or Fatalism to hold, this Initial State MUST contain all information neccessary to cause the later stages, all the way to the present.

Determinism only works if we have all the information in time T to determine an outcome in time T+1.

We don't have all the info, so it seems to be a human's failure rather than the Universe being probabilistic. Isn't it?

So now to the 48,000$ question: Is the Universe we live in Deterministic?

It seems to be probabilistic because we don't have all the information to know for sure how a particle will behave.

Do you think that there are intrinsic random events?

I mean, intrinsic random events that have no previous cause in time T-1, such that it does not matter how much information we have, there is no way to know how it will behave because they are acausal by nature.

As an aside, I think that past information provides the input to build probabilistic models in order to explain macro and microcosmos events in the Universe. However, that information or data was not generated in a determinist way by the initial state, the reason to believe this is because we still can modify events in the present that will have consequences in the future.

Furthermore, I think that there must be intrinsic random events.

Q-S

CWL

17th February 2003, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Franko

YOU (MRC) said: The present is MOSTLY, but not Totally based on the past.

This is YOUR statement. If you are making this claim, then I would think you would have at least ONE clear cut real-world observable example of the present not based on the past. Just because the Buc’s had won the Super Bowl in the Past (yesterday) doesn’t mean that they are still the Super Bowl winners today … does it?

[/lurk mode]

Franko and MRC,

It seems you are talking past each other here.

As I understand it, what MRC means when he says that the present is not based entirely on the past is that new information which is not based on the past can be created - and such information can - together with the past at the point in time of the creation of the new information - influence the future. However, such new information can never change the past - i.e. no amount of new information that may be created in the future can alter the fact that the Buccaneers won the Super Bowl at a certain point in time in the past.

Hans - could such "new information" in your opinion for instance be the "free will choice" of a conscious being?

I believe Franko would argue that such "free will choice" is not free at all (at least not entirely), because our personality is based on our past experiences. Is that correct Franko?

[lurk mode]

MRC_Hans

17th February 2003, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
Hans,

Determinism only works if we have all the information in time T to determine an outcome in time T+1.

We don't have all the info, so it seems to be a human's failure rather than the Universe being probabilistic. Isn't it?

It seems to be probabilistic because we don't have all the information to know for sure how a particle will behave.

Do you think that there are intrinsic random events?

I mean, intrinsic random events that have no previous cause in time T-1, such that it does not matter how much information we have, there is no way to know how it will behave because they are acausal by nature.

As an aside, I think that past information provides the input to build probabilistic models in order to explain macro and microcosmos events in the Universe. However, that information or data was not generated in a determinist way by the initial state, the reason to believe this is because we still can modify events in the present that will have consequences in the future.

Furthermore, I think that there must be intrinsic random events.

Q-S There are intrinsic random events, at least if we are to trust empirical evidence. On the micro (quantum level) scale, there are a lot, but many of them are also visible on the macro scale. So its not a matter of belief, IMO.

I think you are bang on, in the observation that what matters is NEW information. New information is created by random events and by conscious entities making decisions (and possibly other events too). Since new information is created during the existence of the universe, the present state is not knowable from the initial state, even if all information in the initial state were available.

Edited to add:
Determinism only works if we have all the information in time T to determine an outcome in time T+1.

We don't have all the info, so it seems to be a human's failure rather than the Universe being probabilistic. Isn't it? No, I can't see that it matters what we humans can or cannot percieve. What matters is whether each state is KNOWABLE. In Determinism (capitalized), the initial state is knowable, and from this all subsequent states are also knowable, even if humans may not be able to percieve them.

In the probabilistic universe, future states are only partially knowable, because new, unknowable, information is created.

Hans

MRC_Hans

17th February 2003, 03:20 AM

CWL:
Hans - could such "new information" in your opinion for instance be the "free will choice" of a conscious being?

I believe Franko would argue that such "free will choice" is not free at all (at least not entirely), because our personality is based on our past experiences. Is that correct Franko?
Exactly. New information is created, observably by random factors, probably by conscious decisions, possibly by other factors (I cant think of any off-hand).

Yes, Franko might argue that way, but it would contradict his own cosmology which states that the universe is totally deterministic, so its not just our previous experiences, but all the way back to the initial state that our actions are determined.

Hans

MRC_Hans

17th February 2003, 03:44 AM

And, *sigh* Franko:

Are you honestly that retarded MRC? HOW SPECIFICALLY DOES PROBABILITY MAKE “free will” POSSIBLE? If Probability only exist because of Determinism, and Determinism prohibits the Past from being random (as YOU suggest it is), then how on Earth does this support your insane and pessimistic little view of the Universe MRC?
I dont see how your inability to understand English is a sign that I'm retarded; other people here seem to understand me quite well.

Probability makes free will possible because the future is not preordained.

The rest does not make sense, and it is certainly not what I have said. Is it that difficult for you to understand or are you just desperately trying not to understand (yes I'm quoting you)?

A probabilistic event is the result of the existence of BOTH deterministic and random factors.

An example: Once a phosphorous atom is "charged" by an enregy input (e.g. a photon), the time that will pass before it falls back one quantum level and releases a photon can be from zero to infinity. It is a random event. Due to the stability of the atom, which is a deterministic factor, we can predict that there is a 50% chance that it will emit a photon within a couple of minutes. If we have a large amount of atoms, like in a glow-in-dark toy, we can observe this by the phosphorescense having a half-life of a few minutes, in other words, we have a probabilistic event.

I dont think I can explain it more clearly than this.

If you want to maintain your claim of a Deterministic cosmology, you need to explain how those observations we make of probabilistic events can actually be deterministic, like how come some phosphorous atoms emit a photon immidiately wheras others wait for an indeterminate time.

Hans

wraith

17th February 2003, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by CWL

You misunderstand me. I am not saying that a probailistic Universe equates "free will". The point is that it the observation of myself and others choosing between perceived and available options is not refuted by a probabilistic model of the Universe (as apposed to a strictly deterministic model). I am merely saying that Free Will (defined as the ability to make conscious choices between perceived and available options) appears to be possible according to modern physics (to the extent this is based on a probabilistic model).

Just wanted to make that clear. I am no expert on modern physics, so I shall be going into lurk mode and enjoy the learned opinions of others for a while.

Free-will isnt even POSSIBLE in a probabilistic universe (if there is such a thing)....it's a meaningless term

You see an open flame. You perceive a non-beneficial outcome if you touch the flame. You dont want to get burnt. You perceieve a benefit by not getting burnt. You will NOT touch the flame.

All other perceived options were not options at all. You would have never had "chosen" them...

wraith

17th February 2003, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Probability makes free will possible because the future is not preordained.

How?

CWL

17th February 2003, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Free-will isnt even POSSIBLE in a probabilistic universe (if there is such a thing)....it's a meaningless term

You see an open flame. You perceive a non-beneficial outcome if you touch the flame. You dont want to get burnt. You perceieve a benefit by not getting burnt. You will NOT touch the flame.

All other perceived options were not options at all. You would have never had "chosen" them...

And what about the example of choosing a number to win a fruit basket? Are there any options available to me in a probabilistic universe in that specific scenario? Do I perceive a benifit by choosing "42" rather than "67"?

Q-Source

17th February 2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
The present state is not knowable from the initial state, even if all information in the initial state were available.

Are you sure?

Suppose we go back into the past, we take all the information that we got in the future (our present), are you saying that with all the info we couldn't predict an event that we already know?

In the probabilistic universe, future states are only partially knowable, because new, unknowable, information is created.

O.k. Let me get this clear. New information is created based on past information? or is it possible that new information arises from nothing?

Q

MRC_Hans

17th February 2003, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
Are you sure?

Uhh, that depends on what you mean by "sure". Yeah, I'm pretty shure.

Suppose we go back into the past, we take all the information that we got in the future (our present), are you saying that with all the info we couldn't predict an event that we already know?

At our present understanding of time, the past is not changeable. Once en event has happened, it's part of the information that comprises the Universe. Take it this way: I'm gonna flip a coin (never mind for now whether coin-flipping is truly, truly random). As I write these words, I have not done it yet, so the outcome is unknown, and unknowable.
....
OK, now I did it, it came out heads. So now that little (utterly useless, heheh) piece of information has been added to the universe.

If you go back in time (assuming that is possible), then you CAN collect all information that has existed from the initial state and up to the present. But yesterday, you could not do it and know how my coin-flip would come out.

O.k. Let me get this clear. New information is created based on past information? or is it possible that new information arises from nothing?

Well, the coin flip is based on some previous information, for example that a coin has two sides and that we call one heads, the other tails. But the information that my coin landed heads is brand new.

Q

Hans

chulbert

17th February 2003, 06:19 AM

"Free will means doing what I want."

Next!

Franko

17th February 2003, 09:43 AM

Determinism only works if we have all the information in time T to determine an outcome in time T+1.

You get it, Source! Determinism works so long as any event is solely and wholly defined by potentially observable parameters. We don’t need to know them for Determinism to be True. Just so long as the Universe knows them. MRC wants to say that events happen for no reason based on no logical rules (perceived or otherwise). MRC is claiming that things happen because of magic. Plain and simple.

We don't have all the info, so it seems to be a human's failure rather than the Universe being probabilistic. Isn't it?

You are exactly right.

Do you think that there are intrinsic random events?

There is no evidence for “True randomness” by any valid rational definition of that term. Even QM must be ultimately Deterministic (even if we are prevented from obtaining the info ourselves) or the Universe could not possible function as it obviously does. The entire concept of “Indeterminism” (or Non-Determinism) is logically contradictory. In fact, I think that if you ponder it for a while, you may realize that it would eventually lead one to the logical conclusion, that the past was constantly in flux.

I mean, intrinsic random events that have no previous cause in time T-1, such that it does not matter how much information we have, there is no way to know how it will behave because they are acausal by nature.

Isn’t that magic?

Actually Source, to be honest, if Materialism were True, and we were made of matter, then ultimately there would be a threshold where reality would become incomprehensible to us.

As an aside, I think that past information provides the input to build probabilistic models in order to explain macro and microcosmos events in the Universe. However, that information or data was not generated in a determinist way by the initial state, the reason to believe this is because we still can modify events in the present that will have consequences in the future.

Furthermore, I think that there must be intrinsic random events.

I do not see how putting “feedback” into the system implies Indeterminism? However, I will concede that Feedback viewed across Time will start to look just like Indeterminism. In fact if you look at Feedback across a lot of levels and it will look downright random.

It’s kind of like … if you could somehow experience what it was like in your head when you were only 5 years old again, but through your eyes now. I bet there is no way it would be the same.

Franko

17th February 2003, 09:45 AM

chulbert:
"Free will means doing what I want."

Next!

Are you claiming that the moon is NOT doing what it wants?

So we agree that you have as much “free will” as the Moon does.

Next!

(silly A-Theists …)

CWL

17th February 2003, 10:09 AM

I am still in lurk mode, however I thought I would share this PM (permission has been given) from Upchurch on the subject of a probabilistic model of the Universe:

Originally posted by Upchurch

a Probabilistic universe (or better, a non-deterministic universe) is one where the outcome of an event can never be predicted or calculated with 100% accuracy. In mathematical or scientific terms, it means that all measurements, calculations, etc. have error bars. "The distance is five feet, two inches, plus or minus half an inch."

Historically and from a deterministic point of view, it was always assumed that as measurement devices improved, error bars would shrink until things could be measured exactly. (Analogus to the belief that the atom was the smallest divisible particle until they broke the atom apart and found smaller things inside, physicist eventually found that there was built in property to the universe (described in the Uncertainty Principle) that will never let us calculate measurements exactly. Since we can never have perfectly exact measurements, there is always a small amount of error that, in some cases, creates an inability to predict anything without some sort of chance for error.

If rather, you were to argue wether some sort of supernatural creature can magically know the measurement of something to a perfectly exact degree and therefore the universe is actually deterministic because said supernatural creature could do exactly that, I'd ask how do they do it and what is the evidence?

Again, it seems to me that it is difficult to prove whether or not the Universe is deterministic or non-deterministic.

Back to lurk mode.

MRC_Hans

17th February 2003, 10:41 AM

Franko:Actually Source, to be honest, if Materialism were True, and we were made of matter, then ultimately there would be a threshold where reality would become incomprehensible to us. "If we were made of matter" --- Does this mean that you are NOT honest when you claim "You are made of atoms"?

Hans

hammegk

17th February 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Franko: "If we were made of matter" --- Does this mean that you are NOT honest when you claim "You are made of atoms"?

Hans

Er, materialists/atheists are "made of atoms". What else could they be made of?

Beth Paulkey

17th February 2003, 11:09 AM

As I understand it, determinism says that the same conditions will always produce the same effect. Always, without variation.

Where I lose the thread is with "the same". The world is messy. Measurement is only to the nearest nth of a unit. I make a souffle, I can use the same measurements, but that egg is not the same as this one, that tablespoon of shredded cheese is different than this one. I'm not working in a lab, I'm working in my kitchen. If I was in a lab, I'd still have to measure within tolerances.

Go to the hardware store and buy a box of 10d nails. They're not all the same. Build 2 houses from the same blueprints, the same materials. Not the same. 2 computers from dell built in the same factory the same day, load them with the same software, plug them in and run them for a week. They won't be the same.

So, you have the universe. This state will never occurs again. If it did, and it's strictly deterministic, then we have a loop. Ground Hog Day.

I don't see how you can say with complete certainty (or prove in some sense) that the universe as a whole is 100% determined, because you cant repeat the experiment.

I have to say, "I don't know, and I don't see how you can prove it". If the fusion of hydrogen into helium in the sun isn't exactly the same for every atom, and we know everything that happens here on earth is due to what happens in the sun, then what happens in my back yard is pretty much undecided. I'm watching snow fall right now. It looks totally chaotic.

Q-Source

17th February 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

If you go back in time (assuming that is possible), then you CAN collect all information that has existed from the initial state and up to the present. But yesterday, you could not do it and know how my coin-flip would come out.

The point is... if we could have all the info then we could predict an outcome 100% accurate. For example, let's say that now we want to predict something that will happen tomorrow. Assume that you are omniscient, could you determine an event?

I am not saying that this case is possible, in fact it is impossible. I just want to know if it is just a matter of information.

Well, the coin flip is based on some previous information, for example that a coin has two sides and that we call one heads, the other tails. But the information that my coin landed heads is brand new.

So, in other words, you say that there is no possible way that new information arises from nothing. Agreed.

MRC_Hans

17th February 2003, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Er, materialists/atheists are "made of atoms". What else could they be made of? Mmm, also Logical Deists say we are made of atoms.

Hans

MRC_Hans

17th February 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

The point is... if we could have all the info then we could predict an outcome 100% accurate. For example, let's say that now we want to predict something that will happen tomorrow. Assume that you are omniscient, could you determine an event?

I'd say: In a probabilstic universe, "omniscient" does not make sense.

I am not saying that this case is possible, in fact it is impossible. I just want to know if it is just a matter of information.

No, the information about a probabilistic event is unknowable in advance.

So, in other words, you say that there is no possible way that new information arises from nothing. Agreed.

Mmmm, the information arises from an event of some sort.

Hans

Upchurch

17th February 2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Beth Paulkey
As I understand it, determinism says that the same conditions will always produce the same effect. Always, without variation.
You got it, Beth. The only factor you're missing is that were the universe perfectly deterministic, it would be theoretically possible to predict the outcome of an event with absolute certainty and no margin of error. As you've rightly pointed out, this is beyond human means both theoreticly (sp?) and pragmatically. Actually, theoreticaly, it's beyond anyone's ability, human or otherwise, due to the Uncertainty principle.

Not to put words in to other people's mouths, but I believe the counter argument is that devine beings could know perfectly exact measurements (with no margin of error) through devine knowledge obtained by devine means. If so, that's fine, the universe would be deterministic. However, if one were to claim that, one would first have to prove the existance of devine beings to prove that the universe is deterministic, since this argument for a deterministic universe is dependent on the existane of devine beings.

Again, just my understanding, I'm not putting any words in anyone's mouths. It's not my opinion and I may be dead wrong.

Q-Source

17th February 2003, 11:40 AM

Hans,

It is impossible to talk to you hypothetically... :rolleyes:

Bye

Beth Paulkey

17th February 2003, 11:45 AM

Mr. Upchurch, (a name or a sentiment? I won't ask which church, but could you make it "up with the Friends"?)

Our big theological question may then be not "can god make a rock so big that he can't lift it?" but "can god make two things that are exactly the same?" And if he can, could we imperfectly measuring cooks and carpenters know it?

That's my problem in a nutshell - or maybe I'm just the nut in the shell - the world is too messy and disordered for determinism to be absolutely 100% true. And if it is, we just can't know it.

Upchurch

17th February 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Beth Paulkey
Mr. Upchurch, (a name or a sentiment? I won't ask which church, but could you make it "up with the Friends"?)
It's my actual name, derived from a small town in England where my family originally came from. (well, "originally" in so far as that is as far back as I have traced it.)

Our big theological question may then be not "can god make a rock so big that he can't lift it?" but "can god make two things that are exactly the same?" And if he can, could we imperfectly measuring cooks and carpenters know it?
Well, it's really more like "Does God know exactly where everything is at all times?" Even if the universe is deterministic, there is no way the we humans could replicate anything exactly. We humans are already out of the running. It's really a question about how much does/can God know, assuming you believe in God in the first place.

That's my problem in a nutshell - or maybe I'm just the nut in the shell - the world is too messy and disordered for determinism to be absolutely 100% true. And if it is, we just can't know it.
I don't think there is anything knowable that we humans simply can't know, but otherwise, I'd have to agree with you.

chulbert

17th February 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
[B]
You got it, Beth. The only factor you're missing is that were the universe perfectly deterministic, it would be theoretically possible to predict the outcome of an event with absolute certainty and no margin of error. As you've rightly pointed out, this is beyond human means both theoreticly (sp?) and pragmatically. Actually, theoreticaly, it's beyond anyone's ability, human or otherwise, due to the Uncertainty principle. [B]

More simply, you cannot cannot predict the outcome of any event that you influence because doing so means you must "predict your own predictions."

Imagine a phenomenally powerful computer with all the true laws of physics programmed into it as well the exact state of all the atoms/energies in the universe. Now pretend you walk up to to the computer and ask, "What will I say next?"

The first problem with this is that the machine can't exist. It has finite memory in which it has a model of everything in the universe. Unfortunately, the computer itself is in the universe so it contains a model of the universe, which contains a model of itself, which contains another model of the universe, ad nauseum. Endless recursion, yay.

So to fix this problem we move the phenomenally powerful computer outside of the universe (whatever that means) and replace it with a cardboard box on which we've painted some buttons and a dial. You have to have something to talk to.

So now when you pose the question our extra-dimensional phenomenally powerful computer processes the state of the universe and predicts your answer correctly. But who knows about it? If it tells you via a walkie talkie inside the cardboard box then it has added new inputs that were't part of the original calculation. Any input into the system invalidates the previous prediction so in order to be correct the computer can't tell you or anyone in the universe the answer.

So even if the universe is macroscopically deterministic we still can't know the future and even if god exists, he can't tell anyone either.

Beth Paulkey

17th February 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I don't think there is anything knowable that we humans simply can't know, but otherwise, I'd have to agree with you.
Do you know something I don't? :)

Got to run. That souffle won't assemble itself unless the laws of thermodynamics suddenly spring a real surprise on me.

Upchurch

17th February 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by chulbert

More simply, you cannot cannot predict the outcome of any event that you influence because doing so means you must "predict your own predictions."
I don't know if I'd agree with "more simply" ;) but the rest of it is correct after a fashion.

even if god exists, he can't tell anyone either.
I don't know that this directly follows from your argument. I think you've speculated on what the nature of God might be like rather than saying what God must be like.

chulbert

17th February 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Are you claiming that the moon is NOT doing what it wants?

Did I say I was claiming that? No? Then why are you asking me this?

As far as I know only conscious things are capable of wanting things. Since the moon has yet to show signs of anything resembling consciousness I would declare out of bounds any attempt to discuss what it wants.

So we agree that you have as much ?free will? as the Moon does.

Since I made no claims about the moon I do not think this is a sound assumption.

For future reference, if you ever find yourself saying, "So we agree..." or "What you're saying is..." to me you are probably mistaken.

(silly A-Theists ?)

Back at ya, kiddo.

Upchurch

17th February 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Beth Paulkey

Do you know something I don't? :)
Nope. Just personal opinion.

I know there are things that are impossible to know. For example, it is impossible to both know the exact position and exact momentum at the same time. That is unknowable, so we can't know it.

However, if something is knowable, I don't believe in any restrictions that keep us from knowing it given suffient time, effort and resources, other than maybe those we set for ourselves.

chulbert

17th February 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

I don't know if I'd agree with "more simply" ;) but the rest of it is correct after a fashion.

Any arguments that avoid physics are "more simply" in my book. ;)

I don't know that this directly follows from your argument. I think you've speculated on what the nature of God might be like rather than saying what God must be like.

I supposed the omnipotent, omniscient god could predict our future but I don't think anyone really believes in him.

hammegk

17th February 2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Mmm, also Logical Deists say we are made of atoms.

Hans

Actually, I don't think that is what LD's think. :eek:

Upchurch

17th February 2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by chulbert

Any arguments that avoid physics are "more simply" in my book. ;)
I dunno.... you were pushing into a quantum physics relm back there (e.g. how observer and and system are inseperable). Quantum has always been a thorn in my side, personally, even though I acknowledge that it's predictions seem to be accurate.

Franko

17th February 2003, 07:40 PM

Beth P:
As I understand it, determinism says that the same conditions will always produce the same effect. Always, without variation.

That is exactly right.

(but keep in mind “same conditions” means same exact conditions, which would obviously include same exact histories)

Where I lose the thread is with "the same". The world is messy. Measurement is only to the nearest nth of a unit. I make a souffle, I can use the same measurements, but that egg is not the same as this one, that tablespoon of shredded cheese is different than this one. I'm not working in a lab, I'm working in my kitchen. If I was in a lab, I'd still have to measure within tolerances.

There you go.

Is it possible for a consciousness (the same consciousness) to have an event occur more than once exactly the same, and experience it identically both times? It depends on precisely what you mean. If the consciousness loses his memory of the event after it occurs, and you rerun the situation again, the consciousness (without prior memory) will perform the same exact pattern of action. However, if the consciousness were to retain the memory of the first occurrence, and then he experienced the second (exactly the same) his pattern of actions will be different. The reason they will be different is because of “feedback”. On the second run of the event the consciousness is carrying information that he did not possess the first time through. From the standpoint of the “matter” in the event the 2 events are identical, but from the POV of the consciousness the 2 events are not identical.

Go to the hardware store and buy a box of 10d nails. They're not all the same. Build 2 houses from the same blueprints, the same materials. Not the same. 2 computers from dell built in the same factory the same day, load them with the same software, plug them in and run them for a week. They won't be the same.

So, you have the universe. This state will never occurs again. If it did, and it's strictly deterministic, then we have a loop. Ground Hog Day.

The reason that things are different is because inconsistencies are magnified over Time. But you may be surprised to one day discover that reality may be a lot more like Ground Hog Day than you suspect.

I don't see how you can say with complete certainty (or prove in some sense) that the universe as a whole is 100% determined, because you cant repeat the experiment.

Determinism is based on the premise that everything, which happens, happens for a reason (happens because of a fixed rule [or “law”]). In order for Indeterminism to be True the opposite must be True. Things must happen because of no fixed rules and happen for no reason. In order to prove Determinism “True” one need only to show that Determinism being True is more likely than it’s mutually exclusive opposite option.

Now tell me honestly, which do you find more believable (more True/more likely):

1) Everything happens for a Logical Reason based on an objective set of rules, or
2) Things occasionally (or perhaps always) happen for no reason and happen based on no fixed objective set of rules.

???

I have to say, "I don't know, and I don't see how you can prove it". If the fusion of hydrogen into helium in the sun isn't exactly the same for every atom, and we know everything that happens here on earth is due to what happens in the sun, then what happens in my back yard is pretty much undecided. I'm watching snow fall right now. It looks totally chaotic.

Yes, but by the same token the Earth looks flat and motionless, and I don’t know about you, but I have seen “red”, “green” and “blue” many, many times, but never once have I perceived an oscillating photon traveling at the speed of light.

Franko

17th February 2003, 07:42 PM

More simply, you cannot cannot predict the outcome of any event that you influence because doing so means you must "predict your own predictions."

That's easy to get around ... just manipulate some other little Graviton into doing your dirty work for you, so you can remain back at a safe distance ...

Loki

17th February 2003, 08:19 PM

Franko,

1) Everything happens for a Logical Reason based on an objective set of rules, or
2) Things occasionally (or perhaps always) happen for no reason and happen based on no fixed objective set of rules
I'm curious about this, Franko. You've posed 2 possible models for "the Foundation of Reality" (tm). They are contradictory, in that only one of them can be true.

On "the surface" we have a lot of evidence to support #1 - A very large number of things seem to deterministic (this is precisely the kind of data that also supports "Libertarian Free Will" and "Flat Earth", by the way, but that's probably better off left alone for the moment!). When we dig deeper, we start to find data that seems to indicate #2. The deeper we go, the more indeterminate things become. Yet your worldview is based on the assumption that if we could actually go deep enough to reach the bottom, we'd find that determinism is re-established. Apart from [b]needing[b] this to be true to validate your cosmology, is there any reason why you choose to ignore the mounting evidence ? In effect, you ignore evidence of a globe in favour of a hope that the Earth will eventually turn out to be what it at first appeared to be - Flat.

Are you afraid of where the evidence leads? Assume for a moment that QM might be actually pointing in the right direction - what consequences for Fate does an indeterminate Universe deliver?

Franko

17th February 2003, 08:35 PM

1) Everything happens for a Logical Reason based on an objective set of rules, or
2) Things occasionally (or perhaps always) happen for no reason and happen based on no fixed objective set of rules

Loki:
On "the surface" we have a lot of evidence to support #1 - A very large number of things seem to deterministic (this is precisely the kind of data that also supports "Libertarian Free Will" and "Flat Earth", by the way, but that's probably better off left alone for the moment!). When we dig deeper, we start to find data that seems to indicate #2. The deeper we go, the more indeterminate things become.

Don’t just claim it A-Theist. Prove it. Where is this “Alive-Dead Cat” I keep hearing you and MRC babbling about. Either prove your whacky nonsense or save your breath with me.

Why do you find magic “free will” powers preferable over “god” Loki? Of course even you must now realize that the instant you magic powers are disproven your claim that there is no evidence for “god” is going to seem as hollow as wind.

Yet your worldview is based on the assumption that if we could actually go deep enough to reach the bottom, we'd find that determinism is re-established. Apart from [b]needing[b] this to be true to validate your cosmology, is there any reason why you choose to ignore the mounting evidence ? In effect, you ignore evidence of a globe in favour of a hope that the Earth will eventually turn out to be what it at first appeared to be - Flat.

I have no idea what you are delusionary diversion you are trying to steer this conversation off onto now, but apparently you are unaware that your precious QM “Indetermancy” only works when no one is actually observing. How you have managed to convince yourself that when you don’t watch the game, no rules apply, but the moment you peek everything becomes rigidly deterministic again, is beyond rational explanation, but I could really care less at this point Loki.

Are you afraid of where the evidence leads?

What evidence Loki? Show me something happening in the present that isn’t based on the past? Where is this evidence that proves A-Theism True? Your religious fanaticism is only proof of Your Religious Fanaticism.

Assume for a moment that QM might be actually pointing in the right direction - what consequences for Fate does an indeterminate Universe deliver?

If Indeterminism is really True Loki, then You really do have your Free will, and that’s because I really am just a figment of your imagination. Then the present isn’t based on the past, everythings just based on your “indeterminate” imagination.

17th February 2003, 08:52 PM

Franko...WTF man! I thought we had a thing going on! Why are you ignoring me? Did I do something to p you off? Come on man...lets talk. Don't you love me anymore? We can get through this. We can work it out. Try to see it my way.

Do I have to follow you all over the board like some $15 crack whore looking for a fix? Don't I deserve more respect than that?

I want your religion to be my religion. Is that too much to ask? Teach me. Or at least let me sit at your feet and glean what I can from your wisdom.

Can I have your cast off chicks? Clothes? Derision?

Why have you forsaken me? Have I displeased you? If I have it's because I have no control and I apologize for the goddette that drives me to do these evil things. I am not worthy.

Loki

17th February 2003, 10:07 PM

Franko,

Me : is there any reason why you choose to ignore the mounting evidence ?

You : Either prove your whacky nonsense or save your breath with me.
...
... but I could really care less at this point Loki.

Okay, it's clear you don't want to (or can't) answer. I won't ask again.

If Indeterminism is really True Loki, then You really do have your Free will, and that’s because I really am just a figment of your imagination.
In other words, you have no idea how an indeterminate universe and Fate would intersect - so we drop back into your stupid little solipsist catch-all. Geez Franko, just say "I don't know".

MRC_Hans

17th February 2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Actually, I don't think that is what LD's think. :eek:
(I mentioned that LD's think we are made of atoms)

Well, I dont even know if LD's think, but they keep SAYING

"You are made of atoms!"

So obviously I assume that they somehow mean it :rolleyes:
-- But of course, in LD vocabulary, ANY of those words might have a different definition from the one I use.

Hans

Q-Source

18th February 2003, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by jimmygun
Franko...WTF man! I thought we had a thing going on! Why are you ignoring me? Did I do something to p you off? Come on man...lets talk. Don't you love me anymore? We can get through this. We can work it out. Try to see it my way.

Do I have to follow you all over the board like some $15 crack whore looking for a fix? Don't I deserve more respect than that?

I want your religion to be my religion. Is that too much to ask? Teach me. Or at least let me sit at your feet and glean what I can from your wisdom.

Can I have your cast off chicks? Clothes? Derision?

Why have you forsaken me? Have I displeased you? If I have it's because I have no control and I apologize for the goddette that drives me to do these evil things. I am not worthy.

Honestly, you are spamming this forum with your nonsense jimmygun...

It is really annoying. Eventually, someone will have to report this to the moderators.

CWL

18th February 2003, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Why do you find magic “free will” powers preferable over “god” Loki? Of course even you must now realize that the instant you magic powers are disproven your claim that there is no evidence for “god” is going to seem as hollow as wind.

I am curious as to why do you believe this to be the case Franko. Why do you assume that determinism necessarily implies the existence of a supreme being?

wraith

18th February 2003, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by CWL

I am curious as to why do you believe this to be the case Franko. Why do you assume that determinism necessarily implies the existence of a supreme being?

even if non-determinism was true, youre still obeying TLOP...

how are you more conscious than TLOP if you obey TLOP...
only this time, the universe would be "wacky"
;)

CWL

18th February 2003, 01:24 AM

That doesn't answer my question, which simply put is:

If, for the sake of argument, we assume determinism to be true, why does this necessarily imply the existence of a supreme being?

Edited to add the following which is also posted to wraith in the Fallacy of Composition thread:

Originally posted by wraith

car OBEYS you OBEYS tlop

how can you be more conscious than TLOP and your CAR without using a double standard?

This is where I always lose you. What exactly do you mean by "double standard" in this case?

The fact that I control my car (and indeed that I am "controlled" by TLOP) is observable. The fact that my car is not conscious is also observable. The alleged fact that TLOP is conscious is however not.

As I understand it, your claim that TLOP is conscious is solely based on the assumption that a conscious being cannot be "controlled" by something that is non-conscious (or "less conscious", whatever that means). What is your basis for this assumption?

Beth Paulkey

18th February 2003, 04:50 AM

Now tell me honestly, which do you find more believable (more True/more likely):

1) Everything happens for a Logical Reason based on an objective set of rules, or
2) Things occasionally (or perhaps always) happen for no reason and happen based on no fixed objective set of rules.
#2. Because of biology and particularly medicine, the uncertain art. Look up references on things like Spontaneous Pneumo Thorax, affectionately known as "collapsed lung". Things do seem to happen for no reason at all, even after the fact, when all the evidence would seem to be available. There are cases where you'll never know what exactly caused something. It looks to me as if determinism was true then you should be able to explain everything.
I have 4 light bulbs in the livingroom, from the same package, installed the same time. which one's going to burn out first?

MRC_Hans

18th February 2003, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
Hans,

It is impossible to talk to you hypothetically... :rolleyes:

Bye Not at all, but I have to know that we are talking hypothetically. Also, perhaps, I may not right away find hypothetical discussions about hypothetical universes interesting in themselves.

But, actually, I have thought about your going back back in time question: Even if we could examine the past, going from the present and back, there might be information in the past that was unavailable to us. You see, information gets lost. One example: Suppose you get an idea, but tell nobody about it, then forget it again. Has it existed? Yes. Can we deduce it from the present? No.

Likewise with probabilistic (or random) events. Lets assume that we deduce that a phosphorous atom has emitted a photon: We know that it must have been charged by a photon sometimes in the past, but we cannot deduce when.

Of course, if we were actually reeling back time (as I understood your question first), we could observe that event, but if we were to only deduce the past from a (hypothetical, heheh) omniscience about the present, then the information would still be unknowable.

OK?

Hans

chulbert

18th February 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Franko

That's easy to get around ... just manipulate some other little Graviton into doing your dirty work for you, so you can remain back at a safe distance ...

Uhhh, wouldn't that be influencing? Wakey, wakey.

Q-Source

18th February 2003, 09:51 AM

Hans,

But, actually, I have thought about your going back back in time question: Even if we could examine the past, going from the present and back, there might be information in the past that was unavailable to us. You see, information gets lost. One example: Suppose you get an idea, but tell nobody about it, then forget it again. Has it existed? Yes. Can we deduce it from the present? No.

Well, my concern was whether or not an event could have a different outcome even though we could go back to the past with all the information and predict the outcome. It is like repeating an experiment two times with the identical initial state. We would expect to get the same outcome, but as far as I know if there is just a single random event (an acausal event), this cannot happen. And then we must admit that the Universe is non-deterministic.

I was trying to see how a determinist Universe works from Franko’s POV. I was curious to know whether or not this is just a result of lack of information or the Universe is really acausal. It seems that it could be possible to have deterministic but acausal events.

In other thread and forum Stimpson said:

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
We don't know whether anything is really random, or if it is really deterministic, but acausal and indistinguishable from random. In general use, I refer to things which are acausal as random, because it is simpler than saying "possibly random, but also possibly deterministic but acausal and thus indistinguishable from random".

So, I think that the possibility is still open to discussion...:)

Q-S

Franko

18th February 2003, 09:57 AM

CWL:
I am curious as to why do you believe this to be the case Franko. Why do you assume that determinism necessarily implies the existence of a supreme being?

Because if all of your actions are controlled then by necessity the thing, which is the source of the control must be more conscious than You are.

You know … TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

Think about what consciousness is, how you identify it. Imagine if you were a computer program … how would you perceive the world (reality) around you? You would perceive it EXACTLY as it appears now.

Akots

18th February 2003, 10:00 AM

A thing need not be concious or self-aware in order to control some other thing.

Franko

18th February 2003, 10:01 AM

The Wraith:

even if non-determinism was true, youre still obeying TLOP...

hehehe ... yeah, have you noticed, they don't like being reminded of this little fact Wraith. Apparently "random-will" is just as good as "free will" just so long as they can continue pretending that no God exist.

Franko

18th February 2003, 10:02 AM

Akots:
A thing need not be concious or self-aware in order to control some other thing.

Provide an example. (let's see if you can do it without "begging the question"?)

Franko

18th February 2003, 10:14 AM

Franko:
Now tell me honestly, which do you find more believable (more True/more likely):

1) Everything happens for a Logical Reason based on an objective set of rules, or
2) Things occasionally (or perhaps always) happen for no reason and happen based on no fixed objective set of rules.

Beth Paulkey: (Theist)
#2. Because of biology and particularly medicine, the uncertain art.

Claiming number 2 is the same as claiming that the Universe is an ultimately magical, supernatural, and incomprehensible place not based on Logic.

Just because God works in mysterious ways, is no reason to believe in Magic, Butch.

Beth Paulkey:
Look up references on things like Spontaneous Pneumo Thorax, affectionately known as "collapsed lung". Things do seem to happen for no reason at all, even after the fact, when all the evidence would seem to be available. There are cases where you'll never know what exactly caused something. It looks to me as if determinism was true then you should be able to explain everything.

No … God would be able to explain everything. Determinism does NOT imply the ability to predict with 100% accuracy, only the potential to predict with 100% accuracy. I think you are confusing Determinism with Omniscience. Just because Determinism is True doesn’t imply that everyone has the property of Omniscience.

In fact, think about it, only one entity can EVER possess the quality of Omniscience at a given moment in Time.

Beth Paulkey:
I have 4 light bulbs in the livingroom, from the same package, installed the same time. which one's going to burn out first?

One bulb will burn out first because not all 4 bulbs are identical. Each is unique. There are slight variations in each. Let’s say that you have two identical twins, and one smokes, and one does not. Are you going to claim that it was magic when the smoking twin dies of cancer 20 years before the other non-smoker?

Franko

18th February 2003, 10:16 AM

Uhhh, wouldn't that be influencing? Wakey, wakey.

Are you asking me to explain how to do "magic"?

What if I just show you?

Franko

18th February 2003, 10:21 AM

Loki:

In other words, you have no idea how an indeterminate universe and Fate would intersect - so we drop back into your stupid little solipsist catch-all. Geez Franko, just say "I don't know".

Loki, once upon a time I had some respect for you, and I thought you were a serious person, but at this point I have almost no respect left for you. I see that you are simply a brainwashed little A-Theist religious fanatic who cannot prove any of the ridiculous claims he makes.

If you want to explain why you believe that you have “free will”, if you want to try and explain why you believe you get to make “choices” then I am here and happy to discuss it with you, but from your last dozen or so posts it seems you are more interested in doing your best Jimmygun or De-bungler impersonation.

chulbert

18th February 2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Are you asking me to explain how to do "magic"?

What if I just show you?

You mean like how you've magically changed the subject when backed into a corner?

Most impressive.

Akots

18th February 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Provide an example. (let's see if you can do it without "begging the question"?)

It is you who begs the question, Franko. The property of being the product of a concious mind does not make the product itself concious. It is only the product.

(Altering outcome) =/= (concious)

Franko

18th February 2003, 11:18 AM

It is you who begs the question, Franko. The property of being the product of a concious mind does not make the product itself concious. It is only the product.

Hey you are preaching to the chior on that one.

So since you are only the product of TLOP and the Initial State, I guess that doesn't make the product conscious itself. You are just the product of TLOPIS.

Akots

18th February 2003, 11:24 AM

The property of being a product of a concious mind neither proves nor disproves the conciousness of the product. Clearly the laws of physics do not negate the laws of conciousness. Otherwise, God would be subject to them, being concious himself.

Franko

18th February 2003, 11:27 AM

The Goddess is bound by Fate just as You are.

Upchurch

18th February 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Franko
The Goddess is bound by Fate just as You are. hm.

Wouldn't that mean that Fate controls the Goddess? Further meaning that Fate is more conscious than the Goddess? Meaning that the Goddess isn't the most powerful (omnipotent) one there is, but that Fate is?

Akots

18th February 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Franko
The Goddess is bound by Fate just as You are.

Then she is free as air, Franko. As am I. :)

Akots

18th February 2003, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
hm.

Wouldn't that mean that Fate controls the Goddess? Further meaning that Fate is more conscious than the Goddess? Meaning that the Goddess isn't the most powerful (omnipotent) one there is, but that Fate is?

A human being can trap themselves under a rock. In that event, they simultaneously allow the path of the rock to control their fate, while controling the rock themselves.

If an entity is subject to it's own limitations, it cannot be considered Omnipotent. Which means Franko's goddess is either not omnipotent (and therefore not god) or the godess is just a metaphore.

Franko

18th February 2003, 11:42 AM

She is not Omnipotent in the "all powerful" sense of the word. I have no idea what "All powerful" even means. Power is ALWAYS relative to another power.

But the LG is definitely bound by logic Akots. She cannot draw a 4-sided triangle any more than You can.

Upchurch

18th February 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Akots

A human being can trap themselves under a rock. In that event, they simultaneously allow the path of the rock to control their fate, while controling the rock themselves.
Once trapped, could it truely be said that they control the rock? If they could, would they be truely trapped?

Upchurch

18th February 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Franko
She is not Omnipotent in the "all powerful" sense of the word. I have no idea what "All powerful" even means. Power is ALWAYS relative to another power.

But the LG is definitely bound by logic Akots. She cannot draw a 4-sided triangle any more than You can.
So both Fate and Logic are more conscious and, thus, more powerful than the Goddess?

edited to fix typo

Akots

18th February 2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Once trapped, could it truely be said that they control the rock? If they could, would they be truely trapped?

That's circular reasoning, Upchurch. Obviously, if they had NO control over the rock, they wouldn't be in such a situation. Would they? ;)

Upchurch

18th February 2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Akots

That's circular reasoning, Upchurch. Obviously, if they had NO control over the rock, they wouldn't be in such a situation. Would they? ;)
Well, that's what I'm saying. Once "trapped", they stop having any control over the situation. At that point, the rock controls them, end of story.

Akots

18th February 2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Franko
She is not Omnipotent in the "all powerful" sense of the word. I have no idea what "All powerful" even means. Power is ALWAYS relative to another power.

In this instance, I think what I say as All Powerful you mean as All Responsible. Obviosuly, the Godess is as much a product of the universe as any of us. In which case, I fail to see how she can be a Goddess at all.

Originally posted by Franko
But the LG is definitely bound by logic Akots. She cannot draw a 4-sided triangle any more than You can.

I believe UpChurch has demonstrated this is possible, for sufficiently understood defenitions of "Side."

Upchurch

18th February 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Akots
I believe Upchurch has demonstrated this is possible, for sufficiently understood defenitions of "Side."
Thanks, but that wasn't me. I believe Tricky deserves the credit for the four sided triangle.

Akots

18th February 2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Well, that's what I'm saying. Once "trapped", they stop having any control over the situation. At that point, the rock controls them, end of story.

I think it would be more accurate to say "Our degree of control is insufficient for the specified task." It is impossible to say that any person has NO control over anything. They simply have insufficient control, or inappropriate control.

In which case, I propose that the laws of physics, like Franko's perception of the concept of "All Powerful", is entirely relative, and therefore not an appropriate thesis for the accusation of Atheist worship of TLOP.

EDIT: I stand corected on the topic of corrective geometry. My bad.

Upchurch

18th February 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Akots

I think it would be more accurate to say "Our degree of control is insufficient for the specified task." It is impossible to say that any person has NO control over anything. They simply have insufficient control, or inappropriate control.
hmm.... Well..... I suppose a person trapped under a rock does still possess some options. s/he could try chewing the caught appendage off or simply kill his or her self. Those would both be forms of escape.

Hm. I have to concede. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a counter-argument to that...

Akots

18th February 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

hmm.... Well..... I suppose a person trapped under a rock does still possess some options. s/he could try chewing the caught appendage off or simply kill his or her self. Those would both be forms of escape.

Hm. I have to concede. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a counter-argument to that...

Woot!

Wait... who won; Me, or Franko? Or is this a draw? :confused:

EDIT: And for that matter, what was the argument?

Upchurch

18th February 2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Akots

Woot!

Wait... who won; Me, or Franko? Or is this a draw? :confused:
I was calling it a victory for you (and I still do). It's not really applicable to Franko's argument since, not believing in free will, said trapee does not have the option to commit suicide to escape the trap.

Beth Paulkey

18th February 2003, 12:14 PM

Is it possible for a consciousness (the same consciousness) to have an event occur more than once exactly the same, and experience it identically both times? It depends on precisely what you mean. If the consciousness loses his memory of the event after it occurs, and you rerun the situation again, the consciousness (without prior memory) will perform the same exact pattern of action. However, if the consciousness were to retain the memory of the first occurrence, and then he experienced the second (exactly the same) his pattern of actions will be different. The reason they will be different is because of “feedback”. On the second run of the event the consciousness is carrying information that he did not possess the first time through. From the standpoint of the “matter” in the event the 2 events are identical, but from the POV of the consciousness the 2 events are not identical.
I can't understand this at all. How in the world would you be able to do something like this?
Determinism is based on the premise that everything, which happens, happens for a reason (happens because of a fixed rule [or “law”]). In order for Indeterminism to be True the opposite must be True. Things must happen because of no fixed rules and happen for no reason. In order to prove Determinism “True” one need only to show that Determinism being True is more likely than it’s mutually exclusive opposite option.

Now tell me honestly, which do you find more believable (more True/more likely):

1) Everything happens for a Logical Reason based on an objective set of rules, or
2) Things occasionally (or perhaps always) happen for no reason and happen based on no fixed objective set of rules.
still #2. What does logic have to do with the messy real world or my spontaneously collapsed lung?

Akots

18th February 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I was calling it a victory for you (and I still do).
Yay. I think. :)

Originally posted by Upchurch
It's not really applicable to Franko's argument since, not believing in free will, said trapee does not have the option to commit suicide to escape the trap.

Well actually, I think it does apply to Franko's argument that TLOP controls CAR controls YOU.

If I step on a landmine, then TLOP controls ME controls LANDMINE

Except, of course, that the landmine explodes, thus altering my life very decisively (by ending it, most likely).

Therefore, TLOP controls LANDMINE controls ME

The action results in the mutual anhiallation of both related parties. Each has equal control of the situation; which means that for either to have complete control would be impossible, outside of a mutual agreement. And if two entities agree so utterly that their entire fates will be completely identical, individuality is destroyed.

Control and conciousness are terms relative to our own form of control and conciousness (what else would it be relative to? I can't compare someone else's conciousness to the conciousness experienced by others, because i don't understand what it's like to be them). And that in turn proves that control and conciousness are manmade, arbitrary rules, and therefore very much corporeal, and NOT fully responsible for the laws of physics and the initial state of the universe.

Franko's godess exists entirely in his own mind. As do may of our own gods; theistic or not. A true god would exist outside of our reality as well.

Loki

18th February 2003, 12:40 PM

Franko,

Loki, once upon a time I had some respect for you, and I thought you were a serious person, but at this point I have almost no respect left for you.
So you still a just a little respect for me? Give it Time Franko, Time...

I see that you are simply a brainwashed little A-Theist religious fanatic who cannot prove any of the ridiculous claims he makes.
Which claims would they be?.... oh, don't bother, we both know you're just making this up.

If you want to explain why you believe that you have “free will”, if you want to try and explain why you believe you get to make “choices” then I am here and happy to discuss it with you,
Hey, I'm on *your* side on this, remember? Libertarian Free Will doesn't exist, because it's fundamentally incomprehensible. Now, if we could just get the damn christians to see this...

How about a tag team, you and me up against muscleman - surely we can wipe that Libertarian smile off his face, right?

... but from your last dozen or so posts it seems you are more interested in doing your best Jimmygun or De-bungler impersonation.
Comparisons to DeBunk - than hurts, Franko! I'll try to lift the quality. Mind you, I quite like most of jimmygun's posts, so I actually take that as a bit of a compliment.

hammegk

18th February 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

(I mentioned that LD's think we are made of atoms)

Well, I dont even know if LD's think, but they keep SAYING

"You are made of atoms!"

You still don't agree that a materialist/atheist has no other possibility. What then is a materialist/atheist composed of?

Tricky

18th February 2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

You still don't agree that a materialist/atheist has no other possibility. What then is a materialist/atheist composed of?
Atoms and other things.

Upchurch

18th February 2003, 01:27 PM

I'm made out of quarks!

whitefork

18th February 2003, 01:29 PM

Strings, Churchman - you're a regular cat's cradle.

Upchurch

18th February 2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by whitefork
Strings, Churchman - you're a regular cat's cradle.
I was just thinking about that. neither quarks nor strings obey some of the rules of physics like, say thermodynamics or partical dynamics.

Quarks don't obey partical dynamics.
I am made of quarks.
I don't obey partical dynamics.

Kinda makes ya think, doesn't it?

hammegk

18th February 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Atoms and other things.

Other things you say. Hmm.

Quarks (and electrons) perhaps; although I'm not sure that handles the gravitational force. I know people are looking for Higgs in quarks interactions, but don't know current status.

Upchurch thinks quark interactions are magick, but I propose they obey TLOP.

Strings -- who knows. If actual, does anyone doubt they obey TLOP?

Atoms seem to be a physical thing that is "assumed" to contain all possible components, and definitely react to gravity as well as the other forces.

What did you have in mind for "other things"????

Tricky

18th February 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Other things you say. Hmm.

Quarks (and electrons) perhaps; although I'm not sure that handles the gravitational force. I know people are looking for Higgs in quarks interactions, but don't know current status.

Upchurch thinks quark interactions are magick, but I propose they obey TLOP.

Strings -- who knows. If actual, does anyone doubt they obey TLOP?

Atoms seem to be a physical thing that is "assumed" to contain all possible components, and definitely react to gravity as well as the other forces.

What did you have in mind for "other things"????
I'm not the physics expert that Upchurch and Whitefork are. I was thinking along more simple lines like ions, molecular bonds, energy and such.

Yes, I know they also obey the laws of physics, however, that wasn't your question.

Some argue we contain a soul (I don't). No description of "souls" I have ever seen obeys the laws of physics.

Aoidoi

18th February 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
So both Fate and Logic are more conscious and, thus, more powerful than the Goddess? Hey, I really like this one. Franko, can you respond to this? It would appear your Logical Goddess is not at the top of the food chain anymore, and I'd like to see your response.

whitefork

18th February 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

I'm not the physics expert that Upchurch and Whitefork are. I was thinking along more simple lines like ions, molecular bonds, energy and such.
I know very little about physics beyond the popularizations.

Franko

18th February 2003, 06:51 PM

Upchurch:
Wouldn't that mean that Fate controls the Goddess? Further meaning that Fate is more conscious than the Goddess? Meaning that the Goddess isn't the most powerful (omnipotent) one there is, but that Fate is?

Ultimately we are all bound by a set of rules. It’s like I keep telling you Upchurch, you are an Algorithm, and Algorithms are made of rules.

Now the Logical Goddess, She is also an Algorithm (a Graviton), and She is also bound by Her own internal set of rules, but She is the Top Graviton, She is more evolved than You or I. Her Algorithm can transmit information back and fourth to you and me far more easily and over greater distances than You and I could do alone.

The rules which bind all consciousness are the Laws of Time and Gravity. These are not laws in the same sense as TLOP (3 of the 4). They are more like the base (machine) programming language that the consciousnesses (Algorithms) are written in. Gravity is not the manifestation of an entity because it is an inherent property of all conscious entities.

Electromagnetism on the other hand is strictly the memetic projection of the Goddess used as an enhanced means of conveying information. Any enhanced means of conveying information is by default an enhanced means of conditioning/control.

Lady Fate is a hyperbolic title. It’s simply an acknowledgment that no one manipulates our Fate to a greater degree then She does. It is not meant to imply that the Goddess (Lady Fate) and FATE (Gravity/Spacetime) are one and the same in the omni-literal sense.

Franko

18th February 2003, 06:53 PM

Upchurch:
So both Fate and Logic are more conscious and, thus, more powerful than the Goddess?

You should be careful playing dumb so much, Upchurch ... people might start to believe you aren't playing ...

Logic is the mechanism of Fate. Fate is based on the premise that things happen for Logical reasons based on a fixed set of Logical rules.

Franko

18th February 2003, 06:59 PM

Akots:
In this instance, I think what I say as All Powerful you mean as All Responsible.

Omnipotent = Most powerful = More powerful (more evolved) than any other Graviton which exists.

Obviously, the Goddess is as much a product of the universe as any of us. In which case, I fail to see how she can be a Goddess at all.

She is just as much a product of the Omniverse as any of us. Go another level back in Time, and you are absolutely correct. For all you know, She could be your sister or grandmother in reality …

But She is a Goddess in every sense of the word. For starters She is generating this Universe around you, and by that I mean, every bit of information that you have ever received while you have lived here has been relayed to you directly from Her mind to yours.

I believe UpChurch has demonstrated this is possible, for sufficiently understood definitions of "Side."

Yeeaaah! … in the same way that an A-Theist could be said to be “sane” based on a “sufficiently understood” (i.e. completely illogical) definition of “sane”.

Franko

18th February 2003, 07:07 PM

Beth P.
I can't understand this at all. How in the world would you be able to do something like this?

It's a thought experiment Butch. The second part is pretty much the point of "Ground Hog Day". The first part is more like "Dark City".

still #2. What does logic have to do with the messy real world or my spontaneously collapsed lung?

I guess you are saying that your lung spontaneously collapsed by Magic? … for no reason and based on no fixed objective set of rules?

How can I argue with “Logic” like that?

Beth, it’s real simple, You can’t have “God” and “free will” at the same time unless You are “God”, and no one else exists.

Besides “Free will” is the god of A-Theism, it is the “god” of people who want to believe that they can do whatever they want, because there won’t be any consequences for their actions. There won’t be any consequences for their actions, because the future won’t be based on the past, and there is no rules and certainly no rulemaker governing reality.

MRC_Hans

19th February 2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

You still don't agree that a materialist/atheist has no other possibility. What then is a materialist/atheist composed of? Mmm, didnt I answer this in some other thread? But anyhow: At the very least we consist of atoms+information.
Personally, I'm agnostic about souls.

Obviously the way our atoms are put together (information) is crucial, bth for us to be alive and to be conscious. Otherwise we could (or rather we couldn't, hehehe) say:

Atoms are not conscious.
You are made of atoms.
You are not conscious.

Hans

CWL

19th February 2003, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Because if all of your actions are controlled then by necessity the thing, which is the source of the control must be more conscious than You are.

Franko,

This is a statement, which is fine. However, what I am interested in is how you arrived at that statement.

You know … TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

Fine. But this still doesn't prove that TLOP is more conscious than myself (simply because it "controls" me). What is "more conscious" anyway? Either you are conscious or you are not, no?

Think about what consciousness is, how you identify it. Imagine if you were a computer program … how would you perceive the world (reality) around you? You would perceive it EXACTLY as it appears now.

Computer programs are computer programs. Conscious beings are conscious beings. I personally have no idea of how a computer program would perceive the world (or if it even is possibility for a computer program to consciously perceive anything). How does this relate to your statement that TLOP is conscious? You seem to simply assume that "control" = "greater consciousness". Again, how do you arrive at this?

Upchurch

19th February 2003, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by Franko

The rules which bind all consciousness are the Laws of Time and Gravity. These are not laws in the same sense as TLOP (3 of the 4). They are more like the base (machine) programming language that the consciousnesses (Algorithms) are written in. Gravity is not the manifestation of an entity because it is an inherent property of all conscious entities.

Electromagnetism on the other hand is strictly the memetic projection of the Goddess used as an enhanced means of conveying information. Any enhanced means of conveying information is by default an enhanced means of conditioning/control.

Lady Fate is a hyperbolic title. It’s simply an acknowledgment that no one manipulates our Fate to a greater degree then She does. It is not meant to imply that the Goddess (Lady Fate) and FATE (Gravity/Spacetime) are one and the same in the omni-literal sense.

hm...

All along, Frank, you've been telling us that only thing that can control a consciousness is something that is more conscious:

TLOP controls You controls Car.

However, now you are positing that there is a force that controls the Logical Goddess:

Gravity/Time/Fate controls TLOP (the Logical Goddess) controls You controls Car.

Further you're posit that Gravity/Time/Fate (I'm not sure what the correct collective term for this force would be) is not a conscious entity at all but an inherent property of the controlees (everyone to the right of Gravity/Time/Fate). In other words, members of a set (in this case, conscious entities) are defined by conditions (G/T/F) that bound the set.

First, this violates the condition that only something more conscious can control something that is conscious. By analogy, G/T/F is the room to which the Logical Goddess (and all other consciousnesses) can operate but are not allowed outside the room's borders.

Secondly, this is the view that I (and I'm guessing many others) hold of the laws of physics in general: a non-conscious set of rules that constrain everything in the universe.

Now, if G/T/F need not be conscious to control consciousness, then why must any laws of physics be conscious to control consciousness? What sets Gravity, Time, and Fate apart from Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Electromagnetic dynamics, etc.? Why can the first set be non-conscious but the latter set must be conscious? Where's the line and how do you know?

I would counter that none of the laws of physics need be conscious in order to have an effect (or if you like, "control") on us. Instead of just G/T/F making up the room in the above analogy, all of the laws of physics make up the room that constrain not only consciousness but all forms of being (conscious, unconscious, non-conscious, etc.).

How do we decide which argument is correct? We can't prove that the the laws of physics are not conscious (proving a negative), so let's see if we can prove that the laws of physics are conscious.

First, we have to define what is meant by consciousness. Pulling out the ol' dictionary, I find "perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation". I have no idea what mechanism might be employed by the laws of physics to perceive something. Any suggestions so that we might move forward?

Akots

19th February 2003, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Omnipotent = Most powerful = More powerful (more evolved) than any other Graviton which exists.

What is a Graviton?

She is just as much a product of the Omniverse as any of us. Go another level back in Time, and you are absolutely correct. For all you know, She could be your sister or grandmother in reality …

All i see here is that the Logical Goddess is a living organism, like any other, undeserving of special rank or title.

But She is a Goddess in every sense of the word. For starters She is generating this Universe around you, and by that I mean, every bit of information that you have ever received while you have lived here has been relayed to you directly from Her mind to yours.

Can you verify this for me?

Yeeaaah! … in the same way that an A-Theist could be said to be “sane” based on a “sufficiently understood” (i.e. completely illogical) definition of “sane”.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't understand this part at all. Can you explain?

Tricky

19th February 2003, 05:45 AM

Oh, Franko, this is really too rich! Have you ever considered becoming a SciFi writer? Or perhaps this whole LD thing is just a device from your latest novel.
Originally posted by Franko
The rules which bind all consciousness are the Laws of Time and Gravity. These are not laws in the same sense as TLOP (3 of the 4). They are more like the base (machine) programming language that the consciousnesses (Algorithms) are written in. Gravity is not the manifestation of an entity because it is an inherent property of all conscious entities.
You want to give us a clue to what some of those laws are and how they "bind" consciousness? Oh, and by the way. Gravity is an inherent property of all entities, not just conscious ones.

Electromagnetism on the other hand is strictly the memetic projection of the Goddess used as an enhanced means of conveying information. Any enhanced means of conveying information is by default an enhanced means of conditioning/control.
Do you have any idea what a meme is? Or is this another word you have simple appropriated because it sounded cool, then gave it a new Lexicon definition. If the Goddess is conveying information via electromagnetism, then we should be able to pick it up, should we not? Why haven't the SETI people homed in on The Goddess by now?

Lady Fate is a hyperbolic title. It’s simply an acknowledgment that no one manipulates our Fate to a greater degree then She does.
You said earlier that The Goddess was just as much a slave to fate as we were. Now you say she manipulates fate?
It is not meant to imply that the Goddess (Lady Fate) and FATE (Gravity/Spacetime) are one and the same in the omni-literal sense.
Omni-literal????
http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/lachen/laughing-smiley-014.gif
Franko, that is Omni-stupid.

Tricky

19th February 2003, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by Akots
I don't understand this part at all. Can you explain?
Hi Akots. A lot of the things you are asking are explained (if that is the proper word) in The List (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=342661&highlight=fervent#post342661). Many of the things listed contain links to the posts in which these "explanations" were made. I think it is a useful reference tool.

Franko

19th February 2003, 07:09 AM

MRC: (Fanatical A-Theist Stooge)
Atoms are not conscious.
You are made of atoms.
You are not conscious.

Nice work MRC! According to Materialism the above is entirely True. Just ask Yatzi. Consciousness is just an illusion. There is no "YOU". "YOU" is just a sensation that results from the interaction between your atoms and TLOP.

Franko

19th February 2003, 07:18 AM

Akots:
What is a Graviton?

You are a Graviton.

So is every consciousness. A Graviton is the fundamental force carrying particle of the gravitational force. It is also the fundamental component (building block) of reality.

BTW- You may notice that I use the term Graviton, Soul, or Consciousness interchangeably. For the most part this is True for any discussion I have here on this board, but technically the terms do not all mean the exact same thing; specifically Soul and Graviton.

If you imagine that you are a fractal, your “Graviton” is like the overall image of the fractal (the picture), and your “Soul” is like the small algorithm that actually generates the fractal. Essentially your Soul is the core of your Graviton.

Akots:

All i see here is that the Logical Goddess is a living organism, like any other, undeserving of special rank or title.

The LG is another Graviton inherently no different then you or I.

“Undeserving of rank or title? …” Realistically you are an amoeba by evolutionary comparison. If I were you, I’d be less worried about what title to call her by, and more concerned about being squashed or sprayed with disinfectant.

CWL

19th February 2003, 07:27 AM

Franko,

I don't mean to be pushy here, but I really don't understand how you arrived at your assumption that any "controller" must necessarily be "more conscious" (whatever that means) than its "controllee". How did you conclude this?

Further, as Upchurch has pointed out, you have indicated that the LG is controlled by Gravity/Time/Fate - which trinity apparently is not conscious (correct?). If this is the case, doesn't this punch a hole in your you basic assumption that "less conscious entities" are always controlled by "more conscious" entities?

Franko

19th February 2003, 07:58 AM

CWL:
I really don't understand how you arrived at your assumption that any "controller" must necessarily be "more conscious" (whatever that means) than its "controllee". How did you conclude this?

What does it mean to learn to walk? What is actually involved in that act?

I would say that the act of learning to walk, is the act of the mind learning to control the legs. In other words, when a child learns to walk, what is really occurring is that the mind is gaining dominance over the legs.

You could make the same analogy with speech. … or with learning to drive a CAR. To be conscious is to exert control (or you could say “influence”) over things which are less conscious.

Further, as Upchurch has pointed out, you have indicated that the LG is controlled by Gravity/Time/Fate - which trinity apparently is not conscious (correct?).

Technically that is incorrect.

You are a Graviton. Gravitons are made of Time/Gravity/Energy/(Consciousness) -- take your pick, they are all manifestation of the same thing. The laws of Time and Gravity are what make up your algorithm, so they also make YOU – they dictate your Fate.

Now in a way you are also made up of the “other laws” of physics – specifically, Electromagnetism, the Weak Nuclear force, and the Strong Nuclear force, but unlike Gravity these three forces are not fundamental to your makeup. You would still persist even if these forces were to somehow instantly vanish. These 3 forces are strictly a creation of the Goddess. She is using them as a teaching tool (She is using them to generate this Universe as the classroom, and also your “physical” body). Essentially She is slowing reality way down so you can get a better look at what is really going on. But by the very fact that She is using these tools (the 3 laws) to communicate with you She is also exerting a huge controlling influence on You. In fact, Her influence is so strong that the majority of us now perceive Her reality (the reality that She generates) as the only reality.

Think about Television as an analogy. Television is an enhanced means of communication (transmitting information). Would you also say that Television has the potential to exert a controlling influence (could it be used for that purpose?)?

If this is the case, doesn't this punch a hole in your you basic assumption that "less conscious entities" are always controlled by "more conscious" entities?

Keep in mind that I often refer to Stimpson and his ilk as the Pseudo-Materialist. The reason for this is because they worship “False matter”. They don’t actually understand what is real. I on the other hand (as well as all LD) are “True Materialist”. Ultimately consciousness is made of Matter. It is just that in the LD cosmology, Consciousness and Matter are ultimately the same thing – Time. We cannot exist without Time, and Time cannot exist without Us.

In short according to LD, ultimately consciousness and matter are simply two manifestations of the same entity, but not in the pseudo-materialistic sense.

The other thing that you have to remember is that according to LD reality (the Omniverse) began as nothing more than a lone Consciousness (the Progenitor Solipsist) and Time. When the Progenitor escaped Solipsism his consciousness was fragmented and became the basis for the Laws of Gravity. The universe is evolving over Time. More rules (more Laws of “Physics”) are added as it moves forward in Time. Laws increase control. New laws are the source of increased control. The trick is to make the Laws as minimalistic (parsimonious) and as flexible (consistent) as possible, because if you are not careful … the whole system will revert to utter conformity (or collapse on itself).

Upchurch

19th February 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Franko

You are a Graviton. Gravitons are made of Time/Gravity/Energy/(Consciousness) -- take your pick, they are all manifestation of the same thing. The laws of Time and Gravity are what make up your algorithm, so they also make YOU – they dictate your Fate.

Now in a way you are also made up of the “other laws” of physics – specifically, Electromagnetism, the Weak Nuclear force, and the Strong Nuclear force, but unlike Gravity these three forces are not fundamental to your makeup. You would still persist even if these forces were to somehow instantly vanish.
How do you know that Gravity is the fundamental force and that any other force is an artificial "add on"?

forgot to add:
This still doesn't explain, if the LG is bound (controled) by Gravity, why is Gravity not a conscious entity who is more powerful than the LG. Or, if Gravity is not a conscious entity and yet still controls that which is conscious, what sets it apart from the other laws of physics.

Franko

19th February 2003, 08:40 AM

How do you know that Gravity is the fundamental force and that any other force is an artificial "add on"?

How does Hawking "know" that the Laws of Physics break down in a "Black Hole"?

Does the force of Gravity also "break down" inside of a "black hole"? if you are claiming it does, then what is holding the "black hole" together in the first place?

Why would 3 of the four forces stop functioning inside a "black hole" Upchurch? What is so special about Gravity?

Upchurch

19th February 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Franko

How does Hawking "know" that the Laws of Physics break down in a "Black Hole"?
Mathematical theory based on experimental information. Do you have mathematical theory based on experimental information?

Of course, Hawking would be refering to human understanding of physics, not that the actual universe would stop working. He is saying that based on what we know, we have very little idea what actually goes on in a black hole. Therefore, I can't answer your following questions.

However, I was under the impression that you didn't believe that were such thing as black holes. So, I ask again, How do you know that Gravity is the fundamental force and that any other force is an artificial "add on"?

Franko

19th February 2003, 08:55 AM

Mathematical theory based on experimental information. Do you have mathematical theory based on experimental information?

I sure do, and unlike Mr. Hawking, the numbers on mine actually add up (2 + 2 = 4).

But don't let that stop you from believing in "free will" powers, and that coins always land TAILS up, Upchurch.

Upchurch

19th February 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I sure do, and unlike Mr. Hawking, the numbers on mine actually add up (2 + 2 = 4).
Is there more to your mathematical theory than 2 + 2 = 4 or is that the sum totality of it?

Franko

19th February 2003, 09:00 AM

You seem to believe that the Universe is magical (Indeterminsitic) and that you have magic "free will" powers based on far less. You need to put your own house in order before you start worrying about mine.

Tricky

19th February 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I sure do, and unlike Mr. Hawking, the numbers on mine actually add up (2 + 2 = 4).

But don't let that stop you from believing in "free will" powers, and that coins always land TAILS up, Upchurch.
Wow, what a great comedy act, Franko.

Franko: I am smarter than Stephen Hawking

Upchurch: Can we see some evidence for that.

Franko: Sure. 2 + 2 = 4

Are you gonna warm up the crowd at the next Nobel Prize awards? You'll have 'em rolling in the aisles.

Upchurch

19th February 2003, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Franko
You seem to believe that the Universe is magical (Indeterminsitic) and that you have magic "free will" powers based on far less. You need to put your own house in order before you start worrying about mine. I'm just asking for your mathematical theory.

Franko

19th February 2003, 09:23 AM

Wow, what a great comedy act, Franko.

No tricky, I recommend that you stick to believing that everything out of Hawking's mouth is as divinely inspired as the word of God himself.

By the way, could you give me Hawking's mathematical formula for reality?

Upchurch

19th February 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Franko

By the way, could you give me Hawking's mathematical formula for reality? Which part?

Tricky

19th February 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Franko
No tricky, I recommend that you stick to believing that everything out of Hawking's mouth is as divinely inspired as the word of God himself.
Funny, I thought you were a big Hawking fan, considering how you drop his name when you talk about determinism. Of course, that was before you got your head handed to you on a platter. Ah, it seems like only yesterday. Wait! It was yesterday.

Franko

19th February 2003, 09:27 AM

Upchurch, here's how logic works. You explain what you believe (how something works), and I will explain a better (more logical) way that it actually works.

Franko

19th February 2003, 09:31 AM

Tricky: (Desperate A-Theist)

Funny, I thought you were a big Hawking fan, considering how you drop his name when you talk about determinism. Of course, that was before you got your head handed to you on a platter. Ah, it seems like only yesterday. Wait! It was yesterday.

What no cut and paste of my decapitation Trixy? I guess we should all just "trust" you word?

When are you going to explain what the "YOU" is that is making the "decisions"??? I thought that according to Materialism there was no "YOU"? I thought that "YOU" were nothing more then a collection of Atoms?

Why do you believe that the atoms in your brain aren't controlled by the laws of Physics Trixy? You never seem to want to explain this? What are you hiding A-Theist? Are you embarassed to tell us what you believe?

You should be careful, because when you fail to answer over and over again it makes you look like you are being served you head on a plate ...

Upchurch

19th February 2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Upchurch, here's how logic works. You explain what you believe (how something works), and I will explain a better (more logical) way that it actually works.
I think you mean that's how a discussion works (assuming you are correct about your side of the issue). Logic is a conclusion(s) based on a series of self-consistant premesises.

Does this mean you do or don't want different parts of Hawking's theories? And if so, which ones?

Also, what are your mathematical theories about the behavior of Gravity? That seems to have gotten lost in the mix.

Franko

19th February 2003, 09:34 AM

Also, what are your mathematical theories about the behavior of Gravity? That seems to have gotten lost in the mix.

Well for starters you don't have any "free will".

Atoms obey TLOP.
YOu are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Now you ask questions, but in order for us to get anywhere you have to also explain how YOU believe it works, and A-Theists never want to do that, because the moment they try and explain is the moment that they realize their explaination doesn't work ... so they stop being A-Theists ...

Upchurch

19th February 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Atoms obey TLOP.
YOu are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!
But also:

Gravitons obey Gravity
TLOP (Logical Goddess) is a Graviton
TLOP obeys Gravity

However, this isn't a mathematical theory about the behavior of Gravity, it's more of a verbal description but even that doesn't address how Gravity works or why it is special over the other forces. Additonally, there is still the issue of why Gravity is not conscious given the LD belief that only that which is more conscious can control other consciousnesses.

Now you ask questions, but in order for us to get anywhere you have to also explain how YOU believe it works I gave you my counter argument several posts back, but to refresh:
Originally posted by Upchurch

I would counter that none of the laws of physics need be conscious in order to have an effect (or if you like, "control") on us. Instead of just G/T/F making up the room in the above analogy, all of the laws of physics make up the room that constrain not only consciousness but all forms of being (conscious, unconscious, non-conscious, etc.).

Further, I added the following in an atempt to resolve the issue:
How do we decide which argument is correct? We can't prove that the the laws of physics are not conscious (proving a negative), so let's see if we can prove that the laws of physics are conscious.

First, we have to define what is meant by consciousness. Pulling out the ol' dictionary, I find "perceiving, apprehending, or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation". I have no idea what mechanism might be employed by the laws of physics to perceive something. Any suggestions so that we might move forward?

Franko

19th February 2003, 09:46 AM

This still doesn't explain, if the LG is bound (controled) by Gravity, why is Gravity not a conscious entity who is more powerful than the LG.

Gravitons are Gravity (well at least the source of Gravity anyway), so consciousness (like the LG) is Gravity. Gravity is conscious. There is no contradiction.

Or, if Gravity is not a conscious entity and yet still controls that which is conscious, what sets it apart from the other laws of physics.

Gravity and consciousness are the same thing (two manifestations of the same entity). To say that Gravity controls consciousness in LD terms is analogous to saying that consciousness controls consciousness. (but don’t take that the wrong way. It is not necessarily your own consciousness which controls YOU.)

How do you know that Gravity is the fundamental force and that any other force is an artificial "add on"?

Because I know that Solipsism isn’t True, and I know this because unlike Materialism (i.e. A-Theism) Logical Deism is more parsimonious than Solipsism, and yet Logical Deism logically accounts for phenomena (observations) that Materialism (A-Theism) does NOT account for.

Upchurch

19th February 2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Gravitons are Gravity (well at least the source of Gravity anyway), so consciousness (like the LG) is Gravity. Gravity is conscious. There is no contradiction.
I thought you said in the past that the LG obeys only Gravity, but nevermind. How about Fate then?

Gravitons obey Fate
TLOP (Goddess) is a Graviton
TLOP obeys Fate.

Is Fate not more conscious than the Goddess? But if Fate is conscious, then Fate is a Graviton. Therefore, Fate obeys Fate. hmm...

Gravity and consciousness are the same thing (two manifestations of the same entity).
Source?

Because I know that Solipsism isn’t True, and I know this because unlike Materialism (i.e. A-Theism) Logical Deism is more parsimonious than Solipsism, [How?] and yet Logical Deism logically accounts for phenomena (observations) that Materialism (A-Theism) does NOT account for.
edited to move the "How?" question in the quote above

What phenomena and how does it account for it?

Franko

19th February 2003, 10:07 AM

Upchurch:
I thought you said in the past that the LG obeys only Gravity, but nevermind. How about Fate then?

Gravitons obey Fate
TLOP (Goddess) is a Graviton
TLOP obeys Fate.

Is Fate not more conscious than the Goddess? But if Fate is conscious, then Fate is a Graviton. Therefore, Fate obeys Fate. hmm...

Upchurch can you explain why your utter confusion and misunderstanding of the basic workings of Fatalism are proof that you have magic "free will" powers? I don't understand how that works?

Upchurch

19th February 2003, 10:13 AM

I'm making no statements of any sort about "magical free will powers". I am asking weither or not Fate is conscious and, if so, if Fate is not more conscious than the Logical Goddess, who is only a Graviton. Further if Fate is conscious and, thus, a Graviton, what does it mean that Fate controls Fate?

Alternatively, if Fate is not conscious but an intrinsic non-conscious force, how can it have any control over conscious entities?

Franko

19th February 2003, 10:16 AM

Here Upchurch, I'll repost this again. Perhaps it will make more sense to you now, although (honesty) I don't think you want any of this stuf to make sense. I think it is obvious that the mere thought of it being True terrifies you ...

Ultimately we are all bound by a set of rules. It’s like I keep telling you Upchurch, you are an Algorithm, and Algorithms are made of rules.

Now the Logical Goddess, She is also an Algorithm (a Graviton), and She is also bound by Her own internal set of rules, but She is the Top Graviton, She is more evolved than You or I. Her Algorithm can transmit information back and fourth to you and me far more easily and over greater distances than You and I could do alone.

The rules which bind all consciousness are the Laws of Time and Gravity. These are not laws in the same sense as TLOP (3 of the 4). They (Laws of Gravity) are more like the base (machine) programming language that the consciousnesses (Algorithms) are written in. Gravity is not the manifestation of an entity because it is an inherent property of all conscious entities.

Electromagnetism on the other hand is strictly the memetic projection of the Goddess used as an enhanced means of conveying information. Any enhanced means of conveying information is by default an enhanced means of conditioning/control.

Lady Fate is a hyperbolic title. It’s simply an acknowledgment that no one manipulates our Fate to a greater degree then She does. It is not meant to imply that the Goddess (Lady Fate) and FATE (Gravity/Spacetime) are one and the same in the omni-literal sense.

Upchurch

19th February 2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Franko

The rules which bind all consciousness are the Laws of Time and Gravity.
Ah. There you go! A set of non-conscious rules that controls/confines conscious entities! So:

LTAG controls TLOP (Goddess) controls You controls Car.

How you view LTAG is how I (and I'm guessing many others) view TLOP: a non-conscious set of rules that confines conscious entities (as well as unconscious and non-consious entities). Since this inherent property can control conscious behavior, then it is not necessarily true that only that which is more conscious can control that which is conscious. Why then, must any of TLOP be conscious rather than an inherent property of matter and energy?

The rest of the stuff you wrote is based on the concept that TLOP must be conscious, let us first address if this is true before we go into the details of what that means.

Tricky

19th February 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Franko
What no cut and paste of my decapitation Trixy? I guess we should all just "trust" you word?
As you wish. I would have thought you would be rather embarrassed to have it brought up again, but I should have known better. You never seem to be embarassed by your own hypocrisy.

Franko said: (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=343059&highlight=hawking+determinism#post343059)
Originally posted by Franko
Trixy are you aware that you’re hero Stephen Hawking believes that Determinism is true?

But Hawkings own words (http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html) directly contradict you.
Stephen Hawking from his Public Lectures
Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

You want me to show the decapitation in slow motion for the Jason fans in the audience?

Franko

19th February 2003, 11:01 AM

UpChimp:

How you view LTAG is how I (and I'm guessing many others) view TLOP: a non-conscious set of rules that confines conscious entities (as well as unconscious and non-consious entities). Since this inherent property can control conscious behavior, then it is not necessarily true that only that which is more conscious can control that which is conscious. Why then, must any of TLOP be conscious rather than an inherent property of matter and energy?

Apparently you must be “hard of reading” because I have stated at least half a dozen times now that The laws of Gravity (and Time [LTAG in Upchimp’s terms]) ARE CONSCIOUS. They are the basis for consciousness. Reality is conscious at its fundamental level Upchimp. Matter doesn’t make consciousness. Consciousness self exists enfolded inherently within Time itself. Consciousness is like the image of the fractal, and Time is the algorithm itself, which generates the fractal.

Franko

19th February 2003, 11:03 AM

Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

Why the selective Hawking quote Trixy? Why not quote your hero when he was talking about how there is no possible way that you have “free will”? Does hawking believe in “free will” trixy? If he doesn’t then the above statement is a logical contradiction.

But don’t let me spoil your hero worship of the high priest of A-Theism. I already feel bad for being the one to tell you that you don’t really have magic “free willy ‘ powers already.

Tricky

19th February 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Why the selective Hawking quote Trixy? Why not quote your hero when he was talking about how there is no possible way that you have “free will”? Does hawking believe in “free will” trixy? If he doesn’t then the above statement is a logical contradiction.
Nah, Franko. I will let you go on believing that you are smarter than Hawking, since it gives you such joy. You have so little joy in your life.

Franko

19th February 2003, 11:09 AM

Trixy (mentally retarded A-Theist)

When are you going to explain what the "YOU" is that is making the "decisions"??? I thought that according to Materialism there was no "YOU"? I thought that "YOU" were nothing more then a collection of Atoms?

Why do you believe that the atoms in your brain aren't controlled by the laws of Physics, Trixy? You never seem to want to explain this? What are you hiding A-Theist? Are you embarrassed to tell us what you believe?

Also what does the theory of Materialism (a.k.a. "The Religion of A-Theism") explain that the theory of Solipsism does not also explain, but with a more parsimonious answer? How can you claim that a less parsimonious but otherwise identical theory is more True? parsimony is a component of Logic -- wouldn't you agree?

Tricky

19th February 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Also what does the theory of Materialism (a.k.a. "The Religion of A-Theism") explain that the theory of Solipsism does not also explain, but with a more parsimonious answer? How can you claim that a less parsimonious but otherwise identical theory is more True? parsimony is a component of Logic -- wouldn't you agree?
Materialism says the universe is real.
Solipsism says the universe is imaginary.

Of course! How did I not recognize the essential identity of those two concepts?

I guess I need to add "imaginary" and "identical" to the list of Lexicon words that are defined as their own antonym.

Akots

19th February 2003, 11:15 AM

Franko, the True Laws Of Physics are not a set of laws the human race has defined to perfection. we can only comprehend our limited Relative Laws of Physics.

If the laws of physics do not explain conciousness, then they are simply insufficiently refined. How do you know the TRUE laws of physics do not accomodate the concept of a soul?

Franko

19th February 2003, 11:27 AM

Akots:
Franko, the True Laws Of Physics are not a set of laws the human race has defined to perfection. we can only comprehend our limited Relative Laws of Physics.

Logical Deism does not rest on the premise that humans must completely comprehend the laws of Physics in order for the laws of physics to operate. Do you comprehend the rules of the game Jai Lai? Does that mean that no one does therefore Jai Lai cannot be played by anyone anywhere?

If the laws of physics do not explain conciousness, then they are simply insufficiently refined. How do you know the TRUE laws of physics do not accomodate the concept of a soul?

The True laws of Physics are the Laws of Thermodynamics, and they do accommodate the existence of the Soul. Your Soul is housed at the core of your Graviton. What you call Thermodynamics is a fragment of the rules which govern and give rise to consciousness.

Franko

19th February 2003, 11:31 AM

Materialism says the universe is real.
Solipsism says the universe is imaginary.

Of course! How did I not recognize the essential identity of those two concepts?

Yes, of course, where: “real” = “imaginary”.

If you are claiming there is some other difference you should spare the theatrics and simply state the precise difference.

But there are no differences … and you have known it all along.

I guess I need to add "imaginary" and "identical" to the list of Lexicon words that are defined as their own antonym.

Materialism is just a less parsimonious version of Solipsism. Where did you think you were headed with this conversation? Want me to predict what you’ll do next … ?

Tricky

19th February 2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Want me to predict what you’ll do next … ?
Sure. This should be good for a laugh.

chulbert

19th February 2003, 12:05 PM

Franko

19th February 2003, 12:49 PM

chulbert:
Why do atoms "obey" the laws of physics but consciousness does not "obey" the laws of time and gravity?

Consciousness does obey the Laws of Time and Gravity (Thermodynamics in Materialist terminology). The difference is that the 3 laws (electro, weak, & Strong) are being generated by a living entity (generated by a Graviton). Gravity on the other hand is an inherent property of nature that is conscious.

Why should we accept your explanation that the laws of time and gravity are not really laws but are descriptions of the nature of gravitons?

They are Laws in every sense of the word. You are bound by those Laws more so than by any other rules you follow. If this universe ceased to exist you would no longer be bound by the 3 laws, but Gravity would still be the fundamental force of your existence. Gravity exist in you

We hold the same position regarding the laws of physics and atoms but you call us stupid.

I say that A-Theists are contradictory hypocrites because A-Theists claim that no evidence for “free will” means that “free will” exist, but no evidence for ‘god” means that “god” does not exist.

Your lack of “free will” is the evidence for “god”. It’s just that you would prefer to have “free will” instead of ‘god”.

Akots

19th February 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Logical Deism does not rest on the premise that humans must completely comprehend the laws of Physics in order for the laws of physics to operate. Do you comprehend the rules of the game Jai Lai? Does that mean that no one does therefore Jai Lai cannot be played by anyone anywhere?

My premise is the following:

Our understanding of the deterministic universe is so crude as to be impossible to exploit or study within any extreme degree of complexity. If the deterministic nature of the universe is so complex as to be impossible for human souls to predict, then it is not effectively predictable, and therefore not able to be determined.

Simply because the rules for Jai Lai exist is not reason enough for me to play the game myself. Simply because the tennants of Logical Deism exist is not reason enough for me to become a Logical Deist. And simply because the laws of physics exist is not reason enough to revere them as permenant, eternal, and unchanging.

Your laws are ineffective, Franko. They do not advance either understanding or civilization. They fly blindly in the face of the very concept of understanding.

Franko

19th February 2003, 01:20 PM

Akots:
My premise is the following:

Our understanding of the deterministic universe is so crude as to be impossible to exploit or study within any extreme degree of complexity. If the deterministic nature of the universe is so complex as to be impossible for human souls to predict, then it is not effectively predictable, and therefore not able to be determined.

False, but irrelevant to the point. Logical Deism does not claim that Determinism is the same as Omniscience. Your confusion over the fundamental issue and basic definitions of terms does not constitute a proof of indeterminism.

Akots:
Simply because the rules for Jai Lai exist is not reason enough for me to play the game myself. Simply because the tenets of Logical Deism exist is not reason enough for me to become a Logical Deist. And simply because the laws of physics exist is not reason enough to revere them as permanent, eternal, and unchanging.

Forget all that. I put it all in a nutshell for you …

“free will” and “god” are mutually exclusive binary options. If one is True, then the other must be False by necessity. Now it is a very simple question for you. Is there more evidence that indicates you have “free will”, or is there more evidence that you do not have “free will”? If the majority of the evidence says that you do not have “free will”, then rest assured, that a “god” (of some conscious form) exists.

Your laws are ineffective, Franko. They do not advance either understanding or civilization. They fly blindly in the face of the very concept of understanding.

You are the one who lacks understanding, I worship the Goddess of Skepticism.

Franko

19th February 2003, 01:35 PM

Upchurch

19th February 2003, 02:17 PM

Man, don't you just hate reruns?

Aoidoi

19th February 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Man, don't you just hate reruns? Yeah, I occasionally poke Franko just to see what happens, but it gets dull since he just reverts back into the same thing over and over. Sometimes he almost seems ready to make a new argument, but then he just falls back on the same tired refrain.

I do enjoy it when he declares victory, though. Then I get to picture him as Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War. :D

Franko

19th February 2003, 07:22 PM

Two nitwit A-Theist posts. Just what "exciting" content did we see there? Still no attempt to prove your "free willy" god? I lack-o-belief in your idiotic religion A-Theists.

SpaceLord

19th February 2003, 08:21 PM

Franko, I've been reading your posts in this thread, and I am still confused.

Where is your evidence for LG? Are there studies, is there empirical data, is there statistical analysis somewhere?

Do you have the math worked out? As a logical being, I whould think many of your ideas would be in mathematical form, since math is expressed logic.

CWL

20th February 2003, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by Franko
What does it mean to learn to walk? What is actually involved in that act?

I would say that the act of learning to walk, is the act of the mind learning to control the legs. In other words, when a child learns to walk, what is really occurring is that the mind is gaining dominance over the legs.

You could make the same analogy with speech. … or with learning to drive a CAR. To be conscious is to exert control (or you could say “influence”) over things which are less conscious.
Your examples are very pedagogic. However, they still do not constitute proof that "control" always requires "greater consciousness". If I am being chased by a dog, is the dog suddenly "more conscious" than myself?

*snip*
You are a Graviton. Gravitons are made of Time/Gravity/Energy/(Consciousness) -- take your pick, they are all manifestation of the same thing. The laws of Time and Gravity are what make up your algorithm, so they also make YOU – they dictate your Fate.
*snip*

Ah... but why cannot "the laws of physics" simply be a manifestation of energy/matter? Is that not ultimately a more parsimonious explanation?

Akots

20th February 2003, 05:47 AM

Wait...

If the world is deterministic, then conciousness would not exist. When Franko says "conciousness," does he actually refer to an object's heirarchy in a given chain of events? Is that what conciousness is to you, Franko?

Franko

20th February 2003, 08:21 AM

Where is your evidence for LG? Are there studies, is there empirical data, is there statistical analysis somewhere?

Yes … somewhere.

Do you have the math worked out? As a logical being, I would think many of your ideas would be in mathematical form, since math is expressed logic.

You are correct. However, there is more to logic than math alone. The thing that makes math so precise is precise definitions of the terms. Numbers are simply words with very precise (parsimonious and consistent) definitions. You can define any words in this manner. In fact, this is the basis for ALL computer languages.

So in Logical Deism, “Math” is a bit more expansive. Essentially LD incorporates algorithms into mathematics. Most of our proofs are done as algorithms.

Franko

20th February 2003, 08:25 AM

Akots:
If the world is deterministic, then consciousness would not exist.

Where on Earth did you get this ridiculous idea?

When Franko says "consciousness," does he actually refer to an object's hierarchy in a given chain of events?

This could sort of be True, in my terms, but I am not sure I understand exactly what you are asking me?

Is that what consciousness is to you, Franko?

To me your consciousness is your self-awareness. It’s your algorithm (your internal system of Logic). In reality your consciousness manifest as a Graviton. A Particle in the Omniverse traversing a Worldline (path of Destiny).

SpaceLord

20th February 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Yes … somewhere.

You are correct. However, there is more to logic than math alone. The thing that makes math so precise is precise definitions of the terms. Numbers are simply words with very precise (parsimonious and consistent) definitions. You can define any words in this manner. In fact, this is the basis for ALL computer languages.

So in Logical Deism, “Math” is a bit more expansive. Essentially LD incorporates algorithms into mathematics. Most of our proofs are done as algorithms.

Hot damn! Something concrete! Let's see these studies, these algorithims. Start a thread or link to a website where I can see them.

Akots

20th February 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by SpaceLord

Hot damn! Something concrete! Let's see these studies, these algorithims. Start a thread or link to a website where I can see them.

He's right Franko; this is the perfect opportunity to provide proofs. You'll have a better chance of convincing an Atheist through proof than a theist!

Give it a try!

Franko

20th February 2003, 10:56 AM

Hot damn! Something concrete! Let's see these studies, these algorithims. Start a thread or link to a website where I can see them.

But I'm still waiting for your evidence for "free willy"?

Why is it that you ask ME for evidence when you are so unwilling to provide ANY for YOUR beliefs? I find that highly hypocritcal.

Besides, what makes you think I am interested in proving LD to you any more than I already have? Seriously A-Theist, you haven't exactly done much to demonstarte your ability to logically discern credible evidence from fantasy.

You still can't explain why it is okay to believe in 'free will" based on no evidence, yet anyone who believes in "god" based on no evidence is a stupid theist moron? Why the contradiction? Obviously you understand NOTHING about evidence or logic. I honestly don't see how providing you with even more information than I already have will do anything to change the situation.

You are a religious fanatic. You aren't interested in the Truth. You are only interested in defending your absurd dogma.

SpaceLord

20th February 2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Franko

But I'm still waiting for your evidence for "free willy"?

Why is it that you ask ME for evidence when you are so unwilling to provide ANY for YOUR beliefs? I find that highly hypocritcal.

Besides, what makes you think I am interested in proving LD to you any more than I already have? Seriously A-Theist, you haven't exactly done much to demonstarte your ability to logically discern credible evidence from fantasy.

You still can't explain why it is okay to believe in 'free will" based on no evidence, yet anyone who believes in "god" based on no evidence is a stupid theist moron? Why the contradiction? Obviously you understand NOTHING about evidence or logic. I honestly don't see how providing you with even more information than I already have will do anything to change the situation.

You are a religious fanatic. You aren't interested in the Truth. You are only interested in defending your absurd dogma.

Weeeeeeee! franko, you get confused easily. This is the third time I've corrected you on my beliefs. I am agnostic, and on the subject of free will, I don't know. I am leaning towards believing that we don't have free will. I'm kinda new to this whole philosophy thing, and am still forming my opinions.

Surely, franko, as a member of a skeptic's message board, you will be more than willing to provide physical evidence on your beliefs.

Franko

20th February 2003, 11:15 AM

Spacelord:
Weeeeeeee! franko, you get confused easily. This is the third time I've corrected you on my beliefs. I am agnostic, and on the subject of free will, I don't know. I am leaning towards believing that we don't have free will. I'm kinda new to this whole philosophy thing, and am still forming my opinions.

I’ve got my algorithms all over this board. Explain why you think that you might have “free will”? Define “free will”? Explain why you believe that Indeterminism may be True? Explain what it means if you do not make decisions algorithmically? Can you make a decision non-algorithmically? What does that mean?

Fatalism is the belief that all events happen as part of a logical sequence for logically objective reasons. Do you agree that things ALWAYS happen for a reason because of fixed rules? If not, then what do You believe?

Surely, franko, as a member of a skeptic's message board, you will be more than willing to provide physical evidence on your beliefs.

I have been doing JUST THAT for well over a year now. The fact that you are trying to pretend otherwise makes me wonder if you are an insincere liar with ulterior motives?

SpaceLord

20th February 2003, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Franko

I’ve got my algorithms all over this board. Explain why you think that you might have “free will”? Define “free will”? Explain why you believe that Indeterminism may be True? Explain what it means if you do not make decisions algorithmically? Can you make a decision non-algorithmically? What does that mean?

Fatalism is the belief that all events happen as part of a logical sequence for logically objective reasons. Do you agree that things ALWAYS happen for a reason because of fixed rules? If not, then what do You believe?

I have been doing JUST THAT(providing physical evidence) for well over a year now. The fact that you are trying to pretend otherwise makes me wonder if you are an insincere liar with ulterior motives?

franko:

Like I said, I am still undecided on free will. I've just been doing this deep thinking on the subject for a few months. And I said I am leaning towards "no" on the free will question.

And, as a skeptic, I require concrete, repeatable evidence before I believe in anything extraordinary. Where is yours?

Where is your evidence for the powers of the "gravitions?"

Where is your evidence for the existance of the "logical deity", and that the ld is female?