First Principles

[Kuroikaze]

Personal opinion, experience, knowledge, culture, social influence, upbringing and genetic propensities and also somewhat influence from viruses, disease and parasite infections.

If we say that moral codes are based on personal opinions, who is right? I like chocolate, you like vanilla, who cares? If we say one code is more right than the other, then we must be comparing it to some real morality that transcends our opinions.

 

 

Yes....we are comparing to something that transcends our opinions.....results. I have been saying this for about 3 pages of posts now.

 

To me it is far more reasonable to base moral choices upon the results of the actions I take rather than an unknown, unseen being that I can't even communicate with directly.

 

This is what I don't get about Christian morality. The absurdity of claiming that one can arrive at a superior moral philosophy by basing your choices upon the whim of a being you can't even talk to directly, and who's only communication with you is an extremely confusing and convoluted set of books written by people who still thought the earth was the center of the universe. Rather than basing moral choices upon the clear unquestionable results of our actions.

 

Sorry if I offend you for being so direct, but I've tried saying this as many ways as I can and you keep repeating the same questions that have already been answered by at least 3 different people here. Do you not understand the answers? or do you not like them? or do you disagree with them? I'm sure I'm just not understanding this somehow.

[infotheorist]

So why is it that I (and others here) find so much of the bible totally morally repugnant?

Why is it that the atheists keep bringing up the Bible? I don't really care if you haven't figured out biblical interpretation. That hasn't been my point.

 

The reason I keep asking the same questions, is that I don't feel like I have gotten a satisfactory answer from naturalistic evolution. Rocks fall, people kill people, why would that bother a naturalist? A rock doesn't decide if it is going to obey the law of gravity.

[NotBlinded]

So why is it that I (and others here) find so much of the bible totally morally repugnant?

Why is it that the atheists keep bringing up the Bible? I don't really care if you haven't figured out biblical interpretation. That hasn't been my point.

 

The reason I keep asking the same questions, is that I don't feel like I have gotten a satisfactory answer from naturalistic evolution. Rocks fall, people kill people, why would that bother a naturalist? A rock doesn't decide if it is going to obey the law of gravity.

Maybe because you haven't said anything about what you believe. Also, maybe it's because you discount animals as being a part of morality. That means to me that you see God (or whatever) to be human oriented. I see God as being "all" oriented and that what is available to us is shared by other life.

 

It is a fact that other animals operate on this sense of altruism:

 

In fact, altruism exists in the animal kingdom in some unexpected places. Vampire bats, who must drink blood every night to survive, feed their peers who did not find prey and are in danger of starving to death. (This is also an illustration of a Prisoner's Dilemma in which reciprocity--the bat you fed last week feeds you this week--represents the maximum pay-off.) Cooperation builds up among bats the same way it does among humans: bats are more likely to feed bats they know, and especially bats that fed them before.

 

It is easy to imagine the genetic origin of this behavior. A gene that causes or encourages the feeding of other bats (coupled with the ability to refuse to feed bats who never reciprocate) will ensure the survival only of altruistic bats. The altruism gene then becomes widespread in the population--as it actually has among vampire bats.

Morality without God

 

I'm not sure why you're not getting what people are saying. Or, maybe we're not understanding why you're not understanding.

 

Just type "morality without God" on google and you get a bunch of hits.

 

As someone mentioned before, you are assuming that God is good. God could be bad. Would that explain why we sometimes act bad? To me, there is no good and evil in God. God is one with both. It is our subjective perceptions that claim something is good or bad. I could rush in and sacrifice my life to save a child that could grow to become a future serial killer. Is that good or bad?

 

Bertrand Russell:

 

"Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century.. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say that there would be no right or wrong unless God existed... [...]

 

If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in the situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for god Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that god is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiat's are good and not bad independent of the mere fact that He made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God."

link

[chefranden]

2.Certainly you may ask. And certainly I do. And it's better than yours or I'd go by yours instead.

Hey Chef, thanks for joining in again. 1. Why do you have a personal moral code? 2. I am not talking about the one in the office or around friends. I am talking about the code when no one is looking. 3. What do you do if you violate your code?

 

4. You said that your code is better than mine. 5. What do we use to decide which code is better?

 

1. Because I'm human, a social animal that needs to get along with others of my species.

 

2. It is the same one in both or all places. I don't change codes* based on location. Of course different aspects of the code come into play depending on the circumstance. For example I don't have to worry if scratching my balls will offend someone if I'm alone.

 

* In reality it really isn't a code. That is I couldn't write it out and be very complete about it. It is largely instinctive behavior that has been improved upon through 57 years of practice. For example if I find myself amidst a group of ladies I find that I ignore my itchy balls without having to go through the book to see if scratching would get me in trouble or not.

 

3. The usual: feel bad; apologize; make restitution; cover up (but I do this much less often as I get older as it isn't worth the trouble.

 

4. Well of course it is, it's mine. Don't you go by the best code? And who's is it? You don't allow your code to be inferior on purpose do you?

 

5. Your gut.

 

This is a great point about intent. Your analogies of monkeys and amoebas are descriptions of instinctive natural behavior, which is exactly what we would expect from naturalism. They don't say anything about intent, or the "oughtness" of the situation. Will the monkey decide tomorrow that he ought to share his bananas (or whatever the scenario was we had earlier)? I might do something that on the outside looks moral, but my intentions may be evil.

 

If someone comes at me screaming that her child is trapped in a burning building, my first instinct is to stay out of the burning building. Then something may tell me I ought to go save the child. This thing that makes me decide between the 2 choices is neither of the choices. It is something else. It is also the thing that makes me feel guilty if I choose option 1 to save myself. What is that and where did it come from?

 

The "oughtness" of something is what ever emotion you have that drives to a certain behavior. It could be negative emotion, shame, or positive, compassion. Without the emotion you are not likely to act in an appropriate manner. Read some Antionio Damasio or some cognitive science. In studies of brain damaged people, individuals who suffer damage to emotional centers are no longer able to act appropriately in given situations even though they still know the rules and can still think logically.

 

Do you think a suicide bomber actually goes against his/her oughtness? I think not. They must feel that they ought to die for the cause and so they do.

 

Now certainly you may act morally for the purpose of manipulation. You may save the child for a better chance at getting in the mother's pants. Nevertheless, the child is saved, and your genes may be propagated as a bonus. Do you go in or do you stay out? Having been in life and death situations myself, I can tell you the gut decides. It chooses the strongest emotions and goes with those. Your logical brain will second guess what you did later, but when split second push comes to shove, it will stay out of the way.

 

The main difference between you and the monkey is that you can think about bananas tomorrow and bananas yesterday. The monkey's morals have to operate more in the now, but that doesn't make its actions less moral monkey wise. You might want to listen to the interviews with Frans de Waal that are listed here. And you might want to read his books.

[Kuroikaze]

So why is it that I (and others here) find so much of the bible totally morally repugnant?

Why is it that the atheists keep bringing up the Bible? I don't really care if you haven't figured out biblical interpretation. That hasn't been my point.

 

The reason I keep asking the same questions, is that I don't feel like I have gotten a satisfactory answer from naturalistic evolution. Rocks fall, people kill people, why would that bother a naturalist? A rock doesn't decide if it is going to obey the law of gravity.

 

 

My point in bringing up the bible here was to get you to think about from the other direction, The naturalistic answer may not be perfect, but it makes better sense than the fundamentalist Christian answer. I have no problem with biblical "interpretation" The only "problem" I have is that it vernerates an horrid being that I wouldn't worship even if he did exist.

 

I was trying to point out a logical contradiction.

I don't know what you believe exactly, but if I am guessing right you are rejecting the naturalistic explanation in favor of the supernatural explanation found in Christianity. All you are doing is choosing and EVEN more illogical position.

 

Furthermore, the naturalistic answer is not required to be perfect, because as I said before I fully admit that I don't know everything. Fundamentalist Christianity does not have the same option IMO

 

A rock has no intelligence nor is it the member of a society so its not even remotely the same as a human killing another human...I fail to see the point of your analogy. I'm concerned about human behavior because it affects me.

[Ouroboros]

If we say that moral codes are based on personal opinions, who is right? I like chocolate, you like vanilla, who cares? If we say one code is more right than the other, then we must be comparing it to some real morality that transcends our opinions.

It doesn't matter, because whichever "code" book you are looking into, it would take your decision to judge for yourself if you are going to accept that code book or not. But at the same time, your decision is based on what you know, what you think and what you feel. And that in turn come from upbrining, culture, social influence, genetics, memeplexes etc.

 

Let's say you found a Bible that said murder is morally right (which the OT actually does), do you judge that as morally right because the book say so, or because you have learned to think a certain way?

 

What you fail to see is that you are not just you in a vacuum. You are the result of years of influence from external agents that give you information and sometimes even skewed ideas. You get your value system from your parents, siblings, favorite friends, favorite books and media etc. You become what you digest. (To some extent) And to some extent you have a genetic code that has evolved through evolution that also contribute to the whole picture. There's no either nature or nuture, but both in one mix. And that makes up your decision for what you think is morally right.

 

If you grow up in a jungle, without any influence from society, and you are brought into society, will you, or will you not know what is morally acceptable in that culture? (And notice how it is formulated at the end, what is "morally accepted in the culture", that is the driving force to what morality is.)

[Ouroboros]

This is a great point about intent. Your analogies of monkeys and amoebas are descriptions of instinctive natural behavior, which is exactly what we would expect from naturalism. They don't say anything about intent, or the "oughtness" of the situation. Will the monkey decide tomorrow that he ought to share his bananas (or whatever the scenario was we had earlier)? I might do something that on the outside looks moral, but my intentions may be evil.

Well, I think some of this they have found out that animals do. They act in a certain accepted way in the group to gain something, so their intent is to act according to the "law of the tribe". Maybe (who knows) they really don't want to but do it anyway, just like many humans also do.

 

If someone comes at me screaming that her child is trapped in a burning building, my first instinct is to stay out of the burning building. Then something may tell me I ought to go save the child. This thing that makes me decide between the 2 choices is neither of the choices. It is something else. It is also the thing that makes me feel guilty if I choose option 1 to save myself. What is that and where did it come from?

I think there are examples of animals that have helped and saved humans in dangerous situations. What does it make them?

 

When it comes to abortion I am pro-choice and pro-life.

Is there a connection between morality and law (I mean jurisprudence as a whole, not individual laws)?

I think there are some correlation, yes. Not always, but probably to a big part. What we accept as moral, we might do a law for, and sometimes we make laws for things that a majority never thought about as immoral, but yet become immoral because of the law.

 

So IT, my real question is: what is morality?

I would very simply define morality as what one ought to do. By the way, I didn't bring up the Bible, but since you did. The Hebrew word for murder is different from the word kill, just like in English. The command is not to murder.

Okay, I'll buy that. So the Bible define what it means with "murder"? Consider the law that demands that if you work on a Sunday you should be stoned to death, or if your child is disobedient the same fate to the kid, is that a good moral code or not? Is war murder or killing? Notice too, that when you kill someone by accident in the Bible, your escape from the punishment is to flee to a safe city, and not to face your accuser. Is that a good moral action?

[Ouroboros]

So why is it that I (and others here) find so much of the bible totally morally repugnant?

Why is it that the atheists keep bringing up the Bible? I don't really care if you haven't figured out biblical interpretation. That hasn't been my point.

Because we're ex-christians, and we usually assume that position.

 

The reason I keep asking the same questions, is that I don't feel like I have gotten a satisfactory answer from naturalistic evolution. Rocks fall, people kill people, why would that bother a naturalist? A rock doesn't decide if it is going to obey the law of gravity.

I think the matter is more of that first of all we give a very generic answer and don't go into details, and the second reason is that you probably don't understand what we actually are trying to say. You have to get a basic understanding of how things can evolve and how both genes and memes can work in correlation to bring new ideas to "life".

 

Think about this, if you had a machine that could randomly test different scenarios of programming for a series of robots. If the program the robots got made them destroy each other, would that series of robots stay working? Why not? But if the randomly generated program made the robots to take care of each other and protect each other from destruction, would they "survive" better or would the get destroyed too? The programming evolves over time, and we can see that the survival instinct even in lower animals do include protection of the fellow individuals. The ants for instance have specific groups of ants that protect the queen and some protect the rest of the group and they even would let themselves get killed in the action. Why does ants have that moral code? Because it's very natural, ant species that does not protect each other will easier get destroyed and disappear from the face of this planet and won't have any more offspring, but the ones that do have a structure of protection will thrive and succeed much better and survive harder and rougher situations. It's very simple.

 

Okay, another example, which chess player will win the chess game? Usually the best player, right? How does one become the most famous chess player in the world? By playing many games and win many games. The winning knowledge and strategy will win over the losing strategies. Think of the chess player as the idea of a moral code, and you might understand better why certain moral codes have won over other lesser moral codes over time, because they simple led to a better or more successful tribe (or society). Now that is the meme that we talk about, but how does genes play into this. Well people that easily could understand and adopt to these better moral codes (better in the sense of better for survival) would have it easier to learn and follow these moral codes, while the people that didn't have as good of a brain to get it, would have a harder time to follow these moral codes and would get into worse situations.

 

I don't know how to explain it any better, because I feel it is crystal clear to me, and I just don't know how to convey it to you.

[Ouroboros]

IT,

 

Can you please explain this to me, I will assume that you're not a Christian, but you're obviously not an atheist or agnostic, but rather a Theist of some sort.

 

Do you consider that morality was implanted as a "function" in the human mind?

 

If your answer is yes, then I must ask why doesn't every human have this "function"? Why is it that there is a small fraction of people that have psychological conditions that make them unable and incapable of dividing between right and wrong and even when they try to understand they keep on getting it wrong?

 

If you admit that this is true because some are born with a brain definiciency, then you must also admit that this "function" of morality is placed in the natural realm of the physical brain, and not in a sort of "soul" or "spirit". Right?

 

And if that is the case, this function is a natural function and not supernatural, and there are explanations to how nature could have evolved it.

[infotheorist]

I tried submitting a post earlier today, and there was a server error. So I will try to recreate it.

 

I think my time on ex-christian.net has come to an end. It appears we could debate these topics endlessly, and I am not sure how much more that would help anyone of us. I do want to again say that I sincerely appreciate the manner in which the discussion has been handled. We were all able to keep it civil. We debated evidence without attacking character. That can be difficult to do when we don’t agree. Even though we don’t agree, I respect you guys and I respect your scholarship in these areas. I will post some closing comments and will check back to read your responses. Thank you for taking the time to discuss these issues with me.

 

Let me give you some more information from my end so you have a better idea where I have been coming from. First of all, I wanted to let you guys know that I definitely did not come to convince, convict or condemn any of you. I just came to testify to what I know and believe. I grew up in a Christian home and accepted my parents’ belief in God. I never fully owned my Christianity until my mid-twenties. It was then that I decided to really look objectively at the claims of Christianity and see where all of the evidence would lead me. I learned the art and science of biblical interpretation and learned that the bible is full of language from many different areas and genres. If the motto in real estate is location, location, location, then in biblical study it is context, context, context (literary and historical). Going into this whole process, I honestly thought that my faith would be shattered. Instead I discovered just the opposite. I found genius I could never have imagined. I am currently being mentored and am teaching Christian apologetics.

 

Now, let me go back a little bit to my original post. I listed the first principle of science, the most universal law of science and the established evidence that suggested the universe had a beginning. With that I invited you to come up with a theory that took everything into account and didn’t violate any first principle or law. Of course I was told that I can’t know anything for sure (thanks to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and David Hume); however, I don’t agree with that philosophy because it is self-defeating. I do agree that none of us can have exhaustive knowledge of everything there is to know. Whether we like it or not, the thing that fills the gap between our knowledge and exhaustive knowledge is faith. All of us have the same information available to us, and we choose to put our faith in that which makes the most sense. For me, the only choice that does not violate the first principles of science and logic, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and supports all of the evidence is an infinite, intelligent, powerful uncaused first cause that is not bound by the space-time universe. Any other suggestion is an effort to avoid a singularity of the beginning of the universe, or to get around the 2nd law. That does not mean I know how creation ex nihilo happens, but it makes the most sense to me in terms of logic.

 

We did not even get into information theory. When we use an analogy, we should have more similarities than differences to make a good analogy. When it comes to DNA, it has been called the “language of life.” When comparing the DNA code to the code of written language, we are not using analogy. There is a 1 to 1 correspondence between the two. The difference between life and non-life is information. If I walk along the beach and see a love note scratched into the sand (information), I don’t automatically assume that some natural process brought about the words in the sand. I immediately think of some human intelligence causing the information. In regards to SETI, Carl Sagan said that if we receive one sentence from outer space, we would know there is intelligence out there. If one sentence implies intelligence, why should we believe that the most information packed structure in the known universe (DNA) is the result of random processes?

 

From an evolutionary standpoint, what caused DNA? If natural selection is the selecting of a change in the code (genetic mutation) that promotes survival, how did we get a change in the code before we had the code? If we started with amino acids, how did we get to DNA? It takes proteins to make DNA, but it takes DNA to make proteins. Even if we could assume that amino acids could attract each other (which we can’t assume), it still would never account for the tertiary structure of DNA. When my mentor asked a PhD in genetics from Emory about this, he said, “That’s a problem.” That is not a problem, that is the problem! In all fairness to Darwin, the electron microscope wasn’t invented until the 1950’s, so he thought the cell was just a blob of gelatinous mass.

 

I also believe in basic human rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence of the US. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, . . .” The concept of natural law is the most defended position in the history of jurisprudence. It is built on unchanging, discoverable moral absolutes, which leads to the building of a legal system. The position of natural law is what allowed the US and others to go into Germany after WW II and try the Nazis for crimes against humanity, even though they had broken no laws under their own country’s constitution. I believe that we were created in the image of God, which included internal knowledge of his moral laws (conscience) as recorded by Paul in Romans 2. Since morality is based on a God who is outside of space and time and cannot change, moral absolutes are also unchangeable.

 

I believe that God is the ultimate good, which is why we have a standard by which to label evil. The number one question asked throughout the history of Christianity is, “if God, why evil?” Many people think that if there is a God, he should stop evil, especially when the evil is hitting home personally. If God is the ultimate good, then the ultimate good for humanity is to be in a loving relationship with the ultimate good. In order for love to make sense, there needs to be free choice. If the choice is free, that means there is also the choice to reject God, which creates the potential for evil. If God stops evil, then he takes away free choice. If he takes away free choice, then he takes away love and the greatest good for humanity. That is the ultimate evil.

 

Honestly, I don’t blame you guys for walking away from Christianity. If I had the perception of God that you do, I would have walked away too. When I first came to this site and started reading the testimonies, I realized that nobody indicated they had discovered new evidence that disproved the existence of God. For someone, God didn’t live up to their expectation, for someone else, the people in the church didn’t meet their expectations, and someone else couldn’t wrap their minds around the evil that God had allowed. If I judged Christianity by its people, I also would have walked away. George Barna says that only 8% of people who call themselves Christian have a Christian worldview. That tells me that about 8% of the people who call themselves Christians are really followers of Christ. I happen to be one of those. I realize that it is probable that not one of you will ever agree with anything I have written, and that’s OK. Remember, I didn’t come here to convince you. That’s not my job. I wish you well. Take care.

[Ouroboros]

IT,

 

I agree with some of what you said, for instance that I wouldn't agree with everything you said. Hehe...

 

And thanks for the debate, and the reason why we could keep it to such a level where we didn't bite each others heads of was to a great deal contributed to your approach. It was interesting, and who knows, maybe one day you'll be one of us!

 

And I think you made some good points too, so thanks, and good luck with all the things you do.

 

[Kuroikaze]

Yeah, even if I disagree with your conclusions about the nature of reality. You are quite a bit more civil than most Christians I deal with here or in real life for that matter.

[Saviourmachine]

My first principles:

1. It is impossible to distinguish between causation and correlation. That what seems to cause something else, may actually be just correlation. That what is considered correlation may be causally related.

 

2. It is impossible to distinguish between randomness and determinism. A dice may seem to roll randomly, but actually it is dictated by physical laws. Those physical laws may seem to be hardcoded in nature, but on a scale, small enough, there may be cracks where randomness peeps in your face. That beast may be called an uncertainty principle until some smart fellows shows that with e.g. all positions of all particles on the world the position of one particle can be calculated without falling victim to Heisenberg's principle. Upon which event another Nobel candidate finds out that there are certain unpredictable events randomly over large time scales. Etc. etc. We never know when something is really random, or when it reveals underlying order.

 

3. It is impossible to distinguish between a universe not yet started, and a universe totally finished. The latter does not even has atoms, everything spread out, taken apart, such that nothing exists anymore. The former neither has atoms, no laws, nothing, The non-existing universe, a thing that can be seen as squeezed into one singularity or an expansion, so large, that it wraps all that is.

 

My second principle:

It is very difficult to favor one kind of wondering above the other. Wondering about a finite universe when nothing of this existed. Or wondering about an infinite universe when there was never a time in which it did not exist. Which marvel to choose?

1. It is impossible to decide that one kind of wondering is better than the other. To wonder is to exist.

[NotBlinded]

Saviourmachine, it's good to read your wise words again...

 

Infotheorist, I also appreciate your mannerism while visiting this site. It's very nice when Christians come here with no ill intent.

 

Take care.

[infotheorist]

Guys, thanks for all of the kind remarks.

 

My first principles:

1. It is impossible to distinguish between causation and correlation. That what seems to cause something else, may actually be just correlation. That what is considered correlation may be causally related.

 

Saviourmachine, I just had a couple of questions for you. What caused you to come to your conclusion? It just seemed like maybe someone like David Hume's philosophy would cause you to conclude that causlity does not exist (effect). Since science is based on causality, would it then be fair to throw it all out? Or should it all just be labeled as uncertain? Thanks for thinking about it.

[Ouroboros]

IT,

 

You're back? You couldn't stay away, could you? Can you feel the compelling magical force pulling you into this godforsaken place...

 

I don't think SavMac is talking about the non-existence of causation, but the fact that we many times can not distinguish between what is causing what and if two events might be just correlated and in themselves caused by a third event. (Like your god for instance)

 

For instance, lung cancer and yellow teeth do not have a causative link, but are correlated. If there had been a causation involved, brushing teeth more often would prevent you from getting lung cancer, but the real causation is smoking.

 

It's more likely that a quantum fluctuation was the first cause of the universe. And it wasn't created ex nihilo, because "something" did exist in some kind of state before the big bang.

[Saviourmachine]

Saviourmachine, I just had a couple of questions for you. What caused you to come to your conclusion? It just seemed like maybe someone like David Hume's philosophy would cause you to conclude that causlity does not exist (effect). Since science is based on causality, would it then be fair to throw it all out? Or should it all just be labeled as uncertain? Thanks for thinking about it.

There is a distinction between the perceptible space and the perceived space (mapped through our perceptions) as Hume describes. This is of course the case. IMHO our mental space is not only formed by our perceptions, but also by genetic structures, so I want go as far as thinking that "all knowledge comes from perception". Likewise in respect to causation. The human mind is and our collective minds are a gigantic pattern matcher. There are patterns in the physical world and we are all trying to paint a coherent picture with each other. So, we describe a concept to explain with it certain observerable properties. We recognize patterns of "causation".We have to keep in mind that there is a distinction between the space of inductions and deductions from the patterns we receive (that we call knowledge) and the space where those patterns originate from. That there is such a distinction does not mean that there is no mapping, that what we say will make sense.

 

The term "uncertain" is not appropriate in this context. It is not about (grades of) certainty.

 

I am barely influenced by Hume. That what "caused" my conclusion, where the patterns I received, and I do not know if it was a causual relation indeed.

 

Science is not based upon causality IMHO, except perhaps very fundamental physics (and philosophy). Can you elaborate?

[infotheorist]

Science is not based upon causality IMHO, except perhaps very fundamental physics (and philosophy). Can you elaborate?

I promise, I am really not back here to get into this whole debate again, but I couldn't help but think about the statement that science is not based on causality. I thought back to every experiment I ever perormed and every law of nature, and I wondered how that is possible. Can you give me a scientific example where causality is not assumed?

[Ouroboros]

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, quantum events, all assume non causality. Quantum tunneling is based on the probability from a waveform, without a given cause to the outcome. Am I completely wrong here?

[infotheorist]

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, quantum events, all assume non causality. Quantum tunneling is based on the probability from a waveform, without a given cause to the outcome. Am I completely wrong here?

[infotheorist]

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, quantum events, all assume non causality. Quantum tunneling is based on the probability from a waveform, without a given cause to the outcome. Am I completely wrong here?

I did it again and doubled your last response. Sorry, I am not so swift on the forum submissions. Heisenberg had to assume causality to even come up with the uncertainty principle.

[NotBlinded]

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, quantum events, all assume non causality. Quantum tunneling is based on the probability from a waveform, without a given cause to the outcome. Am I completely wrong here?

I did it again and doubled your last response. Sorry, I am not so swift on the forum submissions. Heisenberg had to assume causality to even come up with the uncertainty principle.

Although I happen to side with Bohm and Chalmers when it comes to causality, I also understand that if consciousness is a fundamental part of reality, it doesn't mean that it has anything to do with any religious beliefs other than this is what they all are trying to understand.

 

Just because there may be a cause doesn't mean that we can even remotely understand what this cause entails. We can say consciousness, but we don't know what is meant by that other than a source we draw from in order to be aware. There is no way to study what is the source for all forms and all formlessness. So, how can we chose a story about it and claim that this source talked to a certain group of people and not to others? We can't. We can look at their stories to try to see what they think about it, but not one can be claimed to be the Ultimate Truth™.

 

Does our awareness speak to us or is does it just let us be able to speak to ourselves? Awareness is silent. Can one describe silence other than a lack of its opposite?

[Ouroboros]

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, quantum events, all assume non causality. Quantum tunneling is based on the probability from a waveform, without a given cause to the outcome. Am I completely wrong here?

I did it again and doubled your last response. Sorry, I am not so swift on the forum submissions. Heisenberg had to assume causality to even come up with the uncertainty principle.

Okay. I can accept that.

 

But it still boggles me how quantum events that are considered uncaused can be incorporated into your view of complete causality.

 

Or Free Will (if not an illusion)?

 

--edit--

 

Think about this, if I decide out of free will to lift my hand then particles in this universe is moved by a prime mover... me and my will. Now that means that there are several billion of events right this microsecond all over the world that defy the strict causal premise for the argument that all in the universe is contingent back to one single event, big bang. On the other hand if I move my hand because of discrete physical events, then free will doesn't exist but is deterministic. Which way is it?

[NotBlinded]

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, quantum events, all assume non causality. Quantum tunneling is based on the probability from a waveform, without a given cause to the outcome. Am I completely wrong here?

I did it again and doubled your last response. Sorry, I am not so swift on the forum submissions. Heisenberg had to assume causality to even come up with the uncertainty principle.

Okay. I can accept that.

 

But it still boggles me how quantum events that are considered uncaused can be incorporated into your view of complete causality.

 

Or Free Will (if not an illusion)?

 

--edit--

 

Think about this, if I decide out of free will to lift my hand then particles in this universe is moved by a prime mover... me and my will. Now that means that there are several billion of events right this microsecond all over the world that defy the strict causal premise for the argument that all in the universe is contingent back to one single event, big bang. On the other hand if I move my hand because of discrete physical events, then free will doesn't exist but is deterministic. Which way is it?

Hi Hans,

 

I'm going to go back to the first page and pick up a little snipet of your post on that page:

 

My opinion is that with a first principle argument we have to assume that the Free Will is deterministic and caused by yet another force and we're just slaves of this "other" force (be it the universe or something else).

 

Okay...so now I'm going to throw out a hypothetical response just for thought: What if that force isn't just some "other" force? What if what we are is a part of the force. Wouldn't that make the cause and effect one in the same? If we are that force popping in and out of existence, then there is no other force. Maybe? That would give us complete free will because we are the mover appearing as separate entities.

[Ouroboros]

You mean, we are the gods (or god-sections, sub-gods?), because we observe the universe and we're interacting with it and have causal influence on it?