Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

First Principles


infotheorist

Recommended Posts

'HanSolo' date='Mar 28 2007, 03:47 PM' post='266102']

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)?

I really don't want to get into the big debate picture here, but let's take a quick and dirty look at what this uncertainty principle really is. The uncertainty principle basically states that the position and momentum of a subatomic particle cannot be established simultaneously. Quantum theorists repeatedly acknowledge that their intrusive and disturbing measurements are the cause of the indeterminacy. The indeterminacy is not intrinsic to the subatomic reality.

 

I am not sure I really understood the illusion reference. How do we know what an illusion is without knowing reality? Thanks for sucking me back in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • infotheorist

    66

  • Ouroboros

    57

  • NotBlinded

    26

  • Kuroikaze

    19

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I really don't want to get into the big debate picture here, but let's take a quick and dirty look at what this uncertainty principle really is. The uncertainty principle basically states that the position and momentum of a subatomic particle cannot be established simultaneously. Quantum theorists repeatedly acknowledge that their intrusive and disturbing measurements are the cause of the indeterminacy. The indeterminacy is not intrinsic to the subatomic reality.

Well, I gave you right when it came to the uncertainty principle, but from what I understand is that Quantum Fluctuation is causing virtual particles to temporarily exist (and I think it's related to the Casimir effect too, but not sure). The fluctuations are non-caused and happens all the time. Would the argument be that these quantum fluctuations don't exist or are not happening?

 

I am not sure I really understood the illusion reference. How do we know what an illusion is without knowing reality? Thanks for sucking me back in.

Oh, the illusion was a mere sidetrack like "Free will - if it exists or not" kind of thing. Don't think about that part.

 

I added a little note afterwards trying to clarify my view about Free Will and Causality. Now if Free Will is completely free, wouldn't free will then be non-caused, i.e. independent of causes? If it is, then any premise that require that cosmos is completely contingent of causal relationships can really hold up, right? But if the premise that the universe is completely contingent all the way back to the big bang and a potential first cause, then free will must be too, hence free will must be deterministic. My example is lets say you use your free will to life your arm, matter will be effected, but your Will would be a "first cause" and not an effect of another cause. Or do you think there is something in between these positions?

 

Sorry to drag you in again. If you don't want to debate anymore and won't answer, I will respect that.

 

If you do chose to continue, I wonder what you think about Alonzo Fyfe and the theory of (I think he calles it) desire utilitarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I gave you right when it came to the uncertainty principle, but from what I understand is that Quantum Fluctuation is causing virtual particles to temporarily exist (and I think it's related to the Casimir effect too, but not sure). The fluctuations are non-caused and happens all the time. Would the argument be that these quantum fluctuations don't exist or are not happening?

All I am saying about quantum physics is that it is quantum theory. It has not been proven that events are uncaused or that something can come from nothing. I just prefer to base my conclusions on what we know, rather than what we don't know. Everywhere we look, other than subatomic particles where we can't really "look," we see cause and effect; therefore, it makes sense to me that since we see cause and effect everywhere in the universe, there is probably cause and effect or other yet undescribed laws in existence at the subatomic level.

 

My example is lets say you use your free will to life your arm, matter will be effected, but your Will would be a "first cause" and not an effect of another cause. Or do you think there is something in between these positions?

If I choose to lift my arm, I am the cause of the effect of my arm moving.

 

If you do chose to continue, I wonder what you think about Alonzo Fyfe and the theory of (I think he calles it) desire utilitarianism.

I am not familiar with Fyfe. I will look into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I am saying about quantum physics is that it is quantum theory. It has not been proven that events are uncaused or that something can come from nothing. I just prefer to base my conclusions on what we know, rather than what we don't know. Everywhere we look, other than subatomic particles where we can't really "look," we see cause and effect; therefore, it makes sense to me that since we see cause and effect everywhere in the universe, there is probably cause and effect or other yet undescribed laws in existence at the subatomic level.

Actually I think it is very well established through experiments. I don't know how exactly but it is not just an assumption or hypothesis. Consider that it is the most confusing subject in science and physics and everyone would love to get rid of it if they could, but it's there in the face and can't be undone. If quantum mechanics are predictable and caused, we would have a unified field theory within 2 months. The problem is that quantum mechanics doesn't work the same way as we are used to on the higher level of physics. I'm very certain that scientists would love to see that quantum fluctuations didn't exist.

 

And you have to realize it is Quantum THEORY, not Quantum HYPOTHESIS, so it has gone through the scrutiny of the scientific process for the last 70 years or so to become a wholesome Theory, which means that the facts and model do match. It's not a speculation, it is a fact based model.

 

My example is lets say you use your free will to life your arm, matter will be effected, but your Will would be a "first cause" and not an effect of another cause. Or do you think there is something in between these positions?

If I choose to lift my arm, I am the cause of the effect of my arm moving.

Which means you are a first mover.

 

Which means that this universe contains many events by first movers.

 

Which means an argument that is based on the premise: "all events have causes that all lead back to one first cause" is invalid. The chain is broken if there are events that are not caused by another event that was caused by an earlier event etc.

 

I don't know if you see what I can see in this, but free will doesn't have a cause to act. So if free will is truly free, then some forms non-caused agents does exist in the universe right now. Why did I life my hand? My Free Will made me do it. Why did my Free Will make me do it? Because it just did, and not because a god did it.

 

My suspicion is that I can't explain this in a better way to make you understand. But hopefully you will just bring the thoughts with you and one day it becomes clear to you.

 

If you do chose to continue, I wonder what you think about Alonzo Fyfe and the theory of (I think he calles it) desire utilitarianism.

I am not familiar with Fyfe. I will look into it.

He wrote a book that I'm considering buying, "A better place", and of course it's about a naturalistic approach to morality. He takes on some of Hume's problems, like the "is/ought" for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which means you are a first mover.

 

Which means that this universe contains many events by first movers.

 

Which means an argument that is based on the premise: "all events have causes that all lead back to one first cause" is invalid. The chain is broken if there are events that are not caused by another event that was caused by an earlier event etc.

 

I don't know if you see what I can see in this, but free will doesn't have a cause to act. So if free will is truly free, then some forms non-caused agents does exist in the universe right now. Why did I life my hand? My Free Will made me do it. Why did my Free Will make me do it? Because it just did, and not because a god did it.

 

My suspicion is that I can't explain this in a better way to make you understand. But hopefully you will just bring the thoughts with you and one day it becomes clear to you.

Sorry I am a little slow. I don't really follow the whole free will thing. In my worldview, free choice is what allows love to be volitional. Without free choice, there is no love. Every person is free to act or act otherwise. I guess I don't see how that causes a problem when looking at the first cause of the universe. I had a first cause. Before my first cause, I had no free will because I didn't exist. After I came into existence, I then had free will. I am, as you say, the first mover when it comes to moving my hand. In other words, it wasn't fatalistically determined by God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how I can explain it better. But think about, what is causing your Free Will to Want something? The Free Will to wanting is uncaused, you agree to that. But then again, you argued that the scientific theory say that everything is caused. But Free Will isn't, it is self-caused or un-caused. So either the idea that everything is caused is wrong, or free will doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how I can explain it better. But think about, what is causing your Free Will to Want something? The Free Will to wanting is uncaused, you agree to that. But then again, you argued that the scientific theory say that everything is caused. But Free Will isn't, it is self-caused or un-caused. So either the idea that everything is caused is wrong, or free will doesn't exist.

We are now arguing different conclusions instead of the principles upon which we base our conclusions. Again, my conclusion is a Christian worldview. From a Christian worldview, God is the cause of free will in an ultimate sense. My own free will then is the agent by which I can cause finite effects. No principle of logic is being violated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, but isn’t your conclusion that the universe has a first cause based on the premise that all events have a cause which in turn is based on the observations that all events you see around you have a cause? But my opinion is that forget that "free will" doesn't have a cause. So your conclusion from the observations is flawed since you overlook some of the observations. Mostly all events you see have a cause, but when you make a decision it is either uncaused or caused, and if it is caused you don’t have a free will, but if it is uncaused then your observation is that the universe contains agents that don’t need cause. Just like quantum mechanics.

 

 

Your initial premise was as follows:

1) Principle of Causality -- All scientific knowledge is based on the principle of cause and effect. Every finite effect in the universe had a beginning and requires an equal or greater cause.

 

My weak attempt to clarify your viewpoint: do you mean that the action or a decision of free will is not an effect in any sense or way? It is completely unaffected by history, experience, knowledge, genetics, brain mass etc… If you do admit that it is affected by other causes, then we can assume a chain of causes and events leading to your decision, just like your first principle argument. Your decisions then are made by the first cause back at big bang, and your decisions are much more influenced by what you just happened to become from the chain of events, and your not as much of a free agent (i.e. soul) as you thought.

 

Another question, if free will is in the soul, when did your soul come into existence? At the big bang (first cause), or at your birth (or conception or first breath or first communion or...), or is it constantly renewed?

 

You said: "From a Christian worldview, God is the cause of free will in an ultimate sense." But when does this happen? When does God cause the free will?

 

I'm just trying to get some mutual understanding and not to prove you wrong and such. Actually I truly find it interesting to discuss with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly all events you see have a cause, but when you make a decision it is either uncaused or caused, and if it is caused you don’t have a free will, but if it is uncaused then your observation is that the universe contains agents that don’t need cause. Just like quantum mechanics.

 

Hans,

 

Don't hate me for doing this but... :HaHa:

 

I need some help with understanding this. It's from a materialist's perspective.

 

First I'll give you what this guy defines free will as:

 

Definition of free will

 

First of all, we must clarify the meaning of the term to which we refer: Free will: a source totally detached from matter (detached from nature) which is the origin (cause) of options, thoughts, feelings,... That is, the absence of (natural) laws, the existence of an "autonomous mind", i.e. a principium individuationis. This definition is typical of the idealistic tradition, which relates free will with acausality (e.g., Kant1788). Free will in human beings is opposed to the idea of man as a machine typical of Frenchmaterialism, for instance in L’Homme Machine by La Mettrie (1749). Other topics which relate to the word "freedom" are not treated here: I do not treat the question of doing what one wants to do. This is a very simple question and has a very simple solution: of course you are free in that sense unless something or somebody forbids you from doing what you want (for instance, if you are in jail). My question is deeper than that: I wonder whether one really wants what he wants, whether the origin of what I want is mine or is an effect of natural laws; whether there is an "ego"separate from nature (dualism). This is a less trivial question and this is the topic which is referred by many classical philosophers when they debate about freedom; Hobbes (1654) and Schopenhauer (1841)are two noteworthy examples.

 

Okay, now this:

 

Counter−arguments (I): indeterminism does not imply free will

 

There are two options: determinism or indeterminism. In the case of determinism, the atoms of our body follow strictly deterministic physical laws, and there is no possibility of our intervening; we cannot generate the first cause for the motion of the atoms in our body, we are locked in a Laplacian mechanicism that does not leave space for freedom of will (for freedom of will as defined in the first section, not for naive popular notions about freedom). The case we are interested now is the second one, that of indeterminism. Let us imagine that quantum mechanics gives a correct theoretical framework in which to defend ontological indeterminism (not merely unpredictability). What about freedom of will in this case? Here, there might be free will but not necessarily because "indetermism does not imply free will." Of course, indeterminism is a necessary condition for freedom of will but it is not sufficient. The incompatibilist tradition long thought about the determinism when the question of free will arose and argued against determinism; this led many people to believe that determinism is the opposite of freedom of will. Among those authors confused by these implications were those who quickly applauded the achievements of quantum mechanics because it opened a new door on free will.

 

Assuming that discussion of free will is necessarily a discussion concerning necessity or contingency is wrong. As Kant said, freedom is neither nature nor chance. Philosophers or scientists who think that indeterminism gives freedom of will forget the rules of classical logic and claim that "(p −−> ¬q)implies (¬p −−> q)", where "p" stands for determinism and "q" stands for freedom of will. This argument is false. For example, let us imagine building a robot that follows random laws. Is it free? Of course not. Indeterminism is not an absence of causation but the presence of non−deterministic causal processes(Fetzer 1988). I mean that "causality" is not necessarily determinism; we can understand "causality" in a more general sense: causality as "explanation" or "reason". An explanation of or the reason for an event means following a law (perhaps a statistical law), and the presence of laws is the absence of freewill. Quantum mechanics is indeterministic but it is not acausal. There is always a cause, an explanation or reason, for any phenomenon; for example, when an electron which is pushed towards another electron. Both electrons are repelled, and their positions and velocities are undetermined. The cause of repulsion is that we joint both electrons. The electrons are not free to choose their repulsion. Giving up fatalism derived from scientific materialism requires avoiding any idea of causality, avoiding any possible explanation for phenomena. When an act or election can be explained in terms of physical laws (even probabilistic laws), then we are including this action or election as a natural phenomenon. Therefore, we deny that the origin of this action or election comes from ourselves as something independent of nature, i.e. we deny free will.

Quantum mechanics and free will: counter−arguments

 

It seems that he is saying that there are still causes in an indeterministic system.

 

I, of course, agree in my layman's understanding, even with this materialistic view. I am also against the dualistic understanding that infotheorist puts forth (no offense at all intended because there are many others that do adhere to this thought system).

 

Whereas, it appears, materialists see consciousness arrising from the brain (a self contained system) and dualists see it arrising outside the brain (separate from nature), I, and others like me (holistic?), see is as being a part of nature (if my understandings are correct). It is not separate from any matter; it is present in everything.

 

Could you give me your understanding of that article if you have time to read it? :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, to explain myself, this is the reason why I am agnostic about these things and don't take a definitive stance that one side must be rather than the other. There are arguments on both sides and they weigh against each other. The contradictions and paradoxes clearly exists and we haven't solved them, but it doesn't make one to be able to claim certainty to either side.

 

The argument in the article is good, he bascially say that causes exists even for the quantum events, since they are self-caused. God is self-caused, and our will is self-caused. So how can one then say that quantum mechanics or our soul (with free will) is caused by God? If both those things are caused by God, we have to add one part to the "first principle" which is that causes must be caused too, not only events, and where do we have the observed phenomenom to prove that? On the other hand we have to claim that the self-causing free will and self-causing quantum mechanics are really effects from a previous cause (God). So either wayt the "first principle" is incomplete, and might lead to new problems if fixed. If self-causing agents are eternal, then our free will AND quantum mechanics are also eternal.

 

To add to it, what is god then? Non-causal and indeterministic? (That sounds like the explanations of the primordial state before BB, would that make god = universe?) What about the "God is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow" phrase. Is god chaotic or organized?

 

We have three kinds of "matter" here. God's free will, our free will and quantum events, and all three seems to be completely separated from each other. Yet we claim that two are not eternal and had to be created by the third one. Without evidence.

 

--edit--

 

And we'd have even more fun with these questions if we add miracles, that are supposedly divine interventions with natural order. If miracles can be observed, then we observe a universe that isn't uniform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, to explain myself, this is the reason why I am agnostic about these things and don't take a definitive stance that one side must be rather than the other. There are arguments on both sides and they weigh against each other. The contradictions and paradoxes clearly exists and we haven't solved them, but it doesn't make one to be able to claim certainty to either side.

 

The argument in the article is good, he bascially say that causes exists even for the quantum events, since they are self-caused. God is self-caused, and our will is self-caused. So how can one then say that quantum mechanics or our soul (with free will) is caused by God? If both those things are caused by God, we have to add one part to the "first principle" which is that causes must be caused too, not only events, and where do we have the observed phenomenom to prove that? On the other hand we have to claim that the self-causing free will and self-causing quantum mechanics are really effects from a previous cause (God). So either wayt the "first principle" is incomplete, and might lead to new problems if fixed. If self-causing agents are eternal, then our free will AND quantum mechanics are also eternal.

 

To add to it, what is god then? Non-causal and indeterministic? (That sounds like the explanations of the primordial state before BB, would that make god = universe?) What about the "God is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow" phrase. Is god chaotic or organized?

 

We have three kinds of "matter" here. God's free will, our free will and quantum events, and all three seems to be completely separated from each other. Yet we claim that two are not eternal and had to be created by the third one. Without evidence.

 

--edit--

 

And we'd have even more fun with these questions if we add miracles, that are supposedly divine interventions with natural order. If miracles can be observed, then we observe a universe that isn't uniform.

Don't you dare go and add miracles! :nono: My brian is short-circuiting as it is! :eek::grin:

 

 

Thank you so much for explaining that better. I agree with everything you said there. Sometimes, I just have to check with someone else to make sure that I am understanding it correctly or to help me where I'm not (okay...more than sometimes :) ). I knew I could count on you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?
Almost every scientific finding. Just like I said. With a transistor a small current can control a large current. There is no need to know how the causalities are. Do the currents influence each other? Is it ultimately correlation? Is it a law of big numbers? We don't care, just using the results. It is not "based on" causality. It does not matter.

Likewise with natural selection. Biologists do not spent time trying to find a cause for natural selection. Or with symptoms. If symptoms are correlated with a disease, the doctor is already very happy that he or she can diagnose. There is no need to go into causality. And for example in semiotics there is just a way in which signs are described in dyadic or triadic form. The nomenclature of things we yet cannot describe in verbal sentences is also science. There are a lot of hypothesis that do not care about a causality premise.

 

I still would like to know which disciplines, apart from the ones mentioned, formalizes hypothesis that explicitly address causality. Can you give me examples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose our world is a simulated world on a very large, big computer. Suppose that there are laws created by the computer programmer, so that we see that event x is always followed by event y. This will always be the case, because the algorithm is executed each time exactly the same way. But, is this causality? That one event follows the other is not a reason to believe that event x cannot but be followed by event y. Even not if it is the case that such an algorithm as above exist. Perhaps the programmer writes at a certain time somewhere into a memory slot something that an algorithm never would have done.

 

Or suppose there are two simulated universes. They can write into the memory of each other, but large parts are hidden to each other. There are in that case just cross-universe algorithms. But because large parts of the other universe are hidden, the result of the interaction would seem indeterministic.

 

Hypothesis that assume such different forms of causality or non-causality (in perhaps not a "simulated world" scenario, but boring physical terms), are the ones that address causality. All others are not based upon an axiom of causality or non-causality. They do not care about what kind of hidden interactions are possible, und su weiter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you dare go and add miracles! :nono: My brian is short-circuiting as it is! :eek::grin:

But the idea of miracles does make it more interesting! :)

 

If the Universe is uniform and predictable, and miracles are not, then with how can one claim miracles and yet claim observed undeniable evidence for uniformity???

 

Thank you so much for explaining that better. I agree with everything you said there. Sometimes, I just have to check with someone else to make sure that I am understanding it correctly or to help me where I'm not (okay...more than sometimes :) ). I knew I could count on you!

I'm glad that I could help. Actually, most of it came clearer from discussing it with IT and you. So many thanks to you and IT for helping me see these things better than before. :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...we cannot generate the first cause for the motion of the atoms in our body,

 

:banghead: IMHO here in lies the problem: Even materialists think dualistacally as in, "I am/we are trapped in a determined body."

 

 

:nono: There is nothing to be trapped. We are not body and soul as most this community would agree, but we are also not body and mind. We are bodymind, or in otherwords just body. I don''t own a body. I am a body. As a collecton of material in a material universe Ibody am actually connceted to the universe by virtue of being made of bits of it. Ibody am one of the many things the universe is doing as a universe.

 

The connection is actual not spiritual. That is there is no duality involved. Do Ibody feel separate from the universe? Does Ibody feel like I? Sometimes, but not all the time. This Iness is a convenient and sometimes inconvenient fiction produced produced by the body. This body would make a guess that the feeling of Iness is an evolutionary construct that facilitates more complex social interactions than an Iless ant is capable of.

 

This body makes that guess from years of observation that the feeling of Iness is most acute when around or dealing with others. The feeling is least acute when in deep sleep during which little or no social interaction is possible. But there are many other times in the day that this body is not aware of its Iness and this body has learned to dump Iness via meditation. This body is so very used to coming back into I awareness state that the I awareness state seems seamless, but it is not. In the same manner that my body fills its blind spot with conjecture about what is there it also fills the non-I moments with the conjecture that I was there, but I wasn't.

 

-----------------------------------------------

I agree with SaviorMachine's idea that causation and correlation are difficult and in most cases impossible separate. I would add that the bodymind deals with correlation better than with causation and the correlation bias has been sufficent for survival though of course it causes trouble from time to time by being mistaken.

 

Even when science is able to find a chain of causation, that knowledge, if useable, is used in a correlative manner in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good things Chef.

 

I think the conflict of causation and correlation is mostly messed up because of our excellent ability to recognize patterns. We see something that fits into a patter we've learned by experience, and we draw conclusions from it. It's beneficial from a evolutionary process that we have it, but it also sometimes makes us confused when the intuition say one thing and facts/formulas say something else. The world wasn't made so it would make sense to us. The world just is, and we're stuck within it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'HanSolo' date='Mar 29 2007, 09:10 AM' post='266264']

Actually I think it is very well established through experiments. I don't know how exactly but it is not just an assumption or hypothesis.

 

Alright Hans, I thought I would throw one last (probably not last, but I will say last for now) bone your way. Thanks to you guys I have read more quantum physics than I ever wanted to in my life. Quite frankly, I think I am done with quantum physics until something new arrives.

 

I had mentioned that it was not proven that quantum physics violates causality. You responded as above and pointed to the casimir effect. Take a look at the Bohr-Einstein debate (maybe you already have). Right from the beginning we have the 2 camps (determinsim vs. indeterminism). Those 2 camps are still alive today because it has not been proven that causality in fact does not exist at the subatomic level. If it has been proven, give me a primary source so that I am not overlooking something. Heisenberg's principle to this day is still the uncertainty principle, not the uncasality principle. My whole point is that it is entirely theorectically possible that you and Bohr were correct, but that is not definitive. Again, any experiment that has been done in the area of quantum physics, whether light is transmitted through slits or electrons are bounced of photo plates, the experimenters are using a cause and examining the effect.

 

I am not trying to prove you wrong, but I just wanted to say that scientifically quantum physics cannot altogether rule out causality. You had also mentioned that quantum fluctuations happen all of the time. I could not find that to be the case either. It takes a long time for quantum fluctuations to be observed. And if we work the model backwards in time to 10-43 seconds, the incidence of quantum fluctuations would theoretically go to 1 chance in infinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. The debate is going on if there is hidden variables to which the quantum mechanics are bound to. But then again, that means that the system (laws of physics) are completely deterministic. How does "free will" modify laws of physics? If all that you observe can be determined through formulas, then either your mind is too, or your mind can bend the rules of physics and then all of a sudden we can observe the deterministic laws physics not following those formulas. You can't both have the cake and eat it too.

 

Put it this way, if I knew the formulas to which QM follows, and I put a probe into someones brain and checked on one nerve in there. Would I be able to determine the outcome of the signals or not?

 

The beauty of QM was that is saved philosophers from the idea that consciousness is an automata.

 

And really, IT, do you believe in miracles? If you do, do they bend the rules of physics? Can you calculate when and where next miracle will occur? If not, then wouldn't miracles be something that is observable as a *not* part of physical and natural cause-and-effects? So if that can be observed, than to say that all the proof of cause-and-effect is that everything we observe always and everywhere is this way is not so.

 

Do you follow what I'm trying to say?

 

One premise is: all events and everything that exists follows cause-and-affect because that's what we have observed to 100%.

 

Second premise: miracles are not following cause-and-effect, and neither are free will, so we can observe events that are not cause-and-effect, so the 100% observation in first premise is inaccurate.

 

Sorry if it's incoherent, I'm at work and had to quickly throw this together.

 

-edit-

 

I got a few more seconds,

 

Take a pool table. I hit a ball that hits another ball. I observe the cause-and-effect. If I place all balls the same way as I started and hit the ball exactly the same way, I would get the same results. Observation leads to conclusion, it is contingent.

 

Now, free will is an external force that would cause one of these balls to sometimes roll to the left instead of the right. So in a system where free will exists, you would not get the same outcome each time you set it up the same way and hit the ball the same way. It is like you're having another party hitting one of the balls randomly each time.

 

My question is, which way do you really see nature and the world? Do you have a complete 100% cause-and-effect, including your will, or do you have a completely free will and you don't have a 100% cause-and-effect Universe?

 

And going back to QM, the question is of course still open if the quantum events are predictable or not. But the way it is looking right now, and how scientists are making sense out of it, is to accept they are self-caused.

 

My understanding of Quantum Fluctuations, Quantum Tunneling and many other processes is that they happens all the time. For instance, Quantum Tunneling is supposedly happening in all black holes constantly. And the estimated number of black holes are in the billions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole free will thing is a bit of a category mistake. Again, as finite creatures, we have finite free will. From a theistic perspective, it is easy to attribute the assigning of limited free will by God to finite creatures. I understand what you are trying to say with respect to free will and causality, but it doesn't help the evidence of the universe requiring a cause.

 

As a theist, I also believe in miracles. Miracles are supernatural events in the natural world. Science certainly cannot rule out miracles. That has never been the nature of science. Miracles are defined as miracles because they do defy the laws of nature. That is why they are the exception and not the rule; therefore, we could never predict if and when they would happen again.

 

See, I just can't stay away because it is so much fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The spirit is drawing you to us. :HaHa:

 

And I still have a problem accepting a premise where it is said that we only observe caused events, and yet claim to have a free will that is affecting the same system we claim is completely caused.

 

And I will leave it at that.

 

To tell you the truth, to look back at quantum mechanics etc, the problem in all this is: we don't know.

 

Therefore my conclusion is as many other times this: I am agnostic to it all. I do tend to believe more towards one side, but I don't claim to know for sure.

 

So with Quantum fluctuations, we can claim there is a hidden cause to them, but that is based on faith and not evidence. So far, no one knows for sure, and that's why we have the debates on both sides. If it could be proven, we wouldn't have the divide.

 

But it does lead to one thing, if QM is truly self-caused, then we are for real observing evidence against the first principle.

 

If QM is truly caused, then yes, first principle could apply, but we do not have any evidence that this is the case yet. So first principle can be kept as a hypothetical formulation, but it can't be claimed to be evident. If it can be said to be evident, you unfortunately have to prove to the worlds scientists that Quantum fluctutions, tunneling, casimir, etc... are caused. Are you up to that challenge?

 

Do you see what I'm saying? First principle rely on that QM is proven to be caused. Since no such proof exists, First principle is still in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a theist, I also believe in miracles. Miracles are supernatural events in the natural world. Science certainly cannot rule out miracles. That has never been the nature of science. Miracles are defined as miracles because they do defy the laws of nature. That is why they are the exception and not the rule; therefore, we could never predict if and when they would happen again.

Well, then if you observe a miracle, you observe an event that is NOT caused by nature. But the first premise is that all events are caused by nature, since that is the claim of what we observe.

 

Unless you state it as such:

 

We most of the time, but not always, can observe that events have a cause. In some situations the events are not caused by an internal force of nature, but an external and unknown force.

 

And my problem is as follows, "most of the time" doesn't lead to an absolute conclusion.

 

(I just keep on reiterating the same concept in different wordings. I just don't know how to say it to make sense for you.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey man, no problem. You don't have to word in any better fashion to have it make sense to me. I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't make sense through the lens of my worldview. Using the same evidence you use, I come to another conclusion. So for now, we agree to disagree. That's OK. My view is consistent with itself and reality, even though you would disagree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey man, no problem. You don't have to word in any better fashion to have it make sense to me. I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't make sense through the lens of my worldview. Using the same evidence you use, I come to another conclusion. So for now, we agree to disagree. That's OK. My view is consistent with itself and reality, even though you would disagree with that.

I like your attitude. And I'm all good in a mutual understanding of coming to different conclusions.

 

I'm just happy you didn't take me on the wild tour of presuppositionalism. (Hurts my fingers just to spell it!) :HaHa:

 

(Even though I think I do have some arguments against it finally, and I think I'm starting to understand it... Maybe I even have a possible answer to Hume's is/ought conflict. ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are too smart for your own good. Don't hurt yourself. By the way, I never used to get involved in deep discussions like this. I was always smart, but I did just enough to get by. When my wife and I first got married, our deepest discussion was how Anakin turned to the dark side. My how things change. Have a good one. The book is on the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the Anakin/Darth Vader transition was kind of weak. It wasn't convincing enough. Maybe the problem was more with the actors and how they portrayed their characters than the storyline? The story felt a bit stressed I think. Not building up the plot, almost rushed in a sense.

 

Anyway, looking forward to the book. (I think)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.