Free Will, Determinism, Forgiveness and Love.

[disillusioned]

I've given some thought to this over the past few years, but sadly I haven't really drawn any firm conclusions. I think that this is because I inevitably find myself running into a wall when I consider how to define "free will". Colloquially, we might define it as "the freedom to choose our actions", or something along those lines. But the problem is that this is not a properly rigorous definition for a serious discussion. What does it mean to choose? It seems to me that intelligence and, possibly, consciousness are involved, and neither of these concepts is particularly well understood either (at least not by me). So I usually answer the question of free will as Christopher Hitchens used to by saying "Of course I have free will; I have no choice but to have it." This is clever, but unsatisfactory. So I'm very interested to see where this discussion goes.

 

Can anyone here offer a robust definition of "free will"?

[possibility]

Hi Josh

I forget that the lions are roaming freely out here.

(Note to self: they're not ticklish. They're liable to take it for poking, and eat you.) 

 

I'll be the first to admit that my skin is far from thick. I hate to disappoint you, Josh, but I'm not here for a battle of wits. You'd have me curled up in a foetal position crying in no time. So yes, the apologist crack was a cheap shot, and I apologise. I was commenting on other knee jerk reactions to infinite replication that suggest possible emotional ties to this position of being 'opposed to Christianity', rather than genuine truth seeking regardless of our desires. So yes, you are also making an excellent point here and I do agree with you on this, although I disagree that it applies here. I thought I had requested further explanation but, prefaced by my snarky comment, I can see how you might not have read it that way. I don't reject the theory - I just haven't found it particularly useful in my experience in terms of answering the questions we tend to have about life. Hence the request. I still don't, but I'm fully prepared to discuss (not debate), if you'll pardon my struggles with the intellectual language.

 

My personal approach to truth seeking recognises that we reach a point in our knowledge and understanding where there is no 'objective' way to prove a theory. This area often forms the basis for our personal belief systems, because there is no conclusive evidence available to prove or disprove. I find that determinism vs free will is one of those areas, and the theory of infinite replication is one of many possible theories that I would find difficult to prove or disprove (although that could be just me). In examining my own belief system, however, I find that, if 'objectivity' is really just a general or overwhelming consensus of subjective experience (another discussion, perhaps?), then is it possible for me to test theories by examining them in relation to as many varied subjective experiences as possible? That is why I'm here, and I have already made a number of adjustments to my personal belief system in the few days I have been here, so I appreciate everyone's input.

 

I want to share with you my subjective experience in this instance, because I think some of you deserve a little honesty for your genuine attempts to engage Christians in serious debate. It might also help you to a bit gentler with them when they don't reply straight away, or at all. 

My initial response to Josh's post originated in the limbic system: knot in the stomach, temperature rise, heartbeat racing, adrenalin pumping. My resulting thought was: he's attacking me, so that's making me angry (bear with me here, Josh). I wanted to attack back, to defend myself, to make him see that he was overreacting to a joke and so desperate to find some deluded Christian to tear to shreds that he'd happily label me as one if he could. But Josh has been doing this a lot longer than me, so I needed to think about this some more before I replied.

 

If I apply my own work-in-progress theories to the situation, the first thing I needed to do was to recognise anger as a destructive emotion and stop. Then, with patience and self control, gain control of my breath, my mind and my body, before taking an honest look at myself. What I discovered were some truths I was trying not to admit. So I will admit them here:

 

Truth #1: I'm not smart enough to go toe to toe with Josh over this. I can barely grasp the concept of infinite replication, let alone come up with a better one. 

 

Truth #2: I wasn't really angry - that rush of emotion was probably closer to fear and shame. That's a tricky one to admit. I did rush off that reply. I thought I was being so clever, but I didn't take my usual care with it because I was about to head out the door. It's no excuse. If I had have taken a few more minutes or even left it until I got back, I probably would have deleted it, or at least reworded it. But I find that, out of fear, shame, anger or despair (there might be more, I haven't got that far), we tend to prefer anger because of the favourable conditions it provides for our own benefit (according to evolutionary instinct). In my limited experience in forums, I have rarely seen anyone admit to feelings of fear or shame in the midst of a disagreement, or despair at the direction the argument is going, although my subjective experience suggests that people do have these feelings. They will either express anger, or they will depart (in anger). 

 

Truth #3: Josh's tone appears accusatory and itching for a fight, but I agree with his arguments if I take into account the assumptions he makes about me. 

 

You will find I might sometimes forget that when I use the word 'Christianity' here, it's usually the fundamental or American concept of Christianity that is assumed. From my experience in Australia, the environment of catholic education lends itself to students developing a spirituality that is less 'Christian' and more pantheistic, or at least more accommodating to adjustment, in a way that I think would horrify most church leaders. As the global institution itself appears corrupted beyond repair, it presents an opportunity for revolution - for either changing the system or bringing it down by operating from the bottom upwards. Again that's my personal view, and so its open for discussion, too. 

 

And I believe I am genuinely seeking truth, regardless of my desires.

 

sorry this took so long...I have a lot to process, as well as work and family commitments...

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Current situation?

 

 

 

@bornagainathiest

 

The setting of this forum, this very conversation which I'm referring to as the current situation (CS). 

 

We find a discussion started by RC debating in his own mind between free will and determinism. We all then join in and take up thinking about it as well. There's some difference in opinion. One person felt compelled to liken you, I and others as to carrying on in similar ways to apologists at apologetic websites. I challenge the logic behind such a conclusion. It plays on...

 

Now according to the theory are we to assume right now that the CS has taken place exactly like this, some where far away, in an infinite space? 

 

And are we also to assume that that's the only reason the CS is even taking place at all, right now? 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, possibility said:

Hi Josh

I forget that the lions are roaming freely out here.

(Note to self: they're not ticklish. They're liable to take it for poking, and eat you.) 

 

I'll be the first to admit that my skin is far from thick. I hate to disappoint you, Josh, but I'm not here for a battle of wits. You'd have me curled up in a foetal position crying in no time. So yes, the apologist crack was a cheap shot, and I apologise. I was commenting on other knee jerk reactions to infinite replication that suggest possible emotional ties to this position of being 'opposed to Christianity', rather than genuine truth seeking regardless of our desires. So yes, you are also making an excellent point here and I do agree with you on this, although I disagree that it applies here. I thought I had requested further explanation but, prefaced by my snarky comment, I can see how you might not have read it that way. I don't reject the theory - I just haven't found it particularly useful in my experience in terms of answering the questions we tend to have about life. Hence the request. I still don't, but I'm fully prepared to discuss (not debate), if you'll pardon my struggles with the intellectual language.

 

My personal approach to truth seeking recognises that we reach a point in our knowledge and understanding where there is no 'objective' way to prove a theory. This area often forms the basis for our personal belief systems, because there is no conclusive evidence available to prove or disprove. I find that determinism vs free will is one of those areas, and the theory of infinite replication is one of many possible theories that I would find difficult to prove or disprove (although that could be just me). In examining my own belief system, however, I find that, if 'objectivity' is really just a general or overwhelming consensus of subjective experience (another discussion, perhaps?), then is it possible for me to test theories by examining them in relation to as many varied subjective experiences as possible? That is why I'm here, and I have already made a number of adjustments to my personal belief system in the few days I have been here, so I appreciate everyone's input.

 

I want to share with you my subjective experience in this instance, because I think some of you deserve a little honesty for your genuine attempts to engage Christians in serious debate. It might also help you to a bit gentler with them when they don't reply straight away, or at all. 

My initial response to Josh's post originated in the limbic system: knot in the stomach, temperature rise, heartbeat racing, adrenalin pumping. My resulting thought was: he's attacking me, so that's making me angry (bear with me here, Josh). I wanted to attack back, to defend myself, to make him see that he was overreacting to a joke and so desperate to find some deluded Christian to tear to shreds that he'd happily label me as one if he could. But Josh has been doing this a lot longer than me, so I needed to think about this some more before I replied.

 

If I apply my own work-in-progress theories to the situation, the first thing I needed to do was to recognise anger as a destructive emotion and stop. Then, with patience and self control, gain control of my breath, my mind and my body, before taking an honest look at myself. What I discovered were some truths I was trying not to admit. So I will admit them here:

 

Truth #1: I'm not smart enough to go toe to toe with Josh over this. I can barely grasp the concept of infinite replication, let alone come up with a better one. 

 

Truth #2: I wasn't really angry - that rush of emotion was probably closer to fear and shame. That's a tricky one to admit. I did rush off that reply. I thought I was being so clever, but I didn't take my usual care with it because I was about to head out the door. It's no excuse. If I had have taken a few more minutes or even left it until I got back, I probably would have deleted it, or at least reworded it. But I find that, out of fear, shame, anger or despair (there might be more, I haven't got that far), we tend to prefer anger because of the favourable conditions it provides for our own benefit (according to evolutionary instinct). In my limited experience in forums, I have rarely seen anyone admit to feelings of fear or shame in the midst of a disagreement, or despair at the direction the argument is going, although my subjective experience suggests that people do have these feelings. They will either express anger, or they will depart (in anger). 

 

Truth #3: Josh's tone appears accusatory and itching for a fight, but I agree with his arguments if I take into account the assumptions he makes about me. 

 

You will find I might sometimes forget that when I use the word 'Christianity' here, it's usually the fundamental or American concept of Christianity that is assumed. From my experience in Australia, the environment of catholic education lends itself to students developing a spirituality that is less 'Christian' and more pantheistic, or at least more accommodating to adjustment, in a way that I think would horrify most church leaders. As the global institution itself appears corrupted beyond repair, it presents an opportunity for revolution - for either changing the system or bringing it down by operating from the bottom upwards. Again that's my personal view, and so its open for discussion, too. 

 

And I believe I am genuinely seeking truth, regardless of my desires.

 

sorry this took so long...I have a lot to process, as well as work and family commitments...

 

At risk of sounding too apologetic, I must say, extremely excellent post!!!!!

 

Aussie spirit!!!

 

I'm a bit Aussie myself and have relatives down there. That's where I was kidding you along as well. How politically incorrect and misogynistic my tone may strike those reading along. lol 

 

As you may or may not notice, there's a lack of apologetic presence around here. People are likely to get pounced on by any one of us for sounding like an apologist. And calling us apologists, sounds to me like the angle of an apologist. Even if that were the case, if you asked me to stand down, I would stand down. This is good sporting fun, we're not complete savages. lol

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I've given some thought to this over the past few years, but sadly I haven't really drawn any firm conclusions. I think that this is because I inevitably find myself running into a wall when I consider how to define "free will". Colloquially, we might define it as "the freedom to choose our actions", or something along those lines. But the problem is that this is not a properly rigorous definition for a serious discussion. What does it mean to choose? It seems to me that intelligence and, possibly, consciousness are involved, and neither of these concepts is particularly well understood either (at least not by me). So I usually answer the question of free will as Christopher Hitchens used to by saying "Of course I have free will; I have no choice but to have it." This is clever, but unsatisfactory. So I'm very interested to see where this discussion goes.

 

Can anyone here offer a robust definition of "free will"?

 

Isn't it a biblical term and idea? I haven't researched it head on that deeply. So I'm interested in the definition myself. Mainly because I question the assumption that we have free will in the way that people intend when they use the term. It is a term used as an expression of freedom of choice. The god gives mankind the freedom to love him or not. 

 

But was it hijacked from previous thought, or was it really original to the bible? 

 

 

[possibility]

Thanks for the clarification, BAA 

As I mentioned, I find this discussion really interesting, partly because my gradually evolving theories (based on subjective experience) point to the possibility of both as well: that we are able to think and act as if we have free will, but that we live in a pre-determined universe such that, out of the seemingly unlimited choices we have as human beings, each choice that our particular consciousness freely makes in any given situation may have already been predicted and mapped out in order to achieve what, at this point, I can only refer to as an eternity of life. There is no God present here, but I have a theory that something akin to a blueprint or pattern of the entire cosmos is written into everything, and connects us to all matter in the same way that we are aware of a connection to our loved ones. 

But I'm a long way from defending this position or articulating it with any real confidence just yet. I'm still looking for opportunities to prove or disprove, as well as anything that may support or call into question my particular awareness, knowledge or understanding of anything, and I am making rapid adjustments as I go...

 

Sorry - back to the discussion:

 

While I've yet to be convinced that the universe is infinite, and therefore that infinite replication exists, I am comfortable dismissing the idea that our thoughts and actions will be judged, punished or rewarded by any kind of supernatural agent. 

 

I would like clarification on something, however. BAA, you state that "our lives do not acquire meaning in reference to anything else but ourselves", but later you suggest "that we live our lives unto ourselves and to each other, on an equal basis". Can you explain how you hold both these statements to be true? I don't quite see it at this stage.

[bornagainathiest]

1 hour ago, possibility said:

Thanks for the clarification, BAA 

As I mentioned, I find this discussion really interesting, partly because my gradually evolving theories (based on subjective experience) point to the possibility of both as well: that we are able to think and act as if we have free will, but that we live in a pre-determined universe such that, out of the seemingly unlimited choices we have as human beings, each choice that our particular consciousness freely makes in any given situation may have already been predicted and mapped out in order to achieve what, at this point, I can only refer to as an eternity of life. There is no God present here, but I have a theory that something akin to a blueprint or pattern of the entire cosmos is written into everything, and connects us to all matter in the same way that we are aware of a connection to our loved ones. 

But I'm a long way from defending this position or articulating it with any real confidence just yet. I'm still looking for opportunities to prove or disprove, as well as anything that may support or call into question my particular awareness, knowledge or understanding of anything, and I am making rapid adjustments as I go...

 

Sorry - back to the discussion:

 

No need to apologize, possibility.

I cannot speak for others, but it seems to me that here at Ex-C we are learning and evolving as we go.  Having left behind the notion of ultimate truth being handed down to us from on high, we therefore have to make our own way.  As such there will be errors, misunderstandings, false leads, blind alleys and so on.  Perhaps that's part and parcel of being human?

 

While I've yet to be convinced that the universe is infinite, and therefore that infinite replication exists, I am comfortable dismissing the idea that our thoughts and actions will be judged, punished or rewarded by any kind of supernatural agent. 

 

A point of order, if I may.

Nobody is convinced that the universe is infinite.  Not even scientists.  That's because it's impossible for us to definitively discover if it is or not.  When it comes to cosmology and the distant universe everything we observe and conclude from those observations is based upon inference and deduction.  For instance, we infer that the Pole Star (Polaris) exists today, but due to the speed of light, we'd have to wait about 430 years (2447 A.D.) to actually know that it existed in 2017.  So we proceed on the basis of available evidence, to make informed assumptions, to infer things and to deduce things.  If that's enough to persuade us, fine.  But this type of knowledge may not be enough to convince us.

 

I would like clarification on something, however. BAA, you state that "our lives do not acquire meaning in reference to anything else but ourselves", but later you suggest "that we live our lives unto ourselves and to each other, on an equal basis". Can you explain how you hold both these statements to be true? I don't quite see it at this stage.

 

My bad for not being more specific.

Let me adjust that sentence to make it read better.  "our lives do not acquire meaning in reference to anything else but ourselves - the human race"  This then changes the following sentence... "that we live our lives unto ourselves and to each other, on an equal basis - because we are humans and share in a common humanity".  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[possibility]

Quote

My bad for not being more specific.

Let me adjust that sentence to make it read better.  "our lives do not acquire meaning in reference to anything else but ourselves - the human race"  This then changes the following sentence... "that we live our lives unto ourselves and to each other, on an equal basis - because we are humans and share in a common humanity".

 

Thanks for clearing this up, BAA

Just for further clarification, can you tell me if that means you believe our lives do not acquire meaning in reference to other living things? Does it mean that we should live our lives only according to the needs, and for the exclusive benefit, of the human race?

Or am I reading it wrong again?

[RealityCheck]

On 4/26/2017 at 4:18 PM, bornagainathiest said:

 

Thanks for raising this fascinating subject, RC.

 

You ask for thoughts - so how about this?

My interest in cosmology has lead me to consider the following possibility.  Is it possible that we do and don't have free will?  Ok, this appears to be a paradox.  These two conditions should be mutually exclusive.  It should be impossible for us to make free choices, while not making free choices.  Yet, if we 'cheat' a little, there is a way of resolving this paradox.  I will explain, but keep the exact nature of the cheating secret until the end of this post.  

.

.

.

Below is an excerpt from this book... https://www.amazon.com/Infinite-Book-Boundless-Timeless-Endless/dp/1400032245

 

"Imagine living in a universe where nothing is original. Everything is a fake. No ideas are ever new. There is no novelty, no originality. Nothing is ever done for the first time and nothing will ever be done for the last time. Nothing is unique. Everyone possesses not just one double but an unlimited number of them.
This unusual state of affairs exists if the universe is infinite in spatial extent (volume) and the probability that life can develop is not equal to zero. It occurs because of the remarkable way in which infinity is quite different from any large finite number, no matter how large the number might be.
In a universe of infinite size, anything that has a non-zero probability of occurring must occur infinitely often. Thus at any instant of time—for example, the present moment—there must be an infinite number of identical copies of each of us doing precisely what each of us is now doing. There are also infinite numbers of identical copies of each one of us doing something other than what we are doing at this moment. Indeed, an infinite number of copies of each of us could be found at this moment doing anything that it was possible for us to do with a non-zero probability at this moment.

The spatial replication paradox has all sorts of odd consequences aside from the psychological unease it creates. We believe that the evolution of life is possible with non-zero probability because it has happened on Earth by natural means. Hence, in an infinite universe there must exist an infinite number of living civilizations. Within them will exist copies of ourselves of all possible ages. When each of us dies, there will always exist elsewhere an infinite number of copies of ourselves, possessing all the same memories and experiences of our past lives but who will live on to the future. This succession will continue indefinitely into the future and so in some sense each of us 'lives' forever." 

 

If we do inhabit such an infinite multiverse, then we inhabit a 'super-deterministic' reality.

 

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/superdeterminism.html

 

In such a reality, free will is an illusion.

In such a reality, we are not unique, but infinitely iterated across infinite space, endlessly repeating the same actions, thoughts and decisions of all of our doppelgangers.  In such a reality, everything that can happen in nature happens infinitely often.  The same events play out again and again and again... forever.  Such a reality would be like a fractal, endlessly repeating itself without ever producing anything new or novel.  The same self-similar patterns played and replayed... for eternity.

 

Q.

So, how can there be any free will in such a reality?

 

A.

There can't.  But there is a loophole (aka cheating) in this whole concept that would allow us to believe that we have free will.

 

It all comes down to a matter of scale.

Across the entire reality described above, none of us or any of our duplicates have any free will.  That is the widest possible view, with a scale that encompasses e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g.  However, on a purely LOCAL scale (our observable universe of 94,000,000,000 light years diameter) we have no duplicates.  Our nearest possible duplicate is much, much further away from us than this tiny distance.  (Many billions of multiples of this figure.)  Now, given the fact that we can never meet with any of our duplicates or even know if they exist, we will live out our lives in complete and total ignorance of them.  Any they of us.  Therefore, we can safely choose to believe that we are unique and that we possess free will, even if neither of these conditions is true.  

 

So, provided that we think locally and not cosmically, we can believe that we have free will.

We can also believe that we do and we don't have free will, by simultaneously considering both the local and cosmic frames of reference in our minds.  As we are doing right now - by reading these words and considering these concepts.

 

And there is the cheating resolution of the paradox.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You prove a valid point.  However, we will never be able to observe beyond the cosmic horizon of the universe to prove this as fact.  The best evidence I've seen for an infinite universe is space time being flat vs having a curvature.  If this is the case, the universe extends forever and does not curve back on itself like a 4 dimensional sphere.  Some experiments with quantum physics seem to imply a multiverse but until a means of directly observing those other universe is devised, I will hold some skepticism.  I am perfectly contend to leave that in the real of "we don't know".

 

[RealityCheck]

Rather than trying to quote everyone, I'll reduce everything the following.  Is the universe governed by causality?  Our minds exist in the universe and hence exist in causality.  Therefore, there is no free will as our thoughts and actions all have a cause.  This relates to my OP because it means that the transgressions committed against you were the product of a long chain of cause and effect.  Holding resentment would then be as pointless as being angry at a hurricane that knocked down your house.  We are just a force of nature, nothing more.  However, this also means that those who love and help you do so for the same reason.  Because of this, the appreciation of love would be equally as pointless.

If the choices exist outside of causality, then you could label free will as something supernatural (beyond the natural world).  That in itself opens up a whole other can of worms...

[disillusioned]

Again, I think the root problem here is that "free will" is not well defined. And why should it be? As I said before, consciousness is involved, and consciousness is tricky to nail down. And this should not be surprising. There is no reason that issues of this nature should be comprehensible to humans. I suspect that these are questions which will never be answered, and that the true answers (if they exist) might not make sense to us anyways.

[bornagainathiest]

5 hours ago, RealityCheck said:

You prove a valid point.  However, we will never be able to observe beyond the cosmic horizon of the universe to prove this as fact.  The best evidence I've seen for an infinite universe is space time being flat vs having a curvature.  If this is the case, the universe extends forever and does not curve back on itself like a 4 dimensional sphere.  Some experiments with quantum physics seem to imply a multiverse but until a means of directly observing those other universe is devised, I will hold some skepticism.  I am perfectly contend to leave that in the real of "we don't know".

 

 

Thanks RC.

 

Yes and Yes.  It's accepted that what I propose is tentative and that we don't know and may never know.

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

6 hours ago, possibility said:

 

Thanks for clearing this up, BAA

Just for further clarification, can you tell me if that means you believe our lives do not acquire meaning in reference to other living things? Does it mean that we should live our lives only according to the needs, and for the exclusive benefit, of the human race?

Or am I reading it wrong again?

 

No, possibility.

I phrased my comments to address the issues of forgiveness and love between humans.  But of course we humans don't just acquire meaning from each other.  As a gardener I'm acutely aware of our place in the global ecosystem.  Denying that place seems utter foolishness to me. Quite how we should go about understanding meaning in reference to nature, I'm not sure.  But I believe that it must be a worthwhile exercise to try.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

5 hours ago, RealityCheck said:

Rather than trying to quote everyone, I'll reduce everything the following.  Is the universe governed by causality?  Our minds exist in the universe and hence exist in causality.  Therefore, there is no free will as our thoughts and actions all have a cause.  This relates to my OP because it means that the transgressions committed against you were the product of a long chain of cause and effect.  Holding resentment would then be as pointless as being angry at a hurricane that knocked down your house.  We are just a force of nature, nothing more.  However, this also means that those who love and help you do so for the same reason.  Because of this, the appreciation of love would be equally as pointless.

If the choices exist outside of causality, then you could label free will as something supernatural (beyond the natural world).  That in itself opens up a whole other can of worms...

 

Hmmm...how about this, RC?

 

Quantum phenomenon appear to blur the edges of causality.  In Classical physics cause-and-effect cannot be violated, but in Quantum physics there seems to be room for maneuver.  This could a loophole by which love and forgiveness can acquire meaning without resorting to the supernatural.   Speculating...ok?

[Joshpantera]

15 hours ago, possibility said:

While I've yet to be convinced that the universe is infinite, and therefore that infinite replication exists, I am comfortable dismissing the idea that our thoughts and actions will be judged, punished or rewarded by any kind of supernatural agent. 

 

Ok, you've let us know you're learning. 

 

So let's consider something no one so far has bothered mentioning. How often have you considered the alternative to existence as an infinite and eternal realm of realms? 

 

Think about it, deeply. If you're tempted to claim a fixed beginning you'll find yourself facing a loss at the question of what was before that beginning. If you say nothing was before that beginning, then you have to figure out how something has emerged from absolute nothing. Is that even possible? 

 

This doesn't rely on cosmology, it's philosophical. 

 

You end up with either infinite existence or an infinite regression of beginnings that were never really were beginnings. That becomes infinite too, but it's infinite regression. What will it be, infinity directly or infinity by way of the long way around? 

 

We can easily deduce that there's no good alternative. The details are foggy. Which theory can 'correctly explain' an all but certain reality of our existing within an infinite and eternal realm, may be questionable at times. BAA and I have not spoken about this recently, but we have several years ago. I seem confident about infinite space models because of my experience so far in thinking about the futility of conceptualizing an alternative. 

 

Now, having said that, when I read BAA's post about infinite replication of anything with a non-zero probability of occurring, I already well understand the futility of questioning (1) a necessarily infinite expanse of 'some type' and therefore understand what BAA means when he mentions (2) the immediate implications of anything with a non-zero probability of occurring.

 

My previous question has so far been missed by BAA. 

 

But the above philosophical background would go a long way in better understanding where I'm going with it. 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

On 29/04/2017 at 0:16 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

@bornagainathiest

 

The setting of this forum, this very conversation which I'm referring to as the current situation (CS). 

 

We find a discussion started by RC debating in his own mind between free will and determinism. We all then join in and take up thinking about it as well. There's some difference in opinion. One person felt compelled to liken you, I and others as to carrying on in similar ways to apologists at apologetic websites. I challenge the logic behind such a conclusion. It plays on...

 

Now according to the theory are we to assume right now that the CS has taken place exactly like this, some where far away, in an infinite space? 

 

And are we also to assume that that's the only reason the CS is even taking place at all, right now? 

 

 

 

Yes, I see that I overlooked this, Josh.  Sorry 'bout that.

 

Now according to the theory are we to assume right now that the CS has taken place exactly like this, some where far away, in an infinite space?

 

As far as I understand the workings of the infinite replication paradox, Yes.

Any event that has a non zero probability of occurring in an infinite universe will be iterated infinitely often.  This thread has played itself out infinitely often, is playing itself infinitely often and will play itself it infinitely often.  In his book, 'Our Cosmic Habitat', here's what the Astronomer Royal Martin Rees has to say about this kind of repetition in reality.

 

"In this expanse of space, far beyond the horizon of our observations, the combinatorial possibilities are so immense that close replicas of our Earth and biosphere would surely exist, however improbable life itself may be. Indeed, in a sufficiently colossal cosmos there would, somewhere, be exact replicas not just of our Earth, but of the entire domain (containing billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars) that lies within the range of our telescopes."

 

Rees is saying that our entire observable universe would be replicated down to the last atom, in a sufficiently large cosmos.

But if the cosmos were infinite and not just colossal, then it would be replicated not just once or a million times, it would be replicated an infinite number of times.  That's how a fractal works.  All patterns, no matter at what scale, are repeated... endlessly.

 

And are we also to assume that that's the only reason the CS is even taking place at all, right now?

 

Ah... good question!

I don't think I can answer that one, because Disillusioned has raised the very valid point that we don't have a robust definition of free will.  If we did, then we could factor that into the answering of your question.  On a purely mathematical and statistical level, the CS is just another iteration in an infinity of iterations.  But as I've already pointed out, cause-and-effect are somewhat blurred in the quantum realm.  So a strictly mathematical understanding of the CS may not be a valid one, perhaps generating a loophole in the infinite replication paradox too.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 4/30/2017 at 2:29 PM, bornagainathiest said:

Now according to the theory are we to assume right now that the CS has taken place exactly like this, some where far away, in an infinite space?

 

As far as I understand the workings of the infinite replication paradox, Yes.

Any event that has a non zero probability of occurring in an infinite universe will be iterated infinitely often.  This thread has played itself out infinitely often, is playing itself infinitely often and will play itself it infinitely often.

 

So then the thoughts, feelings and reactions we've all had to one another in this discussion were all pre determined, right? 

 

It's not as if possibility and I could have reacted to one another any differently, I'm assuming. And at the same time we were meant to meet and converse. I see a situation here where one could take the unfolding of reality as, "meant to be." It seems as if we're talking about fate, in a certain way. We were never free to think or act any differently.

 

I can look back at, "all the girls I've loved before...", with the notion of each of us meant to meet when we did, in the ways that we met, and that we were meant to love each other for either a duration or indefinitely. And in some cases, we were meant to meet young in life and then again at mid age. I've had that happen before. Love still present after years of isolation. All meant to be. But the flip side is that even something like the horrors of my ex-wife making a complete whore of herself up at the hospital, is just as meant to be as anything else. I can take a very peaceful or Zen-like position on life and existence. I can be at peace in the face of adversity, drama, etc., through a focus on philosophy of science and it's implications.

 

And while this is speculative thought, it seems extremely probable that we do exist in an infinite and eternal realm by way of very logical deduction, and by extension that all of the implications do apply. 

 

On 4/30/2017 at 2:29 PM, bornagainathiest said:

Rees is saying that our entire observable universe would be replicated down to the last atom, in a sufficiently large cosmos.

But if the cosmos were infinite and not just colossal, then it would be replicated not just once or a million times, it would be replicated an infinite number of times.  That's how a fractal works.  All patterns, no matter at what scale, are repeated... endlessly.

 

This coincides with philosophical insights I was having on a private board for world pantheism members. Existence exists, because absolute non-existence of anything is impossible. This was to try and answer the question of why does anything exist to begin with? Because the absolute non-existence of anything at all, is impossible. I may be wrong, but this seems to serve as a philosophy of science against the infinite replication paradox. 

 

On 4/30/2017 at 2:29 PM, bornagainathiest said:

And are we also to assume that that's the only reason the CS is even taking place at all, right now?

 

Ah... good question!

I don't think I can answer that one, because Disillusioned has raised the very valid point that we don't have a robust definition of free will.  If we did, then we could factor that into the answering of your question.  On a purely mathematical and statistical level, the CS is just another iteration in an infinity of iterations.  But as I've already pointed out, cause-and-effect are somewhat blurred in the quantum realm.  So a strictly mathematical understanding of the CS may not be a valid one, perhaps generating a loophole in the infinite replication paradox too.

 

Notice the philosophical argument I just mentioned lurking behind my question. The only reason anything exists right now in the CS, is because of the fact that it's happening now and therefore can not be any other way. Absolute non existence of anything is impossible per the replication paradox because it's all that ever was, is, or shall ever be. Always there, always replicating. There can not be a situation where nothing exists, or that none of this has ever happened or never will happen again. The infinite replication sharpens up the philosophy of existence. 

 

In edition, the futility of doubting eternal existence along with the necessary implications of eternal existence, seem like a powerful way of pushing the limits of certainty. The science along side of the pantheistic philosophy of existence seems pretty good. Let me know if you think that it isn't. I'm curious to know how or why someone could establish that it wouldn't be. And whether or not we can establish a robust definition of free will, I don't know.

 

Free Will: The freedom to do any different than what is already pre-determined? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[possibility]

Ok, thanks again BAA, and I don't mean to keep interrupting your intellectual discussion with questions and observations that appear trivial in comparison. It is an interesting discussion, and I am researching all of it and attempting to follow it at my own level. (Josh, I see your point about looking for an alternative - it makes more sense from that perspective).

 

I wanted to clear up your statements, BAA, mainly because my own understanding of forgiveness and love pertains to animals and plants as well as all matter in much the same way as it pertains to our relationship with humanity. But I'm pretty sure now that you already take that as a given, even though you don't mention it here.

 

I want to clear something else up here, too. I can grasp the concepts that you're talking about, but only to a certain extent, and I certainly can't offer an alternative way of looking at it at this level (sorry Josh). I'm reserving judgement either way because: firstly, I don't think I'm intellectually qualified to weigh in; and secondly, those who sound more qualified can't reach an agreement, and likely never will. But that doesn't mean I am ignoring the debate going on around me, and I don't think I should just shut up and let the big people talk. The purpose of these discussions is to be able to apply it to our own reasoning, to how we think and act in our lives, and also to adjust our own preconceived belief and assumptions. So I'm trying to fill in the gaps from my own intellectual position.

For what it's worth I did study Calculus and Trig in high school, even though I barely managed to pass and never used it since, but looking back I think the experience taught me more about my cognitive ability (and lack thereof) than it did about mathematics. I could actually understand the concepts and even do the examples, but in a test situation I struggled to apply the concepts correctly and couldn't see where my errors were until they were pointed out. I'm beyond caring how smart you think I am - I mention this because I recognise that my level of cognitive ability allows me to be aware of and even know how these abstract concepts work, but unfortunately I need some help to explain how it applies to what this brain of mine can actually control (i.e. my thoughts and actions), and at a slightly less intellectual level.

So when your real-life application assumes my brain's ability to broaden the concept and then apply it to everything else, you actually fail to provide a complete workable theory for the majority of the population, and create a gap in our understanding. And don't think others aren't reading this and trying to learn from it just because they haven't contributed to the discussion. Personally I'm not afraid to sound like an idiot in order to clarify the concept for others who might be struggling to grasp or apply it. I'm letting the waves of condescension roll over me, and just trying to keep my head above the water...

My husband is a specialist mathematics teacher at high school, and he has pointed out that the majority of the population do not, and likely never will, have sufficient cognitive ability to grasp and independently apply concepts that are this abstract, no matter how much effort they put in. So when we think we get it, but then in application demonstrate that we clearly don't get it, try not to get too frustrated. The onus is actually on you guys to explain the broadness of the concept at a range of intellectual levels, rather than expect the rest of us to just get smarter. Otherwise you unintentionally either lead us down the wrong path (eg. to assume that we only have to live for ourselves) or you leave us behind, clinging to the misguided beliefs and assumptions that we already know how to apply to our thoughts and actions. For what it's worth, I think this is the biggest problem with the bible, but that's another discussion.

 

So try not to dismiss my ramblings as a statement of the obvious, and consider them as an attempt at a less intellectual method of applying of the same concept. Just kindly let me know if I'm on the right track or not. And I'll try not to sound like an apologist when I play the devil's advocate...

 

I think the Golden Rule (without applying the concepts of determinism or free will) can be effective at some levels, but it only applies if we find value in the relationship between ourselves and the person who hurt us. If it matters to you to receive love and forgiveness from that person, then you would be more willing to love and forgive them according to the Golden Rule. If, on the other hand, that person is a stranger, an outsider, or a faceless name on the Internet, for instance, then the potential love and forgiveness they offer seems to hold less value, and therefore the Golden Rule has less impact on our willingness to forgive.

Also, forgiveness and love may be more difficult to feel like we can freely choose than the Golden Rule suggests, depending on the extent of the injury felt. There would be other factors involved, but let's just look at these two, otherwise I'll be here all day.

 

So the Golden Rule appears to lose its effectiveness relative to the value of the relationship, as well as to the seriousness of the injury - unless you can apply the concept of determinism. Because in addition to employing the Golden Rule, we need to recognise that the actions of others are less a product of intended harm than of a combination of circumstances, life experiences and resulting beliefs and assumptions.

 

I'm going to share a subjective experience here, relating to forgiveness and love. About three years ago I plunged into a personal crisis that was endangering my 18 year marriage. The crisis had actually been there the whole time, but an unrelated crisis in my husband's family brought it to the fore. While it might have been easier to give up on the marriage, to admit that I didn't think I loved him enough, or to embark on an affair (trust me, I was exploring the options), I chose instead to explore the possibility that this personal crisis was arising from possible misguided beliefs and assumptions I had about sexuality. Because in the midst of a childhood filled with catholic ignorance and readily associating sexuality with shame, I had also been subjected to a handful of incidents that I would describe as mild sexual abuse by my brother over four years beginning in early adolescence. I never told anyone (except my husband much later) and I thought I had emerged unscathed, but there was a hidden impact resonating through all my relationships, that had a lot to do with misguided judgement.

I am not, by nature, a confrontational person, so the process by which I came through this crisis was mostly internal and involved plenty of journaling and learning about sexuality from a broader perspective. The potential to negatively impact my entire family (including my children) was very real, so for that reason I didn't think it was fair to bring it all out in the open and let punishment (legal or otherwise) do its work. But I certainly don't think the Golden Rule would have inspired me to forgive anyone (including myself) at the time.

My process towards forgiveness involved developing awareness, knowledge and understanding - without judgement - of the circumstances and life experiences that contributed firstly to my own beliefs and assumptions in relation to my marriage, to sexual relationships in general and to what happened to me, then those that contributed to my brother's beliefs and assumptions, and resulting thoughts and actions at the time, and finally those that contributed to my parents', even all the way back into their own childhood experiences. The more I discovered and understood about the cause and effect relationships involved, the more it helped me, not to absolve anyone of responsibility, but to see that their individual agency (and mine) in what transpired was much smaller than it first appeared, and that none of us deserved the full extent of the blame I had been attributing. It was an informed compassion for their circumstances (and mine) that allowed me to forgive. I have since written letters of acknowledgement and forgiveness to both my father and brother that I have not mailed (my father has since passed away), and my relationship with my husband has never been stronger or healthier.

 

But this means that we also need to apply the concept of free will (as in our ability to choose thoughts and actions based on intellectual reasoning rather than led purely by emotion), regardless of how futile it might appear at the universal (or multi-universal) level. Because we will not stop or prevent cycles of abuse, injury and violence, or the resulting shame and silent oppression, by simply choosing forgiveness and love enforced by the Golden Rule, but by also choosing to develop awareness, seek knowledge and strive for understanding - that is, by combining compassion and reasoning free of judgement, boundaries and limitations.

 

Am I close?

[bornagainathiest]

possibility,

 

Please be patient.  Your message covers a lot of ground and I'd like to do it justice.  I'll do so later this week.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[possibility]

No worries BAA

in the meantime, me and my inferiority complex will continue our little disagreement in private (she's standing here with her head in her hands saying "seriously, just stop posting - you're only making it worse!").

Please ignore my defensive position in my ramblings. Josh, RC and yourself have actually been really patient and helpful to me. It's been enlightening.

[Joshpantera]

21 hours ago, possibility said:

The onus is actually on you guys to explain the broadness of the concept at a range of intellectual levels, rather than expect the rest of us to just get smarter. Otherwise you unintentionally either lead us down the wrong path (eg. to assume that we only have to live for ourselves) or you leave us behind, clinging to the misguided beliefs and assumptions that we already know how to apply to our thoughts and actions. For what it's worth, I think this is the biggest problem with the bible, but that's another discussion.

 

Both BAA and I usually go to lengths making sure that we don't mislead anyone. We try to be as clear as possible. And if that fails, we both usually apply efforts to clarify. The CS is no exception. If you want further clarification, we're happy to give it as far as I know. Each from our own perspective. 

 

21 hours ago, possibility said:

So try not to dismiss my ramblings as a statement of the obvious, and consider them as an attempt at a less intellectual method of applying of the same concept. Just kindly let me know if I'm on the right track or not. And I'll try not to sound like an apologist when I play the devil's advocate...

 

Sounds fair to me. If you clarify devils advocate, what else could I think of it? And I accept the same discourse on clarity. If I spew off some drifty sounding thing, let me know. I hate it when I do that because clarity is what I'm usually aiming for, and I don't enjoy missing the mark.

 

21 hours ago, possibility said:

So the Golden Rule appears to lose its effectiveness relative to the value of the relationship, as well as to the seriousness of the injury - unless you can apply the concept of determinism. Because in addition to employing the Golden Rule, we need to recognise that the actions of others are less a product of intended harm than of a combination of circumstances, life experiences and resulting beliefs and assumptions.

 

Are you agreeing with my positive perspective in the last post about determinism not being so bad after all? 

 

21 hours ago, possibility said:

I'm going to share a subjective experience here, relating to forgiveness and love. About three years ago I plunged into a personal crisis that was endangering my 18 year marriage. The crisis had actually been there the whole time, but an unrelated crisis in my husband's family brought it to the fore. While it might have been easier to give up on the marriage, to admit that I didn't think I loved him enough, or to embark on an affair (trust me, I was exploring the options), I chose instead to explore the possibility that this personal crisis was arising from possible misguided beliefs and assumptions I had about sexuality. Because in the midst of a childhood filled with catholic ignorance and readily associating sexuality with shame, I had also been subjected to a handful of incidents that I would describe as mild sexual abuse by my brother over four years beginning in early adolescence. I never told anyone (except my husband much later) and I thought I had emerged unscathed, but there was a hidden impact resonating through all my relationships, that had a lot to do with misguided judgement.

 

I'm here to help people according to the objective of this website, which BBA always makes clear of himself as well. We're pretty well seasoned ex-christians who can offer help in various ways. Why do I care about faceless people online? I suppose I'm just naturally humanistic in that way, by extension of my pantheistic views. 

 

21 hours ago, possibility said:

But this means that we also need to apply the concept of free will (as in our ability to choose thoughts and actions based on intellectual reasoning rather than led purely by emotion), regardless of how futile it might appear at the universal (or multi-universal) level. Because we will not stop or prevent cycles of abuse, injury and violence, or the resulting shame and silent oppression, by simply choosing forgiveness and love enforced by the Golden Rule, but by also choosing to develop awareness, seek knowledge and strive for understanding - that is, by combining compassion and reasoning free of judgement, boundaries and limitations.

 

Am I close?

 

What's going here is that it looks like you're aiming for an affirmation world view. We can reject the world, embrace the world as it is, or think that we're going to restore the world to a perfect condition. That's negation, affirmation, and restoration. The philosophy of infinite replication that we're discussing is very affirmation oriented from what I'm seeing. And that works well for cases like your own were you've endured some of the horrors of life that can haunt your mind for years. You're expressing a perspective that allows you to take a positive outlook in the face of adversity. In my book, that's very admirable. Seeing positive in the negative.

 

That was something I found admirable about RC's opening post as well.  

 

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again, possibility!

 

I've decided to split my reply to you into two halves.  Here is part # 1.

.

.

.

Ok, thanks again BAA, and I don't mean to keep interrupting your intellectual discussion with questions and observations that appear trivial in comparison. It is an interesting discussion, and I am researching all of it and attempting to follow it at my own level. (Josh, I see your point about looking for an alternative - it makes more sense from that perspective).

 

possibility,

 

I may sound intellectual and come across as some kind of intellectual... but it ain't so.

I'm a small town gardener with no academic achievements to my name.  The main reason I can discourse about cosmology and astronomy is that I'm a passionate amateur astronomer who's spent decades reading up on this stuff and training my brain to grapple with these cosmic concepts.  I'm where I am mostly by sheer force of will, rather than smarts.  So there's really no need for you to feel at all inadequate or out-of-your-depth, ok?

 

I wanted to clear up your statements, BAA, mainly because my own understanding of forgiveness and love pertains to animals and plants as well as all matter in much the same way as it pertains to our relationship with humanity. But I'm pretty sure now that you already take that as a given, even though you don't mention it here.

 

Agree.

I have a deep love and respect for all aspects of the natural world and often catch myself talking cheerfully to the birds and bugs while I'm busy weeding, mowing or planting.  I'll stop to set aside ladybugs and worms and similar, lest I inadvertently harm them and if I should accidentally harm another living thing, then I'm usually very upset for the rest of the day.  You get the picture? 

 

I want to clear something else up here, too. I can grasp the concepts that you're talking about, but only to a certain extent, and I certainly can't offer an alternative way of looking at it at this level (sorry Josh). I'm reserving judgement either way because: firstly, I don't think I'm intellectually qualified to weigh in; and secondly, those who sound more qualified can't reach an agreement, and likely never will. But that doesn't mean I am ignoring the debate going on around me, and I don't think I should just shut up and let the big people talk. The purpose of these discussions is to be able to apply it to our own reasoning, to how we think and act in our lives, and also to adjust our own preconceived belief and assumptions. So I'm trying to fill in the gaps from my own intellectual position.

For what it's worth I did study Calculus and Trig in high school, even though I barely managed to pass and never used it since, but looking back I think the experience taught me more about my cognitive ability (and lack thereof) than it did about mathematics. I could actually understand the concepts and even do the examples, but in a test situation I struggled to apply the concepts correctly and couldn't see where my errors were until they were pointed out. I'm beyond caring how smart you think I am - I mention this because I recognise that my level of cognitive ability allows me to be aware of and even know how these abstract concepts work, but unfortunately I need some help to explain how it applies to what this brain of mine can actually control (i.e. my thoughts and actions), and at a slightly less intellectual level.

So when your real-life application assumes my brain's ability to broaden the concept and then apply it to everything else, you actually fail to provide a complete workable theory for the majority of the population, and create a gap in our understanding. And don't think others aren't reading this and trying to learn from it just because they haven't contributed to the discussion. Personally I'm not afraid to sound like an idiot in order to clarify the concept for others who might be struggling to grasp or apply it. I'm letting the waves of condescension roll over me, and just trying to keep my head above the water...

 

Please, please, PLEASE... do not put yourself down like this, possibility!

You'll get no condescension from me and I'd be very surprised (and not a little disappointed) if you receive any from other members of Ex-C.  I promise you that it's not my intention to overwhelm you (or anyone else) with the content of my posts.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Before LogicalFallacy, JoshPantera and myself got stuck into this thread...

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/74813-attn-baa-beginning-of-the-universe-question/

 

...I worked and reworked draft after draft of my explanation of Inflationary cosmology, trying my level best to make it both accessible and yet sufficiently accurate to achieve it's purpose.  Hopefully it will be well received by LF and JP.  Time will tell.

 

My husband is a specialist mathematics teacher at high school, and he has pointed out that the majority of the population do not, and likely never will, have sufficient cognitive ability to grasp and independently apply concepts that are this abstract, no matter how much effort they put in. So when we think we get it, but then in application demonstrate that we clearly don't get it, try not to get too frustrated. The onus is actually on you guys to explain the broadness of the concept at a range of intellectual levels, rather than expect the rest of us to just get smarter. Otherwise you unintentionally either lead us down the wrong path (eg. to assume that we only have to live for ourselves) or you leave us behind, clinging to the misguided beliefs and assumptions that we already know how to apply to our thoughts and actions. For what it's worth, I think this is the biggest problem with the bible, but that's another discussion.

 

I'm doing my best, possibility.  Really, I am!

But as your husband will probably agree, trying to explain how the Big Bang happened at ALL points in space (rather than in a central location) is a very big ask.  If you take a look at the four-step diagram I've used in that thread, it seems to show the early universe expanding spherically, from a central point of origin, right?  Yet, as I mentioned to LF in post # 51 (Apr 25) this isn't really so.  This is THE major stumbling block that 99% of people have when it comes to visualizing why the Big Bang isn't an explosion at all.   

 

The three-dimensional space of the early universe is actually represented by the surface of the sphere, not it's interior.

It expands, not because of any interior pressure pushing it outwards from it's geometric center, but because of pressure within the surface of the sphere.  Any two points on the surface push away from each other, forcing the sphere to do the only thing it can - to grow in size.  And since all points on the sphere's surface exert pressure on each other, the sphere expands outwards.  Also, just as a sphere has no edge, so the volume of space the surface of the sphere represents has no edge either.  Just as you can travel around a sphere forever without arriving at any edge, so you can travel forever in the cosmos without ever coming to any kind of edge or boundary.  

 

Tricky, huh?  (Rubs chin thoughtfully.)  Hmmm... difficult to conceive how this works.  

I struggled for a good long while before I came up with this visualization.  If I have no difficulty understanding that a landscape painting is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional location in space, why don't I just consider the surface of the sphere to be a kind of landscape painting, wrapped around a sphere?   Not a landscape of trees and mountains, but of interstellar space filled with stars, planets and galaxies.  So, if I mentally visualize myself 'unwrapping' the painting from the surface of the sphere and then stepping into it, I'd find myself floating within this domain of endless, unbounded space.  

 

This worked for me.  How about you?

 

So try not to dismiss my ramblings as a statement of the obvious, and consider them as an attempt at a less intellectual method of applying of the same concept. Just kindly let me know if I'm on the right track or not. And I'll try not to sound like an apologist when I play the devil's advocate...

 

Please advocate away!  

I often play devil's advocate in the Lion's Den and other members do so too.  

.

.

.

That's all for now, possibility.  I'll apply myself to the rest of your post as time permits.

 

Many thanks,

 

BAA.

[possibility]

Hi Josh

I love it when the penny finally drops, and it feels like there's a shackle coming loose in my brain somewhere...

Quote

What's going here is that it looks like you're aiming for an affirmation world view. We can reject the world, embrace the world as it is, or think that we're going to restore the world to a perfect condition. That's negation, affirmation, and restoration.

 

I've been looking at it all wrong. Here I was, trying to reconcile determinism with this fundamental belief that humanity has the capacity, and therefore the responsibility, to collectively advance the world towards a more perfect condition. One where compassion, peace, joy and hope is available to all life. What frustrated me about determinism was that it always felt punctuated by a kind of 'shoulder shrug'. I kept waiting for your 'so this is what we all have to do...' As if there should be a grand solution to fix everything that was wrong with the world. 

 

But there isn't one, and suddenly I feel like Po in Kung Fu Panda...

 

The world is what it is, and deliberating over what we all have to do to fix it isn't actually going to fix it. We all hope for the same thing, but while the rest of us are trying to find the best top-down control measures like rules, punishments and religious or political systems with all their judgements, boundaries and limitations, determinists are simply focusing on what little they can control - my breath, my mind and my body. So we're getting disillusioned when the system starts breaking down, and we're screaming in frustration at the determinists: "Stop focusing on your own selfish life and the universe out there, and do something constructive in here for a change!!" 

 

But I see now that you are, and I find myself agreeing with you all along.

 

I had this idea that I was walking into the middle of a battlefield with my 'can't we all just get along?' banner. But I was actually standing in the middle of a road, trying to convince everyone that my little campsite was the real destination, and those other people have just gone too far. They'll eventually figure it out and come back, you just wait. Here, let me just head over there and explain it to them...

 

So I'm going back to pack up my campsite. But I'm leaving a sign: 'keep going, you're almost there'.

 

Thanks for walking with me the rest of the way, just so I can see it for myself.

[Joshpantera]

My bit on affirmation comes from Joseph Campbell. He strongly promoted that view. And it makes a lot of sense to me. Even more so now considering determism via infinite replication. But at the same time, through deterministic infinite replication I must then accept all of the world negation and restoration out there as part of the determinism. These ideas contrary to affirmation exist out there in the world because it's part of the replicating landscape. They're all meant to be in a certain sense. 

 

If I were to get the idea that I could eradicate or change the world to only thinking in terms of affirmation, that's only possible if it's already happened before, and therefore possible to happen again. It would come down to whether or not it's predetermined or destined to happen like that. If so, then it will. If not, then it won't. 

 

I don't know about you all, but this philosophy of science approach seems to be very low stress! 

 

And I like that. Things will be, as they will be, regardless of our efforts. 

 

The world is both a mess and in perfect rapture all at the same time...

[bornagainathiest]

Ummm... from what you said to Josh, are you thinking of leaving Ex-Christian.net, possibility?

 

Packing up your campsite and leaving a sign?

 

I ask because I've replied to one half of your message, but haven't yet fulfilled my commitment on the other half.

 

Please let me know if you'd like me to make good on what I said.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.