Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[Mister Silver]

Then, what is the explanation for the origin of the universe? It must be scientific, otherwise one is playing into the hands of those darn believers.

The explanation at this point is unknowable, and it is perfectly alright to not know something. Only those who absolutely itch for an immediate answer create one out of thin air to appease them; thus, god.

Science clearly did not have all the answers when it first began, science evolves and learns the answers over time.

 

[blü 2]

Number One.

Even as an atheist, I never understood other atheists' denial of choice or free will.

I don't deny definition 1.

Offhand I can't think of anyone else who denies it either.

The entire argument about determinism rests on definition 2.

 

[Skwim]

By nature, are you referring to the nature of the individual?

Even if that is the case, that does not mean free will is excluded.

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

Not a bad definition, but then Wikipedia is generally a decent source of information. In any case, it's pretty much like it's more common forms, "the ability to have done otherwise/differently"

Even as an atheist, I never understood other atheists' denial of choice or free will.

Just to note, it doesn't take an atheist, just solid reasoning. As blü 2 here as been trying in vain to pull out of Repox: "How does the 'individual' make choices, other than as the result of chains of cause&effect? (Personally, as a hard determinist I deny the existence of choice or any of its cognates)

IOW: If determinism isn't the answer then what is? To simply say it's not determinism---Repox's tired tactic---isn't enough.

.

 

[Mister Silver]

I don't deny definition 1.

Offhand I can't think of anyone else who denies it either.

The entire argument about determinism rests on definition 2.

Thank you, that reassures me.

 

[blü 2]

if you apply simply logic, there must be a beginning to that time line.

As a property of energy, the timeline conceivably can begin anywhere, end anywhere, resume anywhere, be traversed at various speeds, go forward or backward, or stop for a while, depending on the circumstances that affect it as a property of energy.

It would help if you knew the original purpose for the universe. God created the universe as a prison for Satan

Don't be silly.

Back to the beginning when the BB started everything. Science has no explanation for the phenomenon.

Neither have you or religion. But science, at least, is looking to discover, describe and explain such phenomena, while religion, as I said, sits in an armchair smoking something.

Oh yes, there are theories of multiple universes colliding with each other.

If they exist, they too, in my hypothesis, are completely composed of energy.

If so, what started the first universe? If matter and energy began in a whirlpool of virtual particles, where did that whirlpool come from?

Matter is energy. The BB was an eruption of energy neat, not energy and matter, not energy and things. And matter is energy ─ what do you think E = mc^2 is telling you?

Is it just a coincidence that the number twelve keeps reoccurring in Revelation

That tells you about the author and the place of magic numbers in his particular tradition. Not much more.

there are twelve angels in heaven

Really? Show them to me.

Cure me of disbelief. Restore my sight with satisfactory demonstrations, hard facts, good science, repeatable experiments, accurate statements about reality.

Not with notions that occur to you while lounging in an armchair smoking something.

 

[osgart]

When you say 'free will', do you mean ─

1. the ability to make decisions free of external compulsion, or

2. the ability to make decisions free of the cause&effect biochemical sequences that constitute your brain functions

?

we depend on those biochemical sequences, but are not determined by them. the first one is the free will I'm talking about. the individual is going to be different from person to person.

an individual can be weak willed, or strong willed. external circumstances will often determine your circumstances. but as to what nature of person you are, that is entirely your choice. your response or chosen heart on the matter; to love, to hate, ambivalence, to care, your sense of justice, these are not pre determined. you become good or evil depending on your choice of heart.

there's more than the mind at work in a being. while many people live deterministically, you can always rise above circumstance, and many do.

the technology of today is an example of people who reach beyond circumstance and change the world.

 

[blü 2]

we depend on those biochemical sequences, but are not determined by them.

In what sense are we not determined by them?

If they are not the generators of our will, what is?

the first one is the free will I'm talking about. the individual is going to be different from person to person.

So? Each brain is a distinct biochemical entity, different from person to person.

And each brain is capable of making choice in the sense of definition 1, the absence of external constraints and compulsions.

these are not pre determined. you become good or evil depending on your choice of heart.

From the point of view of the individual, they're not pre-determined in any useful sense. Each brain is an extremely flexible responder to stimuli, and makes its choices by biochemical chains of cause&effect, so that we have a strong sense of self and a strong sense of owning our decisions.

Moreover, the sequences of cause&effect are far too complex for us to analyze usefully, even if we could determine a starting state.

But we are our brains and bodies, these are biochemical all through, and biochemistry operates in a deterministic manner (perhaps now and then interrupted by quantum randomness).

 

[Repox]

As a property of energy, the timeline conceivably can begin anywhere, end anywhere, resume anywhere, be traversed at various speeds, go forward or backward, or stop for a while, depending on the circumstances that affect it as a property of energy.
Don't be silly.
Neither have you or religion. But science, at least, is looking to discover, describe and explain such phenomena, while religion, as I said, sits in an armchair smoking something.
If they exist, they too, in my hypothesis, are completely composed of energy.
Matter is energy. The BB was an eruption of energy neat, not energy and matter, not energy and things. And matter is energy ─ what do you think E = mc^2 is telling you?
That tells you about the author and the place of magic numbers in his particular tradition. Not much more.
Really? Show them to me.

Cure me of disbelief. Restore my sight with satisfactory demonstrations, hard facts, good science, repeatable experiments, accurate statements about reality.

Not with notions that occur to you while lounging in an armchair smoking something.

It all boils down to proof. You have no proof for a deterministic or scientific explanation for the universe. Favorite argument for atheist is science will get it EVENTUALLY. It is a weak excuse. Science will never get it. God created the universe. Go ahead and dismiss the Bible. I guess they were all liars, right?

 

[Repox]

The explanation at this point is unknowable, and it is perfectly alright to not know something. Only those who absolutely itch for an immediate answer create one out of thin air to appease them; thus, god.

Science clearly did not have all the answers when it first began, science evolves and learns the answers over time.

Your faith is in science, mine is in God. I guess we'll wait and see. If science never proves the beginning, then we should have a temple built to science for atheists to wait, the future can become tedious.

 

[blü 2]

It all boils down to proof.

This is quite a statement coming from you, who don't even have an understanding of your own position, let alone an explanation of it, let alone anything vaguely resembling a satisfactory demonstration of its correctness.

You don't notice the Douglas fir in your own eye.

You have no proof for a deterministic or scientific explanation for the universe.

Be careful with the word 'proof'. In maths and symbolic logic it refers to the demonstration of the correctness of theorems in terms of the allowable procedures and implies a sort of absolute status, but only by the terms of that regime. In law it means 'satisfactory demonstration' to the level required. Let's stick with 'demonstration'.

Which said, you speak as though the Big Bang theory is not supported by evidence. On the exact contrary it's consistently supported by abundant evidence.But you don't read science so you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Favorite argument for atheist is science will get it EVENTUALLY. It is a weak excuse.

On what ground do you call it an excuse at all, let alone a weak one? Science doesn't pretend to have all the answers; it simply claims to have the best grasp of the problems and the demonstrably best thinking about them.

Religion knows nothing about cosmology and you know even less.

God created the universe. Go ahead and dismiss the Bible. I guess they were all liars, right?

Why would they have to be liars? It was once true that the world was flat and the sun went round it, just as the bible says. But the bible was written across the 1st millennium BCE when all cultures, not just the authors of the Tanakh, filled in the gaps in their knowledge with stories.

 

[Repox]

This is quite a statement coming from you, who don't even have an understanding of your own position, let alone an explanation of it, let alone anything vaguely resembling a satisfactory demonstration of its correctness.

You don't notice the Douglas fir in your own eye.
Be careful with the word 'proof'. In maths and symbolic logic it refers to the demonstration of the correctness of theorems in terms of the allowable procedures and implies a sort of absolute status, but only by the terms of that regime. In law it means 'satisfactory demonstration' to the level required. Let's stick with 'demonstration'.

Which said, you speak as though the Big Bang theory is not supported by evidence. On the exact contrary it's consistently supported by abundant evidence.But you don't read science so you don't actually know what you're talking about.
On what ground do you call it an excuse at all, let alone a weak one? Science doesn't pretend to have all the answers; it simply claims to have the best grasp of the problems and the demonstrably best thinking about them.

Religion knows nothing about cosmology and you know even less.

Why would they have to be liars? It was once true that the world was flat and the sun went round it, just as the bible says. But the bible was written across the 1st millennium BCE when all cultures, not just the authors of the Tanakh, filled in the gaps in their knowledge with stories.

You seem to brag a lot, but you know little of what you say. As an example, you claim the universe came from energy. Where does science make that claim? Have you read scientific reports about the role of virtual particles in the formation of matter and energy? Apparently, you have a nonscientific view of everything, a kind of I know but I don't rely on science to know. How bad can it get?

Here is some advice, if you don't know admit it. Do your homework.

 

[blü 2]

You seem to brag a lot, but you know little of what you say.

If you're concerned about what's true in reality, you need to read the science news more, though I admit it's far from clear that you are.

you claim the universe came from energy. Where does science make that claim.

It doesn't make it in explicit terms. Why do you think I called it an hypothesis? However, it says that the Big Bang was an eruption of energy, nothing else. And we know matter is composed of energy via E=mc^2. What else do you say there is, and where do you say it came from?

Have you read scientific reports about the role of virtual particles in the formation of matter and energy?

If you mean mediation of forces, yes, of course. If you mean something else, what do you mean?

Apparently, you have a nonscientific view of everything

*Chuckle*

Here is some advice, if you don't know admit it. Do your homework.

Very kind of you to hand out advice. But refresh my memory ─ what don't I know that I denied not knowing? Look up the meaning of 'hypothesis' before you answer that.

 

[Repox]

Discussions as complicated as the origin of the universe, determinism and free will, requires expert knowledge.

Learn about virtual particles. They are the basis of matter and energy, and therefore at the beginning or the formation of the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Here are good reviews about the big bang.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-of-the-universe/

As for freewill, there is much to debate. If you believe in God, you must believe in freewill. If you are an atheist or determinist, you must have an argument that refutes God. In order to refute God as the creator of the universe, you must present a scientific argument for the big bang.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/problem/

 

[blü 2]

Learn about virtual particles. They are the basis of matter and energy, and therefore at the beginning or the formation of the universe.

As I told you, I have a working knowledge of virtual particles.

Why do you say they're relevant? Be specific. (Indeed I asked you that in my previous post and you didn't answer. Why not? Don't you know?)

As for freewill, there is much to debate. If you believe in God, you must believe in freewill.

If I believed in an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god then I'd have no freewill at all. [He]'d have known before [he] made the universe everything I'll ever say, do, think, experience, even the specific atoms I'll breathe in and out. I'll NEVER be able to act in any manner except the one [he] perfectly foresaw. And, if we add omnipresence to our list, [he]'d always already have been present at.

No room for freewill there. No way to take God by surprise.

 

[Profound Realization]

It's an interesting question and science is working on it. I assume you're up to date on the BB theory and the accumulated evidence supporting it?

If the BB theory is essentially correct, and it certainly appears to be, then at some point in the past, all the energy in the universe was contained within an exquisitely small space of unfathomable temperature, whence it erupted to form particles, and atoms, and matter, and the forces, and every other aspect of reality.

My own view is that spacetime exists because energy does, not the other way round where energy is thought to exist within spacetime. Thus the universe exists because energy does. And if I'm right then there are no questions about beginnings, just properties of energy. That, as you can see, avoids all questions of infinite regressions, and so on.
If you think of energy instead of gods, you'll have many fewer problems. For instance, you'll be able to understand why the universe behaves exactly as if gods only exist in the imagination of individuals.
Pardon? Please quote me a reputable scientist propounding this so I can see what you're actually claiming, since your sentence makes no sense to me.
My hypothesis that energy is prior, solves all that.
They don't insist they're right. The don't claim that findings of science, based on empiricism and induction, can ever be absolute. But their conclusions are vastly better founded than those of simple believers because unlike them (a) they reason honestly and transparently from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment and open their conclusions to debate and (b) the question they're trying to answer is, what's true in reality? (not, what's true in imagination).

Time exists, in my hypothesis, as a property of energy, and thus its beginning isn't a problem.

Not much of which concerns the title of this thread.

There will always be infinite regressions, deductions. Where did the energy come from? Where did "God" come from? What if energy is a different word for "God" and are one and the same? What if certain energy is "God?" What if the unseen, (dark matter or dark energy) share similar neurological functions? What if imagination and belief is more powerful than we presume, a force in itself?

In my perception, hypothesis is a scientific word for imagination and belief in a way. It's always an imagination or belief at the start. Much of it is still imagination and belief, contrary to popular opinion.

Truly, we also cannot conclude that they reason honestly. Human nature isn't honest, unless they are a magical breed of humans. The general public has to choose to believe or not believe what is released, given by few with special knowledge and access only. Is it true evidence or false evidence? If something were discovered to be scientifically true by the few with special knowledge, but contradicts the fundamental foundations of academia.... will it be released or not released and forever covered up?

Why does it matter what is true and reality? Why should one seek truth? Why should one rely upon others for truth?

How can we make a deterministic conclusion when most of the universe is unseen? What percentage of our internal being is unseen?

 

[Profound Realization]

As I told you, I have a working knowledge of virtual particles.

Why do you say they're relevant? Be specific. (Indeed I asked you that in my previous post and you didn't answer. Why not? Don't you know?)
If I believed in an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god then I'd have no freewill at all. [He]'d have known before before [he] made the universe everything I'll ever say, do, think, experience, even the specific atoms I'll breathe in and out. I'll NEVER be able to act in any manner except the one [he] perfectly foresaw. And, if we add omnipresence to our list, [he]'d always already been present at.

No room for freewill there. No way to take God by surprise.

Virtual particles are not particles. That leaves them to be just "virtual." Define virtual, if you don't mind.

Far as I know or am being honest with myself to admit.... much of the virtual fit under the term "magical."

Things we cannot see or understand, but "feel it's effects" are as valid as saying "God" exists because we "feel it's effects."

Good point, in my opinion, on the omni-"God" and free will, although both could likely exist. If I were free to an extent, the Omni-"God" would just know my thoughts, non-thoughts, and actions chosen in advance... not sure that would negate my limited free will if I had such.

 

[Repox]

As I told you, I have a working knowledge of virtual particles.

Why do you say they're relevant? Be specific. (Indeed I asked you that in my previous post and you didn't answer. Why not? Don't you know?)
If I believed in an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god then I'd have no freewill at all. [He]'d have known before before [he] made the universe everything I'll ever say, do, think, experience, even the specific atoms I'll breathe in and out. I'll NEVER be able to act in any manner except the one [he] perfectly foresaw. And, if we add omnipresence to our list, [he]'d always already been present at.

No room for freewill there. No way to take God by surprise.

I posted those references to avoid such a debate, or lecturing on advanced physics. You say you know this or that, but anyone can make such claims. If you now about VPS, then you know how they were present in the beginning of the BB and formed into matter and energy and subsequently into elements. Your claim of everything coming from energy is not found in scientific explanations of the BB, and associating it with Einstein's theory of relativity as an explanation for the BB is an error.

It is amazing how you cannot understanding the importance of free will for God's creatures. According to your determinism, we are anatomical robots. One who obeys laws and commits no crime is equal to the deviant person who commits crime, lies, and cheats or goes radical with misbehavior. Taking your statement about God knowing before I act, there is no issue. God is eternal and therefore knows everything without limitations. Just because God knows what we do before we do it doesn't mean we are not responsible for our actions. The issue is obedience to God, it is the key for understanding God and His creatures. It all began in heaven when Satan "decided" to disobey God. Oh, what a waste, you have a biased view of everything. Atheists or determinists just don't get it. How sad. It is a convenient way of avoiding responsibility for bad behavior.

 

[blü 2]

There will always be infinite regressions, deductions. Where did the energy come from?

That's not my argument. My argument is that spacetime is a property of energy, so that the existence of energy is the existence of time, not vice versa.

Where did "God" come from? What if energy is a different word for "God" and are one and the same?

If you're happy that physics is theology and that the supernatural is wholly imaginary, why not?

What if the unseen, (dark matter or dark energy) share similar neurological functions?

Then those are all questions within physics.

What if imagination and belief is more powerful than we presume, a force in itself?

Then we're now in the realm of psychology.

In my perception, hypothesis is a scientific word for imagination and belief in a way.

If by 'belief' you mean 'understanding', I can live with that.

Why does it matter what is true and reality? Why should one seek truth?

No reason. Many people go through life without questioning the basics. No doubt this is what Plato's Socrates had in mind when he said, 'The unexamined life is not worth living'. For him this is true. For others it may not be.

Personally, the question What's true in reality? has always been a remarkably helpful starting point for just about anything.

Why should one rely upon others for truth?

Because they have a Large Hadron Collider and you don't?

How can we make a deterministic conclusion when most of the universe is unseen?

One way, in my view the most reasonable way, is by making the best understanding of what we can perceive; because our best understanding for the time being is what truth is.

But as the natural world gets bigger and weirder, there's still no sign of gods or devils outside of imagination. That too has implications, no?

 

[blü 2]

Define virtual, if you don't mind.

The idea of virtual particles arises out of Maxwell's notion of a field and the maths he derived to explain field phenomena. As for their modern physicalization, I can't put it better than this quote from Wikipedia ─

In physics, a virtual particle is a transient fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, but whose existence is limited by the uncertainty principle. The concept of virtual particles arises in perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. Any process involving virtual particles admits a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram, in which virtual particles are represented by internal lines.[1][2]​

Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The longer the virtual particle exists, the closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles. They are important in the physics of many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. In quantum field theory, even classical forces—such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges—can be thought of as due to the exchange of many virtual photons between the charges.
​

Note that 'can be thought of' in the last sentence. It's a simplification of the more complete explanation above, without which it may indeed sound magical.

Good point, in my opinion, on the omni-"God" and free will, although both could likely exist.

As for their both existing, to that I reply, Hmmmm.

 

[blü 2]

You say you know this or that, but anyone can make such claims.

You claim this is somehow relevant to some point you haven't made yet. Experience of your incomprehension of your own chosen topic makes your claim ever suspect.

If you now about VPS, then you know how they were present in the beginning of the BB and formed into matter and energy and subsequently into elements.

So what?

Your claim of everything coming from energy is not found in scientific explanations of the BB,

First, I said it was an hypothesis. Second, the spacetime of this universe didn't exist before this universe did. Therefore it's the product of the BB. Therefore it's the product of energy.

If not, don't forget to explain to me where spacetime came from.

Or don't you know?

It is amazing how you cannot understanding the importance of free will for God's creatures.

There you go, talking about Freewill Definition 1 again. Irrelevant. *Sigh"