Are you convinced?

[baumgarten]

. . . determinism, I think, takes into account the quantum probability of outcomes - i.e. cause A has a 20% chance of effect B and 80% chance of effect C. This probabilistic outcome is still within the bounds of Determinism, but does offer the possibility of different outcomes to the same initial conditions.

I disagree. An isolated probabalistic event is theoretically unpredictable and therefore violates determinism.

Furthermore, it is impossible to prove that cause and effect exist at all. An a priori conclusion about nature, such as the application of a causal connection to a future event, is at best an educated guess: the behavior of nature does not depend on our assessment of it.

 

[Kron]

Furthermore, it is impossible to prove that cause and effect exist at all. An a priori conclusion about nature, such as the application of a causal connection to a future event, is at best an educated guess: the behavior of nature does not depend on our assessment of it.

It's true that it's unprovable, but it can still be 100% accurate. And that's all that determinism needs.

 

[baumgarten]

It's true that it's unprovable, but it can still be 100% accurate. And that's all that determinism needs.

That is not true. Determinism states that all events are fundamentally predictable because of the laws of cause and effect. However, cause and effect can only really be found in retrospect. If there is no rationalistic justification to a rationalistic process like causality, then the process can't be actually rationalistic. Determinism nonetheless posits that natural law is the a priori foundation of the behavior of objects in nature, and therefore it is wrong.

 

[Sarkus]

I disagree. An isolated probabalistic event is theoretically unpredictable and therefore violates determinism.

It is only theoretically unpredictable without knowledge of it. Determinism isn't from the viewpoint of an individual or humanity, but from a perspective of ALL. i.e. if you knew the starting conditions of the entire Universe at condition t0, then you could determine the probabalistic outcome at t1 - and so on.
It is thus impossible in this situation as defined to have an isolated probabalistic event - and your violation is non-existent.

Furthermore, it is impossible to prove that cause and effect exist at all.

It is impossible to prove (100%) anything at all. However, until such time as you provide evidence of something that does not follow cause and effect, we will continue to assume that it operates, okay?

 

[c7ityi_]

What you should understand is that emotions are HUMAN constructs that CANNOT be applied to the universe.

Wrong, animals have emotions too. humans and animals are a part of the universe, so the universe Does have emotions! And if little animals like insects can have emotions, then it's just logical to assume that plants can too, and matter, even if their emotions are a lot different (less advanced)

Besides, emotions are simply brain-states; advanced chemical reactions.

every atom has a brain.

I think that the entire universe obeys certain set laws, and emergent phenomena like minds are no different.

why are the laws the way they are?

mind doesn't come from matter, matter comes from the mind. matter is concentrated thoughts, feelings, light, consciousness.

Please post ANY proof at all of your theories. MATHEMATICAL proof.

you think i can prove mathematically that earth attracts things because it loves them?

mathematics is useless for trying to understand the universe, it's only necessary for technical achievements, not for comprehension.

There is no such thing as randomness there is only cause and effect.

not even at subatomic level? scientists would disagree with you.

Non sequitur.

you think you're so tough just because you know some latin.

 

[Kron]

If there is no rationalistic justification to a rationalistic process like causality, then the process can't be actually rationalistic. Determinism nonetheless posits that natural law is the a priori foundation of the behavior of objects in nature, and therefore it is wrong.

But isn't causality the fundamental backbone of science? If all laws are really illusions (or at least simply 'rules of thumb' that we use to predict the progression of the universe), then there is absolutely nothing that can be proved from the universe...

By an inverse Occam's razor, we have to assume that our current laws are true and 100% accurate to boot.

What say you?

 

[Kron]

Wrong, animals have emotions too. humans and animals are a part of the universe, so the universe Does have emotions!

Following this argument, we can then extrapolate that roses are red and roses are a part of the plant kingdom,so all plants are red.

I admit that animals have emotions too. But they have DIFFERENT ones from humans, and we can't attribute human emotions to all but the smartest animals.

And if little animals like insects can have emotions, then it's just logical to assume that plants can too, and matter, even if their emotions are a lot different (less advanced)

Insects are so underevolved that they don't have emotions. But before I can take a stand on whether you are truly wrong or not; I have to ask you a question; How do you define emotion?

every atom has a brain.

This is absolutely wrong. Brains consist of atoms. Not the other way around. Don't confuse minds with brains (and even if you said every atom has a mind, I'd say you're wrong anyway).

why are the laws the way they are?

mind doesn't come from matter, matter comes from the mind. matter is concentrated thoughts, feelings, light, consciousness.

Huh? Through what contorted logic did you reach this conclusion?

you think i can prove mathematically that earth attracts things because it loves them?

mathematics is useless for trying to understand the universe, it's only necessary for technical achievements, not for comprehension.

I think you are wrong. The only way we can comprehend the universe is through accepting a base set of axioms and beliefs, and then constructing a model of it through observation and logic.

Math is the language of logic.

 

[Cris]

Lg,

- its not clear how the push/pull forces of atomic particles can lead to anything that doesn't also operate on push/pull forces of atomic particles......If you have evidence of push/pull forces creating anything but push/pull forces in an environment please elaborate - as it stand s though it seems that you are trying to conveniently avoid discussing this

Do you understand the four basic forces and can you list them? Do you understand the periodic table and the nature of the elements? Did you study basic chemistry at school?

Let’s take 4 elements, sodium, hydrogen, chlorine, and oxygen. Sodium is a lustrous soft metal that can be cut like cheese but if placed in water the reaction is violently explosive. Hydrogen is the simplest of the elements and is a gas. Chlorine is also a gas but is also a deadly poison for us. Oxygen is a gas that is needed for life. These atoms are all held together by the push/pull forces that you frequently mention. Now what happens if we start to mix these elements together? That takes us to the next layer of complexity.

If you combine the explosive metal sodium with the poisonous gas chlorine the result is edible salt. If you combine the two gases hydrogen and oxygen the result is water. The point here is that the simple nature of an element gives no initial insight into what will happen when combined with other elements. Many results are incredibly amazing.

Carbon is another element and has perhaps the greatest versatility of all the elements and can combine with many others. This flexibility is likely the reason why carbon is the basic building blocks of living organisms.

Do you understand so far and would you like me to proceed to the next level where we can discuss more complex compounds and molecules? The level beyond that would be to demonstrate how molecules combine into more complex structures and so on. Eventually we will reach neural networks and the mind.

I need you first to recognize that complexity is the result of the combination of simpler building blocks and until you can move past that we will be unable to make any further progress.

On the contrary Dawkins dosen't have the monopoly on such ideologies - just as I don't havethe monopoly on pointing out the obvious flaws in such ideologies

It is not his ideology that I am promoting here but his scientific analysis.

then where is the question of individual responsibility in society?

Survival.

For instance why are you so adverse to religion (since such a world view that you advocate doesn't allow for any notions of good/bad, punishment/reward).

Religious beliefs do not support our long term survival. Rational morality; the recognition of good and bad, are essential for our survival. Reward and punishment are irrelevant antiquated authoritarian concepts but in reality there are only issues of survival or death.

Even a if a person blows themselves up in a bus what would bethe point of addressing that sort of behaviour since free will is a non entity

Such actions would affect my survival. Whether there is free will or not is essentially irrelevant all the time I can perceive I am a free individual.

- why would you even bother to post on a debate forum if you were convinced that the notion of free will is completely fictional in the "real" word of predetermined effects from established causes?

Because the issue is irrelevant, I am motivated by pleasure, the same as everyone else.

 

[baumgarten]

It is only theoretically unpredictable without knowledge of it. Determinism isn't from the viewpoint of an individual or humanity, but from a perspective of ALL. i.e. if you knew the starting conditions of the entire Universe at condition t0, then you could determine the probabalistic outcome at t1 - and so on.
It is thus impossible in this situation as defined to have an isolated probabalistic event - and your violation is non-existent.

Since such a situation is not possible (and perhaps never was), what is the significance of determinism other than to make an unsupportable claim about the True Nature of the universe? Is this really a useful thing to believe? Is it meaningful, metaphysically, at all?

It is impossible to prove (100%) anything at all.

False. I can logically prove, with one hundred percent certainty, any of a number of geometrical theorems, without having to retrospectively justify any of them against observed effects either physical or purely mental in the way that causality must.

However, until such time as you provide evidence of something that does not follow cause and effect, we will continue to assume that it operates, okay?

y = 2x + 1

Must it be said that x "causes" y to equal one plus twice x? Or must it be said that y "causes" x to equal half of the quantity (y - 1)? The truth is that this is a simple relation, like that of a circle's circumference to its diameter; there is no causality involved. And yet here we have a true statement that "operates" just fine. You'll find it difficult to establish causality in any symmetrical relationship; only when the asymmetrical arrow of time is introduced must we consider cause and effect.

But isn't causality the fundamental backbone of science?

No. The empirical datum is. Proof is for mathematicians; scientists use theory and falsification.

 

[Cris]

c7,

not even at subatomic level? scientists would disagree with you.

For example? Or are you going to quote quantum events? Or perhaps the irrelevance here of Heisenberg?

you think you're so tough just because you know some latin.

Was that latin? Gosh I didn't know that. But everyone who has studied just a little logic hits that phrase very early on. Guess you haven't studied any logic yet judging from your bizarre posts.

 

[Sarkus]

Since such a situation is not possible (and perhaps never was), what is the significance of determinism other than to make an unsupportable claim about the True Nature of the universe? Is this really a useful thing to believe? Is it meaningful, metaphysically, at all?

I have no idea if it is a really useful thing to believe, and to believe something on the basis of usefulness is not something I do.
Secondly, I am not a "believer" in determinism. It is an interesting concept. But, like all metaphysical ideas and claims about the true nature of reality, it is an interesting discourse with no more to support it than many others.
Apologies if you were after more from me.

False. I can logically prove, with one hundred percent certainty, any of a number of geometrical theorems,

You are quite correct - and my choice of language was poor. My claim was that nothing in reality can ever be proven 100% - hence why science does not deal in proof, but in hypothesis, theory, probability etc.
Proof, as you rightly say, is the reserve of mathematics.

And likewise, I stand reminded on cause/effect requiring the passage of time.

(Wasn't really thinking through what I was hastily typing )

 

[Kron]

y = 2x + 1

Must it be said that x "causes" y to equal one plus twice x? Or must it be said that y "causes" x to equal half of the quantity (y - 1)? The truth is that this is a simple relation, like that of a circle's circumference to its diameter; there is no causality involved.

Causality is firmly entrenched in the concept of time. If we assume that x and y are events, then we can say (with 100% accuracy) that the later is a function of the former.

y = 2x + 1 if x is the earlier event or
x = (y-1)/2 if y is the earlier event.

Since one event is directly affected by the other (one changes when the other changes), we can confidently say that one contributed to the other. If the first event was the only contributing factor (or the only non-negligible one at least...), then we can confidently say that the earlier 'caused' the later.

 

[baumgarten]

Causality is firmly entrenched in the concept of time. If we assume that x and y are events, then we can say (with 100% accuracy) that the later is a function of the former.

y = 2x + 1 if x is the earlier event or
x = (y-1)/2 if y is the earlier event.

Since one event is directly affected by the other (one changes when the other changes), we can confidently say that one contributed to the other. If the first event was the only contributing factor (or the only non-negligible one at least...), then we can confidently say that the earlier 'caused' the later.

Your analogy sucks. Equations of the sort in question are commutative; by nature they defy causality. Here is something a little more scrupulous:

If x and y are possible events in nature, and x has already occurred, how do we determine if y will happen? There is no way to answer this question purely from reason, given no prior experience. In fact, both and x and y, as events in nature, must necessarily be defined in terms of natural objects; and no knowledge of natural objects can come from anywhere but nature itself. Therefore empirical data, it can be said, impose x and y themselves. At best we can infer, through application of reason to the senses (which are imperfect), x, y, and thusly their causal relationship. None of these can be known purely through reason; that is, it cannot be said with certainty that our definitions for these three are true. Our concept of x => y is at best a perceptual approximation of whatever objective, unknown existence the system may have. Causality, therefore, can only truly be said to be perceived or inferred. To claim any further reality to cause and effect is to make a meaningless statement.

 

[Kron]

Your analogy sucks. Equations of the sort in question are commutative; by nature they defy causality. Here is something a little more scrupulous:

If x and y are possible events in nature, and x has already occurred, how do we determine if y will happen? There is no way to answer this question purely from reason, given no prior experience. In fact, both and x and y, as events in nature, must necessarily be defined in terms of natural objects; and no knowledge of natural objects can come from anywhere but nature itself. Therefore empirical data, it can be said, impose x and y themselves. At best we can infer, through application of reason to the senses (which are imperfect), x, y, and thusly their causal relationship. None of these can be known purely through reason; that is, it cannot be said with certainty that our definitions for these three are true. Our concept of x => y is at best a perceptual approximation of whatever objective, unknown existence the system may have. Causality, therefore, can only truly be said to be perceived or inferred. To claim any further reality to cause and effect is to make a meaningless statement.

Let me rephrase myself; if y doesn't happen, it is equivalent to y = 0. All the values of y represent the possible permutations of said event, including it's non-existance.

As for your causlaity comment; doesn't that mean that NOTHING can be proved in the real world? Are you saying physics is pointless?

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
- its not clear how the push/pull forces of atomic particles can lead to anything that doesn't also operate on push/pull forces of atomic particles......If you have evidence of push/pull forces creating anything but push/pull forces in an environment please elaborate - as it stand s though it seems that you are trying to conveniently avoid discussing this
”
Do you understand the four basic forces and can you list them? Do you understand the periodic table and the nature of the elements? Did you study basic chemistry at school?

Let’s take 4 elements, sodium, hydrogen, chlorine, and oxygen. Sodium is a lustrous soft metal that can be cut like cheese but if placed in water the reaction is violently explosive. Hydrogen is the simplest of the elements and is a gas. Chlorine is also a gas but is also a deadly poison for us. Oxygen is a gas that is needed for life. These atoms are all held together by the push/pull forces that you frequently mention. Now what happens if we start to mix these elements together? That takes us to the next layer of complexity.

If you combine the explosive metal sodium with the poisonous gas chlorine the result is edible salt. If you combine the two gases hydrogen and oxygen the result is water. The point here is that the simple nature of an element gives no initial insight into what will happen when combined with other elements. Many results are incredibly amazing.

and this is supposed to indicate how there is something more than push/pull forces acting? Or that push pull forces can reach a level of complexity where push/pull forces are no longer acting?

Carbon is another element and has perhaps the greatest versatility of all the elements and can combine with many others. This flexibility is likely the reason why carbon is the basic building blocks of living organisms.

Do you understand so far and would you like me to proceed to the next level where we can discuss more complex compounds and molecules? The level beyond that would be to demonstrate how molecules combine into more complex structures and so on. Eventually we will reach neural networks and the mind.

I understand that it would require you to bridge the gap between th e push/pull forces of inert matter to the movements of neural networks with something more substantial than speculation

I need you first to recognize that complexity is the result of the combination of simpler building blocks and until you can move past that we will be unable to make any further progress.

the problem is its not clear how layering the complexity of inert matter lands one to an organism

“

On the contrary Dawkins dosen't have the monopoly on such ideologies - just as I don't havethe monopoly on pointing out the obvious flaws in such ideologies
”
It is not his ideology that I am promoting here but his scientific analysis.

"The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob,"
Quote from the atheistic author of an interview conducted with Dawkins in a recent edition of "wired" magazine
Is another fundamentalist group really what the world needs?

then where is the question of individual responsibility in society?

Survival.

where is the question of endeavour for survival without free will?

“

For instance why are you so adverse to religion (since such a world view that you advocate doesn't allow for any notions of good/bad, punishment/reward).
”
Religious beliefs do not support our long term survival. Rational morality; the recognition of good and bad, are essential for our survival. Reward and punishment are irrelevant antiquated authoritarian concepts but in reality there are only issues of survival or death.

How can one determine good or bad without free will?

“
Even a if a person blows themselves up in a bus what would bethe point of addressing that sort of behaviour since free will is a non entity
”
Such actions would affect my survival.

such actions would be inescapable in a universe bereft of free will - are you trying to say that "survival" is an illusory notion they we occupy ourselves with to avoid the reality that the universe is composed of pre-determined effects from causes?

Whether there is free will or not is essentially irrelevant all the time I can perceive I am a free individual.

so what does that mean? Do you have free will or do you just pretend that you have free will?

“

- why would you even bother to post on a debate forum if you were convinced that the notion of free will is completely fictional in the "real" word of predetermined effects from established causes?
”
Because the issue is irrelevant, I am motivated by pleasure, the same as everyone else.

Where is the question of pleasure without free will?

 

[Sarkus]

Where is the question of pleasure without free will?

One does not need free-will for the release of the chemicals that determine pleasure.

 

[Kron]

and this is supposed to indicate how there is something more than push/pull forces acting? Or that push pull forces can reach a level of complexity where push/pull forces are no longer acting?

the problem is its not clear how layering the complexity of inert matter lands one to an organism

You realize that a strong kinetic collision can convert it's energy into potential energy and form a chemical bond?

 

[lightgigantic]

You realize that a strong kinetic collision can convert it's energy into potential energy and form a chemical bond?

its not clear how this takes phenomena outside of push/pull forces

 

[Kron]

Then do some scientific research. It's very clear for scientists (and even educated laypersons)

 

[lightgigantic]

Then do some scientific research. It's very clear for scientists (and even educated laypersons)

a chemical bond is not a "pull" force?