I’m sure you think this relevant.
Care to share why you think it, and what point you think it makes?
Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Care to share why you think it, and what point you think it makes?
You claim you are a sock puppet.. fine...
What!? can't the universe work it out?
What part don't you understand?
Please explain....
Last edited:
Baldeee, Sarkus
You have actually inspired an idea for a new thread:
Why is logic logical?
=====
An example of your flawed position,
You arrogantly presume that cause and effect binary is absolutely true...taking the position that if there is not an observer the logic is still valid.
I offer a possible trinary logic that includes a possible intermediary phase that alters your absolute position and you say you don't understand and fail to see relevance and accuse me of deflecting in a weak attempt to avoid your own embarrassment and self inspired humiliation.
Cause > intermediary phase > effect
But because of your apparent state of absolute belief in a failed position you "can't see the relevance"...
There is no absolute truth nor is there any absolute logic truth. Just like there is no absolute zero.
Sure the logic of Cause and effect determinism is very strong... and would be considered as true by those who know no different. But I can assure you that it can never be considered as absolutely true because that truth is entirely dependent on what we have learned to know and as we know so little it would be reasonable to say that it most likely will prove to be false as we learn more.
If you wish for me to explain further ( it is called a discussion) you will need to indicate what exactly you are confused about.
As I suggested google the following:
Absolute objective truth
and
Truth by consensus.
Please avoid your religiophobic errors of interpretation.
google it and find out that it is about truth and the limitations of truth by consensus...
other wise you will go on repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance and reluctance to actually discuss anything of value...
Also please explain how your cause and effect actually works in a material sense...
How does the predetermination physically manifest in human behavior instead of calling to authority based on flawed logic.
It is simply not good enough to claim that everything is predetermined like some religious zealot and offer no process that actually explains how that occurs.
So how are human decisions predetermined?
What physics is involved?
How does a hydrogen atom or any inorganic element, tell us what to do? (sarc)
Show how your Cause and effect that predetermines human decisions can not be considered, dare I suggest, "Supernatural"
You have actually inspired an idea for a new thread:
Why is logic logical?
=====
An example of your flawed position,
You arrogantly presume that cause and effect binary is absolutely true...taking the position that if there is not an observer the logic is still valid.
I offer a possible trinary logic that includes a possible intermediary phase that alters your absolute position and you say you don't understand and fail to see relevance and accuse me of deflecting in a weak attempt to avoid your own embarrassment and self inspired humiliation.
Cause > intermediary phase > effect
But because of your apparent state of absolute belief in a failed position you "can't see the relevance"...
There is no absolute truth nor is there any absolute logic truth. Just like there is no absolute zero.
Sure the logic of Cause and effect determinism is very strong... and would be considered as true by those who know no different. But I can assure you that it can never be considered as absolutely true because that truth is entirely dependent on what we have learned to know and as we know so little it would be reasonable to say that it most likely will prove to be false as we learn more.
If you wish for me to explain further ( it is called a discussion) you will need to indicate what exactly you are confused about.
As I suggested google the following:
Absolute objective truth
and
Truth by consensus.
Please avoid your religiophobic errors of interpretation.
google it and find out that it is about truth and the limitations of truth by consensus...
other wise you will go on repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance and reluctance to actually discuss anything of value...
Also please explain how your cause and effect actually works in a material sense...
How does the predetermination physically manifest in human behavior instead of calling to authority based on flawed logic.
It is simply not good enough to claim that everything is predetermined like some religious zealot and offer no process that actually explains how that occurs.
So how are human decisions predetermined?
What physics is involved?
How does a hydrogen atom or any inorganic element, tell us what to do? (sarc)
Show how your Cause and effect that predetermines human decisions can not be considered, dare I suggest, "Supernatural"
Last edited:
Sarkus Baldeee
Do you guys realize that there are no doubt a few religious fatalists taking all your arguments as a way of justifying their belief in a divine source of predetermination don't you..
Psychopaths, happily shedding any personal responsibility as they contemplate some terrorist act.
You are arguing their case beautifully...
"Ahh... such is the power and intelligence of God, he makes use of atheists to prove his point...."
Even Write4U with the Mathematical intelligent design universe beliefs, does a good job of arguing a Gods case...
"There is no greater creation by God than the Fibonacci Sequence or the Golden Ratio" could be easily used as justification for intelligent design. After all, you repeatedly claim it is all predetermined.
Do you guys realize that there are no doubt a few religious fatalists taking all your arguments as a way of justifying their belief in a divine source of predetermination don't you..
Psychopaths, happily shedding any personal responsibility as they contemplate some terrorist act.
You are arguing their case beautifully...
"Ahh... such is the power and intelligence of God, he makes use of atheists to prove his point...."
Even Write4U with the Mathematical intelligent design universe beliefs, does a good job of arguing a Gods case...
"There is no greater creation by God than the Fibonacci Sequence or the Golden Ratio" could be easily used as justification for intelligent design. After all, you repeatedly claim it is all predetermined.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Except I am not arguing for a mathematically designed universe. I am arguing for a mathematical universe wich evolves in accordance to the logical causal law of "necessity and sufficiency" which makes a motivated sentience superfluous.
No, you have that wrong. The Fibonacci sequence is a causal mathematical imperative. It is a dynamic natural mathematical function, which determines a specific rate of growth. It is a Mathematical universal potential, making any machinations by a God superfluous. Just as with all universal constants, god is not a necessary ingredient, dynamical mathematical values and functions are sufficient to play that role.
And to find comparable propositions on the nature of the universe to other proposition is inevitable. It's the same universe to all observers. It is the a priori causality to the deterministic evolutionary cascade that is being analized and speculated on.
The speculation of a sentient motivated supernatural being able to perform miracles is really improbable if compared to demonstrable natural examples of dynamic mathematical/physical self-assembly. It ain't complicated.
That's why God had to be created as endowed with potential of the universe itself. That's all God can possibly be.
But ask, "did God self-assemble?". If not what created God? Turtles......?
And if you cannot answer other than that God is infinite and immortal, we have clearly entered the land of woo as far as science is concerned. It becomes amatter of imagination and there are lots of imaginary gods around, no?
Last edited:
When in the history of the universe did the Fibonacci sequence manifest physically do you think?
At what point in time was it initially predetermined that it would appear and when did it actually appear?
take a wild guess ....
Regarding that hypothetical intermediate phase in the cause and effect logic you could have the following:
when
C= cause
E = effect
t = time
then
C + C' + delta t = E
The intermediary phase = delta t
when
C= cause
E = effect
t = time
then
C + C' + delta t = E
The intermediary phase = delta t
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
A repeating pattern is an natural orderly thing. I would guess that from the original chaotic plasma, natural self-assembling patterns would emerge. Wherever a rotating pattern emerges, mathematical spirality emerges as a natural deterministic result from a causal dynamic. I'm sure in a dynamic chaotic condition friction will naturally cause rotation and rotation of a thing has some very specific causal effects on its neighbors. One of them is the measurable formation of spiral arms in a very specific orderly (mathematical) sequence.
So the natural mathematical order identified and codified by Fibonnacci of the spiral patterns found troughout the universe, probably formed in the first few hundred thousand years after the BB, when plasma began to coalesce into matter and the laws of friction emerged as a naturally caused phenomena in dynamic physical action.
If you need to ask you may really want to take another look at the Fibonacci Sequence and its occurrence in nature as a naturally evolved order imposed by mathematical imperatives.
It's called "rotational symmetry".
in nature
and more theoretical
Last edited:
surprising well said...
but can i ask you
Was the Fibonacci Sequence predetermined or not and and how so?
Words like "natural" are useless at this level of discussion, unless you explain the term in a way that confirms determinism.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
And that is not part of the causal deterministic chronology?
of course it is...
but it isn't merely cause and effect. It includes the value delta t which can be considered as an intermediary phase. It is during that phase that many things could happen to effect the outcome of the cause.
like rejection, or reconfiguration, or acceptance or manipulation or enhancement etc etc...
So simple Causal determinism can get a lot more complicated that that which is being suggested in this thread especially when you have a human who has the primary purpose of learning to self determine.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No it was not, until it was necessary. The Fibonacci sequence was a latent mathematical potential and was not causal until rotating dynamics created the necessity of rotating symmetry and for which the Fibonacci sequence was sufficient to fill a mathematical self-formative necessity. The Fibonacci sequence is also a part of the mathematically exponential functional potentials.
Au contraire, IMO, the term natural mathematical potentials becomes applicable almost immediatel after the BB.
It is at this universal evolutionary stage that the patterns of natural constants emerged along with the mathematical dynamical interactions of different natural relative values (particles, etc) and mathematical functions (pattern forming).
Assuming there was nothing before the BB, the BB was the causal beginning of this deterministic universe.
Even if there was a causal dynamic before the BB, the BB might be a result of a prior causal state, but the BB would still be the beginning of this deterministic universe.
Kind of starting an universe from scratch. Renate Loll proposes this happens in a fractal (self-similar) manner. CDT causal dynamical triangulation explains how the universal fabric itself unfolds in a deterministic manner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
To think that the entire deterministic universe is based on fractal patterns, is pretty cool..
Last edited:
If you find such tautologies interesting, go for it.
Ironic: you provide what you think is an example of a flawed position by an ad hominem followed by a falsehood.
The is no arrogance involved, and I at least presume causal determinism to be true because this thread began with that as the premise.
To presume as true is what it means for something to be a premise.
You dispute this?
You think logic fails to hold in the absence of an observer?
That if there was no observer then things would act contrary to how we observe them?
You began that post with [Fiction].
Was it intended as a serious effort to introduce an alternative “trinary logic”?
If so it was poorly identified as such by you.
It is also a self-contradictory alternative, introducing a non-deterministic aspect to the presumed determinism.
Thus making it non-deterministic.
As has been pointed out, you can’t simply write that something is deterministic while it is also indeterministic and expect people to take you seriously.
It was offered as fiction, it read as fiction, and unless you have something else to offer on the matter, it will continue to be taken as fiction.
Please don’t continue your dishonesty.
The accusations of deflection and evasion were not related to that post, to which I merely requested relevancy.
The accusations of deflection and evasion were and are in response to other posts where you have attempted to deflect and evade.
And since I am suffering no embarrassment nor humiliation here, I have nothing to avoid.
So you are overturning the premise that the universe is deterministic?
If not, how does your “intermediary phase” create a difference to simply Cause -> Effect?
If the effect is wholly determined by the cause, what does the intermediary phase add?
No, I don’t see the relevance because you have simply failed to provide any actual explanation for your “[Fiction]”.
???
It is an absolute logical truth that X is X.
That 1 is 1.
Your assertions in this regard are incorrect.
We have started with the premise of a deterministic universe.
Thus the discussion is about a deterministic universe.
If reality is non-deterministic, so be it, but this discussion, as premised, is about a deterministic universe.
It is about the logical conclusions of a deterministic universe, in which in one sense there is no freedom and yet in another sense there is a freedom of the will, and which you claimed “co-determinism” could help resolve the issue between the two.
So your meandering into realms of what might be in reality that impact the premise seems to be a red-herring.
So I ask again: what is the relevancy?
As explained at the time: the relevancy.
And I have already responded to that suggestion.
How is it religiophobic?
How is it an error of interpretation?
Exactly.
The notion that just because a majority might believe something to be true does not make it true.
So what?
You think I am relying on a truth by consensus?
And which truth would that be?
The one trying to discuss here, Quantum Quack, and I am not the one deflecting and avoiding issues, not the one raising straw men.
Through the physical laws.
How is the logic flawed?
Further, your request for that level of detail is fallacious, as it has no impact on the conclusion.
I don’t need to know what it means to be mortal to know that if Socrates is a man, and all men are mortal, that Socrates is mortal.
It simply is good enough when that is the premise of the discussion.
Get with the program.
Metaphysics.
The physics involved will be whatever physical laws govern the interactions in question.
Predetermination is simply a logical conclusion from a causally deterministic universe.
On its own, it doesn’t.
No more than a molecule of water can crush you.
It might well be, but it is premised in that we are discussing the deterministic universe.
So for the purposes of discussion it is accepted as being the case.
Your appeal to consequence and emotion is fallacious.
If you would like to offer an actual argument that addresses the issue, perhaps...?
according to who?
It takes a self determined individual to draw that conclusion. If not, it is merely an illusion of truth, a fraud perpetrated by the universe.
and what premise exactly was that...
YOU claim determinism is shut case and I am saying prove it. Support your version of determinism. I have been supporting mine. How about you support yours?
Sarkus
You think that the universe's determinism as determined (decided) by that universe and not a self determined agent is somehow a genuine assessment.
The contradiction in your version is way too evident.
You think that the universe's determinism as determined (decided) by that universe and not a self determined agent is somehow a genuine assessment.
- Your version: The universe decides whether it is logical or not and you consider that to be genuinely objective? (Think about the movie Matrix)
- My version: The self determined human gets to decide. And is genuine in his observations. ( No Matrix)
The contradiction in your version is way too evident.
Last edited:
That’ll be the one referred to in the OP. The one that has already been pointed out to you.
I am not saying it is a shut case at all but it is the premise of this discussion. There is thus no need to prove it. If you want to introduce something new to the discussion, you need to show how it doesn’t violate that determinism. And just saying that it doesn’t is not considered support.