Beats me... an yet... here you are askin me anuther queston 
Extreme Atheism - leads to a Proxy God by default.
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
- Status
Can I use the above as a quote in a book to be released on Amazon in a few years?Yeah i figered you was just blowin smoke again... an as far as "them" goes... why... you coud be talkin about voices in you'r head for all i know
( if civilization is around then of course, re: climate change and Trump)
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
If you are able to co-determine causality, could you stop a million year old meteor on a collision course with earth from hitting the earth and wiping out all life?
Your self-determining bubble does nothing to insulate you from universal probabilities.
Moreover, your bubble is a deterministic result of prior causality. Like building a fall-out shelter or a dam to prevent an anticipated future event.
i.e. every decision you make is based on a prior mental state or belief. It's still deterministic.
You believe that a random decision is preferable over a "considered" decision?
Last edited:
Only if you use it as the title... LOL.!!!
a bit of *flash writing from the other thread.
A gedanken as an aid to explaining....Co-determinism
The reluctant Messiah
Captain Quirky Quale knew when he signed up for this mission that it was suicidal. He knew that there was no option other than the one fate had chosen. That he would be the only one to have a choice.
Coasting next to a massive asteroid in the Starship UNS Determination he was only moments away from completing his desperate mission.
The scientists were absolutely sure that this Asteroid, knocked out of it's field some 1.6 billion light years ago, was vectored to destroy itself in Humanities life source star, Sol.
The scientist also knew with absolute certainty that when the asteroid named "Freewill 101" finally ended it's 1.6 billion year journey by exploding in the sun that it would generate what was called a Barylium Time Anomaly, that would immediately wipe out our entire solar system, the milky way galaxy and eventually with in an estimated 60 minutes or so the entire universe.
His mission was simple, Save humanity, save the world and save the universe but to do so he has to die as his star ship was a flying bomb. He was like a suicide bomber with a vest loaded with 300 massive nuclear war heads.
Any how to cut a short story even shorter, Captain Quirky, stood alone on the bridge with his finger poised on a button that would start the interception ( * co-determination) and be completed in less than 30 seconds.
He knew he still had a choice, even with what was at stake. He had just got off the net talking to his estranged family and a couple of sort of friends and suffered some crazy bullying from people to his Twitter feed.
He wasn't sure humanity was worth saving and the BS he had to put up with, made him hesitate in his final decision.
He was dead either way but all he could think of were the bullies worth saving?
He could kick back and watch the asteroid plummet into the sun and watch the end of the universe form in a fit of sad revenge or he could do what he volunteered to do.
He had the power over life and death of billions in his hands and all he could think about were the jokers BS on his Twitter feed.
The universe had determined the trajectory of the Asteroid. It's ultimate end predetermined to be engulfed in a star called Sol. It was now up to Capt Quirky to either allow that pre-determination to continue or co-determine the asteroids fate and destroy it.
Questions for the Determinist folk.
The very universe that according to determinism is in control has now got to deal with it's own possible extinction.
- If Quirky chooses to save the universe is that a predetermined choice?
- If he chooses to kick back and say bugger it and enjoy the fireworks is that a predetermined choice?
- Who has the choice, the universe or Quirky Quale captain of the Star ship UNS Determination
- Or are both alternatives predetermined and awaiting determination?
(*) must be composed and written in under 10 minutes.
src: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/co-determinism-and-the-reality-of-free-will.161757/
Last edited:
Quirky's body is indeed deterministic autonomously.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Interestingly a human organism contains 10% human cells and 90% symbiotic bacterial cells.
If we count actual DNA, the human organism is 1% human and 99% bacterial DNA.
Most physical decisions are made by our symbiont bacteria via chemical "quorum sensing" (bacterial hive-mind).
So who is in charge and exercises freewill?
the sum of all that he is...that's who.
The chooser is at the top of the bodies autonomous deterministic processes.
Last edited:
Any how this thread is not about co-determinism.. if you have any further questions take them to the appropriate thread i previously linked to.....please...
I am collecting a list of FAQ's for the other thread and ask you if you wish to have your question attributed to you or left anonymous ?
Can you apply that criteria to any other belief system?
Atheism is not a belief system.
Who is "them"?
Who is "they"?
I just want to understand who you think you are deliberately insulting.
What has got you so riled up about the question of free will, and the view some hold that any non-trivial notion of freedom is an illusion, that you feel you must devote an entire thread to insulting them?
How on earth do you interpret that discussion in that way?? You introduced the notion of there being more than one type of determinism by assuming that Capracus was talking about a specific type. You introduced the notion of there being more than one deterministic process, and then he simply asked you to clarify what you were trying to raise, whether you were talking about isolated systems etc.
Capracus is quite clear that he sees no freedom, and the assumption behind that discussion (another thread) is that the universe is deterministic. Maybe you missed that? Either way, you were the first one to introduce the notion of there being more than one process.
But it's neither here nor there.
An amusing side-bar from an otherwise fairly bizarre thread.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Feel free. I wrote it, I stand by it.
There is one thing I kind of agree with you and that is relatively speaking the human body is a universe in itself, if compared to our bacterial symbiotic occupants.
But that does not exempt it from the laws of determinism. In my case, the law that all current states are a result of previous causal states.
If I believe in a mathematically functioning universe, I must believe in the above definition.
Last edited:
It doesn’t as long as they’re deterministically related, although an isolated process would violate the premise.
I’m saying that all observational and selected theoretical accounts suggest that our reality operates in a universally deterministic fashion. I didn’t specify any particular nuances of determinism, I’ve only addressed the erroneous exceptions to it that QQ had proposed. If you think you have a more reasonable take on our observed reality, go ahead and spell it out.
According to your use of logic, what is responsible for all of human suffering, past present and future?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
One can make a case that events within any given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior states.
Which IMO, means that each individual timeline has its own deterministic evolution.
However the same law of deterministic cause and effect holds for all individual timelines.
There is this interesting definition,
Would such a inherent indeterministic nature include a "tendency", such as a "tendency for movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction"?
Last edited:
- Status