Is Everything Predetermined?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good points - something i may not have actually defined properly.

''To clearly see this is the case, start with fact that the particles can not think, follow the same four steps, and then conclude that thinking is impossible, does not exist.''

I think that perhaps this might not have so much to do with treating singular particles with thought, but treating them one of two ways.

1. Is that particles are on a set course. If this is true, the field guiding them (the quantum potential) will contain the information necessery for thought, as thought could be pin-pointed down as a materialistic phenomena.

2. That particles, are a collective species. They must be in large families to even produce anything close to the 'so-called' independantly-thinking states.

''The very nature of evolution is that it can and does produce more complex things (by "trial and error") from more simple things. Your agrument does not exclude the possibility that evolution as produced both "thought" or "free will."

despite this observation I again state that I tend to think genuine free will does not exist, but (1b) and my essay's discussion show that it is at least possible (can be consistent with nature's physical rules) that it may''

I'm glad you're on my wavelength Billy.

Reiku
 
I would like to note that free-will is real to the observer. It may not be real in the technical sense.
 
lol
Well.
:D What can I say. It's over my head that is for sure.

I am simply waiting on a good debate. Apparently, all of the issues dealing with free will are too complex :/
 
They don't need to be over your head. Perhaps it was the way i was explaining my axioms. Can you tell me what was it that flew over your head - because i was kinda going for straight-forward answers...?
 
existabrent said:
wtf.
At least I am bringing some honesty to the discussion maybe.

How is it not possible.
It is entirely objective if we have free will or not.
These tomes of sophistroy?
Gee man you must be one hell of a depressed guy or whatever. Seriously though. It proves a whole lot. All you got to do is to find that meaning for yourself.
Click to expand...

Gee, isn't it obvious that you can't tell if you've moved your hand according to your own free will or some resident "algorithm", existence of which is well beyond your comprehension/perception, made you to move it?
 
Reiku said:
They don't need to be over your head. Perhaps it was the way i was explaining my axioms. Can you tell me what was it that flew over your head - because i was kinda going for straight-forward answers...?
Click to expand...

Ok. I'll explain...

It was simply the complex things of Billy T and this whole physics perspective thing. I don't agree with that...
Remember, I am a mindless twit. But I have some important information to present. Or some clarificationing of what is happening. That seems to be my speciality. I am just looking for some answers that are short and not too long. Sometimes I don't like reading about some things.
 
dixonmassey said:
Gee, isn't it obvious that you can't tell if you've moved your hand according to your own free will or some resident "algorithm", existence of which is well beyond your comprehension/perception, made you to move it?
Click to expand...

That my friend is simply the answer given by the Baron Max.
Free will is as has been said numerous times, something certain to the observer but not to the universality of it. This raises a important question.

I would suggest reading existentialism is a humanism.
 
''Sometimes I don't like reading about some things.''

Because they are counterintuitive to your initial beliefs?

''Gee, isn't it obvious that you can't tell if you've moved your hand according to your own free will or some resident "algorithm", existence of which is well beyond your comprehension/perception, made you to move it?''

Hole in one.
 
Reiku said:
''Sometimes I don't like reading about some things.''

Because they are counterintuitive to your initial beliefs?

''Gee, isn't it obvious that you can't tell if you've moved your hand according to your own free will or some resident "algorithm", existence of which is well beyond your comprehension/perception, made you to move it?''

Hole in one.
Click to expand...

Whatever.
Enjoy your debate.
Hope you get some answers.
Doubt it.
 
Decreasing the level of highmindness of discussion, I'd like to comment that most (if not absolute majority) of humans desire predetermined universe. Astrology, all kinds of mind/card/intestine readings are alive and well. Humans just don't want to be alone in the empty, cold, uncertain universe. It's too scary, it's too pointless. Baby Jesus, for example, guiding your life is much more comforting, you are not alone in the cold, somebody gives a dime, etc.. Thus, human desires are indirect demonstration of the fact that Universe is indeed cold, distant, meaningless, uncertain, giving no dime about you or a fly. In other words, free will is real.
 
''Yeah.
Also it wasn't true.
I don't want to read about universals or physics or anything.''

If you don't understand what i said, then you are now clutching at straws. I never meant to offend you, but if we are going to ''scientifically talk'' about the nature of free-will, we should see it in more of an open light, not some dogmatic, and perhaps even narrow veiw totally dependant on epistemological or metaphysical viewpoint.

Reiku
 
Reiku said:
''Yeah.
Also it wasn't true.
I don't want to read about universals or physics or anything.''

If you don't understand what i said, then you are now clutching at straws. I never meant to offend you, but if we are going to ''scientifically talk'' about the nature of free-will, we should see it in more of an open light, not some dogmatic, and perhaps even narrow veiw totally dependant on epistemological or metaphysical viewpoint.

Reiku
Click to expand...

You are mis understanding me.

No, I don't want to read or, that is why i do not understand what you said- physics and science and whatnot.

I am not dogmatic. And if you want to see it in light then you would bring good points to the discussion. Of course this is exactly the narrow view you are talking about. I don't see any though. There are better points in better threads.
 
I never said you personally where dogmatic. I was leading to a simple analogy of a discussion without science. Not you personally, again.

''You are mis understanding me.

No, I don't want to read or, that is why i do not understand what you said- physics and science and whatnot.''

You're right, i am misunderstanding you. And i still am. Can you tell me more clearly what you mean...?
What i seem to gather, is that my posts are not to your suiting...?
 
Then why are you here?

You know, i find it pretty strange right, that someone who doesn't like phsyics, would come into a science thread, and declair his dislike for a certain type of work, ''because it isn't to his/her liking...'' ;-/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top