He would only say it if he didn't mind making unsupportable claims.
Oh, chemistry is not exactly deterministic. Instead it is a matter of equilibriums.
Pascal's Wager still a Longshot unless.....
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
He would only say it if he didn't mind making unsupportable claims.
Oh, chemistry is not exactly deterministic. Instead it is a matter of equilibriums.
You are acting like they are seperate, but they aren't. They are coexistant. But the pattern held by the brain can definately effect things.
However an example would be any one who gets the idea that something harmful is a good idea. For example there was a fellow who convinced himself that he should only eat raw egg white and white wine. He continued the deit until it killed him from extreme biotin deficincy (raw eggwhite binds to biotin which normally isn't a big deal since there are lots of sources, like egg yolk).
There is no defect in the "wetware/brain" that we can point to as a cause here, it is just a defective notion of what is correct diet in the "os/mind."
Chemistry is deterministic. The fact that it's a matter of equilibriums doesn't change that. In fact when you're looking at macroscopic equilibrium systems it's arguably even more deterministic, since you could perhaps quibble about whether or not individual molecular interactions were deterministic on the quantum level, but that's not an issue for bulk equilibrium systems.
An interesting claim, and yet despite similarities, no two reactions are exactly the same.
"More" deterministic isn't a problem. One a touch of non determinism is reqired.
And after all, brownian motion is the standard for deterministic behavior.
Like I said, determanistic-esque behavior of macro systems isn't an issue. But with chemical reactions, even in bulk, you get side reactions in anything interesting and differing %s of finished products, even whenevery thing is "he same." It only seems deterministic if you are sloppy in how you measure things. In fact, determinism seems inversly proportional to precision.
No, you only get differing % of products in a bulk reaction if you are sloppy in making everything "the same." Exactly the same reaction will always produce exactly the same products, assuming it is run under identical circumstances.
Sure, if you round off the differences. Or,
Make "same" your scapegoat. You can also just ignore whatever isn't "product."
The margin of error is where the interesting things happen.
I don't know what you're trying to communicate here. Of course if you have different conditions, you will get different products. I don't see how that observation is "making same my scapegoat". Also, I never said anything about "ignoring whatever isn't product."
If a deity exists, does it have to function within the bounds of our imaginings? Does the Xian God say that you must not be driven by a sense of covering your ass? Which deities say this?
Perhaps the deity in question will honor anyone's desire to honor them in whatever fashion. Perhaps not.
My understanding of Pascal's Wager is this: Which way do you have more to lose? If it turns out there is an afterlife, then denying it will turn out worse than accepting it and there being no afterlife.
It boils down to a simple preference of belief.
My question is this-why does it matter which way I choose to go, to you?
Perhaps the deity in question will honor anyone's desire to honor them in whatever fashion. Perhaps not.
My understanding of Pascal's Wager is this: Which way do you have more to lose? If it turns out there is an afterlife, then denying it will turn out worse than accepting it and there being no afterlife.
It boils down to a simple preference of belief.
My question is this-why does it matter which way I choose to go, to you?
I don't think you function within my imaginings.
Even my dog of ten years continues to surprise me.
What a great way to phrase it! I think you can be driven by this within certain constrictions. Like you cannot kill or bear false witness to cover your ass. The latter comes up quite a bit in ass covering, since someone, generally, must be to blame if you are not.
I would guess that none of the Abrahamic gods allow full freedom with this drive.
This is an excellent question, but people often have very little insight into their own motives.
If someone answers
'I am concerned about your eternal soul.'
there is no reason to take this at face value. It might be true, but
they are more likely concerned about their own
about being good
about feeling like they have faith since you are there to take on the role of the unbeliever in themselves
because they are doing what they are told
because it might make them feel more secure
etc.
Conditions are always different if you look closely enough.
The fact that you can't ever get exactly the same set of initial conditions doesn't mean that the results aren't deterministic for a given set of initial conditions.
So what exactly do you think deterministic means any way?
It means that the result could potentially be predicted with certainty, if you had enough information about the initial conditions and knew enough about the mechanisms of the process taking place.
if only it could it would, but it can't so it shan't.
Have you ever considered that there is a ring of complete uncertainty t light moments away where t = the time of whatever you are doing?
Things are only kind of deterministic. The closer you look, the less deterministic things become.