Originally posted by black beetleI admit that the role of a die may be largely deterministic (though I have not yet found any reference to back that up). However, I see no reason to believe quantum events are deterministic, whereas you seem to be assuming it to be the case. Do you have reasons for thinking it to be the case or do you just assume it without cause?
Consider the result of the dice for free will; each time you throw it in a certain way the result is determined by specific actions which, by definition, are algorithmic and deterministic.
Originally posted by black beetleyou got a girlfriend, right?
At the other thread you said that your identity is an ever changing blurry edged entity comprising mostly your consciousness, which is a complicated pattern of information that arises from your brain. Cool and acceptable, although I would argue that these pieces of info arise from your body-dependent mind.
Here, you merely imply an injection of your ...[text shortened]... ogic to describe things the way we perceive them; this logic could well be the quantum logic
😵
Originally posted by twhiteheadI argue that there is no such a thing as actuality due to the fact that the unexperienced reality is just a potentiality for experience. Without the interaction of a subjective consiousness with the possibility for a specific experience, an actual event / experience cannot take place. Therefore, any experience of ours takes place strictly in the realm of the dualistic realm of subjectivity and "objectivity" (here, obectivity is merely our collective subjectivity) within the field of our individual awareness.
I admit that the role of a die may be largely deterministic (though I have not yet found any reference to back that up). However, I see no reason to believe quantum events are deterministic, whereas you seem to be assuming it to be the case. Do you have reasons for thinking it to be the case or do you just assume it without cause?
Thus, for one: each possibility for experience/ events is contained within the wavefunction, as I told you earlier at this thread; and, for two, each of these possibilities is assigned a probability. So I clearly recognize a complicated web of quantum interconnections that take place in our (epiontic) universe -and I have no idea what exact type of meaning (other than sunyata) should I inject to the various phenomena we perceive
😵
Originally posted by twhiteheadOn the other hand, methinks the quantum choices per se cannot appear randomly out of a specific field of absolute nothingness. In my opinion, they arise from the field of the quantum karmic resonance, simply because they cannot be the result of hidden bits of information carried by each particle. Methinks the patterns we recognize are merely the result of specific configurations of quantum interactions imposed in the quantum field through our choice of our experimental setups alone, and these patterns alone are merely an hologram of the universe we perceive that unfolds striclty out of our personal entaglement. I argue that this entaglemenent is hidden from us, because we, as every other sentient being, are part of the hologram
I admit that the role of a die may be largely deterministic (though I have not yet found any reference to back that up). However, I see no reason to believe quantum events are deterministic, whereas you seem to be assuming it to be the case. Do you have reasons for thinking it to be the case or do you just assume it without cause?
😵
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure what the die throwing has to do with the heart of your question, but
I am not sure if this should be here or in Science, but it is about things usually discussed here.
This claim comes up over and over in this forums:
[b]"Everybody knows that everything in the universe is caused"
or its cleverly posed in another form:
"Show me something that is known not to have a cause"
It is my claim that the vast major ...[text shortened]... iming he is eternal - and thus avoiding the problem of having a time prior to his existence.[/b]
that will play out as it will I guess. The question you’re asking I'm assuming is due
to the conversation we were having about the universe's beginning if anyone
actually believes it had one or not.
There are two point of views at odds, the first everything in the universe including
universe as a whole has a cause, the other which cannot be true if the first is, is
that you can have anything or something without a cause.
We can pretty much talk about any subject, what was the cause of my pepperoni
and sausage pizza delivered to my home, what was the cause of the car wreak
outside last night if there were causes we can just add more and more topics until
we find one that defies a cause, or we just come up with something that was pure
and simple here without a cause. Once the causeless event or item is identified I'd
have to concede the point, until then we could I start with my pizza example and
add it to till we find one.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayMy die throwing example is a suggested causeless event. I cannot prove it is causeless, and you cannot prove it is caused. So what now?
I'm not sure what the die throwing has to do with the heart of your question,
Once the causeless event or item is identified I'd have to concede the point, until then we could I start with my pizza example and add it to till we find one.
My argument is that if the outcome of an event is truly random, then there is no specific reason why that outcome came about ie the specific outcome was not 'caused'.
In many cases we can trace apparent randomness backwards through a causal chain, but it is my understanding that the Second Law of Thermodynamics almost guarantees the generation of new 'randomness' at every turn.
For every given state of the universe there are always multiple possible futures. That is why entropy is increasing.
Now, if everything is ultimately caused, then how does that fit with free will?
Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit: "I cannot prove it is causeless, and you cannot prove it is caused. So what now?"
My die throwing example is a suggested causeless event. I cannot prove it is causeless, and you cannot prove it is caused. So what now?
My argument is that if the outcome of an event is truly random, then there is no specific reason why that outcome came about ie the specific outcome was not 'caused'.
In many cases we can trace apparent randomness bac ...[text shortened]... creasing.
Now, if everything is ultimately caused, then how does that fit with free will?
Since the quantum choices appear randomly solely out of a specific field of absolute nothingness -and, thus, snce the quantum choises arise stricktly from the field of the quantum karmic resonance-, the (random) outcome of the throwing of the dice
is definately caused
😵
Originally posted by twhiteheadOur wills by default is a will to do as it we want, meaning act with intent which is a
My die throwing example is a suggested causeless event. I cannot prove it is causeless, and you cannot prove it is caused. So what now?
My argument is that if the outcome of an event is truly random, then there is no specific reason why that outcome came about ie the specific outcome was not 'caused'.
In many cases we can trace apparent randomness bac ...[text shortened]... creasing.
Now, if everything is ultimately caused, then how does that fit with free will?
cause or reason. I don't see how you have an issue with this.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIf we trace back through the process of your 'willing' (when making a free will decision) then either we ultimately come to something prior to your existence that caused you to 'will' in that way, or your free will decision was at some level uncaused.
Our wills by default is a will to do as it we want, meaning act with intent which is a
cause or reason. I don't see how you have an issue with this.
Kelly
I just think the concept of a free will (under certain definitions) is incompatible with a deterministic universe. Further, almost any concept of a free will is incompatible with a deterministic universe that was created by a creator capable of predicting the complete outcome of his creation. If the initial state of the universe predetermined all your decisions, then the creator of that initial state is directly responsible for those decisions.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is no different than processes put in place, we can have a robot to do as it is
If we trace back through the process of your 'willing' (when making a free will decision) then either we ultimately come to something prior to your existence that caused you to 'will' in that way, or your free will decision was at some level uncaused.
I just think the concept of a free will (under certain definitions) is incompatible with a deterministic ...[text shortened]... cisions, then the creator of that initial state is directly responsible for those decisions.
programmed to do as we desire. All of its outputs and actions would be caused due
to the inputs we say it must react too, it would act as we have programmed it to.
As it runs into various and sundry inputs its actions would be planned out in
advance, if it runs into something unaccounted for it would either error out or do
something not accounted for in its programming. Its unaccounted for action would
still be it acting out due to programming we put into it, it would just do whatever
action does because it has to act because of its programming.
With humans and our wills we can be bound by our nature, we can be bound by
the peer pressures around us, we can be bound by the natural world around us, but
with the term free will we can also repent, we can change our minds. We can do
as we will. Now if you want to suggest we are bound by our creator to act as we
do than you are not talking about freewill but robots, if you acknowledge that God
gave us a will to do as we will given choices to act upon, than again even our
free will came by cause which is the desire of our creator.
If you choose to say no God allowed in this discussion than there is no such thing
as free will in my opinion, we are simply products of a lot of accidents, which again
is a cause.
Kelly