17 Mar 08
1 edit
If the outcome of a random event is known then does that mean that it suddenly becomes a determined event?
My friend whitey on another thread seems to believe that simply knowing what has occurred in the past proves that the past MUST be determined and no other outcome was possible . My gut feeling is that this is basically bull really because if he's right then there can be no such thing as a past random event. Infact it would exclude randomness from the known universe.
Maybe he doesn't believe that random events actually can occurr and that Heisenberg was actually wrong , but I don't think he really thinks that so what's going on? He seems to think that an event simply occurring proves that it has to be a determined event because it exists in a past timeline that has to be unique. But surely he must exclude random events from this (which are by definition not determined events)............
"Whether or not Hitler knows his future, whether or not he can know his future, he still has a future, and it is still the one I know he had. He therefore had no free will." -- WHITEHEAD
Here it seems to me that he is saying that simply the fact that he knows what Hitler did in the past proves that his choices must be determined choices. So knowing an event has occurred proves it is a determined event - therefore random past events cannot be known.????? does that add up?
17 Mar 08
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat does it mean to "have" a future that hasn't taken place yet? How could the future be "yours" if you haven't "had" it yet -- "properly" speaking?
If the outcome of a random event is known then does that mean that it suddenly becomes a determined event?
My friend whitey on another thread seems to believe that simply knowing what has occurred in the past proves that the past MUST be determined and no other outcome was possible . My gut feeling is that this is basically bull really because if h a determined event - therefore random past events cannot be known.????? does that add up?
The ambiguity in the verb "to have" complicates things. It's just a bad metaphor. If you "make" your future instead, I think it's easier to make sense of free will.
Also there is a slippage between two different ideas of what it means to be "determined." Surely past events are now fixed or determined in time. I can't say that Hitler came before Napolean. But this doesn't mean that it was determined in the sense of free-will vrs. determinism.
Speaking of Whitehead, another process-philosopher named Henri Bergson has a very powerful critique of the debate between free-will and determinism where he argues (much better than I could) that the debate is a false problem based on the misunderstanding of time. He says we confuse time with space. The book is "Time and Free Will." And if you haven't, I strongly recommend taking a look at it.
17 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by bjohnson407Thanks , I agree with much of what you say. This book sounds interesting , is it still in print?
What does it mean to "have" a future that hasn't taken place yet? How could the future be "yours" if you haven't "had" it yet -- "properly" speaking?
The ambiguity in the verb "to have" complicates things. It's just a bad metaphor. If you "make" your future instead, I think it's easier to make sense of free will.
Also there is a slippage between t Free Will." And if you haven't, I strongly recommend taking a look at it.
I agree that the past is fixed but that this doesn't prove that the past was determined. The theory of free will does mean that once something is done , then it is done , so to speak.
However , although Hitler's future (our past) is in front of him it is fixed in the past for us. His future doesn't exist for him in 1939 because at that point in time he hasn't got there yet. We know what his future "holds for him" but actually it's just our knowledge of the future he chose in the end. The key is to realise there is no "now" and that time can be looked differently from different angles or dimensions.
Whitey has a problem with this for some reason even though he is well acquainted with mathematical models and theoretical physics. Unfortunately , he lacks acquaintance with his own unconscious agenda to snuff out Christian thought wherever he sees it having a chance of success.
17 Mar 08
Random never really exists. Given enough detail and considering every possible outcome, you can predict anything.
Take a roulette wheel. Is it random that it lands on 24, or with enough information could you predict accurately it would land on 24, even if a gust of wind came along at the last minute, which you had already taken into your calculations.
Nothing is random. Everything is specific
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by knightmeisteryou made a little mistake in the first sentence 😀
If the outcome of a random event is known then does that mean that it suddenly becomes a determined event?
My friend whitey on another thread seems to believe that simply knowing what has occurred in the past proves that the past MUST be determined and no other outcome was possible . My gut feeling is that this is basically bull really because if h ...[text shortened]... a determined event - therefore random past events cannot be known.????? does that add up?
if the outcome of a random event is known then it is not random anymore and yes, it is determined. as in no randomness because you know what is going to happen, get it?.
next idea please
17 Mar 08
Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMadno you cannot
Random never really exists. Given enough detail and considering every possible outcome, you can predict anything.
Take a roulette wheel. Is it random that it lands on 24, or with enough information could you predict accurately it would land on 24, even if a gust of wind came along at the last minute, which you had already taken into your calculations.
Nothing is random. Everything is specific
you cannot predict the actions of intelligent life(free will remember?)
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by Penguinreally? that is very sad for you. anyway, you could see it. its obvious.
I remember it. It is an illusion.
Penguin (No Added Value).
or of course you could give me an example in which you do not have free will
since you claim you never have free will you should find enough examples. maybe two even
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMadWrong.
Random never really exists. Given enough detail and considering every possible outcome, you can predict anything.
Take a roulette wheel. Is it random that it lands on 24, or with enough information could you predict accurately it would land on 24, even if a gust of wind came along at the last minute, which you had already taken into your calculations.
Nothing is random. Everything is specific
In classical mechanics thinking you are right. Quantum mechanics tells us otherwise. We can see truly random things happening (nuclear decay is the easiest to understand I think)
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf the outcome of a random event is known then does that mean that it suddenly becomes a determined event?
If the outcome of a random event is known then does that mean that it suddenly becomes a determined event?
My friend whitey on another thread seems to believe that simply knowing what has occurred in the past proves that the past MUST be determined and no other outcome was possible . My gut feeling is that this is basically bull really because if h ...[text shortened]... a determined event - therefore random past events cannot be known.????? does that add up?
YES. That's exactly the point! Your friend whitey got it right. You see the logic , now?
More... God contradicts the laws of determinism in quantum mechanics, but I don't want to go this way.
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by knightmeister1. Does existence change, when looked at from different angles?
However , although Hitler's future (our past) is in front of him it is fixed in the past for us. His future doesn't exist for him in 1939 because at that point in time he hasn't got there yet. We know what his future "holds for him" but actually it's just our knowledge of the future he chose in the end. The key is to realise there is no "now" and that time can be looked differently from different angles or dimensions.
2. Does Hitlers future exist? Is that question meaningless unless a perspective is given? You have told us that it doesn't exist from one perspective and does exist from another.
3. You have also claimed that he has possible alternative futures. Do those also exist from certain perspectives?
4. What do you mean by 'possible' even when it is outside the realm of all existence (from any perspective).
5. If God can see all perspectives then he can see all existence - and thus all futures exist for him. So does Hitler not starting WWII and being an icon of peace exist for God? If not, then how can you claim that it is possible?
18 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziI said known in the past not in the future. If you look at whitey's quote you will see he refered to Hitler who lived in our past. He said just knowing (in the past) Hitler's choices proves his choices must have been determined.
you made a little mistake in the first sentence 😀
if the outcome of a random event is known then it is not random anymore and yes, it is determined. as in no randomness because you know what is going to happen, get it?.
next idea please
You just need to slow down and read the thing properly. Did you read it at all?
18 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut you are not addressing the thread are you. You said that simply knowing what Hitler did in the past proves that his actions must have been determined. It's there in black and white.
1. Does existence change, when looked at from different angles?
2. Does Hitlers future exist? Is that question meaningless unless a perspective is given? You have told us that it doesn't exist from one perspective and does exist from another.
3. You have also claimed that he has possible alternative futures. Do those also exist from certain perspectives and being an icon of peace exist for God? If not, then how can you claim that it is possible?
What I am doing is taking YOUR logic and applying it to past random quantum events. By your logic if the outcome of a past random event is known by us then that means it must be determined , but that's an obvious contradiction.
Let's say Hitler made all his decisions using a random number generator (based on quantum uncertainty) . You now would know the outcome of his decisions by looking at history and yet his decisions would not be random. How would you be able to say that simply knowing his future (as your past) makes his decisions determined (when obviously they would be random)?
So stop deflecting and answer the point.
The problem is you love your science and you say you are logical but when I start using both of these to make what you and I both know is a valid point you just can't handle it.
I have logically proved that simply knowing that an event has occurred does not prove that said event HAS to be determined.
I am going to choose to make a decision based on generating a random number using my computer now -----76---- . This means that I will make myself a milkshake . HMMMM ..lovely.... Ok , you know the outcome of this choice because you must be reading this after I posted it. Now , prove that my choice HAS TO BE determined simply because you now know about it. You can't . Care to retract your statement about you knowing Hitler's choices proves his choices were determined?
18 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoI said known in the past not "in advance" ! You guys really need to learn how to read and stop making assumptions. Read CAREFULLY.
[b]If the outcome of a random event is known then does that mean that it suddenly becomes a determined event?
YES. That's exactly the point! Your friend whitey got it right. You see the logic , now?
More... God contradicts the laws of determinism in quantum mechanics, but I don't want to go this way.[/b]
Someone makes a decision in the past based on a random effect or event. Let's say a physicist is playing around one day and decides to do something based on that radnomness. You then get to read about what he did. You now know what happened. Does you knowing what happened prove the decision was determined?