Yes, this is a thread on TL that involves religion, but I hate to think that our policy should be to blindly close every such thread. Sam Harris is a writer whose books are both insightful and have sparked many good discussions in the past and as long as the thread doesn't derail I'd like to leave it open. This should be the basic premise for every such thread, no matter how high the odds of it derailing. In that light, these posts that just predict the downfall of this thread (whether it be pre-determined or not) are 1) Not contributing to the discussion 2) Backseat moderating 3) Annoying 4) Actually contributing towards derailing it. I'll keep 2 daying people for this.
On March 05 2012 22:37 Kupon3ss wrote: quantum mechanics all particles at its most elemental degree have a certain amount of randomness in it, and the collective randomness makes it impossible to accurately capture the state of a system and use classical physics to predict future actions
accurate is a bad word there, it implies that there's something to be known, rather the system is not in any specific state, which is why we can't know it.
On March 05 2012 22:37 Kupon3ss wrote: quantum mechanics all particles at its most elemental degree have a certain amount of randomness in it, and the collective randomness makes it impossible to accurately capture the state of a system and use classical physics to predict future actions
That only applies at the level of elementary particles.
It essentially doesn't apply in the macro level, if so we wouldn't be able to launch rockets and space probes plotted with Newton's Laws or Relativity.
But even if the universe is completely random, it would still not be free.
The OP completely ignores a wealth of science that view things as stochastic. This is very archaic thinking that leads me to believe the OP just read up about determinism for the first time without actually researching the topic at all.
OP refers to physics quite a bit, but fails to address the Quantum level of physics where many things are determined by probabilities, which are inherently non-deterministic(things like random fields). Things are not so one sided. It is not black and white. Things can be both deterministic and random.
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles.
The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross.
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
The above is an anachronistic understanding of religion, theology, and theodicy.
If God exists, then why is there evil in the world?
On March 05 2012 22:10 Skilledblob wrote: and I dont understand why someone has to bring up religion all the time. Religion is no answer, religion is an option. If some more understood this then we could stop lots of these childish religion yes/no discussions.
there's no evidence of god and there is no conclusive evidence to your theory that's why it's a theory.
On March 05 2012 22:41 Uncultured wrote: The OP completely ignores a wealth of science that view things as stochastic. This is very archaic thinking that leads me to believe the OP just read up about determinism for the first time without actually researching the topic at all.
OP refers to physics quite a bit, but fails to address the Quantum level of physics where many things are determined by probabilities, which are inherently non-deterministic(things like random fields). Things are not so one sided. It is not black and white. Things can be both deterministic and random.
I've address that like 4 times in this thread.
This is probably the 5th: If your thoughts and actions are determined by a universal RNG, they would still not be free.
About determinism - just to interject a physicist's point of view in this, the motion of atoms is non-deterministic - for a start one cannot know the position and momenta of a particle to an error smaller than the uncertainty principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle One can only predict the probabilities of certain actions happening - for instance the chemical reactions in the brain might happen, or they might not - you can't predict which one it will be, only the probability of each outcome. Even in the classical limit, the behaviour of systems involving many variables (that depend on each other) becomes impossible to accurately predict, with small errors in measurement making long term predictions impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Of course stuff being random doesn't lend itself to free will either.
@hypercube - thanks, that Libet experiment was an interesting read. So when I cheese, my brain randomly decides to cheese (with environmental factors affecting the probabilities) and then makes up excuses for it? It's not my fault guys! :p
Sounds like an interesting book though, I'll have to read it.
On March 05 2012 22:44 RoberP wrote: About determinism - just to interject a physicist's point of view in this, the motion of atoms is non-deterministic - for a start one cannot know the position and momenta of a particle to an error smaller than the uncertainty principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle One can only predict the probabilities of certain actions happening - for instance the chemical reactions in the brain might happen, or they might not - you can't predict which one it will be, only the probability of each outcome. Even in the classical limit, the behaviour of systems involving many variables (that depend on each other) becomes impossible to accurately predict, with small errors in measurement making long term predictions impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Of course stuff being random doesn't lend itself to free will either.
@hypercube - thanks, that Libet experiment was an interesting read. So when I cheese, my brain randomly decides to cheese (with environmental factors affecting the probabilities) and then makes up excuses for it? It's not my fault guys! :p
Sounds like an interesting book though, I'll have to read it.
I've address that like 5 times in this thread.
This is probably the 6th: If your thoughts and actions are determined by a universal RNG, they would still not be free.
On March 05 2012 22:41 Uncultured wrote: The OP completely ignores a wealth of science that view things as stochastic. This is very archaic thinking that leads me to believe the OP just read up about determinism for the first time without actually researching the topic at all.
OP refers to physics quite a bit, but fails to address the Quantum level of physics where many things are determined by probabilities, which are inherently non-deterministic(things like random fields). Things are not so one sided. It is not black and white. Things can be both deterministic and random.
I've address that like 4 times in this thread.
This is probably the 5th: If your thoughts and actions are determined by a universal RNG, they would still not be free.
How do you know that what appears random to us, isn't in fact the expression of god's will ?
On March 05 2012 22:25 ooni wrote: Here is how I see it...
HERE WE GO Imagine a machine that can predict the future by 100% or very close to it it should be considered 100%, let us say this machine exists and figures out the outcome by "pre-determined" data. IF (<- note the big if) a such machine was possible to build and one does the opposite, that person would have acquired "free will" (if one defines free will as changing the course of the future by a choice).
If you are going to argue, "you do not have all the data, the data of the last choice was not included..."; That does not matter since everything is supposely 'predetermined', the last choice should have been predicted by the data at that point. If it cannot be predicted by the machine 2 possible futures exist depending on the person's choice
Well I believe humans or other animals with lessor intelligence is a crappier version of this machine. They can predict somewhat what will happen and act upon it, and has the free will to not to act upon it or act differently.
What if that machine told the person what kind of sandwich they would have the next morning. If everything is determined, would it be fair to say that the person will always have that sandwich? If the machine told me which sandwich I was going to eat, do I believe that I would be physically incapable of choosing otherwise? I was thinking of that a while ago. Not sure if its 100% logical.
(The reaction to hearing the data should have also been factored in, right?)
No that's the thing, the person could choose otherwise, it is a possible scenario. Thus a machine that supposely determine the future (which is possible because everything is supposely "predetermined") is only one scenario, if it wants to be 100% correct it will need to produce 2, an alternative future depending on the choice the person makes.
The reaction after hearing the data is not a data that is required, since everything is predetermined, it should be obvious for the machine to figure out what the decision will be (that decision should be predetermined).
Oh btw, could someone debunk this idea? I always want to hear the people's thoughts on it.
Uh oh, this thread looks like it starting to descend into attacks and one liners.
To try and bring it back onto a discussion, I'm going to pose the question about randomness in quantum mechanics.
So I don't know anything about this, but let's just take an atom's electrons for example. One could say that the location of the electrons is random, but because it is within a certain field, doesn't that mean that they are in a 'controlled random'? The electrons cannot just fly out to any random point in the universe, they are bound by certain restrictions, which really doesn't make them random in a true (I use that word non-literally) sense.
Could someone explain this in the quantum mechanics perspective? Because from what I would imagine it is fairly similar.
On March 05 2012 22:46 CyDe wrote: Uh oh, this thread looks like it starting to descend into attacks and one liners.
To try and bring it back onto a discussion, I'm going to pose the question about randomness in quantum mechanics.
So I don't know anything about this, but let's just take an atom's electrons for example. One could say that the location of the electrons is random, but because it is within a certain field, doesn't that mean that they are in a 'controlled random'? The electrons cannot just fly out to any random point in the universe, they are bound by certain restrictions, which really doesn't make them random in a true (I use that word non-literally) sense.
Could someone explain this in the quantum mechanics perspective? Because from what I would imagine it is fairly similar.
Random doesn't mean the distribution function has to be uniform over the whole universe. When you roll a dice, you'll have a random between 1 and 6, but you'll never get 7.
On March 05 2012 22:19 kerpal wrote: how do you (people who subscribe to determinism) feel about crime, punishment and justice? i'm curious about how this world-view plays out in practice.
That's an interesting topic and I'd like to hear elaboration on it.
I can see the argument that since our decisions arise from previous experiences, predisposed notions, and chemical reactions in the brain and body, you don't have the willpower or control you might think you do. But if that's the case, I wonder if you merely punish the host body of a destructive force, and label the entire entity as a criminal... and can he really ever control his desire to do wrong in society? He was just pre-programmed for failure? How does it work exactly?
On March 05 2012 22:41 Uncultured wrote: The OP completely ignores a wealth of science that view things as stochastic. This is very archaic thinking that leads me to believe the OP just read up about determinism for the first time without actually researching the topic at all.
OP refers to physics quite a bit, but fails to address the Quantum level of physics where many things are determined by probabilities, which are inherently non-deterministic(things like random fields). Things are not so one sided. It is not black and white. Things can be both deterministic and random.
I've address that like 4 times in this thread.
This is probably the 5th: If your thoughts and actions are determined by a universal RNG, they would still not be free.
How do you know that what appears random to us, isn't in fact the expression of god's will ?
Because:
1. There is no evidence of God.
2. It would be voodoo to claim you can will the random quantum fluctuations of elementary particles, which are fundamentally unpredictable.
3. If your actions are determined by God's will, then they are not determined by free will.
On March 05 2012 22:19 kerpal wrote: how do you (people who subscribe to determinism) feel about crime, punishment and justice? i'm curious about how this world-view plays out in practice.
That's an interesting topic and I'd like to hear elaboration on it.
I can see the argument that since our decisions arise from previous experiences, predisposed notions, and chemical reactions in the brain and body, you don't have the willpower or control you might think you do. But if that's the case, I wonder if you merely punish the host body of a destructive force, and label the entire entity as a criminal... and can he really ever control his desire to do wrong in society? He was just pre-programmed for failure? How does it work exactly?
Can someone clarify?
The world works "as if" free will existed. I would not recommend any changes to criminal justice as a result of disbelieving free will. I have certain views on criminal justice, but they are completely unrelated to whether or not I believe in free will.
On March 05 2012 22:19 kerpal wrote: how do you (people who subscribe to determinism) feel about crime, punishment and justice? i'm curious about how this world-view plays out in practice.
That's an interesting topic and I'd like to hear elaboration on it.
I can see the argument that since our decisions arise from previous experiences, predisposed notions, and chemical reactions in the brain and body, you don't have the willpower or control you might think you do. But if that's the case, I wonder if you merely punish the host body of a destructive force, and label the entire entity as a criminal... and can he really ever control his desire to do wrong in society? He was just pre-programmed for failure? How does it work exactly?
Can someone clarify?
I still don't really have an opinion on all of this, but just through thinking for a little bit, I would say yes, theoretically. If you were to have all the data, ALL of the data, about this person. Everything on every person they met, and everywhere they have been, and everything they have touched etc, some omniscient being would be able to tell what a potential criminal would do before they do.
I mean, like you mentioned, I think that everything we do is a product of chemical reactions in the brain. Memories, insecurities, fears, perceptions... all the things that would contribute to a crime can be traced. Theoretically, of course.
However, I think that one would not be able to figure someone out someone by looking at them solely. You would also have to understand fully their environment and the things that occur to them out of their control (someone might be angry and then, out of their control, someone cuts them off in traffic... then they just snap and attack them).
On March 05 2012 22:44 paralleluniverse wrote: I've address that like 5 times in this thread.
This is probably the 6th: If your thoughts and actions are determined by a universal RNG, they would still not be free.
Equating an RNG to a staochastic process is silly. RNG's are not random, but predetermined by the will of it's creator. We have no evidence of such a creator for the random processes we see in physics.
EPT
