| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
18 Mar 2005 02:49:32 PM |
| Object: |
A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
The argument of atheism vs religion is really about should take a view
of existence where there is both a physical plane and spiritual
plane(dualistic), or a view of existence where there is only the
physical plane (monolistic (if there is such a word) ).
The first important thing to realise is that they can ever only be
beliefs. To believe in one view or the other is a display of faith. So
what are the odds of each? 50/50?
Some would argue that the odds aren't 50/50, that all the evidence of
scientific discoveries has weighted it in favour of the monolistic
belief.
Is this true though, or just an attempt to pull the wool over the our
eyes?
Let's take a look at it from the perspective of theoretical physics.
The first question is whether we live in an indeterministic or
deterministic universe.
Is the probability 50/50? This is where the weight of scientific
evidence comes in. It suggests that the randomness in our models is
down to human ignorance. It points to a deterministic universe. So,
what are the odds we should give? You can make up your own odds here,
but I'm going to be neutral and call it 50/50.
Let's say it was the indeterministic universe. You can either have a
spiritual plane influencing the randomness (dualistic) or simply plain
randomness itself (monolistic). What is the probability of each? By
virtue of selecting the indeterminate universe you have gone the
opposite direction from the weight any scientific evidence, it's purely
spiritual plane vs randomness (dualistic vs monolistic). So let's call
it 50/50 again.
If it is the determinate universe, is it all preordained, or
preordained up until choice is demonstrated? What are the odds for
this? Well there is simply no physical theory that explains choice, and
if you did a survey, I'm sure that most people would agree that they
have choice. Still, I'm going to call it 50/50.
If it was the deterministic universe where there is no choice and
everything is preordained, it does not mean the issue of whether there
is a spiritual plane or not disappears, it just reduces the interest
that our universe could possibly hold. As something preordained would
be relatively boring. Still if it went backwards and forwards through a
singularity forever as has been suggested, you could believe our
universe is simply an "executive toy on the desk of God". So we have a
preordained universe, but was it created from the spiritual plane or
not, what are the odds? I'd have to say 50/50 again, as there is no
evidence (which you (atheists) would accept, e.g. ancient texts) which
points to one outcome over the other.
Otherwise it is a deterministic universe up until choice is
demonstrated. With 'I' that chooses being above the physical law, the
only option here is the dualistic version.
So what seem to be the odds of the dualistic view of existence? There
are three outcomes which lead to a dualistic universe.
The indeterministic universe (0.5) where there is a spiritual plane
(0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
The deterministic universe (0.5) where everything is preordained (0.5)
and there is a spiritual plane (0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125
The deterministic universe (0.5) where everything is preordained up
until choice is demonstrated (0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
So adding these together gives us the odds of it being a dualistic view
of the universe at 62.5%, which means the odds of the monolistic view
of the universe are down to 37.5%.
You may notice that that the odds between a deterministic universe and
a indeterministic universe was 50/50, yet the history of science shows
that what we had previously needed randomness or a spiritual plane to
explain, can through science now be shown to be governed by
deterministic laws. The higher you weight the evidence of scientific
history, the higher you'll make the odds on it being a deterministic
universe. If you do this you'll see that the odds of it being a
dualistic view of the universe increase. In the example below, I favour
the evidence of scientific history, and make the percentage 60/40 in
favour of a deterministic universe.
The indeterministic universe (0.4) where there is a spiritual plane
(0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.2
The deterministic universe (0.6) where everything is preordained (0.5)
and there is a spiritual plane (0.5) = 0.6 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.15
The deterministic universe (0.6) where everything is preordained up
until choice is demonstrated (0.5) = 0.6 * 0.5 = 0.3
So adding these together gives us the odds of it being a dualistic view
of the universe now at 65%, which means the odds of the monolistic view
of the universe are down to 35%. So we can see that the more weight you
place on the history of scientific evidence, the more likely there is a
spiritual plane.
The other variable that comes in is whether you believe you have a
choice. The higher you rate your belief that you have a choice, that
there is the 'I' that seems above physical laws, you'll notice that the
odds of it being a dualistic view of the universe it becomes. Let's say
the odds of us having choice over no choice is 60/40, though you can
make up your own odds here.
The indeterministic universe (0.4) where there is a spiritual plane
(0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.2
The deterministic universe (0.6) where everything is preordained (0.4)
and there is a spiritual plane (0.5) = 0.6 * 0.4 * 0.5 = 0.12
The deterministic universe (0.6) where everything is preordained up
until choice is demonstrated (0.6) = 0.6 * 0.6 = 0.36
Adding these odds together we see that the odds of a dualistic universe
rising again to 68%, leaving the odds of a monolistic universe at 32%.
I'd be interested to see where the atheists think I've been unobjective
here.
[This is an edited version of something I wrote on alt.religion called
'I believe',
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion/browse_frm/thread/17f29f4588cfab86/997775f94cbbaa44?q=I+believe#997775f94cbbaa44
(It was a shame more atheists didn't join in to break my argument,
probably my fault for not posting it to alt.atheism) ]
.
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 05:56:41 PM |
|
|
<glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1111178972.107792.286050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The argument of atheism vs religion is really about should take a view
of existence where there is both a physical plane and spiritual
plane(dualistic), or a view of existence where there is only the
physical plane (monolistic (if there is such a word) ).
The first important thing to realise is that they can ever only be
beliefs. To believe in one view or the other is a display of faith. So
what are the odds of each? 50/50?
wrong - the view of physical existence is backed up by empirical evidence
whereas the spiritual has zero. so why 50/50 ? - more like 100/0
Some would argue that the odds aren't 50/50, that all the evidence of
scientific discoveries has weighted it in favour of the monolistic
belief.
Is this true though, or just an attempt to pull the wool over the our
eyes?
if you have evidence for your side show it - conspiracy theories are
worthless
Let's take a look at it from the perspective of theoretical physics.
The first question is whether we live in an indeterministic or
deterministic universe.
Is the probability 50/50? This is where the weight of scientific
evidence comes in. It suggests that the randomness in our models is
down to human ignorance.
this is wrong - heard of the uncertainty principle ?
It points to a deterministic universe. So,
what are the odds we should give? You can make up your own odds here,
but I'm going to be neutral and call it 50/50.
so if u havent heard of the UP how can u assign odds ? and anyway - if
"evidence" points to something why do u call 50/50 neutral ?
Let's say it was the indeterministic universe. You can either have a
spiritual plane influencing the randomness (dualistic) or simply plain
randomness itself (monolistic). What is the probability of each? By
virtue of selecting the indeterminate universe you have gone the
opposite direction from the weight any scientific evidence, it's purely
spiritual plane vs randomness (dualistic vs monolistic). So let's call
it 50/50 again.
so using yr logic - there is equal weight to something that has evidence and
something that does not .... well logic isnt the right word really.
If it is the determinate universe, is it all preordained, or
preordained up until choice is demonstrated? What are the odds for
this? Well there is simply no physical theory that explains choice, and
if you did a survey, I'm sure that most people would agree that they
have choice. Still, I'm going to call it 50/50.
if something is deterministic - then it is deterministic - *no* choice . bad
premise ... worse odds
If it was the deterministic universe where there is no choice and
everything is preordained, it does not mean the issue of whether there
is a spiritual plane or not disappears, it just reduces the interest
that our universe could possibly hold. As something preordained would
be relatively boring. Still if it went backwards and forwards through a
singularity forever as has been suggested, you could believe our
universe is simply an "executive toy on the desk of God". So we have a
preordained universe, but was it created from the spiritual plane or
not, what are the odds? I'd have to say 50/50 again, as there is no
evidence (which you (atheists) would accept, e.g. ancient texts) which
points to one outcome over the other.
again u have no evidence for a spritual plane, or a god but u assign a
chance of 50/50..why ?
Otherwise it is a deterministic universe up until choice is
demonstrated. With 'I' that chooses being above the physical law, the
only option here is the dualistic version.
huh ?
So what seem to be the odds of the dualistic view of existence? There
are three outcomes which lead to a dualistic universe.
The indeterministic universe (0.5) where there is a spiritual plane
(0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
The deterministic universe (0.5) where everything is preordained (0.5)
and there is a spiritual plane (0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125
The deterministic universe (0.5) where everything is preordained up
until choice is demonstrated (0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
So adding these together gives us the odds of it being a dualistic view
of the universe at 62.5%, which means the odds of the monolistic view
of the universe are down to 37.5%.
You may notice that that the odds between a deterministic universe and
a indeterministic universe was 50/50, yet the history of science shows
that what we had previously needed randomness or a spiritual plane to
explain, can through science now be shown to be governed by
deterministic laws. The higher you weight the evidence of scientific
history, the higher you'll make the odds on it being a deterministic
universe. If you do this you'll see that the odds of it being a
dualistic view of the universe increase. In the example below, I favour
the evidence of scientific history, and make the percentage 60/40 in
favour of a deterministic universe.
The indeterministic universe (0.4) where there is a spiritual plane
(0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.2
The deterministic universe (0.6) where everything is preordained (0.5)
and there is a spiritual plane (0.5) = 0.6 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.15
The deterministic universe (0.6) where everything is preordained up
until choice is demonstrated (0.5) = 0.6 * 0.5 = 0.3
So adding these together gives us the odds of it being a dualistic view
of the universe now at 65%, which means the odds of the monolistic view
of the universe are down to 35%. So we can see that the more weight you
place on the history of scientific evidence, the more likely there is a
spiritual plane.
The other variable that comes in is whether you believe you have a
choice. The higher you rate your belief that you have a choice, that
there is the 'I' that seems above physical laws, you'll notice that the
odds of it being a dualistic view of the universe it becomes. Let's say
the odds of us having choice over no choice is 60/40, though you can
make up your own odds here.
The indeterministic universe (0.4) where there is a spiritual plane
(0.5) = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.2
The deterministic universe (0.6) where everything is preordained (0.4)
and there is a spiritual plane (0.5) = 0.6 * 0.4 * 0.5 = 0.12
The deterministic universe (0.6) where everything is preordained up
until choice is demonstrated (0.6) = 0.6 * 0.6 = 0.36
Adding these odds together we see that the odds of a dualistic universe
rising again to 68%, leaving the odds of a monolistic universe at 32%.
I'd be interested to see where the atheists think I've been unobjective
here.
[This is an edited version of something I wrote on alt.religion called
'I believe',
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.religion/browse_frm/thread/17f29f4588cfab86/997775f94cbbaa44?q=I+believe#997775f94cbbaa44
(It was a shame more atheists didn't join in to break my argument,
probably my fault for not posting it to alt.atheism) ]
what it all boils down to is that u have assigned odds to *ideas* that have
no evidential basis .
so as someone has already pointed out *GIGO*
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 06:09:28 PM |
|
|
Some would argue that the odds aren't 50/50, that all the evidence
of
scientific discoveries has weighted it in favour of the monolistic
belief.
Is this true though, or just an attempt to pull the wool over the
our
eyes?
if you have evidence for your side show it - conspiracy theories are
worthless
A guy named Laplace came up with a definition of a deterministic system
as being one which we could prove or ever hope to prove to be
deterministic. This definition sounded reasonable and was widely
accepted.
Therefore due to the Uncertainty Principle, it was deemed that the
universe was indeterministic (as we could never hope to determine it,
due to lack of knowledge of the position of the electron).
Many then banished God to the randomness (caused by the uncertainty
principle). In the back of people's minds though, science had always
shown that what we have thought of as randomness was due to our
ignorance, therefore it seemed that even though we might not know the
position of an electron, it was due to our ignorance, and that the
space in which the concept of God was banished to was due to our
ignorance. God could simply be replaced by randomness (which was that
which we were unable to explain), and wasn't really needed, and the
weight of scientific evidence showed was just down to our ignorance.
Thus people (perhaps like yourself) assumed that science pointed to the
fact that there wasn't a God.
But as the film the Usual Suspects said "The greatest trick the Devil
ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist".
The trick here was down at a low level of theoretical physics.
The definition didn't distinguish between whether the universe was
really deterministic, or indeterministic, regardless of human
knowledge. It made determinism equal to predictability (whether we as
humans could ever predict it). It was a selfish definition (in that it
was based on what humans might ever know), and was based on ignorance
(as to whether the universe really was deterministic or
indeterministic).
However Jean Bricmont came up with an alternative definition for a
deterministic system.
see http://www.fyma.ucl.ac.be/files/Turin.pdf
(top of page 3)
"This brings us to the second definition of determinism, that tries to
be independent of human abilities; consider a physical system whose
state is characterized by some numbers that change over time; let us
say that it is deterministic if there exists a function F that maps
the values taken by that set of variables at a given instant, say t1,
to those obtained at a later time, say t2; and then the latter to those
at a later time t3 etc. This corresponds pretty much to Laplace's
conception. It corresponds to the idea of predictability, but 'in
principle', i.e. putting aside limitations imposed by human abilities.
The word 'exist' should be taken here in a 'Platonic' sense: it does
not refer to our knowledge; the function in question may be unknown,
or unknowable, or so complicated that, even if it were known, it would
be, in practice, impossible to use it in order to make predictions.
Now, is determinism understood in this sense also refutable? Well let
us suppose that the system happens to twice in exactly the same state,
at different times, say at time ti and tj, and is, at times t(i+1) and
t(j+1), in different states. Then, the function F does not exist,
since, by definition, it is supposed to associate to each set of
values of the variables to another set in a unique way."
So for the physical system of the universe to be deterministic, there
would have to be a function which could map the initial state at say
t(start) to the state at t(now) and to the state at t(hundred years
time).
If we ran the universe program again, and it was able to map the same
initial state at t(start) to a different state at t(now) it would be
indeterministic.
The point being here is that all scientific evidence points to the
universe being deterministic. If it is deterministic, the only question
you really need to ask as to whether there is anything more than
science is "do I have a choice?"
This should hopefully explain to you why I constructed the decision
tree in the way I did.
If you don't get this, just post again, and I will explain in more
detail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Borst" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 11:51:49 PM |
|
|
On 19 Mar 2005 16:09:28 -0800, wrote:
Some would argue that the odds aren't 50/50, that all the evidence
of
scientific discoveries has weighted it in favour of the monolistic
belief.
Is this true though, or just an attempt to pull the wool over the
our
eyes?
if you have evidence for your side show it - conspiracy theories are
worthless
A guy named Laplace came up with a definition of a deterministic system
as being one which we could prove or ever hope to prove to be
deterministic. This definition sounded reasonable and was widely
accepted.
Therefore due to the Uncertainty Principle, it was deemed that the
universe was indeterministic (as we could never hope to determine it,
due to lack of knowledge of the position of the electron).
Many then banished God to the randomness (caused by the uncertainty
principle). In the back of people's minds though, science had always
shown that what we have thought of as randomness was due to our
ignorance, therefore it seemed that even though we might not know the
position of an electron, it was due to our ignorance, and that the
space in which the concept of God was banished to was due to our
ignorance. God could simply be replaced by randomness (which was that
which we were unable to explain), and wasn't really needed, and the
weight of scientific evidence showed was just down to our ignorance.
Thus people (perhaps like yourself) assumed that science pointed to the
fact that there wasn't a God.
But as the film the Usual Suspects said "The greatest trick the Devil
ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist".
The trick here was down at a low level of theoretical physics.
The definition didn't distinguish between whether the universe was
really deterministic, or indeterministic, regardless of human
knowledge. It made determinism equal to predictability (whether we as
humans could ever predict it). It was a selfish definition (in that it
was based on what humans might ever know), and was based on ignorance
(as to whether the universe really was deterministic or
indeterministic).
However Jean Bricmont came up with an alternative definition for a
deterministic system.
see http://www.fyma.ucl.ac.be/files/Turin.pdf
(top of page 3)
"This brings us to the second definition of determinism, that tries to
be independent of human abilities; consider a physical system whose
state is characterized by some numbers that change over time; let us
say that it is deterministic if there exists a function F that maps
the values taken by that set of variables at a given instant, say t1,
to those obtained at a later time, say t2; and then the latter to those
at a later time t3 etc. This corresponds pretty much to Laplace's
conception. It corresponds to the idea of predictability, but 'in
principle', i.e. putting aside limitations imposed by human abilities.
The word 'exist' should be taken here in a 'Platonic' sense: it does
not refer to our knowledge; the function in question may be unknown,
or unknowable, or so complicated that, even if it were known, it would
be, in practice, impossible to use it in order to make predictions.
Now, is determinism understood in this sense also refutable? Well let
us suppose that the system happens to twice in exactly the same state,
at different times, say at time ti and tj, and is, at times t(i+1) and
t(j+1), in different states. Then, the function F does not exist,
since, by definition, it is supposed to associate to each set of
values of the variables to another set in a unique way."
A:
So for the physical system of the universe to be deterministic, there
would have to be a function which could map the initial state at say
t(start) to the state at t(now) and to the state at t(hundred years
time).
B:
If we ran the universe program again, and it was able to map the same
initial state at t(start) to a different state at t(now) it would be
indeterministic.
Okay so far.
The point being here is that all scientific evidence points to the
universe being deterministic.
No, it doesn't. We don't have our "universe" program finished yet
(and if Microsoft gets involved, it may never get done ;) ), so the
jury is still out on the whole deterministic/indeterministic question.
If it is deterministic, the only question
you really need to ask as to whether there is anything more than
science is "do I have a choice?"
If you have a choice, and your choices are not accounted for in the
"universe" program, then your choices (and those of everything else)
will alter the state of the universe, and eventually your program will
fail to predict the correct next state. This leads to an
indeterministic universe via B above. Time to start a new development
cycle on our program.
If your program correctly accounts for everythings choices, than you
have A above. "Universe 1.0" can now be released!
Either way, you only have two choices A (deterministic) or B
(indeteministic).
This should hopefully explain to you why I constructed the decision
tree in the way I did.
But you constructed the tree by treating A as two cases, one with the
caveat of choice. The problem is, "A with choices unaccounted for" is
really just B.
You also haven't really defined choice. Is it human choice? How
about animals, insects, etc? Extraterrestrials? Are random quantum
phenomena considered "choices" in your model?
I think the state diagram of our "universe" program will be a lot more
complicated than you seem to be implying. To account for all of these
things, it will eventually have to start spitting out probabilities
rather than specific states. I.e. given state x, the probability of
the next state being Y1..Yn is P1..Pn, where P1+P2+..+Pn=1.
In other words, even if it was possible to eventually attain enough
knowledge to account for all these factors, you still won't be able to
predict them all with 100% accuracy. You seem to be saying you can.
I'm saying you can't. Too many variables. There will still be some
randomness in there, some interplay between factors that just can't be
predicted. The best you'll ever be able to do is broad strokes. I.e.
given starting state s, at point t in the future the state will
resemble *this*. That's as close as theoretical science, and our
program, will ever be able to get.
Going back to an earlier quote you made:
A guy named Laplace came up with a definition of a deterministic system
as being one which we could prove or ever hope to prove to be
deterministic.
I'm saying the universe can never be proven to be deterministic, nor
can we ever hope to do so. I don't see where any of this implies
dualism. It's just the way the universe works. It's too big, too
complex to know everything. What determines the next state?
Everything. What will the next state be? We'll have to wait and see.
But we can probably make a good guess, and our guesses will,
hopefully, improve with time.
- Brian
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 04:55:55 AM |
|
|
The point being here is that all scientific evidence points to the
universe being deterministic.
No, it doesn't. We don't have our "universe" program finished yet
(and if Microsoft gets involved, it may never get done ;) ), so the
jury is still out on the whole deterministic/indeterministic
question.
Which is why in my decision tree, I made the odds 50/50. Though I think
that so far it has been shown that where there was what we thought of
as randomness, science has been able to find deterministic laws. True
the position of an electron might be cause a problem in predicting, but
that doesn't mean that there is truly randomness (events without
causes). Without randomness there is no need for probability.
I think the state diagram of our "universe" program will be a lot more
complicated than you seem to be implying. To account for all of these
things, it will eventually have to start spitting out probabilities
rather than specific states. I.e. given state x, the probability of
the next state being Y1..Yn is P1..Pn, where P1+P2+..+Pn=1.
Given that you have acknowledged that the we can't tell whether the
universe is deterministic or indeterministic, you go on to assume an
indeterministic universe, which I give a probability for. I didn't
really emphasise the choice issue (on this branch of the tree), though
as you quite rightly say, it would still exist, but the indeterministic
universe idea, helps disguise it, that was the trick.
You also haven't really defined choice. Is it human choice? How
about animals, insects, etc? Extraterrestrials? Are random quantum
phenomena considered "choices" in your model?
I hope you don't mind, but I'll quote from Jean Bricmont's paper again,
as he is more eloquent than me.
"Our feeling of free will is not that there is some intrinsically
random process at work in our minds, but that conscious choices are
made. And that is simply something that no known physical theory
accounts for. Our feeling of free will implies that there is a causal
agent in the world, the 'I' that is simply above all physical laws. It
suggests a dualistic view of the world which itself meets great
difficulties. One solution is, as mentioned above, to declare that free
will is an illusion."
In my probability tree, between the illusion of choice, and there being
true choice, I give the odds as 50/50.
If you have a choice, and your choices are not accounted for in the
"universe" program, then your choices (and those of everything else)
will alter the state of the universe, and eventually your program will
fail to predict the correct next state. This leads to an
indeterministic universe via B above.
Well, if there is choice, the universe could be deterministic (as the
weight of scientific evidence suggests), up until choice (which the
common sense suggests) is demonstrated. I point out that the only
solution here is a dualistic existence. There would still be
deterministic laws governing the system (the universe), but for want of
a better word, we have a soul that is above those laws.
By the way Bohm's in 1952 came out a deterministic theory which was a
function over time as an alternative to quantum mechanics. It (in my
opinion rightly) uses probability as a tool to wrap ignorance, rather
than making ignorance an intrinsic property of the system, and as I
understand it, requires only the position of an electron. Which
(quoting from Jean Bricmont's paper) led John Bell to say "In 1952 I
saw the impossible done" (Bohm's Theory), Bell continues:
"But then why had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to
point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it.
More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing 'impossibility'
proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978? When even Pauli,
Rosenfeld, and Heisenberg, could produce no more devastating criticism
of Bohm's version than to brand it as 'metaphysical' and 'ideological'?
Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be
taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing
complacency? To show that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism,
are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate
theoretical choice."
I wonder ?:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Borst" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 03:10:27 PM |
|
|
On 20 Mar 2005 02:55:55 -0800, wrote:
The point being here is that all scientific evidence points to the
universe being deterministic.
No, it doesn't. We don't have our "universe" program finished yet
(and if Microsoft gets involved, it may never get done ;) ), so the
jury is still out on the whole deterministic/indeterministic
question.
Which is why in my decision tree, I made the odds 50/50. Though I think
that so far it has been shown that where there was what we thought of
as randomness, science has been able to find deterministic laws. True
the position of an electron might be cause a problem in predicting, but
that doesn't mean that there is truly randomness (events without
causes). Without randomness there is no need for probability.
I think the state diagram of our "universe" program will be a lot more
complicated than you seem to be implying. To account for all of these
things, it will eventually have to start spitting out probabilities
rather than specific states. I.e. given state x, the probability of
the next state being Y1..Yn is P1..Pn, where P1+P2+..+Pn=1.
Given that you have acknowledged that the we can't tell whether the
universe is deterministic or indeterministic, you go on to assume an
indeterministic universe
Not exactly. The universe itself is still open to question. But we
had moved on to the realm of science. Scientific models, like our
universe program, will always, ultimately, be indeterministic (due to
that "ignorance" factor you keep mentioning).
You also haven't really defined choice. Is it human choice? How
about animals, insects, etc? Extraterrestrials? Are random quantum
phenomena considered "choices" in your model?
I hope you don't mind, but I'll quote from Jean Bricmont's paper again,
as he is more eloquent than me.
"Our feeling of free will is not that there is some intrinsically
random process at work in our minds, but that conscious choices are
made. And that is simply something that no known physical theory
accounts for. Our feeling of free will implies that there is a causal
agent in the world, the 'I' that is simply above all physical laws. It
suggests a dualistic view of the world which itself meets great
difficulties. One solution is, as mentioned above, to declare that free
will is an illusion."
In my probability tree, between the illusion of choice, and there being
true choice, I give the odds as 50/50.
Our models of the human mind are not yet sufficient to predict human
thought patterns, that is true. But that's an issue of complexity,
nothing more. I don't see anything inherent in these thought patterns
that transcends physical laws, or that couldn't, one day, be
predictable. True, un-predictable, choice would be highly unlikely,
so I'd make the odds more in the 90/10 to 99/1 range, maybe even less.
Even without nice elegant formulas to describe our thought processes,
most of us are still pretty predictable. Even pathetically so.
- Brian
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 06:54:11 PM |
|
|
<glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1111178972.107792.286050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The argument of atheism vs religion is really about should take a view
of existence where there is both a physical plane and spiritual
plane(dualistic), or a view of existence where there is only the
physical plane (monolistic (if there is such a word) ).
If you have evidence for a spiritual plane, trot it out.
If you fail to do that, then you have no argument.
The first important thing to realise is that they can ever only be
beliefs.
A dive into solipsism, I see. Excellent.
I prefer to have a rational justification for agreeing upon what exists.
To believe in one view or the other is a display of faith.
Ah, the word faith. What does faith mean to you? Certainty?
To me it means doubt.
So what are the odds of each? 50/50?
Well, you've provided no evidence for the spiritual one.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 06:15:36 PM |
|
|
If you have evidence for a spiritual plane, trot it out.
Please see my reply to Steve (Mar 18) (currently a couple of posts
above yours on the beta Google Groups)
Ah, the word faith. What does faith mean to you? Certainty?
To me it means doubt.
As I said, to me it means to believe in one view or the other. A
religious person, or an atheist display faith, an agnostic does not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 11:56:22 PM |
|
|
<glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1111277736.684800.66120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
If you have evidence for a spiritual plane, trot it out.
Please see my reply to Steve (Mar 18) (currently a couple of posts
above yours on the beta Google Groups)
Ah, the word faith. What does faith mean to you? Certainty?
To me it means doubt.
As I said, to me it means to believe in one view or the other.
What if I doubt both?
A
religious person, or an atheist display faith,
The religious person displays certainty, the atheist displays skepticism.
an agnostic does not.
The agnostic either believes in a god or does not believe in a god.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 04:59:30 AM |
|
|
As I said, to me it means to believe in one view or the other.
What if I doubt both?
You doubt that it is a monlistic unverse, or a dualistic universe?
The agnostic either believes in a god or does not believe in a god.
I thought an agnostic was someone who simply said, "I don't know". I
didn't think they displayed one belief or the other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 11:24:02 AM |
|
|
<glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1111316370.701542.307530@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
As I said, to me it means to believe in one view or the other.
What if I doubt both?
You doubt that it is a monlistic unverse, or a dualistic universe?
I doubt both. Which of these three words don't you understand?
The agnostic either believes in a god or does not believe in a god.
I thought an agnostic was someone who simply said, "I don't know". I
didn't think they displayed one belief or the other.
An agnostic is one who claims we can never have KNOWLEDGE about whether god
exists. Since the agnostic position does not address BELIEF, you can have a
theistic agnostics and atheist agnostics.
With respect to belief, there is no middle ground. You either believe
something or you don't. It's a binary position.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 11:32:33 AM |
|
|
Hi Denis, I think I understand you now, you are saying that you are
what I was terming (according to you incorrectly) as an agnostic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 04:41:07 PM |
|
|
<glenn.spigel@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1111339953.933568.165750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi Denis, I think I understand you now, you are saying that you are
what I was terming (according to you incorrectly) as an agnostic.
I lack belief in any god, therefore I am an atheist.
In other words, I am not a theist.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rally" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 03:30:45 PM |
|
|
<snip>
Once you remove the idea that there is a "spiritual" anything, (except
inside people's minds), your entire premise turns to *****.
Why can't "spirituals" ever understand that atheism is just the absence
of gods/spirituality? It really *is that simple.
Sheesh!
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 04:06:19 PM |
|
|
Once you remove the idea that there is just a "physical plane" (except
inside people's minds), your entire premise turns to *****.
I can understand what atheism is, I just wondered how you got their
objectively (without assuming that your right to start with). You sound
like some kind of religious person, defending their faith, without any
objectivity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 11:34:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Once you remove the idea that there is just a "physical plane" (except
inside people's minds), your entire premise turns to *****.
Your brain is the "site" of your "spirituality". When you die,
everything goes.
I can understand what atheism is, I just wondered how you got their
objectively (without assuming that your right to start with). You sound
like some kind of religious person, defending their faith, without any
objectivity.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 06:22:11 AM |
|
|
Maybe the brain is the interface between the soul and the physical
plane. Who knows?
The weight of scientific evidence from the physical sciences indicates
that we live in a deterministic universe, where events have causes (no
randomness). In such a universe, the only question I have to ask, as to
whether there is something more that science (i.e. a spiritual plane)
is "do I have a choice?".
Could you please read the response I gave to Steve (Mar 18) for a
clearer explanation of where I am coming from?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
22 Mar 2005 11:05:01 AM |
|
|
On 18 Mar 2005 14:06:19 -0800, wrote:
Once you remove the idea that there is just a "physical plane" (except
inside people's minds), your entire premise turns to *****.
I can understand what atheism is, I just wondered how you got their
objectively (without assuming that your right to start with). You sound
like some kind of religious person, defending their faith, without any
objectivity.
You've been alluding to the misconception that atheists are somehow
'religious' in their lack of belief in a god from the beginning.
Show us your OBJECTIVE reasoning for believing in your god.
Anything... show us one iota of evidence that lead you to your
unshakable faith in god and spirits.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 04:22:56 PM |
|
|
On 18 Mar 2005 14:06:19 -0800, wrote:
Once you remove the idea that there is just a "physical plane" (except
inside people's minds), your entire premise turns to *****.
We have pretty solid reasons to believe that the physical world
exists. Where's a single shred of evidence that your proposed
"spiritual plane" exists?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 04:34:18 PM |
|
|
Er, choice?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 12:32:21 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1111185258.130249.251560
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Er, choice?
What does that have to do with anything?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 08:22:40 PM |
|
|
Please could you look at the response I gave to Steve (Mar 18),
hopefully it will explain where I am coming from. If you could reply to
that post, I will give it my full attention, and we will be a bit
further down the road.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 08:30:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Er, choice?
So if we can demonstrate that choice actually does exist, and that
human minds are capable of making choices, then the spiritual plane
once again becomes *****.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 04:29:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:22:56 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On 18 Mar 2005 14:06:19 -0800, wrote:
Once you remove the idea that there is just a "physical plane" (except
inside people's minds), your entire premise turns to *****.
We have pretty solid reasons to believe that the physical world
exists. Where's a single shred of evidence that your proposed
"spiritual plane" exists?
In his imagination, that means you believe there isn't one, and that
makes is a leap of faith.
How can people be so stupid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 04:34:48 PM |
|
|
You tell me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 04:42:07 PM |
|
|
Rally wrote:
<snip>
Once you remove the idea that there is a "spiritual" anything, (except
inside people's minds), your entire premise turns to *****.
Why can't "spirituals" ever understand that atheism is just the
absence
of gods/spirituality? It really *is that simple.
Sheesh!
Depends, what do you mean by spiritual?
Is being interested in science, in the real way the world and
Universe works spiritual?
I could argue it is. Not the same spiritual as spewing nonsense from
ancient billy goat herder myths is, or wearing a quartz chrystal
and thinking your a witch, or chanting inane prayers or spewing
new age drivel, or chanting verse from teh Quran, or speaking in tongues.
But maybe its time to reclaim real spirituality, that feeling of
awe and wonder and delight at being here in this wonderful Universe
from the fools and twits.
Why let them dirty that up and make us want to drop it and give up
the word whe we are possibly more spiritual in the real sense?
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 05:52:26 PM |
|
|
How do you explain most people's perception that they are conscious and
have a choice?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 06:08:08 PM |
|
|
wrote:
How do you explain most people's perception that they are conscious and
have a choice?
Have you read Gurdjieff ?
One of his ideas was that most people are 'Asleep', and were not really
very conscious at all.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
19 Mar 2005 05:27:39 PM |
|
|
No I haven't read him. Does it effect what I have written?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
20 Mar 2005 06:26:36 AM |
|
|
wrote:
No I haven't read him. Does it effect what I have written?
Nope, but he makes more sense than you do.
(Which isn't saying much !)
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: A spiritual plane is objectively probable. |
18 Mar 2005 05:37:51 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
But maybe its time to reclaim real spirituality, that feeling
of awe and wonder and delight at being here in this
wonderful Universe from the fools and twits.
Why let them dirty that up and make us want to drop it
and give up the word whe we are possibly more spiritual
in the real sense?
I'm right there with you, Charlie. I don't think many atheists argue
with your premise, just your word usage. It's been my experience that
"spirituality" is a word too fraught with theistic overtones for many
atheists to use it comfortably. However, nobody has come up with a
better word. If you want to invent one to mean the perfectly valid
concept you mention, I'd happily entertain it.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
