| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"someone4" |
| Date: |
07 Sep 2005 11:36:03 PM |
| Object: |
Is our destiny fixed? |
The evidence of scientific discovery has shown that there are causes
behind the effects that we see.
During what can be called the 'quantum revolution' we were told that
there was in fact randomness (effects without cause), though despite
the assurances of Von Neumann and others (that it was impossible that
effects do have causes), Bohmian mechanics does give an explanation
where effects have a cause. It doesn't matter whether it is right or
wrong (in its explanation), by its very existence it shows that it is
possible (backed up by the history of scientific discovery), that our
lack of an explanation is due to our ignorance.
Obviously if effects have a cause, or in other words. that whatever
happens is inevitable given the cause(s), then our future is fixed
given the initial state at the 'Big Bang' and the laws that happen to
govern the universe.
Just wondering how many atheists on the channel believe in a fixed
destiny?
I realise (from reading this newsgroup) that atheism means believing in
nothing in particular, but I was just interested in seeing in what the
atheists on the channel do believe in. The specific question is:
Do you believe that your destiny is fixed and that that there is
nothing you can do to alter it.
If not, it seems that you must believe that effects don't have a cause
(against the history of scientific evidence)
Maybe there are alternatives that I haven't considered, if so, I'd be
interested in hearing of them.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
08 Sep 2005 07:37:48 PM |
|
|
"Do you believe that your destiny is fixed and that that there is
nothing you can do to alter it."
Destiny is retroactive. If you can tell me EXACTLY what yours or my
destiny is , then destiny is fixed. But you can't, and neither can I
(erxcluding death). My experience is some people mistake their
knowledge of history for a vague feeling of knowledge regarding the
future, and melodramatically call it "destiny."
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
08 Sep 2005 10:15:07 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"Do you believe that your destiny is fixed and that that there is
nothing you can do to alter it."
Destiny is retroactive. If you can tell me EXACTLY what yours or my
destiny is , then destiny is fixed. But you can't, and neither can I
(erxcluding death). My experience is some people mistake their
knowledge of history for a vague feeling of knowledge regarding the
future, and melodramatically call it "destiny."
You seem to be confusing predictability (our ability as humans to
predict), and determinism, where if effects have causes, your future is
determined (fixed) given the initial state of the universe, and the
laws that govern it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
08 Sep 2005 11:21:36 PM |
|
|
"You seem to be confusing predictability (our ability as humans to
predict), and determinism, where if effects have causes, your future is
determined (fixed) given the initial state of the universe, and the
laws that govern it."
I'm not confusing anything. Destiny is a poetic word, and kinda
melodramatic. It means nothing outside of poetry and religion. In
physics, the future behaviour of closed systems is largely predictable,
or will be largely predictable given future advancements in technology,
but totally unpredictable at the quantum level. The laws that govern
the universe are both predictable and unpredictable, so good luck with
your destiny.
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
08 Sep 2005 11:37:29 PM |
|
|
neil_kel...@hotmail wrote:
"You seem to be confusing predictability (our ability as humans to
predict), and determinism, where if effects have causes, your future is
determined (fixed) given the initial state of the universe, and the
laws that govern it."
I'm not confusing anything. Destiny is a poetic word, and kinda
melodramatic. It means nothing outside of poetry and religion. In
physics, the future behaviour of closed systems is largely predictable,
or will be largely predictable given future advancements in technology,
but totally unpredictable at the quantum level. The laws that govern
the universe are both predictable and unpredictable, so good luck with
your destiny.
I was thinking of destiny meaning that our future is fixed prior to the
time that it occurred.
Are you unhappy with that definition of it?
If the universe is deterministic (effects have a cause) then your
future is fixed given the initial state of the universe and the laws
that govern it (i.e. you are predestined from the time of the 'Big
Bang' to do whatever you do).
Predictability is simply to do with humans ability to predict.
As even Heisenberg himself said:
"One can not say that quantum mechanics is statistical. But when one
wishes to calculate 'the future' from 'the present' one can only get
statistical results, since one can never discover every detail of the
present" (Murdoch 1987, p. 48).
No physics professor (that I know of) is still claiming that the
universe is proven to be indeterministic (there are effects without
cause).
That is why I was saying that you were confusing predictability and
determinism.
You are quite right about what you say regarding how predictable our
universe is.
But if effects have causes (the universe was deterministic), without a
soul, your destiny is fixed regardless of whether we can predict it or
not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
08 Sep 2005 11:58:01 PM |
|
|
As I said, I think if you can't tell me what your future holds then
your future is not fixed. There are an infinite number of
possibilities, all feasible and all obeying the laws of physics, that
can happen to you between now and your death. AFTER you die then
someone can impose the concept of fixed destiny on your life,
preferably a theist; until then it's anyone's guess. And what if string
theory turns out to be true? Then it's possible that you are playing
out all those infinite possibilities in other dimensions.
Your definition of a fixed estiny is fine, I just find it one of those
arguments that can't be proved (like god), and I generally feel that an
argument like this is an argumentum ad ignorantum in regards to the
idea being proposed (e.g. "god" or "fixed destiny")
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
09 Sep 2005 01:08:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
As I said, I think if you can't tell me what your future holds then
your future is not fixed. There are an infinite number of
possibilities, all feasible and all obeying the laws of physics, that
can happen to you between now and your death. AFTER you die then
someone can impose the concept of fixed destiny on your life,
preferably a theist; until then it's anyone's guess. And what if string
theory turns out to be true? Then it's possible that you are playing
out all those infinite possibilities in other dimensions.
Your definition of a fixed destiny is fine, I just find it one of those
arguments that can't be proved (like god), and I generally feel that an
argument like this is an argumentum ad ignorantum in regards to the
idea being proposed (e.g. "god" or "fixed destiny")
There might be an infinite number of possibilities, but they fall into
either one of two camps. Effects have causes (backed by the weight of
historic scientific discovery), or they don't.
If you think they don't, would you have thought so pre-quantum
revolution, and if not, what evidence makes you think so post-quantum
revolution?
But let us suppose that you are right, and that there does appear to be
effects with no cause within the physical plane. Is this not evidence
of a supernatural cause, i.e. a cause outside of the physical plane?
The whole weight of scientific evidence points towards effects having a
cause.
The point really is that none of the explanations can be proven, human
knowledge is limited, as shown by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle,
but that there is no reason to doubt the finding's of scientific
discovery, that effects have a cause, whether from with the physical
plane, or from outside.
Is it that you believe in a multitude of dimensions outside of the
plane of our existence (multiple universes), and yet refuse to use
Occam's Razor, and keep it to one extra dimension, the spiritual plane?
Only one explanation explains us having a subjective awareness, and it
is not the concept that there are multiple dimensions created for every
variation per atom per millisecond (actually lower/higher depending on
the way you look at it) in the universe.
Is it a case of using Occam's Razor only when it suits?
As an old man once said:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit
simpler."
Because we don't know, you can believe whatever you like (though it
doesn't make it so).
But, take into account the history of science, and what it has taught
us, because without history, we will repeat the same mistakes over and
over again.
As I said previously, no one is now claiming that the universe is
proven to be indeterministic (there are effects without cause). If it
isn't, and effects do have a cause, your destiny is fixed.
(The history of scientific evidence points to effects having a cause,
randomness is the atheist equivalent of 'God in the gap').
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
09 Sep 2005 05:17:18 PM |
|
|
"There might be an infinite number of possibilities, but they fall into
either one of two camps. Effects have causes (backed by the weight of
historic scientific discovery), or they don't."
Do they? Do they always? Because if you start discussing human
behaviour (which I link exclusively to a term like "fixed destiny")
then you can throw predictability out the window. People can behave
irrationally and still obey the laws of physics. In other words, human
behaviour can have no obvious and predicatable cause (like a
non-sequitor, for instance).
"If you think they don't, would you have thought so pre-quantum
revolution, and if not, what evidence makes you think so post-quantum
revolution?"
I have no idea what I would have thought if I was born 100 years ago.
And as I said, I don't think human behaviour necessarily is predictable
..
"But let us suppose that you are right, and that there does appear to
be
effects with no cause within the physical plane. Is this not evidence
of a supernatural cause, i.e. a cause outside of the physical plane?
The whole weight of scientific evidence points towards effects having a
cause."
So far you are either talking about human behaviour or quantum
behaviour, which to my mind are the obvious realms of effects without
cause (I hate that term). Human behaviour really does not require the
supernatural, in my opinion; people can act like unpredictable lunatics
without any help from above. And on the quantum level, quarks and
leptons and electrons et al are the fundamental building blocks of
matter, all that we see is made of matter, all that we see is nature,
therefore quantum particles are part of nature. I think imposing an
idea like "god" or "supernatural" on the quantum world is doing it a
disservice and missing the point. Nature works perfectly well without
god.
"The point really is that none of the explanations can be proven, human
knowledge is limited, as shown by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle,
but that there is no reason to doubt the finding's of scientific
discovery, that effects have a cause, whether from with the physical
plane, or from outside."
"None of the explanations can be proven?" Totally disagree. In fact,
explanations ARE the proof (or not, depending upon their validity).
That sentence is redundant. If the explanation for the rocket ship
being in space is that the rocket fuel was ignited, and you require
proof of that, then you are engaging in a reductio ad absurdum. We all
saw the rocket ship take off. And some effects don't have a cause (I
hate that term).
"Is it that you believe in a multitude of dimensions outside of the
plane of our existence (multiple universes), and yet refuse to use
Occam's Razor, and keep it to one extra dimension, the spiritual
plane?"
It's not a case of belief. String theory (in the realm of physics and
nature) indicates that multiple dimensions are a distinct possibility,
but it has not been proven yet. Until then, I will regard it as an
infinitely more plausible possibility than a "spiritual plane," since
from what I can tell the "spiritual plane" does not obey the Laws of
Physics, and everything I've ever observed obeys the Laws of Physics.
"Only one explanation explains us having a subjective awareness, and it
is not the concept that there are multiple dimensions created for every
variation per atom per millisecond (actually lower/higher depending on
the way you look at it) in the universe."
What is that explanation? As if I don't know. God, right? Don't think
so. Try evolution. We evolved subjective awareness as matter evolved
over billions of years. There is physical evidence of that, and zero
evidence that any god created humans.
"Because we don't know, you can believe whatever you like (though it
doesn't make it so)."
Disagree. I think humans have figured out a LOT of stuff. I think we do
know, and there is much more to learn. I'm not particularly interested
in belief. But if you want to reduce things to an absurd level, at
least I am backing up my claims with proof, and you're not.
"But, take into account the history of science, and what it has taught
us, because without history, we will repeat the same mistakes over and
over again."
You are confusing history and science, two different subjects. You
start out with the "history of science," but then change the subject to
history alone. It would be absurd to say "without the history of
science, we will repeat the same mistakes over and over again." Science
tends to be cumulative; that is, it does not tend to go back to an
earlier state of ignorance. For example, after it was discovered that
the Earth revolves around the Sun, scientists did not/have not
spontaneusly gone back to a geocentric universe because they ignored
the history of science.
"As I said previously, no one is now claiming that the universe is
proven to be indeterministic (there are effects without cause). If it
isn't, and effects do have a cause, your destiny is fixed."
Disagree. The universe on the quantum level is indeterministic. You
cannot tell if quantum particles are moving backwards or forwards
through time, where they are, or what they are at a particular point in
time. The universe has a fundamental randomness.
"(The history of scientific evidence points to effects having a cause,
randomness is the atheist equivalent of 'God in the gap')"
Current scientific thinking is that quantum events are random and
unpredictable. Randomness has nothing to do with atheism. It is a
phenomena of nature, interpret it however you like, impose any ideas
you want upon it. It's still random, independent of theism or atheism..
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
09 Sep 2005 06:01:09 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"There might be an infinite number of possibilities, but they fall into
either one of two camps. Effects have causes (backed by the weight of
historic scientific discovery), or they don't."
Do they? Do they always?
Yes I think they do. The universe is either deterministic or
indeterministic.
wrote:
Because if you start discussing human
behaviour (which I link exclusively to a term like "fixed destiny")
then you can throw predictability out the window. People can behave
irrationally and still obey the laws of physics. In other words, human
behaviour can have no obvious and predicatable cause (like a
non-sequitor, for instance).
As I said, predictability has nothing to do with it, if the universe is
deterministic your future is fixed which is what I would call destiny.
If it is indeterministic, it is guided by random quantum events. There
is still nothing you can do to alter it.
wrote:
"If you think they don't, would you have thought so pre-quantum
revolution, and if not, what evidence makes you think so post-quantum
revolution?"
I have no idea what I would have thought if I was born 100 years ago.
And as I said, I don't think human behaviour necessarily is predictable.
As I have said predictability should not be confused with determinism.
wrote:
"But let us suppose that you are right, and that there does appear to
be
effects with no cause within the physical plane. Is this not evidence
of a supernatural cause, i.e. a cause outside of the physical plane?
The whole weight of scientific evidence points towards effects having a
cause."
So far you are either talking about human behaviour or quantum
behaviour, which to my mind are the obvious realms of effects without
cause (I hate that term). Human behaviour really does not require the
supernatural, in my opinion; people can act like unpredictable lunatics
without any help from above. And on the quantum level, quarks and
leptons and electrons et al are the fundamental building blocks of
matter, all that we see is made of matter, all that we see is nature,
therefore quantum particles are part of nature. I think imposing an
idea like "god" or "supernatural" on the quantum world is doing it a
disservice and missing the point. Nature works perfectly well without
god.
I was simply pointing out that a traditional theist argument has been a
'God of the gap' type argument, for explaining how the material world
works. You seem to be claiming that there really is a gap, and that it
is not down to our ignorance. This can be taken as a strong argument
for something outside of the physical plane, as the cause doesn't come
from within it.
wrote:
"The point really is that none of the explanations can be proven, human
knowledge is limited, as shown by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle,
but that there is no reason to doubt the finding's of scientific
discovery, that effects have a cause, whether from with the physical
plane, or from outside."
"None of the explanations can be proven?" Totally disagree. In fact,
explanations ARE the proof (or not, depending upon their validity).
That sentence is redundant. If the explanation for the rocket ship
being in space is that the rocket fuel was ignited, and you require
proof of that, then you are engaging in a reductio ad absurdum. We all
saw the rocket ship take off. And some effects don't have a cause (I
hate that term).
I am talking about explanations at the quantum level. Obviously they
should explain the effects, but as regards to whether effects have a
cause or not, it is regarded as a metaphysical question.
You boldly state that some effects don't have a cause, but how do you
know we are not just ignorant of the cause? It is analogous to the 'God
of the gaps' argument. The gap has got smaller and smaller, causes have
been found, where before we were ignorant of them. What effects can you
state that cannot possibly have a cause?
wrote:
"Is it that you believe in a multitude of dimensions outside of the
plane of our existence (multiple universes), and yet refuse to use
Occam's Razor, and keep it to one extra dimension, the spiritual
plane?"
It's not a case of belief. String theory (in the realm of physics and
nature) indicates that multiple dimensions are a distinct possibility,
but it has not been proven yet. Until then, I will regard it as an
infinitely more plausible possibility than a "spiritual plane," since
from what I can tell the "spiritual plane" does not obey the Laws of
Physics, and everything I've ever observed obeys the Laws of Physics.
What laws do effects with no cause follow?
wrote:
"Only one explanation explains us having a subjective awareness, and it
is not the concept that there are multiple dimensions created for every
variation per atom per millisecond (actually lower/higher depending on
the way you look at it) in the universe."
What is that explanation? As if I don't know. God, right? Don't think
so. Try evolution. We evolved subjective awareness as matter evolved
over billions of years. There is physical evidence of that, and zero
evidence that any god created humans.
What is the evolutionary explanation of how we evolved subjective
awareness?
wrote:
"Because we don't know, you can believe whatever you like (though it
doesn't make it so)."
Disagree. I think humans have figured out a LOT of stuff. I think we do
know, and there is much more to learn. I'm not particularly interested
in belief. But if you want to reduce things to an absurd level, at
least I am backing up my claims with proof, and you're not.
What proof are you using? You claim the universe is indeterministic,
but you have no proof.
wrote:
"But, take into account the history of science, and what it has taught
us, because without history, we will repeat the same mistakes over and
over again."
You are confusing history and science, two different subjects. You
start out with the "history of science," but then change the subject to
history alone. It would be absurd to say "without the history of
science, we will repeat the same mistakes over and over again." Science
tends to be cumulative; that is, it does not tend to go back to an
earlier state of ignorance. For example, after it was discovered that
the Earth revolves around the Sun, scientists did not/have not
spontaneusly gone back to a geocentric universe because they ignored
the history of science.
I was referring to the idea that we thought events had no physical
cause, and religion jumped in and attributed the cause to God, but low
and behold, a physical cause was found.
Can you see that you are doing the same again with quantum events? All
the assurances that the universe could no longer be considered
deterministic have been proved false. In fact Bohmian mechanics exists,
and currently explains all non-relativistic quantum behaviour, and it
is deterministic.
wrote:
"As I said previously, no one is now claiming that the universe is
proven to be indeterministic (there are effects without cause). If it
isn't, and effects do have a cause, your destiny is fixed."
Disagree. The universe on the quantum level is indeterministic. You
cannot tell if quantum particles are moving backwards or forwards
through time, where they are, or what they are at a particular point in
time. The universe has a fundamental randomness.
Again you seem to confuse determinism with predictability.
Even Heisenberg stated:
"One can not say that quantum mechanics is statistical. But when one
wishes to calculate 'the future' from 'the present' one can only get
statistical results, since one can never discover every detail of the
present" (Murdoch 1987, p. 48).
There is no proof that the universe has fundamental randomness, and as
I have said, all the assurances we were given in the first half of the
twentieth century that there was no other possible explanation, have
been shown to be false.
"(The history of scientific evidence points to effects having a cause,
randomness is the atheist equivalent of 'God in the gap')"
Current scientific thinking is that quantum events are random and
unpredictable. Randomness has nothing to do with atheism. It is a
phenomena of nature, interpret it however you like, impose any ideas
you want upon it. It's still random, independent of theism or
atheism..
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
10 Sep 2005 01:54:03 AM |
|
|
Sorry I missed a bit out, and it may seem confusing to a passing
reader.
neil_kel...@hotmail.com wrote:
"(The history of scientific evidence points to effects having a cause,
randomness is the atheist equivalent of 'God in the gap')"
Current scientific thinking is that quantum events are random and
unpredictable. Randomness has nothing to do with atheism. It is a
phenomena of nature, interpret it however you like, impose any ideas
you want upon it. It's still random, independent of theism or
atheism..
Well the point is that quantum effects are thought to be unpredictable,
this doesn't mean they are random. That would be confusing
predicatibility with determinism.
As I have said in the actual response, if you are really claiming that
there is no cause within the physical plane, and that it is not just a
matter of our ignorance, then this is strong evidence for the cause
coming from outside of the physical plane (as the history of science
shows us, as does our subjective reasoning, that effects have a cause).
There is no reason to believe that effects at the quantum level don't
have a cause. All assurances to the contrary (given in the first half
of the twentieth century) have been shown to be false by the very
existance of Bohmian mechanics (this doesn't mean that Bohmian
mechanics is the definative explanation).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
10 Sep 2005 07:38:15 AM |
|
|
someone4 wrote:
neil_kel...@hotmail.com wrote:
"There might be an infinite number of possibilities, but they fall into
either one of two camps. Effects have causes (backed by the weight of
historic scientific discovery), or they don't."
Do they? Do they always?
Yes I think they do. The universe is either deterministic or
indeterministic.
This is not correct.
Consider an electron. A photon hits an atom hard enough
to ionize that atom, an electron is ejected. In classical physics,
that electron had a position in space. In Quantum physics, it
really does not. It is in a quantum supersition of possible positions
in space. Yo can only deal with it in satistiacl terms, estimating
probabilities of its position, if it had a real position. Only when that
electron interacts with other matter will its superimpostion resolve
into a real position, but not really, that position again will resolve
into a statistical impostion as an electron eventually finds an atom
needing an electron and takes up a position in a shell of electrons
withing that atom.
There is no real position. And because of that you sometimes get odd
effects. Such as tunnelling where electrons are found outside the usual
limits of position and are thus able to act in ways that classical physics
would say were impossible.
So in Quantum systems, electrons can defy classical physics and do things
that are supposedly impossible, much less deterministic. This why ypu can
use atoms or electron in a double slit experiment and get interference
effects.
The problem of how macrophysics arises out of quantum non-deterministic
quantum physics is one of the great unsolved problems of physics.
But pure determinism is gone with phlogiston and the four humours,
and earth, water, air and fire.
Strict determinism was an idea tha grew out of Greek physics,
and was argued by Stoics for centuries along with others.
This lead to ideas like La Place's Demon, but those strict deterministic
ideas are now gone for good.
And this is what it is all really about. If strict determinism
is true or not. No.
neil_kel...@hotmail.com wrote:
Because if you start discussing human
behaviour (which I link exclusively to a term like "fixed destiny")
then you can throw predictability out the window. People can behave
irrationally and still obey the laws of physics. In other words, human
behaviour can have no obvious and predicatable cause (like a
non-sequitor, for instance).
As I said, predictability has nothing to do with it, if the universe is
deterministic your future is fixed which is what I would call destiny.
If it is indeterministic, it is guided by random quantum events. There
is still nothing you can do to alter it.
neil_kel...@hotmail.com wrote:
"If you think they don't, would you have thought so pre-quantum
revolution, and if not, what evidence makes you think so post-quantum
revolution?"
I have no idea what I would have thought if I was born 100 years ago.
And as I said, I don't think human behaviour necessarily is predictable.
As I have said predictability should not be confused with determinism.
neil_kel...@hotmail.com wrote:
"But let us suppose that you are right, and that there does appear to
be
effects with no cause within the physical plane. Is this not evidence
of a supernatural cause, i.e. a cause outside of the physical plane?
The whole weight of scientific evidence points towards effects having a
cause."
So far you are either talking about human behaviour or quantum
behaviour, which to my mind are the obvious realms of effects without
cause (I hate that term). Human behaviour really does not require the
supernatural, in my opinion; people can act like unpredictable lunatics
without any help from above. And on the quantum level, quarks and
leptons and electrons et al are the fundamental building blocks of
matter, all that we see is made of matter, all that we see is nature,
therefore quantum particles are part of nature. I think imposing an
idea like "god" or "supernatural" on the quantum world is doing it a
disservice and missing the point. Nature works perfectly well without
god.
I was simply pointing out that a traditional theist argument has been a
'God of the gap' type argument, for explaining how the material world
works. You seem to be claiming that there really is a gap, and that it
is not down to our ignorance. This can be taken as a strong argument
for something outside of the physical plane, as the cause doesn't come
from within it.
neil_kel...@hotmail.com wrote:
"The point really is that none of the explanations can be proven, human
knowledge is limited, as shown by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle,
but that there is no reason to doubt the finding's of scientific
discovery, that effects have a cause, whether from with the physical
plane, or from outside."
"None of the explanations can be proven?" Totally disagree. In fact,
explanations ARE the proof (or not, depending upon their validity).
That sentence is redundant. If the explanation for the rocket ship
being in space is that the rocket fuel was ignited, and you require
proof of that, then you are engaging in a reductio ad absurdum. We all
saw the rocket ship take off. And some effects don't have a cause (I
hate that term).
I am talking about explanations at the quantum level. Obviously they
should explain the effects, but as regards to whether effects have a
cause or not, it is regarded as a metaphysical question.
You boldly state that some effects don't have a cause, but how do you
know we are not just ignorant of the cause? It is analogous to the 'God
of the gaps' argument. The gap has got smaller and smaller, causes have
been found, where before we were ignorant of them. What effects can you
state that cannot possibly have a cause?
neil_kel...@hotmail.com wrote:
"Is it that you believe in a multitude of dimensions outside of the
plane of our existence (multiple universes), and yet refuse to use
Occam's Razor, and keep it to one extra dimension, the spiritual
plane?"
It's not a case of belief. String theory (in the realm of physics and
nature) indicates that multiple dimensions are a distinct possibility,
but it has not been proven yet. Until then, I will regard it as an
infinitely more plausible possibility than a "spiritual plane," since
from what I can tell the "spiritual plane" does not obey the Laws of
Physics, and everything I've ever observed obeys the Laws of Physics.
What laws do effects with no cause follow?
neil_kel...@hotmail.com wrote:
"Only one explanation explains us having a subjective awareness, and it
is not the concept that there are multiple dimensions created for every
variation per atom per millisecond (actually lower/higher depending on
the way you look at it) in the universe."
What is that explanation? As if I don't know. God, right? Don't think
so. Try evolution. We evolved subjective awareness as matter evolved
over billions of years. There is physical evidence of that, and zero
evidence that any god created humans.
What is the evolutionary explanation of how we evolved subjective
awareness?
neil_kel...@hotmail.com wrote:
"Because we don't know, you can believe whatever you like (though it
doesn't make it so)."
Disagree. I think humans have figured out a LOT of stuff. I think we do
know, and there is much more to learn. I'm not particularly interested
in belief. But if you want to reduce things to an absurd level, at
least I am backing up my claims with proof, and you're not.
What proof are you using? You claim the universe is indeterministic,
but you have no proof.
neil_kel...@hotmail.com wrote:
"But, take into account the history of science, and what it has taught
us, because without history, we will repeat the same mistakes over and
over again."
You are confusing history and science, two different subjects. You
start out with the "history of science," but then change the subject to
history alone. It would be absurd to say "without the history of
science, we will repeat the same mistakes over and over again." Science
tends to be cumulative; that is, it does not tend to go back to an
earlier state of ignorance. For example, after it was discovered that
the Earth revolves around the Sun, scientists did not/have not
spontaneusly gone back to a geocentric universe because they ignored
the history of science.
I was referring to the idea that we thought events had no physical
cause, and religion jumped in and attributed the cause to God, but low
and behold, a physical cause was found.
Can you see that you are doing the same again with quantum events? All
the assurances that the universe could no longer be considered
deterministic have been proved false. In fact Bohmian mechanics exists,
and currently explains all non-relativistic quantum behaviour, and it
is deterministic.
neil_kel...@hotmail.com wrote:
"As I said previously, no one is now claiming that the universe is
proven to be indeterministic (there are effects without cause). If it
isn't, and effects do have a cause, your destiny is fixed."
Disagree. The universe on the quantum level is indeterministic. You
cannot tell if quantum particles are moving backwards or forwards
through time, where they are, or what they are at a particular point in
time. The universe has a fundamental randomness.
Again you seem to confuse determinism with predictability.
Even Heisenberg stated:
"One can not say that quantum mechanics is statistical. But when one
wishes to calculate 'the future' from 'the present' one can only get
statistical results, since one can never discover every detail of the
present" (Murdoch 1987, p. 48).
There is no proof that the universe has fundamental randomness, and as
I have said, all the assurances we were given in the first half of the
twentieth century that there was no other possible explanation, have
been shown to be false.
"(The history of scientific evidence points to effects having a cause,
randomness is the atheist equivalent of 'God in the gap')"
Current scientific thinking is that quantum events are random and
unpredictable. Randomness has nothing to do with atheism. It is a
phenomena of nature, interpret it however you like, impose any ideas
you want upon it. It's still random, independent of theism or
atheism..
--
"Today the official spokesman for the Foxes
agreed an investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed."
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
10 Sep 2005 04:18:25 PM |
|
|
neil_kel...@hotmail.com wrote:
"There might be an infinite number of possibilities, but they fall into
either one of two camps. Effects have causes (backed by the weight of
historic scientific discovery), or they don't."
Do they? Do they always?
someone4 wrote:
Yes I think they do. The universe is either deterministic or
indeterministic.
WCB wrote:
This is not correct.
Consider an electron. A photon hits an atom hard enough
to ionize that atom, an electron is ejected. In classical physics,
that electron had a position in space. In Quantum physics, it
really does not. It is in a quantum supersition of possible positions
in space. Yo can only deal with it in satistiacl terms, estimating
probabilities of its position, if it had a real position. Only when that
electron interacts with other matter will its superimpostion resolve
into a real position, but not really, that position again will resolve
into a statistical impostion as an electron eventually finds an atom
needing an electron and takes up a position in a shell of electrons
withing that atom.
There is no real position. And because of that you sometimes get odd
effects. Such as tunnelling where electrons are found outside the usual
limits of position and are thus able to act in ways that classical physics
would say were impossible.
So in Quantum systems, electrons can defy classical physics and do things
that are supposedly impossible, much less deterministic. This why ypu can
use atoms or electron in a double slit experiment and get interference
effects.
The problem of how macrophysics arises out of quantum non-deterministic
quantum physics is one of the great unsolved problems of physics.
But pure determinism is gone with phlogiston and the four humours,
and earth, water, air and fire.
Strict determinism was an idea tha grew out of Greek physics,
and was argued by Stoics for centuries along with others.
This lead to ideas like La Place's Demon, but those strict deterministic
ideas are now gone for good.
And this is what it is all really about. If strict determinism
is true or not. No.
Guess you didn't bother to read any of the links that I supplied.
From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
-----------------
Bohmian mechanics inherits and makes explicit the nonlocality implicit
in the notion, common to just about all formulations and
interpretations of quantum theory, of a wave function on the
configuration space of a many-particle system. It accounts for all of
the phenomena governed by nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, from
spectral lines and scattering theory to superconductivity, the quantum
Hall effect and quantum computing. In particular, the usual measurement
postulates of quantum theory, including collapse of the wave function
and probabilities given by the absolute square of probability
amplitudes, emerge from an analysis of the two equations of motion -
Schr=F6dinger's equation and the guiding equation - without the
traditional invocation of a special, and somewhat obscure, status for
observation.
-----------------
Notice that the purely deterministic Bohmian mechanics does explain all
non-relativistic quantum phenomena.
Also a extract from
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/qtwoe/qtwoe.html
William G. Hoover asks Goldstein:
-----------------
At first glance, Bohmian mechanics and its ``explanation'' of the
two-slit experiment (April 1998, page 40) look marvelous. But isn't
there some difficulty in applying these ideas to problems involving
tunneling, where the (quantum) kinetic energy is negative?
-----------------
To which Goldstein replies:
-----------------
My answer to William Hoover's question is, no. A particle moving
according to the Bohmian equations of motion can do things that would
be impossible classically. That is because Bohmian mechanics is not
classical mechanics. Tunneling is a prediction of--not a problem
for--Bohmian mechanics. It should be regarded as a virtue that such
seemingly paradoxical behavior is explained with so little
difficulty--as in fact it is in Bohmian mechanics. Moreover, the
explanation does not involve any appeal to imaginary velocities.
-----------------
The above extracts were just to point out that Bohmian mechanics
predicts tunneling, and also that Bohmian mechanics is not classical
mechanics.
As for the 2-slit experiment, again from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ :
-----------------
According to Richard Feynman, the two-slit experiment for electrons is
(Feynman et al. 1963, p. 37-2) "a phenomenon which is impossible,
absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has
in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only
mystery." This experiment (Feynman 1967, p. 130) "has been designed to
contain all of the mystery of quantum mechanics, to put you up against
the paradoxes and mysteries and peculiarities of nature one hundred per
cent." As to the question (Feynman 1967, p. 145), "How does it really
work? What machinery is actually producing this thing? Nobody knows any
machinery. Nobody can give you a deeper explanation of this phenomenon
than I have given; that is, a description of it."
But Bohmian mechanics is just such a deeper explanation. It resolves
the dilemma of the appearance, in one and the same phenomenon, of both
particle and wave properties in a rather straightforward manner:
Bohmian mechanics is a theory of motion describing a particle (or
particles) guided by a wave. Here we have a family of Bohmian
trajectories for the two-slit experiment.
While each trajectory passes through but one of the slits, the wave
passes through both; the interference profile that therefore develops
in the wave generates a similar pattern in the trajectories guided by
this wave.
Compare Feynman's presentation with Bell's (Bell 1987, p. 191):
Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen
that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the
diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle
is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a
particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be
influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced
that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is
attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and
simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and
ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally
ignored.
The most puzzling aspect of the two-slit experiment is perhaps the
following: If, by any means whatsoever, one is able to determine
through which slit the particle passes, the interference pattern will
be destroyed. This dramatic effect of observation is, in fact, a simple
consequence of Bohmian mechanics. To see this one need only carefully
consider what determining the slit through which the particle passes
should mean. In particular, one must recognize that this must involve
interaction with another system that must also be included in the
Bohmian mechanical analysis. This destruction of interference is
related, naturally enough, to the Bohmian mechanical analysis of
quantum measurement (Bohm 1952), and it occurs via the mechanism that
leads, in Bohmian mechanics, to the "collapse of the wave function."
-----------------
You could have also read "Determinism, Chaos and Quantum Mechanics" by
Jean Bricmont http://www.fyma.ucl.ac.be/files/Turin.pdf
Which clearly outlines mistakes Laplace made in confusing determinism
with predictability amongst others, and why determinism is not dead.
He ends with a quote from John Bell (which I have combined with the
same quotation from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ to give
a fuller extract) :
-----------------
But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm.
Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into
nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the
indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic
one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox
version, the necessary reference to the 'observer,' could be
eliminated. ...
But why then 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 us that vagueness,
subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental
facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?
-----------------
In conclusion Charlie, determinism is not dead, Bohmian mechanics is
proof of it, as it is a deterministic theory. If you took the time to
maybe read up on it, you might understand it, and realise that the
assurance we were given that the universe must be indeterministic are
false.
So when you say:
"The problem of how macrophysics arises out of quantum
non-deterministic quantum physics is one of the great unsolved problems
of physics."
You can see there really is no problem, Bohmian mechanics shows that
the universe can be deterministic (and once again, it seems that the
idea that there was effects with no cause, was simply due to our
ignorance of the cause).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
09 Sep 2005 05:17:25 PM |
|
|
"There might be an infinite number of possibilities, but they fall into
either one of two camps. Effects have causes (backed by the weight of
historic scientific discovery), or they don't."
Do they? Do they always? Because if you start discussing human
behaviour (which I link exclusively to a term like "fixed destiny")
then you can throw predictability out the window. People can behave
irrationally and still obey the laws of physics. In other words, human
behaviour can have no obvious and predicatable cause (like a
non-sequitor, for instance).
"If you think they don't, would you have thought so pre-quantum
revolution, and if not, what evidence makes you think so post-quantum
revolution?"
I have no idea what I would have thought if I was born 100 years ago.
And as I said, I don't think human behaviour necessarily is predictable
..
"But let us suppose that you are right, and that there does appear to
be
effects with no cause within the physical plane. Is this not evidence
of a supernatural cause, i.e. a cause outside of the physical plane?
The whole weight of scientific evidence points towards effects having a
cause."
So far you are either talking about human behaviour or quantum
behaviour, which to my mind are the obvious realms of effects without
cause (I hate that term). Human behaviour really does not require the
supernatural, in my opinion; people can act like unpredictable lunatics
without any help from above. And on the quantum level, quarks and
leptons and electrons et al are the fundamental building blocks of
matter, all that we see is made of matter, all that we see is nature,
therefore quantum particles are part of nature. I think imposing an
idea like "god" or "supernatural" on the quantum world is doing it a
disservice and missing the point. Nature works perfectly well without
god.
"The point really is that none of the explanations can be proven, human
knowledge is limited, as shown by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle,
but that there is no reason to doubt the finding's of scientific
discovery, that effects have a cause, whether from with the physical
plane, or from outside."
"None of the explanations can be proven?" Totally disagree. In fact,
explanations ARE the proof (or not, depending upon their validity).
That sentence is redundant. If the explanation for the rocket ship
being in space is that the rocket fuel was ignited, and you require
proof of that, then you are engaging in a reductio ad absurdum. We all
saw the rocket ship take off. And some effects don't have a cause (I
hate that term).
"Is it that you believe in a multitude of dimensions outside of the
plane of our existence (multiple universes), and yet refuse to use
Occam's Razor, and keep it to one extra dimension, the spiritual
plane?"
It's not a case of belief. String theory (in the realm of physics and
nature) indicates that multiple dimensions are a distinct possibility,
but it has not been proven yet. Until then, I will regard it as an
infinitely more plausible possibility than a "spiritual plane," since
from what I can tell the "spiritual plane" does not obey the Laws of
Physics, and everything I've ever observed obeys the Laws of Physics.
"Only one explanation explains us having a subjective awareness, and it
is not the concept that there are multiple dimensions created for every
variation per atom per millisecond (actually lower/higher depending on
the way you look at it) in the universe."
What is that explanation? As if I don't know. God, right? Don't think
so. Try evolution. We evolved subjective awareness as matter evolved
over billions of years. There is physical evidence of that, and zero
evidence that any god created humans.
"Because we don't know, you can believe whatever you like (though it
doesn't make it so)."
Disagree. I think humans have figured out a LOT of stuff. I think we do
know, and there is much more to learn. I'm not particularly interested
in belief. But if you want to reduce things to an absurd level, at
least I am backing up my claims with proof, and you're not.
"But, take into account the history of science, and what it has taught
us, because without history, we will repeat the same mistakes over and
over again."
You are confusing history and science, two different subjects. You
start out with the "history of science," but then change the subject to
history alone. It would be absurd to say "without the history of
science, we will repeat the same mistakes over and over again." Science
tends to be cumulative; that is, it does not tend to go back to an
earlier state of ignorance. For example, after it was discovered that
the Earth revolves around the Sun, scientists did not/have not
spontaneusly gone back to a geocentric universe because they ignored
the history of science.
"As I said previously, no one is now claiming that the universe is
proven to be indeterministic (there are effects without cause). If it
isn't, and effects do have a cause, your destiny is fixed."
Disagree. The universe on the quantum level is indeterministic. You
cannot tell if quantum particles are moving backwards or forwards
through time, where they are, or what they are at a particular point in
time. The universe has a fundamental randomness.
"(The history of scientific evidence points to effects having a cause,
randomness is the atheist equivalent of 'God in the gap')"
Current scientific thinking is that quantum events are random and
unpredictable. Randomness has nothing to do with atheism. It is a
phenomena of nature, interpret it however you like, impose any ideas
you want upon it. It's still random, independent of theism or atheism..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
08 Sep 2005 07:37:51 PM |
|
|
"Do you believe that your destiny is fixed and that that there is
nothing you can do to alter it."
Destiny is retroactive. If you can tell me EXACTLY what yours or my
destiny is , then destiny is fixed. But you can't, and neither can I
(erxcluding death). My experience is some people mistake their
knowledge of history for a vague feeling of knowledge regarding the
future, and melodramatically call it "destiny."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
08 Sep 2005 01:02:51 AM |
|
|
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1126136163.553805.223290@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The evidence of scientific discovery has shown that there are causes
behind the effects that we see.
During what can be called the 'quantum revolution' we were told that
there was in fact randomness (effects without cause), though despite
the assurances of Von Neumann and others (that it was impossible that
effects do have causes), Bohmian mechanics does give an explanation
where effects have a cause. It doesn't matter whether it is right or
wrong (in its explanation), by its very existence it shows that it is
possible (backed up by the history of scientific discovery), that our
lack of an explanation is due to our ignorance.
Obviously if effects have a cause, or in other words. that whatever
happens is inevitable given the cause(s), then our future is fixed
given the initial state at the 'Big Bang' and the laws that happen to
govern the universe.
Just wondering how many atheists on the channel believe in a fixed
destiny?
Everything is mechanical, but destiny is not fixed.
That may seem like a contradiction, but it's not. If there were no quantum
effects, then destiny would be fixed, but since there ARE quantum effects,
that fixed destiny is modified by those quantum effects.
I realise (from reading this newsgroup) that atheism means believing in
nothing in particular, but I was just interested in seeing in what the
atheists on the channel do believe in. The specific question is:
Atheism means not believeing in any gods. If your "nothing in particular"
comment means that aside from the lack of gods, there is no other particular
belief requirement for atheism, then you are correct. ;-)
Do you believe that your destiny is fixed and that that there is
nothing you can do to alter it.
My destiny is not fixed, but there is nothing I can do to alter it.
In other words, my otherwise fixed destiny is modified by uncaused quantum
effects, and thus not predictable. But I am still just molecules doing what
molecules do according to strict physical law.
If not, it seems that you must believe that effects don't have a cause
(against the history of scientific evidence)
Oh, quantum effects are considered uncaused, so I presume they modify the
otherwise newtonian clockwork of the universe.
Maybe there are alternatives that I haven't considered, if so, I'd be
interested in hearing of them.
How's my bizarre outlook work for ya?
And hey, if quantum effects are caused, then the whole shebang is newtonian,
and destiny IS fixed.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
08 Sep 2005 11:12:15 AM |
|
|
someone4 wrote:
The evidence of scientific discovery has shown that there are causes
behind the effects that we see.
During what can be called the 'quantum revolution' we were told that
there was in fact randomness (effects without cause), though despite
the assurances of Von Neumann and others (that it was impossible that
effects do have causes), Bohmian mechanics does give an explanation
where effects have a cause. It doesn't matter whether it is right or
wrong (in its explanation), by its very existence it shows that it is
possible (backed up by the history of scientific discovery), that our
lack of an explanation is due to our ignorance.
Obviously if effects have a cause, or in other words. that whatever
happens is inevitable given the cause(s), then our future is fixed
given the initial state at the 'Big Bang' and the laws that happen to
govern the universe.
Just wondering how many atheists on the channel believe in a fixed
destiny?
Denis Loubet wrote:
Everything is mechanical, but destiny is not fixed.
That may seem like a contradiction, but it's not. If there were no quantum
effects, then destiny would be fixed, but since there ARE quantum effects,
that fixed destiny is modified by those quantum effects.
As I said, all the assurances that there were given that quantum
effects can have no cause, and it is not simply a matter of our
ignorance to the cause, have been proven to be wrong simply by the
existence of Bohmian mechanics.
Here is an interesting correspondence on Bohmian mechanics.
http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/weingold.htm
someone4 wrote:
I realise (from reading this newsgroup) that atheism means believing in
nothing in particular, but I was just interested in seeing in what the
atheists on the channel do believe in. The specific question is:
Denis Loubet wrote:
Atheism means not believeing in any gods. If your "nothing in particular"
comment means that aside from the lack of gods, there is no other particular
belief requirement for atheism, then you are correct. ;-)
So you do consider there to be a belief requirement for atheism, i.e.
that there are no gods, and that atheism is therefore simply a belief.
someone4 wrote:
Do you believe that your destiny is fixed and that that there is
nothing you can do to alter it.
Denis Loubet wrote:
My destiny is not fixed, but there is nothing I can do to alter it.
In other words, my otherwise fixed destiny is modified by uncaused quantum
effects, and thus not predictable.
As I have pointed out above there is no evidence of uncaused effects,
even if we don't know the cause. Even if (as the weight of historic
scientific evidence suggests), there are causes behind effects, and the
universe is deterministic, this should not be confused with
predictability, as it doesn't mean even if we knew the cause, that we
would have the means to predict. As Heisenberg himself stated:
"One can not say that quantum mechanics is statistical. But when one
wishes to calculate 'the future' from 'the present' one can only get
statistical results, since one can never discover every detail of the
present" (Murdoch 1987, p. 48).
Denis Loubet wrote:
But I am still just molecules doing what
molecules do according to strict physical law.
You seem to be of the opinion that randomness (effects without causes)
actually exists, which I find hard to reconcile with you statement of
"strict physical law".
As a side note, if randomness did exist (and there is no evidence that
it does, and the whole weight of historic scientific discovery that it
doesn't), then this could be argued to point to a cause from outside of
the physical plane, as the history of science shows us that there are
causes for effects.
someone4 wrote:
If not, it seems that you must believe that effects don't have a cause
(against the history of scientific evidence)
Denis Loubet wrote:
Oh, quantum effects are considered uncaused, so I presume they modify the
otherwise newtonian clockwork of the universe.
The assurances that we received that the universe was actually
indeterministic given at the beginning of the 20th century (by
Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Jon von Neumann, Wigner, Feynman etc), and that
a deterministic interpretation was impossible, have been shown to be
false, simply by the existence of Bohmian mechanics.
Wigner considered Bell's Inequality Theorem to be the strongest case
against hidden variables and thus a deterministic explanation.
But here's how Bell himself reacted to Bohm's discovery (Bell 1987, p.
160):
"But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm.
Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into
nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the
indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic
one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox
version, the necessary reference to the 'observer,' could be
eliminated. ...
But why then 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?
.... 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 us that vagueness, subjectivity, and
indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by
deliberate theoretical choice? "
(the above was taken from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/)
someone4 wrote:
Maybe there are alternatives that I haven't considered, if so, I'd be
interested in hearing of them.
Denis Loubet wrote:
How's my bizarre outlook work for ya?
And hey, if quantum effects are caused, then the whole shebang is newtonian,
and destiny IS fixed.
Your outlook isn't bizarre, I gave both those options in the original
post. You are prepared to believe in either effects without a cause
(against all historic scientific evidence), or believe that your
destiny is fixed, and that, according to our subjective experience,
when deciding whether to have dessert or dinner first, though both
seemed possible before we consciously choose between them, it was an
illusion, and that it was predetermined from the initial state at the
'Big Bang' and the laws that govern the universe (i.e. only one was
ever possible).
As for how your outlook works for me, well it doesn't really, though
that is not to say that it is wrong. I simply believe in my subjective
experience that having either dessert or dinner first were both
possible before 'I' as a causal agent within the world decided which
will happen, which means there must be a part of me which is simply
above all physical laws, for want of a better word, a soul (which
explains how we actually have subjective awareness).
If I am wrong, then I guess I am destined to be so, and there is
nothing I could have done about it, if you are wrong, then you have
been convinced against your own subjective experience, that having
between having either dessert or dinner first, there was never any
options, and that only one was possible. The king and his invisible
clothes comes to mind.
So for me, if I can actually choose (there are options to choose
between), then I choose to believe that there is something else, but it
is an individual choice (assuming you believe that you have one).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
08 Sep 2005 07:33:28 PM |
|
|
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1126177935.876036.217910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
someone4 wrote:
The evidence of scientific discovery has shown that there are causes
behind the effects that we see.
During what can be called the 'quantum revolution' we were told that
there was in fact randomness (effects without cause), though despite
the assurances of Von Neumann and others (that it was impossible that
effects do have causes), Bohmian mechanics does give an explanation
where effects have a cause. It doesn't matter whether it is right or
wrong (in its explanation), by its very existence it shows that it is
possible (backed up by the history of scientific discovery), that our
lack of an explanation is due to our ignorance.
Obviously if effects have a cause, or in other words. that whatever
happens is inevitable given the cause(s), then our future is fixed
given the initial state at the 'Big Bang' and the laws that happen to
govern the universe.
Just wondering how many atheists on the channel believe in a fixed
destiny?
Denis Loubet wrote:
Everything is mechanical, but destiny is not fixed.
That may seem like a contradiction, but it's not. If there were no quantum
effects, then destiny would be fixed, but since there ARE quantum effects,
that fixed destiny is modified by those quantum effects.
As I said, all the assurances that there were given that quantum
effects can have no cause, and it is not simply a matter of our
ignorance to the cause, have been proven to be wrong simply by the
existence of Bohmian mechanics.
Here is an interesting correspondence on Bohmian mechanics.
http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/weingold.htm
Fine, it makes little difference. For the sake of argument I will accept
this. Thus destiny is fixed, for the sake of argument.
someone4 wrote:
I realise (from reading this newsgroup) that atheism means believing in
nothing in particular, but I was just interested in seeing in what the
atheists on the channel do believe in. The specific question is:
Denis Loubet wrote:
Atheism means not believeing in any gods. If your "nothing in particular"
comment means that aside from the lack of gods, there is no other
particular
belief requirement for atheism, then you are correct. ;-)
So you do consider there to be a belief requirement for atheism, i.e.
that there are no gods, and that atheism is therefore simply a belief.
Sigh.
You are of course free to completely ignore context and instead leap upon my
lapses in wording in order to deliberatly misrepresent my position.
The first sentence states quite clearly that atheism means not believeing in
any gods. That indicates a lack of a specific belief. Yes, I unfortunatly
used the word "other" when describing that atheism does not require any
beliefs. My mistake. Atheism does not require any beliefs.
Atheism is not a belief. It is a skeptical position.
someone4 wrote:
Do you believe that your destiny is fixed and that that there is
nothing you can do to alter it.
Denis Loubet wrote:
My destiny is not fixed, but there is nothing I can do to alter it.
In other words, my otherwise fixed destiny is modified by uncaused quantum
effects, and thus not predictable.
As I have pointed out above there is no evidence of uncaused effects,
(snip tiresome repetition)
Yes, we can all see that you are determined to nail this into everyone's
head. I have already granted Bohemian Mechanics for the sake of argument.
That is all you're going to get.
Denis Loubet wrote:
But I am still just molecules doing what
molecules do according to strict physical law.
You seem to be of the opinion that randomness (effects without causes)
actually exists, which I find hard to reconcile with you statement of
"strict physical law".
Are you deliberately being obtuse? (Stupid question, of course you are.)
If, as scientists state, quantum effects are uncaused, then randomness would
be a fact.
But, before you slip into your Bohemian Mechanics rant, note that I have
already granted your BM for the sake of argument.
As a side note, if randomness did exist (and there is no evidence that
it does, and the whole weight of historic scientific discovery that it
doesn't), then this could be argued to point to a cause from outside of
the physical plane, as the history of science shows us that there are
causes for effects.
Too late, you already slipped into your BM rant.
someone4 wrote:
If not, it seems that you must believe that effects don't have a cause
(against the history of scientific evidence)
Denis Loubet wrote:
Oh, quantum effects are considered uncaused, so I presume they modify the
otherwise newtonian clockwork of the universe.
The assurances that we received that the universe was actually
indeterministic given at the beginning of the 20th century (by
Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Jon von Neumann, Wigner, Feynman etc), and that
a deterministic interpretation was impossible, have been shown to be
false, simply by the existence of Bohmian mechanics.
FINE! I'LL FUCKING GRANT THAT FOR THE SAKE OF THE FUCKING ARGUMENT! OK?
Sheesh!
(snip BM)
someone4 wrote:
Maybe there are alternatives that I haven't considered, if so, I'd be
interested in hearing of them.
Denis Loubet wrote:
How's my bizarre outlook work for ya?
And hey, if quantum effects are caused, then the whole shebang is
newtonian,
and destiny IS fixed.
Your outlook isn't bizarre, I gave both those options in the original
post. You are prepared to believe in either effects without a cause
(against all historic scientific evidence),
I am prepared to agree with the findings of scientists that provide
knowledge that allow the creation of technology that works. Technology that
WOULDN'T work if the science was WRONG.
I do my best to understand the science, but the math is opaque to me, so I
have to go with the current mainstream conclusions.
Is BM the current mainstream conclusion?
or believe that your
destiny is fixed, and that, according to our subjective experience,
when deciding whether to have dessert or dinner first, though both
seemed possible before we consciously choose between them, it was an
illusion, and that it was predetermined from the initial state at the
'Big Bang' and the laws that govern the universe (i.e. only one was
ever possible).
I'm prepared to agree with whichever is the current mainstream conclusion.
As for how your outlook works for me, well it doesn't really, though
that is not to say that it is wrong. I simply believe in my subjective
experience that having either dessert or dinner first were both
possible before 'I' as a causal agent within the world decided which
will happen, which means there must be a part of me which is simply
above all physical laws, for want of a better word, a soul (which
explains how we actually have subjective awareness).
Well of course the illusion is more comforting than the reality. We're
evolved to think we posess free will. But it cannot be.
Even if we grant a "soul" for the sake of argument, it doesn't help. When
you make a decision about dinner or dessert, are you weighing the pros and
cons against your preferences and arriving at a conclusion? If so, then
you're just performing a calculation like a computer. If your supposed soul
throws in a randomizing factor to make your choice unpredicatable, then
you're a slave to the random number it throws. That's not free will either.
I cannot conceive of a mechanic by which free will would work. So much so
that I don't think that free will can even be defined.
If I am wrong, then I guess I am destined to be so, and there is
nothing I could have done about it, if you are wrong, then you have
been convinced against your own subjective experience, that having
between having either dessert or dinner first, there was never any
options, and that only one was possible. The king and his invisible
clothes comes to mind.
Since my happiness depends upon how well I function, and seeing as how
trying to second-guess destiny is damaging to my behavior, it behooves me to
operate within the illusion that I have a free will that I can't even
define.
So for me, if I can actually choose (there are options to choose
between), then I choose to believe that there is something else, but it
is an individual choice (assuming you believe that you have one).
You seem to have accomodated the illusion of free will too. But at least I
know it's an illusion.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
08 Sep 2005 09:44:49 PM |
|
|
someone4 wrote:
The evidence of scientific discovery has shown that there are causes
behind the effects that we see.
During what can be called the 'quantum revolution' we were told that
there was in fact randomness (effects without cause), though despite
the assurances of Von Neumann and others (that it was impossible that
effects do have causes), Bohmian mechanics does give an explanation
where effects have a cause. It doesn't matter whether it is right or
wrong (in its explanation), by its very existence it shows that it is
possible (backed up by the history of scientific discovery), that our
lack of an explanation is due to our ignorance.
Obviously if effects have a cause, or in other words. that whatever
happens is inevitable given the cause(s), then our future is fixed
given the initial state at the 'Big Bang' and the laws that happen to
govern the universe.
Just wondering how many atheists on the channel believe in a fixed
destiny?
Denis Loubet wrote:
Everything is mechanical, but destiny is not fixed.
That may seem like a contradiction, but it's not. If there were no quantum
effects, then destiny would be fixed, but since there ARE quantum effects,
that fixed destiny is modified by those quantum effects.
someone4 wrote:
As I said, all the assurances that there were given that quantum
effects can have no cause, and it is not simply a matter of our
ignorance to the cause, have been proven to be wrong simply by the
existence of Bohmian mechanics.
Here is an interesting correspondence on Bohmian mechanics.
http://www.mathematik.uni-muen chen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/wei ngold.htm
Denis Loubet wrote:
Fine, it makes little difference. For the sake of argument I will accept
this. Thus destiny is fixed, for the sake of argument.
Fine for the sake of argument (though I wasn't actually saying it is, I
was just saying that there is no reason to believe that it isn't).
someone4 wrote:
I realise (from reading this newsgroup) that atheism means believing in
nothing in particular, but I was just interested in seeing in what the
atheists on the channel do believe in. The specific question is:
Denis Loubet wrote:
Atheism means not believeing in any gods. If your "nothing in particular"
comment means that aside from the lack of gods, there is no other
particular
belief requirement for atheism, then you are correct. ;-)
someone4 wrote:
So you do consider there to be a belief requirement for atheism, i.e.
that there are no gods, and that atheism is therefore simply a belief.
Denis Loubet wrote:
Sigh.
You are of course free to completely ignore context and instead leap upon my
lapses in wording in order to deliberatly misrepresent my position.
The first sentence states quite clearly that atheism means not believeing in
any gods. That indicates a lack of a specific belief. Yes, I unfortunatly
used the word "other" when describing that atheism does not require any
beliefs. My mistake. Atheism does not require any beliefs.
Atheism is not a belief. It is a skeptical position.
I'm not trying to be awkward here but are you saying atheists are only
skeptical about there being gods, i.e. they have a doubt, and therefore
don't positively believe in them, or do they positively declare that
gods don't exist?
someone4 wrote:
Do you believe that your destiny is fixed and that that there is
nothing you can do to alter it.
Denis Loubet wrote:
My destiny is not fixed, but there is nothing I can do to alter it.
In other words, my otherwise fixed destiny is modified by uncaused quantum
effects, and thus not predictable.
As I have pointed out above there is no evidence of uncaused effects,
Denis Loubet wrote:
(snip tiresome repetition)
Yes, we can all see that you are determined to nail this into everyone's
head. I have already granted Bohemian Mechanics for the sake of argument.
That is all you're going to get.
I know you said above.
Denis Loubet wrote:
But I am still just molecules doing what
molecules do according to strict physical law.
someone4 wrote:
You seem to be of the opinion that randomness (effects without causes)
actually exists, which I find hard to reconcile with you statement of
"strict physical law".
Denis Loubet wrote:
Are you deliberately being obtuse? (Stupid question, of course you are.)
If, as scientists state, quantum effects are uncaused, then randomness would
be a fact.
I wasn't being obtuse, I was just pointing out that if randomness was
true, it can hardly be described as a 'strict physical law', the
information that we detect would be information about nothing.
Denis Loubet wrote:
But, before you slip into your Bohemian Mechanics rant, note that I have
already granted your BM for the sake of argument.
I know, you said above.
someone4 wrote:
As a side note, if randomness did exist (and there is no evidence that
it does, and the whole weight of historic scientific discovery that it
doesn't), then this could be argued to point to a cause from outside of
the physical plane, as the history of science shows us that there are
causes for effects.
Denis Loubet wrote:
Too late, you already slipped into your BM rant.
Actually that paragraph had nothing to do with BM. It was simply
stating that if randomness did exist, it could be claimed that it was
strong evidence for God.
someone4 wrote:
If not, it seems that you must believe that effects don't have a cause
(against the history of scientific evidence)
Denis Loubet wrote:
Oh, quantum effects are considered uncaused, so I presume they modify the
otherwise newtonian clockwork of the universe.
The assurances that we received that the universe was actually
indeterministic given at the beginning of the 20th century (by
Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Jon von Neumann, Wigner, Feynman etc), and that
a deterministic interpretation was impossible, have been shown to be
false, simply by the existence of Bohmian mechanics.
Denis Loubet wrote:
FINE! I'LL FUCKING GRANT THAT FOR THE SAKE OF THE FUCKING ARGUMENT! OK?
Sheesh!
(snip BM)
I know, you said above.
someone4 wrote:
Maybe there are alternatives that I haven't considered, if so, I'd be
interested in hearing of them.
Denis Loubet wrote:
How's my bizarre outlook work for ya?
And hey, if quantum effects are caused, then the whole shebang is
newtonian,
and destiny IS fixed.
someone4 wrote:
Your outlook isn't bizarre, I gave both those options in the original
post. You are prepared to believe in either effects without a cause
(against all historic scientific evidence),
Denis Loubet wrote:
I am prepared to agree with the findings of scientists that provide
knowledge that allow the creation of technology that works. Technology that
WOULDN'T work if the science was WRONG.
I do my best to understand the science, but the math is opaque to me, so I
have to go with the current mainstream conclusions.
Is BM the current mainstream conclusion?
No it isn't, though it is changing, or at least the reasons for
doubting it are.
I supplied a link, I don't know whether you read it, but it is a quite
good, clearly written email correspondence between two physics
professors, with no mention of equations.
http://www.mathematik.uni-muen chen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/weingold.htm
If you are interested in these issues, then it is quite a good easy
read.
someone4 wrote:
or believe that your
destiny is fixed, and that, according to our subjective experience,
when deciding whether to have dessert or dinner first, though both
seemed possible before we consciously choose between them, it was an
illusion, and that it was predetermined from the initial state at the
'Big Bang' and the laws that govern the universe (i.e. only one was
ever possible).
Denis Loubet wrote:
I'm prepared to agree with whichever is the current mainstream conclusion.
There is no conclusion. It is regarded by many as a metaphysical
question.
someone4 wrote:
As for how your outlook works for me, well it doesn't really, though
that is not to say that it is wrong. I simply believe in my subjective
experience that having either dessert or dinner first were both
possible before 'I' as a causal agent within the world decided which
will happen, which means there must be a part of me which is simply
above all physical laws, for want of a better word, a soul (which
explains how we actually have subjective awareness).
Denis Loubet wrote:
Well of course the illusion is more comforting than the reality. We're
evolved to think we posess free will. But it cannot be.
Even if we grant a "soul" for the sake of argument, it doesn't help. When
you make a decision about dinner or dessert, are you weighing the pros and
cons against your preferences and arriving at a conclusion? If so, then
you're just performing a calculation like a computer. If your supposed soul
throws in a randomizing factor to make your choice unpredicatable, then
you're a slave to the random number it throws. That's not free will either.
I cannot conceive of a mechanic by which free will would work. So much so
that I don't think that free will can even be defined.
Well it might simply be that it is wrong to think of there being laws
that govern the spiritual plane. It would be like asking which laws
govern God. That our universe seems such an elegant mathematical
construction, and that effects have causes doesn't mean that that is
true of everything.
someone4 wrote:
If I am wrong, then I guess I am destined to be so, and there is
nothing I could have done about it, if you are wrong, then you have
been convinced against your own subjective experience, that having
between having either dessert or dinner first, there was never any
options, and that only one was possible. The king and his invisible
clothes comes to mind.
Denis Loubet wrote:
Since my happiness depends upon how well I function, and seeing as how
trying to second-guess destiny is damaging to my behavior, it behooves me to
operate within the illusion that I have a free will that I can't even
define.
Yes it is certainly would be an illusion like no other, in that it is
difficult to live your life without believing in it to some extent.
someone4 wrote:
So for me, if I can actually choose (there are options to choose
between), then I choose to believe that there is something else, but it
is an individual choice (assuming you believe that you have one).
Denis Loubet wrote:
You seem to have accomodated the illusion of free will too. But at least I
know it's an illusion.
No, you believe it is an illusion, but you don't know that it is. You
deny your own subjective experience when there is no scientific
explanation for our subjective awareness, and certainly no concept of
it in physics. There is no objective scientific evidence that you even
have a subjective awareness, and experience qualia, even though you
blatantly know that you do.
In fact, if you consider your subjective awareness to be an experience
of, or produced by a physical activity in the brain, let us for
arguments sake call it physical activity X, and assume that the
activity follows the laws of physics then *conceptually* the brain
could be modelled (simulated) on a platform where this physical
activity didn't happen (it was simulated instead). If it is correctly
simulated, the modelled brain should act the same as a real brain, and
respond accordingly, even though it experienced no subjective awareness
(physical activity X wasn't actually happening on the simulation, it
was simulated). What I am getting to, is that it means that we must
have evolved to talk about our subjective awareness, and consider the
possibility of it being the product of something outside of the
physical plane, and that only by coincidence do we actually have
subjective awareness. As even if physical activity X didn't cause a
subjective sensation of awareness, it wouldn't have effected the way we
evolved and operate (according to our current understanding of
physics), we would still talk about our subjective awareness, even if
we didn't have one.
Some might argue that the brain could not be simulated in such a way,
because it takes into effect quantum effects (one such proponent is
Roger Penrose).
http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/penrose/penr.htm
Though his argument on other links actually comes down to the idea that
quantum events actually choose what they will do in a way beyond our
current conception of science (a bit like a mini soul). Though he does
point out some interesting issues in the article above why our brain
does not act like a computer.
Below is a reasonably current link (1999) to a paper on the neuronal
basis of consciousness
http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/Elsevier-NCC.html
It is clear that currently there is no explanation for your subjective
awareness.
This is further highlighted here in a more essay like format by John
Marshall of the University Department of Clinical Neurology, Oxford.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-8219/1/5
Point being, is that there is no explanation for our subjective
awareness (or the 'mystery of consciousness' as stated in the later
paper), so it is not like there is a scientific explanation for it that
you are accepting, and that others are blindly ignoring.
Anyway, the question was "is our destiny fixed", and you have answered
I think that it might be, it might not be, but that you don't believe
there is anything you can do to alter it, it is either fixed or
modified by random quantum events.
If you don't mind, a moral question for you, if a person stabs someone
with a knife, are they 'morally' any more responsible than the knife, I
mean it's not like they could have done anything other than stab them?
Or is morality just a social construct, and that they should be
punished simply to deter them or others from acting in the same way?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed? |
14 Sep 2005 03:23:39 PM |
|
|
On 7 Sep 2005 16:36:0 | |
