Are All Events Predetermined By The Big Bang?

[Canute]

Originally posted by Another God
Funnily enough, it actually needn't change anything...IN fact, that is precisely my belief, that things ARE as they are, and we ARE determined. So that we should as this question isn't so strange, it is precisely the sort of question our minds are prone to ask (ie: Predestined to ask).

That's not quite what I meant. Things are certainly as they are, and according to the physical evidence we may or may not have freewill.

But a world in which automata argue about whether they are automata or not is a strange one. Why would they do it? In particular, why is not possible to prove it one way or the other? It should be trivial matter to disprove freewill. After all if it doesn't exist in humans, who feel that it does, then it probably doesn't exist at all. In this case it seems certain that it is impossible for it to exist. If it cannot possible exist we ought to be able to prove it.

This doesn't prove anything, but it's strange world that let's us hold a delusion of freewill consistently over evolutionary time without it ever once contradicting the evidence, without it bestowing any evolutionary advantage, and without one single example of a human who felt like they didn't possesses and exercise it.

I love it when people say that. It sort of amuses me. I mean...OK, i can agree with what you said...but I don't really know exactly what you have in mind by 'it does not exclude the possibility of consciousness and freewill'. Because if the very next moment is precisly determined, then so are our actions...and so by deduction, obviously we cannot change that fact. So if by 'possibility to have free will' you mean 'Possibility to do the thing that our brain tells us to do (which we believe we are choosing)', then SURE, I agree completely. We have 'free will' (which I call lack of free will.) [/B]

The apparent contradiction arises from the difference between causes that are sufficient and causes that are necessary. Physically determinate causes (or contingent conditions) are clearly necessary to account for our actions and reactions. The question is whether they are sufficient to account for it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Canute, I'd like to ask you if you think animals have free will (let's leave consciousness out of it, because that starts hares with the PETA enthusiasts)? Is humanity the only species that has free will? Did free will evolve (heh, as Dennett titles his latest book)? Where does the line lie between free-willing and non-freee-willing, or can we conceive of a continuum?

 

[olde drunk]

one more time

do we believe that we are the product of the physical world? OR, do we believe that we created the physical world?

i suspect that the latest info (science and metaphysics) is highly in favor of the concept that we create the physical world throught our consciousness. hence, no prdetermination.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Canute, I'd like to ask you if you think animals have free will (let's leave consciousness out of it, because that starts hares with the PETA enthusiasts)? Is humanity the only species that has free will? Did free will evolve (heh, as Dennett titles his latest book)? Where does the line lie between free-willing and non-freee-willing, or can we conceive of a continuum?

I can't answer these I'm afraid. I suspect that we're looking at it in the wrong way.

But I don't believe in some God who made humans conscious and gave them freewill and nobody else. We are animals, if we have freewill then animals have freewill, if we don't they don't.

The continuum idea is nearest my conjecture.

Don't tell me Dennett has written another one. I've given him every chance, this one I'm definitely not reading.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I read it. It's called Freedom Evolves. It's a, well mostly, Darwinist defense of compatibilism. Reminds me of somebody's description of Edwards speaking in New Hampshire; while I was reading Dennett I was almost persuaded of his argument. But after I finished the book, I concluded his arguments were special pleading, if not obfuscation. I put this book way below Consciousness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

 

[jackle]

i suspect that the latest info (science and metaphysics) is highly in favor of the concept that we create the physical world throught our consciousness...[/B]

No, I wouldn't go that far. I don't know any scientists who think that the physical world is created through our consciousness.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by jackle
No, I wouldn't go that far. I don't know any scientists who think that the physical world is created through our consciousness.

You might be surprised, there are a few, and the ideas of physics seem to be converging on it as a solution.

“The system of shared experience which we call the world is viewed as building itself out of elementary quantum phenomena, elementary acts of observer-participancy. In other words, the questions that the participants put – and the answers they get – by their observing devices, plus their communication of their findings, take part in creating the impressions which we call the system: that whole great system which to a superficial look is time and space, particles and fields.”
John Wheeler (from Martin Rees ‘Before the Beginning’ Simon and Schuster 1997 London

"Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge...It has nothing to do with the individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion. Indeed in a certain sense two ‘I’s’ are identical, namely, when one disregards all their special content—their Karma...When a man dies, his karma lives and creates for itself another carrier."
Erwin Schroedinger.

“The idea behind modern phenomenalism would be that neither the transcendental object not subject exists in any concrete sense. Instead, one would postulate various possible combinations of phemomenal objects, the most coherent, complex and structured of which could be viewable as constituting emergent conceptual minds such as our own. In this case, the universe could be seen as fundamentally rooted in phenomena or mind.”
Edward Barkin (Journal of Consciousness Studies 2003 Vol 10, 8 p 5)

 

[Sikz]

If everything is predetermined, what point in time was it all determined at? It can't be determined at any point in time, because then the portion before it was not predetermined. If it wasn't determined at a point of time, that's just another way of saying "it has not ever been determined" in which case it is not predetermination.

So EVERYTHING cannot be predetermined- but perhaps everything after a certain point can. But what sense does that make? The insant everything was predetermined has to be the same instant it was decided to be predetermined, and nothing could have lead up to that. It had to be pure random.

So pure random decided what will be preditermined (since if anything led up to what will be preditermined, that was the actual moment of predetermination). If pure random decided what will be predetermined... Isn't that the same as saying whatever happens is random, which is the same as saying it ISN'T preditermined?

 

[Canute]

I think you have a point about the regression of causes. But randomness does not imply lack of determination.

 

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by jackle
No, I wouldn't go that far. I don't know any scientists who think that the physical world is created through our consciousness.

as QM progresses, more and more 'modern scientific' thought, via super string and M theories, the "observer" becomes the creator of the observed or measured.

the olde tree falling in the woods doesn't make a sound because it doesn't exist unless someone is there to see (create) it.

i believe Brian Greene will be publishing a new book which may expand the above.

 

[jackle]

Originally posted by Sikz
If everything is predetermined, what point in time was it all determined at? It can't be determined at any point in time, because then the portion before it was not predetermined.

Imaginary time again? Where's Tom?

 

[qwantum_phlux]

someone indulge me...

Define Randomness...

then "Chaos"...

 

[FZ+]

Randomness:

the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan

Chaos:
Of a system having a sensitivity to perturbances in an exponential fashion. A positive lyapunov exponent.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Sikz
If everything is predetermined, what point in time was it all determined at?

It either was always determined, or it never will be.

 

[Sikz]

It either was always determined, or it never will be.

I think you've missed some of my point- it can't be "always" determined. If the determination occurred out of time, we can correctly say it never happened (since if something has not happened in the past it has "never happened, by definition). If the determination occurred within time there is one point in time that we can designate as the time determination occurred. But whatever point we label as that will have a reason for being that point and points before it that decided what would be determined; and THOSE points should be the real point of determination. If we trace that line back to the very earliest determination of all the other determination, that determination must NOT be decided by anything else (or the decisive factor would be the actual determination point)- therefore what is determined has to be random, which is the same as saying what happens is random, which is the same as saying what happens is not determined.

Random: "The quality of lacking any predictable order or plan."

I would dissagree; that definition is the one used when discussing dice rolls and such, which in actuality are predictable if we have the data. The philosophical definition, then, has to be different. I would propose:

Random: "The quality of lacking any order or plan."

A fox's next action may not be predictable, but that is due to limited knowledge; philosophicly a lack of knowledge on our part does not cause the event we lack knowledge of to be random.


EDIT: I fixed the quote problem.

 

[Canute]

Sikz

I agree that's the normal definition. But I also agree with jackle. By this definition the first cause (or first effect) must have been random since no order or plan could have existed before it.

The idea of a 'First Cause' doesn't make much sense in a strictly physically determined universe.

 

[Sikz]

Indeed. And if the first cause was random, and all other things folllowed from that cause (we can say that all other things were encoded in that cause), then all other things must be random- and thus no predestination.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Sikz
Indeed. And if the first cause was random, and all other things folllowed from that cause (we can say that all other things were encoded in that cause), then all other things must be random- and thus no predestination.

This doesn't work. If Lady Luck rolled the dice in the beginning and we wound up in a random universe, but that universe is predetermined within itself, then since we can't go back and reroll the dice, we're stuck in predetermination again.

 

[Sikz]

This doesn't work. If Lady Luck rolled the dice in the beginning and we wound up in a random universe, but that universe is predetermined within itself, then since we can't go back and reroll the dice, we're stuck in predetermination again.

Depending on how you look at it. If we look at time as linear, with the first event being random, then you are correct. But we could say, equally correctly, that the first event was all events encoded into one- and as such its random composition is a random composition of all events. Is there actually a difference, if we view things as utterly causal, between the first event encoding, and thus being, all other events- in which case time is a sort of illusion and the random element is still being implemented into the code- and the first event triggering, encoding, other events but being somehow sepearate?

If the first event contains all information necessary to construct the entirety of the universe at any time, then what reason have we to assume we exist as an "actual" universe apart from that information?

 

[jackle]

Originally posted by Canute
You might be surprised, there are a few, and the ideas of physics seem to be converging on it as a solution.

My QM lecturer suffered from ontological doubt, but that's about it. He spent too many long hours studying - needed to get out more!

 

[Canute]

Seems to me that an event requires the existence of time and space.

 

[TampaUSA]

Originally posted by Canute
Seems to me that an event requires the existence of time and space.

I agree but does this mean they need to meet? I think the only explanation is parallelism. Running all in parallel with life, consciousness is that entire area that lies between time and space including Time Space. Everything in the universe has a certain level of consciousness. Why humans are conscious at most known levels is the golden question.. I also think that there are other levels of consciousness that we are not privy to.

-Peace

 

[Canute]

I agree, except that I'd argue we are privy to those levels.

 

[Another God]

I disagree, but this isn't really the thread to start up that discussion.

 

[dune]

Originally posted by jackle
Legal systems tend to rely rather heavily on the concept of free-will.

"I was pre-determined to kill them, why should I go to jail?" doesn't usually work. There have however, been court cases where people have killed someone accidently in their sleep and have been let off.

The decision making part of their brain wasn't active, so it makes no sense to punish them for their sleep walking. Making an example of them wouldn't reduce the number of occurances and I don't think it is likely that they would be unlucky enough to do it again. The concept of free-will seems like a useful one in this context.

...Jackle, you must admit though, that the mere existence of the penal system is certainly an "input" or stimulus to the brain, which does affect our actions.

As a determinist, I would argue that each of my actions is based on (i) stimuli in the present (or very recent past) and (ii) the accumulated experience which is stored in my memory. (Really, memory is also a stimuli in the present). The way I see it, these two together dictate my every decision.

From the perspective of justice (if there is such a thing), it makes no sense to punish a person for their predetermined actions. However, it seems that humans over the millenia have unwittingly come up with a way (i.e. punishment) of minimizing destructive human behavior. I say "minimizing" because there are always those for whom other stimuli will outweigh the fear stimulus of future punishment.

Given this line of thought, I don't see the need to invoke free will.

 

[dune]

chance, free will and miracles

Determinism (or not) seems to hinge on the existence of chance, free will, and miracles. This thread has rightfully focused on the chance and free will components. (who has witnessed a miracle??)

Also, it seems that some have argued that QM introduces an emement of chance or randomness that makes free will a physical possibility.
Although I am not an expert in QM, I fail to see how randomness at such a small scale could provide a mode by which free will operates. There are two difficulties for me: (i) randomness and chance appear to be incompatible with the organized and predictable quality of free will, and (ii) the scale at which the randomness is manifested doesn't appear to be the scale at which thoughts, decisions, actions are made. My understanding of QM is that randomness in "fundamental" particle behavior gets lost in the presence of many other particles, i.e. randomness gets averaged out of the equation on the scale of electrical impulses traveling through our neural networks.

Am I out on a limb here??

 

[Crammitgandy]

One of the cornerstones of my philosophy is...

That nothing is really predetermined (otherwise free will would not exist). We can decide on a set plan, but we may change our minds later, or we may not. free will is a complete and utter impossibility if all things are predetermined.

 

[Another God]

Dune: now that I can agree with.

Crammitgrandy: I also agree that predetermination would preclude free will (though many disagree with me), but that is not an argument againstr predetermination, mearly a description of one of its predictions.

I am yet to see evidence in favour of free will: Thus one of the falsifiability claims made by the determinist doctrine still stands awaiting its knockdown.

 

[dune]

Originally posted by Crammitgandy
That nothing is really predetermined (otherwise free will would not exist). We can decide on a set plan, but we may change our minds later, or we may not. free will is a complete and utter impossibility if all things are predetermined.

...but, isn't it possible that each thought in your brain is the result of stimuli from your present experience of the world filtered and moderated by your memory (which is the accumulation of all past experiences and thoughts)?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by dune

Am I out on a limb here??

I don't think so.

I have always found it amusing that there are two major descriptions of our universe on a physical level. That of 'direct cause and efffect - The Newtonian universe', and that of 'random interactions - quantum mechanics'. To my mind neither of those allow the possibility of free will.

Either the universe follows strict rules, in which case our brain/mind is just as much a prisoner of those laws as every other particle in the universe (and so cannot deviate from the path it must follow)

OR

the universe is random, in which case there is no way that we could 'control' the random particles in a way that free will indicates is required. If we, the particles of this universe, may exert control over ourselves then we are no longer random. Paradox.

The only way free will can weasle its way into the picture is by denying universal causality of our universe and by denying universal randomness and to claim that some things are determined, and some things are random, and then there is the mind. Which in turn equates to an awefully fractured universe, not one coherent picture at all.

This isn't impossible...but well, the whole idea is very strange. I think settling with determinism and no free will is the most straight forward option atm.

 

[Canute]

I don;t believe that we can provethe existence of freewill. To do so we'd have to prove the existence of causal consciousness and for lengthy reasons i don't believe we can do this. If we could I'm sure we would have done it by now. However...

Described in a recent BBC Horizon programme investigating the Atkins diet (which has been proven to work) was a controlled study in which all participants were fed what appeared to be precisely the same food as each other over a sustained period. However for selected participants, and unknown to them, the fat content disguised in their meals was consistently and significantly enhanced. The idea was to study how fat intake correlates to weight change and eating habits.

Scientifically the results were unsurprising. People in the group that ate more fat over a sustained period, but who did not know that they were doing it, did not lose weight and did not eat less. They did precisely and exactly the opposite, just what one would expect from a scientific point of view.

This result makes the success of the Atkins diet even less scientifically plausible than ever. Why do Atkins dieters not react in the same way as these volunteers?

The evidence is not conclusive but it seems likely that in order to lose weight on the Atkins diet you have to know that you are on it. If you do not know that you are on it does not work.

If this is true then might it suggest something about consciousness and freewill?

 

[Another God]

no, not at all. It suggests something that every scientist has known since early education: The Placebo effect is a very real very strong effect. A false belief of the mind can have just as much effect as many true beliefs.

 

[Canute]

But, strange to say, according to science our beliefs have no effect whatsoever on our behaviour.

 

[Another God]

who says that?

Why do you think they have controls? It is to level the play field in experiments. Our beliefs change everything in our behaviour. What they don't change is the reality of the world, but they can drastically change our behaviours, and affect the internal systems of the body.

 

[dune]

Originally posted by Another God
who says that?

Why do you think they have controls? It is to level the play field in experiments. Our beliefs change everything in our behaviour. What they don't change is the reality of the world, but they can drastically change our behaviours, and affect the internal systems of the body.

I agree. Beliefs, moods, psychological health all affect the chemical balances in the brain and body. What is a belief? It isn't a "ghost" thought that dwells in a fifth dimension or other world. It is a physical phenomenon - primarily electrical impulses as are all other less sublime thoughts.

The outer world + memory affect thoughts through perception / thoughts or mental health in turn affect chemical balances / chemical balances affect ones health. Clear cause and effect.