moosedrool
Trad climber
lost, far away from Poland
|
|
The chaos theory liberated us from the Newtonian mechanistic world, me think.
Edit: At least from our point of view, we can not determine the future. Whether some superior intellect can calculate it, it's irrelevant to us.
Edit: At least science give us a chance to have free will :)
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
It's gonna be interesting if this thread ever starts chewing on Free Will, which is where many of the crucial elements of this discussion find full traction. "Free" means non-deterministic, meaning that we have a choice that is not beholden to mechanical, antecedent causes, or any causes.
I'm getting tired of this sh#t. I tried to nudge it into a free will direction about twenty posts ago. Nobody listens to me other than Fruity, and he just reads my stuff to rip me a new one. Dude, are you mean to dogs?
This god vs atheism topic is soooo boring. It isn't even a debate.
|
|
moosedrool
Trad climber
lost, far away from Poland
|
|
I'm getting tired of this sh#t. I tried to nudge it into a free will direction about twenty posts ago. Nobody listens to me other than Fruity
Not true, I tried.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Understanding free will or limited free will has the potential to be about as clear as the nurture vs nature debate among behaviorists. Good luck on that one.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
This god vs atheism topic is soooo boring. It isn't even a debate.
Hahaha LOL
Don't worry Base. I've known who you are all along.
You did some bad ass sh!t and I was impressed. You're also a super great guy.
I read all your posts although I don't respond to them I really appreciate the time you spend on them.
It shows your commitment and special interests in life.
You're not and never have been flaky.
Best of wishes to you ........
|
|
moosedrool
Trad climber
lost, far away from Poland
|
|
To recap my take on free will.
Quantum mechanics and chaos theory tell us that we can't determine the future, which means that free will is compatible with science.
I am not aware of any experiments that could prove or disprove the existence of free will.
We should act as we have free will.
If we do have free will we don't use it often because we are conditioned to make certain decisions.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
"Free" means non-deterministic, meaning that we have a choice that is not beholden to mechanical, antecedent causes, or any causes.
Is the motion of water in a waterfall deterministic? Mechanical? If you were a waterfall would it appear to you that you had Free Will?
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
We should act as we have free will.
Personally, I think we're going to arrive at this conclusion on a number of issues. As Largo noted, we can't have a society based on laws without an idea of free will, imperfect as it may be. We already accept in our legal system that there are mitigating circumstances to the use of free will like extreme parental or spousal abuse that results in parents or spouse being murdered for example. We also recognize that juveniles have less capacity for free will than adults, and that the mentally retarded and insane can not be tried the same as those of normal intelligence.
|
|
moosedrool
Trad climber
lost, far away from Poland
|
|
MH2' that's a good point.
Just because life is not deterministic, it doesn't mean we have free will. BUT it doesn't exclude it. Newtonians physics didn't give us that chance.
|
|
moosedrool
Trad climber
lost, far away from Poland
|
|
Jan, so what experiment would you propose to detrmine whether free will exists?
Maybe I am too practical, but if we can't back up our statements with science we can say anything.
Just to be sure we are discussing the same subject:
If you have a limited number of choices would you say you have free will? Or we are talking infinity?
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
I do believe that Americans in particular believe they have much more free will than they do - one of many myths we live by like every little boy can grow up to be president or a millionaire.
As for devising a scientific experiment, maybe studying identical twins parted at birth as have alcoholism, schitzophrenia, and life similarities studies, would be a start. Instead of just studying similarities and guessing the percentage of genetics vs upbringing one could nowdays do brain scans of them making choices.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
Be honest, do you guys write this stuff just to wind me up - because you know this is my field of work? Is this a vast (far right and far left amateur) conspiracy? Are you guys trying to give me a nervous breakdown?
Largo writes,
"Programs for Living" and all the rest make no sense in a strictly determined world.
Nonsense.
Jan writes,
As Largo noted, we can't have a society based on laws without an idea of free will, imperfect as it may be.
Nonsense.
Moose writes,
Just because life is not deterministic, it doesn't mean we have free will. BUT it doesn't exclude it.
Why do I get the feeling if English were Moose's first language, he'd school everybody.
.....
Jan and Largo are fully-caused beings. But nontheless, if they were to break into Cragman's house late tonight - let's imagine - to steal from him and his, he's going to hold them accountable. Accountable. "Three in the head, one in the ass" accountable. That's your working basis, right there. Think.
.....
Lookie here, Moose is playing with Jan. Moose is a biochemist. He knows every thing is mechanistic - fully caused - from physics to chem to biology. Hence, no supracausal thoughts, feelings or will. Nothing is "above the law."
Whether it is predictable or nonpredictable - in other words, computable or noncomputable - is besides the point. For this discussion. It's causality, all causality, from the very bottom and on up. Causal determinism rules. Get used to it. You've heard it before: Spend your limited energies adapting to the new understanding, not fighting it. Nothing is "above the law."
PS. jstan also addressed this pages ago, apart form BASE and me. But nobody reads posts, they only post them.
Sometimes I wish I wasn't a climber. (Yeah, just kidding. It's the only thing that keeps me sane here.)
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
Quantum mechanics and chaos theory tell us that we can't determine the future
Not quite true in several ways. Complex dynamics (and chaos theory) actually involve situations that are highly predictable (attractors, repellors, etc.) as well as those where that is not the case and sensitive dependence on initial conditions prevails (butterfly effect). QM applies primarily to the microcosm, where we do not dwell.
HFCS: tell us exactly what your work (profession?) is, if you don't mind. This may be common knowledge, but not for me. Thanks.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Lookie here, Moose is playing with Jan. Moose is a biochemist. He knows every thing is mechanistic - fully caused - from physics to chem to biology. Hence, no supracausal thoughts, feelings or will. Nothing is "above the law."
Yikes.. There is definitely reason to consider the possibility that quantum behavior of particles has something to do with behavior such that it might tie in with the possibility of "free will"
Take the fact that the nervous system operates at small enough scales that random particle behavior might come into play and it opens up some obvious questions.
If there is an "I" that makes choices, is this perhaps the way into the machine?
If there is an "I" that has some control of the machine then why only that particular machine? Why do I not have the same "access to "your" machine?
It's a pretty question that I don't know how to test or answer. But I thinks it's a valid question.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
BAse wrote, Nobody listens to me other than Fruity, and he just reads my stuff to rip me a new one
That's not true. I just wish you knew others in science could get as passionate about their particular fields as you get about geology - you know when religious folk show their "willful ignorance" etc. concerning the age of the earth. I know you too get passionate about this. I've seen it in your posts.
Also, courage is necessary when you're a minority, a trait the other majority side is all too eager as part of strategy to call arrogant, close-minded etc. Sometimes it's necessary to close ranks and know that there's something of a battle going on.
Dawkins and Harris, to name two of many, are courageous. From the vantage point of the future, this will be evident looking back.
.....
Sometimes I have wondered what a football game would be like if it were played by zombies. My bet: It would be a lot slower.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
I'll leave it to Moosedrool to speak for himself.
As for me deliberately winding you up, sorry but you do that to yourself.
I go with the Buddhist maxim that when you get angry at someone else they are in control, not you.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
Feb 4, 2013 - 08:32am PT
Klimmer wrote: Seems to me a violation of the second amendment, the separation of church and state. Atheism is a faith, a religion, and it is wielding the law of the land to push its agenda.
that would be the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Unless you are fomenting a rebellion of religious gun owners...
As far as "religion" goes... the all knowing Google pops up this primary sense definition:
Noun: 1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
which is not what atheism is:
Noun: The theory or belief that God does not exist.
Given that this definition is about a "theory or belief" that also works against your rant that atheism is a "belief" it could also be a "theory." Which is interesting to contemplate from a scientist's point of view. We leave open to empirical verification that there is (or is not) a God or gods, personal or otherwise.
Empirical evidence, contrary to your, klimmer's, statements, is decidedly devoid of evidence for the existence of a God or gods being required to explain the universe. One may assume that God/gods are in there somewhere, but so far they haven't been needed in our current understanding of how the universe works.
If atheism is a "theory" then we can test it experimentally, at least in principle.
What empirical tests does it fail?
Dr. Ed,
Yep, I screwed up the Bill of Rights. It was late at night.
... atheism is:
Noun: The theory or belief that God does not exist.
Given that this definition is about a "theory or belief" that also works against your rant that atheism is a "belief" it could also be a "theory." Which is interesting to contemplate from a scientist's point of view. We leave open to empirical verification that there is (or is not) a God or gods, personal or otherwise.
I purport that Atheism is a belief. And contrary to the empirical evidence against it, this belief system is held onto by the practitioners at all costs. Going to the extreme measures of literally sticking fingers in their ears and blabbering na-na-na-na I don't hear you, or just sticking their head in the sand and saying there is no evidence for G-d's existence, therefore no G-d, and purposefully ignoring empirical evidence that is real, not imagined, and way, way beyond mere statistical chance.
But let's say Atheism is a hypothesis, or perhaps more, a theory, then yes it can be tested scientifically, using the scientific method, and therefore has the chance of being falsifiable.
If we can prove with empirical evidence that that word of G-d, The Holy Bible, speaks the truth and is historically accurate, that the word of G-d makes statements regarding the natural Universe and the natural world around us that are scientifically accurate according to our understanding of science today that were mentioned thousands of years prior to our scientific understanding, and that Yeshua did indeed exist and do what what he said he did according to eye witness and historical written accounts, and that the word of G-d has made prophetic claims that have indeed in time come true, then we should be able to validate the written record that G-d exists and he does what he says he has done in The Holy Bible, and we should trust what he says he will do in the future.
If we can do this, then G-d exists. He keeps his word and he is trustworthy. We can know him and know his characteristics. If we can do this ...
Then Atheism is invalidated.
As believers, we don't have blind faith. It is rooted in physical empirical evidence. Lot's of it. There is no other religion/faith that has this overwhelming physical evidence. None.
Let's begin with statements in the Bible that are scientifically valid, that were stated in black and white on parchment thousands of years prior in G-d's word, long, long before it became known to modern science to be true.
(This is gonna take some time. I will go through my notes and the work of others who have delved into this. There are many examples.)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
|
|
Yeah, ^^^that's motivating to continue the topic.^^^
.....
As for me deliberately winding you up, sorry but you do that to yourself.
That was tongue in cheek, babe. You missed it. ;)
My heartbeat btw averages 42 at rest, yours?
And nothing is more calming than a secular practice of living, one based squarely and solidly in modernity. How do you like them apples? :)
(Sorry you have the flu.)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
How do we know that the Bible is the "word of God" Klimmer?
we know it is the work of multiple authors over a very long time...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!