Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LARD]

Here is an idea:

All events happen because of other events. Some are simple and have very predictable reactions. A guy drove off a cliff, he fell. But others, for example, why the guy drove off the cliff, maybe he was distracted by  an argument with his boss, the wind blew at an odd angle, etc. But there are reasons why he argued with his boss, reasons why the wind blew. The reasons are so unimaginably complex that nobody could ever know all of them. But the argument is that, due to the way history started, there is only one possible path that history could have taken. Everything is predictable. But to predict the path, you need to have all the information about the whole universe. You might say, "But human choice, humans have freedom to do what we want." Choice is an illusion, but is a comforting and essential illusion to the way the world works. Whenever I read something like this, I do something that I think is completely random. Tapping one side of my desk or the other. Sort of to prove to myself that I could have chosen one side or the other. But the fact is that we cannot know what made us choose which side. But many things in combination did. Wind, this post, angle of my computer etc all would affect what we do in ways we don't know. So here is my thesis: There is only one path that history could have taken.

I however don't believe what I just said.  I am a christian. I believe that God has given us a spark of himself. It is that spark that lets us act in spite of all the influences. God also acts in what he has made, and since God's works aren't influenced by anything, they wouldn't be predictable.

So there's my theory, poke holes in it. And I will probably try to defend it. I put it before this forum because I want to know what the evidence against it is. Oh, and I'd rather you don't try to poke holes in the second paragraph, you probably have argued with christans enough that you realize it's not pleasant. If you have questions about the logic of christianity, read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

[10ebbor10]

The theory is mostly correct. (Unless the universe comes up with a new random seed on reload). However, it's also entirely useless.

Because, since everything affects everything, any simulation or knowledge of what will happen will automatically invalidate itself, because knowing the future changes it. It's perfectly possible to simulate the universe, but the simulator had to be inside the universe, or it would have to simulate itself, ad infinitum. Same for human choice. Our brains and such are just a chemical reaction, so the result, is, in a way, predefined by the boundary conditions on the universe. Point is that we can never know what choice we will make unless we actually do it, meaning that doing something because it would be predefined is actually pretty stupid.

Really, say there's a Quiz, with 4 possible answers.. Does it matter if the answer is defined after you answer the question, or before. (Assuming that the computer that answers isn't influenced by this answer)

[LARD]

I guess it just works better if you think that your choices are actually free. I realize that the idea won't change anything, but it is just kind of interesting

[miauw62]

There is no proof for the existance of a God, ergo the chance of a God existing is very low.

Add to that all the different Gods tought up troughout history. For what reason should the Christian, the Muslim or the Roman Gods be the "real" Gods?

[LARD]

Sorry guys, I wasn't trying to convert you, explain how or why God exists or anything like that. I just wanted to make it clear that the theory works for  atheists and nobody else

[Fenrir]

You make your decisions as much as ten seconds before you realize it.

I just wanted to make it clear that the theory works for  atheists and nobody else

You mean that determinism only works for atheists? I don’t see why so if that is what you meant.

[10ebbor10]

There is no proof for the existance of a God, ergo the chance of a God existing is very low.

Add to that all the different Gods tought up troughout history. For what reason should the Christian, the Muslim or the Roman Gods be the "real" Gods?

There's no proof for [Any Axiom at all, or you know, anything that can be proven], hence anything is probably a lie.

Adding to that, often, the physical* (non)existence of a God is not relevant to belief. It shouldn't be, results in wierd stuff.

*As in evil smiting, active, proofable manipulation of the world

[Fenrir]

miauw62 completely missed the point of the original post, or he did not care, so the “god” conversation should probably be immediately aborted, as this was not LARD’s intent, and it increases the chance of a locked thread.

[10ebbor10]

I just wanted to make it clear that the theory works for  atheists and nobody else

You mean that determinism only works for atheists? I don’t see why so if that is what you meant.

Just to make things clear.
Predestination: Everything happens in this particular way because Gods wants it.
Determinism: Everything happens in this particular way because [Insert reason here. Often it's cause and effect]

[PTTG??]

If events do not logically flow from one to the other, than there is only chaos. That is self-evident. If people didn't have a reason to plow off cliffs, and if plowing off a cliff didn't necessarily result in falling off of it, then 1 might as well equal 2, or 16, or 0, or orange, or the mere concept of applebees.

The unsettling part of predestination is that it suggests that we don't have free will- but I disagree. Free will is the ability to determine our actions. If we do not rationally respond to the events that surround us, then we are reacting randomly. What is less like "free will"- totally random action, or reasonable action and reaction based on internal and external events?

Predestination is thus only a problem if we were somehow able to predict the future- a concept that (aside from little mathematical trickery on the quantum scale) seems to be impossible, with time machines or with computer simulations. Even if we did know all the physical laws- which we don't- and were able to measure the position of every smallest constituent particle in a relevant area- which we can't- then we would not be able to simulate that area at any reasonable rate- the simulation would be slower than real time, even with magical computers that were made of individual atoms for logic gates and were the size of planets.

More importantly, to 100% accurately simulate one particle, you must simulate all the particles that interact with it, 100% accurately. Since particle interact with other particles, in order to simulate an area one cubic inch in diameter for one second, you must simulate the action of all particles within a sphere one light-second wide... plus (if this cube is on earth), the continuing forces such as gravity and incoming radiation from bodies outside of that area, like the moon, sun, and other planets. They have small effects, but quantum noise is a perfect medium for chaos theory.

To predict the next word I say 100% accurately, you'd need to know what a butterfly ate six weeks ago in a greenhouse in china, which of electron was emitted from a hydrogen atom near the sun's surface 20 minutes ago, and weather or not a uranium atom at near-0k in the Oort cloud has decayed over the last three years... assuming you had a tool to detect all of these events down to the smallest physical level, a computer with enough storage space, and a total ruleset for the universe.

Of course, since you know how english works and the nature of context, then you yourself can probably predict the next

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

word

in a sentance with something like 50-60% confidence in general and somewhere between 10-99% depending on the situation. Which makes you better at predicting my actions than the best supercomputers in the world are at predicting the weather. Does that mean that I (or, for that matter, you) lack free will? No. The ability to predict things with 99.999999999% confidence, or 20%, is effectively the same.

This is an old debate, but one that I think science is slowly resolving in the most satisfying possible way- showing us that we are part of a fantastically complex universe that shapes us as we shape it, a universe we can learn about without ever running out of surprises.

Caral Sagan said that we are the cosmos, knowing itself. I cannot make my own arguments half as reassuring or inspiring.

[Thecard]

miauw62 completely missed the point of the original post, or he did not care, so the “god” conversation should probably be immediately aborted, as this was not LARD’s intent, and it increases the chance of a locked thread.

To be fair, that paragraph is a hard read. 


Also: Chaos Theory.

[10ebbor10]

And even if you could detect everything 100% correctly, you'd still run in the problems needs to be capable of simulating itself simulating itself simulating itself .....

[Fenrir]

Predestination: Everything happens in this particular way because Gods wants it.
Determinism: Everything happens in this particular way because [Insert reason here. Often it's cause and effect]

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

That is what I meant when I used the word “determinism”. LARD is talking about this kind of determinism in his post. He does not mention predestination anywhere.  (e: Except in the very thread title, of course.) He does tacitly imply that God’s behavior is completely random, though, which is interesting.

e: It seems I had forgotten about the thread title while reading his post. Now I am ever so slightly confused.

[10ebbor10]

The thread title says so though. I was just illustrating that there was a problem with word meaning.

[Scoops Novel]

Cause and effect. So long as we accept that, there is no argument amongst atheists at least.