Log in

View Full Version : Questions For Atheists To Answer


Al Farabi
December 8th, 2008, 05:37 AM
Alright time to put the philosophical ball in your court.


1. Is there a non-material world?

2. If not, would it be a fair conclusion to draw that a perfect, complete Physics would describe, and be able to predict reliably on, all that exists?

3. If so, can free will exist in a perfectly predictible universe? If not, what would it not describe and predict?

4. Is either of those conclusions satisfactory?

sailor
December 8th, 2008, 06:36 AM
Hey, it's Mr. Farabi. Wow...this sounds as if it might be the sort of person that I am vaguely familiar with. However, I wouldn't purport to be in the same court with such a mighty texter as thou appeareth.

I just mainly barter in nonsense and assorted ramblings. Not things that actually make the mind go in any sort of an orderly fashion. But...it's nice to make your acquaintance, sir!

Besides, I'm not nearly atheist enough to answer anything here.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 8th, 2008, 12:03 PM
1. Is there a non-material world?


Define non-material. If you mean areas of reality we can't see, then yes, all the way up to the 10th dimension.


2. If not, would it be a fair conclusion to draw that a perfect, complete Physics would describe, and be able to predict reliably on, all that exists?


No. Physics doesn't work like that. With quantum physics and chaos theory, the rate at which quantum particles decline is totally random. I'm, sure Sciki could answer that better than me.

3. If so, can free will exist in a perfectly predictible universe? If not, what would it not describe and predict?

We have the illusion of free will, do we not? I can decide to raise my hand, and before doing so, choose not to. Whether physics predicted I would do that all along is irrelevant, as our brains have evolved to create ther illusion of free will.

4. Is either of those conclusions satisfactory?

INMHO; yes. I'm content with what I have, and although if an oppourtunity arose to take complete free will, I would probably take it.

sudikics
December 8th, 2008, 02:52 PM
Alright time to put the philosophical ball in your court.


1. Is there a non-material world?
As in, a spiritual world? There might be, but until it starts interfering with our observable world in some way, we have no evidence either way, so from a scientific perspective it is not helpful to assume its existence.
2. If not, would it be a fair conclusion to draw that a perfect, complete Physics would describe, and be able to predict reliably on, all that exists?
Actually, no. We know that no set of Physics will ever be perfect. A man named Godel proved that, inderectly at least, using his Incompleteness theorems.

Basically, Godel showed that any mathematical structure with a finite set of axioms will have certain unsolvable problems in it, i.e. problems to which we cannot know if there is an answer.

Sicne physcis is rooted in mathematics, the same principles apply. We will eventually find that there are some problems we cannot solve. So how can physcis ever be perfect? And why would we want it to be perfect? We're always tryign to learn more. The day mankind decides that physcis is perfect and hangs its collective scientific hat on the hook is the day that I no longer wish to be a human.
3. If so, can free will exist in a perfectly predictible universe? If not, what would it not describe and predict?
We cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy, because quantum flucuations will nto allow it. Quantum mechanics prohibits 100% accumulation fo knowledge. We have no idea whther a particle will go left or right when given two options.

So free will seems safe. Time travel into the past is not forbidden, but it is now believed that this breaks off alternative timelines. Your free will is safe.
4. Is either of those conclusions satisfactory?
Yes, quite. We are always learnign mroe, but we will never know it all.

Dr Goofy Mofo
December 8th, 2008, 08:54 PM
Alright time to put the philosophical ball in your court.


1. Is there a non-material world?

2. If not, would it be a fair conclusion to draw that a perfect, complete Physics would describe, and be able to predict reliably on, all that exists?

3. If so, can free will exist in a perfectly predictible universe? If not, what would it not describe and predict?

4. Is either of those conclusions satisfactory?

That ball was invented in our court!

1. "We are living in a material world and I am a material girl" Non-material.... probably would not work for Madonna and since she has a 1 word name like God I guess she is the authority on that!

2. No, The universe is chaos.

3.Free will would exist but using certain evaluation tools and stacks of equations could be predicted.

4. Nothing should ever be Satisfactory. Someone once said you only got the answer because you gave up.

Al Farabi
December 8th, 2008, 09:01 PM
I mean non-material in its most literal sense: not made up of matter.

And if we are confident that we can never really, fundementally, be sure about anything (due to chaos theory), why is searching for knowledge good?


also,

4. Nothing should ever be Satisfactory. Someone once said you only got the answer because you gave up.

I like this :D

Dr Goofy Mofo
December 8th, 2008, 09:54 PM
I mean non-material in its most literal sense: not made up of matter.

And if we are confident that we can never really, fundementally, be sure about anything (due to chaos theory), why is searching for knowledge good?


also,


I like this :D



You are not searching for Knowledge more you are searching for understanding, Chaos may not be easy to understand but it can be understood. When you understand something you can then accept it and in accepting it it can grant you peace of mind

I just realized i added logic to my joking around... oh well.

BTW I am one of the Local Goofballs. My name minus Mofo explains me. Smart and goofy!

sudikics
December 8th, 2008, 10:10 PM
And if we are confident that we can never really, fundementally, be sure about anything (due to chaos theory), why is searching for knowledge good?
Because we're curious creatures by nature. We want to be entertained, and we want to understand. Also, searchign for knowledge improves the quality of our lives. Even if something as simple as Boyle's law had never been found, then the steam and the internal combustion engines would never have been developed. Our civilization would never have gone global.

tagnostic
December 8th, 2008, 10:12 PM
Alright time to put the philosophical ball in your court.
i was going to leave this alone because i didn't want to be rude and overwhelm with numbers, but it does seem to be an open question, (and vastly entertaining), so...

1. Is there a non-material world?

of course, the mind, what takes place in it has no physical reality, yet it is the cornerstone of our existance


2. If not, would it be a fair conclusion to draw that a perfect, complete Physics would describe, and be able to predict reliably on, all that exists?

yes, we just haven't discovered it yet (and probably never will)


3. If so, can free will exist in a perfectly predictible universe? If not, what would it not describe and predict?

'free will' is a slippery slope in and of itself, i'm going to attempt to define it in such a way that it can be used for the purposes of this discussion

free will is the "ability" to choose and act on impulses/choices in circumstances that would not necessarily follow the path of least resistance

that being the first postulate, i do not find it contradictory to the aforementioned physics philosophy, in that it is any anti-entropic value, while it is believed that most things according to known physical laws reduce and simplify (erode, decay whatever) yet it is just as much a fact that evolution/changes occur in the natural world that do not follow said path, free will is the mental equivalent of evolution, it is a movement against entropy.
(just a thought)


4. Is either of those conclusions satisfactory?

any conclusion is unsatisfactory,
once you achieve a conclusion
entropy is restored and you stagnate

Al Farabi
December 9th, 2008, 07:53 PM
can energy be directly interacted with?

tagnostic
December 9th, 2008, 08:13 PM
can energy be directly interacted with?

i'm not sure how you mean, it can be used, converted i would define that as interaction although it's not the pure physical interaction that is what i would consider common usage of the term.
then you get the sticky definition of what is 'energy', quanta packets? or the classical definition of "the ability to do work", then are we talking about kinetic energy? or stored and is there a difference for the purpose of this question..

Al Farabi
December 9th, 2008, 08:25 PM
Rimmer waas getting at an idea that there is a world outside matter: energy. What I was getting at was this: is it really outside matter if we are able to interact with it, or is it merely an aspect of matter? Can energy exist completely seperately of matter (for example, in the space between atoms) or is energy contained in matter, and therefore part of it?

Al Farabi
December 9th, 2008, 09:07 PM
No it's not a separate world. It's heat. Motion. Light. Mass. All the stuff that makes the universe tick, basically. Anything that can be measured as a quantity. Some stuff we can't observe directly, like gravitons for instance, but we still know they exist because they have tangible, measurable effects on the universe. If God were real we would know, or at least be able to find out in the future. There would be clear, measurable traces of him/her/it.

Wait, mass is energy?

I think before we can really continue we need to establish our definition of energy. Is energy intrinsic to matter, or seperate from matter? Can it exist independent of any particle?

And how would you respond if I said that if energy is manifestation of God's will, there are clear, measurable traces of him/her/it.

tagnostic
December 9th, 2008, 09:16 PM
Wait, mass is energy?

I think before we can really continue we need to establish our definition of energy. Is energy intrinsic to matter, or seperate from matter? Can it exist independent of any particle?

i'm inclined to say yes, that can be seperate, however i know if know such examples, other than quanta, when things move from state to another, it is (to the best of our knowledge) instantaneous and involves no motion it the spatial dimensions and therefore is outside of both time and the spatial dimensions


And how would you respond if I said that if energy is manifestation of God's will, there are clear, measurable traces of him/her/it.

energy is what it is, giving it a theological label doesn't change anything, that's more wishful thinking. it could just as easily be called 'the force' that doesn't change anything, its just terminology.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 9th, 2008, 09:17 PM
Wait, mass is energy?


That's what the legendary e=mc^2 means; the energy you'll get from converting mass into energy is the mass times the speed of light to the power of two. So it's a big number.

Al Farabi
December 9th, 2008, 09:22 PM
giving it a theological label doesn't change anything, that's more wishful thinking. it could just as easily be called 'the force' that doesn't change anything, its just terminology.

This is actually what I am arguing.

The cause of all events - the thing that allows change or work to take place- is energy

The cause of all events - the thing that allows change or work to take place- is God's will

The cause of all events - the thing that allows change or work to take place- is [ ]

Why, logically, is your fill in the blank more correct than mine

tagnostic
December 9th, 2008, 09:25 PM
because i'm not ascribing it to a
'personality', just attempting to
understand it's natural laws as
opposed to anthropomorphizing it
in the hope that i'll live forever.

Al Farabi
December 9th, 2008, 09:32 PM
Ever considered that energy itself might be that blank? If you're going to regress to the tiniest building stone, the last stop is energy. Going from energy to God is a rather nice quantum leap, and my brain really can't make sense of it.

Here's the step you might be missing. Where does energy come from?

EDIT: You know, I'm supposed to be going to sleep right now, but this conversation is way too interesting.

haha nice.

because i'm not ascribing it to a
'personality', just attempting to
understand it's natural laws as
opposed to anthropomorphizing it
in the hope that i'll live forever.

Woah woah woah! God is not a personality. Nor anthropomorphic. God is an origin.

tagnostic
December 9th, 2008, 09:44 PM
Woah woah woah! God is not a personality. Nor anthropomorphic. God is an origin.
ok, wait, backup,
what is your definition of 'God'?
and why do you chose that terminology
over some other?

Al Farabi
December 9th, 2008, 10:13 PM
Something tells me you're not into that old man in the sky explanation of God. Are you sure you're an actual Theist rather than having a kind of Einsteinian view on God?

I'm definitely a theist. Or perhaps, Deist if you wanna be picky.
So was Einstein.

I keep getting vibes that the generally accepted definiton of theist around here is "fundementalist maniac." That's not what it means!

Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods.
A - lack of
Theism - Belief in God or gods

I believe in God, so I am a thiest.

ok, wait, backup,
what is your definition of 'God'?
and why do you chose that terminology
over some other?

God: the omnipotent creator of the universe

tagnostic
December 9th, 2008, 10:16 PM
I'm definitely a theist. Or perhaps, Deist if you wanna be picky.
So was Einstein.

I keep getting vibes that the generally accepted definiton of theist around here is "fundementalist maniac." That's not what it means!

Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods.
A - lack of
Theism - Belief in God or gods

I believe in God, so I am a thiest.



God: the omnipotent creator of the universe

why would an omnipotent being bother?
boredom? loneliness? why?

Al Farabi
December 9th, 2008, 11:23 PM
I don't think that's true

sudikics
December 9th, 2008, 11:27 PM
I don't think that's true
Aye, 'tis. I proved so in some other thread.

Simply write an indirect proof with the assumption "God is omnipotent" and ask the question: "Can God create a rock so large that even he cannot lift it?"
Alternatively: "Can God make himself unable to make himself omnipotent, remove his omnipotence, and make himself omnipotent again?"

Omnipotence requires that God can do EVERYTHING. If you redefine "everything" to mean "everything that is logically possible," then you can redefine everything. The definition of omnipotence is above logic; omnipotence itself is not.

Al Farabi
December 10th, 2008, 12:05 AM
Omnipotence requires that God can do EVERYTHING. If you redefine "everything" to mean "everything that is logically possible," then you can redefine everything.

Therefore, God can do the logically impossible.

1. God can create a stone so big that he himself cannot lift it
2. Once the stone is there, it is impossible for him to lift it
3. God can do the impossible, since God can do anything
4. God is (illogically) able to lift the stone that he cannot lift.

"If an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, then he can not only create situations which he cannot handle but also, since he is not bound by the limits of consistency, he can handle situations which he cannot handle." -Henry Frankfurt

Loki
December 10th, 2008, 12:05 AM
I believe in that self-same thread I posed this solution:

God is not limited in the size of rock he can make
God is not limited in the size of rock he can lift

Oooh... I know this one
"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?"
And ...
"Can God create a stone so heavy it can't be lifted. Not even by God Herself?"

sudikics
December 10th, 2008, 01:17 AM
Therefore, God can do the logically impossible.

1. God can create a stone so big that he himself cannot lift it
2. Once the stone is there, it is impossible for him to lift it
3. God can do the impossible, since God can do anything
4. God is (illogically) able to lift the stone that he cannot lift.

"If an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, then he can not only create situations which he cannot handle but also, since he is not bound by the limits of consistency, he can handle situations which he cannot handle." -Henry Frankfurt
Except that that's a contradiction, and your assumption is that God is omnipotent. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

And if you take your path of allowing for violations in the axioms of logic, then you open up a bigger can of Ebola than anyone cares to know.

You're left with two paths: either God is not omnipotent, or he is tricking us into believing a false reality.

Apply Occam's razor. The latter requires more assumptions, therefore the former is more likely.

rzm61
December 10th, 2008, 02:29 AM
Therefore, God can do the logically impossible.

1. God can create a stone so big that he himself cannot lift it
2. Once the stone is there, it is impossible for him to lift it
3. God can do the impossible, since God can do anything
4. God is (illogically) able to lift the stone that he cannot lift.

"If an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, then he can not only create situations which he cannot handle but also, since he is not bound by the limits of consistency, he can handle situations which he cannot handle." -Henry Frankfurt



If you believe in that, would it be too far fetched to believe in a planet...that makes other planets?

Al Farabi
December 10th, 2008, 02:54 AM
Hey hey hey hey guys! I wasn't the one who said that omnipotence was outside of logic! That argument follows from Sckikidus's.

That said, I am going to go think about this for a bit before I respond.

Fallen Hero
December 10th, 2008, 06:43 AM
Alright time to put the philosophical ball in your court.


1. Is there a non-material world?

2. If not, would it be a fair conclusion to draw that a perfect, complete Physics would describe, and be able to predict reliably on, all that exists?

3. If so, can free will exist in a perfectly predictible universe? If not, what would it not describe and predict?

4. Is either of those conclusions satisfactory?

By this I believe you are refering to a dualistic world view? I confess I have not learned a lot about this topic yet, and am by no means up to date in my knowledge thereof. However, I will concede that I do not know whether there is a non-material world. The question I would return, if you would be so kind as to answer is: Does this non-material world interact with the material world? In this respect, if we have souls (or minds) which are a part of the non-material world, how do they interact with the material world?

No, what you are suggesting is that physics could be used to predict the future. This is, however, not how physics works. Physics serves to explain why things happen in the way that they do; why the planets orbit the sun for example. It does not dictate nor could it dictate what will happen. To do so would require infinite computational power and capacity if it were possible.

Physics could not predict people's decisions, events whih were not under observation priorly. It could not predict the migration of animals, people's lives. It is not a tool of divination, it is a too of analysis and prediction- within the sphere of pysical occurences of nature and technology. Nature being a field which excludes psychological processes and biological development of organisms. Thus free will still exists.

Fallen Hero
December 10th, 2008, 07:00 AM
Wait, mass is energy?

I think before we can really continue we need to establish our definition of energy. Is energy intrinsic to matter, or seperate from matter? Can it exist independent of any particle?

And how would you respond if I said that if energy is manifestation of God's will, there are clear, measurable traces of him/her/it.

Mass is energy; the two can be converted from one to the other.

This is actually what I am arguing.

The cause of all events - the thing that allows change or work to take place- is energy

The cause of all events - the thing that allows change or work to take place- is God's will

The cause of all events - the thing that allows change or work to take place- is [ ]

Why, logically, is your fill in the blank more correct than mine

What is then the case of a chemical reaction which produces energy?

Here's the step you might be missing. Where does energy come from?
---
Woah woah woah! God is not a personality. Nor anthropomorphic. God is an origin.

a. This is an interesting point, I'll have to consider this, however currently I would say that it is cause by the universe. However, I concede that one can as easily state that it is caused by a deity.

b. Be reason, yes, a god would have to be a necessary being. Thus would be an origin. However, can you show that it is the origin as oposed to something else?

I'm definitely a theist. Or perhaps, Deist if you wanna be picky.
So was Einstein.

I keep getting vibes that the generally accepted definiton of theist around here is "fundementalist maniac." That's not what it means!

Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods.
A - lack of
Theism - Belief in God or gods

I believe in God, so I am a thiest.



God: the omnipotent creator of the universe

I know what a theist is, it just happens to be the case that we see a large majority of fundamentalists and hardliners visiting the site.

Are you familiar with the fact that omnipotence is, by its very nature, a paradox?

I don't think that's true

This requires us to define what we mean by possible and impossible.

Possible: All things that can be or be done are possible.

Impossible: Things that contradict themselves such as a round square or a four-sided triangle.

Therefore, God can do the logically impossible.

1. God can create a stone so big that he himself cannot lift it
2. Once the stone is there, it is impossible for him to lift it
3. God can do the impossible, since God can do anything
4. God is (illogically) able to lift the stone that he cannot lift.

"If an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, then he can not only create situations which he cannot handle but also, since he is not bound by the limits of consistency, he can handle situations which he cannot handle." -Henry Frankfurt

So you are using a reductio ad absurdum to prove that god exists?

Reductio ad absurdum functions in that the end is a contradiction which shows that what ever is assumed in the beginning of the reductio is impossible and thus the opposite must be. Could you pleae explain this further?

sudikics
December 10th, 2008, 05:10 PM
Hey hey hey hey guys! I wasn't the one who said that omnipotence was outside of logic! That argument follows from Sckikidus's.

That said, I am going to go think about this for a bit before I respond.
Al Farabi: I never said that omnipotence was outside of logic. I said the definition of omnipotence is outside of logic. Definitions in general are above logic. They can be used, but not altered.

Al Farabi
December 10th, 2008, 11:05 PM
No, what you are suggesting is that physics could be used to predict the future. This is, however, not how physics works. Physics serves to explain why things happen in the way that they do; why the planets orbit the sun for example. It does not dictate nor could it dictate what will happen. To do so would require infinite computational power and capacity if it were possible.

Actually, predict the future is exactly what physics does (or attempts to do). The test of a theory in any scientific field is its ability to predict. Our laws of Gravity predict accurately what will happen when you drop an object given surface area, density, mass, and altitude. We can testably predict, given values for all involved variables, what will happen when a mass is struck by another in any situation. Physics is only of any use, and can only confirmably "describe why things happen the way they do" if it is also predictive.

Now. Our understanding of the brain is this: everything that you do, from language to logic to art to humour to music can be linked to a particular area of the brain. When electrical signals (induced by stimulus to the sensory organs) reach the brain through the nervous system, they initiate rapidfire chemical reactions.

A perfect physics, given complete information of the state of a brain could predict the signals that that brain would issue, hence the human action.

In other words, perfect physics could, given the right information, predict your decisions before you made them.

If your decisions can be predicted, free will is an illusion.

Therefore, there is an immaterial world, or free will does not exist.

Physics could not predict people's decisions, events whih were not under observation priorly. It could not predict the migration of animals, people's lives. It is not a tool of divination, it is a too of analysis and prediction- within the sphere of pysical occurences of nature and technology. Nature being a field which excludes psychological processes and biological development of organisms. Thus free will still exists.

Correction: physics can not. Take for example Brownian Motion. What seems like random motion is actually attributable to interaction with other particles. Impossiblilty due to current lack of information is not impossiblility full stop. It is not relevent whether we can currently have complete information about the brain. The fact that it would be possible to predict everything about the brain given correct information means that all decisions, if we are dealing with a purely materialistic world are essentially predetermined by not our will, but the state of the universe as a whole.

Thus, free will does not exist, we are simply part of the mmachination of the universe.

Mass is energy; the two can be converted from one to the other.

True. I was confused on this point.

What is then the case of a chemical reaction which produces energy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

can you show that it is the origin as oposed to something else?

I can show the necessity of a primary cause, yes.

I know what a theist is, it just happens to be the case that we see a large majority of fundamentalists and hardliners visiting the site.

That doesn't stop me being a theist.

This requires us to define what we mean by possible and impossible.

Possible: All things that can be or be done are possible.

Impossible: Things that contradict themselves such as a round square or a four-sided triangle.



Al Farabi: I never said that omnipotence was outside of logic. I said the definition of omnipotence is outside of logic. Definitions in general are above logic. They can be used, but not altered.


Allow me to refer to Aquinas:
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

Fallen Hero
December 15th, 2008, 05:59 PM
Actually, predict the future is exactly what physics does (or attempts to do). The test of a theory in any scientific field is its ability to predict. Our laws of Gravity predict accurately what will happen when you drop an object given surface area, density, mass, and altitude. We can testably predict, given values for all involved variables, what will happen when a mass is struck by another in any situation. Physics is only of any use, and can only confirmably "describe why things happen the way they do" if it is also predictive.

Now. Our understanding of the brain is this: everything that you do, from language to logic to art to humour to music can be linked to a particular area of the brain. When electrical signals (induced by stimulus to the sensory organs) reach the brain through the nervous system, they initiate rapidfire chemical reactions.

A perfect physics, given complete information of the state of a brain could predict the signals that that brain would issue, hence the human action.

In other words, perfect physics could, given the right information, predict your decisions before you made them.

If your decisions can be predicted, free will is an illusion.

Therefore, there is an immaterial world, or free will does not exist.



To me this seems to be in some respects similar to the question of how we know the nature of wax or other material things. To predict the way a person will react seems a little impossible even with physics. Physics in this sense would predict how the neurons interact to produce a certain reaction, however I do not see how it could predict the exact reaction of any one or other given person to a certain events or strings of events. This is simply because it does not explain psychological states of mind. I will concede that given the chemical information of the brain and complete understanding of the chemical reactions you could do well to predict how the chemical would interact and thus potentially predict moods. But I still do not see a clear and defined connection between physics and a lack of free will.

Care to explain why there must be an immaterial world to have free will, or what this immaterial world is and how it interacts with the material world in relation to both space and time?

Correction: physics can not. Take for example Brownian Motion. What seems like random motion is actually attributable to interaction with other particles. Impossiblilty due to current lack of information is not impossiblility full stop. It is not relevent whether we can currently have complete information about the brain. The fact that it would be possible to predict everything about the brain given correct information means that all decisions, if we are dealing with a purely materialistic world are essentially predetermined by not our will, but the state of the universe as a whole.

Thus, free will does not exist, we are simply part of the mmachination of the universe.


So essentially what you are saying is that if it is possible to predict everything about the mind at some theoretical future date, then we have no free will? This seems a little illogical. Are we then slave to the chemical compositions of our minds? I'd like to see your premises for this laid out in order.

I can show the necessity of a primary cause, yes.

Feel free to do so then. ;)

That doesn't stop me being a theist. was merely responding to your statement that we only consider theist to be fundies and extremists.





Allow me to refer to Aquinas:

This seems to go against your previous statement (elsewhere I believe) that God can do the impossible.

Al Farabi
December 15th, 2008, 09:08 PM
okay I think I'm gonna go ahead and outline my whole logical process on this stuff, and what my conclusions are.

Not right now though.

Gimme a bit of time to write it all out

tagnostic
December 15th, 2008, 09:19 PM
Will we be cited as sources
when you turn it in to your
philosophy Professor? :icon_lol:

Tsar Phalanxia
December 16th, 2008, 09:06 AM
[10] Tsar of all the Internet, CoG, Thread #1748, Post #4237

:D

Perna de Pau
December 16th, 2008, 02:46 PM
okay I think I'm gonna go ahead and outline my whole logical process on this stuff, and what my conclusions are.



I am looking forward to that.

First let me congratulate you for the enlightened way in which you debate. It is rare enough to merit a compliment.

While waiting for your "philosophy treaty" :) a couple of points you may consider.

I am aware of the electric impulses to/chemical reactions of the brain but I tend to agree with Fallen that this is not enough to predict actions. In this sense the world of "thoughts" might be a non physical world which you referred earlier.

Even if neuroscience advances to the point of predicting that a given situation will trigger an impulse, which will start a given chemical reaction, which will stimulate a given muscle (action) the accuracy of such prediction will not be 100%, leaving thus room for free will.

And I would like to return the question to you: if an omniscient god exists then he/she/it knows in advance what we will do and therefore we donít have free will.

Talking of god could you give a reason why a perfect/complete being felt one "day" the need to create the universe? And why did he/she/it waited for 15 billion years before some tiny beings developed in a tiny rock orbiting a minor star in the outskirts of one of the galaxies in this immense universe he/she/it created?

sudikics
December 17th, 2008, 03:14 AM
I was having a conversation today about the double-slit experiment and its implications on free will, sentience, and proving the existence of parallel universes.

The normal double slit experiment, and the Wheeler delayed-choice experiment:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2610/26101301.jpg

Versions of the experiment that I'd like to run:

1. Place detectors at each of the slits, and hook them up to a computer. Run the experiment, and then, without viewing the data, destroy the computer. Then look at the pattern on the back wall (past the slits). What is the pattern on the back wall?

2. Place detectors at each of the slits, and hook them up to a machine. Run the experiment, and then, without viewing the data, have the computer encrypt the data with million-digit primes, and destroy the encryption information, leaving just the encrypted data. Now look at the back wall. What is the pattern on the back wall?

3. Place detectors at each of the slits, and hook them up to a machine. Run the experiment, and then, without looking at the data, look at the back wall. What is the pattern?

The third one has the most implications. Specifically, these three tests can be used to test AI, free will, and parallel universes.

In the third one, if you see the decoherence pattern, then you know that in the future you must view that data, meaning that you have no free will. Alternatiely, it means that the computer somehow observed the data, meaning that it is sentient. A third option is that parallel universes don't exist, but that also means that free will doesn't exist.

tagnostic
December 17th, 2008, 03:25 AM
I seriously need some
scotch and eggnog
before responding
to that one.

sam the moderately wize
December 17th, 2008, 12:10 PM
Quantum mechanics acts like there are parallel universes. Claiming that there are no parallel universes while at the same time not giving a clear rational for why quantum reality behaves as it does is ridiculous. This suggests that unless a better theory can be put forward, we should assume we have free will.

2. If not, would it be a fair conclusion to draw that a perfect, complete Physics would describe, and be able to predict reliably on, all that exists?

Look up phase spaces.

The existence of a space-of-the-possible around all events suggests to me that physics will only ever be able to tell us about this space, it's extent, and the probabilities inherit in it, rather than real certainties.

Daruko
January 16th, 2009, 12:13 AM
This thread is fail.

That is all.

tagnostic
January 16th, 2009, 02:53 AM
This thread is fail.

That is all.

rofl
then why did you
wake it up? :icon_eek:

Daruko
January 20th, 2009, 03:08 AM
Obviously, I was infected by the widespread fail of this thread.

May it serve as a warning for future explorers.

tagnostic
January 20th, 2009, 08:00 AM
Obviously, I was infected by the widespread fail of this thread.

May it serve as a warning for future explorers.

fight back against
the thread exploiters
rise up postaltariat

oh, wait
you said
explorers
my bad.

look out
its winblows

Daruko
January 21st, 2009, 07:50 AM
fight back against
the thread exploiters
rise up postaltariat

oh, wait
you said
explorers
my bad.

look out
its winblows

I don't even know why this made me crack up, but as is typical with your posts, it did. Tell me it's not just our common "stoner" ground. :icon_lol:

tagnostic
January 21st, 2009, 10:36 AM
dude!
like
totally!

Tsar Phalanxia
January 21st, 2009, 12:29 PM
I've got a stoner mentality, without the pot. Does that mean if I do weed, I'll become a meta-stoner?

tagnostic
January 21st, 2009, 04:41 PM
no dude,
like you
gotta
smoke alot
to catch up
to the buzz