BlockHead Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 This is referring to the last few posts http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t39325/15-12 There have been arguments suggesting that the universe is noncausal meaning that past, present, and future have already been determined. This is in relation to the Christian belief that God can predict the future. These are some of the assumptions. 1. God knows the future. 2. God set things in motion. 3. The universe is a closed system. Papillon A die that is thrown behaves to a fixed set of physical laws, and the interaction between it and its environment can be predicted with 100% certainty, if 100% of the variables were known.How about the air molecules hitting the die? What is the exact temperature of air? There are many forces acting on the die some of which are unknown, and can’t be measured. Dark Energy? http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08c.htm <- the Heisenberg uncertainty principle http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08a.htm <- The Concept The only certainty is that there is no absolute certainty when it comes to measurements. Too bad you can’t absolutely predict the die. If your universe were limited to Newtonian physics, you would be correct. Can the future be statistically predicted? Does destiny exist? Do we have free will? Link to post Share on other sites
Bubbles Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Why did the chicken cross the road? Link to post Share on other sites
HokeyReligions Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by BlockHead 1) Can the future be statistically predicted? 2) Does destiny exist? 3) Do we have free will? 1) If 700 monkeys..... 2) It does for some because I don't believe that we all define destiny the same way. To me, destiny is just a word with little meaning, except to suggest some vague kind of life path. To others, it may be an end or culmination of experiences during their life. And others still may see destiny as an absolute, no matter what path was taken to get there; or may be mile-stone abosolutes along the way to death. There are lots of other views too. 3) There is not one answer to this, as the last thread showed. I've tried to see it from a Christian POV and I think I did an decent job of understanding the concept. My own POV must include my own definition. My definition of free-will is the ability to make choices without being told or led or pushed one way or the other. Influenced yes, but still the choice is mine to make. Said choices not limited or bound by things like religion, or social restrictions (such as women who must do as men say, or slaves as their masters say, etc.) So, yes I think we have free-will in this country. However, I don't think free-will is that profound a thing, because we (theists and anti-theists alike) can't choose to live forever--we are all bound by inevitable death. I do not think that those who believe there is a God who knows everything, and knows what choices a person will make - negate those choices or the person's ability to make them. There is a difference between control and free-will. Link to post Share on other sites
Pocky Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 For a scientific view read Opening Skinner's Box by Lauren Slater Link to post Share on other sites
sami Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I believe I have a free will in everything except when it comes to the nice-looking young ladies. I just loose it all. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 This is in relation to the Christian belief that God can predict the future. The belief isn't that God can 'predict' the future, the belief is that time is irrelevant to God. You can't humanize God, and assume he operates on human timeframes. It's not like he's over your shoulder right now waiting to see whether you're going to blink or swallow first. He knows all, he knows everything that has happened, and everything that will happen, on human timeframes. This doesn't change your free will. You're free to choose to jump up and down right this second, and you're free to exterminate six million Jews. God will not interfere with your decision, he'll just know what you're going to do--you can't 'trick' him. Link to post Share on other sites
HokeyReligions Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Picky Picky Picky! Leave semantics out of it. BlockHead also said: These are some of the assumptions. 1. God knows the future. 2. God set things in motion. 3. The universe is a closed system. and Can the future be statistically predicted? Does destiny exist? Do we have free will? You are pretty good at religious debate. I would like to hear your POV on these, dyer. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Originally posted by HokeyReligions You are pretty good at religious debate. I would like to hear your POV on these, dyer. I don't think it's a religious debate beyond what I posted. People often say--"'If God can tell the future, how can we have free will", and I'm emphasizing that he's not predicting the future, he doesn't act on our timeframe. Can the future be statistically predicted? Meteorologists can sometimes predict the weather. I can predict that the sun will definitely rise tommorow morning, probably between 5 and 6:30. I don't know what you mean by 'statistically' predicted, do you mean using statistics to find patterns, and then using the patterns to make guesses about the future following that same pattern? Then yes, I do, but it's not an exact science. Does destiny exist? Do we have free will? I believe that we are responsible for the choices we make, and no one makes it for us. I don't understand the belief of predestination, even from a secular, scholastic standpoint. If you're destiny is predetermined, why even try? Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Originally posted by BlockHead . How about the air molecules hitting the die? What is the exact temperature of air? There are many forces acting on the die some of which are unknown, and can’t be measured. Dark Energy? http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08c.htm <- the Heisenberg uncertainty principle http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08a.htm <- The Concept The only certainty is that there is no absolute certainty when it comes to measurements. Too bad you can’t absolutely predict the die. If your universe were limited to Newtonian physics, you would be correct. Can the future be statistically predicted? Does destiny exist? Do we have free will? Heisenberg's principle is based on two fundamental assumptions: 1) Observing a particle in motion, in isolation, only gives you a single vector on that particle, and does not take into account any othe relectromagnet/gravitational factors which might be affeting the particle as you take the measurement. (for example, if you swing a ball on a rope - if you could take a snapshot, at any point, the vektor of the ball indicates it is travelling in a straight line, but if you use the vector to calculate the future position of the ball, you'd be way wrong...) 2) Observing a particle fundamentally affects the particle (i.e. like viewing game in a Land rover - the animals will be affected by the sight and sound of the vehicle, so you will not be observing true in sito behaviour). These two assumptions do not make the implication that it's impossible to observe particles in isolation - it might be possible via some unknown method. But all this is besides the point. Whether it's a quantized particle or a tennis ball - I'm of the opinion that rules are rules, even if we don't know all the rules, and cannot observe without affecting, it does not make the rules invalid. If you throw a ball, an close your eyes - it's still going to do what it's supposed to do, whether you observe or not. In any event, people aren't particles, and I don't think we behave according to quantum mechanics. Our atoms and electrons and protons do, but those are smaller cogs inside the bigger machine. Our consciousness is a direct result of chemical reactions happening in our brains. Even if you cannot predict a particle, you can predict chemical reactions. Even the structure of your brain is chenically decided. Your very cellular identity, your DNA, is a molecule. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 I wish someone gave examples of land rovers and ropes on a ball instead of drivelling on about standards and nomenclature a year ago--I would have maybe earned an A in chemistry. Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Originally posted by Bubbles Why did the chicken cross the road? Because it was being observed. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 that rules are rules, even if we don't know all the rules, Imagine that! You mean there might be rules we don't know? does not take into account any othe relectromagnet/gravitational factors which might be affeting the particle as you take the measurement Including ones you know nothing about because human knowledge hasn't extended that far. In fact, the particles may be moving at speeds we are unable to detect and are traversing dimensions for all we know. Link to post Share on other sites
tokyo Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Can the future be statistically predicted? It is very likely that tomorrow the sun will rise again and that one day you will die. That´s statistics. The probability that an event will occur. So, to a certain extent you can predict the future, but you don´t know it for sure. Link to post Share on other sites
tokyo Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Does destiny exist? I think so, even though I will feel more able to say that when I have lived some more years. One´s life consist of action-reaction plus some unforeseen events. Grumpy people probably will have less friends than friendly, that´s their destiny, unless they chose to change their behavior. I´m not sure if destiny in the sense of god exists. Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme that rules are rules, even if we don't know all the rules, Imagine that! You mean there might be rules we don't know? does not take into account any othe relectromagnet/gravitational factors which might be affeting the particle as you take the measurement Including ones you know nothing about because human knowledge hasn't extended that far. In fact, the particles may be moving at speeds we are unable to detect and are traversing dimensions for all we know. The complexity of the interaction is irrelevant. Whether you observe or not, whther you know or not, is irrelevant. Your knowledge or lack of it is not going to affect the interation's rules. Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 la tee do. Link to post Share on other sites
Author BlockHead Posted August 26, 2004 Author Share Posted August 26, 2004 It appears that this whole argument can be described using, drum roll please, some control theory. One limitation is that this is a linear model. If anybody wants to introduce a nonlinear model, be my guest. There is no math formatting so it would be difficult to display. dx(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) y(t) = Cx(t) for t>=0 x(t) = the states in the universe y(t) = the universe as we know it A = The dynamics of the universe B = The medium between the corporeal and noncorporeal C = The visible properties of the universe To know the future exactly, you must know x(t) for all time. x(t) = e^(At) [x(0) + int(0->t, e^(-Ai)*B*u(i)*di)] The only way to exactly predict the future is to know all of the 1. e.g. x(0). All states at a particular point in time 2. A. You need to know all of the dynamics at work in the universe 3. B. You need to know the exact relationship between the spiritual world and the physical world 4. u(t). You need to know what, if any, inputs exist in the system, and you need to know it from the time in point #1 to the t which is your future time. Otherwise, no dice. If you use an observer to estimate x(t), you can compute an accurate prediction, assuming God’s influence is relatively small, but it will never match the exact states in the system. What is affecting the universe? No free will u(t) = [God’s will] Free will u(t) = | God’s will | | Satan’s will | | Human will | The no free will crowd will argue that will, other than God’s, is a function of the states x(t), and input u(t) lumping into matrixes A and B. God knows A, B, x(0), and u(t) therefore he knows all events at all times. In a sense, God wouldn’t have a free will. The universe would be noncausal. For the free will crowd. God know A, B, x(0), and part of u(t) which is not enough to know all events at all times. If all options in the decision part of u(t) are known, the future can be predicted statistically (and upper and lower boundary), but that also introduces uncertainty. Statistics seems like the only way out of the noncausal future dilemma. It would become a future estimate. Link to post Share on other sites
tokyo Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Blockhead, out of curiosity - are you mathematician or physician? Your avatar looks cute I feel like that sometimes, too. Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Uh.....question, smarty pants: Why are you leaving out u(t) = []? hence: dx(t) = Ax(t) Hmmm? Link to post Share on other sites
HokeyReligions Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Originally posted by dyermaker I don't understand the belief of predestination, even from a secular, scholastic standpoint. If you're destiny is predetermined, why even try? Okay, thanks. Maybe the word "predestination" was what I was trying to come up with. Just changing the way things are phrased, or using other terms sometimes helps to jog the thought process. I guess that was more in line with what I wanted you to comment on. Looking at the gap between free-will and predestination is where I think many people are confused. Reading how you both have separated those two concepts is helpful. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites
Author BlockHead Posted August 26, 2004 Author Share Posted August 26, 2004 Papillon u(t) = []?You are making a big assumption. How can you conclude that B or u(t) is zero based on an infinitely small part of A, C, x(t), and y(t)? Remember, most of A, C, x(t), and y(t) are unknown, and probably will never be known. Even in ideal conditions, x(t) might not be observable from y(t). If, by some miracle, you have A and x(t), you can compute B*u(t) = dx(t) – A*x(t) B*u(t) = [God’s works] assuming u(t)=[God’s will] if dx(t) – A*x(t) = 0 either B = 0, u(t) = 0, or just the product B*u(t) = 0 Even with the perfect model of the universe saying that there is no contribution from God, you can’t be certain about his existence or nonexistence. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Originally posted by HokeyReligions Okay, thanks. Maybe the word "predestination" was what I was trying to come up with. Predestination was one of the beliefs of Calvin, and the Catholic Church condemned this belief at the Council of Trent during the Counter-Reformation. I assume that certain Protestant sects, perhaps those who are offshoots of the Calvinists, still believe in predestination to this day, am I correct? Link to post Share on other sites
HokeyReligions Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Originally posted by dyermaker Predestination was one of the beliefs of Calvin, and the Catholic Church condemned this belief at the Council of Trent during the Counter-Reformation. I assume that certain Protestant sects, perhaps those who are offshoots of the Calvinists, still believe in predestination to this day, am I correct? I don't know. In religious history and Bible knowledge I bow to your knowlege and eduction. I've read the Bible and been to church and Sunday school, but I'm not a christian and have not studied religion to the extent that you have. The first thing I thought of when I saw 'Calvin' was "hmm... what about Hobbs?" But I can see where you are going with this and it helps clarify it when I hear an explanation from a Catholic POV and some of the Protestant sects. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Originally posted by HokeyReligions The first thing I thought of when I saw 'Calvin' was "hmm... what about Hobbs?" The funny thing, I think, is that Hobbes rejected free will too: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/hobbes.html Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts