My main argument is that a probability doesn't exist without a prior event mitigating other factors which would even make the probability that there will be an observer to influence an event a direct result of a prior event making it fatalistic.

To say :

would actually give scientific credence to the existence of a god or gods. Something would have had to existed to observe and record to memory events prior to the existence of cognitive life on earth.
By your own word there could not have been an initial action without the presence of god which would imply one of two probabilities:
1)nothing exists and we are not actually debating this
2)we have been predestined to follow a path of development

As we are both observing this conversation it would imply that there has been an initial action that spawned a chain of events ergo even the possibility of seemingly random acts are still fatalistic in nature.

Please forgive me if I am saying something really stupid. I am not learned in QM.

However, my understanding is that according to the teachings of QM even the present state is a probability, not an actual event or state. Case in point, and this is for sure, the position of an electron in an atom. It's presen state or place in space is absolutely indeterminable. It is not at all due to man's inability to find it, but it is due to the very nature of electrons. According to proven mathemtical concepts and descriptions, the electron at any given moment is in any given spot, and its presence in the area where it can be found is described as a probability. Again, not due to our inability to pinpoint its place, but due to the nature of electron movement.

So I can see that the present state of the world, or its state in any time in history, on the quantum level is only a probability, while on the macro level it's a concrete and distinct event, not a probability.

First of all, in order for the label "random" to be aplied to an event, it must be compared with multiple events of the same order of magnitude. But the very statement itself says that there are no other events of comparable magnitude. So I don't think "random" can reasonably be applied to the event we call "The Big Bang"

Now with that in mind, it appears that "random", in this context, is be being used to mean simply "having an unknown cause".

And if so, there are many, many, many events "within the realm of human comprehension" that have no known cause. Not just the subjective ones, but scientifically verified objective ones (e.g. the human/machine interface studies from PEAR.)

And personally, my own "human comprehension" can conceive of and comprehend a scenario wherein there are mulitple "unknown causative agents", each causing independent events, which would seem to be just what is being referred to here as "random".

Yes, thats the model, and the model works. But is it reality?

After thinking about this and watching the video again, I’m coming to the conclusion that determinism is completely useless.

What I get from the video is that determinism (as the presenter defines it) simply ignores “cause” altogether – as if it were totally irrelevant to anything. In other words, determinism simply says “the present is the effect of the past” and leaves it at that – without saying anything at all about causes.

The problem is the implication that things that happen in the past cause the things that are in the present.

In other words, “effect” implies “cause”, but determinism (as defined by the presenter) specifically excludes any cause=>effect relationsip.

It just seems like the epitome of “avoiding the issue” to me. “Yes, there are causes, but we’re not going to address them.”

And really, if you get right down to it, it is only saying “time is continuous” – that “the current state of affairs” is related to “antecedent states of affairs”, with nothing specified as to what that relationship consist of other than "before" and "after".

You logic is still flawed

Just because everything has a cause does not make everything "fatalistic." Everything is not 'fated' to happen because some probabilities NEVER HAPPEN. Infinite probabilities mean that they COULD happen, it does not mean that they are fated to happen or that they must happen. The only things that happen are the things that are 'chosen' by the observer to experience and follow.

Therefore it is choice and decision that is the random element in this universe. We determine our fate by our choices.



No it wouldn't. How did you come up with that conclusion? I'm sure your premise and mine are on way different pages. Of course it may depend on what your personal definition of "God" is. I don't feel comfortable talking about the term "GOD" without knowing what you are talking about, so you will have to define "God" if you want to continue with this line of reasoning.



Exactly. Are you then assuming that 'something' would have to be a "God?" or Are you assuming that life on earth is the only cognitive life that has ever existed throughout the entire universe and throughout infinity itself? Also, what is your definition of "observer?"



I would never assume what you mean by the term "GOD" so I can't say that I can agree or even understand your logic.

I will say that "something" exists, at least in my understanding of the term "something."

But the law of cause and effect is not "fate." It is simply cause and effect. Any idea that everything is 'fatalistic' implies that there is no conscious choice at work in the manifestation of the universe. That is simply not logical, because if that were true, then we are simply pre-programed parts of a larger organism or machine.