I think this is where a lot of people jump to huge conclusions. I'm certain they do this concerning my views, I can't really speak for other people's views.

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between claiming that QM "supports" a view, versus, claiming that QM "allows" for a view.

As far as I'm concerned, I always refer to QM as simply "allowing" for my views. That is in no way implying that it "supports" my views.

Now other people may make different claims. Perhaps some people are attempting to suggest that QM 'supports' a specific ontological view.

However, what typically upsets me are the people who act like science somehow refutes these metaphysical ideas.

It neither refutes them, nor can it refute them in it's current state of knowledge.

Like I said before, Niels Bohr might argue against people who suggest that QM actually makes a direct statement about the true ontology of the world.

But he most certainly could not complain if someone merely suggests that QM has left the door WIDE OPEN to these possibilities because it most certain has.

And that's the only claim that I ever make.

So a lot of the bickering over these types of metaphysical ideas usually just comes down to people jumping to totally incorrect conclusions.

Now I don't know what Jeannie's stance on the matter is. Perhaps she personally feels that QM has left the door SO WIDE OPEN that she feels it's impossible to conclude what must be on the other side.

I don't go anywhere near that far myself. I recognize that it merely allows for these possibilities. I won't say that QM "shows" that the universe is "observer-created", but it certainly doesn't rule it out either.

~~~~~

Also, it can only be "observer-created" if the observer is indeed a "spiritual entity". It would be meaningless to cling to the secular idea that we are nothing more than an emergent property of a physical brain and claim that this emergent property is somehow "creating" the universe. That would be an oxymoron.

Thus if a person is going to believe that we are an "emergent property" of some preexisting physical "stuff" then that's already a secular assumption. There's no sense in even attempting to go beyond that if that's their main premise. They've already made up their mind.

~~~~~~

I prefer to leave the door wide-open until we have reasons to actually make conclusions.

And a wide-open door necessarily must include the metaphysical.

Hells bells, the idea that a "Big Bang" gave rise to this physical universe from something else that was not physical is already a metaphysical idea anyway.

Science has NO ANSWERS for these profound questions in terms of pure physics.

Why pretend that they do?

That's like a religious person pretending that their religious doctrine contains no errors.

~~~~~

And hey, I'm all for science. I consider myself to be a scientist. But that's no reason to fool myself into thinking that science has an answer for everything. The more you learn the more you realize we DON'T know. In fact, QM states that we can't know certain things EVER, unless it is in error.

That reminds me that there was another post I wanted to address in this thread.....

Well there are actually two different ways to "understand" it. In fact, there is a video where Feynman discusses this in depth. I believe he uses the ancient Mayan civilization as an example. They had the math right about certain astronomical events, but they were sure what it actually meant.

When it comes to QM there are two ways that it can be "understood". One way is to understand the mathematics of the theory. That's the easy part. I'm sure that Richard Feynman understood the actual mathematical "Theory of Quantum Mechanics".

That can be understood and taught.

But then there is the question of "intuitive" understanding.

If the mathematics says that an electron can "Walk through walls", you might understand the mathematical equations that allows it to do that (i.e. you understand the mathematical theory), but you still don't understand "intuitively" how the electron can do such a thing.

In fact, the mathematics ends up being nothing more than probabilities. So even the "Mathematics" doesn't "know" how the electron does it. All the mathematics shows is that it must occur if you want the electron to show up for dinner on time.

So it is possible to "understand" the mathematics of Quantum Theory. And like as Bushidobillyclub points out, all that Quantum Theory is really telling us it the limitation of what we can or can't know. But it really doesn't tell us anything about what "actually going on".

So in truth, there's really nothing in "Quantum Theory" to understand. Other than the mathematics itself, which can be understood, but unfortunately on in terms of what we can't and can't measure what to what degree those barriers are set.

According to Quantum Theory (the actually Mathematical Theory), we can NEVER know the ontology behind what's going on. The only way that could ever happen is if Quantum Theory itself FAILS.

In other words, QM would need to be "wrong" if we are to get past it.

And I think a lot of secular scientists are actually crossing their fingers and hoping against hope that "Science is Wrong"

And all for what? So their FAITH that we are nothing more than a temporary emergent property of inanimate dust can be True?

It's that silly?

From my point of view that's just as silly as religious people who are bending over backwards hoping that some ancient rumors about a God who will condemn the vast majority of human to an eternal hell is true.

Gee whiz. If I'm going to have FAITH in anything at all, I'll place my bets on Eastern mysticism. At least it's a notion that's WORTHY of faith. Then if if die because the universe is really just DUST, or if I'm cast into a hell hole because our creator really is a DEMON, then at least I will have had a momentary dream that maybe something better than either of those two sickly fates might have at least been possible.

So dreaming beats either of those to "realities".

And since dreams are part of the gift of life, why waste them?

Eastern Mysticism....as in the knowledge of Deepak Chopra?

Perhaps you mean the knowledge passed on in Eastern Asia?

or is it more along the lines of Druidism?


Each are unique in their own history and ideas. Druidism is actually coming back in popularity after it was almost extinguished by another religion. The problem with many of the Eastern Mysticism is ancestories often only passed knowledge through words. Much has been lost and much as been invented to create a unique feeling of modern age movements that fits best in today's society.

I think many scientists will have a hard time groping with such concepts. I am not saying it is wrong to learn about it for the more we study can help add information to other idealogies we believe in to connect a puzzle of sorts if you like.

Quantum Mechanics is certainly a study of what is (according to many scientists) and what we understand thus far and allows us to explore more of what can be. In time I am sure scientists will discover more. And yes some scientists have uncertain principles in Quantum Mechanics and are leading to a different route of understanding it. That is probably why there are so many opinions about it.

Stephen Hawking with his discovery of black holes has only been recent and I am sure more will come in the future of discoveries.

Perhaps......just perhaps it is all linked together more then we will ever know. :)

Our imaginations, historical ideas, and studies of science can link together resolving questions we may have never been able to answer understanding more of who we are and why we exist.

The main mistake that takes place by scientists who want QM to be wrong in order for determinism to be right is that they do not understand what determinism should be from a scientific perspective.

Philosophical determinism may mis-mash epistemic with ontological and create the non-overlapping majesteria of QM and determinism, however from a scientific perspective determinism does not deal with epistemology at all, exclusively ontology.

Events being causally related = scientific determinism. (better known as Causal Determinism.)

Knowing what the future holds based on the past = philosophical determinism.

The first one does not deal in knowledge, but what IS.
The second deal in what we can know about what IS.

QM and scientific determinism CAN work together if we do not require that we be able to always "determine" the causal relationship between every particle interaction.

This is well misunderstood among many highly proficient scientists.

I will for any new people to this general topic point out these two very interesting links.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/948/1/HiddenDeterminismus.pdf

This paper explains how the mathematics of physics is representational of reality and cannot make a full accounting of the ontology of reality, it explains why any probability theory can make only generalized accounts of determinism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

This link has a lot of material about Bohmian Mechanics, among many other phenomena explains interference patterns without advanced causation.
























It is then the entirety of physics which must include Bohmian Mechanics that SUPPORTS IMHO a deterministic approach for the ontology of reality which precludes an observer created reality.

So to say that QM allows it, I grudgingly agree, however physics as a whole does not when you include the descriptions of de Broglie-Bohm theory. With or without hidden variables physics is non-local, strange and has an underlying causal relationship. Even if an event was causless we could never know however physics works when you assume a causal deterministic reality, and does not when you assume otherwise.

The above is way too much for my unscientific brain to comprehend and there is a little voice inside of my mind telling me to skip it. It sounds like people doing a lot of over thinking of things.

Simplified, I see reality having two basic properties.

#1 Environment
#2 Inhabitants


ENVIRONMENT:

This is the quantum world and is the building blocks of the specific material spacetime environment which has its own properties (which are agreements or relationships.) They are like programs. These are the laws of physics which govern matter within that reality/universe.

Inhabitants:(Observers)(Players)

The Inhabitants are the conscious beings and creatures that live and play within the matrix. They are subject to the laws of physics within that environment, but they are the ingredient that prevents causal determinism. They are the random factor because they can effect the quantum world via their CONSCIOUS thoughts and their attention. (Their conscious will.)

Without inhabitants, the matrix environment is just a program that does nothing. It is a field of potential. Like an empty city.

Without the conscious will (free will) the activity of the inhabitants could probably be predicted according to their programing. (If they were like robots) But with them having conscious will, the random factor is introduced. There is no way to determine outcomes.

I have absolutely no problem with anything that you've stated in your post, or anything that was in the articles you pointed to.

I didn't read your first article in its entirety, but I don't need to, they were kind enough to place an abstract on the first page. I got what I needed from the very first paragraph of that abstract.

Excerpt #1 - from the abstract of Hidden Determinism pdf

"In present-day physics the fundamental dynamical laws are taken as a time-translation-invariant and time-reversal-invariant one-parameter groups of automorphisms of the underlying mathematical structure. In this context-independent and empirically inaccessible description there is no past, present or future, hence no distinction between cause and effect."

I'm totally open to that view. In fact, that's precisely the view I support. So I'm in total agreement with the article on that point.

However, near the end of the abstract they say:


Excerpt #2- from the abstract of Hidden Determinism pdf

"The popular ideas that in quantum theory there are gaps in the causal chain which allow the accommodation of the freedom of human action are fantasies which have no basis in present-day quantum mechanics. Quantum events are governed by strict statistical laws.

This I do not agree with precisely as stated and I would argue against it with a passion. I argue that the Schrödinger wave equation actually predicts precisely the opposite of this. Our behavior and actions actually change the probability waves with every choice and action we take.

I think also they are looking "out there" when they think about this problem. Instead I would suggest looking at the brain chemistry and electrical patterns of thoughts within the brain. Here we are talking about countless "probability waves" all interacting with each other in a "locally* simultaneous way" and thus affecting the very probability distributions that define them based on the Schrödinger wave equation.

In other words, this is like constantly changing the variables of the Schrödinger wave equation and thus changing the probability distribution that it predicts dynamically. After all stop and think about what you have to put into a Schrödinger wave equation before you can even talk about the solution.

The input to the Schrödinger wave equation is itself dynamically ever-changing in any given environment. And in the brain with it's countless "local* simultaneity" how can anyone speak of "strict statistical laws" and keep a straight face?

In what sense would they be "strict"?

* (I've been using the term "locally* simultaneous"). But isn't that rather redundant in the face of their "Excerpt #1" above? They've already taken the stance that their kind of determinism cannot be limited in space and time. So I could have justifiably used "Universally simultaneous" and still remain within their postulates.


Excerpt #3- from the abstract of Hidden Determinism pdf

"Freedom of action is a constitutive necessity of all experimental science which requires a violation of the statistical predictions of physics. We conclude that the presently adopted first principles of theoretical physics can neither explain the autonomy of the psyche nor account for the freedom of action necessary for experimental science."

In this except you need to realize that they are basically making one assertion and one confession simultaneously:

The Assertion: A person is incorrect if they try to claim that QM explains free will.

The Confession: We would be incorrect if we tried to claim that QM can say anything about this topic at all because science can't even define what is meant by "free will" in a meaningful analytical way, and thus we shouldn't have even brought this topic up in our scientific paper but we did.

Excerpt #4- from the abstract of Hidden Determinism pdf
(This is taken from the second paragraph of Chapter 10)

"At present the problem of how free will relates to physics seems to be intractable since no known physical theory deals with consciousness or free will. Fortunately, the topic at issue here is a much simpler one. It is neither our experience of personal freedom, nor the question whether the idea of freedom could be an illusion, nor whether we are responsible for our actions. The topic here is that the framework of experimental science requires a freedom of action in the material world as a constitutive presupposition. In this way “freedom” refers to actions in a material domain which are not governed by deterministic first principles of physics."

With all due respect I just disagree with this man's view. Especially concerning his definitions of "Free Will" and what constitutes "freedom". I accept that physical "laws" of the macro world are "real". I don't have the "Free Will" to simply "wish away" gravity, for example. Or even something as as tenacious as the Pauli Exclusion principle of the quantum world. But that doesn't really come into my concept of "Free Will". I allow that I have "Free Will" within the scope of obvious restrictions.

However those restrictions themselves do not even need to be 'physical' exactly. (I'm not going to bother going into a side-discussion of that.) Suffice it to say that I do not agree with this author's views in any absolute concrete way. There are many far deeper issues that need to be address and a thesis on those issues would indeed be quite extensive in and of itself.

Excerpt #5- from the abstract of Hidden Determinism pdf
(This is taken from the first paragraph of Chapter 11)

"Often it is claimed that according to quantum mechanics “the basic constituents of matter behave in a fundamentally random way,” or that quantum mechanics allows “uncaused” events. Such statements are misleading since all quantum events are governed by strict statistical laws."

I'm not claiming that anything is "uncaused" or totally random. I don't even need that for my spiritual concept. In fact, on the contrary I would say that everything is "caused" by the "quantum mind" or "God entity" if you like.

Of course the dreamer "causes" things to happen if life is a dream!

I'm not trying to do away with "causality" in the least. I'm simply viewing it in a totally different way.

It seems to me that these guys are just trying to expand a concept of "Newtonian Determinism" to a larger picture whilst simultaneously confessing that we can no longer speak of "sequential time" when considering the universe as a whole.

Well, all of those ideas are perfectly compatible with my "spiritual" ideas. In fact, in a very real sense they are basically demanding that the entire universe is one big MIND that's interconnected without bounds to space or time.

By the time their down tossing out all of these "Concrete Definitions" for things what do they have left to stand on?

What is it that they are calling "Physics" other than the collective timeless behavior of the entire universe as WHOLE?

Well, duh? That's the idea!

Tat T'vam Asi! You are THAT!

You are a facet of this "ultimately indivisible whole".

This article doesn't do anything but offer me support for my own positions. Save for perhaps this guy's continued (and rather asinine) reference to "Strict statistical laws". That very idea right there is totally BOGUS. There's nothing "strict" about them at all. They are totally dependent on the Schrödinger wave relationships, and those relationships are both dynamic and intricately dependent upon the environment of the system that is being described. Change the environment and you change the wave equation that goes inside the Schrödinger equation, thus simultaneously chaning the wave equation that come out of the Schrödinger wave equation.

So where are these "strict" statistical laws that this guy keep referring to?

They don't exist! Unless you're doing a simple static "particle in a box" homework problem.

But in the real world the input functions of a Schrödinger wave equation is just as dynamic as the output functions!

Where is this "strict statistical laws" that this guy keeps referring to?

They don't exist! That's a fallacy in thinking on HIS part.

Well I addressed one of the articles that Bushio linked to in as much detail as can be done in a short post.

And I agree with Jeannie. Physics is describing the "matrix". The "mind-scape", the "computer".

Both Jeannie and I fully recognize that there is indeed a structure to the "through matrix". That's a given.

As as scientists I have often been asked by skeptical philosophers who ask, "What if you find out some day that life is just a dream and your entire life was wasted studying physics?"

I laugh at that. Because it wouldn't change a thing. If life is a dream, then what we call "physics" is simply an investigation into the RULES of the dream.

Both Jeannie and myself recognize that the dream has RULES!

We don't deny that. What we call physics is nothing more than the rules of dream. And the dream that we are currently having is indeed restricted by the rules that we currently call "laws of physics".

All we're saying is that that's not all there is to reality. There's MORE beyond that.

That's all we're saying.

And there is nothing in all of "science" that says otherwise.

In fact, I would argue that even according to "science" there must necessarily be LAWS at work that make things like the Schrödinger wave equation actually stand.

In fact, I like the way that Stephen Hawking once put it:

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking

There's got to be more too reality than just the rules.

And scientific physics is clearly nothing but rules. It really can't even begin to address why such rules exist in the first place or what breaths fire into them to create a universe for them to describe.

So physics is truly nothing more than a "description" of what already exists. But it can't say one iota about why it has anything to "describe" in the first place.

Science is just a description of what already is.

And that's all it can ever be!

It can never go beyond that.

Thanks Abra, and Bushi, My brain can't handle those kinds of details..



I would like to add to the above that the most power lies with conscious thinking centers (example: humans) that are skilled at using their conscious will according to their individual preferences rather than according to their automatic survival or operational and group programing.

The actions and choices that are initiated by less conscious thinking centers tend to follow their automatic programing for survival. (survival instincts, etc.) and can be more readily predicted but can still not be 100% determined. They are the living "robots" and mostly follow programing.

As a thinking center becomes more conscious its individual preferences and choices will become more unpredictable.

The more highly evolved (the more conscious) thinking centers (beings that think) who inhabit an environment, the more randomness will be introduced.

"Unpredictable" with respect to whom?

Someone needs to be making a prediction before something can even be said to be "unpredictable".

Unless it's just being compared with the "masses". If that's the case than my entire life has been totally "unpredictable".



I agree with the essence of what you are saying, but I'm not sure I like the term "randomness". Again, "Random with respect to what?"

Random with respect to the "expected"? And again, who has this expectation?

I think randomness might be a bogus term to use in this context.

I would prefer to state it this way.

"The more highly conscious thinking centers become, the more freedom they will experience in their ability to chose their actions and behaviors."

I would also steer clear of using a term like "more highly evolved". That tends to bring with it a connotation that this requires evolution over time, potentially even in a biological sense. That may indeed contribute in the long haul.

However, in terms of individual people I think we can make dramatic differences in our ability to be consciously aware over a very short period of time just by having a change of perspective in how we view and interact with reality.

And it's clearly not solely related to thought alone. Conscious awareness can be made more clear and "free" via actual psychic exercises. Just like a body can be made to be more flexible and in better shape via physical exercises.

I personally believe that the conscious activity in our brains does indeed affect the physical Schrödinger relationships that allow us to use our brains effectively. That is our interface between our spiritual of "pathos" consciousness with our intellectual or "logos" consciousness.

The more we 'exercise' our ability to control the Schrödinger "feedback relationships", the better control we have over it.

And we actually do that whenever we 'consciously choose' to make our decisions versus just following the instinctual patterns that are so easy to fall into!

In fact, I was given a perfect example of this just today. A friend of mine stopped by. He was upset with himself because every day after work he goes straight to the bar to sit down and have a drink with his friends. And he was actually becoming quite upset with himself that he can't just go straight home from work and do something constructive at home in the evenings.

In other words, he has fallen prey to the RUT of just doing what becomes "habitual" rather than actually executing his FREE WILL to override "habit".

That's a serious question of "Free Will" right there. Why is it so much "easier" to fall into a habitual rut, than it is to continually "exercise" Free Will?

Well, it's for precisely the very same reason that it's easier to become a couch potato than a physical fitness freak.

It's just EASIER.

It takes physical EFFORT to physically exercise.

It takes psychic EFFORT to psychically exercise.

A person who keeps in shape physically will have a healthier body.

A person who keeps in shape psychically will have a healthier Free Will.

Then you are mistaken in your argument against the conclusion. QM does not do away from deterministic causality and there for is not the missing link that allows for conscious free will. All the rest of your post is just dancing around the problem. I do the same when I am exploring an idea, but your conclusion does not match your data.

This is really a side conversation anyways, it does have many facets in common with this conversation however is not really what JB was digging into.

The article you admitted you didn't fully read? I can assure you it does no such thing.



No such thing. Lets be clear.

Causal Determinism.
Philosophical Determinism.

Causal Determinism deals with cause and effect and ONLY says that the current state of a particle is dictated by previous interactions and is strictly concerned with the state of particles, or the ontology of interactions.

Philosophical determinism deals with predicting the future from details of the past and thus is strictly concerned with knowledge.

If by Newtonian determinism you mean Causal determinism then you have fallen into the same trap of mismashing epistemic with ontic which leads to confusion.

Physics and all of science should really only concern itself with Causal Determinism when trying to uncover the mechanisms of nature.

Free will as the ability to form novel actions/behaviors that where not fully determined by previous states cannot be detailed by science, science can only detail a causal chain.

Basically we can only use science in a Causal deterministic way, with a causal deterministic physics. The very nature of acausal indeterminacy expels science from the party, even if it occurs in nature science can never know, much like the event horizon of a black hole the ability to "determine" what is going on behind the curtain is restricted from the techniques science can employ.

This means that experimental, empirical science can never be used to explore acausal indeterminacy. Rigorous exploration behind the curtain cannot happen. The reason that physicists like myself except that ultimately particles do exist without observation is not due to hard science, its not due to experimentation, its due to the relationships between reality and method, becuase of causal events inside the curtain, strict statistical laws provide a framework that WORKS BECAUSE the fundamentals are determinable.

Logic, reason, and science together paint a picture of reality that WORKS becuase of the preemption of existence. No other philosophy works to connect the dots like Naturalism, Physicalism, Philosophical Materialism.

Honestly if someone where to argue in favor of Preemption of Mind they should never mention Science as Science can never work from a platform of a mind before existence which is what this conversation is REALLY about.

Here is an example of someone coming at the topic from the right perspective.

I do not have access to this paper sadly.
http://mind.oxfordjournals.org/content/108/429/95.full.pdf+html



Google books to the rescue.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NWc9ISdUDvcC&pg=PT501&lpg=PT501&dq=preemption+of+mind&source=bl&ots=kLocF8iZMz&sig=fmGbff0x6ulOV86Sb2RqZ105fqo&hl=en&ei=TLLKTcuMD4PUgQeCgeHfBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=preemption%20of%20mind&f=false

Basically my argument boils down to Science works becuase its deterministic. Science maps nature closely becuase nature is deterministic. Free will is either deterministic, or not natural. I do not believe in supernatural there for free will is deterministic.

I find the topic interesting so I may very well buy this philosophy of science book and see how it adjusts my perspective.

Bushidobillyclub I can't read Aba's post because your links extended the page into the darkness.

Abra, the predictability of what happens is in reference to the idea of absolute causal determinism that some people seem to want to entertain.

Even if it were possible to predict outcomes in a completely robotic causal universe with no Free will involved it is just a hypothetical idea, not something that could actually be done by a mere human.

My point is that conscious purposeful action by creatures making free choices and preferences is the random factor that prevents any idea of determinism from being the case.

Abra,

Yes the term "more evolved" was probably not quite accurate.
But I was thinking of a single celled organism as compared to a human.

Lower forms of life still have preferences and make choices but they are not as conscious.
They are more a matter of environment, vibration, programing etc.

The thing I want to suggest has to do with our personal power over the quantum soup.

As humans living within the spacetime matrix we are subject to the laws of physics.
We don't have the power enough to fly through the air and defy the laws of physics.
That is the agreement that we, as observers/players knew before we came here.
It is like we are inside of a dream world using our dream bodies to operate here.

But our power is over the quantum world of thought and vibration. It is that world that is the foundation of the matrix and it creates and influences the matrix.

Yet we, as thinking centers, can influence it! Thoughts are things and they influence the quantum soup.

We can create things with our thoughts. Of course these things are not instantly created because of the laws of physics...
but they can be created within the boundaries of the laws of physics.

I never argued for any such thing. So clearly you're not even understanding my position.

I never argued that "deterministic causality" as they define it has anything to do with free will one way or the other. In fact, the very term "deterministic causality" is basically meaningless as they define it. And it's certainty NOT the same thing as "Classical Newtonian Deterministic Causality".

That is dead forever.



Well, in that case if we accept QM we have no reasons to believe n any "Causal Determinism" that is dictated by previous interactions. QM does away with that notion entirely.

QM suggest that all events are "dictated solely by the current interactions". In fact Schrödinger wave equation demands this.

Therefore any "Causality" associated with these probability distributions are instantaneous and have no dependency on "previous interactions".

In fact the very term "previous" requires a a very rigid notion of time which the article you pointed to cast aside in their very first paragraph.




That's a bogus notion right there.

All of the deepest scientific theories actually PRESUME that some sort of "information" existed prior to the creation of the universe.

Everything scientific theory that addresses these kinds of issues stand upon such postulates. Including both Quantum Mechanics, and the Inflationary Hot Big Bang theories.

And besides they have every reason to mention science in the following sense:

Science has not yet, nor can it ever, address the concept of a Preemptive Mind.

~~~~~

If you ever actually pay attention to what I'm actually saying maybe you could finally understand this.

I am not claiming that science "supports" a concept of a Preemptive Mind. And I have never made any such a claim.

However, I do claim that nothing in all of science has yet been able to rule it out.

And that's all I'm saying about "science".

I am a scientist myself (retired now), I love science and totally support it. But that doesn't change the truth that science is indeed limited in what it can tell us about the true essence of reality.

Science has not been able to close any of these doors concerning the concepts that I consider. On the contrary it has left them wide-open.

All I object to are the people who are trying to make a case that "science" has somehow refuted these idea. It has not, and it cannot.



No, science works because there exists a universe to describe. Sure there is *some* causality in the mix. I have never denied that.

But here's YOUR BOGUS POSITION, right here!

"I do not believe in supernatural therefore free will is deterministic." - Bushidobillyclub

Pfffft

I'm supposed to be impressed by that?

So Bushidobillyclub has an entirely FAITH-BASED belief that there is no such thing as the "supernatural". End of discussion!

Why should I care about such an ungrounded subjective personal opinion?

What does the term "supernatural" even mean?

Well, it means "Beyond the laws of nature".

Well then we ask, "What are the laws of nature IN FULL?"

Does science know?

NO! Science does not have a complete picture of reality. Thus far they haven't even been able to meld together their theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They are also speculating the existence of a myriad of extra dimensions that exist beyond our ability to even perceive them. They are even considering ideas of a the existence of multiple universes, etc.

In short, "science" is still groping in the dark and has absolutely no clue what the "full" laws of nature are.

Therefore there could be laws far beyond what we currently know about "nature" and they would not even be "supernatural" because they TOO would then be part of "nature".

I don't believe in the "supernatural" either exactly.

But I do believe that there are "natural" things about the essence of reality that science has not yet discovered.

If "spirit" exists then there's nothing "supernatural" about it, because ultimately it would have been the "natural basis" for everything all along.

So from a scientific point of view what could you even mean by the term "supernatural"?

What would that mean?

How could something be determined by science to be "supernatural" if science hasn't even yet determined what all the "natural laws" are?

You'll have to wait until "science" is an utterly complete discipline to where it can be used to answer every single question posed about the "nature" of reality before you can even speak to a meaningful concept of "supernatural".

And science most certainly is not in a position to do that currently.

So your position can be nothing more than your own faith-based subjective dream. Your ideals are nothing more than your very own wishful whims.

You have no business referencing "science" as "support" for your faith-based ideals either. Science simply can't be used to support your position.

Yet, you have the audacity to suggest that other people shouldn't reference science concerning their ideas.

My only reference to science is to point out the truth of the situation. And that truth is that science itself cannot be used to rule-out my ideas.

You try to rule them out using the following:

"I do not believe in supernatural therefore free will is deterministic." - Bushidobillyclub

Pfffft

What exactly does THAT have to do with "science"?

Sounds like nothing more than a personal opinion to me.

Ok, in that sense it would indeed depend upon the evolution of the brain that the thinking center is currently using.



I can see how such a scenario makes sense.



I recognize the plausibility of such a situation myself. It makes perfect sense to me and is certainly compatible with all known science. By "compatible" I simply mean that there is nothing in all of science that has yet ruled it out. And as long as it can't be ruled out, then it's ludicrous to say that it's "unscientific". A thing can only be "unscientific" if it flies in the face of known science.

I wouldn't even consider any of these idea if I thought they were in conflict with known scientific observations. But the truth of the matter is that they are not in conflict and can indeed exist harmoniously with known science.

So my only "argument" with the radical secularists is that their arguments that "science" somehow supports their 'non-spiritual' views over 'spiritual' views is utter nonsense. It's simply a bogus claim. Science doesn't "support" their position at all, not can it. It's not even equipped to support such positions.

Abra said to Bushidobillyclub:




Exactly.

Why would anyone call someone "dishonest" for trying to use science to "support" their belief in God and then turn around and do the same thing using science
to "support" their non-belief in anything "supernatural" --whatever that is.

Bushidobillyclub your statement:

"I do not believe in supernatural therefore free will is deterministic." - Bushidobillyclub


...is totally unscientific and your conclusion is completely based on your personal belief. Science does not support your conclusion.

And even if "free will" is deterministic what on earth does that mean?

Are you trying to say that you think science can predict the choices
thinking centers (people) are going to make before they make them?

Thats just seems ridiculous to me.

I am now wondering if Bushidobillyclub believes there is no such thing as free will.

I know different. Every day I have a lot of decisions to make.
These decisions are mine and mine alone. There is no causal force behind them but me.

There is no way anyone could predict what decisions I will make accurately.

It is really so obvious I am astonished that any intelligent scientist would have ever come up with such a silly idea as determinism.

double post

Hey Abra -

Totally off topic:

How do you do the multiple quotes like that, or quote two different posts in the same way???

I tried and don't seem to be able to do that...

Thanks.

If you hit the "quote" button you can see the code for doing that.