Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Actually I read that first when I was still a christian. It was a real thought provoker—it strongly supported my ideas at that time about a deterministic universe.
Actually I read that first when I was still a christian. It was a real thought provoker—it strongly supported my ideas at that time about a deterministic universe.
And now you’re not convinced of a deterministic universe anymore? If yes, why not?
Because of quantum physics? But there is no evidence that uncertainty on the microscopic level has any effect on the macroscopic level?
Also, wouldn’t that just replaced determinism by chaos and randomness? How would that be better?
Ps. I’m sorry but those weird characters in your signature are really annoying ... or does my browser not display it correctly?
The reason we can’t be living in a deterministic universe is because the state of the universe now, even if you knew everything there was to know about it, can’t be used to determine the exact state of the universe five seconds from now. This is a result of quantum mechanics.
Scale isn’t a problem because it is conceivable for macroscopic events to be determined by indeterminate microscopic events. This isn’t necessarily “better” in the sense of better for us, than determinism, but it is “better” in that it is a more accurate description of the universe, in my opinion.
The reason we can’t be living in a deterministic universe is because the state of the universe now, even if you knew everything there was to know about it, can’t be used to determine the exact state of the universe five seconds from now. This is a result of quantum mechanics.
Scale isn’t a problem because it is conceivable for macroscopic events to be determined by indeterminate microscopic events. This isn’t necessarily “better” in the sense of better for us, than determinism, but it is “better” in that it is a more accurate description of the universe, in my opinion.
Are you denying that our macroscopic world is working in a deterministic way? Are you deny cause and effect?
This is one of the issues where I’ve come to believe that a delusion might be necessary. If the state of the universe one second after the Big Bang is the cause of the state of the universe today, then Laplace’s machine would make sense. Everything is determined. There is such a thing as “Fate”. Whatever is pre-determined to happen will inevitably happen.
However, none of us seem to be living under this assumtion. We all work (I generalize with the word “all” aknowledging the occasional exception) to make the world a better place, or a leat with the hope of improving our own lives. If determinism is true, then our intentions don’t matter. It’s exactly the same problem I ran into when I was a Christian. If God knows my future then everything is already determined! there is no point in me doing anything given that nothing I will alter my God-determined destiny.
Quantum physics to the rescue!! Not really, the fact that we currently don’t have a precise understanding of quantum mechanics doesn’t mean that our natular laws have been rendered unpredictive. Besides, if anything, our behavior is explained by two factors, genetics (our integral biological composition as human beings) and our environment. Where does that leave “free will’??
Neverthless, we need the ‘free will’ DELUSION in order to live our lives, at least, coherently.
This is one of the issues where I’ve come to believe that a delusion might be necessary. If the state of the universe one second after the Big Bang is the cause of the state of the universe today, then Laplace’s machine would make sense. Everything is determined. There is such a thing as “Fate”. Whatever is pre-determined to happen will inevitably happen.
However, none of us seem to be living under this assumtion. We all work (I generalize with the word “all” aknowledging the occasional exception) to make the world a better place, or a leat with the hope of improving our own lives. If determinism is true, then our intentions don’t matter. It’s exactly the same problem I ran into when I was a Christian. If God knows my future then everything is already determined! there is no point in me doing anything given that nothing I will alter my God-determined destiny.
Quantum physics to the rescue!! Not really, the fact that we currently don’t have a precise understanding of quantum mechanics doesn’t mean that our natular laws have been rendered unpredictive. Besides, if anything, our behavior is explained by two factors, genetics (our integral biological composition as human beings) and our environment. Where does that leave “free will’??
Neverthless, we need the ‘free will’ DELUSION in order to live our lives, at least, coherently.
Thalmus,
That’s actually an interesting idea, that we need a delusion of free will. Need to think about that some more. The same argument could be used for positing a god.
That’s true, except that is an empirical claim for which we have some data. We know for instance that countries like Denmark (known by many as the happiest country in the world) is, in its majority, constituted by non-believers. So, clearly these people don’t need the “God delusion” to be happy. And we -I presume most of us in this forum- don’t need it either. We have people who have lost their faith and who are still able to carry on with their lives rather successfully. So, I don’t thing this argument holds any water with respect to the idea of belief in God.
That’s true, except that is an empirical claim for which we have some data. We know for instance that countries like Denmark (known by many as the happiest country in the world) is, in its majority, constituted by non-believers. So, clearly these people don’t need the “God delusion” to be happy. And we -I presume most of us in this forum- don’t need it either. We have people who have lost their faith and who are still able to carry on with their lives rather successfully. So, I don’t thing this argument holds any water with respect to the idea of belief in God.
It may for some. We’re still faced with having to explain why the vast majority of the human population expresses some theistic beliefs. More than likely a multi-factorial issue, and some of the thousands of posts here have addressed that; but I’m not about to suggest you scan such a number; not that cruel.
Neverthless, we need the ‘free will’ DELUSION in order to live our lives, at least, coherently.
I don’t think the free will delusion is necessary. The awareness of causality (subject to chaos) can lead to momentary paralysis, a “what’s the point?” But we already had that problem anyway. So you can just go back to what you were doing before, just a little more enlightened about how things emerge naturally.
Are you denying that our macroscopic world is working in a deterministic way? Are you deny cause and effect?
Where would ‘random chance’ fit in there?
For pretty much everything, the effects of these ‘random’ events has no bearing on the macroscopic world simply because the average cancels out, so to speak. It’s hard to explain, and I’m not saying I’m even certain whether or not the universe is deterministic—
“Are I deny cause and effect?” No. But it may be that the same cause has an indeterminate, or at least physically impossible to predict, number of possible effects.
Are you denying that our macroscopic world is working in a deterministic way? Are you deny cause and effect?
Where would ‘random chance’ fit in there?
For pretty much everything, the effects of these ‘random’ events has no bearing on the macroscopic world simply because the average cancels out, so to speak. It’s hard to explain, and I’m not saying I’m even certain whether or not the universe is deterministic—
“Are I deny cause and effect?” No. But it may be that the same cause has an indeterminate, or at least physically impossible to predict, number of possible effects.
But random chance does not help the free will argument, does it?
The universe is deterministic and random. We have been through discussions of this many times here. Evolution is a good example. Genetic mutation is random, although caused, but natural selection is determined by fitness to survive and not random at all. Together they cause organisms to adapt to their enviroment to reproduce, or they die before that happens.
Random events can happen in a deterministic universe, and do.
The universe is deterministic and random. We have been through discussions of this many times here. Evolution is a good example. Genetic mutation is random, although caused, but natural selection is determined by fitness to survive and not random at all. Together they cause organisms to adapt to their enviroment to reproduce, or they die before that happens.
Random events can happen in a deterministic universe, and do.
Can there be genuine randomness though or are we simply not able to detect the pattern? Not that it makes a big difference since the result will remain the same.
And even if there is genuine randomness that doesn’t help the free will argument, does it?
I don’t know what is meant by ‘genuine’ randomness but, some of this commentary may help- from the talk origins archive-
The use of the term “chance” in any scientific theory is not, strictly, a statement about causation (or lack of causation); rather, it is a statement about our lack of knowledge about causation. Theism has always maintained that God can and does determine the outcome of “random” events. Therefore, “random” events in nature are in no way an obstacle to God’s providential action; quite the opposite, they are one way in which God could exert providential care.
What do scientists mean by “chance”?
When physicists use the term “chance” in a scientific theory, they mean simply this: The final state of a system cannot be completely specified in terms of its initial conditions, either in principle (e.g. the results of a “quantum measurement”), or in practice. In quantum mechanics, the element of chance is formally built into the theory; the outcomes of quantum measurements can only be specified probabilistically. In classical mechanics, the final state of “chaotic” systems depend so sensitively upon the initial conditions that, in practice, it is impossible to specify all the variables precisely enough to predict the final state. In these systems, based upon experience and certain general considerations, ensembles of final states can be assigned certain probabilities of occurring.
Biologists and medical professionals use “chance” and probabilities in this second, classical sense. (For example, the chance that a disease will recur in a patient.) In evolutionary biology, a “chance” event is simply an event which is not caused by the organism itself, and which we could not have predicted given our limited knowledge of the initial conditions, which affects the organism’s survival (e.g. a natural disaster) or its genetic information (e.g. a mutation). “Chance” in evolution, or any other scientific theory, is a semi-quantitative statement about our ignorance—- our lack of precise knowledge of the initial conditions, or our lack of understanding of how a particular final state is selected.
RSS Feed