Hello,
I was just wondering if random exists within physics.
If not, if there's only one way something can happen depending on how it happens, and future events are determined by present and past events.. then surely the future can't be controlled.. it could only happen that one way.
Is choice an illusion?

Is choice an illusion?

If we have no choice, we're "living" our lives just to entertain someone who has created us to entertain them, and has decided for us what will happen to us. It is a matter of how you think of it. You might try to prove that you really have a choice by saying: I'll close my eyes now... I'll keep them closed for 2 seconds, then I'll open them. It would be your free choice of doing that. But someone might argue that it wasn't truly your choice, but that it was "written in stone" that you will close your eyes, keep them shut for 2 seconds and then open them. But as soon as they say that, try pointing a gun at their head and ask them if it's written that you'll kill them or not. They'll tell you it all depends on you. So they'll soon prove you DO have a choice.

Lets say that events D + E happen as a result of event C, and C happens as a result of events A + B.
If A + B didn't happen in that exact way, C wouldn't have happened as it did.
A small change like this would then go on to cause a larger change, as everything relating to the event change after it wouldn't happen as it would have done before.

If psysics isn't random, then that can't happen.. every event from the birth of everything only has one way that it can occur. So nothing about the futre is random either, it will all happen the only way it can (assuming no outside inffluences such as a god intefere). We are no exception to physics, we follow all the rules, so all the molecules, energies in our bodies are reacting/moving the only way that physics allows, so although it may feel like choice exists, it is merely the events that occurred before the event that cause thought to happen in a certain way, the only way it can.

Everything you said is true IF we suppose that previous events determine future events. And if previous events determine future, then it's equal as saying: "Future is already written for us."

You also didn't state that "for each event B, there must be an event A that is causing it". If you don't state that, then it means that there exists an event B that will happen and will not be caused by any previous event A. That means that there actually are random events. On the other hand, if you state that, then you stated "future is already written". Then you have nothing to prove. You just stated there is only one future, and then try to prove it. You cannot do that. You have to prove that all events B are caused by some events A. If you prove that, then you proved there is only 1 future for all of us, prewritten, and you will actually prove choice is only an illusion.

If you pick any one point in time, the entire future depends on that moment, and also any point in time of the past. What happens there sets off what will happen, even what every human shal do according to how they llready and how they will react to there environment, every thought ever event everything is going to happen a certain way no matter what. This means we can not change the futer. But we do creat it. And the thing with the gun, it depends on the past, if they had or didn't have a gun for example, or the though patterns that lead them to decide to use the gun in such a way-it does not depend on the one holdnig the gun, but what happened to make them hold it

Classical Newtonian mechanics assumes no randomness- everything is controlled by simple equations of motion, and that's the end of the story. However, in modern physics we have a key concept called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that you can never truly measure both an object's position and momentum with total accuracy. Hence it's impossible to predict with total accuracy how one particle will affect another. This effect is most pronounced for objects at the atomic level, but the effect on the real world is profound. The way that molecules in a gas interact, for example, can only be modeled as random.

Think about this experiment that shows how randomness is present in every day life - suppose you line up 10 billiard balls, with each ball separated 1 meter from the next. Using a cue ball, is it possible to hit the first ball into the second, so that the second hits the third, the third hits the fourth, and so on for all ten balls? It sounds simple enough - just a very good combination shot. But if you do the math you'll see that any error in the way two balls collide is magnified by about a factor of 30 when the next ball is hit. So for ten balls any initial error is magnified by 30^10, which is about 6 x 10^15. Stated another way, the initial hit would have to be accurate to better than 5x10^-15 cm. To achieve this level of accuracy the balls would need to be smoother than atomic structure allows. At this level the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle sets in. So it's impossible to predict exactly what will happen to the 10 bals - the result is random. Now think just how much more incredibly complicated the universe is compared to just 10 billiard balls, and you can see that randomness is indeed fundamental to how things behave.

random is just a concept...
think about programming... the function random is not so "random" ;)... in fact it acts randomly as it is programed to act; yes we can say there is random as long as we cannot predict or know the result, but in fact if we could know that there will be random no more...
As a matter an A point can determine a B point to act like "that" because the A point was programmed to act like that... so the right question is there is something or nothing? And if there is something... why and how did it appeared? And of course there might not be any need to justify the existence of something as long as it does not exist or it is not defined...

The notion of randomness violates the scientific method, and in reality, it does not occur anywhere in the known universe.

The scientific method requires, among other things, that any experiment proving a hypothesis must be repeatable.

Nobody has ever managed to present a repeatable experiment that supports the notion of randomness existing anywhere. Nobody has ever produced or observed any phenomenon of any type, anywhere, that has been objectively confirmed to be "random."

Actually, the whole idea of "randomness" is nothing but an unscientific, irrational superstition.

The notion of randomness violates the scientific method, and in reality, it does not occur anywhere in the known universe.

The scientific method requires, among other things, that any experiment proving a hypothesis must be repeatable.

Nobody has ever managed to present a repeatable experiment that supports the notion of randomness existing anywhere. Nobody has ever produced or observed any phenomenon of any type, anywhere, that has been objectively confirmed to be "random."

Actually, the whole idea of "randomness" is nothing but an unscientific, irrational superstition.




Young's famous double-slit experiment shows randomness.
This experiment can be easily reproduced with some basic equipment.

Young's famous double-slit experiment shows randomness.
This experiment can be easily reproduced with some basic equipment.

Thank you for posting your personal beliefs in this regard.

Care to offer some evidence for your beliefs, or should everyone just accept them without any evidence?

Do you even have any evidence for your strange personal beliefs about "randomness?"

If you fail to provide any evidence here for your strange personal beliefs about "randomness" supposedly existing (in some mysterious, unnamed place, at some mysterious, unnamed time), then the logical conclusion is that you just made up those personal beliefs of yours.

Made-up beliefs without any evidence, such as yours in regards to so-called "randomness," above, are supremely unscientific.

CONCLUSION: So-called "randomness" is an unsupported, unscientific, irrational, superstitious personal belief with absolutely no connection to real science and absolutely no evidence for its supposed existence available anywhere on God's green earth. No evidence has ever been presented for it anywhere.

In addition to the fact that no evidence for so-called "randomness" has ever been presented here (or anywhere else, for that matter), I've decided to include a fact from Wikipedia, from the article on "Hidden Variable Theory," which thoroughly shoots down even the possibility of someday posting any evidence of so-called "randomness" from Young's "double-slit" experiment, as it irrefutably proves that the experiment itself does not even involve anything random at all! Here's the quote, for your viewing pleasure:

"When you perform a double-slit experiment (see wave-particle duality), they go through one slit rather than the other. However, their choice of slit is not random but is governed by the guiding wave, resulting in the wave pattern that is observed."

In other words, the experiment utilizes waves of radiation and two slits through which the waves will pass, resulting in a particular pattern. There is absolutely nothing "random" about any wave -- all waves behave according to precisely predictable patterns, and so not only does this experiment fail to prove the existence of so-called "randomness," it actually fails to even so much as involve anything resembling so-called "randomness," at any level whatsoever.

It's interesting to note that it is also impossible to construct a slit, or even two slits, "randomly." All slits also have predictable, ordered lengths, widths, and depths, and all are positioned in their respective media at precise angles, all of which is carefully and thoughtfully planned and designed by the scientist in charge of the experiment, with nothing supposedly "random" about them at all. Therefore, all of the aspects of this entire experiment are ordered, carefully planned, and precisely designed. There is not as much as a single aspect of so-called "randomness" involved in any portion of this experiment, whatsoever.

Mere personal ignorance of the particular results of any experiment before they occur is also not proof that the results could be somehow classified as "random." It may prove that the human mind is unable to predict them accurately, but mere inability to predict is not evidence of so-called "randomness:"

A man without a train schedule will also be unable to predict the trains, but this by no means proves that the trains could somehow be "random." The trains are certainly on an orderly and predictable schedule, whether one single ignorant individual without a train schedule is capable of predicting them or not. Similarly, the fact that an ignorant individual lacks the intellectual capacity to predict precisely where the orderly and regular waves will pass through the orderly and regular slits by no means proves that the results are in any way "random." All it proves is that such an individual is ignorant of the results before they manifest, just as the man without a train schedule is ignorant.

In addition, if a man went to the train depot, day after day, without a schedule, his personal ignorance would initially cause the schedules to appear "random" to him, but after a careful study, if he possessed intelligence, he would realize over time that the patterns of the trains are quite regular. This is called repetition of the experiment (you know from SCIENTIFIC METHOD), and it would disprove any so-called "randomness" of the train schedules.

With regards to a similar repetition of the double-slit experiment, one of two things could occur over time:

1. a pattern would become apparent, or,

2. no pattern would become apparent.

In the first case, randomness would not only not be proven, it would be disproven.

Even in the second case, it would still not prove that the results could somehow be "random." Just as in the first run of the experiment, no matter how many times a particular individual showed himself to be ignorant of the results before they occurred, no matter how many days, weeks, years, or even decades that particular individual failed to predict the results, this would still not amount to evidence of so-called "randomness." It would only be evidence that the results are unpredictable to that man, which is an altogether different concept from so-called "randomness." No matter how many people: ten, a thousand, or ten-million, showed themselves unable to predict the results, all this would prove is that the results are unpredictable to that particular ignorant party (remember the train schedule example), and would not even speak to the subject of so-called "randomness" -- neither positively nor negatively.

Actually, all subsequent repetitions of this experiment would not involve any "random" aspect any more than the first, so even an infinite set of repetitions would not only fail to provide evidence in favor of the supposed existence of so-called "randomness," but they would actually say absolutely nothing about so-called "randomness" at all!

The final nail in the coffin is that, if the numerous experiments performed did somehow end up showing the same results, or even similar results, rather than proving the supposed existence of so-called "randomness," such a repeated similar result would be clear evidence of order, and clear evidence of the nonexistence of so-called "randomness!"

According to scientific method, however, failure of a particular experiment to provide similar results as a result of repetition is proof of failure of the experiment itself, and so clearly, there is no valid repeatable experiment anywhere, from any time, that has ever been able to provide any type of evidence for so-called "randomness."

CONCLUSION:

Since an experiment that does not even involve a particular idea cannot possibly "prove" such an idea, and the "double-slit" experiment has absolutely nothing at all to do with any so-called "random" event or result, on any level, the results of the experiment say absolutely nothing on the entire subject of so-called "randomness," what to speak of providing as much as a scintilla of "evidence" for its supposed existence. The personal belief in so-called "randomness" remains an unsupported, unscientific, irrational, superstitious notion, nothing more.

[QUOTE=Purushadasa;2207798]If you fail to provide any evidence here for your strange personal beliefs about "randomness" supposedly existing (in some mysterious, unnamed place, at some mysterious, unnamed time), then the logical conclusion is that you just made up those personal beliefs of yours.


Hi Purushadasa,



Interesting how two people ( Young and myself) can both suffer from exactly the same delusion.

You say that Young's experiment is only a product of my mind yet you provide a quote from the experiment from the Wikipedia site. No doubt the site would also provide a place and a time that the experiment was carried out.


Either there was a historical character called Young who performed an experiment or there wasn't.

Could you please refresh my memory about my beliefs regarding randomness. I cannot remember putting forward any personal beliefs in this area.

I said Young's experiment shows randomness, I didn't say that I support that conclusion. In fact I don't

Many Thanks

Tut

[QUOTE=Purushadasa;2207798]If you fail to provide any evidence here for your strange personal beliefs about "randomness" supposedly existing (in some mysterious, unnamed place, at some mysterious, unnamed time), then the logical conclusion is that you just made up those personal beliefs of yours.


Hi Purushadasa,



Interesting how two people ( Young and myself) can both suffer from exactly the same delusion.

You say that Young's experiment is only a product of my mind yet you provide a quote from the experiment from the Wikipedia site. No doubt the site would also provide a place and a time that the experiment was carried out.


Either there was a historical character called Young who performed an experiment or there wasn't.

Could you please refresh my memory about my beliefs regarding randomness. I cannot remember putting forward any personal beliefs in this area.

I said Young's experiment shows randomness, I didn't say that I support that conclusion. In fact I don't

Many Thanks

Tut

Actually, you have failed to provide any evidence that Young suffers from your odd delusion, so it's really just you.

I never said that Young's experiment was a product of your mind. Perhaps you imagined that at the same time that you imagined so-called "randomness" to exist. Apparently, you personally believe Young's experiment to be a product of your own mind since you are the one who independently inserted the idea that it's a product of your own mind into this conversation. I never said it -- you did.

All of the statements that you made about so-called "randomness" are your own personal beliefs, and are completely unsupported by any evidence. If you had actually done any research or received any type of valid education in this area, then you would know that. Why don't you go read a book or look up the facts -- you will find it to be an enlightening experience, better than your present state of ignorance. Go do the research, you'll find out. Do you even know how to do research, or do you just make up and blab it out, as you have been doing here with your made-up personal beliefs about so-called "randomness?"

You are incorrect in your personal belief that Young's experiment shows so-called "randomness" -- that is merely your own personal belief, for which you have failed to offer even a single shred of evidence. There is no reason for anyone to adopt your bizarre, unscientific, irrational personal belief that so-called "randomness" somehow exists. In reality, it does not, and nobody has ever produced any scientific evidence for it anywhere.

What are you talking about?

I already said that I don't accept Young's conclusion. I don't think there is randomness. I think that quantum entanglement does away with randomness.

What are you talking about??

I'm sorry that you have trouble understanding.

You guys really opened up a can of worms. Debates like these have been ongoing for more than a thousand years.

Here's my logical thought on the matter...

There are two roads this can go down:

1.) Theological

We find here several problems. God (Omni-potent, scient), knowing all things is thus able to predict all things, and having created all things, created our actions in which we choose. Even if you say that God only set things in motion, and you still acknowledge his omniscience then you accept that he created the precise arrangement of the universe to occur in the way in which he intended. The idea of free choice is smashed here: Knowing what's going to happen, means you cannot change it, or controlling what is to happen, resulting the same.

This does not mean that choice is altogether abolished, but rather free choice. We, in this universe, are bound by time; this means that all we do is causal, from event to event. We still have the ability to do one thing or another, however the author of the outcome is in the hands of God.

2.) Physical

All things if measured precisely enough will be 100% predictable. Everything in our universe can be attributed to cause and event. Life in this sense is a giant equation that may be able to secure predictability. Like this, there is no randomness, but just the result of a very complex action to another. Two things here may comfort us. In this result, we are still able to choose, just with a weighted outcome. As long as we don't know, we will never be on the winning side, but rather where ever we need to be.

Secondly, there is no perfect way of predicting what is to come. No matter how precise we are able to measure the equation, we will always be at a disadvantage. Like pi, there will always be more to refine.

InfoJunkie4Life: your "Physical" decription starts with an assumption that if things could be measured precisley enough then everything is 100% predictable. This is a very mechanistic view, and ignores the fact that it is impossible to measure things precisely enough. Heisenberg tells us that there is a fundamengtal limit to how precisely something can be measured - this limit exists not because our instruments aren't good enough for higher precision, but rather is a fundamental aspect of nature. Consequently there is always uncertainty in the outcome of physical processes. Or, to misquote Einstein: God does play dice with the universe.

You guys really opened up a can of worms. Debates like these have been ongoing for more than a thousand years.

Here's my logical thought on the matter...

There are two roads this can go down:

1.) Theological

We find here several problems. God (Omni-potent, scient), knowing all things is thus able to predict all things, and having created all things, created our actions in which we choose. Even if you say that God only set things in motion, and you still acknowledge his omniscience then you accept that he created the precise arrangement of the universe to occur in the way in which he intended. The idea of free choice is smashed here: Knowing what's going to happen, means you cannot change it, or controlling what is to happen, resulting the same.

This does not mean that choice is altogether abolished, but rather free choice. We, in this universe, are bound by time; this means that all we do is causal, from event to event. We still have the ability to do one thing or another, however the author of the outcome is in the hands of God.

2.) Physical

All things if measured precisely enough will be 100% predictable. Everything in our universe can be attributed to cause and event. Life in this sense is a giant equation that may be able to secure predictability. Like this, there is no randomness, but just the result of a very complex action to another. Two things here may comfort us. In this result, we are still able to choose, just with a weighted outcome. As long as we don't know, we will never be on the winning side, but rather where ever we need to be.

Secondly, there is no perfect way of predicting what is to come. No matter how precise we are able to measure the equation, we will always be at a disadvantage. Like pi, there will always be more to refine.

My friend, you have failed to provide any evidence for your personal belief that God "created" all things. You have also failed to provide any type of evidence that God somehow "created" our actions.

In reality, actions are not "created," they are performed, and God does not perform our actions, we do. Nor does He "create" our actions. Your thinly-veiled attempt at blaming God for our actions has missed the mark by a very, very wide margin, sadly.

Man does indeed have free choice, although man's free choice is different from God's free choice in that, while God's free choice is unlimited, man's free choice is limited.

There is no contradiction of any type between God's omniscience and man's free will. You obviously believe that there is, but you have presented no evidence to support your personal belief in that regard.

The meaning of your phrase, "the author of the outcome is in the hands of God" is unclear due to your poor grammar -- the subject of the phrase is the word "author." The word "author" is modified by the phrase "of the outcome." In order to understand your belief in this regard, I would need to have your poor grammar clarified. Specifically, who do you believe to be"the author of the outcome?" You failed to specify your specific belief in that regard.

With regards to your second block of beliefs, I have to say that, yes, for God, everything is 100% predictable, but man's potency for prediction is limited, so no, not everything is predictable for man -- there are many, many, many things that no man will ever be able to predict.

Life is certainly not an equation. An equation is a mathematical construct, and has no life within it at all.

Life is a state of being, and it boils down to consciousness: If an entity possesses consciousness, then it possesses life. If it does not possess consciousness, then it does not possess life. Consciousness is not dependent on the body, but is dependent on the soul, and the soul is the only living element within the body, just as sensation is never dependent on a glove, although a hand may still convey sensation even though covered by a glove. A glove may appear similar to a hand, but when the glove is removed from the hand, it has no independent ability for sensation.

Similarly, when the soul leaves the body, there is no independent consciousness in the body -- only the soul possesses consciousness, and so truly only the soul possesses life.

You are absolutely correct when you say that there is no randomness in existence.

:)

...Consequently there is always uncertainty in the outcome of physical processes.

There is always uncertainty for man, but there is never any uncertainty for God. This is one of the many differences between God's consciousness and man's consciousness -- God's is unlimited, but man's is limited.

Ebaines you are poorly mistaken. I make no means to say that things can be precisely measured. I was trying to point out the differing points of view, the physical universe as many scientists see it, and also the spiritual universe as a good number of other people see it. With the machinist point of view, I make no argument saying that we are capable of measuring the universe or calculating its actions.

I simply wish to point out that in the view of science we will find that everything exists as simply cause, action, and reaction. All of which are said to follow certain physical constants. Even if we were able to come up with an all encompassing equation that could predict the universe in its entirety, we would never be able to use it, only approximate it, which on the subatomic level would be horridly distorted in the physical world.

As a demonstration of this, I will use a mathematical metaphor:

Sir, tell me the circumference of a circle whose radius is exactly one, saying that we could measure the radius to an exact extent.

Well then child, you will find the circumference to be equal to two pi.

What exactly then is pi dear sir?

Well... its an immeasurable constant which we can approximate to the billionth billionth decimal point, never reaching conclusion.

We can see here that humans are incapable of understanding anything fully to the infinite extent. There may be natural limits based on smallest particle size, and energy conformity, but even more so, we will never be able to create a computer that will have a complete record of pi, or of any number for that matter. You see, even if we thought we could measure something to an exact amount, we would find that unless we became infinitely precise, then we would never know if there remains a slight variation on some other billionth billionth decimal down the line, changing the outcome of the equation completely.

Hmmm, InfoJunkie, I don't know what you did, but you have copied and pasted part of your post in your post... if you get what I mean.

In reality, actions are not "created," they are performed, and God does not perform our actions, we do. Nor does He "create" our actions. Your thinly-veiled attempt at blaming God for our actions has missed the mark by a very, very wide margin, sadly.

I am not offering a debate about God here. I personally accept Him, however this is irrelevant of this argument. I am trying to show the two most general arguments concerning free will based on the two most common belief generalities. God (In the non-religious traditional sense) and Physics (In the science can answer all sense).

If you take the traditional sense of God, you will find he needs to be all powerful, all knowing, and of all places. I find little reason to provide "proof" that God had created all things if some one can attribute the three above adjectives to God. It is a matter of logic. For a god to be all powerful he has to be in control of all things. This would mean that existence must be a product of his will, if not then he would be subject to its laws and not all powerful. The idea that something could supersede him in any manner would diminish the "all" part of the above adjectives and reduce him to a more than humanly powerful and not all or omni.

I make no attempt to suggest that actions are not preformed. In a manner of physics and none against theology, you can find that actions are a causal result of time as a progression of one act to another. In fourth dimensional geometry, time would play a consequential role in what has happened by our perception. For something to move through time it must also exist in the other three dimensions. We use these four dimension vectors to calculate time difference among the satellites, create the H-Bomb, explain the speed of light, and a number of modern day achievements. This is the origin of E=mc^2.

This is the idea of space-time, being of one thing and not necessarily independent of each other, but rather dependent on one another. When you view space-time as a system, as a single object, you can see how an all powerful god could have created them as a sole object. As mere speculation, this may also explain omnipresence. For God exist outside of time, a fifth dimension if you will, he would also have to be a logical successor in the other four, in the same way a line of one dimension is part of a square of two dimensions.

In this sense, God has created a set of actions. He has put a specific event in a specific place in time to be carried out by one of His creations. I guess one way to look at it visually is like a film strip to an old movie. Each strip is one infinitesimal layer of a specific time in which he created a stationary universe to exist and then not, only to be replaced by the next.

Even if you dislike the prior argument and disagree, you will find that there are only two other logical options. That God created the first stationary universe and nudged it into motion and withdrew from it, leaving it to turn out as it wills; or secondly, the same as the former, however He pops His hand in once and a while to nudge it in the right direction. Either of these conclusions are lacking in free will.

In both you see that God has created a universe, and that He, in His omniscient capacity, has set an unalterable course in which the universe will travel (Physical Note from previous post). He had the ability, in the withdrawn argument, to alter the beginning in such a way that the output would be different from the original. Also having the power and knowledge to do anything He wants, God could have altered the beginning to achieve an infinite number of outputs, resulting any way he desires. Thus the configuration of His choice in the foundations of creation are in direct correlation with what will happen, and could have been altered in anyway he wishes.

This in no way quells some people's desire to blame God if he were to be true, and if not then who cares. The object of chioce is in no way disturbed by any of my previous arguments. Choice may defined as a rational being's ability to have an impact on the execution of a system of actions. This is not free choice, in the sense of uncoerced or happening randomly, but choice nonetheless.

How can I believe two seemingly contradictory thoughts: 1. God has made us like robots, doing exactly what he programmed into the system, and 2. we get to choose what we want to do regardless of the previous?

By the way, I respect you for reading this far, if you have done so already, here goes another attempt at explaining how my mind rationalizes...

There is a way to see this where it makes perfect sense. Lets say we broke existence into 3 orders of being. Supreme, rational, and non-rational. In a series of actions a non-rational object is unable to force an action on any other object, while the rational object is performing an action on another object not completely dependent on any surrounding motion. The supreme object would be the one actually performing the motions that interact between the rational and non-rational object.

For instance, say you punch a window. You are the rational object because you directed the energy from your body required to punch the window. The window is the non-rational object, because it is only capable of reacting to what has happened to it. God is the supreme object because he guides you into your action and also guides the window into its reaction, making it happen.

In this sense, a non-rational object is incapable of doing anything, solely acting on the physical constraints making it do what it needs. It can never do more or less than what is put into it. A rational object is able to exert will on anything non-rational, but never on anything else that is rational. Your body is non-rational, constrained by the physical laws of this world, however you thoughts and decisions are rational (and non-tangible, which is why non-rational objects cannot exercise any control over them). They have the ability to choose how they can interact with your body. God being supreme, makes the channels by which your thoughts operate and choose, and provides the action of the physical laws which constrain non-rational objects. He literally controls the transfer of energy in which both rational and non-rational objects behave, and interact.

In this way we are responsible for our actions over non-rational objects, and any choice we make. God is also responsible over the actions of all things. We can say through the power of God everything happens. We can also say that God answers to none, and thus unable to be judged as to how things happen. In either sense we are liable for our choices.


There is no contradiction of any type between God's omniscience and man's free will. You obviously believe that there is, but you have presented no evidence to support your personal belief in that regard.

God's omniscience is in no opposition of man's ability to make a decision.


The meaning of your phrase, "the author of the outcome is in the hands of God" is unclear due to your poor grammar -- the subject of the phrase is the word "author." The word "author" is modified by the phrase "of the outcome." In order to understand your belief in this regard, I would need to have your poor grammar clarified. Specifically, who do you believe to be"the author of the outcome?" You failed to specify your specific belief in that regard.

I am sorry as to my poor grammar, I was typing on a week of insomnia. I was meaning to say that the outcome is only known by God. I know I basically said that the author is in the hands of God, and the author has no relevance to anything previously said, I am unsure why I wrote it that way myself.


With regards to your second block of beliefs, I have to say that, yes, for God, everything is 100% predictable, but man's potency for prediction is limited, so no, not everything is predictable for man -- there are many, many, many things that no man will ever be able to predict.

100% Agreed. (See my previously most recent post here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/physics/does-random-exist-12733-3.html#post2213883))


Life is certainly not an equation. An equation is a mathematical construct, and has no life within it at all.

I also agree with that. I simply wish to show that in life all things can be explained by mathematical laws and constants (within the physical argument).


Life is a state of being, and it boils down to consciousness: If an entity possesses consciousness, then it possesses life. If it does not possess consciousness, then it does not possess life. Consciousness is not dependent on the body, but is dependent on the soul, and the soul is the only living element within the body, just as sensation is never dependent on a glove, although a hand may still convey sensation even though covered by a glove. A glove may appear similar to a hand, but when the glove is removed from the hand, it has no independent ability for sensation.

Similarly, when the soul leaves the body, there is no independent consciousness in the body -- only the soul possesses consciousness, and so truly only the soul possesses life.

You have no logical or physical proof that can show this to be true, but rather that this is solely of your personal belief. I am willing to discuss this further, just not in this post.


You are absolutely correct when you say that there is no randomness in existence.

Thank you for agreeing, and that is what this all boils down to in respect to the OP's question. No matter of what belief you are, you would have to deny almost every science and religion to deny this.

For a god to be all powerful he has to be in control of all things.

That is incorrect. God is indeed all-powerful, and among His powers is the ability to freely choose to give up control where and when He chooses to do so. If you posit that He does not possess that particular power, then you posit a "god" that is not all-powerful, i.e. you posit someone other than God Himself, and you mistakenly refer to that individual as "God."


This would mean that existence must be a product of his will, if not then he would be subject to its laws and not all powerful.

You have offered no evidence for that personal belief of yours. You are incorrect.


God has created a set of actions.

Again, you have failed to present any evidence for your personal beliefs that God "created" actions, or that actions can ever be "created." As I stated earlier, your belief that actions are "created" is incorrect: Actions are never "created," they are performed.


He has put a specific event in a specific place in time to be carried out by one of His creations. I guess one way to look at it visually is like a film strip to an old movie. Each strip is one infinitesimal layer of a specific time in which he created a stationary universe to exist and then not, only to be replaced by the next.

Sorry, but you made all of that up -- it is nothing but your own personal belief, and you have presented no evidence for any of it.


Even if you dislike the prior argument and disagree, you will find that there are only two other logical options. That God created the first stationary universe and nudged it into motion and withdrew from it, leaving it to turn out as it wills; or secondly, the same as the former, however He pops His hand in once and a while to nudge it in the right direction. Either of these conclusions are lacking in free will.

I understand that your mind is so limited that you are incapable of apprehending any more than the three bizarre, made-up, unscientific, and irrational options that you present above, but that is your shortcoming, not mine, and not God's. In reality, those three scenarios are merely figments of your imagination, and there is no scriptural, logical, or scientific basis for anyone else to suddenly believe in them as you do without any evidence.


This in no way quells some people's desire to blame God if he were to be true, and if not then who cares.

Pretty much only you care, because at this point, you are discussing your own deeply convoluted personal belief system, which sprung forth from your own overly-fertile imagination, with no support of any kind, be it logical, scientific, or scriptural.


God... guides you into your action and also guides the window into its reaction, making it happen.

God guides mankind to love Him and to love one another. God has never guided anyone to break a window, and God has never guided a window to react to anything. Again, you are simply displaying a whole lot of personal beliefs that you made up, without any supporting evidence of any type.


God being supreme, makes the channels by which your thoughts operate and choose, and provides the action of the physical laws which constrain non-rational objects. He literally controls the transfer of energy in which both rational and non-rational objects behave, and interact.

You are positing many personal beliefs bluntly, bizarre notions that you made up yourself, and offering absolutely no evidence of any type for any of them. Do you actually expect anyone to accept them without any evidence?? I suggest you don't hold your breath.


God is also responsible over the actions of all things.

That is flat-out incorrect. You are responsible for your actions, and I am responsible for my actions. In reality, God has no responsibilities at all, and you have failed to establish your personal belief that He could somehow be held responsible for your actions. It remains a strange, unsupported, irrational, illogical, and unscientific fantasy of yours that you think looks good on the screen, but is actually quite incorrect. Nobody but you believes in it, sadly.


I simply wish to show that in life all things can be explained by mathematical laws and constants (within the physical argument).

The problem is that you have failed to show that. In fact, there are many things in life that cannot be explained by mathematical laws and constants. God cannot be explained in that way, the soul cannot be explained in that way, consciousness cannot be explained in that way, a mother's love for her children cannot be explained in that way, and the laws of mathematics themselves cannot be explained in that way. Art appreciation, the rules of logic, and the nuances of consciousness also cannot be explained in terms of mathematical laws and constants. There are many, many more examples, but I'm pressed for time.

Life is a state of being, and it boils down to consciousness: If an entity possesses consciousness, then it possesses life. If it does not possess consciousness, then it does not possess life. Consciousness is not dependent on the body, but is dependent on the soul, and the soul is the only living element within the body, just as sensation is never dependent on a glove, although a hand may still convey sensation even though covered by a glove. A glove may appear similar to a hand, but when the glove is removed from the hand, it has no independent ability for sensation.

Similarly, when the soul leaves the body, there is no independent consciousness in the body -- only the soul possesses consciousness, and so truly only the soul possesses life.


Infojunkie said:

"You have no logical or physical proof that can show this to be true, but rather that this is solely of your personal belief."

That is incorrect. I have no beliefs -- I am stating scientific facts. Your mind is crippled by a plethora of drab and uninteresting personal beliefs, so much so that you naturally attempt to extrapolate your own mental handicap in that regard onto others, but that won't work in my case.

Even though you rely so heavily on your own unsupported personal beliefs that you imagine beliefs to be everywhere outside your imagination as well, that is merely your own personal illusion, the rose-colored glasses that you willfully wear over your consciousness, stifling, coloring, and defiling the transmission of any and all truths that manage to come your way. The "beliefs" that you perceive to be coming from me do not exist. My consciousness holds factual knowledge, and I have given up on the entire concept of "belief Vs. disbelief."

Also, the mere act of adopting my writing style, while I can understand the temptation for an individual such as you, will nonetheless not make you correct. In order to be correct you would have to give up your unsupported, illogical, and made-up irrational belief system, get an education, do some research, and accept the facts as they are -- facts that have ample evidence to back them up, as I have done.

Your use of insults is not necessary. Further I'd like to say, in my own defense, if I stole you're writing style, then I deserve at least some credit for my ability to adapt so quickly.

Now, I have found only small places in any of your arguments saying anything besides "You're wrong, I'm right, you're an idiot...get over it!"

You have failed in providing little more than insults, lacking in a well formed logical proof/argument or any physical cited facts. Even the result which you come up with is not common knowledge nor has it occurred due to a logical succession.

I do give you credit for replying constructively to a few of my thoughts, and to do them justice I will also try to respond accordingly:


That is incorrect. God is indeed all-powerful, and among His powers is the ability to freely choose to give up control where and when He chooses to do so. If you posit that He does not possess that particular power, then you posit a "god" that is not all-powerful, ie, you posit someone other than God Himself, and you mistakenly refer to that individual as "God."

I cannot accept this answer. Many over the years have rationalized free will using this concept, however I propose a paradox. If I propose that God cannot give up any power, then you reply saying "Then you diminish the power of God by placing a limit on it."

I say on the other hand, by giving up power, God diminishes Himself. If there is one area that He were to give up then the meaning of all powerful wouldn't mean the same thing. Does almost all powerful God sound classy to you?

It seems to me that for God to give up control or to not be able to can diminish God's power. We find that either way God has met his end in a paradox. Many philosophers have either accepted this as truth saying "Proof of no god!" or others have formed a more complex complete argument providing something similar to the following:

I may also propose that anything irrational or illogical (Such as can God make a rock so heavy that He can not move it?) is not required to be part of His power. Such a thing cannot exist because it requires diverging truths, which in turn makes the question senseless. To illustrate this, I suggest you read through the following statements:

"Can God make a rock so big that He can not move it?"

"If He can, He provides a means in which to prove He can not do something else."

"If He can not, He provides a means in which He can not do it"

Neither argument proves anything. If you accept that there is a being that is all powerful, then you can reword the question, taking out the subjects saying "Can God do something He can not do?"

The answer is no, which in turn proves that he can do all. It works similar to a double negative. If the question says "Can he do this?" it requires a positive response, but when you throw in the negative aspect of the question, by retaining a negative answer you receive a positive value. Let me show you:

"Can God make a rock so big He can not move it?" = No
"Is God able to do something he can not do?" = No
"Is God not able to do something he can?" = No

Just because you answer no to the question does not degrade his power, but rather provides that the question is an absurd question posing no merit.



I understand that your mind is so limited that you are incapable of apprehending any more than the three bizarre, made-up, unscientific, and irrational options that you present above, but that is your shortcoming, not mine, and not God's. In reality, those three scenarios are merely figments of your imagination, and there is no scriptural, logical, or scientific basis for anyone else to suddenly believe in them as you do without any evidence.

They do provide a logical theory, as they do not have any proof against. If you would like to expand your mind greater than mine, I suggest you pose logical alternatives, and maybe a reason that mine cannot be.



God guides mankind to love Him and to love one another. God has never guided anyone to break a window, and God has never guided a window to react to anything. Again, you are simply displaying a whole lot of personal beliefs that you made up, without any supporting evidence of any type.


I am proposing a logical theory which you seem to find no other answer to besides "You are incorrect." This theory is sprung from my imagination, on the basis I provided previously in the argument. I also proposed alternatives to the argument. The only thing you have constructed here is your elaborate method of insulting others. I wish to question your opposing view here.

If God, guides mankind into loving Him, why then do so many oppose Him? If you're answer is free will, then why would God have to guide any of us to make a choice? Does He pick some and leave others? Does He work on everyone equally and they just are able to resist him differently? Please make sense of this for me.



That is flat-out incorrect. You are responsible for your actions, and I am responsible for my actions. In reality, God has no responsibilities at all, and you have failed to establish your personal belief that He could somehow be held responsible for your actions. It remains a strange, unsupported, irrational, illogical, and unscientific fantasy of yours that you think looks good on the screen, but is actually quite incorrect. Nobody but you believes in it, sadly.

I recall saying that we are responsible for our actions, and also that God answers to none. How then do you disagree? At this point I think you like to throw around words to see to what extent you can anger someone.


The problem is that you have failed to show that. In fact, there are many things in life that cannot be explained by mathematical laws and constants. God cannot be explained in that way, the soul cannot be explained in that way, consciousness cannot be explained in that way, a mother's love for her children cannot be explained in that way, and the laws of mathematics themselves cannot be explained in that way. Art appreciation, the rules of logic, and the nuances of consciousness also cannot be explained in terms of mathematical laws and constants. There are many, many more examples, but I'm pressed for time.

I agree. Once again, I point out that I am discussing many possibilities of many view points. I was hoping (in my first post) to construct a way of showing, based on popular theories that randomness cannot occur. However that has been established, this current run is far more interesting.

Further more, it what way can you say that math cannot demonstrate those principles. In respect to math, some of those things you demonstrated don't have to exist. Emotions could be simply chemical concentrations within the brain which induce a euphoria of brain activity in specific receptor neurons. Art appreciation: a combination of emotional and physical environmental variables playing roles within a specifically aligned set of neurons which input sensory and output action. All of the things you provide above could be more complex that currently understood and requiring further study.

At one point in history people were under threat of death for believing the earth navigated around the sun instead of the opposite. You may say that popular opinion was wrong, you may say that the apparent isn't always so etc... but you cannot deny that there is always more to learn and always something unknown being brought to light.

I read half of your first paragraph, and other than informing you that I did not say any of what you claimed I said, I am completely finished with you.

I refuse to read any further from an individual as ignorant as you.

This conversation is now over.

Well, that went well. I see I made a new friend. I hope I didn't adulterate his feelings about this forum, it is truly a nice place.

Purushadasa: Welcome to AMHD.

This conversation is now over.

Hallelujah! Now maybe we can talk about PHYSICS in this forum once again.

Hallelujah! Now maybe we can talk about PHYSICS in this forum once again.

Sorry to play into that...

We are already discussing physics.

Not quite... you're 'overflowing' into religion. If you really want to discuss these things, that is concenrning religion, I'm not against it, but there is a specific forum for that, called religious discussions.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/

Actually, you are the only one directing this discussion towards religion. Before you came along, it was about physics.

What did I do?

First, you revived that thread, being several years old.

Then, InfoJunkie mentioned two things that he thought was logical and from then on, you (both I should say) started to argue about religion. I didn't read the posts, because they were starting to go off-topic. I only pointed out a more appropriate area to have such discussions.

I don't care how old the thread is -- someone else started talking about physics and the myth of "randomness," and I replied. Are you upset that I didn't check the date? Is there some rule that says nobody can reply after a certain amount of time? If so, then why did the site allow me to reply after the expiration?

I was discussing physics the whole time, and I did not even use the word "religion" until the physics conversation had ended, and you stepped in and began a discussion about religion (the one we're having now).

In four pages of discussion (a discussion of which you were not a participant), the word religion was only used once, by infojunkie, not me, and only in brief passing. In those pages, I never even mentioned the word religion, not even in response to infojunkie's brief use of the word.

Then you butted in and focused on the subject of religion exclusively, while hypocritically and falsely criticizing others for supposedly discussing the very subject you were discussing yourself, even though the others were not discussing religion at all until you rudely butted in.

I see -- you state above that you actually didn't read the posts -- that explains your ignorance of their content.

Since you didn't read the posts, I will inform you of their content so that you won't have to rely on your mistaken imagination anymore -- we were discussing physics.

This is the most appropriate area to discuss physics. You are the one who is attempting to derail the topic onto religion, not me. If you want to discuss religion so badly, then you need to go to that forum you mentioned. As for me, since I didn't even mention religion until you brought it up, I will remain here and continue discussing physics, as I have been doing all along.

The problem is you -- you butted in and rudely inserted the word religion into our conversation independently, and yet you imagine that you can order other people who were discussing physics the whole time to leave because you say so? What kind of a princess do you think you are? The fault lies with you, not with your newly-chosen environment.

In other words, it's time for you to cover your feet with slippers of silence rather than attempting to cover the world with a carpet of hypocrisy.

To divert away from religion and back to physics, let me suggest that randomness does exist, along with a well-respected line of argument for its existence that should allow for a civil -- and constructive -- discussion of the topic. First, what is "randomness?" We now know that a deterministic process can be unpredictable, so simply saying a process is random if it is not deterministic is not a good approach. Thus, in conjunction with the Quantum Theorists, we should probably restrict our discussion to the possible existence of objective randomness -- e.g. whether wave function collapse or spontaneous "separation" of wave functions is fully explained by non-local causality such as entanglement.

In this arena, we can turn to a well-established theorem, which is that for any probability measure, there must exist sets that are non-measurable. I suggest (as have many others --this isn't my idea) that the existence of non-measurable sets implies the necessity of objective randomness in any theory, much along the same lines as the Banach-Tarski paradox. Given any wave function, a probability can be assigned to the event of being outside a sphere, and if that sphere is large enough, the probability assigned to the interior of the sphere is greater than 0.5. Now divide --using measure preserving cuts -- that sphere into 2 identical, disjoint spheres with identical probabilities and notice that the probability of being in their union exceeds 1.

This is impossible, and so we must arrive at one of only a handful of conclusions. First, that some divine hand insures that the only sets that occur in nature are those that we can measure. Second, that set theory -- and thus all of mathematics itself -- is insufficient in the description of the universe. Or third -- and the one I prefer -- that the wave function fluctuates randomly during any process, mathematically or otherwise, and thus by the time any program is carried out the original supposition is no longer valid.

To divert away from religion and back to physics, let me suggest that randomness does exist, along with a well-respected line of argument for its existence that should allow for a civil -- and constructive -- discussion of the topic. First, what is "randomness?" We now know that a deterministic process can be unpredictable, so simply saying a process is random if it is not deterministic is not a good approach. Thus, in conjunction with the Quantum Theorists, we should probably restrict our discussion to the possible existence of objective randomness -- e.g., whether or not wave function collapse or spontaneous "separation" of wave functions is fully explained by non-local causality such as entanglement.

In this arena, we can turn to a well-established theorem, which is that for any probability measure, there must exist sets that are non-measurable. I suggest (as have many others --this isn't my idea) that the existence of non-measurable sets implies the necessity of objective randomness in any theory, much along the same lines as the Banach-Tarski paradox. Given any wave function, a probability can be assigned to the event of being outside a sphere, and if that sphere is large enough, the probability assigned to the interior of the sphere is greater than 0.5. Now divide --using measure preserving cuts -- that sphere into 2 identical, disjoint spheres with identical probabilities and notice that the probability of being in their union exceeds 1.

This is impossible, and so we must arrive at one of only a handful of conclusions. First, that some divine hand insures that the only sets that occur in nature are those that we can measure. Second, that set theory -- and thus all of mathematics itself -- is insufficient in the description of the universe. Or third -- and the one I prefer -- that the wave function fluctuates randomly during any process, mathematically or otherwise, and thus by the time any program is carried out the original supposition is no longer valid.

Hi AppMathDoc,

I have a few questions.

Is your first possible conclusion and extension of ,'sufficient reason' first put forward by Leibnitz. That is, everything happens for a definite reason unless there is sufficient reason to say otherwise. Applied to your first conclusion, does this suggest that the double-slit experiment light source can take an infinite number of paths? There is no sufficient reason to believe that this is not possible. I think Leibnitz would argue that a divine hand ensures that all we are aware of is what can be regarded as the pre established harmony.

Leibnitz started the ball rolling in relation to identity with 'The Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles'. Does the Banach-Tarski paradox show that his principle is is true or false?

Max Black argued that the Leibnitz principle is false because in a symmetrical universe which contains two distinct non-identical objects( equidistant from the universes line of symmetry) in such a universe where there is no reference to any other external objects it becomes impossible to distinguish between the two objects. (sorry about the last sentence)


Regards


Tut

No matter how you look at it randomness doesn't make sense.

Say you could control every parameter in a given experiment, and you understood the object in question such that you could know how it is supposed to behave, you could never say it has randomness. If you do you leave two things in question, first that you cannot know the behavior of the object in question if it behaves randomly, thus you cannot say there is a known model in which it should follow, and second if it were truly random, then it would seem to follow no scientific law, thus the very constants which you control around it are in question. This would leave us to say that either randomness cannot exist, and all things seemingly random, are just poorly understood, or that randomness exists only within certain situations (which we may be able to predict). You cannot say that nothing behaves by physical constants anymore.

Both the double slit experiment and the issues of wave collapse may show that Laplace was wrong in assuming that all things are predictable by velocity and position. We can say that our understanding of this science is very limited. In all of my reading I have seldom seen where any one person has tried to take many factual observances of science and put them into a theory that explains them all. Generally speaking they will accept one or two and then discredit the others, and say they are faulty because (your reason here).

Einstein showed us how fourth vector geometry can explain the relationship between speed, time, energy, and mass. Hawking suggested that directional time is relative to the viewer. We have seen how small particles demonstrate wave-particle duality. Einstein suggested an ether substance. Volta was able to comprehend electrochemical relationships. Biot, Oersted, and Ampère were able to show us how electromagnetism and electrodynamics work.

The works of Gauss, Columb, Bruster, Fresnes, Ohm, Faraday, and so many others' work seem to have this deep connection. All were invented by an understanding of how a specific confined space behaves in relation to others. Energy of any kind can be defined as an "observance" of a disruption in matter, but we find matter to be glorified energy. To say that something doesn't add up, and thus all the laws of nature are false, doesn't add up. Maybe we need to dig deeper before saying any one situation can prove randomness.

No matter how you look at it randomness doesn't make sense.

Hi Info,

David Bohm would agree with you.

I recommend, 'The Holographic Universe' by Michael Talbot.

It is one of the best attempts at putting Bohm's ideas together I have read. It is impossible to say what is in the book in a few lines, but basically Bohm distinguishes between the implicate and explicate order. Bohm would say that randomness appears as a fact of physics because physics tends to look at the explicate order.

Bohm suggests that we are better off looking at the implicate order of things in order to gain a wholistic perspective. Such things as quantum entanglement and Bell's inequality need to be considered with Bohm.


Regards

Tut

I think the focus has to be on objective randomness -- that is randomness that (possibly) exists independent of our ability to describe it as random. Physicists in the 60's and 70's thought they had "done away" with hidden-variable determinism, thus implying that randomness must exist. However, all they had really done was to eliminate the possibility of local determinism. Quantum entanglement and the holographic principle imply that all local observations include "un-ignorable" global effects. This would be like saying that projectile motion near the earth's surface must include the effects of the Sun, the Moon, and Jupiter, regardless of scale.

It also introduces the possibility that what we might identify as "randomness" might simply be the effect of "the film running at an accelerated rate," because we not only must consider the spatial effects of the holographic principle, but also the temporal, in which motion on "one side" of the universe might look on that side to take only a few seconds, but on the "other side" would seem as if it spanned centuries. That is, if you have a version of Citizen Kane that runs at 24 frames per second that you instead ran at 2400 frames per second, then your audience might think it is "random" rather than "classic."

Thus, arguing for the existence of randomness requires consideration of global scales -- such as spheres of arbitrary size. Also, w.r.t. the "symmetry" argument of Max Black, have you read Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" in which he considers a similar problem -- that of the spinning of Newton's bucket.

Hello AppMathsDoc,

I think I know what you are getting at. First things first.

No I haven't read that book but I have read,'The Elegant Universe' by the same author.

I have heard of Newton's bucket because it was one of many disputes between Newton and Leibniz. Newton thought the bucket experiment went a long way in proving absolute space. Thinking along the same lines Newton imagined what would happen if two heavy weights were tied to each end of a rope and sent into space away from any influence of gravity.
The answer is nothing unless the weights rotate around each other.
Once this happens then Newton thought that rotation makes sense if we reference it in relation to the background of empty space. Leibniz did not agree and though that absolute space was nonsense. Unfortunately Leibniz could no devise a though experiment or otherwise to disprove Newton's idea.

Mach and Einstein put an end to the idea of absolute space.

Well as it turns out Einstein probably produced more unanswered question than we would like to think. Quantum theory does provide for the possibility of absolute space once again.

From my reading of,'The Elegant Universe' it seems as though space is not as empty as we would like to think. The following is not Green's ideas.

Kant distinguished between things-in-themselves and things-for- us.
For Kant there are two realities, however we only get to see one (things-for-us). With a little imagination we could imagine that things-in-themselves is a wave function. Things-in-themselves are only potential possibilities. Things-for-us is what we might call conscious awareness or a collapse of the wave function due to observation.

Kant might turn over in his grave at this interpretation.

Simple answer, no argument asserting, for certain, the existence of randomness is sustainable. Let's say you observe apparently unpredictable behavior such as quantum-level behaviour. You either investigate it further as to why, or you don't.

A small note about Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle" in case anybody is confused about what it is. It is actually a blindingly obvious statement about the apparent unpredictability in the behaviour, and nothing more, because, as Heisenberg himself admitted, it's about CURRENT TRAJECTORY (i.e. the momentum from now on), which we never measure anyway, we measure RECENT MOMENTUM, which the uncertainty principe does not apply to, so it's a completely useless principle. Quote from Heisenberg, "the uncertainty relation does not hold for the past". So I envision all those people who thought the "uncertainty principle" had any other relevant non-obvious meaning, as simply having egg on their faces.

Purushadasa

I endorse the concept of determinism as well.
However I fail to see a reason for someone to believe in consciousness and free will , given that random doesn't exist.

Given that there is absolutely no proof on the existence of any random phenomenon or lack of disproof that a definite pattern governs our lives , one can derive that every action can be analyzed to a countable number of variables.This includes "choice", which is the result of behavioral patterns , which in turn rely on your DNA and upbringing , ultimately tracing back to big bang. If we can know the values for every variable at any given time ( I hope the community can excuse my variable analogy) then the outcome is predictable in its entirety- semi-quoting you-thus choice is fictional.

What we consider consciousness is the collection of electrical signals. Our brain , overdeveloped as it is in the animal kingdom , allowed these collectives of signals to amass and create insticts and ultimately "consciousness".There is no such thing as life in its strict sense, it's just a term that we find convenient to give to similar atom structures.

By applying the cliché biology->chemistry->physics->math procedure we conclude that all our behavioral patterns from our so believed whimsical decision to well-thought plans can be provoked ,given the right environmental factors.

The casuality inside and outside our head , which don't really differ , denies the existence of free will as our "choices" are expected outcomes within expected circumstances. The fact that we are disputing randomness on this board can be predicted given the right tools and variables by an external observer since big bang.

Many people claim that Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty allows us rest assured since we do have choice, however this is just a barrier imposed by the inadequacy of our mathematical conception of the world , which by no means holds the essence in itself.

Hope I nailed the terminology :)

Purushadasa

I endorse the concept of determinism as well.
However I fail to see a reason for someone to believe in consciousness and free will , given that random doesn't exist.

Given that there is absolutely no proof on the existence of any random phenomenon or lack of disproof that a definite pattern governs our lives , one can derive that every action can be analyzed to a countable number of variables.This includes "choice", which is the result of behavioral patterns , which in turn rely on your DNA and upbringing , ultimately tracing back to big bang. If we can know the values for every variable at any given time ( I hope the community can excuse my variable analogy) then the outcome is predictable in its entirety- semi-quoting you-thus choice is fictional.

Hi Apparition,


Yes, I agree this is the logical outcome of hard determinism.


You also say:

What we consider consciousness is the collection of electrical signals. Our brain , overdeveloped as it is in the animal kingdom , allowed these collectives of signals to amass and create insticts and ultimately "consciousness".There is no such thing as life in its strict sense, it's just a term that we find convenient to give to similar atom structures.

By applying the cliché biology->chemistry->physics->math procedure we conclude that all our behavioral patterns from our so believed whimsical decision to well-thought plans can be provoked ,given the right environmental factors.

The casuality inside and outside our head , which don't really differ , denies the existence of free will as our "choices" are expected outcomes within expected circumstances. The fact that we are disputing randomness on this board can be predicted given the right tools and variables by an external observer since big bang.

Many people claim that Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty allows us rest assured since we do have choice, however this is just a barrier imposed by the inadequacy of our mathematical conception of the world , which by no means holds the essence in itself.

Hope I nailed the terminology :)[/QUOTE]



I take it from this that you are a determinist and a physicalist ( one tends to complement the other). That is, you reject such things as qualia and phenomenological consciousness.

If this is the case then I would find it interesting because we don't seem to get many determinists here.


Regards

Tut

I definitely fall into that category. Since, however, there are few around, the conversation seldom arises.

Greetings Tut and InfoJunkie

You were right, I accept determinism and physicalism in their strictest forms as they are the most logical outcomes within our understanding of how the universe works. It is rather hard to accept your "existence" (if you would allow the controversy) is nothing more than a collection of atom structures able to identify itself , thus creating the illusion of consciousness.The difficulty lies in the defence mechanisms developed by the concept loosely described as "theres got to be something more to such complex beings".

There is casuality in our history but not randomness.

However I do happen to accept some aspects of qualia , such as the difference in the magnitude of phenomena, except for this is caused by structural differences and not conscious-related ones.

Best regards to fellow determinists.

Greetings Tut and InfoJunkie

You were right, I accept determinism and physicalism in their strictest forms as they are the most logical outcomes within our understanding of how the universe works. It is rather hard to accept your "existence" (if you would allow the controversy) is nothing more than a collection of atom structures able to identify itself , thus creating the illusion of consciousness.The difficulty lies in the defence mechanisms developed by the concept loosely described as "theres got to be something more to such complex beings".

There is casuality in our history but not randomness.

However I do happen to accept some aspects of qualia , such as the difference in the magnitude of phenomena, except for this is caused by structural differences and not conscious-related ones.

Best regards to fellow determinists.


Hello Apparition,

To be honest I am in two minds about what you are saying. In a type of irony I guess my two minds suggests that I lean towards dualism.

David Chalmers in 'The Conscious Minds' identifies what he terms, 'the hard problem' of consciousness. Chalmers says that if any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness it is this one. I can remember this problem almost word for word because I have just recently read it.

It goes something like this:

If there is something it is like to be that organism and a mental state is conscious only if there is something it is like to be that state. Sometimes such terms as, 'phenomenological consciousness' and 'qualia' are used."

Chalmers goes on to ask himself, "Why doesn't all this information processing go on 'in the dark' free of what might be termed 'what it is like' experiences?"

If such processing does go on 'in the dark' then I would say that physicalism is true. However, experience does seem to have a 'what it is like' character about it.

Regards

Tut

If the universe was random we would see an even distribution of matter, instead we see clumps of matter. Take the accretion of planets as an example. Two particles combine and that increases the chances that another particle will join them. This only increases as the gravity increases. So called "free will" is based on a set of pre-existing configurations of matter. A coin flip seem random but in a truly random universe the coin would not only land on either heads or tails but would also occasionally burst into flames.
I no longer buy into the concept of Schroedinger's Cat. What makes us think that an event is not defined just because we do not observe it, all we know is that we are unaware of it's state.
The particles in the double slit experiment do not pass through the slits randomly, each one passes through a particular slit because it was unable to pass through the other one.

I would like to a thought. To a being which is omnipotent (capable of all things), omniscient (knowing all things) and omni present, nothing would be random. However, people possess none of these qualities which would allow us to predict every event with 100% certainty. So to answer the question, absolute randomness does not exist to anyone having absolute knowledge.