-->
@secularmerlin
But what's wrong with the idea that perfect knowledge of the present necessarily means perfect predictive power?
Free Will
Posts
Total:
116
-->
@Sum1hugme
I don't know what you mean by wrong. I have made no claim that this is or is not actually the case only that it is incompatible with the idea of freewill.
-->
@secularmerlin
Yeah I'm not trying to say it isn't incompatible. I'm just wondering if it isn't wrong, and everything that happens is the inevitable product of something before in an unbroken chain of events going back to the big bang, then where do we go from there? Determinism defeats the foundation of experimental science, which is the frontier of knowledge.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Determinism defeats the foundation of experimental science, which is the frontier of knowledge.
Actually just the opposite. Experimental science (otherwise known as just science) depends on a bedrock of cause and effect to have any predictive power. Without (some) determinism there is no science.
-->
@secularmerlin
But in contrast, experimental science must assume that the experimenter is free to conduct an experiment of their choosing.
-->
@Sum1hugme
I am leery of using the words "free" and "choose". I think it might be far more accurate to say they may determine which experiments would be most efficacious without external constraints and that of course is not true as there are generally at least legal and ethical constraints on what experiments are permissible.
-->
@secularmerlin
Well that's a verbose way of saying they choose the experiments they want to conduct. Ethics committees aside, we seem to agree that foundationally, en experimenter assumes they are choosing the experiment. Determinism, if true, defeats this assumption
-->
@Sum1hugme
we seem to agree that foundationally, en experimenter assumes they are choosing the experiment.
I have just finished explaining exhaustively that I do not make any such assumptions. Determining which actions will be most effective in accomplishing one's goals (in this case conducting any given experiment with the goal of falsifying ones hypothesis) does not require choice only an understanding of probable outcomes.
-->
@Sum1hugme
See, There’s No Such Thing As Free Will by Stephen Cave of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science.
-->
@secularmerlin
Performing an experiment doesn't assume the decision to perform that experiment? How is that?
-->
@Sum1hugme
Determinism does not allow for choice unless youbare defining the word differently than I. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that this "choice" is not predicated on determinism or random occurrences then there is no reason to think that it is in fact a choice.
-->
@secularmerlin
Yeah exactly, so that's why determinism, if true, hurts the foundation of experimental science. Because it's not a choice to do the experiment and the results are determined.
-->
@Sum1hugme
It does not in fact. Whether a scientist "chooses" to run an experiment or they are compelled to by a natural progression of cause and effect does not change the outcome of said experiment or the data we collect from the application of the scientific method.
Our freewill or lack thereof is immaterial to the findings of science.
-->
@secularmerlin
Ah, I understand now. Thank you.
-->
@3RU7AL
@Sum1hugme
(IFF) probability (randomness) is fundamental (THEN) it (randomness) is not a "CHOICE"AND,(IFF) probability is NOT fundamental (THEN) all interactions are inevitable (also not a "CHOICE")So, the outcome is the same, EITHER WAY you slice it (TAUTOLOGY).
3RU7AL, your logic is flawed at the outset by claiming probability is randomness. Not at all. Probability is descriptive of our knowledge about a future event whose results will be reported in the future, but the knowledge now is expressed as a percentile of accuracy [probability], typically 95%, allowing for a plus/minus margin of error, also expressed as a percentile; the lower, the better. Randomness is entirely different, reflecting the nature of random state changes that cannot be predicted with any degree of probability. Therefore, probability and randomness are not only not the same; they are virtually polar opposites.
Therefore if [but not also only if] probability is fundamental, it can reflect choice.
And if probability is not fundamental, that is, if determinism is fundamental, there is no choice.
The outcome is, therefore, potentially different.
As a result, the answer to the question, "is probability just an expression of man's ignorance?" is: No. Probability, being a functional characteristic of knowledge, clearly demonstrates that it is not ignorance, because probability has the potential to be 95% accurate in the prediction of a future outcome.
-->
@Sum1hugme
My above post is mostly a refutation of 3RU7AL's #7. Further, free will is possible to be a factor of accurate probability because, even though we have free will, we are offered to ability to use it to its logical limits, unfettered, and yet, because God knows us so well, His ability to apply probability to how we will use our free will, He knows what we will do in a given situation even if we do not. Sometimes, we can guess what me might do in a given situation, and we may be mostly right, but not always. God, however, always knows what we will do. So, in the context that I believe we are here on Earth to be tested to see if we will keep God's commandments, He already knows. That we do not is the whole point. It is ours to learn what our probable outcome will be, then learn to adjust our free will to choose wisely more and more often than not.
So, while we may observe that God's approach is determinism, He is not living our lives for us, and therefore will let us determine our destinies by our choice by free will.
-->
@3RU7AL
I've just figured out why your "logic" is so easy to unravel:
One of the fundamental problems I've identified is that most people tend to conflate the terms "real" and "important", when, in-fact, they are mutually exclusive.
And then you say:
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
First, you claim importance and reality are mutually exclusive, then claim that one importance is that we'er aware of epistemological limits. Since importance, in your logic, is not real, nor are epistemological limits. In fact, though you are self-conflicted by your own statements, it is true that we have no limits to our ability to acquire infinite knowledge, other than by our own applied limitations. Argue for your own limits; they're yours.
-->
@secularmerlin
Our freewill or lack thereof is immaterial to the findings of science.
Well stated.
-->
@fauxlaw
Therefore if [but not also only if] probability is fundamental, it can reflect choice.
Please explain how "fundamental probability" is compatible with "choice"?
For example, if you can determine that a person has a 5% chance of developing cancer over their lifetime, does that make cancer a "choice"?
Or if a meteorologist determines there is a 95% chance of rain tomorrow, does that make rain a "choice"?
A "probabilistic" universe is an indeterministic universe.
And indeterminism is simply a combination of predictable and unpredictable data.
UNPREDICTABLE is incompatible with WILL.
PREDICTABLE is incompatible with FREE.
Therefore no "FREE" and no "WILL".
-->
@fauxlaw
Therefore, probability and randomness are not only not the same; they are virtually polar opposites.
Please provide an example of what you personally consider the best possible example of something "truly random".
-->
@fauxlaw
Probability, being a functional characteristic of knowledge,
There are a great many things that are predictable with more than 95% accuracy.
-->
@fauxlaw
He [GOD($)] knows what we will do in a given situation even if we do not.
I'm guessing you're a Calvinist?
-->
@fauxlaw
I've just figured out why your "logic" is so easy to unravel:
I appreciate your scathing critique.
One of the fundamental problems I've identified is that most people tend to conflate the terms "real" and "important", when, in-fact, they are mutually exclusive.
FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary QUANTA (emotionally meaningless).
OPINIONS must be personal, experiential, unfalsifiable, GNOSIS, private QUALIA (emotionally meaningful).
And then you say:It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
IMPORTANT = OPINION
IMPORTANT =/= FACT
First, you claim importance and reality are mutually exclusive,
More specifically REAL-TRUE-FACTS are necessarily emotionally meaningless.
...then claim that one importance is that we'er aware of epistemological limits.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Since importance, in your logic, is not real, nor are epistemological limits.
I'm sure we can both agree that "importance" is an abstract concept and NOT a concrete noun.
I'm sure we can both agree that "epistemological limits" is an abstract concept and NOT a concrete noun.
In fact, though you are self-conflicted by your own statements, it is true that we have no limits to our ability to acquire infinite knowledge, other than by our own applied limitations. Argue for your own limits; they're yours.
WTF.
-->
@3RU7AL
95% accuracy is a minimum. The expectation of six sigma is 99.7%.
A Calvinist? No. I am far from a belief of predestination. That belief ignores free agency, which is at the core of my beliefs. I determine my destiny. I am the captain of my ship. God serves a role as navigator, but mine is the responsibility of the helm. While I believe God knows all things, including my heart, and whether or not I will abide by His commands, He still allows my agency to choose whether I will be obedient, or not, but He does nothing to force my hand. It is all my choice, and my mistakes to make, and my work to do. Salvation is not the goal; exaltation is. I am LDS.
-->
@fauxlaw
While I believe God knows all things, including my heart, and whether or not I will abide by His commands, He still allows my agency to choose whether I will be obedient, or not, but He does nothing to force my hand.
OMNISCIENCE + OMNIPOTENCE = 100% CONTROL
-->
@3RU7AL
No, omnipotence and omniscience also allows for restraint. Simple rule: just because you can does not mean you will. Applies to gods, as well. It's called free agency. Why would God give it to us, and not use it? No reason. Look, how successful is a parent who does everything for a child? That's not parenting, that's jealousy.
-->
@fauxlaw
No, omnipotence and omniscience also allows for restraint.
Where's the counter-balance? When GOD($) goes on "vacation" who takes over? Wouldn't the entire world simply freeze?
GOD($) controls every breeze, every snowflake, every chirp of every bird.
GOD($) has a 100% monopoly on power and creativity.
You might argue that GOD($) "gives" us some of that power.
But GOD($) knows what we'll do with that power BEFORE GOD($) ever gave it to us.
How is that any different than programing a robot?
Can an engineer "give" a "robot" creativity?
Can a "self-driving" car have "free-will"?
If you knew that giving a child a certain toy would lead to them choking themselves, if you knew that, with your omniscience, if you knew that would happen, but you gave them that toy anyway, WOULD THAT MAKE YOU A MURDERER?
-->
@3RU7AL
You have ENTIRELY missed my point. Adding ciphers to God neither enhances not diminishes his existence. If you carefully observe the dialogue between Adam, Eve, and God in the Garden, you will understand that dominion of the earth was given to Adam and Eve, and their posterity - us - to use wisely and effectively, or not. You ignore my commentary: just because you can does not mean you will. That is God's mantra. That is free agency. We are not driven to a predestined conclusion; it is by our choice we walk the road, or sit beside it watching the parade, or, in fact, turn around and re-seek the Garden, as if, once leaving it, it was always our intention to return to that innocent ignorance. We aere attracted to it because we have no idea of the glory that is ahead, but it will not be achieved by sitting on the gutter, watching the parade.
-->
@fauxlaw
...just because you can does not mean you will. That is God's mantra.
#1, where is this "mantra" in the bible?
#2, you're ignoring GOD($) OMNISCIENCE.
#3, just because a child can choke themselves to death (on the toy you provided) doesn't mean they will (does this "doubt" immunize you from murder and or criminal negligence charges)?
For example, do you, personally believe GOD($) knows I'm "going to hell"?
Do you, personally, believe GOD($) knew I was going to "go to hell" before I was born?
Do you, personally, believe GOD($) knew I was going to "go to hell" before Adam was created?
-->
@fauxlaw
If you carefully observe the dialogue between Lucy (Australopithecus) and God in the Garden, you will understand that dominion of the earth was given to her and her posterity - us - to use wisely and effectively, or not.