Blue moon, and the failure of determinism

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 196
Topic's author
#1
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
I've been away in back, high country in the Rockies for a week; me and nature, where, in the cold nights, I spent hours in thinking, watching the splendor overhead you just cannot see in any city of modern convenience. Part of that splendor was a fully waxing moon. It got me thinking about the phenomenon of the blue moon.

Those who argue for our lack of free will, that our own thoughts and actions are pre-determined by the universe have not met this argument. There are some, who, in an effort to hang onto the belief that there is a God directing the affairs of the universe, call that determinism as God’s purview. But these same divine apologists cannot define that God, nor how he acts, other than that he is "omnipotent." But that claim is also fraught with an interrupt, because they will also claim that God cannot create imperfect things, or he would not be omnipotent. That is an obvious oxymoron, because we are far from perfect. Then, some of these apologists conclude, there is no God. It is the only answer left, having already accepted a perfectly operating universe, having created itself, without necessity of God. 
All because of omnipotence. Therefore, determinism. Then, in that argument, determinism is, itself, perfect.
Nope. My evidence: the phenomenon of the blue moon:
A blue moon is the event of an extra, fourth full moon in any given three-month quarter. Some erroneously infer that this means there is a regular occasion of blue moons. No, they occur irregularly, once ever 2+ years, and that is primarily because of how man reckons time, which is also viewed generally as perfect, but is not. The Gregorian Calendar, by which we all reckon time today, is randomly irregular with both 30- and 31-day months, plus a month, February, of only 28 days in three of every four years. In the fourth year, 29. Random enough for you, when, as I argued in a debate y’all [one of y’all, in fact], rendered against me, the universe is, itself random, and not perfect, at least, not be how we reckon time's passing, whether you're talking A-theory, B-theory, or X,Y,Z-theory.
Did I not argue that Genesis describes how our sun, moon, and local stars are for our use in reckoning seasons and years? The moon’s orbit around our planet is a regular 27.322-day period, and Earth's orbit of 365.256 days around the sun. But we did not reckon our calendar that way, did we? No.We like rounding, but time is not properly reckoned by rounding. 
So why did the universe force our reckoning against it’s own movements to invent an elaborately random calendar, when the simplicity of what is going on out there is evident? We are the imperfection, and it is the universe's fault?
Because it was our free will to do so, without a hint of objection from the universe, of which we are allegedly part and parcel, if God did not create us. He created us to figure these things out, using our free agency to do so. So, we choose to be inexact. Someday, we shall have to account for our stewardship of estimations when we could consider at least significant decimals. Live with it. We don't know our own potential to be gods, one day, so, I don't doubt y'all are convinced you have no say in your lives. Lazy is what that is.


#2
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Full moons happen every twenty eight days. They are predictable. That our callender is not always in keeping with that twenty eight day cycle does not in any way contraband determinism. You are grasping at straws. I understand. I too would like to believe in free will but it is logically incoherent. Tje universe we observe doesn't have room for free will. 
Topic's author
#3
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Tje universe we observe doesn't have room for free will. 
Reply:

You are grasping at straws.
27.322 days, Come on, can't be exact? 
Since you argue that God cannot create imperfect things, how do you explain at least you? And the rest of us, as well, but then, the rest of us don't really exist in a solipsist universe, so, go ahead and argue for your unique loss of self control. You said it, not me.
#4
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
I don't believe in any god(s) any more than I believe in free will.
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@949havoc
A fully waxing moon. It got me thinking.
Determinism me thinks.
#6
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
A fully waxing moon. It got me thinking.
Determinism me thinks.
Well stated
#7
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@949havoc
Your claim is fuzzy.  Can you highlight your thesis statement or better yet, restate by syllogism?
Topic's author
#8
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@oromagi
I find most syllogisms offered on tis site to be not. So, why bother.
I'd like to know how an non-living force [the universe] can direct the thoughts and actions of any living organism, let alone a sentient organism.
#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@949havoc
I'd like to know.
Easy Peasy.


For an example, see #5.

The Moon got me thinking.

Your words, not mine.
#10
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@949havoc
I'd like to know how an non-living force [the universe] can direct the thoughts and actions of any living organism, let alone a sentient organism.
BIOLOGY + EXPERIENCE = BEHAVIOR
#11
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@949havoc
I'd like to know how an non-living force [the universe] can direct the thoughts and actions of any living organism, let alone a sentient organism.
  • I'm no determinist but
  • I don't think that's an honest assessment of the determinist claim.
    • DETERMINSIM  is the philosophical view that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes.
      • There's no claim of thought control
        • Rather, determinists seem to claim that most or all choices made by living are pre-programmed effects caused by prior conditions
          • In theory, if we had enough information about an individual chooser's genetics, biological needs, environment, education, etc we could accurately predict that chooser's choice every time.
      • Determinists are not claiming that the universe can direct thoughts and actions so let's call this question an attempt to straw man the larger question
  • I still haven't figured what blue moons had to do with it


#12
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,109
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@949havoc

Like Spinoza, Einstein was a strict determinist who believed that human behavior was completely determined by causal laws.
#13
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,109
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Many scientists say that the American physiologist Benjamin Libet demonstrated in the 1980s that we have no free will. It was already known that electrical activity builds up in a person’s brain before she, for example, moves her hand; Libet showed that this buildup occurs before the person consciously makes a decision to move. The conscious experience of deciding to act, which we usually associate with free will, appears to be an add-on, a post hoc reconstruction of events that occurs after the brain has already set the act in motion.
#14
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
“I'd like to know how an non-living force [the universe] can direct the thoughts and actions of any living organism, let alone a sentient organism.”

  • your brain is made up of neurones. 
  • These neurones are physical thing that operate electrochemically, via reproducible behaviours.
  • When light falls on your eyes, the photons excite atoms in your retina. This is governed by electrochemistry.
  • This generates an electrical signal that travels along your optic nerve. (Electrochemistry)
  • The electrical signal in the optic nerve triggers varying amounts of neurotransmitter chemicals at the synapse, which triggers the next neurone. This is governed by physics governing the interaction of chemicals.
  • A cascade of neurones trigger; the nature and intensity of this triggering based upon  how strongly bound each neurone is to the next, for which electrochemical rules produce stronger or weaker responses as a result.
  • The neuronal cascade eventually triggers motor neurones, which deliver an electrical pulse to muscle cells, which move in particular ways based on the deliver a pulse. 

In this description - you have seen something, “thought” about it, “made a decision”, and acted upon that decision; and at no point is there any point where “you” make a decision.

Indeed, making a decision, thought, etc, may simply be how our brains interpret these deterministic processes.


Topic's author
#15
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@oromagi
highlight your thesis statement
Which one? I make several. The exemplary statement is that we do a poor job of calendaring, beginning with that we use today; the Gregorian. Pope Gregory, for whom our calendar is named, had painfully poor science advisors who, having the model to apply to a proper calendar; i.e., the Genesis account of creation, which said in Gen 1: 14 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"
So, instead of following that simple model, the earth and moon and sun, to determine our days and months, and years, we are given:

1. a day is 24 hours' duration,
2. A month is 31, or 28, or 30 days' duration, except that every four years, the month of 28 days is 29,
3 A year is, therefore 365 days duration, except every four years, it is 366 days,

And that is exact science, as determined by the universe? And it is to be depended on to manage our signs and seasons, and days, months, and years???? Forgive my skeptical laugh.

When the model we were given [using our rounded numbers above to achieve preciseness]:
1. A day is 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds,
2. A month is 27 days, 7 hours, and 12 seconds,
3. A year is 325 days, 32 hours, 4 seconds.

When the model we were given should have factored as follows:
P1. A day is demonstrated by one complete Earth rotation, and segment that period by equal, exact practical divisions, called 1 hour.
P2. A month is demonstrated by one Moon complete orbit around Earth, and segment that period by equal, exact divisions, called 1 month.
C. A year is demonstrated by one Earth complete orbit around the Sun, and segment that period by equal, exact divisions, called 1 year.


Why did we choose Gregory's advisors as having a better model?

Because the typical human heartbeat is 0.8 seconds' duration, at rest. Well, 60 of those is, uh, sixty of them, almost one minute, so, we'll round it to 60 seconds. This becomes a slippery slope. 60 beats is one minute, 60 minutes is one hour, 24 hours is one day, 31, 28, 31 days in random rotation is one month, 12 months is one year, as noted above. All achieved by neat, convenient, but imprecise rounding. We allow rounding errors that force our inconsistent days, months, years, when the model given at the front of all our existence is... also imprecise, but only because our heartbeat may not be the proper rhythm of the universe. Or, it is imprecise because our expectation is that God created a perfect universe, and, therefore, there is no God, because he didn't. So, why should anything else be perfect, for now? Even determinism allows for imperfection, since we are not all determined for the same factors.

And you think determinism actually makes sense against free will? Occam's razor has been dulled by our arrogance of rounding numbers, and if that's the best science can produce, I'll eat my hat. I don't wear them, so, good luck to the universe forcing that action. If a heartbeat is 0.8 seconds, then call that the unit of one from which time is reckoned, and so on, using the proper model. There's your syllogism; P1, P2, C.
Topic's author
#16
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@zedvictor4
See my #15.
Topic's author
#17
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@3RU7AL
BIOLOGY + EXPERIENCE = BEHAVIOR
No, your formula is flawed, because it does not account for two variables;
1. Knowledge gained without experience. It happens, and you have not accounted for that variable.
2. We do not always act variably to bad experience in order to have a different experience. We repeat that experience even after learning that those thoughts and actions yield undesired consequences, yet we may repeat, expecting different results.
Topic's author
#18
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
  • your brain is made up of neurones....
etc.

You have offered all but the most pertinent activity; the decision process, alone, once the review of all factors considered is complete, and which certainly has physical, measurable attributes, but the measure of those attributes does not include an exact measure of the processes' resulting action, else one would not be able to display a repeated experience-stimulation with a varied pattern of resulting action, which humans demonstrate all the time. And, the fact is, by those measurement techniques, the data collected, alone, does not indicate with any accuracy what decisive action will be rendered. The physical, organic process you outline simple does not include an outline of the decision made; that must wait for observation of  the individual's action. We can measure that thinking/decision processes are in play, but not the decision, itself.
#19
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Knowledge gained without experience. 
Even reading an article or listening to a lecture is an experience. Perhaps you could give an example of  a gaining knowledge without experiencing any sensory perceptions. 
#20
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
You have offered all but the most pertinent activity; the decision process, alone, once the review of all factors considered is complete, and which certainly has physical, measurable attributes, but the measure of those attributes does not include an exact measure of the processes' resulting action, else one would not be able to display a repeated experience-stimulation with a varied pattern of resulting action, which humans demonstrate all the time. And, the fact is, by those measurement techniques, the data collected, alone, does not indicate with any accuracy what decisive action will be rendered. The physical, organic process you outline simple does not include an outline of the decision made; that must wait for observation of  the individual's action. We can measure that thinking/decision processes are in play, but not the decision, itself.
Every decision is either caused (determinism) or uncaused (indistinguishable from random)

Determinism =/= free will 

Random acts =/= free will
Topic's author
#21
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Personal revelation via prayer - complete thought process involving no physical attributes of sensory ability. It is pure spiritual connect to the Divine.
Topic's author
#22
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Determinism =/= free will 

Random acts =/= free will
I am waiting for evidence. Go.
#23
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Personal revelation via prayer - complete thought process involving no physical attributes of sensory ability
How do you know you had one if you didn't experience it? I'm skeptical that anyone has had one that does think they e experienced one though clearly they experienced something. This is a non starter.
. It is pure spiritual connect to the Divine.
I don't believe in spiritual anything other than measured in alchohol by volume nor in any divinity other than the desert. You couldn't demonstrate any could you?
Determinism =/= free will 

Random acts =/= free will
I am waiting for evidence. Go.
This is tautological. It is true in the same way that there are no married bachelors or four sided triangles. Determinism is incompatible with free and random events ate incompatible with will.

If an event is determined then it was never free to happen any other way and if it is a random event then no decision or determination is being made random stuff is just happening. 
Topic's author
#24
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
How do you know you had one if you didn't experience it? I'm skeptical that anyone has had one that does think they e experienced one though clearly they experienced something. This is a non starter.
I know because it happens outside of physical experience, which you claim can only be physical. If you want to argue for your limitations, be my guest. I will not try to convince you otherwise. What you don't believe is entirely on you. Don't ask me to share it. That you find personal revelation via prayer a tautological exercise is also on you. I do not agree. Don't knock if you haven't tried it.  And don't tell me you've tried it. Not unless you follow the exact process defined for trying. Since you doubt, you have already violated that process. Can't get from here to there that way.


#25
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
I know because it happens outside of physical experience, 
What does this even mean? How would you ever demonstrate something nonphysical? That sounds synonymous with made up. Imaginary. How do I as an outsider tell the difference between your real spiritual experience and an one you imagined?
#26
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Hint. If you felt it in your brain then it was physical... because your brain is a physical organ.
#27
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Since you doubt, you have already violated that process.
What a convenient sheild against self reflection you have but I am not much impressed with the no true scotsman fallacy 
Topic's author
#28
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
How do I as an outsider tell the difference between your real spiritual experience and an one you imagined?
Haven't I already told you that one? I have. Try it, yourself. Some things only come by personal proof. If you need better evidence, hire a lawyer. You pay one, they'll do anything, and you'll agree with their result because.... you paid for it.
#29
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Haven't I already told you that one? I have. Try it, yourself. Some things only come by personal proof. If you need better evidence, hire a lawyer. You pay one, they'll do anything, and you'll agree with their result because.... you paid for it.
How do I tell the difference between a genuine spiritual experience and a very realistic fantasy? Please define the parameters of the experiment. How do we create a double blind if my sample size is only myself? What you are describing sounds like anecdotal evidence which is scientifically speaking one of the least reliable sort.
#30
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Every decision is either caused (determinism) or uncaused (indistinguishable from random)

Determinism =/= free will 

Random acts =/= free will
Perfecto.