“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[The AntiChris]

I also specifically said, at least twice, that quantum indeterminacy is not relevant to the compatibilist argument.

I know you did.

I just think it's an unnecessary distraction in a discussion fraught with uncharitable readings of the compatibilist position.

 

[pood]

When DBT repeatedly brings up “inner necessity” to claim we do not have compatibilist freedom, I simply ask again and again: What kind of “necessity” is he talking about?

It cannot be logical necessity, for reasons I have given. So what IS this necessity of which he speaks? I hold that it does not exist — that the only form of necessity is logical necessity.

But it is true, of course, that people use language in a loose and often slipshod manner, so we might say, for instance, that it is “necessary” to eat a big breakfast if you are doing to do a hard day’s work. But it’s not necessary at all; it’s just advisable.

I have explained what I mean by inner necessity multiple time: determinism. It just means that the brain as the means and mechanism by which decisions are made determines what is decided in any given instance of decision making.

That decisions being determined by neural information processing are just as much a restriction on freedom of will as the external terms defined by compatibilism; being forced, coerced or unduly influenced.

So are you saying there is no distinction between a proposition like, “Today I chose Coke over Pepsi” and “all triangles have three sides”?

 

[peacegirl]

*Sigh*
Did you read where I informed you that I DID NOT BRING UP THE SUBJECT, peacegirl did?

I don't read peacegirl's posts.

In posts #155 and #158 you appear to be the one raising the subject of quantum indeterminacy . If I'm mistaken, I apologise.

As noted, I brought up quantum indeterminacy in response to her claim that the whole history of the universe “had to be” what it was. I invoked quantum indeterminacy to point out that this is decidedly not so — many things happen via indeterminism — but I also pointed out that even if quantum indeterminacy were not true, it still is not the case that the universe “had to be” the way that it was. I also specifically said, at least twice, that quantum indeterminacy is not relevant to the compatibilist argument.

If determinism is true, which it is, the universe "had to be" exactly what it was even if there was no quantum indeterminacy and even if a block universe existed and even if "logical necessity" were true. Everything had to be exactly as it was leading up to the present moment and nothing can change what will be for the same reason. We just don't know what will be until it unfolds.

 

[steve_bank]

As I believe the best explanation of origins is a universe that always was and always will be determinism is not provable experimentally.

That is no different from God always was and always will be.
There should be a cause.

This would be another thread, no god or 'first case' is needed in an infinite universe with no beginning or end.

 

[pood]

As I believe the best explanation of origins is a universe that always was and always will be determinism is not provable experimentally.

That is no different from God always was and always will be.
There should be a cause.

Composition fallacy. The fact that things in the universe have a cause does not imply that the universe as a whole must have a cause. And, since time is within the universe, there could be no “before” the universe in which there was “time” to create it. The observation that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed also supports a universe without beginning or end.

 

[steve_bank]

As I believe the best explanation of origins is a universe that always was and always will be determinism is not provable experimentally.

That is no different from God always was and always will be.
There should be a cause.

Composition fallacy. The fact that things in the universe have a cause does not imply that the universe as a whole must have a cause. And, since time is within the universe, there could be no “before” the universe in which there was “time” to create it. The observation that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed also supports a universe without beginning or end.

You must have read some of my old posts.....

 

[bilby]

As I believe the best explanation of origins is a universe that always was and always will be determinism is not provable experimentally.

That is no different from God always was and always will be.
There should be a cause.

Why?

Literally nothing we have ever observed has started to (or ceased to) exist - We call this "The First Law of Thermodynamics".

Why should we expect the universe to be any different?

 

[bilby]

Inner necesssity refers to nothing more than the neural architecure of a brain and its information processing activity, which is inseparable from the world at large and its progression of events.

So, "Inner necessity" is just "me". You are saying that I don't make decisions, because I am a deterministic system, and so therefore cannot make decisions.

Then you are hiding the circularity by using a synonym for "I".

But the argument remains circular.

 

[steve_bank]

As I believe the best explanation of origins is a universe that always was and always will be determinism is not provable experimentally.

That is no different from God always was and always will be.
There should be a cause.

Composition fallacy. The fact that things in the universe have a cause does not imply that the universe as a whole must have a cause. And, since time is within the universe, there could be no “before” the universe in which there was “time” to create it. The observation that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed also supports a universe without beginning or end.

You must have read some of my old posts.....

Adding, it is not observed that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, it was stated in my thermodynamics text only that no exceptions have been observed.

Laws of thermodynamics evolved in the 19th century from work on developing steam engines.

 

[DBT]

When DBT repeatedly brings up “inner necessity” to claim we do not have compatibilist freedom, I simply ask again and again: What kind of “necessity” is he talking about?

It cannot be logical necessity, for reasons I have given. So what IS this necessity of which he speaks? I hold that it does not exist — that the only form of necessity is logical necessity.

But it is true, of course, that people use language in a loose and often slipshod manner, so we might say, for instance, that it is “necessary” to eat a big breakfast if you are doing to do a hard day’s work. But it’s not necessary at all; it’s just advisable.

I have explained what I mean by inner necessity multiple time: determinism. It just means that the brain as the means and mechanism by which decisions are made determines what is decided in any given instance of decision making.

That decisions being determined by neural information processing are just as much a restriction on freedom of will as the external terms defined by compatibilism; being forced, coerced or unduly influenced.

So are you saying there is no distinction between a proposition like, “Today I chose Coke over Pepsi” and “all triangles have three sides”?

It's a false analogy.

The issue lies in the distinction between selection and choice.

That, given determinism, a distinction is to be made between decision making and choice. Whether a decision that is necessarily made - determined - is a matter of choice.

This has nothing to do with triangles.

Freely choosing requires the possibility of taking an alternate option in any given instance of decision making.
Determinism does not permit alternate actions in any given instance of decision making, consequently, decisions that are made within a deterministic system are not an example choice.

 

[DBT]

Inner necesssity refers to nothing more than the neural architecure of a brain and its information processing activity, which is inseparable from the world at large and its progression of events.

So, "Inner necessity" is just "me". You are saying that I don't make decisions, because I am a deterministic system, and so therefore cannot make decisions.

Then you are hiding the circularity by using a synonym for "I".

But the argument remains circular.

View attachment 49160

Not at all.

Compatibilists provide a definition of determinism that sets out the terms and conditions of the system, how it works and how it evolves.

The definition that is given, where all events progress or evolve as determined, does not permit alternate actions.

How the system progresses or evolves must include the brain and its output in relation to thought, decision and action.

That's how it is according to the terms given by compatibilists.

 

[aupmanyav]

This would be another thread, no god or 'first case' is needed in an infinite universe with no beginning or end.

Is universe infinite or closed? Does universe has no beginning or end? Has science said the last word on it?

 

[aupmanyav]

Composition fallacy. The fact that things in the universe have a cause does not imply that the universe as a whole must have a cause. And, since time is within the universe, there could be no “before” the universe in which there was “time” to create it. The observation that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed also supports a universe without beginning or end.

I did not say that there 'must' be a cause, I said there 'should' be a cause (normally expected). If the universe is without a beginning or end, then it must be proven. Till that time we cannot take it for granted. Is science sure that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed? I suppose is more to be found out.

 

[aupmanyav]

Literally nothing we have ever observed has started to (or ceased to) exist - We call this "The First Law of Thermodynamics".
Why should we expect the universe to be any different?

Have we observed everything? Is existence a phase of non-existence? We might come across strange things, just like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics which surprised us.

 

[aupmanyav]

Adding, it is not observed that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, it was stated in my thermodynamics text only that no exceptions have been observed.
Laws of thermodynamics evolved in the 19th century from work on developing steam engines.

There, you are. What happens when particle and anti-particle collide? I think labs have observed it, annihilation without any remainder. "Nishshesha".
That is why RigVeda said:
"sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛdi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā"
(Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.)
https://sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm (Nāsaidya Sukta)

A prayer to Saraswati (the Goddess of all learning, sccience, music, art, dance, drama: "Nishshesha Jadyapaha". (May the Goddess remove our ignorance without any remainder).

yā kundendutuṣārahāradhavalā yā śubhravastrāvṛtā, yā vīṇāvaradaṇḍamaṇḍitakarā yā śvetapadmāsanā l
yā brahmācyuta śaṃkaraprabhṛtibhirdevaiḥ sadā pūjitā, sā māṃ pātu sarasvati bhagavatī niḥśeṣa jāḍyāpahā ll

"Who is as fair as the jasmine, moon and snow, who is dressed in white clothes, whose hands adorn the vīņā, who is seated on a white lotus;
who is always worshiped by Gods like Brahmā, Vişnu, Śankara. I seek her protection, may the Goddess, Sarasvati. remove our ignorance without any remainder."

 

[Elixir]

"Who is as fair as the jasmine, moon and snow, who is dressed in white clothes, whose hands adorn the vīņā, who is seated…

… just a guess.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Composition fallacy. The fact that things in the universe have a cause does not imply that the universe as a whole must have a cause. And, since time is within the universe, there could be no “before” the universe in which there was “time” to create it. The observation that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed also supports a universe without beginning or end.

I did not say that there 'must' be a cause, I said there 'should' be a cause (normally expected). If the universe is without a beginning or end, then it must be proven. Till that time we cannot take it for granted. Is science sure that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed? I suppose is more to be found out.

The fact that the universe exists is the proof that no cause is required, because if a cause required then the universe wouldn't exist, even though logically it can't not exist (it is proven that non-existence is impossible).

Literally nothing we have ever observed has started to (or ceased to) exist - We call this "The First Law of Thermodynamics".
Why should we expect the universe to be any different?

Have we observed everything? Is existence a phase of non-existence? We might come across strange things, just like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics which surprised us.

Surprised who? If you mean humanity as a whole, then the same can be said about every prior major scientific discovery, such as the periodic table.

Adding, it is not observed that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, it was stated in my thermodynamics text only that no exceptions have been observed.
Laws of thermodynamics evolved in the 19th century from work on developing steam engines.

There, you are. What happens when particle and anti-particle collide? I think labs have observed it, annihilation without any remainder. "Nishshesha".
That is why RigVeda said:
"sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛdi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā"
(Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.)
https://sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm (Nāsaidya Sukta)

A prayer to Saraswati (the Goddess of all learning, sccience, music, art, dance, drama: "Nishshesha Jadyapaha". (May the Goddess remove our ignorance without any remainder).

yā kundendutuṣārahāradhavalā yā śubhravastrāvṛtā, yā vīṇāvaradaṇḍamaṇḍitakarā yā śvetapadmāsanā l
yā brahmācyuta śaṃkaraprabhṛtibhirdevaiḥ sadā pūjitā, sā māṃ pātu sarasvati bhagavatī niḥśeṣa jāḍyāpahā ll

"Who is as fair as the jasmine, moon and snow, who is dressed in white clothes, whose hands adorn the vīņā, who is seated on a white lotus;
who is always worshiped by Gods like Brahmā, Vişnu, Śankara. I seek her protection, may the Goddess, Sarasvati. remove our ignorance without any remainder."

It is not annihilation but total conversion to energy, and matter and energy are equivalent, so overall conservation of energy occurs.

 

[Elixir]

If you mean humanity as a whole, then the same can be said about every prior major scientific discovery, such as the periodic table.

Or fire …

 

[aupmanyav]

Or fire …

Fire was brought to the world by Sage Atharvan (Athravan, pronunciation as per the Zoroastrians). Zoroaster is said to have belonged to that line of descent.
I belong to another line of descent, Vasishtha. Zoroastrians competed with us for primacy in preisthood. They won in Central Asia. we won in India.

 

[aupmanyav]

Click to enlarge the images

The fact that the universe exists is the proof that no cause is required, because if a cause required then the universe wouldn't exist, even though logically it can't not exist (it is proven that non-existence is impossible).

Who proved that? Can you give me the reference? Just as existence is possible, non-existence too could be possible.

Buddha said (Message to Kalamas - Kesamutti Sutta, to get out of a hair-hold):
"Do not go by 1. Oral history, 2. Tradition, 3. News sources 4. Scriptures or other official texts, 5. Suppositional reasoning, 6. Philosophical dogmatism, 7. Common sense, 8. One's own opinions 9. What experts say and 10. Authorities or one's own teacher.
Kalamas, when you yourselves know 'These things are good; these things are not blameable; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."

Kesamutti Sutta - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is not annihilation but total conversion to energy, and matter and energy are equivalent, so overall conservation of energy occurs.

Baryon asymmetry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry