What aspects of fate, if any, do you believe in? [Archive]

Philo

07-02-2007, 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"
That's just really silly, and hardly conducive to a constructive argument to use the word 'idiotic' like that. "

When people say "red is green" you don't reason with them you call them idiots, because that's what they are. If God knows the future it is obviously predetermined, if you can't understand that I have difficulty imagining you can remember to breathe.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like you could use a little philosophy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

Note in particular the five compatibilist responses to the argument for theological fatalism, all proposed by idiots of course.

Duke

07-02-2007, 02:43 PM

I currently accept the conservation of momentum, since there haven't been a whole lot of examples of it not holding.

I suppose that's a sort of fate.

Duke

07-02-2007, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
what is a coherent example of some everyday action/event that hypothetically occurs without a reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every single argument a woman ever started with her significant other.

m_the0ry

07-02-2007, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Free will and determinism are compatible

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree his use of the word 'idiotic' is not constructive at all but this statement is a logical fallacy. Free will and determinism cannot exist, period. They are incompatible by the most strict definition of the word; each is the antithesis of the other.

__seth

07-02-2007, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what is a coherent example of some everyday action/event that hypothetically occurs without a reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every single argument a woman ever started with her significant other.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha touche

GoodCallYouWin

07-02-2007, 08:33 PM

"Note in particular the five compatibilist responses to the argument for theological fatalism, all proposed by idiots of course. "

Did you read them? Half where written prior to 1300 (yes, by idiots)... and they all make no sense.

GoodCallYouWin

07-02-2007, 08:34 PM

"Free will and determinism cannot exist, period."

I think if you examine the question of free will for even a few minutes longer you will see that free will cannot exist, period.

wazz

07-02-2007, 08:38 PM

***Sigh***

Guys, go learn philosophy before you start arguing things you don't understand. I'm afraid I don't have the patience to teach you, I'm done with you for now.

bunny

07-02-2007, 08:39 PM

I dont believe in fate and there are plenty of non-idiots who think an omniscient God can exist and that we can have free will.

I would guess that the reason you think the two are contradictive is that you imagine God existing at some point and thinking "I know what Gobias Ind. is about to do" you then make what you think is a free choice but sure enough do exactly what God thought you were going to do a moment ago.

The best solution to this paradox has always seemed to me to be to point out that God is not claimed to exist at any point in time. In other words, there is no past, present and future for him and he isnt experiencing the world in a temporally linear way the way we do. Our language is unable to refer to God without implying he exists at a particular point in time, nonetheless that implication is not usually intended by a theist.

One (inaccurate) way I find useful to think of it is to imagine God experiencing all of creation in his past. We dont see any problem with knowing the result of a choice in the past contradicting free will and I would ask a "free will contradicts omniscient God" type to explain to me how God knowing my choice means I am not making a free choice, without making the assumption that he knows it ahead of time.

GoodCallYouWin

07-02-2007, 08:45 PM

bunny :

All you do is confuse the issue. Either God knows the future or he doesn't. If he knows the future, you have to do what he knows you will do, or he's wrong, which is impossible for an omniscient being.

The real problem here is people start with two definitions and assume they must be true no matter what (God as omniscient, free will as true). Since both of these are impossible (much in the way if you have an 'unstoppable cannon ball' there can be no 'unmovable wall') there is a problem... but Christians keep on talking, despite the fact that it cannot possibly be; because their ideology blinds them to logic.

vhawk01

07-02-2007, 08:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
bunny :

All you do is confuse the issue. Either God knows the future or he doesn't. If he knows the future, you have to do what he knows you will do, or he's wrong, which is impossible for an omniscient being.

The real problem here is people start with two definitions and assume they must be true no matter what (God as omniscient, free will as true). Since both of these are impossible (much in the way if you have an 'unstoppable cannon ball' there can be no 'unmovable wall') there is a problem... but Christians keep on talking, despite the fact that it cannot possibly be; because their ideology blinds them to logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said God knows the future? There is no future for God. I know whats going to happen at the end of Casablanca, every single time. I'm never wrong. And yet Bogart was free to botch his line at the time.

bunny

07-02-2007, 09:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
bunny :

All you do is confuse the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not confusing the issue, the issue is confusing. Most theists claim that God does not have a physical or temporal existence - he exists outside of space and time (which he created).

[ QUOTE ]
Either God knows the future or he doesn't. If he knows the future, you have to do what he knows you will do, or he's wrong, which is impossible for an omniscient being.

[/ QUOTE ]
The language you are using here does exactly what I am referring to - assumes God exists at some particular point in time. I agree with you that if free will exists, someone cannot know the future ahead of time. That's not what I claim about God's knowledge, it just sounds like I do because our language struggles to refer to something existing outside of the universe. (If any such thing exists).

[ QUOTE ]
The real problem here is people start with two definitions and assume they must be true no matter what (God as omniscient, free will as true). Since both of these are impossible (much in the way if you have an 'unstoppable cannon ball' there can be no 'unmovable wall') there is a problem... but Christians keep on talking, despite the fact that it cannot possibly be; because their ideology blinds them to logic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you beginning from the assumption that both are impossible or are you trying to demonstrate it? Do you think that the fact that I now know what my wife chose for dinner last night implies she had no free will in choosing it?

GoodCallYouWin

07-02-2007, 09:14 PM

'Who said God knows the future?'

Christians.

vhawk01

07-02-2007, 10:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
'Who said God knows the future?'

Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, I don't think so. They say he knows the past, present, and the future, but thats really just shorthand. They might say it, but when pressed the knowledgeable ones will make it clear that it doesn't even make any sense to say "future" and "God" in the same sentence.

GoodCallYouWin

07-02-2007, 10:04 PM

Why do you get to decide what Christians believe, instead of Christians?

bunny

07-02-2007, 10:12 PM

I stated what I believed above, but you didnt respond. I think you are misunderstanding the theistic conception of God - a problem which arises from the difficulty of describing an object claimed to exist outside of time and space.

GoodCallYouWin

07-02-2007, 10:20 PM

bunny :

It is impossible to respond to your mysticism with words or logic.

bunny

07-02-2007, 10:32 PM

Many can manage it, but thanks for trying anyhow. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

For what it's worth, you certainly have a point if you think that God has temporal existence. It's just worth knowing that that's not one of the attributes theists ascribe to God.

vhawk01

07-02-2007, 10:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you get to decide what Christians believe, instead of Christians?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we've had this thread about twenty times here, and every single Christian has made the point I made above?

You make it sound like your Omniscience objection to free will is some new thing that you just thought of that will change religion and philosophy forever. Its old and one of the worst arguments against the Christian God.

GoodCallYouWin

07-02-2007, 11:53 PM

"
Because we've had this thread about twenty times here, and every single Christian has made the point I made above?
"

Go ask a priest or go to a church and ask them if they think God cannot predict what you are going to do tomorrow. Just because you make speculative claims about things that have obviously not happened (every single christian backs your point of view? lol!) does not mean I should ignore the teachings of the entire Christian religion...

bunny

07-03-2007, 12:08 AM

It's not a christian belief that God can predict what you're going to do. It's a christian belief that he knows what you are going to do. It's also a christian belief that he doesnt exist at any particular point in time (since it's claimed he created time, this hardly seems strange does it?)

You have provided an argument that flawlessly predicting the future is incompatible with free will. You havent explained why knowledge of an act means it cannot be the result of a free choice.

vhawk01

07-03-2007, 12:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"
Because we've had this thread about twenty times here, and every single Christian has made the point I made above?
"

Go ask a priest or go to a church and ask them if they think God cannot predict what you are going to do tomorrow. Just because you make speculative claims about things that have obviously not happened (every single christian backs your point of view? lol!) does not mean I should ignore the teachings of the entire Christian religion...

[/ QUOTE ]

I will. I'll report back. What exactly am I supposed to ask? If God can PREDICT the future? I am nearly positive they will laugh at the idea that God PREDICTS the future. Just that he knows it.

No idea what you are talking about with the speculative claims about things that haven't happened. I didn't make any speculative claims. Simply reported the facts. We really have had this discussion lots and lots of times. I'm pretty well-versed in what the Christians have to say about it.

Philo

07-03-2007, 12:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Note in particular the five compatibilist responses to the argument for theological fatalism, all proposed by idiots of course. "

Did you read them? Half where written prior to 1300 (yes, by idiots)... and they all make no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are lots of contemporary philosophers who are compatibilists, including Daniel Dennett.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

CallMeIshmael

07-03-2007, 01:16 AM

GoodToCall,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

Its kind of a corny video, but is semi-decent at explaining the concept bunny is using.

The people in flatland are unable to perceive the idea of above and below. And higher dimentional beings are able to do things that are considered impossible.

Now, imagine a similar situation, but with God being able to see on both the before and after. Essentially, God exists in both the future and the past. So, of course He knows what we are going to do. He was already there when we did it.

To note, I dont believe the above. Im just trying to explain the theory.

vhawk01

07-03-2007, 01:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
GoodToCall,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

Its kind of a corny video, but is semi-decent at explaining the concept bunny is using.

The people in flatland are unable to perceive the idea of above and below. And higher dimentional beings are able to do things that are considered impossible.

Now, imagine a similar situation, but with God being able to see on both the before and after. Essentially, God exists in both the future and the past. So, of course He knows what we are going to do. He was already there when we did it.

To note, I dont believe the above. Im just trying to explain the theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I'm not defending the view, I'm just attacking the strategy of setting up a strawman and then claiming hollow victory.

m_the0ry

07-03-2007, 02:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Free will and determinism cannot exist, period."

I think if you examine the question of free will for even a few minutes longer you will see that free will cannot exist, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

post-post modification: I meant to write "coexist" not "exist". Aside from that error, I worded my post specifically as I wanted. The existence of free will is outside of the scope of my comment and intentionally so. Free will and determinism both evoke emotional/sentimental/biological feelings for most people and thus they are hotbeds for (not necessarily rational) debate. However it is incredibly easy to show by proof of contradiction that they cannot coexist, else infinite logical paradoxes arise. That aside, I agree free will does not exist and further I believe determinism does not exist. But again, my point was simply to point out that the concept of the two existing together is impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
The language you are using here does exactly what I am referring to - assumes God exists at some particular point in time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumption has nothing to do with incompatibility. God sees in 4 dimensional spacetime and he sees the 'world line' of every particle in existence. Determinism states that the world line of all existence can be reconstructed from an exhaustive set of initial conditions. This works in both backwards time and forwards time. The concepts of 'past' 'current' and 'future' are completely and utterly irrelevant.

Free will states that a world line can be changed by some metaphysical process (will/soul/what-have-you). A world line cannot be changed in a deterministic existence.

bunny

07-03-2007, 04:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The language you are using here does exactly what I am referring to - assumes God exists at some particular point in time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumption has nothing to do with incompatibility. God sees in 4 dimensional spacetime and he sees the 'world line' of every particle in existence. Determinism states that the world line of all existence can be reconstructed from an exhaustive set of initial conditions. This works in both backwards time and forwards time. The concepts of 'past' 'current' and 'future' are completely and utterly irrelevant.

Free will states that a world line can be changed by some metaphysical process (will/soul/what-have-you). A world line cannot be changed in a deterministic existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
In my replies to the OP and GoodCallYouWin I was addressing the OP's original query or concern that believing in an omniscient God was inconsistent with believing in free will. I wasnt making any claim about determinism and free will.

One point arising from your post though; you seem to have a clear definition of free will but I doubt it is universally adhered to (one poster mentioned Dennett as a combatibilist - even if that is true, I doubt he is using the definition of free will which caused you to claim "Free will states that a world line can be changed by some metaphysical process (will/soul/what-have-you).")

DougShrapnel

07-03-2007, 03:40 PM

I don't get it. If God determines the future through a process of gathering all the current state of objects and people, and then uses laws, physics, and deterministic rules to predict the future, free will doesn't exist. But that's not what he does. It's not a stretch to give him the ability to get the information about the future through other means. Saying the 2 are incompatible makes exactly the same amount of sense as saying knowing what someone did yesterday, is incompatible with free will. There are a number of issues with the xtian god, free will being incompatible isn't one that I've found very compelling. I believe it rests on wanting to prove god wrong or something. By him knowing the future it appears the only willfull action that can't be done, is proving him wrong. No bearing on freewill. But i don't pray to the xtain God, I pray to the great collapser of wave functions. GCWF doesn't know the future until he observes it, in the process of observation the wave function of possible futures collapses. All hail GCWF!

vhawk01

07-03-2007, 03:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it. If God determines the future through a process of gathering all the current state of objects and people, and then uses laws, physics, and deterministic rules to predict the future, free will doesn't exist. But that's not what he does. Saying the 2 are incompatible makes exactly the same amount of sense as saying knowing what someone did yesterday, is incompatible with free will. There are a number of issues with the xtian god, free will being incompatible isn't one of them. But i don't pray to the xtain God, I pray to the great collapser of wave functions. GCWF doesn't know the future until he observes it, in the process of observation the wave function of possible futures collapses. All hail GCWF!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

m_the0ry

07-03-2007, 03:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One point arising from your post though; you seem to have a clear definition of free will but I doubt it is universally adhered to (one poster mentioned Dennett as a combatibilist - even if that is true, I doubt he is using the definition of free will which caused you to claim "Free will states that a world line can be changed by some metaphysical process (will/soul/what-have-you).")

[/ QUOTE ]

Every free will position I've heard is pretty much the same:: the process of human decisionmaking is one that does not adhere to natural/physical process. If there's another definition please share because I'd be interested.

DougShrapnel

07-03-2007, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One point arising from your post though; you seem to have a clear definition of free will but I doubt it is universally adhered to (one poster mentioned Dennett as a combatibilist - even if that is true, I doubt he is using the definition of free will which caused you to claim "Free will states that a world line can be changed by some metaphysical process (will/soul/what-have-you).")

[/ QUOTE ]

Every free will position I've heard is pretty much the same:: the process of human decisionmaking is one that does not adhere to natural/physical process. If there's another definition please share because I'd be interested.

[/ QUOTE ]Mine is that Free-will is the term given to consciousness being useful. Nielso has a couple podcast's on free will that uses a different definition. NN Teleb believes that there can be no experts on human nature, and thus free will is indistinguisable from what we can know. Dennett considers free will like chess pieces, the have certain moves that can be made, with no process to determine what move will be made. Also there is a definition where the causal chain is looped, or side by side. That is freewill is the start of a separate causal chain.

DougShrapnel

07-03-2007, 04:20 PM

Let's take priming and you can tell me if it supports freewill or determinism. A study was done where subjects where given jumbled up sentences. Make a sentence with out using all words but one.
Florida Drove to She 4:oclock
Jim orange juice poured glass a walker.
And so on. The sentences are designed to illicit feelings of oldness. You are being primed to act old. So the measure the waling time of subjects down a hallway. And people that were primed to think "old" were much slower. You can pretty much prime people in various fashions, and notice significant changes in measurable criteria. However once you tell the subjects that they are being primed, the gig is up, and the priming has no noticed effect. Certainly the priming aspect counts against free will. But the immunity of informing the conscience lets me hold out for a better theory of free will.

m_the0ry

07-03-2007, 08:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mine is that Free-will is the term given to consciousness being useful. Nielso has a couple podcast's on free will that uses a different definition. NN Teleb believes that there can be no experts on human nature, and thus free will is indistinguisable from what we can know. Dennett considers free will like chess pieces, the have certain moves that can be made, with no process to determine what move will be made. Also there is a definition where the causal chain is looped, or side by side. That is freewill is the start of a separate causal chain.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is too semantic for my liking. Some of these are metaphysical and some are not, but all attempt to redefine free will as something different and atypical. I cannot differentiate this from everyday appeasement of the feeling that humanity should be somehow divine and thus exempt from the natural world.

DougShrapnel

07-05-2007, 02:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mine is that Free-will is the term given to consciousness being useful. Nielso has a couple podcast's on free will that uses a different definition. NN Teleb believes that there can be no experts on human nature, and thus free will is indistinguisable from what we can know. Dennett considers free will like chess pieces, the have certain moves that can be made, with no process. to determine what move will be made. Also there is a definition where the causal chain is looped, or side by side. That is freewill is the start of a separate causal chain.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is too semantic for my liking. Some of these are metaphysical and some are not, but all attempt to redefine free will as something different and atypical. I cannot differentiate this from everyday appeasement of the feeling that humanity should be somehow divine and thus exempt from the natural world.

[/ QUOTE ]Free will is atypical, for certain. There are a growing number of "freewillers" in different suits, that have no desire to invoke the divine. A simple statement that a freewiller might make is that our understanding of the natural world is incomplete. Others might make the statement that our understanding of the natural is forever hidden, and semantically freewill exists. Personal my biggest hang up is predestination. Provided you aren't a predetermanist, you and I won't really disagree and anything to significant. I take some issue with the uncertainty principle. Not that i doubt the principle, just that I'm wear of the willingness to agree with uncertainty for subatomic particles, yet no willingness for more complex beings. I personally would need a full theory of consciousness to reject freewill. As that is where it, if it exists, is likely to reside. I'd be perfectly happy with, we don't know enough yet suspending judgement on the issue. I do tilt toward the freewill side tho.

JackAll

07-05-2007, 11:48 AM

Free will can not co-exist with either fate or karma.

Here is why.

Person A does something bad to person B.

Either person A chose to do it, or it was fate or karma that person B deserved and person A didn't have control over.

Lets look at those two situations separately (there are no other choices as far as I am aware of)

1. He chose to do it - so how is it fate (ie was going to happen anyway) if he 'chose' to do it? Either he chose or it was beyond his control and it was always going to happen. So if he chose to do it, then person B was just unlucky and this was a co-incidence for him hence karma/fate do not apply here. In this case, many bad (and good) things happen purely out of dumb ass luck and there is no "balance" of karma because good and bad things happen randomly.

2. He was meant to do it (fate) - so why should person A be punished by karma if he had no control and it was always going to happen? It also means that he had no free will and everything that happens is predetermined. Which means every bad thing anyone does is not their fault cuz it was 'fate'. So really no one deserves to be punished for bad things or rewarded for good things because they never 'chose' to do it.

Like make you your god damn mother fuggin mind. You can't have fate/karma at the same time as you have free will. Chose one and SHUT THE [censored] UP ALREADY. Or else prove me wrong. I have never heard a valid answer for this.

m_the0ry

07-05-2007, 04:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Others might make the statement that our understanding of the natural is forever hidden, and semantically freewill exists. Personal my biggest hang up is predestination. Provided you aren't a predetermanist, you and I won't really disagree and anything to significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also disagree with predeterminism but it is very important how one interprets the adeterministic world. I think you and I would disagree on a few subjects because of my background, and my less than common stance that physics has a large governance on how we should interpret the philosophy of consciousness and mankind.

Bells Theorem is perhaps one of the most shocking and powerful revelations of interpreting the natural world. It has shown both with rigorous theory and empirical evidence that there is no hidden variable behind our current understanding of the physical universe. We cannot possibly ever predict certain things beyond a probability distribution. Since every interaction in the observable universe is stochastic, the idea of determinism is effectively disproved.

I say that my mind is in state 'A' right now. The next state, state 'B' is random. If the set of possible states for state 'B' are - at least for a large majority - very similar in their observable properties, we can say that the transition from state A to B 'appears to be deterministic'. In the event that no significant number of the states can be clumped together by similar traits, the transition is more apparently random.

I think I'm going tangenty here. My point is the mind is probabilisitic in its actions. There is no room for free will because all states of mind and transitions between states of mind must obey natural law.

DougShrapnel

07-06-2007, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you and I would disagree on a few subjects because of my background, and my less than common stance that physics has a large governance on how we should interpret the philosophy of consciousness and mankind.

I think I'm going tangenty here. My point is the mind is probabilisitic in its actions. There is no room for free will because all states of mind and transitions between states of mind must obey natural law.

[/ QUOTE ] I would agree, perhaps we would also agree that our current understanding of physics is unable to fully explain consciousness. Perhaps we can also agree that if free will is to exist, and exist here refers to a property of an existent object much like height not a separate divine entity, it is to be found as a property of consciousness. Perhaps we can also agree that consciousness is at least in part tied into current aspects of your immediate sphere of awareness.

As for bells theorem, I'm not really sure why consciousness needs, or is likely to be beholden to QM. And although from the limited amount I have read of end, it appears to be as you said the most important scientific discovery as of late. You would certainly know more about what BT means to the natural world then I do. But I'm not sure you can apply lessons learned from BT into a theory of consciousness, yet certainly into neuroscience.

TBH, I've tried reading and rereading your case, and I just don't really understand it. I'm not particularly concerned as It's likely to be a very difficult concept to grasp, requiring some time of dedicated study. Is a Bohm interpretation more in line with free will? Certianly, a many worlds interpretation of the natural world would be consistent with free will? I don't wish to put forth that any of these interpretations are correct or incorrect. As I don't have the background to do so. But my limited background is enough to state that the actual natural laws that free will must obey, is still speculation. Why exactly must consciousness obey QM? And in particular a subsection of QM that is inline with Bell's theorem?

Perhaps in a way you might make the case that the natural world forbids non physical properties. That is that consciousness is nothing more than the state of the brain. If we must find something to be disagreeable about, I would disagree with that. We may eventually get to the point that the term free will is useless, in so much that a person is free only in that he is able to suspend his actions long enough to ponder the outcomes and choose an outcome she prefers. I'd be OK with that too. When I speak of free will I simply mean that the consciousness is useful. And until we can actually observe other peoples consciousness I will hold out on what natural laws it must obey. Unless of course by some means it can be shown that consciousness is of no use.