I'm and Atheist and Believe in Predeterminism: Prove Me Wrong

[Gugel]

I'm assuming here that the Universe is governed by laws that might exist beyond a human's understanding. For example, the orbit of electrons around the nucleus of an atom are governed by laws that we don't currently understand and are not simply random.

That being said, lets imagine some omnipotent being. It would know the location of every particle of matter in the Universe and all the forces acting on each particle. Now, if that were true, it should be able to predict where each and every particle would go into infinity. For example, if you know the position of a ball and the forces acting on it, you can predict its trajectory to infinity. Just imagine that ball on a subatomic scale. Now, take away the omnipotent being that the trajectory for every particle, although impossible for humans to figure out, would still theoretically be there. It would seem the position of every particle is predetermined by sum of all the forces in the Universe and some known/unknown natural laws.

Prove me wrong.

[Gugel]

I guess the real question is whether you believe there is true randomness in the Universe or whether there are some fundamental laws that govern everything.

If you think there is real randomness, then you don't have to believe in predestination.

If you think there are laws that humans might never be able to fathom, but nevertheless exist, then you must accept predestination.

Clearly, I obviously prefer the latter. As Einstein put it, "God does not play dice with the Universe."

[m_the0ry]

"That which I cannot create, I do not understand"

Quantum indeterminancy revolves around the uncertainty principle and how probe particles cannot expose the underlying mechanisms if they exist. In other words, without a constituent probe particle that reveals more information than the photon does (highly unlikely), speculating about said mechanisms not only reveals no new information but is in fact completely meaningless. In other words, you're proposing a theory that cannot be disproven. Because of this there is no falsifiability and thus this is an invalid theory.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"That which I cannot create, I do not understand"

Quantum indeterminancy revolves around the uncertainty principle and how probe particles cannot expose the underlying mechanisms if they exist. In other words, without a constituent probe particle that reveals more information than the photon does (highly unlikely), speculating about said mechanisms not only reveals no new information but is in fact completely meaningless. In other words, you're proposing a theory that cannot be disproven. Because of this there is no falsifiability and thus this is an invalid theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this correct? I thought the uncertainty principle went deeper than this. Whereby it's not just the practical impossiblity of determining both location and velocity exactly with a probe, but an inherent uncertainty for the two taken together as a matter of the actual state.

PairTheBoard

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming here that the Universe is governed by laws that might exist beyond a human's understanding. For example, the orbit of electrons around the nucleus of an atom are governed by laws that we don't currently understand and are not simply random.

That being said, lets imagine some omnipotent being. It would know the location of every particle of matter in the Universe and all the forces acting on each particle. Now, if that were true, it should be able to predict where each and every particle would go into infinity. For example, if you know the position of a ball and the forces acting on it, you can predict its trajectory to infinity. Just imagine that ball on a subatomic scale. Now, take away the omnipotent being that the trajectory for every particle, although impossible for humans to figure out, would still theoretically be there. It would seem the position of every particle is predetermined by sum of all the forces in the Universe and some known/unknown natural laws.

Prove me wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are not a ball, an electron, or a mechanistic mechanism. All you present is specious conjecture. It is evident that a falsehood cannot be disproved for there is no basis for disproval.

[crookedhat99]

I don't know much about the subject, but after thinking about it...How could anyone be anything but predeterministic? Am I right in saying to believe in free will (or whatever the term is for non-predeterminism) you must believe that some actions occur with no cause?

[Gugel]

Basically, you can't measure something with changing it. Fair enough, but we are imagining an omnipotent being that would be able to do this.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, you can't measure something with changing it. Fair enough, but we are imagining an omnipotent being that would be able to do this.



[/ QUOTE ]

What you are saying is that because you have posited a an omnipotent,omniscent being the rest of your statement is either RIGHT or if WRONG denies the conventional idea of omnipotence, omniscient which of course in the blather of today would be critically wrong.

Your position says nothing of the realities of birth, death, life,etc. for which the search for "free will" should naturally be examined. The "reality" you present is that of an "electron, point, particle,etc.) all of which are abstractions.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming here that the Universe is governed by laws that might exist beyond a human's understanding. For example, the orbit of electrons around the nucleus of an atom are governed by laws that we don't currently understand and are not simply random.

That being said, lets imagine some omnipotent being. It would know the location of every particle of matter in the Universe and all the forces acting on each particle. Now, if that were true, it should be able to predict where each and every particle would go into infinity. For example, if you know the position of a ball and the forces acting on it, you can predict its trajectory to infinity. Just imagine that ball on a subatomic scale. Now, take away the omnipotent being that the trajectory for every particle, although impossible for humans to figure out, would still theoretically be there. It would seem the position of every particle is predetermined by sum of all the forces in the Universe and some known/unknown natural laws.

Prove me wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are not a ball, an electron, or a mechanistic mechanism. All you present is specious conjecture. It is evident that a falsehood cannot be disproved for there is no basis for disproval.

[/ QUOTE ]


Your last sentence makes no sense and is wrong.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the real question is whether you believe there is true randomness in the Universe or whether there are some fundamental laws that govern everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real question I have is, if you go back to "0" plank time, all information is lost, however, the fundamental forces or laws were present. So, there doesn't appear to be any room for what you referred to as "true randomness" to occur, unless randomness is some kind of force, law or byproduct of the known forces.