I disagree. An isolated probabalistic event is theoretically unpredictable and therefore violates determinism. Furthermore, it is impossible to prove that cause and effect exist at all. An a priori conclusion about nature, such as the application of a causal connection to a future event, is at best an educated guess: the behavior of nature does not depend on our assessment of it.
It's true that it's unprovable, but it can still be 100% accurate. And that's all that determinism needs.
That is not true. Determinism states that all events are fundamentally predictable because of the laws of cause and effect. However, cause and effect can only really be found in retrospect. If there is no rationalistic justification to a rationalistic process like causality, then the process can't be actually rationalistic. Determinism nonetheless posits that natural law is the a priori foundation of the behavior of objects in nature, and therefore it is wrong.
It is only theoretically unpredictable without knowledge of it. Determinism isn't from the viewpoint of an individual or humanity, but from a perspective of ALL. i.e. if you knew the starting conditions of the entire Universe at condition t0, then you could determine the probabalistic outcome at t1 - and so on. It is thus impossible in this situation as defined to have an isolated probabalistic event - and your violation is non-existent. It is impossible to prove (100%) anything at all. However, until such time as you provide evidence of something that does not follow cause and effect, we will continue to assume that it operates, okay? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wrong, animals have emotions too. humans and animals are a part of the universe, so the universe Does have emotions! And if little animals like insects can have emotions, then it's just logical to assume that plants can too, and matter, even if their emotions are a lot different (less advanced) every atom has a brain. why are the laws the way they are? mind doesn't come from matter, matter comes from the mind. matter is concentrated thoughts, feelings, light, consciousness. you think i can prove mathematically that earth attracts things because it loves them? mathematics is useless for trying to understand the universe, it's only necessary for technical achievements, not for comprehension. not even at subatomic level? scientists would disagree with you. you think you're so tough just because you know some latin.
But isn't causality the fundamental backbone of science? If all laws are really illusions (or at least simply 'rules of thumb' that we use to predict the progression of the universe), then there is absolutely nothing that can be proved from the universe... By an inverse Occam's razor, we have to assume that our current laws are true and 100% accurate to boot. What say you?
Following this argument, we can then extrapolate that roses are red and roses are a part of the plant kingdom,so all plants are red. I admit that animals have emotions too. But they have DIFFERENT ones from humans, and we can't attribute human emotions to all but the smartest animals. Insects are so underevolved that they don't have emotions. But before I can take a stand on whether you are truly wrong or not; I have to ask you a question; How do you define emotion? This is absolutely wrong. Brains consist of atoms. Not the other way around. Don't confuse minds with brains (and even if you said every atom has a mind, I'd say you're wrong anyway). Huh? Through what contorted logic did you reach this conclusion? I think you are wrong. The only way we can comprehend the universe is through accepting a base set of axioms and beliefs, and then constructing a model of it through observation and logic. Math is the language of logic.
Lg, Do you understand the four basic forces and can you list them? Do you understand the periodic table and the nature of the elements? Did you study basic chemistry at school? Let’s take 4 elements, sodium, hydrogen, chlorine, and oxygen. Sodium is a lustrous soft metal that can be cut like cheese but if placed in water the reaction is violently explosive. Hydrogen is the simplest of the elements and is a gas. Chlorine is also a gas but is also a deadly poison for us. Oxygen is a gas that is needed for life. These atoms are all held together by the push/pull forces that you frequently mention. Now what happens if we start to mix these elements together? That takes us to the next layer of complexity. If you combine the explosive metal sodium with the poisonous gas chlorine the result is edible salt. If you combine the two gases hydrogen and oxygen the result is water. The point here is that the simple nature of an element gives no initial insight into what will happen when combined with other elements. Many results are incredibly amazing. Carbon is another element and has perhaps the greatest versatility of all the elements and can combine with many others. This flexibility is likely the reason why carbon is the basic building blocks of living organisms. Do you understand so far and would you like me to proceed to the next level where we can discuss more complex compounds and molecules? The level beyond that would be to demonstrate how molecules combine into more complex structures and so on. Eventually we will reach neural networks and the mind. I need you first to recognize that complexity is the result of the combination of simpler building blocks and until you can move past that we will be unable to make any further progress. It is not his ideology that I am promoting here but his scientific analysis. Survival. Religious beliefs do not support our long term survival. Rational morality; the recognition of good and bad, are essential for our survival. Reward and punishment are irrelevant antiquated authoritarian concepts but in reality there are only issues of survival or death. Such actions would affect my survival. Whether there is free will or not is essentially irrelevant all the time I can perceive I am a free individual. Because the issue is irrelevant, I am motivated by pleasure, the same as everyone else.
Since such a situation is not possible (and perhaps never was), what is the significance of determinism other than to make an unsupportable claim about the True Nature of the universe? Is this really a useful thing to believe? Is it meaningful, metaphysically, at all? False. I can logically prove, with one hundred percent certainty, any of a number of geometrical theorems, without having to retrospectively justify any of them against observed effects either physical or purely mental in the way that causality must. y = 2x + 1 Must it be said that x "causes" y to equal one plus twice x? Or must it be said that y "causes" x to equal half of the quantity (y - 1)? The truth is that this is a simple relation, like that of a circle's circumference to its diameter; there is no causality involved. And yet here we have a true statement that "operates" just fine. You'll find it difficult to establish causality in any symmetrical relationship; only when the asymmetrical arrow of time is introduced must we consider cause and effect. No. The empirical datum is. Proof is for mathematicians; scientists use theory and falsification.
c7, For example? Or are you going to quote quantum events? Or perhaps the irrelevance here of Heisenberg? Was that latin? Gosh I didn't know that. But everyone who has studied just a little logic hits that phrase very early on. Guess you haven't studied any logic yet judging from your bizarre posts.
I have no idea if it is a really useful thing to believe, and to believe something on the basis of usefulness is not something I do. Secondly, I am not a "believer" in determinism. It is an interesting concept. But, like all metaphysical ideas and claims about the true nature of reality, it is an interesting discourse with no more to support it than many others. Apologies if you were after more from me. You are quite correct - and my choice of language was poor. My claim was that nothing in reality can ever be proven 100% - hence why science does not deal in proof, but in hypothesis, theory, probability etc. Proof, as you rightly say, is the reserve of mathematics. And likewise, I stand reminded on cause/effect requiring the passage of time. (Wasn't really thinking through what I was hastily typing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Causality is firmly entrenched in the concept of time. If we assume that x and y are events, then we can say (with 100% accuracy) that the later is a function of the former. y = 2x + 1 if x is the earlier event or x = (y-1)/2 if y is the earlier event. Since one event is directly affected by the other (one changes when the other changes), we can confidently say that one contributed to the other. If the first event was the only contributing factor (or the only non-negligible one at least...), then we can confidently say that the earlier 'caused' the later.
Your analogy sucks. Equations of the sort in question are commutative; by nature they defy causality. Here is something a little more scrupulous: If x and y are possible events in nature, and x has already occurred, how do we determine if y will happen? There is no way to answer this question purely from reason, given no prior experience. In fact, both and x and y, as events in nature, must necessarily be defined in terms of natural objects; and no knowledge of natural objects can come from anywhere but nature itself. Therefore empirical data, it can be said, impose x and y themselves. At best we can infer, through application of reason to the senses (which are imperfect), x, y, and thusly their causal relationship. None of these can be known purely through reason; that is, it cannot be said with certainty that our definitions for these three are true. Our concept of x => y is at best a perceptual approximation of whatever objective, unknown existence the system may have. Causality, therefore, can only truly be said to be perceived or inferred. To claim any further reality to cause and effect is to make a meaningless statement.
Let me rephrase myself; if y doesn't happen, it is equivalent to y = 0. All the values of y represent the possible permutations of said event, including it's non-existance. As for your causlaity comment; doesn't that mean that NOTHING can be proved in the real world? Are you saying physics is pointless?
Cris and this is supposed to indicate how there is something more than push/pull forces acting? Or that push pull forces can reach a level of complexity where push/pull forces are no longer acting? I understand that it would require you to bridge the gap between th e push/pull forces of inert matter to the movements of neural networks with something more substantial than speculation the problem is its not clear how layering the complexity of inert matter lands one to an organism “ "The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob," Quote from the atheistic author of an interview conducted with Dawkins in a recent edition of "wired" magazine Is another fundamentalist group really what the world needs? where is the question of endeavour for survival without free will? “ How can one determine good or bad without free will? such actions would be inescapable in a universe bereft of free will - are you trying to say that "survival" is an illusory notion they we occupy ourselves with to avoid the reality that the universe is composed of pre-determined effects from causes? so what does that mean? Do you have free will or do you just pretend that you have free will? “ Where is the question of pleasure without free will?
You realize that a strong kinetic collision can convert it's energy into potential energy and form a chemical bond?
