Sharing my Philosophy of Life and Living

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by quantum_wave, Aug 27, 2016.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    The universe is not the only way it can be... But the way it is -- features (the potential for and) the realisation of natural generation of intelligent... self aware individuals who are so caut up in the illusion... that most of 'em still believe that will is free.!!!
    An even tho the underlying mechanism apears to be random... they want to believe that this randomness somehow leads to free will.!!!


    Just to clarify: determinism is more than just cause and effect, but the principle that if you rewound time and pressed play again then everything would come out in exactly the same way. It is a case of X always leading to Y always leading to Z etc: if you have the same inputs then you always get the same output.
    Indeterminism is still a matter of cause and effect (although could allow for the uncaused) but where the same inputs can lead to different outputs. Randomness in the output, e.g. within a probability function, would make the universe indeterministic.
    My take is that the same inputs lead to the same probability function of outputs, but the specific output is random in line with that function. So if you rewound the universe I think it would have almost zero chance of being exactly the same as it is now. It might be close, depending on the cumulative probability functions, but it would also depend on the level of chaos in the system (chaos being the sensitivity of the ouput to the starting conditions).

    Hence my slight amendment above.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    We have three versions, so let me take a crack at comparing them, starting with the first phrase:
    Phrase I
    QW: The universe is as it should be and could be no other way ...
    Cluelusshusbund: The universe is prolly the only way it can be ...
    Sarkus: The universe is not the only way it can be...But [given] the way it is ...

    My attempt to combine the first phrase brings me to the conclusion that QW's and Cluelusshusbund's first phrase are compatible with a universe that has always existed, but Sarkus' version is not compatible with the "always existed" explanation for the existence of the universe because he entertains it coming out different if it was replayed. My thinking is that you cannot replay a universe that has always existed without ending it and starting over, and that doesn't seem consistent with "always existed".

    At his point, I am asking Cluelusshusbund if he considers his version to fall under the "always exited" explanation for the existence of the universe?

    And I am asking Sarkus if he would reveal which of the sides of the "Triangle of Cosmological Explanations" from the opening post, applies to his version?

    If I get your responses, I will venture on to redo the comparison based on the additional information.

    Never-the-less, here is a preliminary attempt to combine all of those words into Phrase I: The universe, if it has always existed, could be no other way, because there is no way to stop and go back and replay it. However, if the universe has not always existed, i.e., had a beginning, and if it featured probability functions, then supposing there were a way for it to be wound back and replayed, or otherwise, supposing there were multiple universes with different natural laws, it could play out differently, depending on the cumulative probabilities.

    Here is the raw data for the rest of the Phases, which I will go on and attempt to compare:

    Phrase II
    QW: and the way it is features the natural generation of intelligent, self aware individuals,
    Cluelusshusband: an the way it is -- features the natural generation of intelligent... self aware individuals
    Sarkus: -- [it] features (the potential for and) the realisation of natural generation of intelligent... self aware individuals

    I think that all three versions of Phase II are essential compatible. Sarkus' version includes "the potential for and the realization of", and I propose a combined version that simple says:
    ... Further, the universe features the natural generation of intelligent, self aware individuals ...
    Is that OK or would you suggest different wording?

    Phrase III
    QW: with free will.
    Clueless husband: who are so caut up in the illusion... that most of 'em still believe that will is free.!!!
    Sarkus: who are so caut up in the illusion... that most of 'em still believe that will is free.!!!

    As for Phrase III, we have one that posits the existence of free will, and two that posit that free will is an illusion.

    My proposed combined version might go something like this, but I'm open to objections and suggestions:

    ... with free will, or at least with a convincing illusion of free will ...

    Phrase IV
    QW: The underlying mechanistic randomness ...
    Cluelusshusband: An even tho the underlying mechanism apears to be random...
    Sarkus: An even tho the underlying mechanism apears to be random...

    So may I suggest for Phase IV this version: ... and there seems to be an underlying mechanistic randomness at the quantum level.

    Phrase V:
    QW: ... is like a stage upon which we live out our lives, shaping and choosing the way that our lives turn out, to a great extent.
    Cluelusshusbund: they want to believe that this randomness somehow leads to free will.!!!
    Sarkus: ... they want to believe that this randomness somehow leads to free will.!!!

    And in Phrase V, we have the same split, one suggests a stage of randomness upon which free will, or the illusion of free will plays out, and two suggest the illusion has to do with wanting to believe that free will is compatible with the underlying randomness, but it is not, i.e., there is no free will.

    I'll try to combine Phrase V into this: ... The mechanistic randomness may either be a stage upon which free will plays out, i.e., a natural backdrop from which the generation and evolution of life emerges, or else the illusion of free will is just that, an illusions, meaning there is no free will, and no shaping and choosing the way our lives play out.

    So pending input to be further incorporated into the combined version, here is the combined statement in full (which I propose includes all points from all three). I suspect this combined version will not really satisfy anyone, but it does reveal the complications encounter when trying to come to a consensus. Of course, there is no need for a consensus, but maybe working toward one is constructive:

    The universe, if it has always existed, could be no other way, because there is no way to stop and go back and replay it. However, if the universe has not always existed, i.e., had a beginning, and if it featured probability functions, then supposing there were a way for it to be wound back and replayed, or otherwise, supposing there were multiple universes with different natural laws, it could play out differently, depending on the cumulative probabilities. Further, the universe features the natural generation of intelligent, self aware individuals with free will, or at least with a convincing illusion of free will, and there seems to be an underlying mechanistic randomness at the quantum level. The mechanistic randomness may either be a stage upon which free will plays out, i.e., a natural backdrop from which the generation and evolution of life emerges having free will, or else the illusion of free will is just that, an illusion, meaning there is no free will, and no shaping and choosing the way our lives play out.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,653
    I said... "The universe is prolly the only way it can be"... an the pont i had in mind was... that i lean toward the universe bein deterministic... but as far as the universe havin always existed... i dont know of any evidence that makes me lean one way or the other... so i just add it to my long list of thangs that i dont know.!!!

    I thank what Sarkus said is the most accurate... Sarkus: -- [it] features (the potential for and) the realisation of natural generation of intelligent... self aware individuals

    Yeah i also dont see a consensus comin

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ... but it will be interestin what you finaly come up wit after you get all the input that you can.!!!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    The notion of replaying and starting over is simply saying that if you had exactly the same conditions at any point, there is no guarantee that the same outcome would happen. It is not a suggestion that the universe is able to be replayed and started over.
    So my view is that both determinism and indeterminism are compatible with a universe that began or that has always existed.

    In more detail, my view is that determinism states that if at t=Z there were conditions X that led to Y, then whenever you have conditions X they will always lead to Y.
    Indeterminism (my view) is that at t=Z there are conditions X that lead to a probability function f(Y), and that conditions X will always lead to f(Y).
    But the actual result (Ya, Yb, Yc, Yd...) is random but in accordance to that probability function.
    So the actual result at t=Z, with conditions X, could be Ya, but if you rewound the universe to t=Z where there were conditions X, the result this time could be Yb.
    Then, depending on the chaos within the universe, small changes can eventually lead to significant changes.

    But neither determinism nor indeterminism seem incompatible with an "always existed" universe any more than a "began" universe.

    That's my thinking, anyway, but if you think differently, please elucidate - happy to ponder over any insights I may have missed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
















    If I get your responses, I will venture on to redo the comparison based on the additional information.

    Never-the-less, here is a preliminary attempt to combine all of those words into Phrase I: The universe, if it has always existed, could be no other way, because there is no way to stop and go back and replay it. However, if the universe has not always existed, i.e., had a beginning, and if it featured probability functions, then supposing there were a way for it to be wound back and replayed, or otherwise, supposing there were multiple universes with different natural laws, it could play out differently, depending on the cumulative probabilities.

    Here is the raw data for the rest of the Phases, which I will go on and attempt to compare:

    Phrase II
    QW: and the way it is features the natural generation of intelligent, self aware individuals,
    Cluelusshusband: an the way it is -- features the natural generation of intelligent... self aware individuals
    Sarkus: -- [it] features (the potential for and) the realisation of natural generation of intelligent... self aware individuals

    I think that all three versions of Phase II are essential compatible. Sarkus' version includes "the potential for and the realization of", and I propose a combined version that simple says:
    ... Further, the universe features the natural generation of intelligent, self aware individuals ...
    Is that OK or would you suggest different wording?

    Phrase III
    QW: with free will.
    Clueless husband: who are so caut up in the illusion... that most of 'em still believe that will is free.!!!
    Sarkus: who are so caut up in the illusion... that most of 'em still believe that will is free.!!!

    As for Phrase III, we have one that posits the existence of free will, and two that posit that free will is an illusion.

    My proposed combined version might go something like this, but I'm open to objections and suggestions:

    ... with free will, or at least with a convincing illusion of free will ...

    Phrase IV
    QW: The underlying mechanistic randomness ...
    Cluelusshusband: An even tho the underlying mechanism apears to be random...
    Sarkus: An even tho the underlying mechanism apears to be random...

    So may I suggest for Phase IV this version: ... and there seems to be an underlying mechanistic randomness at the quantum level.

    Phrase V:
    QW: ... is like a stage upon which we live out our lives, shaping and choosing the way that our lives turn out, to a great extent.
    Cluelusshusbund: they want to believe that this randomness somehow leads to free will.!!!
    Sarkus: ... they want to believe that this randomness somehow leads to free will.!!!

    And in Phrase V, we have the same split, one suggests a stage of randomness upon which free will, or the illusion of free will plays out, and two suggest the illusion has to do with wanting to believe that free will is compatible with the underlying randomness, but it is not, i.e., there is no free will.

    I'll try to combine Phrase V into this: ... The mechanistic randomness may either be a stage upon which free will plays out, i.e., a natural backdrop from which the generation and evolution of life emerges, or else the illusion of free will is just that, an illusions, meaning there is no free will, and no shaping and choosing the way our lives play out.

    So pending input to be further incorporated into the combined version, here is the combined statement in full (which I propose includes all points from all three). I suspect this combined version will not really satisfy anyone, but it does reveal the complications encounter when trying to come to a consensus. Of course, there is no need for a consensus, but maybe working toward one is constructive:

    The universe, if it has always existed, could be no other way, because there is no way to stop and go back and replay it. However, if the universe has not always existed, i.e., had a beginning, and if it featured probability functions, then supposing there were a way for it to be wound back and replayed, or otherwise, supposing there were multiple universes with different natural laws, it could play out differently, depending on the cumulative probabilities. Further, the universe features the natural generation of intelligent, self aware individuals with free will, or at least with a convincing illusion of free will, and there seems to be an underlying mechanistic randomness at the quantum level. The mechanistic randomness may either be a stage upon which free will plays out, i.e., a natural backdrop from which the generation and evolution of life emerges having free will, or else the illusion of free will is just that, an illusion, meaning there is no free will, and no shaping and choosing the way our lives play out.
    [/QUOTE]
     
  8. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Ok, thank you for the added inputs.

    Based on that input, one take away that I like is that I think that all three versions of the Freewill vs. Determinism statement can be said to be compatible with the "always existed" side of the triangle. Beyond that, all three seem to invoke the natural generation and evolution of intelligent life, and the mechanistic randomness of the quantum realm.

    My belief in freewill can be called an illusion, but each of us who invoke freewill can easily prove it to our own satisfaction.

    I would be interested in how those who invoke determinism might try to test that to their satisfaction?

    Determinism advocates do have several good come-backs to that, I'm sure. One is to say that proving freewill to one's own satisfaction has no more scientific relevance than not being able to prove determinism actually means the universe is not deterministic. It boils down to an individual decision, just like the side of the "Triangle of Cosmological Explanations", is a personal choice.
     
  9. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,465
    To the original thread topic.

    Be good to yourself and others ; no matter their race ; religion .

    Understand that in the end our survival ; Humanities survival ; is based on our attitudes towards ourselves .

    We can not survive ; Humanity ; if we cannot understand that killing and/or destroying , each other is not Natural.

    NO advanced being ever continued to exist without believing in its own being.
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Thank you for those thoughts on a philosophy of living. I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. However, the warring and killing being unnatural is an argument that presupposes a clear set of values about right and wrong. I don't think that there is such a thing as a universal right and wrong. Don't you think it comes down to what each individual considers right and wrong? In reality, charismatic leaders can influence followers to accept a set of values that many would consider to be far from right, and yet they follow. Why?
     
  11. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,465
    I see your point ; about a clear set of values . I find a truth in this perspective upon right and wrong .

    But what is important is that Humanity cannot survive in the short term( let alone the long term ) if Humanity will not and/or cannot find existence of our life matters.

    To me ; we matter more than any other being that is or will be in this Universe ; bottom line .

    Nothing else matters ; if we cease to exist , what else matters ? Seriously ?


    People follow because it's easy .
     
  12. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,659
    If I understand that right, I agree just about 100% with Sarkus. (I often agree with him.) The free-will/determinism question and the out-of-nothing/always-existed question are two separate issues.

    And I disagree pretty emphatically with Clueless' hard determinism. I don't think that free-will is an "illusion" at all. I'm a big believer in free-will and am inclined towards compatibilism on that issue.

    Why? See my remarks in posts #463 and 475 in this earlier free-will/determinism thread:

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-illusion-of-free-will.140779/page-24
     
  13. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,653

    I lean toward the universe bein deterministic cause im skeptical that our knowledge about quantum mechanics is good enuff to rule it out.!!!
     
  14. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,653
    I often agree wit Sarkus also... so you'r in good company... an i also had the good sinse to block out the noise an listen to what you had to say about moon rotation... so thanks to you 2 i now understand a lot about moon movements an the finer details of how free will is an illusion.!!!
     
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    Whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, in both cases I still see freewill as an illusion, at least in the meaning that how it operates is utterly different to, and even at odds with, how it seems to operate. But, and I have stressed this before, it depends on how you define freewill.

    If you define it as the conscious perception of the conscious ability to take what we consciously perceive as choices, and to do so free of other factors that might limit that conscious ability, then freewill is alive and kicking.

    But if we define it as us having ultimate causal agency over matters, I.e. that we instigate the action with no prior cause, or at least no prior cause that we are not compelled to simply react unconsciously to, then no, I do not think this freewill exists. This level of freewill requires a non-physical "entity", a spirit (for want of a better word) that defies the currently understood laws of physics.

    The former is like snooker balls bouncing around a table and interacting per the laws of physics, reaching actions that, due to complexity our emergent consciousness (which emerge from that same table of interactions) considers to be "choices" (even though we can not control those interactions)...
    And the latter is like those same balls bouncing around, but then some changing direction through their own volition, or that of a "spirit" that is not otherwise caused by those same interactions.


    To me the conscious perception of being able to make a choice free from the inevitability ordained by the microscopic chain of cause and effect over which we have no control is what I see as illusion. We perceive and act as though we are free of it, yet we aren't. Hence illusion.
    At least that's how I see it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You are of course "free" to see it differently.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,653
    @ qw

    In you'r atempt to combine participants diferent views i offer a compromised definition of free-will which is a compatibilist view... an it includes free will wit-out the need for magic/supernatural/Gods... e.g... you simply ignore the subconscious causal chain which directly influences the conscious causal chain.!!!
     
  17. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,805
    Compatibilism is applicable in even a block-universe, wherein all events are as set as in a movie film sequence (ultimate determinism). There would still be _X_ person responding to the circumstances it encounters according to the nature of its specific identity. The latter would be distinct from the identity of that overall 4D cosmos, which as a general entity lacks the personal interests, reflexive responses, and decision-making processes of that particular body and its local powers of human performance. "What _X_ person would do in _Z_ situation" is still realized (depending on whether that convergence is a resident of that universe), and would also permanently exist rather than eventually developing and then immediately disappearing.

    Unlike heteronomic control from the outside (as in a puppet or ventriloquist dummy), "will" implies the autonomous operation of a system. The latter is not disorganization or randomness and is thus limited to the options its regulatory constraints allow. "Free" is a superfluous modifier of "will" since it merely emphasizes the range of choices and abilities which that complex whole makes available to itself. By definition, the order of a system opposes complete lawlessness / freedom (to arbitrarily "do" slash "be" anything), so the selections and powers of volition are expected to not surpass the nature of the identity of the agent (person, etc) which such belongs to.
     
  18. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,606
    I apologize if I or another Poster made a similar response to the following.From CluelessHusbund Post #6
    The concept of a deterministic universe was refuted in the early 20th century by Quantum Theory which established that the Classical Reality of our senses is built on a Quantum Reality governed by probabilistic laws.

    Radioactive decay is the most well known probabilistic process. There are others.

    While not proven by the Uncertainty Principle, a probabilistic reality is surely consistent with it.
     
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    Not entirely refuted, I don't think. While most would consider it to be indeterministic, there remains the issue of whether that indeterminism is simply due to hidden variables. This is what Einstein thought with his notion of God not playing dice.
    I am not sure on whether recent experimentation has effectively ruled out hidden variables or not... Some suggest it has while others think not quite. So while I am certainly of the indeterminism (probabilistic) view, I wouldn't rule out determinism entirely. Although I do think current tech is unable to reveal any hidden variables at present, if they exist. Although it might be able to reveal their absence.
    I think.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    It would be phenomenal if our small group of participants in the discussion of freewill could reach a consensus on it, but the reality of such a phenomenon will probably elude us. That is okay with me, since, as Yogi Berra might have said, I don't usually agree with people who disagree with me anyway. Forgive me if that obnoxious statement isn't attributed to him, lol.

    Never-the-less, my philosophy features freewill, and my philosophy of living means that individuals can intentionally employ freewill in their daily lives.

    One good example of an area of life where freewill can be employed, with meaningful and constructive results, is in relation to the act of forgiveness. A perfect act of forgiveness is characterized by forgetting two things, the act that you have forgiven, and the fact that you have forgiven. It is sometimes referred to as forgive and forget, and it entails a convenient memory lapse where, until reminded by some subsequent circumstance, the fact that there was blame or guilt, and forgiveness of it, is forgotten.

    In regard to forgiveness, I try to apply my personal philosophy of Eternal Intent by seeking an acknowledgement from beyond the boundary of known science, into the realm of the "as yet" unknown invariant natural laws of the universe. My thinking is that if the natural laws feature the ability for me to forgive, then that ability will have always existed, i.e., has been available forever to self aware intelligent beings. The acknowledgement is to come in the form of me being able to address various forms of blame and guilt successfully, with the outcome being that I completely forget there was any blame or guilt in regard to specific incidents in my life.

    This philosophy of forgiveness applies to both forgiving others for things you blame them for, whether they know it or not, and forgiving yourself for acts for which you carry around self-guilt, whether anyone knows it or not. The Eternal Intent aspect is that we don't need to carry around guilt or blame, both of which can be detrimental to ourselves and to how we interact with others.

    Please try it and let me know if it works for you. I know in some instances, I have to re-seek some of those acknowledgements more than once before I reach the point where they seem effectively forgotten.
     
  21. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,653
    The net result of our philosophys is much alike.!!!

    My philosophy features the illusion of freewill, and my philosophy of living means that individuals employ this illusion in ther daily lives as if they actualy have freewill.!!!

    Sinse i realize that free will is an illusion... i dont thank anybody deserves punishment... an i cut out the middle man (so to speek) by never feelin a need to forgive myself... or anyone else... e.g... the instent someone changes ther ways to be compatible to mine... they are my frind... perty simple really

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It works for me... i just prefer the simplicity of acceptin the reality that free will is an illusion... an skip the baggage of dealin wit forgiveness an punishment.!!!
     
  22. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Using the net result of our two philosophies as a point of comparison does simplify the process of making the comparison. I prefer to get there by considering freewill as a natural characteristic of high evolution, but if you view freewill is an illusion, you can get there that way if you want to. But the use of freewill enters into every conscious thought and action, and that means, in my view, we have complete control of how we think and interact, and with that comes responsibility for the outcomes.

    On the issue of "punishment", my view is that there is no clear cut right and wrong. "Right and wrong" is instilled into us from the moment we emerge from the womb. It is the "right and wrong" of our parents and/or close people in our upbringing, and the effect or our experiences and environments; no two people have the exact same perceptions of right and wrong, and so the quaintly of justice becomes an imposed social phenomenon.

    I think the maturity of an individual reflects the degree to which we can sort out all of the influences around us and make our freewill dicisions with ample consideration for the outcomes on ourselves and others. Failure to do so has repercussions, often governed by society, and the freewill of others.
     
  23. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,653
    I dont need the belief that will is free... i observe how thangs actually operate... i.e... cause an effect.!!!
    The free-will-belief promotes the type of judgement which leads to hate... revenge... punishment... self loathing... and also keeps lots of psychiatrists in bidness... lol.!!!
    People who realize that free-will is an illusion are still held responsible for ther actions... however... realizin that people dont deserve punishment is a step forward for humanity as a whole.!!!
     
    Magical Realist likes this.

Share This Page