Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Any event causes any subsequent event

Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.

Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.

Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.

Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.

I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.

Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.

Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.

Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.

I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?

I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.

Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.

Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.

Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.

I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?

I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.

I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.

Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.

Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.

Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.

Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.

Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.

Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.

I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?

I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.

I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.

Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.

Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.

Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.

Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 4:49:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.

Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.

Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.

Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.

I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?

I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.

I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.

Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.

Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.

Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.

Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.

No, I'm not stating that all events are the result of their previous state. Just that the occurrence of the previous event causes them to occur at all. If the moment before I started typing this didn't exist, I wouldn't be typing this.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 4:52:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 4:49:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.

Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.

Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.

Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.

I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?

I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.

I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.

Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.

Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.

Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.

Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.

No, I'm not stating that all events are the result of their previous state. Just that the occurrence of the previous event causes them to occur at all. If the moment before I started typing this didn't exist, I wouldn't be typing this.

If you're not advancing some form of determinism, then I don't see why the existence of some state depends on the existence of any other state. If events are not determining their subsequent events, then how are they necessary?
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 5:01:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 4:52:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:49:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.

Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.

Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.

Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.

I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?

I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.

I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.

Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.

Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.

Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.

Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.

No, I'm not stating that all events are the result of their previous state. Just that the occurrence of the previous event causes them to occur at all. If the moment before I started typing this didn't exist, I wouldn't be typing this.

If you're not advancing some form of determinism, then I don't see why the existence of some state depends on the existence of any other state. If events are not determining their subsequent events, then how are they necessary?

Well, determinism advocates that the nature of an event determines the immediately subsequent one, i.e. the exact state of the universe affects my next action.

However, I am merely advocating that events do this simply by existing in any way at all. It doesn't really matter what hydrogen atoms were fusing inside Sirius right before I typed this, all that matters is that something happened.

If events in the timeline simply didn't occur, then one of two things is possible:

One: Time has stopped.

Two: Time skips over events sometimes.

One is obviously false, as it is trivially obvious from direct experience that events are still occurring, and time is still moving forward. Two would result in phenomena occurring before it being possible to do so, which has never ever been observed.

Ergo, I conclude that every time an event occurs, the event immediately subsequent must also occur.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 5:07:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 5:01:12 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:52:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:49:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.

Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.

Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.

Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.

I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?

I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.

I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.

Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.

Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.

Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.

Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.

No, I'm not stating that all events are the result of their previous state. Just that the occurrence of the previous event causes them to occur at all. If the moment before I started typing this didn't exist, I wouldn't be typing this.

If you're not advancing some form of determinism, then I don't see why the existence of some state depends on the existence of any other state. If events are not determining their subsequent events, then how are they necessary?

Well, determinism advocates that the nature of an event determines the immediately subsequent one, i.e. the exact state of the universe affects my next action.

However, I am merely advocating that events do this simply by existing in any way at all. It doesn't really matter what hydrogen atoms were fusing inside Sirius right before I typed this, all that matters is that something happened.

If events in the timeline simply didn't occur, then one of two things is possible:

One: Time has stopped.

Two: Time skips over events sometimes.

Neither of these are implied. If an event didn't occur, there would be a) nothing to "skip over" and b) nothing for time to stop on.


One is obviously false, as it is trivially obvious from direct experience that events are still occurring, and time is still moving forward. Two would result in phenomena occurring before it being possible to do so, which has never ever been observed.

Ergo, I conclude that every time an event occurs, the event immediately subsequent must also occur.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 5:09:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 5:07:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 5:01:12 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:52:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:49:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.

Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.

Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.

Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.

I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?

I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.

I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.

Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.

Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.

Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.

Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.

No, I'm not stating that all events are the result of their previous state. Just that the occurrence of the previous event causes them to occur at all. If the moment before I started typing this didn't exist, I wouldn't be typing this.

If you're not advancing some form of determinism, then I don't see why the existence of some state depends on the existence of any other state. If events are not determining their subsequent events, then how are they necessary?

Well, determinism advocates that the nature of an event determines the immediately subsequent one, i.e. the exact state of the universe affects my next action.

However, I am merely advocating that events do this simply by existing in any way at all. It doesn't really matter what hydrogen atoms were fusing inside Sirius right before I typed this, all that matters is that something happened.

If events in the timeline simply didn't occur, then one of two things is possible:

One: Time has stopped.

Two: Time skips over events sometimes.


Neither of these are implied. If an event didn't occur, there would be a) nothing to "skip over" and b) nothing for time to stop on.

There is a difference between events not existing and not occurring. Events in the future have not occurred, but still exist as part of the sequence of events that make up time. Hence, if an event on the timeline existed but didn't occur, then either none of the future events occur (time stops) or some of the future events occur, but not all (some events are skipped).


One is obviously false, as it is trivially obvious from direct experience that events are still occurring, and time is still moving forward. Two would result in phenomena occurring before it being possible to do so, which has never ever been observed.

Ergo, I conclude that every time an event occurs, the event immediately subsequent must also occur.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 5:16:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 5:09:59 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 5:07:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 5:01:12 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:52:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:49:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.

Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.

Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.

Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.

I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?

I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.

I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.

Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one. This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.

Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.

Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.

Now you've made your argument circular by starting with the premise that all states are the result of their previous state. If you want to establish determinism (which is what I take you to be doing here) you'll need to do better than that.

No, I'm not stating that all events are the result of their previous state. Just that the occurrence of the previous event causes them to occur at all. If the moment before I started typing this didn't exist, I wouldn't be typing this.

If you're not advancing some form of determinism, then I don't see why the existence of some state depends on the existence of any other state. If events are not determining their subsequent events, then how are they necessary?

Well, determinism advocates that the nature of an event determines the immediately subsequent one, i.e. the exact state of the universe affects my next action.

However, I am merely advocating that events do this simply by existing in any way at all. It doesn't really matter what hydrogen atoms were fusing inside Sirius right before I typed this, all that matters is that something happened.

If events in the timeline simply didn't occur, then one of two things is possible:

One: Time has stopped.

Two: Time skips over events sometimes.


Neither of these are implied. If an event didn't occur, there would be a) nothing to "skip over" and b) nothing for time to stop on.

There is a difference between events not existing and not occurring. Events in the future have not occurred, but still exist as part of the sequence of events that make up time. Hence, if an event on the timeline existed but didn't occur, then either none of the future events occur (time stops) or some of the future events occur, but not all (some events are skipped).

Actually, the occurrence of an event makes up its entire existence. I.e., An event is defined on a specific moment in time. Unless you subscribe to determinism, you can't talk about future events as anything but potentials.


One is obviously false, as it is trivially obvious from direct experience that events are still occurring, and time is still moving forward. Two would result in phenomena occurring before it being possible to do so, which has never ever been observed.

Ergo, I conclude that every time an event occurs, the event immediately subsequent must also occur.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 5:23:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 5:16:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 5:09:59 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 5:07:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 5:01:12 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:52:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:49:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:45:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
There is a difference between events not existing and not occurring. Events in the future have not occurred, but still exist as part of the sequence of events that make up time. Hence, if an event on the timeline existed but didn't occur, then either none of the future events occur (time stops) or some of the future events occur, but not all (some events are skipped).

Actually, the occurrence of an event makes up its entire existence. I.e., An event is defined on a specific moment in time. Unless you subscribe to determinism, you can't talk about future events as anything but potentials.

That only matters if I care about the nature of the events, i.e. what the makeup of the universe as the event occurs. I can say that some event will occur, i.e. the 11 quintillionth event in the sequence of events that is time. I don't care what that event is, just that there is some 11 quintillionth event. The 11 quintillionth event does exist within the sequence of events that is time.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.


I also don't see how premise one is justified. When an event occurs, it only causes time to move forward up to that moment in time. It doesn't push us into the future as you seem to think it does. In order to move into the future, new states must replace the ones which exist, and the states being replaced obviously can't do that.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 1:06:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.


I also don't see how premise one is justified. When an event occurs, it only causes time to move forward up to that moment in time. It doesn't push us into the future as you seem to think it does. In order to move into the future, new states must replace the ones which exist, and the states being replaced obviously can't do that.

Well the original formulation was flawed, which is why I moved to the second one, in which the vague terminology of "time moving forward" is scrapped.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 2:15:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 1:06:42 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.


I also don't see how premise one is justified. When an event occurs, it only causes time to move forward up to that moment in time. It doesn't push us into the future as you seem to think it does. In order to move into the future, new states must replace the ones which exist, and the states being replaced obviously can't do that.

Well the original formulation was flawed, which is why I moved to the second one, in which the vague terminology of "time moving forward" is scrapped.

I understand what you're saying, but I believe in Determinism. Actually I belive in Fatalism, but Determinism is easier to explain. This all has to do with Newton's Laws of Motion, and the only way Determinism could be considered false is using the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. I deny the Uncertainty Principle because it is a contradiction, and I don't believe it is possible for a contradiction to coexist in the physical world. Here's an article about it

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Determinism is the only position that has no contradictions and is observable through any situation. Niels Bohr knew this, and that is why he argued for the Uncertainty Principle. Here's an article about it

http://www.aip.org...

Free will is impossible.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 6:19:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.

Premise Two: When time moves forward, it causes an event to occur.

Premise Three: When an event is caused by time moving forward caused by another event occurring, it is subsequent to that event.

Conclusion: All events cause all subsequent events.

I have a more physics-y version which uses Planck frames, but I think this suffices for now. You can use it to argue that the Battle of the Milvian Bridge caused Shakespeare to write Macbeth. Thoughts?

I take issue with premise 2. When time moves forward, an event has occurred, but time isn't causing the event. It just describes the change that has occurred. In other words, time is correlated with the events, not causing them. Time is just change of state. So to claim that time "causes" one event to be replaced with another is like saying change causes change, which is meaningless.

I see. I shall reformulate the argument then.

Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one.

Why imagine that? There is no reason to attribute to the concept of time the ability to "mandate" occurrences". It's like saying imagine that when we measure the leangth of something, the measurement mandates that things length.

This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.

Time is a concept without a physical referent, and it refers to the temporal dimension rather than the spatial dimensions. To speak of time as linear is to attribute a spatial property to it, and even if you do, motion is a spatial term that is only meaningful if it is motion relative to something else. What exactly does time "move forward" in reference to?

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.

Premise one is just the "imaginary" way you defined time, there is no reason to attribute "causation" to time, by what process is time causal?

Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.

Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.

You "imagined" time a certain way, then constructed an "argument" that merely restates the imagination, seems rather pointless. In the same way you could construct this argument.

Imagine that invisible pink elephants exist and they mandate the existence of rainbows.

Premise One: Invisible pink elephants exist

Premise Two: Invisible pink elephants are the reason rainbows exist

Conclusion: Rainbows are caused by invisible pink elephants.

It"s the same logical process, but it"s a pointless exercise, and it"s certainly not a valid argument.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 9:48:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 6:28:26 AM, DizzyKnight wrote:
Can you please kindly explain why the uncertainty principle is contradictory? Thanks.

Yes I would love too. The Uncertainty Principle says that there is no absolute Truth. It claims that when we measure the velocity of a particle, it's position is affected. When we measure it's position, it's velocity is changed. Therefore, we can only have a "probability" of what the particle will do. This then leads us to Particle-Wave Duality, which is the true contradiction of Quantum Mechanics. A Photon is said to have both Particle properties sometimes, and Wave properties other times; both of which are complete opposites of one another. That is like saying my shirt is red, my shirt is blue. Both is these statements are true.

The easiest way to explain this contradiction is with Schrodinger's Cat. I'll copy what Schrodinger wrote for those who don't know.

"One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a"Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of"radioactivesubstance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the"counter tubedischarges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask ofhydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has"decayed. The"psi-function"of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts."

So when we get to the bottom line, is the cat alive or is it dead? Copenhagen believed that the cat was both alive and dead, and Heisenburg further supported this contradiction, thus the Uncertainty Principle. I don't know about you, but I don't believe in zombie cats. I believe that we live in a physical world that is governed by physical Laws that we are unable to deny. The Theologian claims that any contradiction can be explained by God being able to do anything. The Atheist claims that any contradiction can be explained by the Uncertainty Principle. That is my problem with the Uncertainty Principle. Here's a few articles that explain why the Uncertainty Principle is the Atheist Scientists' explanation for everything.

Article of Stephen Hawkings using the Uncertainty Principle to explain the origin of the the Universe.
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

From article: "The focussing of our past light cone implied that time must have a beginning, if the General Theory of relativity is correct. But one might raise the question, of whether General Relativity really is correct. It certainly agrees with all the observational tests that have been carried out. However these test General Relativity, only over fairly large distances. We know that General Relativity can not be quite correct on very small distances, because it is a classical theory. This means, it doesn't take into account, the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics, which says that an object can not have both a well defined position, and a well defined speed: the more accurately one measures the position, the less accurately one can measure the speed, and vice versa. Therefore, to understand the very high-density stage, when the universe was very small, one needs a quantum theory of gravity, which will combine General Relativity with the Uncertainty Principle." Stephen Hawking

Here's a video of Michio Kaku using the Uncertainty Principle as an excuse for free will
http://www.theblaze.com...

From source "Heisenburg then comes along and proposes the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. And says 'Nonsense, there's uncertainty'" Michio Kaku

Here's an article about Determinism, and in the middle of the article, there is only one reason we could ever believe that all things are not Determined: Quantum Mechanics.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

From source: "The once-standard, Copenhagen interpretation of QM posits such a collapse. It has the virtue of solving certain paradoxes such as the infamous Schr"dinger's cat paradox, but few philosophers or physicists can take it very seriously unless they are either idealists or instrumentalists. The reason is simple: the collapse process is not physically well-defined, and feels too"ad hoc"to be a fundamental part of nature's laws."

Also in article: "Many physicists in the past 60 years or so have been convinced of determinism's falsity, because they were convinced that (a) whatever the Final Theory is, it will be some recognizable variant of the family of Quantum mechanical theories; and (b) all quantum mechanical theories are non-deterministic. Both (a) and (b) are highly debatable"

I believe that it is God who has created and determined all that will ever happen. The moment He said "Let there be light", Cause and Effect took its course. I believe this to be the only description possible for the God of Scripture, and I believe His plan is perfect and beautiful. Thank you new friend and God bless you.
DizzyKnight
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 1:44:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I would like to comment on a few things.

Firstly, on the subject of the uncertainty principle, I feel like there might be a slight misconception with the observer effect. The uncertainty principle says that the position and momentum (hence velocity) of an electron (and other particles) cannot both be determined precisely. The more precise its location is is, the less precise its momentum is. This however, should be distinguished from the observer effect, which occurs in systems in which the measurement itself changes the results (like an non-ideal ammeter).

Secondly, I think it would be stretching it too far to say that the uncertainty principle promotes subjectivism. It just states what it states. 1+1=2 is an tautological truth, and it does not contradict the uncertainty principle.

Thirdly, regarding the wave particle duality, i am not sure if i should even call it a theory. It is an observed phenomenon. Photons are normally thought to exhibit particle like properties, but in a double slit experiment it is shown to also exhibit wave like properties. If one is to reject the wave particle duality, one is not rejecting the proposal of some scientist, one is rejecting the existence of this well documented phenomenon. It would be like saying, how can aluminium oxide exhibit both base and acid character? This is a contradiction, I reject aluminium's amphoteric character. Weird as it is, mysterious as it is, it's simply a physical phenomenon like gravity that cannot be rejected.

Lastly, regarding the copenhagen interpretation, I'm afraid that it's beyond the scope of my knowledge. I do not feel I'm knowledgeable enough to give my two cents on the subject. But when one is unable or unwilling to spend time to study the subject, it is best to believe what the scientific paradigm says.

Thanks.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 2:21:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 2:15:15 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 1:06:42 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.


I also don't see how premise one is justified. When an event occurs, it only causes time to move forward up to that moment in time. It doesn't push us into the future as you seem to think it does. In order to move into the future, new states must replace the ones which exist, and the states being replaced obviously can't do that.

Well the original formulation was flawed, which is why I moved to the second one, in which the vague terminology of "time moving forward" is scrapped.

I understand what you're saying, but I believe in Determinism. Actually I belive in Fatalism, but Determinism is easier to explain. This all has to do with Newton's Laws of Motion, and the only way Determinism could be considered false is using the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. I deny the Uncertainty Principle because it is a contradiction, and I don't believe it is possible for a contradiction to coexist in the physical world. Here's an article about it

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Determinism is the only position that has no contradictions and is observable through any situation. Niels Bohr knew this, and that is why he argued for the Uncertainty Principle. Here's an article about it

http://www.aip.org...

Free will is impossible.

Yes, I am also a determinist. Determinism would entail that what I am arguing for is true, so you agree with me, correct?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 2:29:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 6:19:27 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:41:07 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:37:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Imagine "time" as a sequence of events, in which the occurrence of one mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent one.

Why imagine that? There is no reason to attribute to the concept of time the ability to "mandate" occurrences". It's like saying imagine that when we measure the length of something, the measurement mandates that things length.

For our purposes, let's define an "event" as the change between two Planck frames. As the universe is not static (I hope we can at least agree on that) then an "event", as we have defined it, must occur, and further must occur before and after other "events". Since we cannot perceive multiple possible realities at once, time is, pragmatically, linear.

This is, for our purposes, a fine model of time as time is linear and moves forward.

Time is a concept without a physical referent, and it refers to the temporal dimension rather than the spatial dimensions. To speak of time as linear is to attribute a spatial property to it, and even if you do, motion is a spatial term that is only meaningful if it is motion relative to something else. What exactly does time "move forward" in reference to?

The physical referent is the change in Planck frames. What I call "time" is essentially an ordered list of changes between Planck frames. "movement" and "linear" are general terms I use to give the general idea of my thought process.

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes the event immediately subsequent to it to occur.

Premise one is just the "imaginary" way you defined time, there is no reason to attribute "causation" to time, by what process is time causal?

As I said before, the definition of "cause" I am using is to mandate the occurrence or existence of something. As the universe is not static, one change in Planck frames mandates the next.

Premise Two: This does not terminate after one iteration.

Conclusion: Any event causes any subsequent event.

You "imagined" time a certain way, then constructed an "argument" that merely restates the imagination, seems rather pointless. In the same way you could construct this argument.

Imagine that invisible pink elephants exist and they mandate the existence of rainbows.

Premise One: Invisible pink elephants exist

Premise Two: Invisible pink elephants are the reason rainbows exist

Conclusion: Rainbows are caused by invisible pink elephants.

It"s the same logical process, but it"s a pointless exercise, and it"s certainly not a valid argument.

Actually it is a valid argument. An argument is valid if the truth of its premises mandates the truth of its conclusion. Your pink elephant argument certainly meets those criteria. In fact, since this hypothetical states that the premises are true, it's not only a valid argument, it's also a sound one.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 11:22:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 1:44:20 PM, DizzyKnight wrote:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I would like to comment on a few things.

Firstly, on the subject of the uncertainty principle, I feel like there might be a slight misconception with the observer effect. The uncertainty principle says that the position and momentum (hence velocity) of an electron (and other particles) cannot both be determined precisely. The more precise its location is is, the less precise its momentum is. This however, should be distinguished from the observer effect, which occurs in systems in which the measurement itself changes the results (like an non-ideal ammeter).

I agree that we are unable to measure a particle in a Deterministic manner, but this contradicts all that we know about the Physical Universe. Albert Einstein was a Determinist, and he couldn't accept what he witnessed in Quantum Mechanics. He was convinced that they were missing something. De Broglie had come up with a very satisfactory explanation called Pilot-Wave Theory, which introduced "hidden variables", in that a particle was determined based on its subsequent wave. Here are some articles about current advances in this theory.

http://www.pbs.org...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

http://m.phys.org...

http://www.wired.com...

Secondly, I think it would be stretching it too far to say that the uncertainty principle promotes subjectivism. It just states what it states. 1+1=2 is an tautological truth, and it does not contradict the uncertainty principle.

Yes I agree. But that is what Stephen Hawkings and Michio Kaku are saying. Hawkings says that the Logical proposition is that the Universe began with the Singularity, but that this Logic is flawed because there is Uncertainty. Kaku says that according to Newton's Laws of Motion, everything is Determined, but according to Quantum Mechanics, there's Uncertainty. It's their go to excuse for any nonsense they wish to make up.

Thirdly, regarding the wave particle duality, i am not sure if i should even call it a theory. It is an observed phenomenon. Photons are normally thought to exhibit particle like properties, but in a double slit experiment it is shown to also exhibit wave like properties. If one is to reject the wave particle duality, one is not rejecting the proposal of some scientist, one is rejecting the existence of this well documented phenomenon. It would be like saying, how can aluminium oxide exhibit both base and acid character? This is a contradiction, I reject aluminium's amphoteric character. Weird as it is, mysterious as it is, it's simply a physical phenomenon like gravity that cannot be rejected.

I believe it can be rejected, on the basis of hidden variables. Just as a roulette game seems completely random, however if one were to know every variable in any given experiment, we could effectively predict every event before it happens. Here is an article about some Chaos Scientists making progress in this specific department.

http://m.phys.org...

Lastly, regarding the copenhagen interpretation, I'm afraid that it's beyond the scope of my knowledge. I do not feel I'm knowledgeable enough to give my two cents on the subject. But when one is unable or unwilling to spend time to study the subject, it is best to believe what the scientific paradigm says.

Thanks.

I'm sorry, but I would have to disagree that it is best to believe the scientific paradigm. That is like saying that one is unable or unwilling to study the Scriptures, so it is best to believe in the Theological paradigm. Then we get things like a single triune god (contradiction), free will and predestination (contradiction), some silly character named Lucifer who thwarts God's will (contradiction), and an eternal hell for most of mankind (contradicts the character of God and hundreds of verses). None of these things are even remotely True.

So here is a question I've asked in here several times. Mr. Hawkings says that there is no Singularity because of the Uncertainty Principle, but admits that the Singularity is the most Logical conclusion. Here is my question:

Where does Love, Good, Evil, and Knowledge come from? Were they present within the Singularity? Does this mean the Singularity had Intelligence? If the Singularity contained Intelligence, did it contain the means by which to use that Intelligence? If it contained the Knowledge to use Intelligence, did it use this Intelligence to Cause the universe into existence? If everything above is true, then is this verse accurate?

"He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding." Jeremiah 51:15

Everything is Determined and God has the most beautiful Plan for mankind that we could ever conceive of. I'm just here to spread the Good News of what God has done. He revealed this to us in the Scriptures, but man has corrupted the Scriptures to fit their own ideologies. I would love to discuss this with you, if God should allow us, so that you might join us in eternal life (which has nothing to do with living forever because all men will live forever).

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3

That's all there is to it. We get to know the Father and our elder brother, Messiah Yeshua. And there is nothing more precious than this Knowledge. Thank you good friend and God bless you.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 11:34:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 2:21:39 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/4/2015 2:15:15 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 1:06:42 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.


I also don't see how premise one is justified. When an event occurs, it only causes time to move forward up to that moment in time. It doesn't push us into the future as you seem to think it does. In order to move into the future, new states must replace the ones which exist, and the states being replaced obviously can't do that.

Well the original formulation was flawed, which is why I moved to the second one, in which the vague terminology of "time moving forward" is scrapped.

I understand what you're saying, but I believe in Determinism. Actually I belive in Fatalism, but Determinism is easier to explain. This all has to do with Newton's Laws of Motion, and the only way Determinism could be considered false is using the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. I deny the Uncertainty Principle because it is a contradiction, and I don't believe it is possible for a contradiction to coexist in the physical world. Here's an article about it

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Determinism is the only position that has no contradictions and is observable through any situation. Niels Bohr knew this, and that is why he argued for the Uncertainty Principle. Here's an article about it

http://www.aip.org...

Free will is impossible.

Yes, I am also a determinist. Determinism would entail that what I am arguing for is true, so you agree with me, correct?

Yes I absolutely agree with you. However, I'd like to know more about you. Do you mind if I ask a few questions? Do you believe that because all things are Determined, there must be a Determiner? Do you believe the Initial Cause of everything was an Intelligent Being that brought about all things? The Scriptures tell us,

"Whatsoever the LORD pleased,"that"DID (past tense) he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places." Psalm 135:6

And again,

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" Ephesians 1:11

And there are many, many more that I can show you. There is nothing in Scripture that contradicts these verses. God does Everything. If you do believe in God, does this sound like the God you believe in? I'm very excited to meet another determinist. Thank you good friend and God bless you.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 11:51:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 11:34:19 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 2:21:39 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/4/2015 2:15:15 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 1:06:42 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.


I also don't see how premise one is justified. When an event occurs, it only causes time to move forward up to that moment in time. It doesn't push us into the future as you seem to think it does. In order to move into the future, new states must replace the ones which exist, and the states being replaced obviously can't do that.

Well the original formulation was flawed, which is why I moved to the second one, in which the vague terminology of "time moving forward" is scrapped.

I understand what you're saying, but I believe in Determinism. Actually I belive in Fatalism, but Determinism is easier to explain. This all has to do with Newton's Laws of Motion, and the only way Determinism could be considered false is using the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. I deny the Uncertainty Principle because it is a contradiction, and I don't believe it is possible for a contradiction to coexist in the physical world. Here's an article about it

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Determinism is the only position that has no contradictions and is observable through any situation. Niels Bohr knew this, and that is why he argued for the Uncertainty Principle. Here's an article about it

http://www.aip.org...

Free will is impossible.

Yes, I am also a determinist. Determinism would entail that what I am arguing for is true, so you agree with me, correct?

Yes I absolutely agree with you. However, I'd like to know more about you. Do you mind if I ask a few questions? Do you believe that because all things are Determined, there must be a Determiner? Do you believe the Initial Cause of everything was an Intelligent Being that brought about all things? The Scriptures tell us,

"Whatsoever the LORD pleased,"that"DID (past tense) he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places." Psalm 135:6

And again,

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" Ephesians 1:11

And there are many, many more that I can show you. There is nothing in Scripture that contradicts these verses. God does Everything. If you do believe in God, does this sound like the God you believe in? I'm very excited to meet another determinist. Thank you good friend and God bless you.

I'm afraid not, I'm an atheist. The reason I'm a determinist is because all physical phenomena seem to be derived from either the state of reality previously or from random chance, neither of which have any influence from human agency.

Also, there are Bible verses that seem to imply that man has free will:

Joshua 24:15
John 7:17
2 Timothy 2:26
2 Corinthians 9:7
John 10:18

But once again no, I do not believe that determinism entails the existence of a God in any sense.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
DizzyKnight
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 12:26:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thank you for your reply.

The wave particle duality is recognized by both the pilot wave and copenhagen interpretation. Their differences lies in the formulation of the phenomenon. In the copenhagen interpretation, a single entity exhibits both characters, and in the pilot wave interpretation, the particle and wave are considered to be distinct entities. This does not give one a reason to deny the wave particle duality. To put forth an analogy, Albert finds a puddle in the ground. Ben comes along and says that this is probably a result of rainfall, and then Clara walks by and says that she made the puddle by pouring water over it. Albert can disagree with one of them, or both, but he has no reason to deny the existence of the puddle. This is the same case here. You can disagree with the copenhagen interpretation and accept the pilot wave interpretation, both of which seeks to explain the phenomenon of wave particle duality, but there is no denying the existence of the phenomenon itself.

The following link (the top answer) provides a very good outline of the distinction between an interpretation, and a theory. I assure you it is a very quick read, at most 2 minutes will suffice for the top answer.

http://www.quora.com...

Newtonian mechanics and einsteinian relativity are not perfect. In a very strict sense, they are both wrong. The world does not work like that. The world approximately behaves like the newtonian universe at low speed conditions, and is better approximated by relativity when large scales and high speed conditions are considered. At small scales, we observe quantum events that contradict both newtonian and einsteinian predictions. Do we reject such phenomenons, or do we reject newtonian mechanics and einsteinian relativity? Surely we would reject the latter.

Unless I consider myself well versed in a technical field, I would rather reserve my judgement then consider non-mainstream views. If I lack the ability to thoroughly understand the logic (and mathematics) behind them, I would not make my own judgement. However, for more philosophical concepts like the trinity, suffering, ethics, etc, I am willing to give my judgement on them as little technicality is involved. If some claims that Andrew Wiles' proof of fermat's last theorem is false, I would not believe that. I cannot understand Wiles' proof myself, so analytically I cannot evaluate its validity. But seeing that the proof is widely accepted by professional mathematicians, I would believe it to be true.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 12:32:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 11:51:33 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/4/2015 11:34:19 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 2:21:39 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/4/2015 2:15:15 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 1:06:42 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
I've had a couple debates on this topic because I thought of what I think is an interesting argument for it. But since no one voted on any of them, I decided I'll just put the argument here and see what you think.

Btw, the definition of cause I am using is "to mandate the existence of occurence of".

Premise One: When an event occurs, it causes time to move forward.


I also don't see how premise one is justified. When an event occurs, it only causes time to move forward up to that moment in time. It doesn't push us into the future as you seem to think it does. In order to move into the future, new states must replace the ones which exist, and the states being replaced obviously can't do that.

Well the original formulation was flawed, which is why I moved to the second one, in which the vague terminology of "time moving forward" is scrapped.

I understand what you're saying, but I believe in Determinism. Actually I belive in Fatalism, but Determinism is easier to explain. This all has to do with Newton's Laws of Motion, and the only way Determinism could be considered false is using the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. I deny the Uncertainty Principle because it is a contradiction, and I don't believe it is possible for a contradiction to coexist in the physical world. Here's an article about it

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Determinism is the only position that has no contradictions and is observable through any situation. Niels Bohr knew this, and that is why he argued for the Uncertainty Principle. Here's an article about it

http://www.aip.org...

Free will is impossible.

Yes, I am also a determinist. Determinism would entail that what I am arguing for is true, so you agree with me, correct?

Yes I absolutely agree with you. However, I'd like to know more about you. Do you mind if I ask a few questions? Do you believe that because all things are Determined, there must be a Determiner? Do you believe the Initial Cause of everything was an Intelligent Being that brought about all things? The Scriptures tell us,

"Whatsoever the LORD pleased,"that"DID (past tense) he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places." Psalm 135:6

And again,

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" Ephesians 1:11

And there are many, many more that I can show you. There is nothing in Scripture that contradicts these verses. God does Everything. If you do believe in God, does this sound like the God you believe in? I'm very excited to meet another determinist. Thank you good friend and God bless you.

I'm afraid not, I'm an atheist. The reason I'm a determinist is because all physical phenomena seem to be derived from either the state of reality previously or from random chance, neither of which have any influence from human agency.

Also, there are Bible verses that seem to imply that man has free will:

Joshua 24:15
John 7:17
2 Timothy 2:26
2 Corinthians 9:7
John 10:18

But once again no, I do not believe that determinism entails the existence of a God in any sense.

Okay great! Thanks for sharing that with me. I'm a Determinist for those exact same reasons, but what initially Caused me to believe in it was the Scriptures. I then searched out Philosophical and Scientific interpretations of free will, and found that not only is it Scriptural, it's a fundamental Truth with no contradictions. Do you mind if I address each of those verses? They all speak of choices, and it's obvious that we make choices, but our choices are not free. This verse sums up everything,

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of"his"good pleasure." Philippians 2:13

And I have many, many more. If I show you that the God of Scriptures has Caused all things into existence, and that He works all things after the council of His own Will, is that something you'd be willing to entertain? See, I ask you if you're "willing", and you can say yes or no (choose), but something is going to Cause you to make this decision (God, before He ever made the Universe). Same principle in Scripture, but I'd be more than glad to address each verse individually. Thank you my new friend and God bless you.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 1:13:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 12:32:11 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 11:51:33 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/4/2015 11:34:19 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 2:21:39 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/4/2015 2:15:15 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 1:06:42 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
And I have many, many more. If I show you that the God of Scriptures has Caused all things into existence, and that He works all things after the council of His own Will, is that something you'd be willing to entertain? See, I ask you if you're "willing", and you can say yes or no (choose), but something is going to Cause you to make this decision (God, before He ever made the Universe). Same principle in Scripture, but I'd be more than glad to address each verse individually. Thank you my new friend and God bless you.

Well you'll have to convince me of a couple things first.

One: God exists.

Two: This God is the God as outlined in the Bible.

Three: The Bible is self-consistent.

Whenever you're ready.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 3:07:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 1:13:10 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/5/2015 12:32:11 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 11:51:33 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/4/2015 11:34:19 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 2:21:39 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/4/2015 2:15:15 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 1:06:42 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
And I have many, many more. If I show you that the God of Scriptures has Caused all things into existence, and that He works all things after the council of His own Will, is that something you'd be willing to entertain? See, I ask you if you're "willing", and you can say yes or no (choose), but something is going to Cause you to make this decision (God, before He ever made the Universe). Same principle in Scripture, but I'd be more than glad to address each verse individually. Thank you my new friend and God bless you.

Well you'll have to convince me of a couple things first.

One: God exists.

Two: This God is the God as outlined in the Bible.

Three: The Bible is self-consistent.

Whenever you're ready.

Thanks! First you ask that I convince you God exists. I do not believe this is possible if what you require is physical evidence. I can only give you what makes Logical sense to me, and share the Gospel. If you'd be willing to entertain the idea that He does exist, or if you should believe that He does, then I will go over the Garden of Eden to show how everything that has ever happened is for God's prefect Plan.

I believe there is God because this Universe had a beginning, and the only Logical explanation is that everything was condensed into what is called a singularity. This is what Stephen Hawkings in the article I provided to DizzyKnight. I believe the Singularity had Knowledge and Wisdom, otherwise these things could not exist within us. He used this Wisdom to bring about absolutely everything. On the Sixth Day, He was finished with His work because what He had created was the Initial Cause that has Determined and will Determine everything that has ever happened.

"Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?" Proverbs 20:24

"There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand." Proverbs 19:21

"Whatsoever the LORD pleased,"that"did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places." Psalm 135:6

"For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world." Hebrews 4:3

This appears to be what we experience now. If every Effect has a Cause, and the Effect is the next Cause of every other Effect, then it's very reasonable to assume that the very first Cause already contained the required substance to bring about everything.

You are correct that time is linear. This is because of the speed of Light. I'll quote a Wikipedia article to clarify my point.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

From source: "In classical physics, a cause should always precede its effect. In relativity theory the equivalent restriction limits causes to the back (past) light cone of the event to be explained (the "effect"), and any effect of a cause must lie in the cause's front (future) light cone. These restrictions are consistent with the grounded belief (or assumption) that causal influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light and/or backwards in time."

Therefore, when God said "Let there be Light" in the very beginning, He set the Universal Speed Limit so that Cause and Effect could take their course. No Effect can ever precede it's Cause because to do so would mean we must travel faster than the speed of Light, which is impossible.

So I'll start with that and see what you think. Thank you friend for allowing me to discuss this with you. God bless you.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 3:43:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 3:07:59 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/5/2015 1:13:10 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/5/2015 12:32:11 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 11:51:33 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/4/2015 11:34:19 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 2:21:39 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/4/2015 2:15:15 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 6/4/2015 1:06:42 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:46:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 6/2/2015 4:07:45 PM, Surrealism wrote:
And I have many, many more. If I show you that the God of Scriptures has Caused all things into existence, and that He works all things after the council of His own Will, is that something you'd be willing to entertain? See, I ask you if you're "willing", and you can say yes or no (choose), but something is going to Cause you to make this decision (God, before He ever made the Universe). Same principle in Scripture, but I'd be more than glad to address each verse individually. Thank you my new friend and God bless you.

Well you'll have to convince me of a couple things first.

One: God exists.

Two: This God is the God as outlined in the Bible.

Three: The Bible is self-consistent.

Whenever you're ready.

Thanks! First you ask that I convince you God exists. I do not believe this is possible if what you require is physical evidence. I can only give you what makes Logical sense to me, and share the Gospel. If you'd be willing to entertain the idea that He does exist, or if you should believe that He does, then I will go over the Garden of Eden to show how everything that has ever happened is for God's prefect Plan.

I believe there is God because this Universe had a beginning, and the only Logical explanation is that everything was condensed into what is called a singularity. This is what Stephen Hawkings in the article I provided to DizzyKnight. I believe the Singularity had Knowledge and Wisdom, otherwise these things could not exist within us. He used this Wisdom to bring about absolutely everything. On the Sixth Day, He was finished with His work because what He had created was the Initial Cause that has Determined and will Determine everything that has ever happened.

"Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?" Proverbs 20:24

"There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand." Proverbs 19:21

"Whatsoever the LORD pleased,"that"did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places." Psalm 135:6

"For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world." Hebrews 4:3

This appears to be what we experience now. If every Effect has a Cause, and the Effect is the next Cause of every other Effect, then it's very reasonable to assume that the very first Cause already contained the required substance to bring about everything.

You are correct that time is linear. This is because of the speed of Light. I'll quote a Wikipedia article to clarify my point.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

From source: "In classical physics, a cause should always precede its effect. In relativity theory the equivalent restriction limits causes to the back (past) light cone of the event to be explained (the "effect"), and any effect of a cause must lie in the cause's front (future) light cone. These restrictions are consistent with the grounded belief (or assumption) that causal influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light and/or backwards in time."

Therefore, when God said "Let there be Light" in the very beginning, He set the Universal Speed Limit so that Cause and Effect could take their course. No Effect can ever precede it's Cause because to do so would mean we must travel faster than the speed of Light, which is impossible.

So I'll start with that and see what you think. Thank you friend for allowing me to discuss this with you. God bless you.

Well I'm afraid it seems that you're just making a whole lot of assertions there. For instance, how do you make the logical leap from "singularity" to "God"? The singularity is merely a point of infinite mass and infinite density. The concept of such an entity having consciousness, let alone intelligence, requires a great amount of substantiation. In addition, you seem to be reading into those words a great deal. Given how vague they are, they could be potentially interpreted dozens of different ways. Why is this interpretation necessarily correct?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 4:13:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 12:26:34 AM, DizzyKnight wrote:
Thank you for your reply.

The wave particle duality is recognized by both the pilot wave and copenhagen interpretation. Their differences lies in the formulation of the phenomenon. In the copenhagen interpretation, a single entity exhibits both characters, and in the pilot wave interpretation, the particle and wave are considered to be distinct entities. This does not give one a reason to deny the wave particle duality. To put forth an analogy, Albert finds a puddle in the ground. Ben comes along and says that this is probably a result of rainfall, and then Clara walks by and says that she made the puddle by pouring water over it. Albert can disagree with one of them, or both, but he has no reason to deny the existence of the puddle. This is the same case here. You can disagree with the copenhagen interpretation and accept the pilot wave interpretation, both of which seeks to explain the phenomenon of wave particle duality, but there is no denying the existence of the phenomenon itself.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. But in the Copenhagen interpretation, the particle and wave are one in the same. Because the particle is both a particle and a wave, when it moves, it is for no apparent reason. With Pilot-Waves, there is no randomness. If we had the ability to measure the behavior of the wave, we could determine the behavior of the particle. This is much closer to the reality that we observe in the physical Universe, thus we lose non-locality, but we gain reality. Doesn't that make a lot more sense than throwing away everything we know because we don't understand one thing?

The following link (the top answer) provides a very good outline of the distinction between an interpretation, and a theory. I assure you it is a very quick read, at most 2 minutes will suffice for the top answer.

http://www.quora.com...

Thank you for this. I read the whole thing, and it was very interesting. I'm aware that an interpretation is different than a theory, but the Pilot-Wave Theory is just the name of the interpretation. In fact, I like the word interpretation a lot better. It sounds more valid than a theory.

Newtonian mechanics and einsteinian relativity are not perfect. In a very strict sense, they are both wrong. The world does not work like that. The world approximately behaves like the newtonian universe at low speed conditions, and is better approximated by relativity when large scales and high speed conditions are considered. At small scales, we observe quantum events that contradict both newtonian and einsteinian predictions. Do we reject such phenomenons, or do we reject newtonian mechanics and einsteinian relativity? Surely we would reject the latter.

Why would we surely reject the latter? My question is, do we reject our understanding of the phenomenon, or do we reject reality? Newton's Laws of Motion have been proven over and over again. I don't see how a misunderstanding of a particular phenomenon entitles us to immediately give up fundamental Laws that we know to be true.

Unless I consider myself well versed in a technical field, I would rather reserve my judgement then consider non-mainstream views. If I lack the ability to thoroughly understand the logic (and mathematics) behind them, I would not make my own judgement. However, for more philosophical concepts like the trinity, suffering, ethics, etc, I am willing to give my judgement on them as little technicality is involved. If some claims that Andrew Wiles' proof of fermat's last theorem is false, I would not believe that. I cannot understand Wiles' proof myself, so analytically I cannot evaluate its validity. But seeing that the proof is widely accepted by professional mathematicians, I would believe it to be true.

I understand that it is easier to accept the professional's position, but which professional do we accept? Do we accept de Broglie or Copenhagen? Both were exceptionally brilliant men. Actually, I don't accept either one as being inherently true. I subscribe more the the interpretation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment because I'm actually a Fatalist rather than a Determinist. Here's some articles about it.

http://fqxi.org...

http://plato.stanford.edu...

From source "One of the most enticing experiments of this kind is theDelayed Choice Quantum Eraserdesigned by Yoon-Ho Kim et. al (2000). It is a rather complicated construction. It is set up to measure correlated pairs of photons, which are in an entangled state, so that one of the two photons is detected 8 nanoseconds before its partner. The results of the experiment are quite amazing. They seem to indicate that the behavior of the photons detected these 8 nanoseconds before their partners is determined by how the partners will be detected. Indeed it might be tempting to interpret these results as an example of the future causing the past. The result is, however, in accordance with the predictions of quantum mechanics."

http://physicsworld.com...

So, who do we trust when the professionals can't even agree? I trust the Scriptures because they are closer to reality than all this other nonsense. Thank you my friend.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 7:34:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/5/2015 3:43:45 AM, Surrealism wrote:
Well I'm afraid it seems that you're just making a whole lot of assertions there. For instance, how do you make the logical leap from "singularity" to "God"? The singularity is merely a point of infinite mass and infinite density. The concept of such an entity having consciousness, let alone intelligence, requires a great amount of substantiation. In addition, you seem to be reading into those words a great deal. Given how vague they are, they could be potentially interpreted dozens of different ways. Why is this interpretation necessarily correct?

I make the jump from singularity to God because Knowledge exists. Knowledge and Intellegence couldn't have just randomly sprung up. Our DNA receives Information because Information has to be recieved, it doesn't just appear. I don't actually believe in a singularity, I just love that term and the things associated with it. Infinitely dense is just another way of saying Invisible, which is exactly what we observe. Before Plank time, there is nothing to observe. That is because God is invisible. Singularity= Single God that contains all things and brought forth all things. Stephen Hawkings knows this:

From source: At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang."

Hawkings knows that this makes perfect sense, but he doesn't like it. The reason he doesn't like it is because he is an Atheist, and this implies a panetheistic God that is outside of our Universe that has determined all things.

From source: "Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past."

Why is the Singularity unsatisfactory? It's the only logical conclusion. Because Mr. Hawkings knows that there isn't a singularity, there is God. So he scrambles to find anything he can to prove there is no God, and his only position is the Uncertainty Principle, which I've been discussing with DizzyKnight.

It's the go to excuse for everything, especially free will. The Scientist uses it to say we have free will so that the entire justice system doesn't crumble, and Theologians use it to justify their beloved free will so they can keep the masses controlled and faithfully paying for the Theologians' expenses. This is what the Scriptures say about free will,

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for"[that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Who is the man of sin? Some man that sins a little more than we all do? Does this man go into some future temple and sit on some throne (that was never in any if the temples), with camera men all around him to proclaim to the world that he is God? That's kinda silly.

We are all the man of sin. We all commit perdition. Paul never speaks about a literal temple; the temple is our bodies.

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and"that"the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" 1 Corinthians 3:16

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost"which is"in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" 1 Corinthians 6:19

So what is this entity that sits on the throne (our mind) in the temple of God (our bodies), is worshiped above all that is called God, and presents itself as though it were a god?

Free will tells us that we can control our destiny, that God could somehow be wrong about the future, that Adam and Eve thwarted God's will before they even had time to reproduce, and that our loving Father is going to lose some battle for souls, and then torture 98% of humanity for eternity. It is blasphemy, and yet it is the most important concept of Christianity. The Scriptures tell us over and over again that we do not have free will and that God has done all things after the council of His own will. And His will is perfect. Does any of this make sense to you? Thank you my friend.