Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism and Determinism

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 3:32:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just want to know how some of the Atheists on this site can still be determinists when they are clearly aware of quantum indeterminacy.

"Determinism is a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Basically, if determinism was true, you could wind back the clock of the universe and everything would turn out exactly the same given those same conditions. However, we now know that if you had the exact same conditions, different quantum fluctuations would most likely happen at different points, instead of the same ones that happened before you turned the clock back.

Basically, quantum mechanics seems to falsify determinism clearly. I'm just wondering how my fellow Atheists stick to the deterministic philosophy why adhering to quantum mechanics. Do you believe in the more obscure and deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics to save the philosophy? Or, is there some kind of compatibalist position that you hold?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 3:51:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

If we are adhering to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. If we are going by the Many-worlds Interpretation, then determinism can still be valid in the sense that every possible outcome occurs (and is determined to occur). The question with this interpretation becomes why we find ourselves (as individual observes in a singular world) in the world that we observer rather than any other, but that's not an issue of determinism.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 3:55:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

The Fool: No it doesn't debunk, deteriminism. Science is inductive evidence based, there are not proofs in science. Just probablies. Scienced are not even sure that they are doing there. Science which can't predict anything is useless. It is only benificial to us if we can use it to determine things. Firstly, if the universe indeterminant we could never even begin to learn anything. But we have learned things and we can make predictions. Remember quantum mechanics is a theory, It imperfect, What new technology has quantum mechanics given us latlely? Nothing.
It doesn't even have a falsifiablity createria does it? so we can't even tell if its wrong. You have to much faith in it.

For example they say that the universe is expanding at the speed of light, But that isnt even possible to observe, because we can't observe something moving away at the speed of light because we would never catch up to its. Its just Bold assertion. You can't see the end of emptyness. So there is not way in even testing that. YOu have to be able to critically think against science too because scientist get to specialized that they become blind to the whole picture. They are using tools which can only give then contingent probablity. Does that really mean that things are contingent are they mistaking there limits of thier tools for reallity in its self.

Most of physics isnt' even empirical, do you think they see forces, and force field and magitism. No they are just words to fill in a blank. we don't see energy. In the end all we get is mathmatical formulas. They are humans, and they makes mistakes like everbody. It was only a few years ago. that they thought the planets would slow down and be pulled by gravitational forces inward. But what happend the universe started to expand even faster. That a HUGE mistake. IF things are determinite now at a macrolevel it follows by necessity they have to be determinite at a microlevel. So it means something is not right. But quantum mechanics worked for so long that they have become attached even though there is not really much progress going on.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 3:58:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 3:51:29 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

If we are adhering to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. If we are going by the Many-worlds Interpretation, then determinism can still be valid in the sense that every possible outcome occurs (and is determined to occur). The question with this interpretation becomes why we find ourselves (as individual observes in a singular world) in the world that we observer rather than any other, but that's not an issue of determinism.

Is the Many-worlds interpretation determinisitc, or inderministic? Are the fluctuations spontaneous, or are the determined by something non-local? I just don't see how one can adhere to quantum inderterminacy and determinism at the same time.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:01:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

The Fool: oh yeah I forgot if the universe is random then everything would be random. It wouldnt be only part random.

I have said this before.
But if the universe is connected
A->b->c->d->e->f->g.

if any element is random the chain of the universe would be random. They are not even that sure what they are obverving at that level.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:03:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 3:55:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

The Fool: No it doesn't debunk, deteriminism. Science is inductive evidence based, there are not proofs in science. Just probablies. Scienced are not even sure that they are doing there. Science which can't predict anything is useless. It is only benificial to us if we can use it to determine things. Firstly, if the universe indeterminant we could never even begin to learn anything. But we have learned things and we can make predictions. Remember quantum mechanics is a theory, It imperfect, What new technology has quantum mechanics given us latlely? Nothing.
It doesn't even have a falsifiablity createria does it? so we can't even tell if its wrong. You have to much faith in it.

For example they say that the universe is expanding at the speed of light, But that isnt even possible to observe, because we can't observe something moving away at the speed of light because we would never catch up to its. Its just Bold assertion. You can't see the end of emptyness. So there is not way in even testing that. YOu have to be able to critically think against science too because scientist get to specialized that they become blind to the whole picture. They are using tools which can only give then contingent probablity. Does that really mean that things are contingent are they mistaking there limits of thier tools for reallity in its self.

Most of physics isnt' even empirical, do you think they see forces, and force field and magitism. No they are just words to fill in a blank. we don't see energy. In the end all we get is mathmatical formulas. They are humans, and they makes mistakes like everbody. It was only a few years ago. that they thought the planets would slow down and be pulled by gravitational forces inward. But what happend the universe started to expand even faster. That a HUGE mistake. IF things are determinite now at a macrolevel it follows by necessity they have to be determinite at a microlevel. So it means something is not right. But quantum mechanics worked for so long that they have become attached even though there is not really much progress going on.

"The Fool: No it doesn't debunk, deteriminism. Science is inductive evidence based, there are not proofs in science. Just probablies."

There are no proofs in science huh? So, when I bought by TV, it was only probably going to work because the science behind it was just educated guessing? Come on, there are clearly proofs in science.

"Science which can't predict anything is useless"

Not true. Quantum fluctuations are indetermined, but they can still be described by the laws of physics even and put into use by using equations. Also, we can still predict certain aspects.

Anyway, I don't feel like addressing everything you said. However, it seems you fail to put a coherent case together.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:03:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 3:58:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:51:29 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

If we are adhering to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. If we are going by the Many-worlds Interpretation, then determinism can still be valid in the sense that every possible outcome occurs (and is determined to occur). The question with this interpretation becomes why we find ourselves (as individual observes in a singular world) in the world that we observer rather than any other, but that's not an issue of determinism.

Is the Many-worlds interpretation determinisitc, or inderministic? Are the fluctuations spontaneous, or are the determined by something non-local? I just don't see how one can adhere to quantum inderterminacy and determinism at the same time.

The Fool: many words is a fallacy, because the universe was supppose to mean all things that exist. So if there was any worlds or multi-words they would have to be in that universe,
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:06:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:01:49 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

The Fool: oh yeah I forgot if the universe is random then everything would be random. It wouldnt be only part random.

I have said this before.
But if the universe is connected
A->b->c->d->e->f->g.

if any element is random the chain of the universe would be random. They are not even that sure what they are obverving at that level.

"The Fool: oh yeah I forgot if the universe is random then everything would be random. It wouldnt be only part random."

Not true. The universe is a strange place, I mean, we live in a universe where our galaxy is going to collide with the Andromeda galaxy in an attraction, when there are other galaxies that are getting further apart in a repulsion. There is no reason why some aspects of the universe could not be random, while others are determined. Nobody said the universe had to adhere to whatever we are comfortable with.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:10:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:03:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:55:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

The Fool: No it doesn't debunk, deteriminism. Science is inductive evidence based, there are not proofs in science. Just probablies. Scienced are not even sure that they are doing there. Science which can't predict anything is useless. It is only benificial to us if we can use it to determine things. Firstly, if the universe indeterminant we could never even begin to learn anything. But we have learned things and we can make predictions. Remember quantum mechanics is a theory, It imperfect, What new technology has quantum mechanics given us latlely? Nothing.
It doesn't even have a falsifiablity createria does it? so we can't even tell if its wrong. You have to much faith in it.

For example they say that the universe is expanding at the speed of light, But that isnt even possible to observe, because we can't observe something moving away at the speed of light because we would never catch up to its. Its just Bold assertion. You can't see the end of emptyness. So there is not way in even testing that. YOu have to be able to critically think against science too because scientist get to specialized that they become blind to the whole picture. They are using tools which can only give then contingent probablity. Does that really mean that things are contingent are they mistaking there limits of thier tools for reallity in its self.

Most of physics isnt' even empirical, do you think they see forces, and force field and magitism. No they are just words to fill in a blank. we don't see energy. In the end all we get is mathmatical formulas. They are humans, and they makes mistakes like everbody. It was only a few years ago. that they thought the planets would slow down and be pulled by gravitational forces inward. But what happend the universe started to expand even faster. That a HUGE mistake. IF things are determinite now at a macrolevel it follows by necessity they have to be determinite at a microlevel. So it means something is not right. But quantum mechanics worked for so long that they have become attached even though there is not really much progress going on.

"The Fool: No it doesn't debunk, deteriminism. Science is inductive evidence based, there are not proofs in science. Just probablies."

There are no proofs in science huh? So, when I bought by TV, it was only probably going to work because the science behind it was just educated guessing? Come on, there are clearly proofs in science.

The Fool: do and check the method it self, they are inductive, temporary theories untill the next one comes alone. That is how science works. we say proof sometimes but in a looser science. For the next instance may be the discomfirming incident.

"Science which can't predict anything is useless"

Not true. Quantum fluctuations are indetermined, but they can still be described by the laws of physics even and put into use by using equations.

The Fool: Random is not and equation. You can't have an unpredicibility equation. If there are equations, its not the random aspects, that is for sure.

Also, we can still predict certain aspects.

The Fool: well if we can that is good. But those are not realited to the randomness elements. But I am serious about science being useless with out being able to predict. That is what give us power to use the technology, if we can't predict what is going to happen then we can use it.


Anyway, I don't feel like addressing everything you said. However, it seems you fail to put a coherent case together.

The Fool: well when you ever get the ability to demonstrate I am sure I will agree with you. But until. then. ANd lastly you don't have to be hostile. You are asking how an atheist can still believe in determinism And I an answering. So you don't have a right to insult. do you want me to put them in logical form.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:14:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:06:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:01:49 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

The Fool: oh yeah I forgot if the universe is random then everything would be random. It wouldnt be only part random.

I have said this before.
But if the universe is connected
A->b->c->d->e->f->g.

if any element is random the chain of the universe would be random. They are not even that sure what they are obverving at that level.

"The Fool: oh yeah I forgot if the universe is random then everything would be random. It wouldnt be only part random."

Not true. The universe is a strange place, I mean, we live in a universe where our galaxy is going to collide with the Andromeda galaxy in an attraction, when there are other galaxies that are getting further apart in a repulsion.

The Fool: This doesn't refute my argument, is a Bold assumption fallacy. Strange place is not a support for anything.

There is no reason why some aspects of the universe could not be random, while others are determined.

The Fool: we if it is all connecting in someway then it would have to be all random. If the random parts are not connected. Then there is no point studing them because they are not connected.

Nobody said the universe had to adhere to whatever we are comfortable with.

The Fool: What people say doesn't have affect on really other then the fact that they saything. Do you understand the whole quantum theory or are you basing it on Faith.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:17:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: the idea to take away here is that if we went back in time 200 years ago we would all thing newtonian mechaniscs is the all and all. Why do you think suddently now this is the all and all, every generation things that.
What are some new technologies we have from quantum theory lately???
Nothing!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:21:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:10:05 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:03:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:55:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

The Fool: No it doesn't debunk, deteriminism. Science is inductive evidence based, there are not proofs in science. Just probablies. Scienced are not even sure that they are doing there. Science which can't predict anything is useless. It is only benificial to us if we can use it to determine things. Firstly, if the universe indeterminant we could never even begin to learn anything. But we have learned things and we can make predictions. Remember quantum mechanics is a theory, It imperfect, What new technology has quantum mechanics given us latlely? Nothing.
It doesn't even have a falsifiablity createria does it? so we can't even tell if its wrong. You have to much faith in it.

For example they say that the universe is expanding at the speed of light, But that isnt even possible to observe, because we can't observe something moving away at the speed of light because we would never catch up to its. Its just Bold assertion. You can't see the end of emptyness. So there is not way in even testing that. YOu have to be able to critically think against science too because scientist get to specialized that they become blind to the whole picture. They are using tools which can only give then contingent probablity. Does that really mean that things are contingent are they mistaking there limits of thier tools for reallity in its self.

Most of physics isnt' even empirical, do you think they see forces, and force field and magitism. No they are just words to fill in a blank. we don't see energy. In the end all we get is mathmatical formulas. They are humans, and they makes mistakes like everbody. It was only a few years ago. that they thought the planets would slow down and be pulled by gravitational forces inward. But what happend the universe started to expand even faster. That a HUGE mistake. IF things are determinite now at a macrolevel it follows by necessity they have to be determinite at a microlevel. So it means something is not right. But quantum mechanics worked for so long that they have become attached even though there is not really much progress going on.

"The Fool: No it doesn't debunk, deteriminism. Science is inductive evidence based, there are not proofs in science. Just probablies."

There are no proofs in science huh? So, when I bought by TV, it was only probably going to work because the science behind it was just educated guessing? Come on, there are clearly proofs in science.

The Fool: do and check the method it self, they are inductive, temporary theories untill the next one comes alone. That is how science works. we say proof sometimes but in a looser science. For the next instance may be the discomfirming incident.

"Science which can't predict anything is useless"

Not true. Quantum fluctuations are indetermined, but they can still be described by the laws of physics even and put into use by using equations.

The Fool: Random is not and equation. You can't have an unpredicibility equation. If there are equations, its not the random aspects, that is for sure.

Also, we can still predict certain aspects.

The Fool: well if we can that is good. But those are not realited to the randomness elements. But I am serious about science being useless with out being able to predict. That is what give us power to use the technology, if we can't predict what is going to happen then we can use it.


Anyway, I don't feel like addressing everything you said. However, it seems you fail to put a coherent case together.

The Fool: well when you ever get the ability to demonstrate I am sure I will agree with you. But until. then. ANd lastly you don't have to be hostile. You are asking how an atheist can still believe in determinism And I an answering. So you don't have a right to insult. do you want me to put them in logical form.

So it seems to me that your answer is, you adhere to deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics. If so, then obviously determinism is in no danger in your eyes.

Now, I'm curious to know which people adhere to quantum indeterminacy and determinism. Is there some kind of philosophical compatibalism regarding this particular issue?

I've seen some Atheists argue that determinism is true while also arguing at other times in favor of vacuum fluctuations being uncaused (which one could only due if they adhered to quantum indeterminacy). This seems like a contradictory position, both of these cannot be true.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:25:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: its a fact that there is not proofs in science.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

http://chemistry.about.com...

http://digipac.ca...

http://grist.org...

http://www.thepsychof.com...

I am not even joking with you. THere are not PROOFS IN SCIENCE>
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:29:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:25:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: its a fact that there is not proofs in science.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

http://chemistry.about.com...

http://digipac.ca...

http://grist.org...

http://www.thepsychof.com...

I am not even joking with you. THere are not PROOFS IN SCIENCE>

Would you like to debate me on this? There are proofs in science. If we could run an experiment, where there was a fully working lighter, filled with fluid, and the atmosphere remained constant..I could prove to you, that if I flicked the lighter correctly, a flame would emerge. It would be impossible for it not too. If it was a controlled experiment, the atmosphere was constant, the lighter was working, filled with fluid, and I flicked it correctly, a flame would emerge 100%. I know this with certainty. If the things that mentioned were in place, I could prove to you using a scientific experiment that a lighter would emerge.

To say there are no proofs in science, doesn't sit well with me.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:29:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

Wait, what? Weren't you a determinist, like, yesterday?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:30:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:29:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:25:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: its a fact that there is not proofs in science.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

http://chemistry.about.com...

http://digipac.ca...

http://grist.org...

http://www.thepsychof.com...

I am not even joking with you. THere are not PROOFS IN SCIENCE>

Would you like to debate me on this? There are proofs in science. If we could run an experiment, where there was a fully working lighter, filled with fluid, and the atmosphere remained constant..I could prove to you, that if I flicked the lighter correctly, a flame would emerge. It would be impossible for it not too. If it was a controlled experiment, the atmosphere was constant, the lighter was working, filled with fluid, and I flicked it correctly, a flame would emerge 100%. I know this with certainty. If the things that mentioned were in place, I could prove to you using a scientific experiment that a lighter would emerge.

To say there are no proofs in science, doesn't sit well with me.

*If the things that mentioned were in place, I could prove to you using a scientific experiment that a light would emerge
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:31:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:29:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

Wait, what? Weren't you a determinist, like, yesterday?

Nope, I haven't been for a little while. You must be mistaken.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:31:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 3:32:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I just want to know how some of the Atheists on this site can still be determinists when they are clearly aware of quantum indeterminacy.

things appear deterministic on a bigger scale...
Hows this happen when what it's made of is Utterly Indeterminate???

I don't get how it could... and figure we're just not able to see how things are determined on such small scales.

Further.. Unless things happen for REASONS.. I just simply can't make sense of how/why they happen..

so if some things happen for no reason.. Ok.. but I'm not about to (EVER) be able to explain it.. so.. In anything that I'll attempt to undersand/explain/talk about it'll be with Reasons... Reasons why it Had to have happened that way.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:32:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:21:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:10:05 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:03:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:55:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

The Fool: No it doesn't debunk, deteriminism. Science is inductive evidence based, there are not proofs in science. Just probablies. Scienced are not even sure that they are doing there. Science which can't predict anything is useless. It is only benificial to us if we can use it to determine things. Firstly, if the universe indeterminant we could never even begin to learn anything. But we have learned things and we can make predictions. Remember quantum mechanics is a theory, It imperfect, What new technology has quantum mechanics given us latlely? Nothing.
It doesn't even have a falsifiablity createria does it? so we can't even tell if its wrong. You have to much faith in it.

For example they say that the universe is expanding at the speed of light, But that isnt even possible to observe, because we can't observe something moving away at the speed of light because we would never catch up to its. Its just Bold assertion. You can't see the end of emptyness. So there is not way in even testing that. YOu have to be able to critically think against science too because scientist get to specialized that they become blind to the whole picture. They are using tools which can only give then contingent probablity. Does that really mean that things are contingent are they mistaking there limits of thier tools for reallity in its self.

Most of physics isnt' even empirical, do you think they see forces, and force field and magitism. No they are just words to fill in a blank. we don't see energy. In the end all we get is mathmatical formulas. They are humans, and they makes mistakes like everbody. It was only a few years ago. that they thought the planets would slow down and be pulled by gravitational forces inward. But what happend the universe started to expand even faster. That a HUGE mistake. IF things are determinite now at a macrolevel it follows by necessity they have to be determinite at a microlevel. So it means something is not right. But quantum mechanics worked for so long that they have become attached even though there is not really much progress going on.

"The Fool: No it doesn't debunk, deteriminism. Science is inductive evidence based, there are not proofs in science. Just probablies."

There are no proofs in science huh? So, when I bought by TV, it was only probably going to work because the science behind it was just educated guessing? Come on, there are clearly proofs in science.

The Fool: do and check the method it self, they are inductive, temporary theories untill the next one comes alone. That is how science works. we say proof sometimes but in a looser science. For the next instance may be the discomfirming incident.

"Science which can't predict anything is useless"

Not true. Quantum fluctuations are indetermined, but they can still be described by the laws of physics even and put into use by using equations.

The Fool: Random is not and equation. You can't have an unpredicibility equation. If there are equations, its not the random aspects, that is for sure.

Also, we can still predict certain aspects.

The Fool: well if we can that is good. But those are not realited to the randomness elements. But I am serious about science being useless with out being able to predict. That is what give us power to use the technology, if we can't predict what is going to happen then we can use it.


Anyway, I don't feel like addressing everything you said. However, it seems you fail to put a coherent case together.

The Fool: well when you ever get the ability to demonstrate I am sure I will agree with you. But until. then. ANd lastly you don't have to be hostile. You are asking how an atheist can still believe in determinism And I an answering. So you don't have a right to insult. do you want me to put them in logical form.

So it seems to me that your answer is, you adhere to deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics. If so, then obviously determinism is in no danger in your eyes.

Now, I'm curious to know which people adhere to quantum indeterminacy and determinism. Is there some kind of philosophical compatibalism regarding this particular issue?

I've seen some Atheists argue that determinism is true while also arguing at other times in favor of vacuum fluctuations being uncaused (which one could only due if they adhered to quantum indeterminacy). This seems like a contradictory position, both of these cannot be true.

The Fool: remember science often makes a Recognition/reality fallacy. In that what we recognize may not be all that is. So it may appear random, but yet it may not be. Just think if things are random as a micro level. Then things would have to be random at a macro level as well no? that make sense to you use that the computer screen you are watch is still and steady. yet if we zoom in everything is chaotic and random. We can't even make random, even in computers it pseudo-random, Not real, random.

The Fool: Well science only recognition, what we can recognize with our sense is limited, secondly, indeterminent can only be epistemologicall based. But not reallity based. That is if we pause space and rewind and watch things slowly we would see that the same pattern would happen.

Just like when we are rolling a dice we do it to make it random. But if we have a mini camera in your hand and then rewind the tape and play it slow we would be able to see the pattern.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:35:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:31:57 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
things appear deterministic on a bigger scale...
Hows this happen when what it's made of is Utterly Indeterminate???

I don't get how it could... and figure we're just not able to see how things are determined on such small scales.

or, more accurately:
I figure we're just not able to observe Patterns of Occurrence on such small scales.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:36:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:29:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:25:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: its a fact that there is not proofs in science.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

http://chemistry.about.com...

http://digipac.ca...

http://grist.org...

http://www.thepsychof.com...

I am not even joking with you. THere are not PROOFS IN SCIENCE>

Would you like to debate me on this? There are proofs in science. If we could run an experiment, where there was a fully working lighter, filled with fluid, and the atmosphere remained constant..I could prove to you, that if I flicked the lighter correctly, a flame would emerge. It would be impossible for it not too. If it was a controlled experiment, the atmosphere was constant, the lighter was working, filled with fluid, and I flicked it correctly, a flame would emerge 100%. I know this with certainty. If the things that mentioned were in place, I could prove to you using a scientific experiment that a lighter would emerge.

To say there are no proofs in science, doesn't sit well with me.

The Fool: its not an option you need to learn about the scientific method. I get that we would say most likley. But its never 100% it only give hight probablities. For the next time you attempt may be the instance which proved in wrong. That is why falsifiablity was introduced, in the first, because we can never be 100% sure be we definition know what its false. Go search up anything on the scientific method.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:38:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:31:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:29:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

Wait, what? Weren't you a determinist, like, yesterday?

Nope, I haven't been for a little while. You must be mistaken.

Now, I believe events above the sub-atomic level are determined. However, to be a determinist, by definition you must believe everything is determined. This is where I have a problem, because I adhere to quantum indeterminacy.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:38:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:29:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:25:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: its a fact that there is not proofs in science.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

http://chemistry.about.com...

http://digipac.ca...

http://grist.org...

http://www.thepsychof.com...

I am not even joking with you. THere are not PROOFS IN SCIENCE>

Would you like to debate me on this? There are proofs in science. If we could run an experiment, where there was a fully working lighter, filled with fluid, and the atmosphere remained constant..I could prove to you, that if I flicked the lighter correctly, a flame would emerge. It would be impossible for it not too. If it was a controlled experiment, the atmosphere was constant, the lighter was working, filled with fluid, and I flicked it correctly, a flame would emerge 100%. I know this with certainty. If the things that mentioned were in place, I could prove to you using a scientific experiment that a lighter would emerge.

To say there are no proofs in science, doesn't sit well with me.

Yeah....you need to distinguish between proofs as in deductively derived conclusions and proofs in terms of the colloquial "now you better believe me."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:40:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:38:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:31:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:29:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

Wait, what? Weren't you a determinist, like, yesterday?

Nope, I haven't been for a little while. You must be mistaken.

Now, I believe events above the sub-atomic level are determined. However, to be a determinist, by definition you must believe everything is determined. This is where I have a problem, because I adhere to quantum indeterminacy.

How is quantum indeterminacy combined with newtonian physics (large scale objects) incompatible with atheism?

I've never met an atheist who rejected quantum indeterminacy on philosophical grounds.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:41:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: we can never be a hundred percent sure I mean but we definly know if it false. But falsibility its shapes are theory. Theories improve and get more accurate over time. But they never are the final say, And quantum mechanics to will eventually have to move over for a better explain. That is how it progres. Don't mistake me for anti-science. I am all for science. But one of my concerns is improving the method. ITs still not perfect, it has glitches.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:44:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:38:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:31:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:29:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

Wait, what? Weren't you a determinist, like, yesterday?

Nope, I haven't been for a little while. You must be mistaken.

Now, I believe events above the sub-atomic level are determined. However, to be a determinist, by definition you must believe everything is determined. This is where I have a problem, because I adhere to quantum indeterminacy.

The Fool: but do you know what it is exactly you would need to know the math and method. To be sure.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:46:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:38:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:29:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:25:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: its a fact that there is not proofs in science.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

http://chemistry.about.com...

http://digipac.ca...

http://grist.org...

http://www.thepsychof.com...

I am not even joking with you. THere are not PROOFS IN SCIENCE>

Would you like to debate me on this? There are proofs in science. If we could run an experiment, where there was a fully working lighter, filled with fluid, and the atmosphere remained constant..I could prove to you, that if I flicked the lighter correctly, a flame would emerge. It would be impossible for it not too. If it was a controlled experiment, the atmosphere was constant, the lighter was working, filled with fluid, and I flicked it correctly, a flame would emerge 100%. I know this with certainty. If the things that mentioned were in place, I could prove to you using a scientific experiment that a lighter would emerge.

To say there are no proofs in science, doesn't sit well with me.

Yeah....you need to distinguish between proofs as in deductively derived conclusions and proofs in terms of the colloquial "now you better believe me."

THe Fool: just to some research and that will settle it. Look at any sciencfic method it will always say its not a proof. check for yourself. Its the commons that call it proofs.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 4:50:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 4:40:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:38:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:31:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/13/2012 4:29:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/13/2012 3:33:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It just seems to me that quantum indeterminacy (what most physicists adhere to) clearly debunks determinism. Yet, many Atheists refuse to let go..

Wait, what? Weren't you a determinist, like, yesterday?

Nope, I haven't been for a little while. You must be mistaken.

Now, I believe events above the sub-atomic level are determined. However, to be a determinist, by definition you must believe everything is determined. This is where I have a problem, because I adhere to quantum indeterminacy.

How is quantum indeterminacy combined with newtonian physics (large scale objects) incompatible with atheism?

I've never met an atheist who rejected quantum indeterminacy on philosophical grounds.

The Fool: yeah but the math being used for it at best only can generate a probablity. But doesn't that mean things are actually inderminite or that the method and tools use just can't give certainty. Scientist get caught up in that kind of things. Because they are often too specialed to step back and see the big picture. They hate when philosophers of science tell them what they are doing wrong.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL