posted November 02, 2007 04:23 PM              

quote:

---

When one understands Nothing they understand Everything.

---

posted November 02, 2007 09:32 PM              

quote:

---

>>>>because ive never seen you put it this way before
>>>>saying these things, in the very same breath
>>>>perhaps i've missed you saying that before

Most definitely.

---

as i said....the search engine doesnt find you saying those two statements in the same breath like that....it's a self contradictory statement....

quote:

---

Again, your tone is smarmy and insulting.

---

:P

quote:

---

I don't follow you.
You are at this point attempting the impossible.

---

i do that all the time, so do you....

quote:

---

The problem is in your assumption that there can even be a beginning,
when, in fact, the real act of Creation is eternally recurring.

---

"the unmoved which is also self-moving"
it sounds like your saying God lifts himself by his own bootstraps....see how easy it is to understand free will.....

no one would say God had a beginning.....but then i've never heard God described as a mindless row of falling dominoes either....

quote:

---

I cannot say that there was a first domino -
it seems likely they've been falling for eternity.

---

all cosmologists agree that the universe...
and by this we mean the perceptible universe of space/time,...
was created by the big bang.....
it did not occur inside the universe
and expand within it.....
in short, the causual laws themselves,
of space/time, which your pet theory relies on.....
began with the big bang....
at point zero time has no meaning
and the laws of physics break down....

"the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," Stephen Hawking

We have made tremendous progress in cosmology in the last hundred years. The General Theory of Relativity, and the discovery of the expansion of the universe, shattered the old picture of an ever existing, and ever lasting universe. Instead, general relativity predicted that the universe, and time itself, would begin in the big bang. It also predicted that time would come to an end in black holes. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background, and observations of black holes, support these conclusions. This is a profound change in our picture of the universe, and of reality itself. ~~Stephen Hawking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFjwXe-pXvM

"We are the product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe. God really does play dice." ~~Stephen Hawking

quote:

---

although the All cannot be subject
to anything above and beyond itself,
it is nevertheless constrained by an internal logic,
a fundamental need to make order and sense of itself.

---

it sounds like you're saying the ALL is self aware
thank you for answering my other question....
wasnt that easy??

quote:

---

How do you figure?
Is a cog separate from a machine
because it is predetermined
to be a certain shape
and to rotate at a certain speed?
I dont follow you.

---

is God a machine?
did it design itself for a purpose??
for someone who refuses to make presumptions
about the nature and purpose of God....
you're really on a roll....

the cog is a microcosm....

quote:

---

>>>>in order to try and prove
>>>>jesus's pet theory.....

This seems tacked on,
just to imply another dig at my motives,
which you are in no position to judge.

---

you said in the other post
that you believe jesus was trying to teach determinism....
he should have just come out and said it....

quote:

---

((Ah, yes, the classic,
"Besides, everybody already knows..." defense;
always a popular choice.))

Seriously?

Known by whom?

Not by Einstein or Stephen Hawking,
and a long list of the most logical minds
to ever contemplate the universe.

Sir, it is indeed demonstrable,
as men like these have attested and demonstrated,
to anyone with a basic grasp of logic.

---

most of the quotes you rely on
are from long dead philosophers/scientists.....
the last 50 years have seen great leaps
in understanding of mathematics and physics....

this is attesible to anyone
with a basic grasp of logic....

i've been studying these ideas for decades...
where have you been?

**********

Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that any non-trivial mathematical theory is either inconsistent or incomplete. Stanley Jaki pointed out in his 1966 book The Relevance of Physics, that since any 'theory of everything' will certainly be a consistent non-trivial mathematical theory, it must be incomplete. He claims that this dooms searches for a deterministic theory of everything.

Freeman Dyson has stated that
“Gödel’s theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that cannot be solved within the existing rules. … because of Gödel's theorem, physics is inexhaustible too. The laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics, so that Gödel's theorem applies to them."—Freeman Dyson, NYRB, May 13, 2004

Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but, after considering Gödel's Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable.

“Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind."—Stephen Hawking, Gödel and the end of physics, July 20, 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

quote:

---

So, it may be seen that "causes" are only apparent,
that it is the bias of perspective,
which, viewing all things as separate,
posits these "seams" between things,
and these seams it calls causes/effects.
But no such division is truly defensible.
For, the more we look,
to peer into the abyss of these gaps,
the more we find the gaps full.
The gaps do not exist!

---

i agree here, no cause and effect...
so it doesnt imply determinism......
i describe the universe as "a microcosm" of God.....
and that man is a microcosm of the universe....
this is the position taken by the ancients....
and is supported, i believe,
by the sciences of fractal geometry and chaos theory,
which find expression in every nook of the universe.....
this is an actual path to understanding how
'the ALL' can be one,
and appear to the senses as multiplicity.....
it also would explain,
how each microcosm, or layer of infinity
would have free will, if God does...

this is a much better analogy than 'a cog in a machine'...

quote:

---

Nothing is doing anything.
Everything is being that which it is.
Everything is merely obeying,
merely playing out,
the laws of its own dynamics.

You insist on knowing, "is it free, is it not?"
These questions have no relevance at the level of the transcendant.
It simply is.
It is being.

---

you seem to think the question is relevant....
isnt that why you bring up the subject more than anyone here?

i agree....time is really 1 dimensional
all the energies in the universe are the same that have ALLways existed
the only time that exists is the here and now....the present moment
as such, the present moment isnt merely a collection of past moments
as you have said many times....
but rather,
it is the the past that is really just a record
of what the all is doing in the here and now...
i think the distinction in perspective is very important....
the ALL is alive, self aware and dynamically active in the NOW

i believe determinism is an illusion...
dreamed up by the rational, reductionist, materialist part of the mind...
luckily, even basic logic is capable of grasping
the severe limitations of its own method

determinism is dead......
and the dominoes you thought were falling
have been found to be alive and dancing...

Petron the Dragon

posted November 03, 2007 12:25 AM            

I can never imagine human beings to be robots. brick in the wall

Mirandee,

I didn't see your below post. I wasn't ignoring you. Sorry for late response. Its very profound and interesting insight and is what is to come?
I just have three letters to describe it "WOW".

And Lialeis response is awesome too.

My comments: Our human brain has continued to evolve slowly and patiently over the years. Scientists have always complained why don't people use all that processing power available. Are we being prepared for the kingdom?

quote:

---

HSC, Are you out there somewhere?
I wanted to tell you that I had an insight today while doing laundry. I normally have my insights when doing mundane tasks like that and I do some of my deepest thinking at those times too.

Anyway, this insight came right after many thoughts on God and kind of talking to him.

I am not sure if this is what you were actually trying to convey to us here on this thread but I feel it is what Lia was saying in her posts.

Regarding our free will, yes I firmly and emphatically believe that all humankind was given free will. However in a sense those who make the fundamental option or choice of God, something greater than ourselves, are asked in a sense to relinquish that free will and let God control our lives as he knows better than we do what we need and what is best for us. Which is what Christians mean when they say, "let go and let God."

In other words we are asked to give up the control of our egos and let God run things for us in the way he sees best. We give our free will up in that respect. However it is always our option, and this has happened more times than I can count, we also can take that free will back any time we choose to do so. We can take the control back out of God's hands and into our own again. I have done that when things weren't going the way I wanted them to go. Instead of trusting God completely I have taken the reins again as my ego gets in the way.

When we do relinquish our free will to God he is in control in that sense of our lives. But never of us. That is shown in the fact that we can at any time take control back and often do. However, God does not control all the events that happen in this world. He easily could if all of humanity would relinquish their free will to him, but that is never going to happen I don't think. And many of the things that happen, just happen. God has nothing to do with their cause. But he does work towards bringing good out of everything that happens in our lives and in the world.

Is this what you mean in any sense, Lia and HSC? Mannu? AG? Fayte? Lotus? and anyone else? I hope I am not going to be the one who has the last word on this thread as I have enjoyed and learned from all that you guys have said here.

---

posted November 03, 2007 12:58 AM            

Philosphers are known to throw ideas which no one can prove

Nothing = Everything

Inseperable twins.

When you know one , you know the other.

Ok how about another one:

Can Nothing come out of Nothing?

posted November 03, 2007 09:41 AM              

quote:

---

I'm tired of life!

---

posted November 03, 2007 10:21 AM            

Thank you.

For being the first person here
to even remotely challenge me on this.

You'll have your response soon.

posted November 03, 2007 10:55 AM            

You are familiar with Zeno's paradox about the arrow?

Before the arrow can reach the target,
it must first go half-way.
But, as there are infinite half-way points...

What do you think?

posted November 03, 2007 02:32 PM            

quote:

---

saying these things, in the very same breath
>>>>perhaps i've missed you saying that before

---

You've definitely missed it,
but, you are right,
I'm not sure I ever said it
in a single breath,
in exactly those words.

quote:

---

"the unmoved which is also self-moving"
it sounds like your saying God lifts himself by his own bootstraps....see how easy it is to understand free will.....

---

That was actually a very clever parry.
But one I can easily defend against.
See, God is not a part in a whole.
God can lift "His" bootstraps only because,
unlike us, he is not operating within a context.
He is in the boots, yes,
but he is also the boots, the ground, gravity,...

In a deeper sense,
God would never be in a position to will,
because willing requires conflict,
and God, as All, cannot be in conflict.

quote:

---

no one would say God had a beginning.....but then i've never heard God described as a mindless row of falling dominoes either....

---

You've heard its equivalent.
I agree, it is not very delicately put,
and, to my grief, people do tend to reject
a proposition because the manner in which
it is expressed is unsympathetic.
Well, yes, I see God as mechanistic,
as far as He manifests in time/space,
and the universe as utterly so,
but that has not prevented me from
experiencing mystery, wonder, and mystical feelings.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot say that there was a first domino -
it seems likely they've been falling for eternity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

all cosmologists agree

---

I doubt all cosmologists agree on anything.
Of course, anyone who doesnt want to be
laughed out of the Popular Science club
is going to pay lip-service to the theory of the day.
Then there is the proverbial scarcity
of truly original thinkers
working within the mainstream academia.
When you don't stay inside the lines,
you tend to end up in the margins.

posted November 03, 2007 02:33 PM            

quote:

---

that the universe...
and by this we mean the perceptible universe of space/time,...
was created by the big bang.....
it did not occur inside the universe
and expand within it.....
in short, the causal laws themselves,
of space/time, which your pet theory relies on.....
began with the big bang....
at point zero time has no meaning
and the laws of physics break down....

---

Let me be clear then.
When I speak of the universe,
I intend something larger.
The precise word would be Creation,
with the understanding that
the act of Creation is not something
which occurred in time/space,
but which is eternally recurring.
I realize this can be misleading.
I apologize for the misunderstanding,
and thank you for alerting me to
a point of possible confusion.
In the future, I will try to be clearer.
The universe, as it appears to us,
at this level of vibration,
is transient.
It is indeed a macrocosm of man
(more about that later),
and, like man, it is born,
grows, dies, and even reincarnates.

I suspect there's a strong number of
cosmologists who would agree with me on this.

As I see it,
Whatever does or does not break down at point zero,
has no bearing on eternity.

quote:

---

"the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," Stephen Hawking

---

No argument there.

quote:

---

We have made tremendous progress in cosmology in the last hundred years. The General Theory of Relativity, and the discovery of the expansion of the universe, shattered the old picture of an ever existing, and ever lasting universe. Instead, general relativity predicted that the universe, and time itself, would begin in the big bang. It also predicted that time would come to an end in black holes. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background, and observations of black holes, support these conclusions. This is a profound change in our picture of the universe, and of reality itself. ~~Stephen Hawking

---

I understand this,
but it does not seem to
contradict my position,
as I've clarified it.

quote:

---

"We are the product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe. God really does play dice." ~~Stephen Hawking

---

The first of these two statements
is blatantly deterministic.
The second only suggests that
God works in mysterious ways,
not randomly.
We may not have the ability to predict
how the dice will fall,
but we have some grasp of how probabilities work.
Ultimately, the dice is as predictable as anything,
provided we were in a position to calculate
all the factors directly involved;
the force and angle of the throw,
the position of the die as it is released,
the distance to the table, etc.
All the discoveries in quantum physics,
which laymen have seized upon
as a long-awaited refutation of determinism,
have not presented us with a chaotic vision,
but, rather, one which is more dense,
and more complex than we had previously supposed.
That particles are too small
and too quickly moving,
and that there are relationships in place
which we are in no position to
observe, quantify, etc.,
is no evidence of chaos,
and does not significantly alter
my view of Creation,
which is not dependent on the
so-called proofs of physisists,
past or present.

posted November 03, 2007 02:34 PM            

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
although the All cannot be subject
to anything above and beyond itself,
it is nevertheless constrained by an internal logic,
a fundamental need to make order and sense of itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it sounds like you're saying the ALL is self aware
thank you for answering my other question....
wasnt that easy??

---

What is sounds like,
to the untrained ear,
may be deceiving.
Remember that I am using words like
"need" and "sense of itself"
in the abstract,
and not as they appear in everyday usage.
In the past,
objects in motion were said to possess
a certain "impetuosity".
The ancients viewed Nature alive,
evincing a life not identical, but analogous,
to the life experienced by man.
They also had a healthy respect for poetic license.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you figure?
Is a cog separate from a machine
because it is predetermined
to be a certain shape
and to rotate at a certain speed?
I dont follow you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is God a machine?
did it design itself for a purpose??
for someone who refuses to make presumptions
about the nature and purpose of God....
you're really on a roll....

---

It seems to me,
you are the one making presumptions.
You assume there must be a designer,
and a purpose.
I agree, the analogy of a man-made machine
is not ideal, but, then, no analogy is.
that is the nature of analogy.
A point of comparison is illustrated,
and the likeness extends only so far
before the analogy falls apart.
Anyone can carry an analogy to its breaking point,
but only a fool can think that the comparison
is thereby refuted.

quote:

---

the cog is a microcosm....

---

And God is the macrocosm.
Thank you for making my point.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>in order to try and prove
>>>>jesus's pet theory.....
This seems tacked on,
just to imply another dig at my motives,
which you are in no position to judge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you said in the other post
that you believe jesus was trying to teach determinism....
he should have just come out and said it....

---

What you wrote is that I was
puposely distorting my thinking
so as to bring it in line with Christ's.
This is what I objected to,
and my objection is founded.
Now you want to make it about what Christ taught,
and how he taught it.
I would prefer to stay on topic,
but, if you insist,
I'm sure it is sufficient to point out that
Jesus is quoted as saying that
he concealed his meaning in parables.
In fact, all of theology is just philosophy,
concealed, and revealed, through parables.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
((Ah, yes, the classic,
"Besides, everybody already knows..." defense;
always a popular choice.))
Seriously?

Known by whom?

Not by Einstein or Stephen Hawking,
and a long list of the most logical minds
to ever contemplate the universe.

Sir, it is indeed demonstrable,
as men like these have attested and demonstrated,
to anyone with a basic grasp of logic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

most of the quotes you rely on
are from long dead philosophers/scientists.....
the last 50 years have seen great leaps
in understanding of mathematics and physics....

---

And?
All you are telling me here is that
the laws of reason are alive and strong;
strong enough to permit scientific progress.
In any case,
my primary and essential evidence
has never been mathematical or physical.
It is metaphysical.
And as these other fields have
been challenged, changed, and evolved,
we have seen a corresponding return
to the old metaphysics.

posted November 03, 2007 02:37 PM            

quote:

---

i've been studying these ideas for decades...
where have you been?

---

I'm only 28.
I was probably on Uranus.

quote:

---

**********

Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that any non-trivial mathematical theory is either inconsistent or incomplete. Stanley Jaki pointed out in his 1966 book The Relevance of Physics, that since any 'theory of everything' will certainly be a consistent non-trivial mathematical theory, it must be incomplete. He claims that this dooms searches for a deterministic theory of everything.

---

Godel's assumption is that
"any 'theory of everything' will certainly be
a consistent non-trivial mathematical theory".
You want to make this about math.
Its not about math.
Maybe a physisist needs it explained mathematically,
but a philosopher does not.

Furthermore,
I'm not in the business of explaining everything.
I'm satisfied with having discovered a single principle,
simple in itself,
which may be seen reflected in all manner of being,
and, when it may not be observed,
the alternative is blind ignorance;
nothing substantial ever appears in its place.
Physicists and mathematicians will continue
to negate themselves down the centuries,
just as they've been doing in the past.
Everything solution they affirm will be negated,
but the fundamental laws of mathematics dont change.
If they did, the first thing you would find
is a drop in the enrollment
in math and science courses
at universities all over the world.
Before determinism can be refuted,
you must first refute math and science,
and not just their past forms;
but then you are in the business
of refuting pure reason.
Good luck with that.

quote:

---

Freeman Dyson has stated that
“Gödel’s theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that cannot be solved within the existing rules.

---

This is what I've been saying.
The forms change,
the context enlarges
and becomes more elaborate,
the answers are forthcoming,
but they raise new questions.
In the midst of this maelstrom,
the basic laws hold out.
Theorums may not,
but mathematics does.
I cannot imagine math itself breaking down.
And, as Hawking said,
"the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," -
in other words, "too rich for my blood";
not "no physical laws will ever be known
which are capable of explaining the point of creation;
I shall now renounce physics and convert to Nihilism."

quote:

---

… because of Gödel's theorem, physics is inexhaustible too. The laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics, so that Gödel's theorem applies to them."—Freeman Dyson, NYRB, May 13, 2004

---

Then, it would appear that,
much like Godel's physics,
my metaphysics is inexhaustible.
This has been my stance, has it not?
Here is a philosophical principle,
as sound as 1 + 1 = 2
(indeed, it is merely a restatement of the same principle,
in philosophical rather than mathematical terms.
And my purpose is not to use it to locate
the legendary "Theory of Everything",
but to use it to increase my present understanding.
It seems that, just as this principle
has led to astounding advancements in physics,
and our ability to harmonize with our physical environment,
so, it will lead to astounding advancements in metaphysics.
In the West, we have clearly been obsessed with the former,
and almost entirely lost sight of the latter.

quote:

---

Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but, after considering Gödel's Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable.

“Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind."—Stephen Hawking, Gödel and the end of physics, July 20, 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

---

Again, this only agrees with my position.
I'm just surprised it took Hawking so long to figure it out.
Let's be clear:
I am not claiming to have a theory of everything,
but, rather, a principle which is universal;
not in the sense that it can formulate everything,
but, that it can be found in everything,
and found to deepen our understanding of everything,
without necessarily solving the big "what for?".

quote:

---

quote:
The gaps do not exist!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i agree here, no cause and effect...
so it doesnt imply determinism......

---

I'm not sure what you think I mean by determinism.

Those who believe in free will
speak of "causes and effects"
and imagine that there are gaps;
that there is some secret omnipotence in the human will;
that it hides out in these figmentary "gaps",
ready to redirect the universal flow.

Determinists speak of "causes and effects"
for the sake of convenience;
in the same way that Paul of Tarsis spoke,
when he said "I speak as a man".

For the determinist,
there are no gaps
because every cause is also an effect,
and whether we call it a cause, or an effect,
depends entirely on our perspective.
Our language does not make this easy to talk about.

Are you begining to get the picture?

quote:

---

i describe the universe as "a microcosm" of God.....
and that man is a microcosm of the universe....
this is the position taken by the ancients....
and is supported, i believe,
by the sciences of fractal geometry and chaos theory,
which find expression in every nook of the universe.....
this is an actual path to understanding how
'the ALL' can be one,
and appear to the senses as multiplicity.....
it also would explain,
how each microcosm, or layer of infinity
would have free will, if God does...

---

I agree with everything you said,
except for the last part, about free will.

Man is indeed a microcosm of the universe.
Man is determined, and beset on all sides
by that which is ostensibly "not man".
But man is, in actuality, a part of a whole.
Again, when we speak of men, we speak as men;
If, as you agreed,
there are no gaps between causes and effects,
how can there be gaps between man and his environment?
This should be your "ah ha" moment.
Carrying this a bit further,
how can there be gaps between Creation and Creator?
So you see, here we have a view of man
as a microcosm within a macrocosm,
and the universe as the same
(a microcosm within a macrocosm; God).
And, as you can see, there are no gaps.
Just an infinite hierarchy of determinants,
each resembling the other,
and most resembling the other
when it comes to the absence of free will.

To place God, the infinite,
within this hierarchy is,
again, merely to speak as a man.
We can only speak of our conception of God.
But, like our theories of the universe,
that conception is always growing.
All we really have to go on is
the principle we see demonstrated
before our eyes everywhere we look.
Fractal geometry is also based on this principle.
Fractals are generated mathematically.
A certain equation is entered,
and, all by itself, as it were,
the fractal is generated,
and begins to proliferate itself,
continuing to complicate itself,
with repetitions inside of repititions,
according to the initial configuration.

quote:

---

this is a much better analogy than 'a cog in a machine'...

---

That's a matter of taste,
and I am inclined to agree with you.
But the analogy is essentially the same.
The fractal is not free,
but it is fun to look at.
Really, its just a shinier cog.

posted November 03, 2007 02:37 PM            

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is doing anything.
Everything is being that which it is.
Everything is merely obeying,
merely playing out,
the laws of its own dynamics.
You insist on knowing, "is it free, is it not?"
These questions have no relevance at the level of the transcendant.
It simply is.
It is being.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you seem to think the question is relevant....
isnt that why you bring up the subject more than anyone here?

---

Again, you are still suffering under the delusion
that I am asserting more about God than I am.
You think I am talking about a grand theory of everything,
when I am only talking about the principle of sufficient reason,
and it's implications;
in the case of God, it's metaphysical implications.
What can be answered concerns the finite,
not the infinite:
"Is it free?". No.
There is my answer,
and it has endless practical applications.
The parts are not free.
The whole... Who can say?
Like the known laws of physics,
the known laws of metaphysics fall apart at this point.

quote:

---

i agree....time is really 1 dimensional
all the energies in the universe are the same that have ALLways existed
the only time that exists is the here and now....the present moment
as such, the present moment isnt merely a collection of past moments
as you have said many times....
but rather,
it is the the past that is really just a record
of what the all is doing in the here and now...
i think the distinction in perspective is very important....
the ALL is alive, self aware and dynamically active in the NOW

---

I agree,
that is a very cool way of looking at it.
But, I'm not sure how much difference it makes.
If you are correct, then,
either the record (of present moments) is mistaken,
or we have always had to pass through "b"
to get from "a" to "c";
in the present moment, of course.

The bottom line is,
if you want to refute determinism,
you really have to renounce reason
and start gurgling gibberish.
Any other argument you put forward
will have in it the seeds of its own destruction,
because the same logic
that you will have to pervert
in order to make your argument
will be used to demolish it.
By affirming the use of reason,
you already affirm determinism;
you just dont know it yet.
This is true because the only thing
determinism states, for certain,
is the only thing reason states for certain;
that there is sense in the universe;
that one thing is related,
perfectly related (no gaps, no nonsense)
to other things.

quote:

---

i believe determinism is an illusion...
dreamed up by the rational, reductionist, materialist part of the mind...

---

I believe free will is, at first,
an assumption based on ignorance,
and, second,
an overzealous reaction
to the rigid closemindedness which,
during The Age of Reason, and on into today,
has been mistaken for scientific thinking.

The pendulum of history swings one way,
then the other, now back again.
Trying to find the center,
where left-brain thinking
and right-brain thinking agree, isnt easy.

I can understand that the excesses
associated with the Age of Reason,
would make you wary of any perspective
which seems to flatten your worldview
and limit it within unnecessarily rigid lines.
But you should be equally wary of woolly-headed,
indefensible superstitions
that only look pretty and sound empowering
while marooning you in The Dark Ages.

quote:

---

luckily, even basic logic is capable of grasping
the severe limitations of its own method

---

Indeed.
It is very good at grasping limitations.
Such limitations are, after all,
what determinism is made of.

quote:

---

determinism is dead......
and the dominoes you thought were falling
have been found to be alive and dancing...

---

Determinism is alive.....
and the dancers you thought were free
have been found to be meat-puppets
dancing on strings for wooden nickels.

posted November 03, 2007 05:52 PM            

Time isn't one dimensional, sorry.

You cannot speak of space or time as a seperate concept. One speaks of space and time as one.

I also gather Petron is a believer in big bang theory. Science has progressed beyond that - perhaps you might google for "dark matter" and "string theory".

HSC, I was trying to understand what you seek or has sought and even learn a thing or two.
And I will not be able to spend more energy on that area. Perhaps the poem that you will write one day when you are ready will only be understood by you initially and then later by humans. Well I rather wait for interpretations

I will always be around if you need me

Fayte,

Ever since I was a kid I remember asking about "What is Nothing?".

Happy trails.

posted November 03, 2007 06:18 PM              

Petron and HSC- you two would make a GREAT couple, don't you think?

posted November 03, 2007 07:58 PM              

space is 3 dimensional....time is 1 dimensional....and can be considered an inverted spatial dimension....
of course they are all considered interconnected....thats why i refer to space/time....
matter/energy are also one thing, but likely have several dimensions wound up inside them, according to string theory.....

dark matter is implied in big bang theory...
and string theory must explain the big bang event, whether or not it attempts to explain conditions before the big bang.....
some theories describe an inflationary bubble of space before the singularity explodes....

can you tell me the name of a theory that doesnt account for a big bang??

this is important to hsc's concept of determinism because he proposes that GOD has been subject to CAUSE AND EFFECT in an infinite regress backward on the arrow of time .....

posted November 03, 2007 09:43 PM              

quote:

---

Petron and HSC- you two would make a GREAT couple, don't you think?

---

i'm not homosexual, and besides... i would imagine he's looking for some1 younger, better looking and with a nicer house......

posted November 03, 2007 10:40 PM              

This kind of helps to put everyone on equal footing in this discussion. I know it's helpful to me.

Determinism - Definition

Determinism is a name employed by writers, especially since J. Stuart Mill, to denote the philosophical theory which holds -- in opposition to the doctrine of free will -- that all man's volitions are invariably determined by pre-existing circumstances. It may take diverse forms, some cruder, some more refined. Biological and materialistic Determinism maintains that each of our voluntary acts finds its sufficient and complete cause in the physiological conditions of the organism.

Psychological Determinism ascribes efficiency to the psychical antecedents. In this view each volition or act of choice is determined by the character of the agent plus the motives acting on him at the time. Advocates of this theory, since Mill, usually object to the names, Necessarianism and Fatalism, on the ground that these words seem to imply some form of external compulsion, whilst they affirm only the fact of invariable sequence or uniform causal connectedness between motives and volition. Opposed to this view is the doctrine of Indeterminism, or what perhaps may more accurately be called Anti-determinism, which denies that man is thus invariably determined in all his acts of choice. This doctrine has been stigmatized by some of its opponents as the theory of "causeless volition", or "motiveless choice"; and the name Indeterminism, is possibly not the best selection to meet the imputation. The objection is, however, not justified. The Anti-determinists, while denying that the act of choice is always merely the resultant of the assemblage of motives playing on the mind, teach positively that the Ego, or Self, is the cause of our volitions; and they describe it as a "free" or "self-determining" cause. The presence of some reason or motive, they ordinarily hold, is a necessary condition for every act of free choice, but they insist that the Ego can decide between motives. Choice is not, they maintain, uniformly determined by the pleasantest or the worthiest motive or collection of motives. Nor is it the inevitable consequent of the strongest motive, except in that tautological sense in which the word strongest simply signifies that motive which as a matter of fact prevails. Determinism and the denial of free will seem to be a logical consequence of all monistic hypotheses. They are obviously involved in all materialistic theories. For Materialism of every type necessarily holds that every incident in the history of the universe is the inevitable outcome of the mechanical and physical movements and changes which have gone before. But Determinism seems to be an equally necessary consequence of monistic Idealism. Indeed the main argument against monistic and pantheistic systems will always be the fact of free will. Self-determination implies separateness of individuality and independence in each free agent, and thus entails a pluralistic conception of the universe. In spite of the assertions of Determinists, no true logical distinction can be made between their view and that of Fatalism. In both systems each of my volitions is as inexorably fated, or pre-determined, in the past conditions of the universe as the movements of the planets or the tides. The opponents of Determinism usually insist on two lines of argument, the one based on the consciousness of freedom in the act of deliberate choice, the other on the incompatibility of Determinism with our fundamental moral convictions. The notions of responsibility, moral obligation, merit, and the like, as ordinarily understood, would be illusory if Determinism were true. The theory is in fact fatal to ethics, as well as to the notion of sin and the fundamental Christian belief that we can merit both reward and punishment.

Determinism is the theory that all human action is caused entirely by preceding events, and not by the exercise of the Will. In philosophy, the theory is based on the metaphysical principle that an uncaused event is impossible. The success of scientists in discovering causes of certain behavior and in some cases effecting its control tends to support this principle.

Disagreement exists about the proper formulation of determinism - a central issue in philosophy that never ceases to be controversial. Physical determinism, which has its origin in the Atomism of Democritus and Lucretius, is the theory that human interaction can be reduced to relationships between biological, chemical, or physical entities; this formulation is fundamental to modern Sociobiology and neuropsychology. The historical determinism of Karl Marx, on the other hand, is transpersonal and primarily economic. In contrast to these two formulations, psychological determinism - the philosophical basis of psychoanalysis - is the theory that the purposes, needs, and desires of individuals are central to an explanation of human behavior. The recent behavioral determinism of B F Skinner is a modification of this view, in that Skinner reduces all internal psychological states to publicly observable behavior. His stimulus - response account also uses modern statistical and probabilistic analyses of causation.

Jean Paul Sartre and other contemporary philosophers have argued that determinism is controverted by introspection, which reveals actions to be the result of our own choices and not necessitated by previous events or external factors. Determinists respond that such experiences of freedom are illusions and that introspection is an unreliable and unscientific method for understanding human behavior.

This view has been modified within the scientific community, however, with the enunciation of the Uncertainty Principle by the physicist Werner Heisenberg. Ramifications of his work in quantum mechanics led Heisenberg to assert that the scientist, as much a participant as an observer, interferes with the neutrality and very nature of the object in question. His work also questions whether it is possible to determine an objective framework through which one can distinguish cause from effect, and whether one can know an objective effect if one is always a part of its cause.

Determinism is sometimes confused with Predestination and Fatalism, but as such it asserts neither that human affairs have been prearranged by a being outside the causal order nor that a person has an unavoidable fate.

Jesse G Kalin

Bibliography
B Berofsky, Determinism (1971), and Freedom from Necessity (1988); G Dworkin, Determinism, Free Will and Moral Responsibility (1970); R L Franklin, Freewill and Determinism: A Study of Rival Conceptions of Man (1968); W Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (1962); S Hook, ed., Determinism and Freedom (1969); J R Lucas, Freedom of the Will (1970); A I Melden, Free Action (1961); J Monod, Chance and Necessity (1972); B F Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971); E Squires, The Mystery of the Quantum World (1986); G H Von Wright, Causality and Determinism (1974).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will (philosophy) (Free Will)
General Information

In philosophical discussion, will is usually paired with reason as one of two complementary activities of the mind. The will is considered the faculty of choice and decision, whereas the reason is that of deliberation and argument. Thus a rational act would be an exercise of the will performed after due deliberation.

The will has figured prominently in the thought of many philosophers, among them the 19th century thinkers Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. Historically, debate has centered on the issue of the will's freedom, a question of prime importance for the analysis of human action and moral responsibility.

Philosophers have often thought that persons are responsible only for those actions that they have the option either to do or not to do or to will or not to will. If all acts, including acts of will, are predetermined, then this option does not appear to exist.

In the philosophy of mind, the question is whether reasons in the mind are identical with or reducible to events in the brain and, if so, whether physical events determine choices, decisions, and acts. A wide variety of answers has been proposed, including ones derived from Freudian psychoanalysis and the various forms of behaviorism. Some philosophers in the analytic tradition have argued that Determinism is a matter of causes and decisions a matter of reasons and that the two are mutually exclusive. The issue remains controversial.