Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

I witness to the truth.

You post a repetitive stream of fallacy-ridden nonsense. You claim to have logic and evidence but apparently don't understand either. You refuse to engage with counterarguments and refuse to learn enough to avoid your fallacies and make valid logical arguments. You use absurd nonsense phrases and refuse to clarify.

How is any of that 'witnessing' to any sort of truth?

[ekim]

I would correct that to say "we really need to believe in something."

If that is a belief you hold then perhaps 'The truth will set you free' from that belief.

[Maeght]

I would correct that to say "we really need to believe in something."
We are made to believe - we are not just unintended consequences resulting from unguided purposeless random forces.

It appears that we have evolved to see patterns and meaning in things which don't actually have meaning and to ascribe agency to things which don't actually have agency. Whether you can describe this a a need to believe I don't know but what I do know is that it doesn't mean that what people believe in actually exists.

[Free Willy]

Not really, no. We can do it as a purely logical or mathematical exercise.

Let's say the state of something ('system' in the broadest sense, we don't care what it is exactly) that changes over time is S_t at some time t. Let's say its environment (anything external that can affect it) at that time is E_t. How consider some small time later t+dt at which the system has state S_t+dt. We can consider the limit as dt approaches zero (as in calculus), or take it to be the Planck time or some representation of how fast the system can possibly change or react.

Now, we don't care what S is or what rules apply to it, we don't care if it's a physical system or operates under entirely different rules that we just made up or under rules that we have no idea about. In any case, we can ask a simple question, namely, given S_t and E_t is there always only one possible S_t+dt?

This is a question that will always have a yes/no answer (whether we know the answer or not) for any system that changes its state over time, regardless of the complexity or of the rules that it operates under.

If the answer is yes, then we have a deterministic system, if it is no, then there must be some randomness in how the system is changing.

Not sure why this has to be randomness rather than what I thought would be more properly referred to as ''undetermined''

Note that there are no assumptions or observations of the physical world needed. All we assumed was something (anything) that sits in some environment (which again could be anything, or nothing for that matter) and changes over time.

In fact, it's so general, we could even replace time with any other variable and see if our something varies deterministically with that.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure why this has to be randomness rather than what I thought would be more properly referred to as ''undetermined''

What do you think the difference between random and undetermined is?

[Free Willy]

What do you think the difference between random and undetermined is?

Randomness is something that happens for intrinsic reason and determined is something that happens for extrinsic reasons.
As such I don't see any thing that rules out complex intrinsic reasons so the result of these reasons could be complex like moral behaviour for instance,

[Stranger]

Randomness is something that happens for intrinsic reason and determined is something that happens for extrinsic reasons.

Drivel.

[Nearly Sane]

Randomness is something that happens for intrinsic reason and determined is something that happens for extrinsic reasons.
As such I don't see any thing that rules out complex intrinsic reasons so the result of these reasons could be complex like moral behaviour for instance,

It's not in Stranger's post, so the rest of post is specious.

[Free Willy]

It's not in Stranger's post, so the rest of post is specious.

What isn't?

[Outrider]

Randomness is something that happens for intrinsic reason and determined is something that happens for extrinsic reasons.

If there is a reason, by definition, it's not random - your attempt at a definition fails on the basic meaning of the word.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,

Just checking, Searching for GOD.

Amazing, simply Amazing.

Gonnagle.

[Free Willy]

If there is a reason, by definition, it's not random - your attempt at a definition fails on the basic meaning of the word.

O.

But I think there is a debate between whether reason, of which we speak is always extrinsic and there can be no intrinsic reasons. We know that certain nuclei split and we know why. The reason is intrinsic to the nucleus. What we don't know is when it is going to go off. That randomness amongst multiple becomes something highly predictable namely the half life.

[Stranger]

But I think there is a debate between whether reason, of which we speak is always extrinsic and there can be no intrinsic reasons. We know that certain nuclei split and we know why. The reason is intrinsic to the nucleus. What we don't know is when it is going to go off. That randomness amongst multiple becomes something highly predictable namely the half life.

This is merely the combination of determinism and randomness. The physics that sets the probability is deterministic, the randomness comes because it is only the probabilities that are determined.

There is no third option here.

[Free Willy]

This is merely the combination of determinism and randomness. The physics that sets the probability is deterministic, the randomness comes because it is only the probabilities that are determined.

There is no third option here.

Not sure how that settles the question of whether reasons can only be extrinsic. I think Agency causation has already been established in infinite, regression of causes, closed causal loops and necessary entities.

[Stranger]

Not sure how that settles the question of whether reasons can only be extrinsic.

I divided things into internal and external. Either intrinsic is just internal and I've covered it or you mean something else and you need to explain what you're on about.

I think Agency causation has already been established in infinite, regression of causes, closed causal loops and necessary entities.

I think you're babbling gibberish.

'Agency causation' is empty words until you say how you think it works and escapes the logic I presented.   

[Free Willy]

I divided things into internal and external. Either intrinsic is just internal and I've covered it or you mean something else and you need to explain what you're on about.

I think you're babbling gibberish.

'Agency causation' is empty words until you say how you think it works and escapes the logic I presented.   

I have already given three examples and explained why they would have agency. Extending agency into the area of moral realism takes a lot of explanation but like Sean Carroll who is trying to finally debunk the PSR " I am giving time over it".

For me the gulf between Indeterminacy and randomness hasn't adequately been explored by you, neither has the effect of the complex relationship of determination and randomness which must be going on.

There is also the gap between the arrangement of atoms and their quirky ways and concepts like justice, responsibility, blame, outrage(of which your posts are a prime example of)Morality and for a kick off, The sense of agency we have.

Meanwhile, cop this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

[Stranger]

I have already given three examples and explained why they would have agency.

You have posted nothing that remotely resembles a logical way to get around the logic I presented. You made several (sometimes nonsensical) assertions and waved around 'agent causation' like a magic spell, but of logic there has been no sign...

Extending agency into the area of moral realism...

...is utterly pointless and irrelevant as you haven't explained what you think 'agency' is or, more importantly, how it works.

For me the gulf between Indeterminacy and randomness hasn't adequately been explored by you...

Your task here, then, is to explain how something that happens for no reason whatsoever, i.e. with no logical antecedents, can be anything but random.

I can wait.

...neither has the effect of the complex relationship of determination and randomness which must be going on.

Why would that matter, and what do you think the complexities are, exactly?

There is also the gap between the arrangement of atoms and their quirky ways and concepts like justice, responsibility, blame, outrage(of which your posts are a prime example of)Morality and for a kick off, The sense of agency we have.

There is no assumption that we are talking about atoms, or that the world is entirely material. The argument is quite general enough to encompass an immaterial soul...

Meanwhile, cop this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

I don't think that says what you'd like it to say...

Given the axioms, if the choice about what measurement to take is not a function of the information accessible to the experimenters (free will assumption), then the results of the measurements cannot be determined by anything previous to the experiments.
[my emphasis]

Also, "not a function of the information accessible to the experimenters", the so-called "free will assumption", is easily achievable by adding randomness. 

[Outrider]

But I think there is a debate between whether reason, of which we speak is always extrinsic and there can be no intrinsic reasons. We know that certain nuclei split and we know why. The reason is intrinsic to the nucleus. What we don't know is when it is going to go off. That randomness amongst multiple becomes something highly predictable namely the half life.

So that it splits has a reason; when it splits doesn't, or it wouldn't be random. That you can average out random events to get some sort of general sense doesn't mean that there's a reason.

O.

[Free Willy]

So that it splits has a reason; when it splits doesn't, or it wouldn't be random. That you can average out random events to get some sort of general sense doesn't mean that there's a reason.

O.

OK.

[Free Willy]

You have posted nothing that remotely resembles a logical way to get around the logic I presented. You made several (sometimes nonsensical) assertions and waved around 'agent causation' like a magic spell, but of logic there has been no sign...

...is utterly pointless and irrelevant as you haven't explained what you think 'agency' is or, more importantly, how it works.

Your task here, then, is to explain how something that happens for no reason whatsoever, i.e. with no logical antecedents, can be anything but random.

I can wait.

Why would that matter, and what do you think the complexities are, exactly?

There is no assumption that we are talking about atoms, or that the world is entirely material. The argument is quite general enough to encompass an immaterial soul...

I don't think that says what you'd like it to say...

Given the axioms, if the choice about what measurement to take is not a function of the information accessible to the experimenters (free will assumption), then the results of the measurements cannot be determined by anything previous to the experiments.
[my emphasis]

Also, "not a function of the information accessible to the experimenters", the so-called "free will assumption", is easily achievable by adding randomness. 

You talked though of systems changing over time.
I'm wondering whether moral realism is something that changes over time. The necessary entity doesn't change over time.

[Stranger]

You talked though of systems changing over time.
I'm wondering whether moral realism is something that changes over time. The necessary entity doesn't change over time.

It's kind of cute the way you keep scurrying back to ideas that you have compressively lost the argument about as if they were undisputed aspects of reality. You have established the reality of neither moral realism nor a necessary entity.

Not that it would matter to the logic I've presented, even if you had established these things. Staying constant is a special case of change over time, and the argument is aimed at minds, which unquestionably change over time, otherwise we would never do or think anything.

Also worth noting that you've contradicted yourself about your fictional 'necessary entity', because elsewhere you were holding it up as a "supreme case of agent causality". It cannot possibly be both unchanging and a causal agent. I wonder if you understand why.....

[Free Willy]

It's kind of cute the way you keep scurrying back to ideas that you have compressively lost the argument about as if they were undisputed aspects of reality. You have established the reality of neither moral realism nor a necessary entity.

Not that it would matter to the logic I've presented, even if you had established these things. Staying constant is a special case of change over time, and the argument is aimed at minds, which unquestionably change over time, otherwise we would never do or think anything.

Also worth noting that you've contradicted yourself about your fictional 'necessary entity', because elsewhere you were holding it up as a "supreme case of agent causality". It cannot possibly be both unchanging and a causal agent. I wonder if you understand why.....

In what way is a causal agent changed by what it causes?

[Stranger]

In what way is a causal agent changed by what it causes?

So predictable.   

Agent causation is about making 'free will' choices and taking 'free will' actions. It is a function of minds. Minds are necessarily embedded in time because having thoughts, making choices, and actions are events. Of course taking actions or making choices changes the mind that does them. For one thing, before an action, it is an intention to act, afterwards it is a memory of an action.

[Free Willy]

So predictable.   

Agent causation is about making 'free will' choices and taking 'free will' actions. It is a function of minds. Minds are necessarily embedded in time because having thoughts, making choices, and actions are events. Of course taking actions or making choices changes the mind that does them. For one thing, before an action, it is an intention to act, afterwards it is a memory of an action.

No I don't think your definition is comprehensive enough. Minds may be causal agents although even then what a mind can cause on it's own is debatable. Mind might be an analogue of what God is and, having created time as pat of the universe is at every point in spacetime. Minds seem therefore emergent from time. Agent causality is about agency.

Your view of God is perhaps too anthropomorphic. God is not at all constrained by time or space or a temporally entrapped mind.
How does the act of creation change a mind in any case.What changes?

I thought you might have challenged creation.

[Stranger]

No I don't think your definition is comprehensive enough. Minds may be causal agents although even then what a mind can cause on it's own is debatable.

What else do you think is involved or needed?

Agent causality is about agency.

Yes, and agency means "the ability to take action or to choose what action to take". Actions and choices require time.

Your view of God is perhaps too anthropomorphic.

My view of God is that it's a fairytale. And I think it's theists, especially Abrahamics, who get confused about just how much to anthropomorphise their God.

God is not at all constrained by time or space or a temporally entrapped mind.

Which makes it utterly nonsensical to think that it thinks, plans, or acts in any way at all.

How does the act of creation change a mind in any case.What changes?

See my previous post.

I thought you might have challenged creation.

Why? You didn't mention it. 

I also note that you are again apparently trying to take the conversation away from human free will...