Thank you for your deeply thought-provoking comments. It was my understanding that a deterministic universe is one where effect inescapably and predictably follows cause. However, the recent theories about the spontaneous appearance of quanta breaks the link between cause and effect, and therefore any theories predicated upon that principle. cont...
Thank you for your comments Rick. It doesn't really matter whether the stories are true or not - it's really about the mind set. In one case we find sympathy, but in the other anger, whereas both people may be equally the victim of the circumstances of their lives. But because the things that made the monster happened years ago, we hold him responsible. Not superstitious myself. Superstition can warp your thinking and make you act irrationally. I consciously forced myself from the mindset.
The question that I struggle with is this: whether personality and our responses are formed by a cause/effect chain of events, or an unpredictable response to stimuli. Is there any sense in which on a macro level, we can truly be considered to be the architects of our own responses, or if everything is truly a response to prior programming. The work of criminal psychologists shows a disturbingly accurate level of predictability about personality traits and situational responses.
Yes, I mean predictable by a subject. A self-aware universe may, however, theoretically be able to predict it's actions. I agree that lack of complete knowledge limits our predictive capacity. I'm not sure what you mean by "arbitrary." It's my understanding that because causality is universal, randomness is only apparent, and that all acts must arise from antecedent causes that regress back to before our birth. We may not know all the causes to our programming, but must acknowledge they exist.
More to the point, if things could conceptually and experientially be random in the strongest sense of "uncaused" this prospect would make free will even more impossible. Good video.
Quantum theory does not refute determinism. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory asserts that because we have not been able to identify the causes of certain quantum phenomena, they cannot have causes. This assertion is neither scientific, nor backed up by any quantum mechanical evidence. For example, we may not know how entanglement works, but we cannot logically thereby conclude it is uncaused. Uncertainty notwithstanding, causality rules at both the macro and quantum domains.
People often confuse causality with subjective predictability in the sense that if something is not subjectively predictable, it cannot be causal. Conceptually, however, the notion of events happening without a cause lacks coherence. It could perhaps make sense within the context of a theoretical first cause, but, post-Big Bang, that prospect no longer exists. I hope criminal psychologists use their findings to humanely intervene when would-be criminals are still children and innocent.
You've lost me here. Do you mean predictable by a subject, or when applied to a specific subject? Either way, a lack of predictability seems to me to often be an indication of our limitations in assessing all of the factors, rather than the fact that in a perfect system, given all the data, an accurate prediction could be made. Although this is going off at a tangent, there's no way of knowing whether the "inner voices" only act in response to prior programming, or reach arbitrary decisions.
I just wanted to give you the public respect unless you tell me otherwise. Know what you mean - it's weird how you go from being a godan to a kyoshi just for surviving 6 more years! :-)
Thank you for your deeply thought-provoking comments. It was my understanding that a deterministic universe is one where effect inescapably and predictably follows cause. However, the recent theories about the spontaneous appearance of quanta breaks the link between cause and effect, and therefore any theories predicated upon that principle. cont...
Thank you for your comments Rick. It doesn't really matter whether the stories are true or not - it's really about the mind set. In one case we find sympathy, but in the other anger, whereas both people may be equally the victim of the circumstances of their lives. But because the things that made the monster happened years ago, we hold him responsible.
Not superstitious myself. Superstition can warp your thinking and make you act irrationally. I consciously forced myself from the mindset.
The question that I struggle with is this: whether personality and our responses are formed by a cause/effect chain of events, or an unpredictable response to stimuli. Is there any sense in which on a macro level, we can truly be considered to be the architects of our own responses, or if everything is truly a response to prior programming. The work of criminal psychologists shows a disturbingly accurate level of predictability about personality traits and situational responses.
Yes, I mean predictable by a subject. A self-aware universe may, however, theoretically be able to predict it's actions. I agree that lack of complete knowledge limits our predictive capacity. I'm not sure what you mean by "arbitrary." It's my understanding that because causality is universal, randomness is only apparent, and that all acts must arise from antecedent causes that regress back to before our birth. We may not know all the causes to our programming, but must acknowledge they exist.
More to the point, if things could conceptually and experientially be random in the strongest sense of "uncaused" this prospect would make free will even more impossible. Good video.
Quantum theory does not refute determinism. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory asserts that because we have not been able to identify the causes of certain quantum phenomena, they cannot have causes. This assertion is neither scientific, nor backed up by any quantum mechanical evidence. For example, we may not know how entanglement works, but we cannot logically thereby conclude it is uncaused. Uncertainty notwithstanding, causality rules at both the macro and quantum domains.
People often confuse causality with subjective predictability in the sense that if something is not subjectively predictable, it cannot be causal. Conceptually, however, the notion of events happening without a cause lacks coherence. It could perhaps make sense within the context of a theoretical first cause, but, post-Big Bang, that prospect no longer exists.
I hope criminal psychologists use their findings to humanely intervene when would-be criminals are still children and innocent.
You've lost me here. Do you mean predictable by a subject, or when applied to a specific subject? Either way, a lack of predictability seems to me to often be an indication of our limitations in assessing all of the factors, rather than the fact that in a perfect system, given all the data, an accurate prediction could be made. Although this is going off at a tangent, there's no way of knowing whether the "inner voices" only act in response to prior programming, or reach arbitrary decisions.
I just wanted to give you the public respect unless you tell me otherwise. Know what you mean - it's weird how you go from being a godan to a kyoshi just for surviving 6 more years! :-)