Deterministic Universe Debunked. (Determinism)

[Informer]

[Informer]

The notion that there exist a creative aspect of this universe should be as self evident to us as is cogito ergo sum . .

 

I prefer the term Free Awareness to describe the a fundamental aspect inherent to us all: Awareness of the essence therein. Awareness which is that all observable phenomena arises. The awareness that is our cognition and consciousness. Awareness of awareness, circular or not.

 

We are aware that we are aware. So we are the same in that aspect, regardless of what other difference you can ever find.

 

I prefer Free Awareness: Awareness of the essence therein. Awareness which is that all observable phenomena arises. The awareness that is our cognition and consciousness. Awareness of awareness, circular or not.

 

We are aware that we are aware. So we are the same in that aspect, regardless of what other difference you can ever find.

[Vmarco]

[Informer]

LOL,...that cracks me up. Of course you are correct,...cogito ergo sum is indeed "self evident" to self,...but there really is no self, except in delusion,...what Lao Tzu called Monkey Mind.

 

Lao Tzu said, "Recognize that eveything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth."

 

Guess it really takes the discernment of a Taoist or Buddhist to see the absurdity of "I Think therefore I Am." How ever did the "i think", the little i, the ego, determine it is?

 

Personally, anything science says is quite iffy for me. As the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Charles Townes said, “Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith.”

 

Of course science wants to believe the universe is not deterministic,...what an ego buster that would be for science.

 

The limited definition of determinism,..."human actions and choices are fully determined by preceding events" is proof of the ignorance of philosophy. No surprise there,...after all, philosophy is the LOVE of ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE,...and knowledge arises from the narrow, one-way view of ego.

 

To really understand determinism,...not as defined,...but actual determinism,...one must understand how human actions and choices are determined by the reverse flow of forward moving things. The easiest way perhaps to understand that is wth a screenplay analogy.

 

The screenwriter has a thought,...which has to do with the ending of a film,...so a variety of situations must precede this in order to arrive at the end.

 

It is very difficult for most sciences to accept that time is onething. And simultaneously, that time does not exist.

 

Quantum cosmologists Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle got it right in their No-Boundary theory,..."since time loses characteristics that separate it from space, the concept of a beginning in time becomes meaningless. That is to say, there was no Big Bang, no singularity, no creation, no Creator, no beginning nor end, because there is no time."

 

Lao Tzu was obviously referring to so called "objective phenomena" (imo) because you don't "SEE" without an EYE to perceive LIGHT from the PAST.

 

See the Anti-thesis in other post.

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/23530-shrinkage-theory-of-everything/

Edited May 8, 2012 by Informer

[Vmarco]

[Informer]

My take on Lao Tzu is that "see and think" refer to the 6 senses.

 

 

 

The problem with Descartes is that he only recognized 5 senses,...ie., “All that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once.” He failed to understand that the brain, the sense organ of thinking, is just as, perhaps more deceitful, than the other 5 senses.

 

Lao Tzu said, "the ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle; totally fascinated by the realm of the senses....if anyone threaten it, it actually fears for its life. Let this monkey go. Let the senses go."

To discover awareness is free it must adventure from the cavity to the heart, only then is it understood, and then only after the fact . . .

Edited May 8, 2012 by Informer

[silas]

 

Lao Tzu said, "Recognize that eveything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth."

 

 

Interesting. Where does this quote come from? What book, what page?

[eye_of_the_storm]

I am, therefore.

 

I am the determining and the creative principle

Edited May 8, 2012 by White Wolf Running On Air

[silas]

Interesting. Where does this quote come from? What book, what page?

 

I found out: it's from the "Hua Hu Ching: The Unknown Teachings of Lao Tzu" by Brian Walker.

[Informer]

I found out: it's from the "Hua Hu Ching: The Unknown Teachings of Lao Tzu" by Brian Walker.

 

Ah, so it IS a cherry picked interpretation that is an exception?

[Marblehead]

Illusions and delusions are those aspects of our life that cannot be supported by observation using our five senses.

 

(Just felt like saying that.)

[Brian]

I am therefore I think.

[Brian]

...Scientific Method is sort of biased in favor of logic...

 

...Here is an example, predetermination dictates that a maze of dominoes lined up in the proper order will collapse one another in a chain reaction. Quantum Theory shows that they do not collapse in a line as would be dictated by predetermination, but randomly . . . .

 

I enjoy reading your posts, Informer!

 

Sort of? I'd say "is predicated on" rather than "is sort of biased in favor of..." Of course, the problem with logic (and, by extension, with science) develops when the mind allows it to become the whole (as I know all too well from personal experience.)

 

Careful with mixing quantum and macroscopic observations. A chain reaction of dominos is one of the most convincing demonstrations I can think of off the top of my head in favor of determinism.

[Stosh]

I am therefore I think.

Im distinct therefore I exist

I am in turmoil therefore I live

[Informer]

I enjoy reading your posts, Informer!

 

Sort of? I'd say "is predicated on" rather than "is sort of biased in favor of..." Of course, the problem with logic (and, by extension, with science) develops when the mind allows it to become the whole (as I know all too well from personal experience.)

 

Careful with mixing quantum and macroscopic observations. A chain reaction of dominos is one of the most convincing demonstrations I can think of off the top of my head in favor of determinism.

 

I was showing the false dichotomy inherent with only one option preceding and proceeding each interaction, which is objectively wrong description of the universe. The universe does not adhere to the domino effect, one event can result in a completely random interaction preceding and proceeding. (it doesn't have to follow the line.)

[Brian]

I was showing the false dichotomy inherent with only one option preceding and proceeding each interaction, which is objectively wrong description of the universe. The universe does not adhere to the domino effect, one event can result in a completely random interaction preceding and proceeding. (it doesn't have to follow the line.)

 

Understood, but dominos do follow the domino effect rather consistently.

[Informer]

Understood, but dominos do follow the domino effect rather consistently.

 

Yes, and neurons do not follow like dominoes when we are making choices, our cognition is quantum, so it doesn't fall like the dominoes, but randomly.

 

"A human brain operates as a pattern of switching. An abstract definition of a quantum mechanical switch is given that allows for the continual random fluctuations in the warm wet environment of the brain. Among several switch-like entities in the brain, I choose to focus on the sodium channel proteins. After explaining what these are, I analyse the ways in which my definition of a quantum switch can be satisfied by portions of such proteins. I calculate the perturbing effects of normal variations in temperature and electric field on the quantum state of such a portion. These are shown to be acceptable within the fluctuations allowed for by my definition. Information processing and unpredictability in the brain are discussed. The ultimate goal underlying the paper is an analysis of quantum measurement theory based on an abstract definition of the physical manifestations of consciousness. The paper is written for physicists with no prior knowlecge of neurophysiology, but enough introductory material has also been included to allow neurophysiologists with no prior knowledge of quantum mechanics to follow the central arguments. "

 

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/427/1872/43.short

[Informer]

So do you have an argument or stating the obvious?

[Brian]

Yes, and neurons do not follow like dominoes when we are making choices, our cognition is quantum, so it doesn't fall like the dominoes, but randomly.

 

"A human brain operates as a pattern of switching. An abstract definition of a quantum mechanical switch is given that allows for the continual random fluctuations in the warm wet environment of the brain. Among several switch-like entities in the brain, I choose to focus on the sodium channel proteins. After explaining what these are, I analyse the ways in which my definition of a quantum switch can be satisfied by portions of such proteins. I calculate the perturbing effects of normal variations in temperature and electric field on the quantum state of such a portion. These are shown to be acceptable within the fluctuations allowed for by my definition. Information processing and unpredictability in the brain are discussed. The ultimate goal underlying the paper is an analysis of quantum measurement theory based on an abstract definition of the physical manifestations of consciousness. The paper is written for physicists with no prior knowlecge of neurophysiology, but enough introductory material has also been included to allow neurophysiologists with no prior knowledge of quantum mechanics to follow the central arguments. "

 

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/427/1872/43.short

 

I'm not a member of the Royal Society so I can only access the abstract (actually, I may have membership through our institution's library -- I'll try to remember to ask...) The abstract seems reasonable, especially since it's talking about electromagnetic on an ionic scale (Na+). Seems to me that an electrochemical system like the brain would certainly be subject to quantum effects. In fact, the entire electrochemical thing we call biology must be consistent with QED, just as chemistry must.

 

My comment, however, was specifically about your reference to physical dominoes -- events in the macro scale rarely display quantum effect and I feared the analogy diluted your point for the non-physicist. That was all.

[Informer]

Yes, a Modus Tollens hypothetical syllogism can be confusing. I will spell it out for you.

 

If determinism is probable then the entire universe is like dominoes.

The entire universe does not seem to be like dominoes.

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

Determinism is not probable.

 

I try to use this logic to avoid confirmation biased.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Informer

[Brian]

Yes, a Modus Tollens hypothetical syllogism can be confusing. I will spell it out for you.

 

If determinism is probable then the entire universe is like dominoes.

The entire universe does not seem to be like dominoes.

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

Determinism is not probable.

 

I try to use this logic to avoid confirmation biased.

 

You are mistaken. I was neither confused nor in need of having it spelled out.

 

BTW, a statement of perception like "does not seem" is not conclusive and the deduction is therefore inconclusive as well. Of course, we know from quantum electrodynamics, uncertainty theory and some other work that there are nondeterministic underpinnings but it is also clear that the statistical aggregate can be modeled very successfully in a deterministic fashion. This is why we can use Newton to build trains or launch satellites, for instance.

 

The universe is not truly like dominoes but dominoes are very much like dominoes...

[Informer]

You are mistaken. I was neither confused nor in need of having it spelled out.

 

BTW, a statement of perception like "does not seem" is not conclusive and the deduction is therefore inconclusive as well. Of course, we know from quantum electrodynamics, uncertainty theory and some other work that there are nondeterministic underpinnings but it is also clear that the statistical aggregate can be modeled very successfully in a deterministic fashion. This is why we can use Newton to build trains or launch satellites, for instance.

 

The universe is not truly like dominoes but dominoes are very much like dominoes...

 

Dominoes is like dominoes is a circular argument or begging the question.

(Logical Fallacy)

Science generally refers to probability, we don't prove anything with certainty, therefore I followed suit, I could make the statement absolute, yet I am unwilling to make such a commitment to anything absolute, even though it sometimes appears that way.

 

Theories by definition are the "most probable" explanation. If a theory is not the most probable explanation then it becomes a hypothesis.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Informer

[Brian]

LOL! D00d! You're the one who chose to use dominoes as your example of how the universe is not like dominoes (or whatever) -- I was just trying to be helpful and point out that it it wasn't the most tractable path if you are trying to demontrate to the lay person that the universe is nondeterministic. The physicists and other natural philosophers in the crowd already get it.

 

Anyhow, I'm gonna get out of the forum & into my dantien for a while...

[Informer]

LOL! D00d! You're the one who chose to use dominoes as your example of how the universe is not like dominoes (or whatever) -- I was just trying to be helpful and point out that it it wasn't the most tractable path if you are trying to demontrate to the lay person that the universe is nondeterministic. The physicists and other natural philosophers in the crowd already get it.

 

Anyhow, I'm gonna get out of the forum & into my dantien for a while...

 

Yes I know, you think it is a weak analogy, and I don't see how it is. If one is missing that point then they are likely missing much more anyways, imo.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Informer