|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
That's the whole point of cause and effect, no alternatives in the future, perfect predictability in principle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The direct experience of, I can go left or right, then proceed as explained.
As before, the thing to notice is that the alternatives are in the future, and not in the present. Most all science still has the alternatives in the present. For example the goal is survival optimum, then there are alternatives a and b, then a and b are calculated and so the option with highest survival value is acted upon. By this reasoning alternatives are in the present, and the lowscore alternative cant actually become realised. Still this is what many influential scientists regard as freedom. Where it leads to redefine laws of the universe is when you formalise the direct experience into general priniples, according to common practical knowledge of free acts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Its simply not the case that scientists generally support freedom, or unpredictability as you say. Instead scientists are increasingly edging towards explaining good and evil, love etc. that this is all some complex cause and effect scheme. As said before in quantum theory the issue of freedom is fudged with the observer. Take for example schroedingers cat in a box experiment, which is still hotly debated.
But when you agree freedom is real, then you might want to think about what decisions went into the creation of the species of organisms that we see today. That is how creationists think fundamentally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I did explain to you what the difference is between alternatives in the future, and alternatives in the present. In anticipation theory alternatives in the present is referred to as weak anticipation, and having them in the future is called strong anticipation. On the whole science is still on the side of weak anticipation, so you know this difference is apparently something tricky that you should take note of.
Frontloading seems to equate to evolution acting from memory, from dna they have. This is not fundamentally what I'm talking about, although it means that there can be more sophisticated decision processes in nature that mimic brainfunction. In anticipation theory there is no goal, or so to say the goal is spiritual. The theories that posit a goal have the alternatives in the present, as explained before. I think you still have the alternatives in the present otherwise if you would understand, then we could simply move forward to discussing what decisions went into the creation of species that we see today. As before, decisions are the most fundamental in science according to anticipation theory, there is nothing to which decisions are not applicable. There are various ways of deciding, and that is the new science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
There is no way to have alternative futures without decisions. So when you talk about randomness in the context of alternative futures, and then contrast that with deciding, then you are not making sense. The alternative futures in randomness also must be decided.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I cannot tell what you are talking about anymore. You have some undefined randomness which does include alternative futures, but does not include decisions apparently. Well I dont understand how the alternatives are decided without decision, I cant even begin to ask a question about it, I just dont understand what youre talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
No I cant provide the link without thinking of myself as a flunky for a roman emperor. You are making this all too complex, start with the direct experience of being free to go either left or right. And from this principle, what decisions made the species. It is simply a historical view on the universe, with unique decisions.
And now theres science to back that up basically. And very probably your view of humanity, freedom and the universe is fundamentally flawed, since you probably let yourself be informed by mainstream science for that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Creationism is perfectly understandable,
causes in the past, alternatives in the future decisions to progress through time the material objectively known, the spiritual subjectively known freedom of which we have direct evidence etc. So apparently you have some other theory which is supported by science. Well, I dont understand it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Well ridicule seems to be your argument. But whenever you talk about a walnut, or paperclip, then I consider the entire inanimate universe, and it strikes me as being good of itself.
great then that you apparently believe in alternative futures, which are not decided on. But still then the question remains why the one alternative and not the other, which is an enjoyable spiritual question. In any case with that theory you can also ask the question when species were realized from the alternate possibles. No it is absolutely hopeless to discuss that without using the concept of decision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Blind random chance is not a working cocept. In my last post to you i just replaced the word decision with the word realized, since it is not possible to avoid the concept with free behaviour.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Your problem is with the simple logic of freedom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
As far as I can tell, there is no counterargument, or otherwise i dont understand anything of the counterargument. So I will just proceed to explain how the universe looks according to creationism.
Considering a particular specie, for instance the elephant, to find the origin we must trace back to the decisions at which the elephant was determined to be. That means we must trace back the likelyhood of the elephant coming to be to zero, finding all decisions along the way. In doing this we must determine its kind. For example it was already likely near the start of the universe that there would be a creature with 4 legs. So the decision to create the elephant is a subset of the decision to create creatures with four legs. So these basic forms which have a high likelyhood at the start of the universe are kinds. etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
As before, once we accept the logic of freedom, then freedom must be fundamental in the universe. So when you say toothbrushes dont decide, then that just means a decider decides the state of toothbrushes. As demonstrated with the interference of light, and interference of molecules up to 6 atoms large. These things dont decide their own state, and one can manipulate where they are by deciding how to look at them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The toothbrushes decide their own state because it would be too weird if an outside decider did that for them. Then your toothbrush would be in a wavestate of admittedly tiny alternatve states, prior to you entering the bathroom.
It is actually a first for there to appear a paper from a notable scientist that asserts to explain free will, among other things. So unlike what you believe, freedom is actually relatively new in science. And freedom is all a creationist needs to argue with scientific merit, as I argued about the elephant as an example. Its entirely reasonable, understandable as it always was and now its scientific as well, because freedom is proven to be real. So then you have this blind random chance thing which supposedly does not involve decisions, which makes it a mystery how you get from alternatives to a realized alternative. This is your counterargument I believe. Well if its a mystery to you its a myster to me also, it does not make logical sense, which kind of inhibits the formulating of a hypothesis to test it. The paper referenced in post 1 talks about randomness, but talks about it as a way of making decisions. And then the paper argues that informed and reasoned decisions formate species. But it is all decisions, as like previously in science it was all causes, now it is all decision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
That would be control.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024