Creation Vs. Evolution = Free will Vs. determinism

I never tried to do so. I was just pointing out that there is no reason to suppose that our statistical/probabilistic models represent the underlying nature of the phenomena we are studying, although there are a number of people who suggest that they do in the case of quantum mechanics. Only one of these could be classified as inherent uncertainty, and that is fundamental uncertainty contained within the system being observed. As I have already pointed out however, by saying that this system is inherently uncertain you are presupposing your conclusion.TTFN,WK

Then why on earth refer to limited data in the first place? You argued that the purpose of describing in terms of chance and outcome was to handle limited datasets, and that it didn't presuppose fundamental uncertainty. But as before, this is untrue, chance and outcome descriptions presuppose uncertainty in all cases, even when we know that what we observe is not itself indeterminate, as with the gender of a foetus in the womb. Because in the application you then must assume uncertainty on the part of the observer, for the descriptive construct to make sense.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

That is correct. An unsupported assertion, show me some evidence that there is any general presupposition of fundamental uncertainty in probabilistic sciences except from you, it shouldn't neccessarily be too, hard there are people who believe it, I'd just like you see you provide some support for one of your assertions for a change. It presupposes uncertainty on the part of the observer who gives values to the probabilities, and that is exactly where the subjecticity comes in along with the insufficient knowledge. Actually to be honest I'm not 100% sure what that sentence of yours meant, I interpreted it to mean that if you presuppose fundamental uncertainty then that uncertainty has to be located somewhere within the subject/observer system, and that if the subjects status is clearly defined then there must be uncertainty in the observer. If that is what you are saying then it is a non-sensical argument. If the universe is fundamentally indeterministic then the uncertainty will be an inherent property of every aspect of the system, there is always a small probability that the baby will suddenly vanish in a puff of smoke or the observer will be struck by a falling reindeer. My following rebuttal is a counter example of how a fundamentally deterministic universe could continue to appear indeterministic to an observer.In a deterministic universe you would have to assume that the observers thought processes were deterministic but that does not mean that the subjective experience of the observer will be interpreted that way, they may still experience what they think of as uncertainty and choice.TTFN,WK

That was what I was saying, and it is not nonsensical, it simply states the practice of describing in terms of chance and outcome.Wounded King:
"If the universe is fundamentally indeterministic then the uncertainty will be an inherent property of every aspect of the system, there is always a small probability that the baby will suddenly vanish in a puff of smoke or the observer will be struck by a falling reindeer."That is extreme philosphical meandering again, but now asuming absolute indeterminacy, in stead of absolute determinacy.There is no experience without choice, it is defined that way. Maybe you can construct an alternate language that is set apart from the language that depends on things going one way or another, but what you're doing now is just creating incoherency in a system of knowledge of which things going one way or another is an essential part. Please show a theoretical example of experience without referring to things going one way or another. The term is simply meaningless, and impossible without reference to choice.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Why can't indeterminism and determinism not share reality? Is it possible that both concepts explain facets of experiance? Like light has properties of a particle and a wave form that explains the photoelectric effect and the double slit experiment. Can causality and freewill be the dualistic description of reality?
Why must it be one or the other?

My thoughts exactly!

Dear Syamsu, No, it doesn't. It makes a totally ludicrous definition of what an inherently/fundamentally indeterminate system should be. Well given that one of the main points we are discussing is the ramifications of fundamental indeterminacy or determinacy that seems a reasonable thing to speculate on. By who? Go to dictionary.com and tell me which definitions specifically require choice. OK, 'I felt my back ache', that satisfies your criteria as far as I can see. If you feel it doesn't then please be precise and explicit as to how it fails to satisy them. It describes an event going one way, but not one way or another. There is no element of choice involved and the statement is clearly meaningful.Interestingly this seems to be the exact opposite of your initial challenge to 'describe an event where things can turn out one way or another', which you claimed no one who supported evolution could do. I wonder if the inability of everyone to satisfy your criteria is more to do with the vagueness of what those criteria are than a lack on their part.TTFN,WK

Dear 1.61803, Maybe they can, but I don't see how both can be fundamental to the universe. I have already suggested how a deterministic universe can easily appear indeterminate to observers within that universe, I have similarly mentioned the theories that fundamental indeterminacy exists at the quantum level but somehow gives rise to, at least apparently, deterministic phenomena at the macroscopic level. Its a big philosophical question and many philosophers believe that causality and free will can co-exist, if you can have any theories as to how it would work then please let us know what they are.TTFN,WK

It's ridiculous, feeling is also dependent on things going one way or another, as related to free will etc. What's a feeling then without choice? I have no idea. It's like a commercial for plastics, where they take out all the plastics in an example household to show how important plastics are for everyday life. Language is a big mess and nothing works when you take out the principle of things going one way or another. Thanks for demonstrating the totally obvious.It seems to me that to meet the challenge all you have to do is describe options/probabilities / possibilities etc., and then determination / decision / choice, as the point where things go from one way to another, to the one way. The thing is that most evolutionists do not realise that choice and things like randomness, chance etc. are conceptually similar. To have to name the point where things go from one way or another, to the one way, is not so easy in the cultural context of atheism / materialism / social darwinism. At this particular point the denial of God sets in, or denial that not everything is cause and effect, or denial that people are just products of their biology.I think you can see how badly this works out ideologically. I remember historian Klaus Fischer in his book Nazi-Germany: a new history, which I often quote from, goes to great lengths to emphasize that historical conceptions of the holocaust should not make the mistake that the holocaust was a neccessary effect of what went before. That the conceptions should leave room for choice, and to fail to do that would be to make the same kind of fundamental mistake Nazi and Communist ideologists tended to make. Nazi's tending to suppose predeterminacy by people's biology, and communists suppossing predeterminacy by class struggle or environment.That just illustrates once again that the belief in absolute predeterminacy is societally unworkable. You said before you don't support the belief in absolute predeterminacy, but IMO you still give undue credibility to an extreme belief, that is really only a philosophical mindgame. And the other way around you don't give enough credibilility to religious, common and scientific knowledge about creation, which is quite straightforward practical and useful in each particular area of knowledge.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dear Syamsu, Just because you say something is so doesn't make it so, and saying it again doesn't change that. If you actually can show me a definition which neccessitates the concept of choice then why haven't you?If this is supposed to be a clear and explicit explanation of why you feel my 'I felt my back ache' is insufficient then it is a total failure. Not only do you not make any point, apart from reasserting your initial contention that experience requires choice, but you dont put forward any specific reason why my example is not satisfactory, other than presumably that it did not include any element of choice. A feeling is a feeling is a feeling, with or without choice. Even the feeling that you have a choice does not neccessarily mean that choice actually exists. Which challenge? Your most recent one to 'Please show a theoretical example of experience without referring to things going one way or another.', clearly not. Presumably then these are your suggestions for your initial challenge to 'describe an event where things can turn out one way or another'. Perhaps because they are clearly different. I have already suggested that a fatalistic mindset due to a belief in determinisn is a bad thing. But even if such beliefs are inevitable folloowing a belief in determinism it doesn't make any difference to the question of whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic. No more so than you do with your presupposition of fundamental indeterminacy. No, what I don't do is consider religious and 'common' beliefs about 'creation' to have any neccessary bearing on science.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-18-2004 07:56 AM

Well I think it's basically childish to go looking at a dictionary. I still don't understand how you can conceive of feeling, and experience apart from things going one way or another. I can go so far as to imagine that the signal in the nerve system goes from one part of the body to the brain dertiminately. And then what? It obscurely enters into thoughts somehow, also still determinate. But then to actually feel it, I can't imagine that without reaching some kind of decisioncenter, consciousness.Choice, determination, chance etc, are of a group of things clearly, the group of things that can go one way or another. And for every event that can go one way or another, you have that point where it goes from one way or another, to the one way. That is the basic similarity.I'm just pointing out that in common knowledge, and in theory, indeterminacy is more fundamental then determinacy. You make a desicion which sets a cause, and then the effects follow from the cause you have set. I don't see that as remotely equal to the kind of insistence with which you talk about absolute predeterminacy.Again tracing back the likelyhood of the appearance of things to where they were set obviously has everything to do with meaningful science. You are not guarding scientific knowledge about creation from common, and religious knowledge, you are in effect opposing scientific knowledge about creation with evolution theory, and surpressing common and religious knowledge about creation as well.I don't think you're going to get any better sort of argument to switch sides in the controversy, although you might get the same sort of argument delivered better. So make a choice to support knowledge of creation, in stead of basing your views on a narrowminded scientism conception of the creation vs evolution controversy.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You didn't seem to have any qualms about turning to the dictionary when you thought it supported your argument. Once again you are conflating separate concepts, consciousness does not neccessitate the existence of choice.If you choose to believe in free will then that is your choice, but stop pretending that you have some sort of proof that is is a fundamental phenomenon rather than an epiphenomenon of consciousness. You mean 'asserting' not 'pointing out'. And where does that decision come from?TTFN,WK

My theory of how determinism and freewill exist together was in my first post on this thread. A row of dominoes are prepared in line. I am at one end with my finger on the lead dominoe. I have a choice. Do I start the dominoe or do I NOT? It is my choice, freewill. I can control my actions and make a concious decision to either start the dominoe or not. BUT..once I make the choice I begin a chain reaction that plays out to the end. Once the choice is made determinism takes over. I know your argument will most likely critique the fact that events leading up to my decision will influence the CHOICE, and therefore it is only a illusion of freewill. But I say Poppycock, thoughts are not actions. It takes the next step to make thoughts manifest into actions. A choice.
Anyway I know in advance you do not believe this is so but it happens to be my current model for how the two can coexist. **edit to add : "where does the decision come from?" Good F*&%#@ ing question King. I say from the mind .This message has been edited by 1.61803, 08-18-2004 03:12 PM

So is it not possible that every atom and molecule that forms your body and brain was put together in such a fashion and set in motion in such a manner that that choice was predetermined? I sure hope not. Or can you have it both ways?

Hi Hangdawg, every atom and molecule was put together in such a fashion, but you could load yourself up with carcinogens and develop cancer and die at a early age or not. You could supersize that fast food meal, become obese, develop heart disease and drop dead from a heart attack or eat healthy and remain fit. But once the choice is made the consequeces of that choice will be born out. It is true that all that exist unfolds from cause and effect, but I believe there is a property to reality that is not carved in stone. I can not prove it, no more than someone who believes in a strictly deterministic existance can prove pure causality. But given the choice I choose the former. Pun intended.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche