|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside | |||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
No. Decisions are borne of instants. In each instant the different alternatives from that point in time all exist simultaneously such that perceptual moments are observed. The superposition of these transitive states is a conglomorate of all the available options. Thus the final outcome is neither a "decision" of your making nor a "decision" of any single one of any of the other entities that make up the holistic physical system in question.
Take your grocery shopping example. According to decisions theory you alone decide which items to purchase. But this ignores the different options available to the timeline sequencing of the various items in the shop that you may or may not buy. How do their decisions affect the eventual outcome? Why should the eventual decision be a product of your perceptual moment time sequence alone?Instants theory sums over paths all of the possibilities from the perceptual moment perspective of all of the entities in question. In laymans terms the final "decision" (and thus timeline taken) is a combination of all of the "decisions" of all of the entities involved. You, the eggs, the bread, the tinned tomatoes, cookies, peanut butter etc. etc. etc. all have an effective contribution with each entity weighted in terms of it's perceptual moment co-efficient. Thus decisions are an illusion. Actually they are a sum over instants with regard to perceptual moments of all the entities that make up a given physical system. I hope that is clearer? If not feel free to question. I am here to help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
But as before, your logic is not consistent with common knowledge about instants. You should first formalize the common knowledge, then try to make it fit. It is also not within my experience that decisions are borne of instants, so I have no evidence for it. Deciding alternatives that are in the future is the knowledge we use. We do not seem to use illusionary decisions borne of instances at al in common knowledge. But I like your idea of timelines, maybe you are getting somewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You are clinging on desperately to your outmoded concept of decisions as the progressional quanta of time.
You experience instants. All of your decisions are made in instants. You cannot divorce the decision making process from the sequential instancing of time in perceptual moments. How can you claim that the apparent "decision" of which peanut butter to purchase (for example) can viably disclude and discount the "decsions" of the jars of peanut butter themselves? Their instants and those of the shop and shopkeeper must also all be included in the calculation to make it complete and thus valid. Do you think because you own a brain that the only instants woth perceptually momentualising are your own? What about the "freedom" of the rest of the system? The peanut butter also has a "choice" expressed in instants. Instants theory is the only way to meaningfully conceptualise this. Decisions are but a poor mans aproximation. I am sure you will get there in the end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You should use the science theory subservient to the evidence of direct experience, but you are doing the reverse. You are also making common knowledge subservient to your theory, instead of the reverse.
In any case, if you would present an analysis of the logic of instants, as it is used in common knowledge, formalize it, derive general principles, clean it up to essential parts, then Im sure you would get something worthwile.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
If you did find such a thing I would say that the rock was moved there by bending under some older rocks. Now let us assume that you did find such a thing, what Theory would replace evolution? Can you think of any?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
I will ask you the same question, what theory would replace evolution if it was proven to be unsupported by future evidence? Is there anything? I am trying to point out that the concept of evolution is not a theory built on creativity. There were no other theories. All other theories are arguing on the type of evolution that took place. What if is becomes clear, based on evidence that you mentioned, that life could not have evolved at all! What new theory could possibly be considered scientific?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The common knowledge of instants is self evident and obvious to all. We all have direct experience of instants. Your denial of this is irrational and incomprehensible.
Consider the following - You "forget" your keys and are locked out. Did you decide to leave your keys inside? Obviously not. That would be stupid. Instead the instant at which this occurred was a sum over paths of the perceptual moment of both your "decision" and the "decision" of the keys in question. Taking into account the co-efficient of contradiction and weighting accordingly the keys get left behind. Each instant is a dot on the ever branchiong timeline of perceptual moments. How can the decisions theory account for the utterly stupid seeming decision to leave your keys behind? This everyday example shows the obvious flaws in your argument. ANSWER: It cannot. Instants theory is the only viable solution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You are still not getting it. You must use the actual phrases in common knowledge, the structure of them. So you should describe what a person might have said when forgetting their carkeys. Then analyze the logical structure of what is said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If all the evidence were different, if all the predictions of evolution had been found to be false, if all the corroborating strands of evidence pointed in a different direction to evolutionary theory.....
Then a different theory would be required. Given that scientific theories are evidenced based it is impossible to say what an alternative theory would be without the alternative evidence. Evolutionary theory is derived from evidence rather than merely being a preconceived philosophical interpretation of whatever evidence is available. Thus your question makes little sense without knowing what the nature of this "alternative evidence" might be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
When I forget my house keys I usually say "Shit. I'm locked out"
This is obviously a consequence of instants theory and disproves the flawed notions of freedom and decisions that you are stubbornly clinging onto. If only you would study instants theory you too would see. Open your mind. Open your heart (not literally).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
That phrase seems to have no relationship to instants whatsoever.
Eddington who somebody else referenced also argued from experience. And then he said that the future is where randomness is, while the past is only one way. So you see the way I evidence and construct knowledge is an established practice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
In the instant my decsion making capacity was overturned by the perceptual moment. Thus resulting in my "forgotten" keys. Hence th phrase in question is evidence for my position.
Yes but Eddington was referring to the reality of past instants not decisions which he recognised as a consequence of perceptual moment mechanistic traversions in time. As is obvious if you study his work in detail. You obviously have not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I thought you didnt have a decisionmaking capacity, that it was an illusional effect of instants. That is exactly what many scientists say that free will is an illusion, for which there is no evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 634 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
One way it was 'tested' was making a prediction about a fossil that was going to be found. According to the TOE, there was a transitional form between fish and amphibians that lived in a certain time period.
This group of scientists went to an area whose rocks were the proper age, and were the proper environment (shallow seaside), and found that fossil. That was one way.. there were many other ways too. Forensic's is a very important part of biology though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
And the paper referenced in the original posting substantiates that evolution occurs through reasoned and informed decisions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024