Creation Vs. Evolution = Free will Vs. determinism

Hi wounded king, I was wondering how the random nature of the universe can be excluded from The theory of evolution? How can the principles of QM be divorced from natural laws. I believe there is both free will and determinism. Choices can be made, but events set forth from those choices are deterimined. In other words you can choose to start a domino down the row...and once that choice is made it creates a string of events. But you can also choose not to start the domino. Forgive me if this is over simplistic. I may not fully grasp yours and Syamsu's point.

Hi Wounded King, I do not completely feel that both positions are as opposed as you would suspect. I am not a physicist but I find the subject of QM very interesting. As Hawking elluded to waves as a continuim is not completely accurate because light for instance can propagate as a wave or a particle. It is only when one looks for the behavior of one does the observer find the properties of what he is seeking to measure. Observation is causality. Actualizing a event so to speak. I believe the structure of the cosmos and the nature of reality to be unknowable. Schrodingers cat is an example of the randomness and causality of observation. The very quantum fluctuaton that spawned the big bang may very well have been a random event. Freewill in my opinion is an emergent property of existance. And cause and effect is a emergent property of matter. The two coexist in my mind.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

No. The key phrase is 'we don't know'. I can agree with this statement. edit typoThis message has been edited by 1.61803, 07-27-2004 01:45 PM

The only sentence in this entire post that makes a lick of sense.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

With all respect Syamsu, "modern science" has proponents and opponents of determinism. It need not be a anti-religous issue. Causality and Freewill can divide a room of scientist just as well. Slandering science for suggesting causality/materialism is pointless. (Save perhaps for getting under Wounded King's skin.)

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 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

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

If everything that exist is composed of atoms and atoms are composed of subatomic particles and the subatomic particles are composed of yet still more fundlemental particles. It has been postulated that fundlemental particles are not predictable, they can pop in and out of existance so to speak at random. Your thoughts are the same, they can pop in and out of existance too. Schrodinger expressed in his cat in a box analogy that observation can influence causality. Something that observes a event actualizes the event. I believe that the uncertainty principal permeates many facets of reality. I believe that looking into the box that contains the cat gives the answer only when one looks, until then the cat is both alive and dead. The randomness of radioactive decay keeps the answer/effect at bay until a observer actualizes/ collapses the wave form/event. Super computer models can predict and show every possible outcome but that still is not determinism. The cat is either dead or alive but what 'causes' the outcome? Randomness. Knowing all possible outcomes is not the samething as knowing THE actual outcome. Whos to say that the randomness of the quantum world does not leak into the macro world?

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

I do not believe your are correct in this assumption. Schrodinger did say the experiment was 'ridiculous' but his point of connecting micro and macro uncertianty was quite clear.
As for the rest of your post..I am not sure of your point. I can have a easier time understanding Schrodinger and Brad McFall than you at times. Sometimes I wonder if you even realize that someone is trying to support your argument. Or do you argue for the sake of argument.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

And Wounded King thought this was a little harmless, innocuous topic LOL!!