Thread: A Discourse on Time

It has long since occurred to me that all that exists in reality must be capable of existing in the mind, however all things that exist in the mind must not necessarily exist in reality. Since Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, and even before, we know that time exists in a four-dimensional continuum along with space.

This implies that there exists a past, . However, by proving that there exists a past, we have thus proved that there exists a future, namely our present is another time's past.

This argument lends itself greatly to the philosophical ideology of determinism. That is to say that, if the past cannot be changed, than we can similarly suggest that the future cannot be changed. Ergo, there exists no freewill (as this is, in part, an illusion).

Yes, the will of the instant is ever fixed, although it ever changes to a new, fixed non-free will from continuous learning and being. A random will would be a curse…

WILLING THE WILL THAT WILLS? What is the “secret” of human behavior, one that’s really so much the savior that we may even keep it from ourselves rather than very far into it try to delve? What is it that should be so confidential, classified, and undisclosed—its potential kept under wraps, so very contra; informally: hush-hush; formally: sub rosa?

Well, it’s a revelation of splendor, one that’s often good to surrender but is also very well to remember. Is the will free to will one’s actions otherwise? Can antecedent conditions be ignored? Can the self be an unmoved mover? No, but… and what of those tendencies of evo’s realm that have been imprinted on one’s genetic film—those of temperament, role preferences, emotions, responses, and even one’s most revered moral choices—those invoices from which one rejoices?

Well, these are not choices at all in of any free will voices; in essence, from the basis of one and from all that one has become from life’s total behavioral reactions, there are probabilities of actions—some patterns that are very likely and some patterns highly unlikely. Is free will a necessary fiction, a kind of a religion? No, and yes if it’s to provide an essential berth for one’s morality, meaning, and worth.

So, then, with this “free will” become, one might then succumb to systematic deception about one’s causal connection to that of nature, a roadblock, a detour that’s neither possible, necessary, nor desirable. The enemies to these “free will” motifs would be the mythical cultural beliefs that explain behaviors and feelings in terms of unknowable forces and beings. But, to protect one’s moral virtues should one still believe oneself’s purview to be as an ultimately responsible agent, lo—a self creation exnihilo, a God-like, miniature first cause who chooses without it being determined by one’s own muses?

Well, maybe, but, nay, really not, nil, for there is no contra-causal free will. What the good then of this fix we’re in? Such it is then that we can gain a measure of peace rather than the anger of resentment’s crease when someone does or says something bad, even those close relatives you once had. For the civil-law-breakers and all those ungiving takers we’ll no longer incarcerate for punishment, being so irate at the jailbait, but so that society will be protected and that they might emerge corrected from the swill of a prison mill, fulfilled with a new unfree will that points more toward goodness or at least away from badness. Thus, the action of metaphysical justification for a total retribution then greatly softens, a relief from the stress, so often, for it’s no longer induced from the abuse produced. Really? Truly.

Indeed, we become less self-conscious, more playful, less noxious, more gracious, less callow, and less likely to wallow in the sorrow that is so hollow and shallow in its excessive self-blame, pride, envy, or resentment—now all put aside. Aren’t we changing the will here as we go? Yes but mostly no, for the will must ever follow what we know. Then we are learning—the only hope for larger earnings from the will’s then wider yearnings! Yes, overturning.

What if to learning we are averse? What a curse! Might as well call the hearse. So, then, all in all, though a tempt, it is that we humans are not exempt from the laws of physics—a preempt although we’ve been wired to make the attempt—a seeming violation by nature of its own universal law and structure. No, it’s not a violation I would call, for science still did tell us all. It’s all part of the structure; one can never cheat mother nature. Hail, then, to the physic.

Well, it’s not so bad, is it?—although we can never will the will, its motives ever our intent to fulfill; it is that we have no free will. True, plus we can expand the will’s horizoning through our broader learning’s wisening. Yes, learn today and by tomorrow, say, the will may have a different sway. I wouldn’t want it any other way, for then I wouldn’t be me—my screenplay. What other ways can we improve the play? Well, we have patience and delay, for we don’t have to act right away. Until a more creative solution appears? Yes, from any frontier, Shakespeare. Hear, hear!

hello guys,
i'm new here and this is my first post.
It seems to me that if we are clever we can make arguments about anything that arfe feesable, but they can seem too clever sometimes and that worries me a bit. I really like everythin you both said and found it very logical. however the spirituality of man is a fact that sometimes is subdued by extreme rationalism.
I would still go with my gut that free will is prevelent over determinism.

Hi new guy. We have to remember that the inverse of 'determined' is 'undetermined', so I'm not sure how that would work.

Originally Posted by ferras

hello guys,
i'm new here and this is my first post.
It seems to me that if we are clever we can make arguments about anything that arfe feesable, but they can seem too clever sometimes and that worries me a bit. I really like everythin you both said and found it very logical. however the spirituality of man is a fact that sometimes is subdued by extreme rationalism.
I would still go with my gut that free will is prevelent over determinism.

In this scenario I define freewill as the number of choices one has to make, and in this case a lack thereof freewill implies one choice. However, this does not mean that the particular choice is not what the individual wanted to make. Therefore, people should have repercussions for their choices.

As a note, such a question, namely that relating to freewill, is by far handled best by philosophy as opposed to science, therefore we should know which branch to send the question too.

Wider learning makes for wider choices, but the choices are still determined by what we have become, just the way it ought to be; else, a really big mess of us not really being 'us', which is not seen to happen.

(The 'discourse' could use a little more help, 'Groucho'):

The Other Shoe Drops

Determinism doesn’t sit well, at first; its flavor does not quench the thirst, for then it seems we but do as we must, but, we’ll see a way that in this we’ll trust. We wish that our thoughts reflect us today, our leanings, for it could be no other way.

To know, let us turn to the random say to see whatever could make its day. Shifting to this other, neglected foot, what could make the random take root? It would have no cause beneath to explain it events, they becoming of the insane. We could pretend, imitating air-heads, posting nonsense on purpose in the threads, but that then we meant to do this way, noting history, too, so random still holds not its sway.

There’s less problem of a determined nature than the same in our individual nature, but, sense isn’t made from random direction that relies on naught beneath its conception. Would we wish it to be any other way? Doing any old thing of chance that may?

The random foot then walks but here and there, not getting anywhere, unborn from nowhere. The unrooted tree must live magically, unfathomed. Is not then randomness but a fun phantom? The opposite of ‘determined’ is ‘undetermined’, the scarier ghost that’s never-minded.

Free will is an old Catholic notion, brewed from metaphysical potions, and not even a good one at that to learn; for, go against God’s will, and it’s burn, baby, burn!

Free will? The only way a theist can justify the evil acts of mankind without implicating God who supposedly knows all, except He conveniently made it so He doesn't know what man will do next. IOW theists all along have realized things don't happen exactly as God would want it (i.e. pedophile priests).

Good stuff, Zinj; you're a good guy to have around.


Much better than a guy who posts a topic for discussion and then doesn't like any discussion, even pro and favorable. Dumb, dumber, and dumbest thing I ever heard of on a discussion forum. Well, he's in over his head now, that rash fellow.


The Bested Daemon?

It was the time of positivism, when Laplace thought that formulas could tell all, a time when when so many discoveries came about that encyclopedias had to be revised every 6 months.

Mary Ann Evans gave up on her first love, he not finding her body symmetrical. Her personality made up for this, plus her desire to freely fly from the grasp of determinism—to transform the purposeless cosmos into her heart’s desire. [Which was still her will.] One was not a puppet; there were no strings attached; there was nowhere to attach them to. She moulded this freedom into a love with another that went beyond all calculation; they were a poetically scientific couple, beneficiaries of the inexactness of formula and Darwin’s facts of the arbitrary human narrative, and, while they knew not the why, they were freed by the randomness of the quantum realm [we suppose] and other noise in the system, new brains cells forming that changed the cut marble into a living fluid sculpture. She thus developed, becoming what she was not in the beginning. [Yet, still from accumulated inputs that made her who she had become, right up unto the moment.] As a novelist, Mary Ann used her pen name, George Eliot, to celebrate this inherent freedom long before science had discovered it. [If they did.]

There are plenty of determinists who maintain that determinism is compatible with free-will - but i don't understand the reasoning so can't repeat it.

I thought time was established to be a puzzle for physicists to solve?

Originally Posted by Prometheus

There are plenty of determinists who maintain that determinism is compatible with free-will - but i don't understand the reasoning so can't repeat it.

I don't either. Non-determinism always seems to come down to an action having no basis at all, so 1) How could this be? and 2) How could anything constructive come out of it?

My thread has become nothing more than a playground for long strings of meaningless words and pseudo-understanding of what I was referring to.

Then, please, expound.

Originally Posted by Ellatha

This implies that there exists a past, . However, by proving that there exists a past, we have thus proved that there exists a future, namely our present is another time's past.

If the universe is cyclical then it must begin just after it ends. The future for any one cycle must cease to exist at the transition point, where the end of one is the beginning of another. No?

Or he might say that our present will be another time's past (the future's), but he has become a man of few words in this thread. Perhaps he might say more one day. Or perhaps we are wasting our present time, for there is no present better than time, and no time like the present.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Ellatha

This implies that there exists a past, . However, by proving that there exists a past, we have thus proved that there exists a future, namely our present is another time's past.

If the universe is cyclical then it must begin just after it ends. The future for any one cycle must cease to exist at the transition point, where the end of one is the beginning of another. No?

The past goes further to the past, the present becomes the previous past, and the future becomes the present.

Perhaps tell us something that we don't already know. Plus how does this translate into no free will?

Originally Posted by questor

Perhaps tell us something that we don't already know. Plus how does this translate into no free will?

I have no idea why free will is mentioned here either. However, that being said, time is still a great subject. So I will ask this question: Can universal time stop and start again?

I say no for the simple reason that if something stops prior to being restarted then time must elapse between the 2 events. I have no idea how one can describe how a stoppage in time works without invoking time.

Maybe in between stopping and starting time there exists God time as some might believe. A special time only the Almighty enjoys. If God exists then does that mean there are two types of time?

If time can never be stopped then there can be no independent time for each cycle of the universe. Time would blend in with the new universe and just march on. Is there anyway there could be evidence that our universe has gone through cycles of death and rebirth? What could we look for? Could a previous universe dweller leave a clue?

If time did begin at one point then it must have been stopped prior to its start. As I said earlier, to be stopped begs the question "How long?". Alas I am forced to reason that time has always been, no end or beginning. Ok I am ready to be slammed.

Guess Eliatha ran out of time for his thread.

In the movies, time stops when there is no movement. Then I go out to get more popcorn.

The reason I have not replied to any of your comments is because they are poorly thought-out and show an explicit lack of understanding of what I was referring to.

I did not join this forum to educate other members or clarify concepts for them, and using what little time I have to do so is not a priority.

So, you just make pronouncements, period, even in light of this being a science forum?

Well, then, you showed nothing at all but an unsubstantiated declaration with no substance whatsoever in any way. Plus you probably don't even know. What a crummy stinkin' thread.

We'd even settle for a wild guess, but I guess you like discussion topics with no discussion—a no discussion discussion thread.

Nor did you undo anything the responders said.

We call your bluff.

Originally Posted by questor

So, you just make pronouncements, period, even in light of this being a science forum?

Well, then, you showed nothing at all but an unsubstantiated declaration with no substance whatsoever in any way. Plus you probably don't even know. What a crummy stinkin' thread.

We'd even settle for a wild guess, but I guess you like discussion topics with no discussion—a no discussion discussion thread.

Nor did you undo anything the responders said.

We call your bluff.

I'm hurt!

Why don't you start a new thread called 'Do not reply to this thread'?

I would rather make a thread titled "Do Not Reply if You Do Not Understand".

You Dufus, I even agree with you, that the universe can only be the way it is, and thus shows determinism, and no free will.

Start a new thread, at some non-discussion site, in which you can say "ignorant', that you said it first, and all that baby stuff. I guess you really have nothing else to say beyond your opener.

Wider learning will grant you more emotional and regular intelligence and so then your wider but still fixed will and personality may improve—your non-creative responses becoming creative, even, instead of those of a blockhead in a block universe.

Originally Posted by questor

You Dufus, I even agree with you, that the universe can only be the way it is, and thus shows determinism, and no free will.

Start a new thread, at some non-discussion site, in which you can say "ignorant', that you said it first, and all that baby stuff. I guess you really have nothing else to say beyond your opener.

Wider learning will grant you more emotional and regular intelligence and so then your wider but still fixed will and personality may improve—your non-creative responses becoming creative, even, instead of those of a blockhead in a block universe.

Do you really think I care whether you agree with me or not?

Guys, the forum is not for flinging insults at each other.

Since the thread is uncared for, the owner might wish to give it away or trash it.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Guys, the forum is not for flinging insults at each other.

Funny, I used to think that this forum as a whole was designed for the purpose of discussing scientific and mathematical subjects in an attempt to increase knowledge and sharing ideas.

I have come to find that this forum is merely a playground for members to criticize one another regardless of what they post or wish to discuss.

Originally Posted by Ellatha

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Guys, the forum is not for flinging insults at each other.

Funny, I used to think that this forum as a whole was designed for the purpose of discussing scientific and mathematical subjects in an attempt to increase knowledge and sharing ideas.

I have come to find that this forum is merely a playground for members to criticize one another regardless of what they post or wish to discuss.

So then discuss instead.

I side with the determinists: everything has a cause, right? Even the madman acting in a fit of madness has a reason for acting that way: he is mad, as well as the things that brought him to this fit etc. All these reasons also have a cause, or mane. The same goes for those causes etc. If you trace it all the way back, you will find one reason for everything. Therefore if you knoe all the causes to an event and can accurately predict the effects of causes, you could predict the future.
This does not mean we should not make our own decisions, for our decisions have reasons and therefore are part of the determination. Since the future exists if one can predict it, there is no need for a cycle or other theories.

This concept is provided by the early 18th century philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, called the principle of sufficient reason. It also establishes the relationship between mathematical proof and theorem.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

. Since the future exists if one can predict it, there is no need for a cycle or other theories.

One second ago I correctly predicted I would type. I was correct. Does this mean the future exists?

I wasn't aware that this idea had already been thoguht of- thank you!
Also, because you had all the reasons for what you would type, since you are you, you could predict that you would type after reading what I wrote. The action already existed, but it had yet to be carried out.
However, yyou did not decide to type what you typed for no reason. Therefore, your actions did no originate from youself. Your life experience, knowledge and perhaps even your genes contributed to your decision to type.
However, let me once gain stress that this does not mean we should not make decisions- in making them, you re fulfilling the reasons.

What is the “secret” of human behavior, one that’s really so much the saving grace that we may even keep it from ourselves rather than very far into it try to delve? What is it that should be so confidential, classified, and undisclosed—its potential kept under wraps, so very contra; informally: hush-hush; formally: sub rosa?

Well, it’s a revelation of splendor, one that’s often good to surrender but is also very well to remember. Is the will free to will one’s actions otherwise? Can antecedent conditions be ignored? Can the self be an unmoved mover? Not really, but… and what of those tendencies of evo’s realm that have been imprinted on one’s genetic film—those of temperament, role preferences, emotions, responses, and even one’s most revered moral choices—those invoices from which one rejoices?

Well, these are not choices at all in of any free will voices. In essence, from the basis of one and from all that one has become from life’s total behavioral reactions, there are probabilities of actions—some patterns that are very likely and some patterns highly unlikely. Is free will a necessary fiction, a kind of a religion? No and yes if it’s to provide an essential berth for one’s morality, meaning, and worth.

So, then, with this “free will” become, one might then succumb to systematic deception about one’s causal connection to that of nature, a roadblock, a detour that’s neither possible, necessary, nor desirable. The enemies to these “free will” motifs would be the mythical cultural beliefs that explain behaviors and feelings in terms of unknowable forces and beings. But, to protect one’s moral virtues should one still believe oneself’s purview to be as an ultimately responsible agent, lo—a self creation ex nihilo, a god-like, miniature first cause who chooses without it being determined by one’s own muses?

Well, maybe, but, nay, really not, nil, for there is no contra-causal free will. What the good then of this fix we’re in? Such it is then that we can gain a measure of peace rather than the anger of resentment’s crease when someone does or says something ‘bad’, even those close relatives you once had. For the civil-law-breakers and all those ungiving takers we’ll no longer incarcerate for punishment, being so irate at the jail’s bait, but so that society will be protected and that they might emerge corrected from the swill of a prison mill, fulfilled with a new unfree will that points more toward goodness, or at least away from badness. Thus, the action of metaphysical justification for a total retribution then greatly softens, a relief from the stress, so often, for it’s no longer induced from the abuse produced. Really? Truly.

Indeed, we become less self-conscious, more playful, less noxious, more gracious, less callow, and less likely to wallow in the sorrow that is so hollow and shallow in its excessive self-blame, pride, envy, or resentment—now all put aside. Aren’t we changing the will here as we go? Yes but mostly no, for the will must ever follow what we know. Then we are learning—the only hope for larger earnings from the will’s then wider yearnings! Yes, overturning.

What if to learning we are averse? What a curse! Might as well call the hearse. So, then, all in all, though a tempt, it is that we humans are not exempt from the laws of physics—a preempt although we’ve been wired to make the attempt—a seeming violation by nature of its own universal law and structure. No, it’s not a violation I would call, for science still did tell us all. It’s all part of the structure; one can never cheat Mother Nature. Hail, then, to the physic.

Well, it’s not so bad, is it? Although we can never will the will, its motives ever our intent to fulfill; it is that we have no free will. True, plus we can expand the will’s horizoning through our broader learning’s wisening. Yes, learn today and by tomorrow, say, the will may have a different sway. I wouldn’t want it any other way, for then I wouldn’t be me—my screenplay. What other ways can we improve the play? Well, we have patience and delay, for we don’t have to act right away—until a more creative solution appears?

Originally Posted by 15uliane

The action already existed, but it had yet to be carried out.

At the moment I made the decision to type I could not accurately predict that the future would be there to allow me to perform the action. I had to assume. Strange that you can say actions already exist when the future (lifetime minus time already consumed) cannot be predicted.

In order to accurately predict a future action one must also predict there'll be enough time left after the first prediction for it to occur.

You allude to this in the above quote. The word 'yet' carries with it the understanding that time after the prediction is necessary for the 'already existed' action to be carried out. If the future action cannot exist without the time between the prediction and the time it is carried out then it couldn't have 'already existed'.

An LP record is deterministic. One long groove with which I can accurately say that song #2 will follow right after song #1. Is it totally predictable? How can I predict something that is known?

Even time would not be discontinued without a reason. If you knew that factor(s), you could know that time was going to continue existing long enough for you to type what you or an outside observer could have predicted.
Also, you can tell that the song#2 will play directy after song#1 because you know the cause why this would happen- there is one continuous groove.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

Even time would not be discontinued without a reason.

You're talking in general terms. What about the observer? If I predict that I will type a word in the next few seconds then I would have to predict the future will be there for me to perform the action. In the next few seconds I may not have a future, maybe an airplane falls on my head in that time interval. As a predictor, my future is always in doubt. As far as I know, time stops for the living once a plane falls on your head. Thus the future can cease to exist for the individual. Whether time actually stops or continues at that moment means very little to the predictor.

If you were omnipotent and knew all, as is required to predict everything with 100% accuracy (and the ability to know how events influence others), you could know the plane was going to fall on your head (even though if you knew that you would probably get out of the way :-D) , and therefore that you would not type.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

If you were omnipotent and knew all, as is required to predict everything with 100% accuracy (and the ability to know how events influence others), you could know the plane was going to fall on your head (even though if you knew that you would probably get out of the way :-D) , and therefore that you would not type.

If I knew all then I cannot predict. A prediction is an estimate and not a foregone conclusion.

You would know. This is the theory I am supporting. If you knew all, and knew how certain actions affect future ones, you could predict anything with 100% accuracy. Therefore, the future exists because it has already been determined. All the direct and indirect causes for what will happen in the future have already happened, therefore the future has already "happened".

Originally Posted by 15uliane

You would know. This is the theory I am supporting. If you knew all, and knew how certain actions affect future ones, you could predict anything with 100% accuracy. Therefore, the future exists because it has already been determined. All the direct and indirect causes for what will happen in the future have already happened, therefore the future has already "happened".

Another thing an omniscient God can't do....predict the future. How can one predict something they know will happen? So now all I have to do is figure out what an omniscient being wouldn't know and your theory is toast.....back to immoveable objects and unstoppable forces. Can Omniscient God make up a subject He knows nothing about?

Predicting with 100% accuracy by my definition is knowing.
Omniscience for me means that one knows every single thing that has, is, and will be. Knowing what will be is an effect of omnisience, therefore it is a part of omnisence.
If omnisient God made up something He did not know, he would no longer be omniscient. But if he was omnisient before it wuld be impossible for him to make up something He doesn't know.
Ex If He knew everything He would know the thought process that would make up this subject. It would also have to be hypothetical, because my definiton says that an omniscient being knows all.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

Predicting with 100% accuracy by my definition is knowing.

Predicting what you already know is one thing , creating what you already know is another. Neither one is necessary for an omniscient God. What possible need is there for God to create something He knows all about?

Did He create the universe so He could predict every little action? He couldn't have created to learn from it. Did He create just so He could check out the validity of all He knows? If He did then there goes the omniscience tag. Does one create to prove? ...not omniscient God. If God had a reason to create that which He already knew then He forfeits His omniscience. There is no justifiable reason for an omniscient creator to create or predict for that matter.

In my opinion, you just answered your earlier question- he wouln't create a random thing he does not know, even if it were possible.
I think that God would have created the universe (past, present and future) for the inhabitents. But that depends on your religious/theological point of view.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

In my opinion, you just answered your earlier question- he wouln't create a random thing he does not know, even if it were possible.

Random things are included as non justifiable.

I think that God would have created the universe (past, present and future) for the inhabitents. But that depends on your religious/theological point of view.

Then He had a reason. What possible reason could it be? If He did it for fun then He wants to be entertained but if that was the case then why? If He wanted to see how His plan worked out then again, why? HE KNOWS ALL....there is no reason for this. However there is a reason if He doesn't know. Thus creation and all it entails happened because God doesn't know everything.

So it would not be justified for God to make up a subject He doesn't know.

Then He had a reason. What possible reason could it be? If He did it for fun then He wants to be entertained but if that was the case then why? If He wanted to see how His plan worked out then again, why? HE KNOWS ALL....there is no reason for this. However there is a reason if He doesn't know. Thus creation and all it entails happened because God doesn't know everything.

I thought I said that I would think that His reason would have been a reason other than that He doesn't know something i.e. He wanted us to live, not for His benifit, but for ours. Why? Maybe because being is better than non-being. I don't pretend to see the mind of God. Maybe He is the reason for everything?

Originally Posted by 15uliane

I thought I said that I would think that His reason would have been a reason other than that He doesn't know something i.e. He wanted us to live, not for His benifit, but for ours. Why? Maybe because being is better than non-being. I don't pretend to see the mind of God. Maybe He is the reason for everything?

Here's where I'm heading...... Omniscient God could not have dreamed up a universe because to do so means He could not have known beforehand. This flies in the face of omniscience. IOW, creation is not a thought process in the mind of a God but simply one bit of knowledge from a vast collection that just happens to contain everything. So out of this pile of data God had to create....no thought, no plan, just do it. God, once armed with all knowledge can only react like a computer on a TV game show. He can't think about what to do because the implication becomes such that He doesn't know beforehand.

I ask you, does omniscience require thinking?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I ask you, does omniscience require thinking?

Not among those who accept it as valid and true.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I ask you, does omniscience require thinking?

Not among those who accept it as valid and true.

OUCH! Even if omniscience allows you time to produce an answer then it also stands to reason that while one searches for or calculates for the correct response, that for a moment at least, the omniscient do not know the answer. So if you want omniscient God then you have to accept that He doesn't know the answer right away or He instantly will provide it because the question and/or answer was known to Him beforehand. An instant answer means that within God's data base is the question with the appropriate response, however it is just another bit of information, a small packet of the entire expanse of knowledge.

inow- I am not suggesting that omniscience is real or possible. My point is that everything is determined 100% by it's causes.
zinjanthropos- You are right. Unless there is a specific response within the "omniscient" one, it will take time to attain the answer.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

iMy point is that everything is determined 100% by it's causes.

Even God?

Your claim was that the future exists because it has already been determined. You needed an omniscient God to make that work.

No, you don't. I'm not saying Im atheist, I am just saying that God is not nesessary (spelled that wrong) for this theory. You only need a single cause that spawns other things which spawn others etc. In that way, it is already determined.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

You only need a single cause that spawns other things which spawn others etc. In that way, it is already determined.

What about the first cause? if you are correct, then the first cause, whatever that was, had to be already determined also. The fact is, the first cause cannot be unless something caused it. You see where I'm going...... the first cause in your theory must be an independent cause that could not have been determined. The very first cause, the one that started the chain of events, could not have been spawned.

Are you not merely stating that something came from nothing?

It is either that or that the whole thing is a cycle that had no beginning and no end.
Even though the opinion of something coming from nothing requires there to be nothing, I prefer it to an endless cycle. Or maybe some futuristic science will show that something can come from nothing.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

It is either that or that the whole thing is a cycle that had no beginning and no end.
Even though the opinion of something coming from nothing requires there to be nothing, I prefer it to an endless cycle. Or maybe some futuristic science will show that something can come from nothing.

If the first cause is not already determined then what does that say for any actions that follow it? Determinism dies with cause #1, if whatever it was that triggered the whole shebang came from nothing. Perhaps if universal law exists that does not allow for 'nothing' then something will always be, despite any attempt by any mechanism to drive it to the point of absolute extinction(nothingness).

Tight now you are limiting yourself to physical causes. The real cause could be some physical law that states so and so.
Also, I realized a cycle wouldn't work-there would have to be a reason for it to exist. The only way to get around this is to say there is an exception of 1 thing that caused everything else.

There is also numerous logical examples of how this could be true

Originally Posted by 15uliane

Also, I realized a cycle wouldn't work-there would have to be a reason for it to exist. The only way to get around this is to say there is an exception of 1 thing that caused everything else.

There is also numerous logical examples of how this could be true

Can you describe one for us?

Let's face it, determinism is a belief. In principle, it is no different than any theistic religion. The first cause started everything. The first cause must have just magically appeared out of nowhere, exempt from physical laws, always existed or began its existence without a beginning so to speak. How familiar is that? I think all that the Determinists have accomplished is changing the wording but with one very important adjustment,

Determinists don't really need a God. It's a nice way of saying God probably doesn't exist... a Pseudo-atheist approach. Maybe it's good for those who feel uncomfortable about a total commitment to atheism.

A way around this is to have an infinite number of causes. Hard to comprehend, but plausible.
I am catholic.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

I am catholic.

Sorry. Are you catholic, Catholic, or Roman Catholic? Interpretation of your post changes enornmously depending upon which one is correct.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

A way around this is to have an infinite number of causes. Hard to comprehend, but plausible.

Infinite past histories? Except once yours is established then you can predict what's next...is this where you're coming from? Once religious doctrine is challenged then the next step is to make adjustments to it and make it fit.

I am catholic.

In classic Catholic fashion you are covering your ass.

Possibly. If it is the only sensible way to get this to work. I am pretty convinced this is correct, because when I think about it, it seems to work.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

Possibly. If it is the only sensible way to get this to work. I am pretty convinced this is correct, because when I think about it, it seems to work.

You say the future already exists......does that mean we are merely moving through time as if time is a continuous endless reel of film, frame by frame? Time for all intents and purpose does not move forward or backward, is not a concept, but some kind of real thing that has already been laid down? Am I anywhere close?

Yes, like a DVD playing, but with no alternate endings. Determinism. Fixed will.

Yes, I guess. Except that it doesn't seem to work with physics since time is a dimension. Determinism probably can be negative or positive. It has to be symmetrical, in some way, either internally or externally. I.e. it can work backwards or forwards.

For some reason I don't think this is the answer though.

In the case of this film, it would have to run 4 dimensionally, making the causes incredibly complex.

Clarification:
There are infinate histories, which can only move in four directions, but are more like dimensions than directions.

PS. I just confused myself. If you ask questions Ill probably make more sense.

Originally Posted by questor

Yes, like a DVD playing, but with no alternate endings. Determinism. Fixed will.

William was ahead of his time......

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts

A scripted universe is a designed universe. Again, theism and determinism, not much to choose from.

What is wrong about either of those. Don't provide me with you religious views, but answer what is wrong with determinism.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

What is wrong about either of those. Don't provide me with you religious views, but answer what is wrong with determinism.

It has always been my standing that believing in something is fine. The only thing I see is that a belief only requires a YES or a NO. IOW if you believe or don't believe in God or Determinism then that's as far as you can go. If you want to expand on it then you need to prove the belief is not a belief. That can only been done by offering up some hard evidence to prove it true. Why expound on a belief, something you cannot prove, when you know it's just a belief or unsubstantiated fact.

Why you think it so, is of no importance to me. Belief lore occupies most minds on this planet. Life & death decisions are based on it. Decisions based on what is basically nothing.. Imagine if people just believed without trying to add nonsense to it. So if you want to say the future is already there and you can't prove it then you've gone beyond the belief threshold. Doctrines also contain many beliefs disguised as fact regarding the main tenet.

In no way shape or form do I consider myself a philosopher although I seem to spend a fair amount of time here. My tact is to throw things at you to make you think. It is all off the top of my head, I don't google or pick up a book to refute your claim. But if you tell me personally you're a Determinist and you believe in their doctrine then that's all I need to know. If i ask what that doctrine is then tell me but airing it on the forum means it joins a long list of unproven claims available to minds all over the world. That will get me to challenge it otherwise I couldn't care less about it.

In that case, thank you.
This may fall under a catagory of what you call belief disguised as a fact, but when you think about it, everything you will ever do is influenced by something. The levels of certain chemicals in your brain make you feel happy or sad, depending on natural levels or the way you react to the world. How you feel as well as experience will help you make a decision, be it to get some coffee or to decide to change jobs. All that, in turn, will be influenced by genes (influenced by evolution, or enviroments), how you're enviroment is (based on other people who are the same as you, the weather, based on pressure, spin of earth, sun etc. the world you live in). I could go on down the tree.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

In that case, thank you.
This may fall under a catagory of what you call belief disguised as a fact, but when you think about it, everything you will ever do is influenced by something. The levels of certain chemicals in your brain make you feel happy or sad, depending on natural levels or the way you react to the world. How you feel as well as experience will help you make a decision, be it to get some coffee or to decide to change jobs. All that, in turn, will be influenced by genes (influenced by evolution, or enviroments), how you're enviroment is (based on other people who are the same as you, the weather, based on pressure, spin of earth, sun etc. the world you live in). I could go on down the tree.

I have little doubt but I don't dwell on it. However this does not mean the future exists in some kind of inexplicable state. You said that being able to predict the future would substantiate that claim.

If I was able to be totally accurate in predicting future events then I could not change the future event. If I said I will be run over by a car tomorrow then no matter where I am the next day I would be run over. I could do everything in my power to avoid motor vehicles and still a car should run me over, even if I was halfway up Mount Everest in an effort to avoid my forecasted fate.

The problem with predicting and your theory is that the act of predicting is an event in itself. Predicting a car mishap causes me to avoid cars and thus miss out on getting run over. Dead nuts accurate prediction would mean that no matter how I respond to it, the event will occur. If I was convinced I knew what will occur then there's no changing it but what if I could? Predicting is an event and as such is subject to bringing with it the same causal effects as any other action. If this is so and why not, then there can be NO accurate predicting of the future. Perhaps predictions of possibilities but for now.... Case closed.

Sorry, I can't accept your claim. The future hasn't happened yet. That plus the first ever causal action still can't be explained, because something would had to have caused it. I think your introducing reverse infinity is an admirable effort, contrary to the notion of things that go on forever. Still these are merely bandaids for something you can't fix right now. But who knows, I'll keep an open mind.

Thanks again, for sticking with it.
Infinite past histories means that no one could ever predict the future, which eliminates the paradox. The other part of the theory would still apply, but no one but a hypothetical thing would be able to predict it- nothing is infinity.

Originally Posted by 15uliane

no one but a hypothetical thing would be able to....

Somehow these songs wouldn't sound the same:

Hypothetical Thing Bless America
Hypothetical Thing Save the Queen

See ya in another thread

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

If you want to expand on it then you need to prove the belief is not a belief. That can only been done by offering up some hard evidence to prove it true.

Thought experiments have been used to prove many things in the past.

Originally Posted by Cleverusername

Thought experiments have been used to prove many things in the past.

Here's a thought.... being a newbie, you now have the opportunity to introduce this topic in a new thread.