I take no offense to any challenging debate, as it helps me understand the angles in which to approach a subject matter...I really don't want to sound harsh, and personally i don't have anything against you, so take the following with a pinch of salt:
You are constantly derailing this thread with theological remarks that have nothing to do with this topic,
and you write "how is this possible" ... how is what possible? You recite lines from text written by people who had the clear intention to create some sort of obedient-system
to get people to act the way they would have liked them to be like. Religion is merely the predecessor of modern laws. With the difference that not a judge will make a verdict, but a god.
And back then i can imagine a lot of people being scared of that.
But even that is beside the point, if you want to lead a religious discussion about creationism,
as long as the Forum rules allow, why not open a separate thread on that topic, cause it clearly has little to do with THIS topic.
If anyone takes offense in my statements, this is a debate, in a debate i usually prioritise argumentation over personal feelings or the person who my argument(s) is directed at.
It still only reflects my own worldviews even if i don't say that in every sentence.
My point is, there is no accuracy, at least no 100% and never will be - can't be. If modern theories turn out to be correct, then quantum fluctuation played a decisive role in the early universe. As you probably know, that's a highly unpredictable thing (you can only measure one aspect in the quantum world: impuls or location but never both) that created (and still does!) unpredictable diversity that had 13.8 Billion years to build upon. So down to a certain resolution you'll never will have absolute accuracy, only statistical fields of probabilities. That's what I think is the main reason for the true diversity in nature and cosm, something that no simulation will ever be able to calculate and this idea of "no more mysteries" is - fortunately - an illusion.Yeah, it's all about how much data is available in order to calculate or predict a certain phenomenon.
This is a little besides your point, but the more accurate data a simulation is fed, the more accurate its predictions become.
I really like the concept of a simulation, and the weather data is a very good example here. In the past two decades weather simulation has evolved a lot,
and if you look at it, it's still just about 60% accurate, if even. If we had 50 fold the calculation power the current simulations are using, we could make weather predictions that would be 99,9% accurate, because what current simulations lack is the ability to calculate every molecule and its interaction and dependency on other molecules' behaviour (temp,agility,composition,deflection,radiation influence, etc.).
I also think that the known universe is a predictable clockwork, we did make quite some advacements towards explaining certain phenomena by means of simulation
(like the inevitable merge of Milky Way and Andromeda, which will tear both galaxies apart)
But in order to predict, you need a lot more data than we have available.
People in a 2000 years ahead might wonder how we even managed to survive without knowing what's going to happen next (figure of speech)
However, biologically the human body will one day have no more mysteries to us, the mind will always remain a mystery, though.
You can predict how someone might react, even by only applying logic and psychology,
but i don't think it will ever be possible to foresee someone's future by starting up a simulation.
I hope that's not too confusing, watching Netflix on the other screen so i'm a bit distracted
That's all well enough, up to the point where you seem to derive from the exponential character of scientific progress that at some point in the future this process of increasing knowledge will come to a final end. If you follow modern physics, especially quantum- and astrophysics, you will realise that all new insides lead to a plethora of new questions - also in an exponential way! You know, like in the classic thought experiment of the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise.that's not the point. the point is if the system could theoretically be predicted given no constraints, because that would confirm how it works. actually our ability to predict has increased exponentially and solely thanks to the increase of information and our means to use it. we do not know how this will be in future, but for now everything points in this direction, while there is no evidence whatsoever that there exists some independent entity that could bend the rules of pyshics, i.e. act out of sheer will. the whole construct is an entelechy. read on.
Why not, what's wrong with that question? It's not that I wouldn't know a few possible answers but sincerely I don't know, I only could speculate.is that a real question?
Yeah, I agree with this. I just got home from a long day at work and reviewed the first part of this thread and found some of it to be quite good. Not good enough to convince me of my own lack of free will, but definitely some well thought out positions compared to where the conversation ended up going. I enjoy a lot of what Piccomander has been bringing to the table most recently.Read the first pages, these last ones have honestly been pretty bad.
TBH I'm unsure, I really thought that Newtonian Physics were completely deterministic but later on I read that may not be the case since differential equations may have multiple solutions or in other words, different possible outcomes. The debate will keep going and regardless, I'll act as if free will exists even if it happens to not exist.Yeah, I agree with this. I just got home from a long day at work and reviewed the first part of this thread and found some of it to be quite good. Not good enough to convince me of my own lack of free will, but definitely some well thought out positions compared to where the conversation ended up going. I enjoy a lot of what Piccomander has been bringing to the table most recently.
Same here.TBH I'm unsure, I really thought that Newtonian Physics were completely deterministic but later on I read that may not be the case since differential equations may have multiple solutions or in other words, different possible outcomes. The debate will keep going and regardless, I'll act as if free will exists even if it happens to not exist.
When you solve Einstein's equations locally and at low speeds, they spit out Newton.TBH I'm unsure, I really thought that Newtonian Physics were completely deterministic but later on I read that may not be the case since differential equations may have multiple solutions or in other words, different possible outcomes. The debate will keep going and regardless, I'll act as if free will exists even if it happens to not exist.
String theory for the win.When you solve Einstein's equations locally and at low speeds, they spit out Newton.
Once we solve how to incorporate gravity into quantum theory, solving quantum equations for massive objects and high speeds will point back to Einstein.
It all one and the same. A part of the universal wave function. We know bits and pieces but it's like looking at the meadow through a pinhole. You see something here, something there and if you put one and one together, you can kind of guess how the whole meadow look like, but it's not the same as looking at it in its entirety.
Maybe one day.
I don't find these to be compatible statements. The mind is what the brain performs and the brain is a physical, biological, construct of very finite complexity. If we understand neurology in sufficient detail, we'll understand the mind.However, biologically the human body will one day have no more mysteries to us, the mind will always remain a mystery, though.
Science and common sense have little to do with biblical angles.... i approach from a biblical angle... whether it be common sense, common knowledge, and when applicable use science in support of!!
To my benefit? Is that an insult or just naivity?.... this is for your benefit...
It certainly ain't my loss either. And don't even try to make believe religion is knowledge, it's belief, nothing more nothing less.each of us have the ability to express the knowledge which we are armed with.... you too can utilise scripture if you so choose..
the fact that you dont... is not my loss
You're not challenging anything here, except for your own personal challenge to try and convince me of something i can't be convinced of,if i challenge your thinking... it will either make you go ahhhhhhh!!!! or aaarrrrrgggggghhhhh!!!
emotions aside you will either accept or reject whats presented!!
this is the essence of free will!!
I also like the multiverse theory, but with regards to OP question it can be understood either way.We exist in a Multiverse. that's an infinite number of universes where every meaningful decision of every autonomous creature that ever exist(s)ed creates alternatives, in ways we do not (as yet) understand.
The prob is, we aren't built to understand "Infinite".
If MWI is correct, then any event will cause a split of the Universe, meaning that considering the amount of events, the linear part of the branch, will be "infinitely" small compared to the time it takes the brain to make a choice. The weird thing is that you continue in two separate minds after each split, but right now in this moment, you only perceive one. That could mean that the "meaning of life" could turn out to be a matter of always keeping on track with the version of you, that makes the right choices. Then it all becomes rather close to what we experience with our consciousness and our feeling of being able to choose. Highly speculative I know, but whereas causal determinism closed the door on free will, MWI opens it slightly, even if it's yet only a hypothesis. Anything concerning free will is also just a hypothesis at this particular moment of branching.I also like the multiverse theory, but with regards to OP question it can be understood either way.
1) thanks to infinite branching the free will (ability to make choices) is infinite
2) as we are following branch after branch linearly, there's effectively NO free will, because we can't decide based on anything else but our branch and can't experience consequences beyond our own branch. (I.e. "although there effectively was a point of choosing, we now live in a branch where only one choice exists (the one we "chose")" - the collective multiverse me each chose differently, but we now live in a universe where only our one choice was ever real)