Very simple and very cool analogy

[Dante]

There is no such thing as random.

[Dante]

I think you'll find that I'm actually following logic to a rational conclusion.

Just because we cannot know the outcome, does not mean that it is random. The side that the coin will land on depends on which side it was on when it was flipped, how hard it was flipped, whether there was a breeze at the time, which side of the coin is heavier... All of these factors contribute to the coin landing on one side. If those circumstances were to be recreated exactly, the coin would land on the same side with 100% predictability.

Random = spontaneous, without cause.

And everything has a cause. If there was no cause, there would be no effect. So a random event cannot exist. Thus randomness itself does not exist.

...It would be better to say that the result of the coin toss is unpredictable. Because we cannot know all of the factors that effect it (shape of the flipper's thumbnail, air pressure, shape of coin...), we cannot predict the outcome. This does not mean that it is random.

And unpredictable events are not necessarily without design. The coin was only flipped because someone wished to flip it.

[Dude_Doc]

I once heard someone say: "God creates everything from moment to moment".

Anyways, the question of free will is a difficult one. Do we have free will if God already knows every move everyone will make? I see free will in that one would actually be able to know the future, and therefore make a good decision, thus a free will. In a way, this freedom must require the freedom to analyze and make decision on what would happen if I choose A or B. We cannot do this without really knowing the future. Both decisions, A and B, could in the end kill a person, despite my choice because of my past and background.

And just like Dante said, if we could rewind time to any point in our lives, knowing what we knew then, we would always make the same decision - over and over again.

[Dude_Doc]

And everything has a cause. If there was no cause, there would be no effect. So a random event cannot exist. Thus randomness itself does not exist.

Interesting. Isn't "everything"/the universe created by a random event? Or let's go further. Space came from somewhere, so did time. But these two must have a cause, and if they don't, well, how can something be unpredictable when there is nothing at all to affect the outcome, let alone any timeline to move the event forward?

[Dante]

I didn't mention rewinding time... just duplicating circumstances. Which is impossible. If we were to go back and know then what we know now, the circumstances would be altered.

Anyways, the question of free will is a difficult one. Do we have free will if God already knows every move everyone will make? I see free will in that one would actually be able to know the future, and therefore make a good decision, thus a free will. In a way, this freedom must require the freedom to analyze and make decision on what would happen if I choose A or B. We cannot do this without really knowing the future. Both decisions, A and B, could in the end kill a person, despite my choice because of my past and background.

If you knew the future was that you would be burned to death in an art gallery, you would be inclined to avoid art galleries. You never go to an art gallery again, and die from poisoning. Thus you never knew the future to begin with, because by definition the future is what will happen. Paul knew the future in Dune, and he was trapped by it because he knew exactly what decisions he had to make. He had no choice. No free will.

If you know the future, you cannot avoid it and have no free will. If you manage to avoid it, then you did not know the future.

However, from our viewpoint, nothing causes the coin to land on a specific side. The way we see it, the chance it will come as heads is as much as the chance it will come as tails. This is called random.

Lack of design was meant for the result of the flip.

Our viewpoint is that the coin flip is unpredictable, not spontaneous. The coin doesn't just flip itself without cause. Even if the chances of the coin landing on either side are not 50/50, it is true that we generally see them as such. But the result of the coin toss is not random, it is unpredictable. Random is not the right word, it can be misinterpreted too easily, and is also synonomous with spontaneous.

In other words, it is true that there is no design behind the result of a coin toss. But it is not random either. It is unpredictable, but not random. If something has a cause, and everything does, then it is not random.

Addition: ...Like free will, there is an illusion of random in the world. Perhaps that's what you're trying to say?

Interesting. Isn't "everything"/the universe created by a random event?

No.

Or let's go further. Space came from somewhere, so did time. But these two must have a cause, and if they don't, well, how can something be unpredictable when there is nothing at all to affect the outcome, let alone any timeline to move the event forward?

Time and space had a cause. Everything has a cause. Exactly what this was is open to debate.

[Dante]

And I already said that if we percieve random, then it is illusionary. Don't be crass.

[Dante]

I can call a chicken a duck, but it remains a chicken. You may call events random, but they won't be. Just because we use words to describe certain things, does not mean that they are strictly accurate. Just look at normalcy. Normalcy isn't even a word, it's normality. And yet people persist...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Dante... since it is impossible to re-create an event exactly... does this not give credibility to randomness?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Wow, this God really needs to get laid. But seriously, what's with the ego trip that God loves to have? An all-powerful god does not NEED to test someone's loyalty, because it already knows the level of loyalty of all of its creation. And, what's the point of loyalty? God created us, and then expects us to be loyal? If we are not loyal, then we go to hell and suffer for eternity. This sounds an awful like an emotionally-hazardous human being.

An all-knowing God would not NEED to do this. He already knows. An all-loving god would not NEED to do this, he wouldn't care whether or not you're "true" or "deserving." That defines a just god. A just and all-loving god simply cannot exist.

What's the difference? If we don't, we go to hell and find out for ourselves then. If we do, then we go to heaven. There's simply no point.

An all powerful God has to test us so that we can see for ourselves what we are.

[ant222]

They go to hell when god knew that they were not strong enough to withstand the punishment that life threw at them. And he still let them fall. That is unacceptable.

God (not life!) doesn't expose us to tests that we can not pass.

Firstly, life and free will are not mutually exclusive.

I didn't say the opposite.

Secondly, the external stimulus for the creation of life need not have been random, nor designed by a higher being.

I just said there should have been an external stimulus. And if it were not God then the probability of it's (the stimulus's) existance was very low.

Thirdly, I fail to see the slightest indication that life lowers the net entropy of the universe. If anything our(supposedly but not actually) random acts should make existence even more chaotic.

I meant the enthropy of living organisms. In spite of that the fact the overall enthropy may increase, the local enthropy of organisms is, of course, low. And that is quite unlikely. High-orederd structers live on the Earth and increase local enthropy by their existence and breeding, by converting non-organic substances into organic ones, and, then into new living forms.

Do we have free will if God already knows every move everyone will make?

Does he?

I see free will in that one would actually be able to know the future, and therefore make a good decision, thus a free will...

I am sure free will is the ability to make a decision.

Both decisions, A and B, could in the end kill a person, despite my choice because of my past and background.

But they are still different decisions. They may have common results but some of their results will neccessarily be different: there may exist more than one way to the same place.

Random is not the right word, it can be misinterpreted too easily, and is also synonomous with spontaneous.

Well, I think random in not a property of an event but rather of our attitude to it.

If we certainly know the outcome, we call the evnt deterministic.

Random events may be divided into two kinds:

- ones whoose outcome we can not predict, but that have statistical stability.

- events that don't possess statistical stability.

Time and space had a cause. Everything has a cause. Exactly what this was is open to debate.

The first cause didn't have a cause. Otherwise it wasn't the first cause...

[Acriku]

If the first cause doesn't need a cause, then why can't the Universe right at the big bang be the first cause?

[Faetarius]

Just coming back to the idea that god is in some way testing us to prove our loyalty. This isn't exactly a fair or understanding test. Some people can start off with a terrible lot in life, but remain true. Times get harder, they continue to suffer. God is obviously testing them, right? Yet this test is, in itself the act of a conditionally loving god, as a single slip sends you to hell. In college you can ask the professers for advice, guidance, and ways to improve your standards. When people pray they are doing the same. However god has not been known to reply for a VERY long time, so is in essence, making us con tinue along in life, drawing our own conclusions as to what constitutes "right" with no clarification or hints, and then nailing us for getting it wrong

[Dude_Doc]

Does he?

I guess he must know, since he is allknowing. On the other side, he could have created us and just let it all go.

I am sure free will is the ability to make a decision.

And isn't free will just an illusion? We can't say no, I won't go to work today, because we will end up in the streets and live in poverty. Realistically, what choice do we really have?

If the first cause doesn't need a cause, then why can't the Universe right at the big bang be the first cause?

Maybe we have got it all wrong? We all seek the great answers to everything. There must always be a cause to everything. There can never, to us, be "just like that, out of thin air".

[Dude_Doc]

Just coming back to the idea that god is in some way testing us to prove our loyalty. ...

I agree with this. One thing that irritates me is the sentence that there is some higher purpose beyond our understanding. But why this purpose if we can not understand it? After all, don't God want us to understand why we are here, and why we must worship him, let alone the nature of universal morality and love?

[ant222]

If the first cause doesn't need a cause, then why can't the Universe right at the big bang be the first cause?

The point is that it should have a cause, since "everything has a cause", according to Dante. And this is a little problem.

I guess he must know, since he is allknowing.

The exact knowledge of future is possible only in a deterministic world, which is not the case if we do have free will. Allknowing means the total knowledge of the current state of the universe. In the case of determinism it would imply the knowledge of all future states since everything could be easily calculated. But the presence of free will introduces a fluctuation.

In the case of determinism the actions of God himself would be deterministic, so that God would not have free will. If everything is determined, there is no need in God at all, or rather, there is no personal God.

On the other side, he could have created us and just let it all go.

According to Bible, it is not so.

And isn't free will just an illusion? We can't say no, I won't go to work today, because we will end up in the streets and live in poverty. Realistically, what choice do we really have?

Of course, we have choice. Since it is you on whom (including other factors) your fate depends. As you said you may "end up in the streets and live in poverty", or you may become a monk, and so on up to suicide. If you consider yourself as being forced to do certain things it doesn't mean you have no free will. In this text you use 'free will' is some other sense than the existance of several atlernatives of behaviour at every moment.

Yet this test is, in itself the act of a conditionally loving god, as a single slip sends you to hell.

That is an exagerration, what you said about a single slip...

When people pray they are doing the same. However god has not been known to reply for a VERY long time, so is in essence, making us con tinue along in life, drawing our own conclusions as to what constitutes "right" with no clarification or hints, and then nailing us for getting it wrong.

Direct reply is not the only possible reaction. God may help people in many other ways, so that they observe nothing literally miraculous. If a good idea suddenly emerges in somebody's head, it may be His help.

[ant222]

God would not be affected by the determinitstic nature of the universe.

But determinism implies that any future state of the universe (excluding God) can be calculated given the current state. Thus, God can not affect the universe in a non-deterministic way, that is, He can not behave in different ways, and His behavior is determined.

We can calculate the future of the universe and God will not be able to change it. If God nevertheless can change something, then the world is not deterministic.

[Dante]

Dante... since it is impossible to re-create an event exactly... does this not give credibility to randomness? The coin wont even be exactly the same ....as the electrons within its atoms will be shifted to some other position.

[ant222]

Then why do people go to hell? If everyone passed, there would be no need for it.

The fact that they can pass doesn't imply they will pass. For example: you can pass some exam if you work hard for a long time, but you won't pass it if you don't make appropriate efforts. That is what I meant by the possibility to pass.

Not necessarily. This place could have been life just waiting to happen. Or if not, then the chances were low but by no means impossible.

That is how I said: low.

In other words, life makes low chemical entropy but high physical entropy? If that were our purpose, why aren't we made of crystals?

I am not sure it is correct to divide enthropy into chemical and physical. I just meant that living organizms have high-ordered structure (organization), and that their activity causes a decrease of enthropy.

I've made a mistake in the text:

[ant222]

No it's a sensible conclusion. If God is immaterial as he is supposed to be, then the reason why our actions are predetermined does not apply to him.

I have written why. Why didn't you quote my reply and comment on it? Here you just repeat what you wrote above, and what I replied to.

Well, I can repeat myself too, in other words. God is part of the universe. Let's assume God's behavior is indeterministic, while the rest of the world is deterministic.

By the definition of determinism, about the latter part we can say that given the state of it by moment T, we can calculate (if we had the state and sufficient calculating power) the state at any moment T + delta(t), delta(T)>0.

That doesn't apply to God. We can't precalculate His behavior. But we know that God does have an effect on the rest of the universe and does change its state.

Since we know the future of the deterministic part of the universe, then either God does't affect it, or He affect it in a deterministic way. According to you, none of these is correct. So, it seems that it is you who is really incorrect.

And I do not like the word immaterial. Isn't everything that exists material? Soul is invisible to most of people but it is no way immaterial.

Ante, even if quantum physics prove that there is indeterminism on all levels, that doesn't mean free will, it means random events (this time in the true sense of the word).

Ante? Whom can he be?

[(Ant222 - 222 + Dante) div 2] = Ante? No. It equals Ant, which is correct.

As to me, I don't like quantum physics. Though I mentioned it as a probable cause of indeterminism, not free will. But I agree with this your quotation.

Free will drags indeterminism, but not the other way round. But I am not sure what is meant by randomness in quantum physics.

[GUNWOUNDS]

@ Dante -->

Think about this for a minute.

God makes a social universe in which if you intentionally commit an act of violence upon someone, then the law courts visit some kind of judgment/violence back upon your head. You are held accountable for your actions, and in this way, responsible social communities can be constructed. Boundaries and specific behavior expectations are shared by members of the community in such a way as to create an "operational unity" to (hopefully) facilitate "interpersonal unity" and growth as a culture.

Let's say that I am a member of a tribe, and that we all meet together and decide that it would be against our best interests to allow members of the tribe to sneak up on other members of the tribe while they are asleep and kill them (in order to take all their possessions). And then we decide that if someone does that crime, they will subsequently be whipped and executed in front of the others, to reinforce the seriousness of the need for trustworthy relationships among the tribe.

Now let's say I commit such a crime--I kill my neighbor and move all his belongings into my hut. When I am found out, the tribe's tribunal finds me guilty and sentences me to death for my crime. I weep and wail, beg and plead, and eventually (somehow) convince them to spare my life and that I will never, ever violate the law of tribe and betray the community trust again.

When I accept their pardon for my crime, would it make any sense for me to discount that because "they pardoned me from something they set up in the first place"?! Of course not--the rules that were "set up" were for good. That I was sentenced to punishment was not the "fault" of the rules, but of my disregard for them. I cannot shift the blame to some "system" (or worse, to the system creator) when it simply operates efficiently! Moral codes imply consequences of various types, for positive and negative respect for those codes. Consequences for destructive behavior are simply "responses" of the "necessary-for-good" law, provoked by my actions or inaction. Most of the law codes in the cultures of the world are not arbitrary--they exist in order to facilitate the growth and health of a community. While it is true that God "set up" a system of actions/consequences (and laws that express these in warning fashion), this system is healthy and embedded in reality (e.g., 'do not walk off a cliff--you will likely plunge to your death'), and certainly not arbitrary in the least.

Blame shifting, of course, was part of the original response of Adam and Eve. God expected Adam and Eve to trust His warning (and to grow thereby). But when they failed, the man immediately blamed the woman, and then God ("The woman YOU gave me, gave me the fruit to eat and I ate") and the woman blamed the Serpent ("The serpent tricked me, and I ate"). The Serpent gave no excuse, since his act was apparently one of deliberate destruction. (Remember, Jesus called him a "murderer" from the beginning, in John 8.44.)

A mother who loves her son can still turn him into the authorities to be punished for raping or murdering someone.

[Dante]

The fact that they can pass doesn't imply they will pass. For example: you can pass some exam if you work hard for a long time, but you won't pass it if you don't make appropriate efforts. That is what I meant by the possibility to pass.

If god sets you an exam and you fail, then you couldn't have passed. That's how predeeterminism works.

I am not sure it is correct to divide enthropy into chemical and physical. I just meant that living organizms have high-ordered structure (organization), and that their activity causes a decrease of enthropy.

I've made a mistake in the text:

[Dante]

If immaterial things were exempt from predetermination, then they would also be exempt from causality. Effect would not follow cause. Creating something would not cause it to be created. You could drop something and it would never be dropped. Causality is the only thing that is certain, no matter what the circumstances. A god would not be an exception.

Besides which, if god in the christian sense existed then there are many documented instances of 'him' interacting with the universe. Moses, Caine, Jesus, etc. So even if cauality would not apply in theory, it certainly would in practice.

Loops have no beginning or end. That's kind of what makes them loops. What the nature of this first cause was, if there was one, is not important.

[ant222]

If god sets you an exam and you fail, then you couldn't have passed. That's how predeeterminism works.

But indeterminism works the other way round... Do you agree that in determinism the Christian God is impossible?

How is a moving system more orderly than static minerals?

Well, it is quite logical. In order for an organism to properly function it must meet very strict limitations. The number of "working" organisms with respect to the number of all organisms of the same complexity is near zero. Thus, "working" organisms are really ordened to a very high extent.

Of course, a "moving system" can be water. In this case its entropy is higher than of crystals.

As to animals' entropy, you can make a search in google and make certain of your incorrectness. Here are some quotetions I found:

http://www.ceri.com/ed-evol.htm:

Living systems are different than a cup of hot coffee. They maintain a low-entropy state (a high degree of orderliness) over long periods of time. At the organismic level, the time frames are on the order of a lifespan. At the species level, the time frames span millions to billions of years.

Living systems can do this because they are open systems. They gather raw materials from the environment, build self-replicating structures and excrete waste products. Although life is anti-entropic, it does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. While entropy is decreased within the organism, entropy is increased to a greater degree outside of the organism. The net entropy effect is positive, in full agreement with thermodynamic principles.

The localized state of increased order (decreased entropy) within living organisms requires energy to maintain. By selectively absorbing materials with high energy potential and excreting materials with low energy potential, energy can be gathered from the environment to maintain the structure and order of the living system.

http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/pdfs/life_on_earth.pdf

What remains to be answered is how these complex systems (organisms) were first formed and how they maintain their presence on Earth. It is obvious that the entropy of the Biosphere is decreasing continuously (at least it was before the industrial revolution and deforestation).This means that the matter involved in the formation of the Biosphere is getting more and more organized (less random).

In the 1944 the Nobel prize winning physicist, Erwin Schrodinger wrote up his thoughts about living systems in a book titled, What is life?.

He observed that:

living systems tend to preserve their structure over time. The Laws of thermodynamics only permit average entropy to increase, yet biological systems can do the reverse (maintain order). Tornadoes are similar order-maintaining phenomena. Schrodinger thought that perhaps living systems maintained orde by 'consuming order' from the surrounding environment.

the molecular structure of living matter is far more complex than inorganic.

complexity is somewhat proportional to size. At microscopic scales randomness makes it difficult to develope elaborate mechanisms.

And so on. I hope that now you will reconsider.

At a Russian site I found an interesting comparsion: the entropy of a living organism is comparable to that of a piece of rock of the same mass. Though I don't know how they calculated it...

There is no 'most-knowing,' there is all knowing. Everything. Future included.

Knowledge about the future in indeterminism implies the knowledge of all the possible alternatives of the future. One can know information. But indeterministic universe simply doesn't have definite information about the future. There is nothing to know, hence, it can't be known.

You persist in uderstanding 'allmighty' and 'allknowing' literally, while knowing this leads evident to logical paradoxes. So, I propose to understand them within the limits of the universe God created. Since He doesn't want to destroy this universe or change it's fundamental properties, He won't do paradoxial things. Of course, He does affect universe, but in a non-destructive way.

Furthermore, the indetermined God created indetermined (having free will) people:

[Dante]

Assuming we live in a predetermined universe we have no free will, because the place our very thoughts come from, the brain, would be subject to predeterminism. This would not apply to the thinking of a creature without substance. That would not prevent its actions from having an effect.

Why wouldn't causality apply to a creature without substance, even assuming that this is not self contrdictory?

Predeterminism and christianity are not compatible.

Good thing I believe in the former and not the latter then, isn't it?

Still something must have caused that loop.

I answered that in the very segment you quoted.

Other replies can wait until I can be bothered sifting through them. I tend to get bored with arguments like this quite quickly nowadays.

[Dante]

There is no way, even in relation to thinking, that causality does not apply. It is one of the few things that we can be certain of.

And do pay attention to what I wrote. Loops have no beginning or end. That's kind of what makes them loops. What the nature of this first cause was, if there was one, is not important.