1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

A question for hard-determinists

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
20 January 2017 18:47
 

If the Big Bang theory were for some reason found by theoretical physicists to be a flawed explanation of things, would the discovery change your view of determinism?

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21500
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
20 January 2017 18:54
 

No.  Whatever started this, cause and effect led us to now.  It could not have been otherwise. There is no contingency.

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5105
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
20 January 2017 19:46
 

I doubt it but that isn’t enough information to answer the question. What kind of flaws?

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6339
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
20 January 2017 19:55
 

What if the flaw is reasoning that the Big Bang supports hard-determinism?

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
20 January 2017 20:19
 
Brick Bungalow - 20 January 2017 07:46 PM

I doubt it but that isn’t enough information to answer the question. What kind of flaws?

I have no specific flaw in mind. I just understand that some percentage of accepted scientific theories eventually become undone.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
20 January 2017 20:20
 
Nhoj Morley - 20 January 2017 07:55 PM

What if the flaw is reasoning that the Big Bang supports hard-determinism?

Then I might be more inclined to accept hard determinism. Or not.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
20 January 2017 22:44
 
nonverbal - 20 January 2017 06:47 PM

If the Big Bang theory were for some reason found by theoretical physicists to be a flawed explanation of things, would the discovery change your view of determinism?

James Hartle and Stephen Hawking are already there, perhaps.  They prefer expansion from a point but without a singularity or a bang, it would seem.  They don’t really alter the laws of physics, but rather confirm them.

Unless, of course you’re talking about the TV show, in which case they have a resident physicist who checks the scripts for errors to keep out any flaws.

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2735
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
20 January 2017 23:00
 

a quite recent theory considers a possible quantum tunnelling from just before the Big Bang to just after, without having to go through the actual singularity, avoiding many of its problems.
Doesn’t change anything about determinism, of course.

 
 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
21 January 2017 08:51
 
Nhoj Morley - 20 January 2017 07:55 PM

What if the flaw is reasoning that the Big Bang supports hard-determinism?

Agreed!

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
21 January 2017 08:57
 
nonverbal - 20 January 2017 08:20 PM
Nhoj Morley - 20 January 2017 07:55 PM

What if the flaw is reasoning that the Big Bang supports hard-determinism?

Then I might be more inclined to accept hard determinism. Or not.

The question is, however the universe came into existence, were forces put into play that predetermined how everything was going to happen from that point forward.

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6339
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
21 January 2017 09:18
 

I say no. You agree, Jeff? Or just ‘not yes’.

 
 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
21 January 2017 09:45
 
Nhoj Morley - 21 January 2017 09:18 AM

I say no. You agree, Jeff? Or just ‘not yes’.

The reasons why it “might” be a flawed argument to use the big bang as the “reason” for determinism is because
1. If determinism exists it may have nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.
2. Or if determanism is a manifestation of creation, another process, not the big bang, could have started the universe.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7621
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
21 January 2017 09:55
 

I have a related question for hard-determinists…

Are there ANY practical reasons to take this stance?

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
21 January 2017 09:56
 
jdrnd - 21 January 2017 09:45 AM
Nhoj Morley - 21 January 2017 09:18 AM

I say no. You agree, Jeff? Or just ‘not yes’.

The reasons why it “might” be a flawed argument to use the big bang as the “reason” for determinism is because
1. If determinism exists it may have nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.
2. Or if determanism is a manifestation of creation, another process, not the big bang, could have started the universe.

Do you know what background axiom(s) might be behind the apparently extreme confidence so many hard-determinists have in their view? I sure don’t.

 
 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
21 January 2017 10:19
 
nonverbal - 21 January 2017 09:56 AM
jdrnd - 21 January 2017 09:45 AM
Nhoj Morley - 21 January 2017 09:18 AM

I say no. You agree, Jeff? Or just ‘not yes’.

The reasons why it “might” be a flawed argument to use the big bang as the “reason” for determinism is because
1. If determinism exists it may have nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.
2. Or if determanism is a manifestation of creation, another process, not the big bang, could have started the universe.

Do you know what background axiom(s) might be behind the apparently extreme confidence so many hard-determinists have in their view? I sure don’t.

I don’t either.

No one really knows the answer.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21500
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
21 January 2017 11:00
 
jdrnd - 21 January 2017 10:19 AM
nonverbal - 21 January 2017 09:56 AM
jdrnd - 21 January 2017 09:45 AM
Nhoj Morley - 21 January 2017 09:18 AM

I say no. You agree, Jeff? Or just ‘not yes’.

The reasons why it “might” be a flawed argument to use the big bang as the “reason” for determinism is because
1. If determinism exists it may have nothing to do with the beginning of the universe.
2. Or if determanism is a manifestation of creation, another process, not the big bang, could have started the universe.

Do you know what background axiom(s) might be behind the apparently extreme confidence so many hard-determinists have in their view? I sure don’t.

I don’t either.

No one really knows the answer.

What would have caused the flow of events to have changed from just following the laws of nature?  Prior to human consciousness and intelligence, it was just billions of years of cause and effect that was set in motion by the initial cause, whatever that was.  So that makes it seem like everything up until humans was pretty much determined by the laws of nature and math.

When we get to humans, you have to ask if we actually have free will.  If not, then even with our consciousness our lives are just a reflection of cause and effect. If you disagree, then what contingencies exist to cause anything to deviate from that course?

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›