What's in it for house flies?

Originally posted by finnegan
[b]I don't attach the same importance as it seems you do in having potential to predict that which is determined.

To me, if something is determined by a set of conditions (however complex and slippery) then it is in principle (not practically) possible to predict the outcome given that set of conditions exists. If you are prepared to predicate a God t on the remarkable fact of your being alive and having the awareness to appreciate that?[/b]

Then since you acknowledge the (theoretical) predictability of outcomes which are determined, it surely remains to be justified that there really do exist events that are *not determined*, ie: random. I don't set this as some unfalsifiable challenge as a feeble attempt to cling to my world-view, more I find the notion of true randomness patently absurd. By this I mean that some material entity, entirely independent of any and all other entities or lack thereof moves from some state A to another state B, even though there was nothing presenting an obstacle for it moving to C is not satisfactory. What induced the choice of B? What tipped it over the edge in opting for one as opposed to the other; if the choice was purely that entity's own volition, an intrinsic nature to whimsically do one thing or do another devoid of any causation or paths of least resistance/expenditure, it seems like an appeal to magic. Where is my problem here unfounded?

It is my opinion that thinking one can act autonomously (and if I misunderstand your usage, I myself mean entirely free) is a top-down approach; whereby considering some system as a whole in it's sublimely complex and mysifying working it appears highly plausible that there really is the capacity for *freedom* of action. I try to look at it on the otherhand with the bottom-up perspective, and as you're well aware, argue that true freedom is not possible as a consequence.

As regards your last comment I don't actually find it that distasteful to be honest, though I'd just walked out of a horrendous exam so was presenting a somewhat morbid view of the world. (I have a whole stockpile of arguments like the one I gave purely for usage against theists who say --- "isn't the world wonderful??? Therefore God exists"...the discussion here didn't warrant one). Don't worry, I on many occasions can stand back, look at the big picture, and be amazed 🙂


*edit* As a courtesy to Vistesd, given that my response to yours has started a new page I say that he posted a response to you before mine on the page previous.

Originally posted by Agerg
Then since you acknowledge the (theoretical) predictability of outcomes which are determined, it surely remains to be justified that there really do exist events that are *not determined*, ie: random. I don't set this as some unfalsifiable challenge as a feeble attempt to cling to my world-view, more I find the notion of true randomness patently absurd. By thi ...[text shortened]... d a new page I say that he posted a response to you before mine on the page previous.

Thank you for that courtesy; I will try to follow your example.

It strikes me that this argument goes all the way back (at least) to the Stoics versus the Epicureans (modified for advances in knowledge, of course). You seem to be more in line with the Stoics, Finnegan with Epicurus. (I don’t mean to imply that either of you would be a wholesale Stoic or Epicurean.)

I tend to be more with Epicurus myself. His notion of the “atomic swerve” might be replaced today with “chaos theory” models, in which, for complex systems, outcomes (except short-term and small-scale, perhaps) become inherently unpredictable (meteorology comes to mind). In light of this debate, I am taking a look at Epicurus again, though.

Originally posted by Agerg
Then since you acknowledge the (theoretical) predictability of outcomes which are determined, it surely remains to be justified that there really do exist events that are *not determined*, ie: random. I don't set this as some unfalsifiable challenge as a feeble attempt to cling to my world-view, more I find the notion of true randomness patently absurd. By thi ...[text shortened]... d a new page I say that he posted a response to you before mine on the page previous.

(I have a whole stockpile of arguments like the one I gave purely for usage against theists who say --- "isn't the world wonderful???...

What?

Originally posted by vistesd
Thank you for that courtesy; I will try to follow your example.

It strikes me that this argument goes all the way back (at least) to the Stoics versus the Epicureans (modified for advances in knowledge, of course). You seem to be more in line with the Stoics, Finnegan with Epicurus. (I don’t mean to imply that either of you would be a wholesale Stoic o ...[text shortened]... orology comes to mind). In light of this debate, I am taking a look at Epicurus again, though.

Thats an interesting observation! It was suggested to me earlier in this thread that I am most likely epicurean, I wasn't particularly enthusiastic with that to be honest. On the otherhand though, stoicism seems a better fit (though there are of course parts I don't agree with).

Even if one makes the substitution you suggest I would still ask the question of what causes the "atomic deviation". If it is some inherent nature of "atoms" that they just happen to veer off their determined course as and when "they want to", then without supplementary explanation or justification here it seems like magic. If not then the deviation from the determined path was itself determined!

Originally posted by Agerg
Thats an interesting observation! It was suggested to me earlier in this thread that I am most likely epicurean, I wasn't particularly enthusiastic with that to be honest. On the otherhand though, stoicism seems a better fit (though there are of course parts I don't agree with).

Even if one makes the substitution you suggest I would still ask the question o ms like magic. If not then the deviation from the determined path was itself determined!

I would say that inherent unpredictability (potential, as opposed to simply pracitcal predictability, as I think Finnegan pointed out) does not equal magic. The three of us are, I think, agreed on not admitting the supernatural category.

As a side comment, Wittgenstein (in the Philosophical Investigations) makes a sharp distinction between description and explanation. Description, as I see it, answers such questions as what happens and how it happens; although we often refer to that as "explanation", I think that Wittgenstein (who is concerned about how we can "bewitch" ourselves with our own language) treats "explanation" as an attempt to answer "why" questions--such as "Why is there anything, rather than nothing?" We simply may not have access to such explanations for much of reality. When we think that we must have such explanations, then we get into metaphysics and religion. I don't think that I avoid metaphysics altogether (to be honest with myself), but I do try to keep it to a minimum--and without recourse to "supernature".

As always, you (and Finnegan) prompt interesting inquiry.

EDIT: From memory, I think that Epicurus thought that the "atomic swerve" was simply random and without any (traceable at any rate) predetermining cause. This was a source of dispute with the Stoics, who did not admit of any such randomness in nature. (Their arguments were, of course, based on the physiologia of the time: Epicurus worked from Democritus' atomism.

Originally posted by vistesd
I would say that inherent unpredictability (potential, as opposed to simply pracitcal predictability, as I think Finnegan pointed out) does not equal magic. The three of us are, I think, agreed on not admitting the supernatural category.

As a side comment, Wittgenstein (in the Philosophical Investigations) makes a sharp distinction between description an n the physiologia of the time: Epicurus worked from Democritus' atomism.

I think perhaps the first point you made with respect to inherent unpredictability (assuming you mean truly random) not being equal to magic is perhaps a point where I will be in constant disagreement with yourself and Finnegan. Like the Stoics I don't support the notion of true randomness because from my perspective, it begs the question as to how an inanimate object can behave in such a manner.that it's actions are not caused either by it's own construct with respect to it's surroundings (for example: economy of work moving from one state to another, least action I think it's called) or directly caused by some other material entity or entities. It is as though the inanimate object in question somehow *makes a choice*.

Acknowledging what you say in your second paragraph; in just the same way as I would be hard pressed to alter my stance, don't think I would be able to pursuade either of you from yours. I don't think the point of contention we share here can actually be resolved one way or the other; though I make the claim that for my position to be in any serious jeopardy, there really would need to be some sort of resolution in your favour.

As always, you (and Finnegan) bring to the table stimulating conversation and insight that prompts me to think a little deeper. 🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
I think perhaps the first point you made with respect to inherent unpredictability (assuming you mean truly random) not being equal to magic is perhaps a point where I will be in disagreement with yourself and Finnegan. Like the Stoics I don't support the notion of true randomness because from my perspective, it begs the question as to how an inanimate object ...[text shortened]... e table stimulating conversation and insight that prompts me to think a little deeper. 🙂

Well, since we are discussing empirical matters, I suspect that any disagreement can only be resolved (if it can be resolved at all) by science--particularly physics.

That is something that I think both the Stoics and the Epicureans would agree upon. Both schools felt that philosophy had to be guided by how reality actually is; the aim of both schools was therapeutic: philosophy as a means to ataraxia (undisturbed mind) and eudaimonia (which, at the risk of redundancy, I will render as “flourishing well-being”; sometimes it is translated as “happiness” ). The Pyhrronian Skeptics had the same aim (according to Sextus Empiricus), but thought that keeping matters open on all such philosophical questions (particularly metaphysics) was the way. I confess that I find something in each of them.

______________________________________________


I don’t post so often on here anymore (how many times have you and I been on the same side of a debate!?), but I drop in from time to time; and sometimes I still insert myself into a particularly interesting discussion, such as this one. So if I’m here and then disappear for awhile, don’t ever take it as lack of interest in anything you are saying--it’s just that larger living calls! Be well.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, since we are discussing empirical matters, I suspect that any disagreement can only be resolved (if it can be resolved at all) by science--particularly physics.

That is something that I think both the Stoics and the Epicureans would agree upon. Both schools felt that philosophy had to be guided by how reality actually is; the aim of both schools w ...[text shortened]... it as lack of interest in anything you are saying--it’s just that larger living calls! Be well.

No worries!...I think given the nature of our stance towards the supernatural, in the implicit sense we're often on the same side (I'd say the same thing about theists having to fend off wild/unsound arguments made on the behalf of theists with different beliefs or certain atheists). I might be right in thinking that in my earlier days on these forums we have been in opposition a couple of times with respect to the less refined assertions I myself have made. (I actually regret some of the few "naughty" or mischevious posts/threads I've made here and there that have not inspired friendly discourse)

Anyway, without rambling on too much more; it is the case that most often in these forums I throw my hat into threads where it is someone else who has to defend their position. I think there is a virtue in letting oneself be on the receiving end from time to time as is the case here.

Originally posted by Agerg
No worries!...I think given the nature of our stance towards the supernatural, in the implicit sense we're often on the same side (I'd say the same thing about theists having to fend off wild/unsound arguments made on the behalf of theists with different beliefs or certain atheists). I might be right in thinking that in my earlier days on these forums we have ...[text shortened]... a virtue in letting oneself be on the receiving end from time to time as is the case here.

Forgive me for being so terribly unclear: I meant that we had hardly ever been on opposing sides!

Stay well.

Originally posted by vistesd
I might be reading you wrong, but it seems to me you have used the term “chaos” in two different senses that ought to be distinguished: (1) sensitive dependence on initial conditions that are not inherently stable (“chaos theory” ); and (2) chaos as opposed to coherence, or a low-order state (entropy) as opposed to a high-order state.

In the first case ...[text shortened]... to chaos” ).

Again, I might be reading you incorrectly, and will be happy to stand corrected…

Yes I intended Entropy but I think Chaos theory would also apply, because whatever does happen remains within the boundaries of the laws of physics.

I think chaos theory (popular version) accounts for change in terms of a series of steps, possibly reiterating the same step many times. So that the path from start to finish is not describable as a single formula but relies on the outcome of a great many events happening in sequence. The end result of a great many actions may be very surprising and unexpected. Something like weather is virtually unpredictable because it depends on the conditions operating not simply in the starting state, but at each of many states later in the sequence. The number of variable escalates out of all reason. The term infinite hardly does justice to it - there are infinite infinities.

If you want to retain, in this context, the concept of "determinism" that is possible to do but I think it takes the concept away from its expected meaning - which to me means that (as you say) if we can prescribe the conditions we can predict the outcome. I just don't think it makes sense to talk in terms of being able to describe the conditions operating in the universe at each of infinitely many separate moments over the 17.5 billion years since the Big Bang. Even then if you like Chaos Theory, one butterfly beating its wings could upset everything, especially if that butterfly had the capacity to decide to flutter or to not flutter.

More importantly, it does not make sense to me to suggest that those 17.5 billion years of craziness across the stunning immensity of space were designed to happen for the purpose of my existence as a living human on earth at this time. If nothing else it seems to me an astonishingly inelegant and wasteful way to go about things. A God with that capacity would surely have the capacity to just plant me here, now, and stuff some dinosaur bones into the mountainside, with a few fossilized fish at the top of the Alps. That has the merit of being direct, albeit explaining bog all about the universe and being a lot less explanatory than the scientific account, in which God is absent.

Originally posted by finnegan
Yes I intended Entropy but I think Chaos theory would also apply, because whatever does happen remains within the boundaries of the laws of physics.

I think chaos theory (popular version) accounts for change in terms of a series of steps, possibly reiterating the same step many times. So that the path from start to finish is not describable as a single ...[text shortened]... niverse and being a lot less explanatory than the scientific account, in which God is absent.

Just a side note: methinks whatever does happen it does not “remain within the boundaries of the laws of physics” as you claim. Since the wavefunction is a probability wave, its squared amplitude at a given spacetime represents the probability that a particle would be located by a process of measurement at that given spacetime -however the wavefunction squared does not give the probabilities of the exact location of a preexisting particle: it gives the probabilities that the measurement will register the presence of a particle solely when a measurement interaction is performed at a specific spacetime, and in that interaction the human consiousness is involved. Therefore the particle/ object Was Not There Before You Found It There. Your happening to find it there caused it to be there.

This means that according to quantum theory the electron is merely spread out as a probability distribution and not as a definite independent entity/ particle/ object between measurements. Since the meaning of this find remains unknown in terms of physical reality, you can define matter solely within the context of pre-quantum physics. However quantum physics proved that the classical physics’ concept regarding matter is delusional because the transformation from a pure possibility into physical reality (collapse of the wavefunction) derives from the superposition (a condition/ ground of existence that contains all the potential possibilities within the wavefunction). Each one of these possibilities has the same potential of existence as any other of the contained possibilities, and this is the reason why the wavefunction implies that in some sense all possibilities coexist but not in full at the same time.

Therefore it seems to me that whatever does happen it remains within the boundaries of the wavefunction, and this has nothing to do with your classical approach. Even Einstein’s independent “elements of reality” do not exist, and I am talking about “elements of reality with their own separate and unique on-board bit of information. In fact we don’t know where from this interconnected pattern of the fundamental reality arise from -and I am talking about the physical world around us and of course about our own very being.

Now, since I cannot define matter as a “solid inherent being”, the sole way for the ground of its existence is laying in the wavefunction, and the wavefunction is a mind-only (emptiness/ shunyata) condition from which everything is possible and from which every phenomenon arise and comes into being as it is manifeted in the realm of the Floating World. So I refute both “existence and non-existence”. The Floating World is real, however this phenomenon is either existent or nonexistent and it is neither existent nor nonexistent (since it is not existent as it appears is nonexistent, whilst since it appears in both ways is existent). In our Zennist tradition we are using koans in order to pass this view directly from mind to mind by means of destroying dualism on the spot (All return to the One; where to the One returns?), however today under specific circumstances I feel free to use many words.

May All Beings Be Happy
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Just a side note: methinks whatever does happen it does not “remain within the boundaries of the laws of physics” as you claim.

In our Zennist tradition we are using koans in order to pass this view directly from mind to mind by means of destroying dualism on the spot (All return to the One; where to the One returns?), however today under specific circumstances I feel free to use many words.

May All Beings Be Happy
😵

I enjoy your words and wish for many! I do not want to argue with your post that I am right and you are wrong since we probably have no disagreement here. There is a lack of clarity as to the point I was trying to make. I was saying in my post that, while I had not intended to make my argument on the basis of chaos theory, my earlier argument would be helped by referring to chaos theory.

...methinks whatever does happen it does not “remain within the boundaries of the laws of physics” as you claim.

This depends on whether you think Quantum Theory falls within the category "Laws of Physics" or has a separate category of its own. I think it does.

However quantum physics proved that the classical physics’ concept regarding matter is delusional because the transformation from a pure possibility into physical reality (collapse of the wavefunction) derives from the superposition (a condition/ ground of existence that contains all the potential possibilities within the wavefunction)

I agree that Classical Physics is not able to account for the observations described by Quantum Physics. If I did not and could prove my point I would be applying for my Nobel Prize - that will have to wait. For example, an attempt by Penrose and Hawkings to account for the Big Bang using Relativity Theory failed (they agree) because Relativity says nothing whatever about conditions in the initial moments of that event and Quantum Mechanics is the appropriate model to apply.

In an earlier post on this thread I referred to Classical Physics as Newtonian Physics, and observed that this from Newton through to Einstein permitted a view of the universe that was deterministic. My motivation has been to argue that the universe is not determined and that it would be impossible, given the conditions of the Big Bang, to predict from that the outcomes we experience.

Originally posted by finnegan
I enjoy your words and wish for many! I do not want to argue with your post that I am right and you are wrong since we probably have no disagreement here. There is a lack of clarity as to the point I was trying to make. I was saying in my post that, while I had not intended to make my argument on the basis of chaos theory, my earlier argument would be hel ...[text shortened]... ssible, given the conditions of the Big Bang, to predict from that the outcomes we experience.

Clear. And I know what point you were trying to make -this is the reason why I offered just a side note;


edit: This depends on whether you think Quantum Theory falls within the category "Laws of Physics" or has a separate category of its own. I think it does.

I have the feeling we can hardly conduct a direct measurment on anything for the Floating World acts like a communication channel of its own potential of perception (methinks universe is epiontic): so instead of various inherently predetermined "0" or "1" bits of information we inherently "have" an holistic mind-only "0/1" condition that hovers in "semi-existence", from which arise whatever is manifested in the Floating World out of the superposition. Therefore we do agree that the universe is chaotic and thus not classicaly predetermined (and probably we could agree that "religion" is a futile attempt to embrace chaos, as my friend Palynka offered in the past at an older thread).
This means I recognize a "false" level (a level that lacks inherent being) of our common reality (Floating World), along with a level of the superposition (shunyata), and a level of a mind-only field that merges and trancends both the Floating World and shunyata. All of them three truths/ conditions are the three kayas (trikaya) that trancend Yin/ Yang (dualism) and promote the triskelion/ Gankyil approach. I cannot separate quantum mechanics neither from philosophy nor from metaphysics, that is.


Please enjoy and keep up your interesting conversation regarding the core essence of this thread -I don't want to hi-jack it.
Be well😵

Originally posted by Agerg
They feed on excrement and decaying matter; they don't tend to live for much longer than a month; we humans (for whom their presence is a threat to our health) try to cut short this short lifetime with rolled up newspapers and fly spray. They have no appreciation for culture, arts, inquiry, material (or 'spiritual'😉 pleasures, to this end they have horrible ey ...[text shortened]... eneral we get a much fairer bite of the cherry so to speak than other unfortunate life forms)

House flies, this observer, that observer, a shark, a rose, a cloud, You, I, a fish, the ocean, a galaxy, an apple; what's in it for all of them?
😵

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, since we are discussing empirical matters, I suspect that any disagreement can only be resolved (if it can be resolved at all) by science--particularly physics.

That is something that I think both the Stoics and the Epicureans would agree upon. Both schools felt that philosophy had to be guided by how reality actually is; the aim of both schools w ...[text shortened]... stions (particularly metaphysics) was the way. I confess that I find something in each of them.

Well I did some homework to find out if I align with the Epicureans or the Stoics and thought you might check my results. Forgive me if this is already well known to you but I lose the details very quickly in my own mind.

Homer – everything is in the hands of the gods and humans are playthings, unable to alter their fate.

Democritus – The Atomist position: Everything that happens is simply the movement of atoms in a void. The movement of atoms are determined by their properties and their previous movements. No other cause is present in the universe. Our lives thus lack the significance we attach to them. As we make no difference, there seems no point in our seeking to do one thing rather than another.

Epicurus wants to retain the Atomist theory as regards naturalism while rejecting determinism. He argues that to say we are not free requires that we seek to persuade ourselves and others that this is so, and implies that our argument can make a difference, which must imply that what we do can make a difference. So it makes no sense to argue that we are not free. He suggests that Atomism must be modified to acknowledge the existence of freedom, and for this he proposes that sometimes an atom swerves so that, if this happens, events are not determined by the laws of nature.

The Stoics, however, want to retain determinism without losing the importance of free will. They use the “Lazy Argument.” If I am fated to pass my exam, a fatalist would suggest there is no purpose to our studying since we cannot alter our fate. Failing to study would (most likely) ensure that we fail the exam. Passing the exam requires that we do study (though we might fail). If passing the exam is fated, then studying is fated. So our decision to study does affect the outcome and is at the same time part of our fate. (Presumably the key to Stoicism is to accept our fate without complaint).

So where am I in this - probably with Epicurus and partly because he aligns with an argument suggested by Augustine of Hippo: The fact that we use Reason to discuss choices in our lives should be sufficient in itself to demonstrate that we have the capacity for free will.

I can't be a Stoic because if I don't like stuff I fight to change it. I find some things intolerable and that's all there is to it.

And I think the swerving atom is neat!