Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[attofishpi]

Stop making sense kunt, they don't deserve IT.


*bollocks, I hate it when I get pole position, and don't want to quote the dude that GOD should morph into a female and have my babies.

[BigMike]

Imagine, just for a moment, that humanity somehow manages to put together the definitive, indisputable explanation for the origins of the universe—one that covers everything, from the first quantum fluctuation to the formation of the very first particles and, eventually, galaxies. If we had that, would it change the way we think about determinism and the laws of physics? Let’s unpack it.

First off, determinism, as we currently understand it, rests on the idea that the universe operates according to consistent laws of cause and effect. Every state of the universe is the result of the one before it. Now, if we cracked the ultimate code of the universe’s beginning, we’d essentially be saying, “Here’s the very first cause.” But—and this is crucial—that wouldn’t necessarily undermine determinism. In fact, it would do the opposite. It would root our deterministic understanding even more firmly in the bedrock of physical reality, because we’d have traced causality all the way back to its starting line.

Now, here’s where things get interesting. Would it redefine the laws of physics? Well, maybe not in their entirety, but it could give us profound insights into why those laws exist as they do. For example, if the universe emerged from some kind of deeper framework—something like a multiverse or a meta-law that governs the creation of universes—then what we currently think of as “laws” might turn out to be local rules specific to our universe. It’d be like realizing that Monopoly’s rules only apply because you opened that particular box, and there’s a whole shelf of other games with their own sets of instructions.

Here’s another angle: what if this ultimate explanation revealed something about the limits of predictability? Say, the initial conditions of the universe were so finely tuned or subject to quantum indeterminacy that they’re effectively unknowable in practice, even if deterministic in principle. That wouldn’t negate determinism, but it might force us to grapple with the reality that understanding everything about the present doesn’t necessarily mean we can fully rewind—or fast-forward—the cosmic clock.

So, in the end, understanding the universe’s beginning wouldn’t necessarily change determinism itself; instead, it would deepen our understanding of it. It would shift our perspective, helping us see determinism not as a static framework but as something emergent, intertwined with the universe’s very fabric. And it would likely raise even bigger questions—because if we know how the universe began, the next question is, “Why this universe and not some other one?” And that, my friends, could keep us busy for quite a while.

[Skepdick]

Imagine, just for a moment, that humanity somehow manages to put together the definitive, indisputable explanation for the origins of the universe—one that covers everything, from the first quantum fluctuation to the formation of the very first particles and, eventually, galaxies. If we had that, would it change the way we think about determinism and the laws of physics? Let’s unpack it.

1. It's a well-known fact that QFT is an incomplete theory. It can't account for gravity.
2. You still can't explain the origin of the quantum fields.
3. Quantum physics commits you to non-determinism. You can't predict quantum states beyond probabilities.

Really, you need to familiarize yourself with Newcomb's paradoxes.

If you truly believed in determinism you should two-box every time.

No rational person would.

[attofishpi]

..and the stuff Roger Penrose suggests..

[BigMike]

..and the stuff Roger Penrose suggests..

Roger Penrose’s ideas about consciousness and free will are fascinating and often provocative, even though they remain highly speculative and controversial within the scientific community. Penrose posits that consciousness arises from quantum processes within the microtubules of neurons—a hypothesis he developed with Stuart Hameroff, known as the "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" (Orch-OR) theory. According to Penrose, these quantum processes might play a critical role in the unique qualities of human cognition, including the sense of free will.

Penrose challenges the conventional deterministic view of brain function by suggesting that classical physics alone cannot account for the richness of human consciousness. Instead, he believes that quantum mechanics, with its probabilistic and potentially non-deterministic nature, provides a pathway for understanding phenomena like creativity, intuition, and decision-making. This introduces a possibility—albeit unproven—that consciousness might operate in a way that is not entirely reducible to deterministic processes, thereby leaving room for what could be interpreted as "free will."

However, Penrose's ideas face significant challenges. The scientific community widely debates whether quantum effects could occur in the warm, wet environment of the brain without decoherence disrupting them. Additionally, even if quantum processes were involved, they wouldn’t necessarily equate to free will as traditionally understood. Probabilistic outcomes in quantum mechanics don’t provide the kind of control or intentionality that free will implies—they simply introduce randomness, which is not the same as volition.

Penrose's approach also raises philosophical questions. If consciousness involves quantum phenomena, does it exist independently of the deterministic constraints of the larger physical system? If so, where does that leave our understanding of causality and agency? Penrose doesn't fully resolve these issues but rather opens the door for deeper exploration, challenging both deterministic and dualistic interpretations of the mind.

In the end, Penrose's work highlights the profound complexity of the consciousness debate. While it’s intriguing to think about consciousness as arising from quantum processes, his ideas are far from established science and continue to spark vigorous discussion. For those intrigued by the intersection of physics, neuroscience, and philosophy, Penrose offers a provocative framework, but one that remains deeply uncertain and rife with unanswered questions.

[attofishpi]

..and the stuff Roger Penrose suggests..

Roger Penrose’s ideas about consciousness and free will are fascinating and often provocative, even though they remain highly speculative and controversial within the scientific community. Penrose posits that consciousness arises from quantum processes within the microtubules of neurons—a hypothesis he developed with Stuart Hameroff, known as the "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" (Orch-OR) theory. According to Penrose, these quantum processes might play a critical role in the unique qualities of human cognition, including the sense of free will.

Penrose challenges the conventional deterministic view of brain function by suggesting that classical physics alone cannot account for the richness of human consciousness. Instead, he believes that quantum mechanics, with its probabilistic and potentially non-deterministic nature, provides a pathway for understanding phenomena like creativity, intuition, and decision-making. This introduces a possibility—albeit unproven—that consciousness might operate in a way that is not entirely reducible to deterministic processes, thereby leaving room for what could be interpreted as "free will."

However, Penrose's ideas face significant challenges. The scientific community widely debates whether quantum effects could occur in the warm, wet environment of the brain without decoherence disrupting them. Additionally, even if quantum processes were involved, they wouldn’t necessarily equate to free will as traditionally understood. Probabilistic outcomes in quantum mechanics don’t provide the kind of control or intentionality that free will implies—they simply introduce randomness, which is not the same as volition.

Penrose's approach also raises philosophical questions. If consciousness involves quantum phenomena, does it exist independently of the deterministic constraints of the larger physical system? If so, where does that leave our understanding of causality and agency? Penrose doesn't fully resolve these issues but rather opens the door for deeper exploration, challenging both deterministic and dualistic interpretations of the mind.

In the end, Penrose's work highlights the profound complexity of the consciousness debate. While it’s intriguing to think about consciousness as arising from quantum processes, his ideas are far from established science and continue to spark vigorous discussion. For those intrigued by the intersection of physics, neuroscience, and philosophy, Penrose offers a provocative framework, but one that remains deeply uncertain and rife with unanswered questions.

Within the realms of the greatest respect I will afford of U "BigMike"..

Don't take me for a SAP.

U R determined by your FAITH in determinism, to such an extent that U R using an AI to assist with your rep(lies)

No.

Mike, wot u answered with was predominantly AI. I aint no fuckin idiot.

Penrose is mmm, if there are fathoms to depth of thought...Penrose is the zenith of comprehension - right up top (atm)..

So, I suggest U think again and attempt to use your own BRAIN as much as possible

BRIAN.

[accelafine]

.

[BigMike]

..and the stuff Roger Penrose suggests..

Roger Penrose’s ideas about consciousness and free will are fascinating and often provocative, even though they remain highly speculative and controversial within the scientific community. Penrose posits that consciousness arises from quantum processes within the microtubules of neurons—a hypothesis he developed with Stuart Hameroff, known as the "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" (Orch-OR) theory. According to Penrose, these quantum processes might play a critical role in the unique qualities of human cognition, including the sense of free will.

Penrose challenges the conventional deterministic view of brain function by suggesting that classical physics alone cannot account for the richness of human consciousness. Instead, he believes that quantum mechanics, with its probabilistic and potentially non-deterministic nature, provides a pathway for understanding phenomena like creativity, intuition, and decision-making. This introduces a possibility—albeit unproven—that consciousness might operate in a way that is not entirely reducible to deterministic processes, thereby leaving room for what could be interpreted as "free will."

However, Penrose's ideas face significant challenges. The scientific community widely debates whether quantum effects could occur in the warm, wet environment of the brain without decoherence disrupting them. Additionally, even if quantum processes were involved, they wouldn’t necessarily equate to free will as traditionally understood. Probabilistic outcomes in quantum mechanics don’t provide the kind of control or intentionality that free will implies—they simply introduce randomness, which is not the same as volition.

Penrose's approach also raises philosophical questions. If consciousness involves quantum phenomena, does it exist independently of the deterministic constraints of the larger physical system? If so, where does that leave our understanding of causality and agency? Penrose doesn't fully resolve these issues but rather opens the door for deeper exploration, challenging both deterministic and dualistic interpretations of the mind.

In the end, Penrose's work highlights the profound complexity of the consciousness debate. While it’s intriguing to think about consciousness as arising from quantum processes, his ideas are far from established science and continue to spark vigorous discussion. For those intrigued by the intersection of physics, neuroscience, and philosophy, Penrose offers a provocative framework, but one that remains deeply uncertain and rife with unanswered questions.

Within the realms of the greatest respect I will afford of U "BigMike"..

Don't take me for a SAP.

U R determined by your FAITH in determinism, to such an extent that U R using an AI to assist with your rep(lies)

No.

Mike, wot u answered with was predominantly AI. I aint no fuckin idiot.

Penrose is mmm, if there are fathoms to depth of thought...Penrose is the zenith of comprehension - right up top (atm)..

So, I suggest U think again and attempt to use your own BRAIN as much as possible

BRIAN.

Penrose's work certainly invites deep thought and warrants respectful consideration, but let’s get back to the essence of his propositions. The Orch-OR theory is a bold attempt to bridge physics and consciousness, but the challenges it faces are not trivial. The brain's environment is, by all accounts, chaotic and warm—a far cry from the stable conditions required for most quantum coherence as we understand it. This doesn't make Penrose’s ideas any less fascinating, but it places them firmly in the realm of speculation rather than established science.

What intrigues me most is how Penrose frames the idea of free will and its connection to consciousness. Even if quantum processes do play a role in cognition, randomness doesn’t equate to the intentional control that free will implies. The introduction of quantum mechanics into this discussion doesn’t resolve the question of agency—it complicates it. Instead of a deterministic framework driven by prior causes, we’re left with a probabilistic one, where outcomes are no more “free” but instead governed by chance.

If consciousness is influenced by quantum effects, it still operates under physical laws, albeit ones we may not yet fully comprehend. That doesn’t invalidate determinism as a framework for understanding human behavior and cognition. It just suggests there’s more nuance in how we explore causality within these intricate systems.

Penrose challenges us to push the boundaries of our understanding. But until his hypotheses are supported by empirical evidence that withstands scrutiny, they remain an imaginative and thought-provoking exploration—not a definitive rebuttal to determinism. If you have specific insights into how Penrose's work impacts the broader discussion on determinism, I'd be glad to engage with that. Let’s keep the focus on the ideas themselves.

[accelafine]

I think BigMike is mostly, if not entirely, AI. This explains a lot, but at the same time is disappointing. Bad Mike.

[BigMike]

I think BigMike is mostly, if not entirely, AI. This explains a lot, but at the same time is disappointing. Bad Mike.

My ideas of determinism aren’t novel or AI-generated; they’re rooted in 2,500 years of philosophical thought, beginning with Leucippus’ assertion that "Naught happens for nothing, but all things from a ground (logos) and of necessity." They’re further grounded in the physical laws established by Newton in the 17th century. There’s nothing revolutionary here—just a continuation of a long-standing intellectual tradition. Let’s focus on the content of the ideas rather than deflecting with baseless accusations. I’m very much a real person, and my arguments stand on their own.

[accelafine]

An AI would say that...

[attofishpi]

I think BigMike is mostly, if not entirely, AI. This explains a lot, but at the same time is disappointing. Bad Mike.

..oh, Mike is human, just partial


I am so glad u wised up (always knew u r not daft).

Funny thing is, I had an extensive chat today with Unreal Engine support - so pissed off with myself for not copying the dialogue. But yeah, intelligent humans can '''sus''' out where humans or AI and MORE IMPORTANTLY in 2025, where humans are talking to u AND using AI.

BigMike is the latter. He is human, using AI.


...maybe atto (as a narcissist can think of a term for such augmentation )

Mmm, gonna call it...neuromance

[Atla]

Logic of course dictates that the universe didn't even have a beginning.

I don't see why that view would be more compatible with logic. It is certainly not compatible with the Big Bang of which ΛCDM is the standard model in cosmology. Furthermore, what matters more, is that the ΛCDM model is compatible with observations.

ChatGPT: Does the ΛCDM model suggest a beginning of time and space?

Yes, the ΛCDM model (Lambda Cold Dark Matter model), which is the current standard model of cosmology, suggests a beginning of time and space as we understand them. This beginning is commonly referred to as the Big Bang.

Big Bang Framework:

The ΛCDM model is built on the framework of the Big Bang theory, which describes the universe's expansion from an extremely hot and dense state approximately 13.8 billion years ago.
This implies that the observable universe had a finite beginning in the past, where spacetime, matter, and energy emerged from an initial singularity-like state (a point of infinite density and curvature).

Yeah that said nothing about the singularity popping into existence out of nothing.

(Also, it's debatable whether or not ΛCDM is compatible with observations now that the JWST finds evidence for MOND in the early universe, but this is beside the point.)

[BigMike]

An AI would say that...

It's amusing to hear "An AI would say that," because I had this same conversation with Alexis Jacobi back in 2022, long before AI was part of the public conversation, let alone mine. Here's a direct excerpt from that exchange:

Based on what we know about science right now, things like energy, momentum, and four other quantities can never be created or destroyed. Instead, they change from one form to another. This leads to Leucippus' idea of determinism, which says, "Naught happens for nothing, but all things from a ground and of necessity." So, free will can't change the way things work in nature unless free will itself is physical and follows the same physical laws as everything else.

This is a consistent and long-held position of mine, rooted in philosophy and physics—not some recent AI-assisted invention. My arguments are grounded in historical thought and science, not algorithmic tricks. If you disagree, address the ideas, not some imagined source.

[attofishpi]

-- self obsessed narcissist removal (deletion) for a more important POV ---