Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[godelian]

More to the point, perhaps, is this New Yorker article about compatibilism. Is free will compatible with determinism? Apparently, the jury is still out on that one.

A workable mathematical definition for free will, is the existence of truth that is not predictable from its theory. The natural numbers are a completely deterministic system but the truth about them is overwhelmingly unpredictable. Human free will is akin to a running process of which the behavior is to an important extent unpredictable to outsiders. This is exactly what mathematical theory (Rice theorem) predicts about running processes. Of course, free will is compatible with determinism. Seriously, I wonder what exactly incompatibilism would be based on?

[Immanuel Can]

Right. Because that's foremost on the mind of a lion when it sees you wandering around in its territory. You BECOME meat only when it starts munching on you. That's what the little caveman can't seem to get his tiny caveman brain around.

He's actually right. You don't "become" meat. If meat is what you are, then you ARE meat, and nothing but meat. You're just not being eaten yet. But whether you're outside or inside of a lion doesn't change what you really are.

Bullshit. We always have the potential to be 'meat' to 'something'. We are mammals I don't know wtf 'free will' has to do with it.

It's about Determinism, not free will. Determinism based on Materialism, in particular. And it says that all we are is the physical stuff we're made of...which is just meat.

If we have free will, then we're much more than meat.

One picks one's belief, and then one tries to live accordingly. However, Determinism turns out to be completely unliveable...which is why we all, by default, act as if free will is true, and we aren't just meat. It's Determinism that's really implausible.

[accelafine]

He's actually right. You don't "become" meat. If meat is what you are, then you ARE meat, and nothing but meat. You're just not being eaten yet. But whether you're outside or inside of a lion doesn't change what you really are.

Bullshit. We always have the potential to be 'meat' to 'something'. We are mammals I don't know wtf 'free will' has to do with it.

It's about Determinism, not free will. Determinism based on Materialism, in particular. And it says that all we are is the physical stuff we're made of...which is just meat.

If we have free will, then we're much more than meat.

One picks one's belief, and then one tries to live accordingly. However, Determinism turns out to be completely unliveable...which is why we all, by default, act as if free will is true, and we aren't just meat. It's Determinism that's really implausible.

Rubbish. It makes no difference to anything.

[Immanuel Can]

Bullshit. We always have the potential to be 'meat' to 'something'. We are mammals I don't know wtf 'free will' has to do with it.

It's about Determinism, not free will. Determinism based on Materialism, in particular. And it says that all we are is the physical stuff we're made of...which is just meat.

If we have free will, then we're much more than meat.

One picks one's belief, and then one tries to live accordingly. However, Determinism turns out to be completely unliveable...which is why we all, by default, act as if free will is true, and we aren't just meat. It's Determinism that's really implausible.

Rubbish. It makes no difference to anything.

Now you've got it. If you're meat, you're meat. If you're more, you're more. And nothing makes any difference to that.

[accelafine]

It's about Determinism, not free will. Determinism based on Materialism, in particular. And it says that all we are is the physical stuff we're made of...which is just meat.

If we have free will, then we're much more than meat.

One picks one's belief, and then one tries to live accordingly. However, Determinism turns out to be completely unliveable...which is why we all, by default, act as if free will is true, and we aren't just meat. It's Determinism that's really implausible.

Rubbish. It makes no difference to anything.

Now you've got it. If you're meat, you're meat. If you're more, you're more. And nothing makes any difference to that.

'Got' what?

[Skepdick]

A workable mathematical definition for free will, is the existence of truth that is not predictable from its theory. The natural numbers are a completely deterministic system but the truth about them is overwhelmingly unpredictable.

Then your theory is under-determined/incompete. This is an epistemic issue - nothing to do with ontological determinism.

Ontological determinism is exactly determined - even if you don't happen to know what the complete determination is.
Just because you don't know the truth about the natural numbers has no bearing on there being one.

If you insist that you are a Platonist then the ideal omniscient Platonic theorist knows the ideal Platonic theory you are missing.

[godelian]

Then your theory is under-determined/incompete. This is an epistemic issue - nothing to do with ontological determinism.
Ontological determinism is exactly determined - even if you don't happen to know what the complete determination is.
Just because you don't know the truth about the natural numbers has no bearing on there being one.

True arithmetic, i.e. the complete truth about the natural numbers, is exactly determined but cannot be predicted by Peano Arithmetic theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_arithmetic

True arithmetic exists but we cannot know most of it, because of Tarski's undefinability of the truth. It is not that true arithmetic does not exist. It is just that we cannot know it most of it.

If the (unknown) theory about the universe is also incomplete, it cannot predict most of its truth. If the physical universe is structurally similar to the arithmetical universe, then its theory must be incomplete, and much of its truth will also be fundamentally undefinable. In fact, this idea harks back to the original ideas of Pythagoras:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism

Pythagoras, in his teachings focused on the significance of [numerology], he believed that numbers themselves explained the true nature of the Universe.

The mathēmatikoi philosophers claimed that numbers were at the heart of everything and constructed a new view of the cosmos.

I believe that Pythagoras and his mathēmatikoi were essentially right.

[Skepdick]

True arithmetic, i.e. the complete truth about the natural numbers, is exactly determined but cannot be predicted by Peano Arithmetic theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_arithmetic

True arithmetic exists but we cannot know most of it, because of Tarski's undefinability of the truth. It is not that true arithmetic does not exist. It is just that we cannot know it most of it.

That's what I said - epistemic, not an ontological problem.

If the (unknown) theory about the universe is also incomplete

I am talking about the unknown complete knowledge, not unknown incomplete theory.

Software running in user-space can't know or infer any model of the operating system...

That's why we do metaphysics. Guess. Calculate consequences. Compare with observation.
This still leaves you with the problem of infinite possible equifinal/equiconsequential/observationally equivalent theories, but so what?

[BigMike]

If you have this evidence

8EF26CB0-D166-49D1-9F32-215E95880656.jpeg


-----


https://mindmatters.ai/
This site is a clearing house. Go, search, read, learn.

In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind by Nobel laureate Eric Richard Kandel

[attofishpi]

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.
Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. As resources diminish these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state.
Conscious awareness must eventually evolve into an overiding intelligent system, created by such intelligent beings in the first place. This intelligent system, lets call it 'God' simulates reality by feeding our five senses the world around us.
Ultimately, it 'judges' whether each sub-entity (us humans) has the right to reincarnate and continue to make use of the limited resources as entropy of the system increases.

In a nutshell. If i took your brain and fed it the five senses you currently are akin to, you could lead the same life, albeit simulated, with super-efficiency. Now resources are in decline, conservation of energy is of paramount importance to maintain our conscious awareness into the distant future...

One can only conclude that it is more likely that this will eventuate than that it wouldn't.
One can also conclude then, that there is a very high probability that this has already occurred and that God exists.

[godelian]

That's what I said - epistemic, not an ontological problem.

Actually, yes.

The body of epistemic truth is a very small subset of the ontological truth of arithmetic, as a consequence of Tarski's undefinability of the truth,.

Since it is impossible to know the complete truth of arithmetic, does it then sound reasonable to claim that it is possible to know the complete truth of the physical universe?

In my opinion, this view is not reasonable.

[henry quirk]

Is Kandel a compatibilist too?

[Alexiev]

Is Kandel a compatibilist too?

I can't remember.

[henry quirk]

Is Kandel a compatibilist too?

I can't remember.

[BigMike]

Is Kandel a compatibilist too?

I can't remember.

Eric Kandel, a neuroscientist and Nobel laureate, hasn’t explicitly identified himself as a determinist or compatibilist in his work. However, much of his research aligns with deterministic principles. Kandel’s studies on the molecular and cellular foundations of memory and learning show that human behavior and cognition are deeply rooted in biological mechanisms, such as neural processes that operate according to physical and chemical laws.

While his research suggests a perspective that resonates with determinism—highlighting how biology constrains human thought and action—he hasn’t clearly articulated a philosophical stance on free will or compatibilism. It’s possible to interpret his work as leaning toward determinism because of the emphasis on biological causation, but without a direct statement, labeling him as a compatibilist (or a determinist) remains speculative.