Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:41 am**

Immanuel Can wrote:
thedoc wrote:The fact is that there may have been many Universes and only one of them needed to have the right conditions for life, just as there are many planets orbiting many different stars and any one of them, or several of them could have the right conditions for life. We just happen to be on this one, nothing special, just the luck of the draw. So when someone quotes the odds of how improbable life is on this planet and isn't it extraordinary, just laugh at them because they probably wouldn't understand that life was inevitable, somewhere.
This argument is premised on a mathematical error, though, thedoc.

It presupposes a universe of unlimited size and variety (which we shall accept, since it isn't all that unreasonable a postulate, even though we still need to explain universal expansion; but let that be) coupled with a limited set of ways in which that unlimited universe can be.

It has to postulate the situation this way, because if it doesn't, then the massive size of the universe does not do anything statistically to make any one outcome any more likely to occur or recur. But if, as an unlimited universe makes necessary, there are unlimited variable qualities within that universe, then the size of the universe ceases to help with probability issues of life existing -- every outcome is just as unlikely as every other...and all are (mathematically speaking) infinitely unlikely.

That puts us back to square one, and we again have to ask why we have the variables we do, since there are an infinite set of other ways we could have been.

In other words, no life need have existed anywhere at any time. So again, we have to ask why any exists here.

This offering clearly demonstrates that you have no understanding of the difference between a pre-determined and a self-determining universe. In a self-determining reality matter and energy evolve from the simple to the complex simply because of the meta-law of cause and effect, which means they cannot do otherwise. That life and mind should emerge in such a self-causal system is as mandated an outcome as 1+1=2, although when, where and in what form such structures should appear is entirely a matter of circumstance. Non-linear determinism completely invalidates the entire notion of a transcendent necessary agent because all of causality is thereby defined as immanent. Spinoza 101.

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:47 pm**

This is all very well Leo, but what form of 'determinism' is Hobbes postulating? And for that matter Hobbes, when are you going to state your definition of "Christianity"?

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:28 pm**

Why would Hobbe's Choice be tasked with defining Christianity?
Christianity is not Hobbe's' creation: it had many volumes and wars and reformations of self-realization before he ever became aware of it. Christianity is a very active corporate enterprise which isn't affected by what I think it is and what you think it is and what he thinks it is.

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:29 pm**

thedoc wrote:I think you missed the one point, and that is that we don't know that other Universes do or do not exist parallel to our own, nor do we know that other Universes did or did not exist before this one.

This is true, of course, but changes nothing. The key thing that's supposed to help the explanation of why we are here, and why life exists on our planet, and is even supposed to give us reason to think life exists elsewhere is simply a trick of numbers. The supposition is that if only there were enough universes (of whatever kind or origin they might be) we would have reason to think our own existence not improbable anymore.

This is simply an error.

Look at it this way. The believer in the Anthropic Principle, or the Multiverse Hypothesis, or any of the associated theories, says to the disbeliever, "You don't understand just how many universes there are...essentially, it's infinite." The disbeliever responds, "You just don't understand how many variables there are in an infinite set of universes...essentially it's infinite for every one of those infinite universes, and for every possibility not yet recognized in any of them." And the disbeliever is right.

But just for fun, let us stretch our imaginations here, and see what follows. If it's not improbable to find life on Earth because there are so MANY universes, then NOTHING is actually improbable...not just the conditions for life, but the conditions for every alternative. So somewhere in the giant cloud of universes out there, there's a planet on which thedoc exists as a woman. On another, there's one where thedoc is a sixty-meter pink unicorn. On another, there's also a thedoc, but he's a sentient glass of water. On another, he's a sentient glass of water with 1 ml. more water in it....

Really?

So you see, just because we posit MANY universes, it does not make any one alternative suddenly more plausible. In fact, it just throws up infinite counter-possibilities. And this would include the alternative in which life, or sentient life, exists somewhere in the universe. It's no more probable that the sixty-meter pink unicorn.

In an infinite regress there could have been any number of Universes prior to the one we are in, and each could have had slightly different properties.

Why only "slightly"? What set of pre-existing laws must we posit to limit the number of variables in an infinite set of universes? For surely there would be no mathematical reasons why they'd be limited...it would have to be a physical reason, a set of physical dynamics about energy, mass, time, that just pre-exist to govern the endless generating of universes, and establish that they cannot exist beyond a rather limited set of parameters.

So who established those laws? How were they set in place? And why did those particular laws happen, and not others? So again, the explanation creates more and bigger questions about why certain things happen and others don't. But it doesn't make it more likely that Earth would exist...at least, not until we can account for those laws and for the controlling force that imposes them.

Given the infinite number of possibilities it is all but inevitable that a Universe would arise with just the right conditions for life, and in that Universe, a planet in just the right location relative to it's Sun.

This is a perfect articulation of the mathematical fallacy to which I'm pointing.

However, I'm not surprised if you haven't thought of this problem with "infinite universe" answers. I didn't see it for a long time. And then, when I finally caught on, I was gobsmacked. How could the problem be overlooked by so many people? After all, everybody seemed to be taking about "infinite universes," from Nietzsche to Dawkins. I was seeing all kinds of articles and papers on speculative cosmological physics, and all seemed enamoured of the idea of infinite universes. And I'm not a mathematician, so how could I have discovered it?

I thought they would surely prove me wrong. So it made sense to send my rejoinder to an expert. I did that, in the hopes of discovering my error, since I certainly didn't want to put my foot in it by mentioning it if there was something obvious I was overlooking. The reply I got back was that it was "unusually perceptive," and quite correct.

But hey, don't take that on faith. I wouldn't ask you to, and you don't need to. My recommendation is that you email my rejoinder to any expert in cosmology or mathematics that you may know, at a university or college, perhaps, or at a scholarly organization you trust. See what he/she says.

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:36 pm**

Obvious Leo wrote: This offering clearly demonstrates that you have no understanding of the difference between a pre-determined and a self-determining universe.

I don't think we need personal insults here, Leo. Have I singled you out?

"Self-determined" is a circular, non-scientific kind of explanation. Essentially, it says, "the universe is what it is because the universe."

Nothing is "self-determined" but an eternal, self-existent being. The only reason is because such a being, having no origin, cannot be caused to exist by a prior thing.

However, everything scientific or physical is "determined" by something beyond itself, in the sense that it is acted upon by prior forces or laws of some kind. (We can leave aside human volition, though that is clearly influenced by prior factors as well; for the vexed question of the moment is whether there is anything unique about human volition, and we don't want to foreclose that question artificially, right?)

Essentially, your explanation makes the universe itself the eternal, self-existent and self-determined being. That is, if what you are saying is true, the universe itself is your concept of God.

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:37 pm**

attofishpi wrote:This is all very well Leo, but what form of 'determinism' is Hobbes postulating? And for that matter Hobbes, when are you going to state your definition of "Christianity"?

That's important, I think. Is your understanding of "Christianity" limited to Calvinism, Hobbes? It would help us to be more responsive to your concerns if we knew that.

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:39 pm**

Skip wrote:Why would Hobbe's Choice be tasked with defining Christianity?

Er...because he used it as the subject in his question?

It's not unreasonable to ask a person what he meant, is it?

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:57 pm**

It is, if you don't also ask people what they mean every time they refer to humanity, or the USA or dentistry or education.
The family of religions which bears that name 'Christianity' is well established and readily identifiable by both its proponents and its detractors.
You may ask someone what they think of it, how they experience it, which aspect or tenet they are referring to, but when we mention Christianity as a belief-system, the meaning of that name isn't negotiable.

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:24 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: But just for fun, let us stretch our imaginations here, and see what follows. If it's not improbable to find life on Earth because there are so MANY universes, then NOTHING is actually improbable...not just the conditions for life, but the conditions for every alternative. So somewhere in the giant cloud of universes out there, there's a planet on which thedoc exists as a woman. On another, there's one where thedoc is a sixty-meter pink unicorn. On another, there's also a thedoc, but he's a sentient glass of water. On another, he's a sentient glass of water with 1 ml. more water in it....

Really?

Stretch your imagination a bit further. Perhaps you will find somebody there saying "If there are infinite universes that means there's some people walking around with only two legs - how absurd".

The argument you are complaining doesn't entail absurdity. It just entails that wherever there are life forms thinking "why us?", there is no particular answer.

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:24 pm**

Skip wrote:The family of religions which bears that name 'Christianity' is well established and readily identifiable by both its proponents and its detractors.
You may ask someone what they think of it, how they experience it, which aspect or tenet they are referring to, but when we mention Christianity as a belief-system, the meaning of that name isn't negotiable.

Well this isn't remotely true, of course. The term "Christianity" is very much under dispute.

In the present case, there's a world of difference between a determinist Calvinist and someone who does not hold to determinism but also claims to be Christian (Calvinists call these "Arminians"). It is upon the very question that Hobbes has posed that the two groups are at opposite poles.

So Hobbes could do us a lot of good with a definition. And on the assumption that he knows what he wants to say, which I take here for granted, he should have no problem providing one.

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:30 pm**

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote: But just for fun, let us stretch our imaginations here, and see what follows. If it's not improbable to find life on Earth because there are so MANY universes, then NOTHING is actually improbable...not just the conditions for life, but the conditions for every alternative. So somewhere in the giant cloud of universes out there, there's a planet on which thedoc exists as a woman. On another, there's one where thedoc is a sixty-meter pink unicorn. On another, there's also a thedoc, but he's a sentient glass of water. On another, he's a sentient glass of water with 1 ml. more water in it....

Really?
Stretch your imagination a bit further. Perhaps you will find somebody there saying "If there are infinite universes that means there's some people walking around with only two legs - how absurd".

And quite right. Bipedalism is, probabilistically speaking, an astonishing phenomenon, and it's even more astonishing that a living, self-conscious entity exists anywhere in the universe to practice it. I agree with you.

What seems so "normal" to us is actually, mathematically speaking, a total surprise. In fact, the odds that NO orderly world or universe would exist are mathematically...what's the word I want here?...Ah yes: "astronomical."

The argument you are complaining doesn't entail absurdity. It just entails that wherever there are life forms thinking "why us?", there is no particular answer.

Not so. There may be an answer. There's no law written into the universe that if there is such an answer, everybody is equally in possession of it. But there's no law either that nobody is. We would have to conclude only with the modest personal admission, "I don't happen to know if there is an answer." And that would be fair.

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:40 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You area not really thinking this through.
God made me; thus he made me to do what I do. He has to know that.
"Know," yes: "make," no. Consider what happens when one makes a child. One is 100% the proximal cause of the child's existence. What's more, together with one's spouse, one is 100% the source of that child's constitution. But once that child is born, it starts to make some decisions for itself.

I fucked a woman, I'm not god. I did not design the DNA, nor have I any power over the environment. You are not really thinking the GOd thing through.

Foreknowledge isn't determinism.
It is for a God. In fact they are inseparable.
That's the Calvinist position, alright.

It's also the Atheist position.
Atheism has no position.
Consider that if there are no entities in this universe but natural laws and materials, whether chemicals, energy and so on, then the Atheist's own volition is also an illusion. His decisions are all merely products of purely material causes, commencing with whatever impersonal force or law created the Big Bang.

But honestly, I don't think anyone really lives consistently with that...whether Calvinists or Atheists. Because if they did, they would not bother debating volition. After all, it's an illusion, to them.

Likewise, what a person "believes," whether he is a Theist or Atheist, is nothing but the end of a long chain of purely material causes and physical laws. It is merely incidental what one happens to believe at any time. Thus it cannot be genuinely changed. The Atheist who stays an Atheist was predestined to do so. The Theist who stays a Theist likewise. But the convert from one position to the other was also predestined to convert. He or she did not choose anything.

If so, what are we discussing? Neither you nor I can possibly change our minds, except in ways that we were predestined to appear to "change" them anyway.

So everybody who debates, everybody who does philosophy, is, by his or her actions, denying determinism. He or she is acting as though choice exists, arguments can make a differences, and minds can change. If he or she didn't assume that, he or she would simply be irrational to undertake to argue at all.

Choices have to be determined, else they are meaningless.
Actually, if they are predetermined by impersonal forces or forced upon us by the Supreme Being, they are not genuinely "choices" at all.

Actually they are our choices if there is not God, in fact that can only be "ours" if there is not god. God and free will are incompatible.
Without God the notion of predestination is meaningless, and the future remains unknown.
But if you can make a free choice, a choice regardless of your votition, experience, genetics, learning, then all those things are without meaning, and your choice is based on nothing.

We didn't make them. They're not any kind of product of our decisions. And thus, determined choices are meaningless...they're not even "choices."

That's the truth.

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:54 pm**

Actually they are our choices if there is not God, in fact that can only be "ours" if there is not god. God and free will are incompatible.
Without God the notion of predestination is meaningless, and the future remains unknown.

Oh, that's most certainly not the case.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a determinist, so the "predestination" notion doesn't impress me, and I don't think it should impress anyone else either. But if Atheists are right, then determinism must be true. For the answer to ever question about causes, from an Atheist perspective, has to be "time, plus materials, plus physical laws," or something equivalent. There can be no other causes for (what appears to us to be) choice except prior physical causes.

But if you can make a free choice, a choice regardless of your votition, experience, genetics, learning, then all those things are without meaning, and your choice is based on nothing.

That would beg the question of whether "free choice" is a reality, or just (as adherence to Atheism would compel us to believe) an illusion we overlay on a predestined outcome. But that begged question is the one we really need to answer, isn't it?

We could observe that a choice that involves some factors, such as experience, genetics, learning and so forth: but that would not mean it was only a predestined choice unless "volition" is simply an illusion. If "volition" is real, then we could safely say that prior factors may contribute to the making of a decision, through influencing the chooser, perhaps, but the one who ultimately decides would still then be the individual, as he may choose to go against his experience, genetics, learning and so forth.

Only if physical factors doom the individual only to choose one thing ever can we say that human choice without them is "based on nothing." But then, human choice would be no more than an illusion anyway.

But all this blows us from our purpose. We were wondering what you mean by your use of the term "Christianity" in "Is Christianity Compatible With Determinism?" above...

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 9:01 pm**

Christianity is not compatible with reason, and neither is free will.

If I can make a choice in spite of my self, then my life is without meaning.
Gladly when I act, I act according to the necessity of cause and effect. And though I might be constrained by external forces, I can according to the limits of the circumstance, act with volition as an agent of change; the sum of my antecedent activities: I can do as I will., But as Schopenhauer says; "I cannot will as I will"

Posted: **Sun Feb 21, 2016 9:38 pm**

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Christianity is not compatible with reason, and neither is free will.

If you didn't suspect that the latter half of that statement were actually untrue you would not be debating anything. If you didn't suspect that the first part could be untrue, you wouldn't be debating Christianity. But you do both, all the time, don't you?

If I can make a choice in spite of my self, then my life is without meaning.
Gladly when I act, I act according to the necessity of cause and effect. And though I might be constrained by external forces, I can according to the limits of the circumstance, act with volition as an agent of change; the sum of my antecedent activities: I can do as I will., But as Schopenhauer says; "I cannot will as I will"

Please explain, then, what you mean by "volition." For ordinarily, the word refers to the free choice of an conscious actor to select among alternatives, rather than the inevitable results of mere cause and effect. What is "volition," and how is it distinct from the "external forces" you mention?

It's just possible, if I can understand you, we're not disagreeing as much as perhaps you might think. But I need you to clarify, if you would.

Philosophy Now Forum

Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?

Re: Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?