Philosophy Now Forum

Does hard determinism imply that a blueprint for our universe was included in the big bang?
Or could the outcome been different?

Deterministic (Einstein's) universe does not give any sense. Specific future is not set in advance...

Determimism is nothing but mental mastubation for philosophers.

..outdated nonsense!

Cerveny wrote:Deterministic (Einstein's) universe does not give any sense. Specific future is not set in advance...

Exactly. Einstein's universe makes no sense and the reason why it makes no sense is because it conflates determinism with PRE-determinism. Only intelligently designed systems can have a pre-determined outcome and such systems are therefore defined as linearly deterministic. Anything designed and built by a human being is an example of such a system, such as an automobile or a house. This was Newton's assumption about our universe and thus physics defines a universe predicated on an immutable suite of divine laws of supernatural origin. Newton was full of shit.

A universe which is not the creative product of an intelligent mind can equally well be entirely deterministic but this is determinism of a different kind. All naturally occurring systems are non-linearly deterministic and such systems are determined ONLY by the single meta-law of cause and effect which simply states that all effects must be preceded by a cause. This kind of determinism is also known as chaotic determinism and it does NOT assume that such cause is part of a divine plan. The signature feature of non-linearly determined systems is that they are SELF-ORGANISING, which means they evolve increasingly more complex structures within themselves entirely naturally and without the need of a blueprint.

It is this principle of self-organisation which physics models with its so-called "laws" but these laws are the property of the physicists doing the modelling and not the property of the universe being modelled. Until physics can grasp this blindly obvious truth its models will never make any sense.

HexHammer wrote:Determimism is nothing but mental mastubation for philosophers.

..outdated nonsense!

Can you explain further what you mean by this?

Risto wrote:Can you explain further what you mean by this?

You're a comedian, Risto. Hex doesn't do explanations. He just does illiterate pulpit pronouncements with creative spelling and tortured syntax.

Risto wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Determimism is nothing but mental mastubation for philosophers.

..outdated nonsense!

Can you explain further what you mean by this?

Uhmmm ...I believe I put it really clear. But for you I can try spell it out.

If you study medicine, it has a direct practical use, and you can become a doctor.

If you study Thermo dynamics, you can use is for physics and Engineering.

If you waste time on determinism, then it has no relevance. Only people lacking cognitive abilities will spend time on it.

north western wrote:Does hard determinism imply that a blueprint for our universe was included in the big bang?
Or could the outcome been different?

NO and NO.

A blueprint is a written plan.

But just because the universe is unfolding due to the law of cause and effect, does not mean that any one knows what will happen next.

I've often wondered what sort of assumptions a person carries around who believes that determinism is the same as fatalism.

HexHammer wrote:Determimism is nothing but mental mastubation for philosophers.

..outdated nonsense!

One thing leads to another. It's not rocket science. (well it can be). But its not hard to conceive. Try harder.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:One thing leads to another. It's not rocket science. (well it can be). But its not hard to conceive. Try harder.

Then plz tell me of the great use that I have missed.

HexHammer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:One thing leads to another. It's not rocket science. (well it can be). But its not hard to conceive. Try harder.

Then plz tell me of the great use that I have missed.

Once again, you are not making sense. "Great Use". What are you on a about now?

HexHammer wrote: If you waste time on determinism, then it has no relevance.

This statement is false. The nature of determinism is the single most important question faced by the science of physics because they've got it fucking WRONG. Modern physics is inescapably an Intelligent Design paradigm and until such time as physicists face the fact that our universe is not a created entity then the models they use will continue to make no sense.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: But just because the universe is unfolding due to the law of cause and effect, does not mean that any one knows what will happen next.

Precisely. Just ask the weatherman. Non-predictability and indeterminacy are not synonymous terms, a simple statement of the bloody obvious which QM theorists would do well to take to heart.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I've often wondered what sort of assumptions a person carries around who believes that determinism is the same as fatalism.

They're either theists, deists (closet theists), or physicists.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I've often wondered what sort of assumptions a person carries around who believes that determinism is the same as fatalism.

They're either theists, deists (closet theists), or physicists.

There definitely is a class of people that instinctively reject determinism because they think it means "it is written", and does not make a difference what we do. ~Not all are theists.
And I've even known Christians who were strict determinists. I think that is the smart move for them in a sense, but logically an omni-(ect) god has to know from the beginning of time who and what you are, how you will live and whether or not you are going to be saved. Calvinists go along with this completely, and fatalistically. But since they don't know the future themselves are happy to keep on proselytising until your eyes glaze over and you want to be sick.
They are the exception though, and even the protestants that follow from Calvinism tend to allow free will to slip back in. Their insistence on personal autonomy robs god of his power, paradoxically.

The spacetime paradigm of physics inescapably makes the same assumptions. The future is as immutable as the past in the 4D manifold, a conclusion which deeply troubled Einstein for over 40 years. In fact it was the main reason why he continuously declared it false for those 40 years, although he reckoned the spooky action at a distance was also a dead giveaway.

Obvious Leo wrote:

HexHammer wrote: If you waste time on determinism, then it has no relevance.

This statement is false. The nature of determinism is the single most important question faced by the science of physics because they've got it fucking WRONG. Modern physics is inescapably an Intelligent Design paradigm and until such time as physicists face the fact that our universe is not a created entity then the models they use will continue to make no sense.

See, you speak straight out of your stupid ass!