<p>But the good thing is you don’t need to keep it a secret. The illusion of free-will is even greater than the illusion of religion, I think, and with religion - well, it is managing to coexist with atheism. And the consequences of a loss of it (perhaps also dissociation of responsibility) have not been very harmful.</p>
<p>What do you mean by religion?</p>
<p>The illusions presented by religion is probably what I should have said. Which are e.g the existence of gods, the afterlife, divine powers, etc. Those things.</p>
<p>@enfield: It’s saying a bit too much to call those illusions.</p>
<p>Noooooooooooooooo! Not another Science vs. Religion thread.</p>
<p>Science and religion can coexist peacefully because they’re both equally valid truth claims about viewing our existence. The reason they butt heads all the time is that both thinks the other is “impeding” on their turf. Truth is, no one can lay claim to a realm of truth (mostly because truth is within the individual).</p>
<p>What do you guys think about Influentialism (a concept I made up). It specifies that human actions can be viewed as probabilities, probabilities which are dependent on the previous state. Sp it’s not that one state * determines * the next state, but that one state * influences * it. For me, this is easier to accept than the more radical determinism.</p>
<p>oh, and perhaps on the cognitive level, it is the process of choosing the next state (which is not really the next state, but perhaps the next large state-shift) that gives rise to the illusion of free will.</p>
<p>So…your theory is essentially that the past affects our present actions? Well duh.</p>
<p>The adjustment bureau is a great movie.</p>
<p>
Probability is an illusion. Something either will happen or it will not. The future is definite; everything that has every happened influences everything that ever will happen. Because we do not know everything that has every happened on an atomic level and we cannot process nearly enough data, we came up with the illusion of probability. Chance does not exist; there is merely truth. It is useful, though, for telling us what might happen, as long as we are incapable of devising what will happen.</p>
<p>Everything is already determined by past events. If we had infinite knowledge of the world, all events could be determined on a mathematical basis. The system which we live in is complex and so we attribute many functionalities of the world to luck, randomness, or probability when they’re just out of our ability to calculate (hence, you get something like religion). Thinking and making decisions is just a complex mathematical process by the brain based on a significant amount of inputs (environment, situation, prior experience, where you were born, genes, etc.). Just because we can’t calculate a certain event based on our limitations doesn’t mean it can’t be calculated.</p>
<p><a href=“hence,%20you%20get%20something%20like%20religion”>quote</a>
[/quote]
Actually, religion could fit perfectly with what you’ve said. Suppose a being powerful enough to set Creation into motion (something had to) that is omniscient. Such a being would know all that has happened and thus would know all that would happen. It would even know thoughts, given that it devised the molecular system, and would simply have to understand all the intricate workings of the molecules in one’s brain; no problem for an omniscient being. There are some people who look down upon religion as “superstition,” but it fits perfectly with science (as Einstein held). Indeed, to recognize that humans are higher beings than many of those we see around us, but to deny that there are beings higher than us and a being higher than them is unfounded except in human arrogance.</p>
<p>
I believe in creationism but I’m not religious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t worry, I don’t have time for another of those anymore.</p>
<p>[Besides</a>, everyone can just go read it, so there no sense repeating what’s already been said.](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/924944-science-religion-wins.html?highlight=science+vs+religion]Besides”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/924944-science-religion-wins.html?highlight=science+vs+religion)</p>
<p>
By Creationism, I take it you mean that at some point, a higher being created the universe, and not that the Earth was created on Wednesday, October 23rd, 4004 BC, a little before 9am? Because if you say Creationism, people generally think of the latter.</p>
<p>The only reason why we can calculate things such as the motion of the planets so accurately (predict their futures so accurately) is because they are predictable systems. But that is not the same as being a deterministic system. There is a probability, however small, that all the electrons around the atoms of a planet could align in a curious way and have an unpredictable effect: could change the planet’s center of mass, cause a very large internal force within the planet, generate a strong magnetic field, etc. We can’t predict those things, we can only count on the planets to behave as they normally do.</p>
<p>Another example would be with radioactive decay. It’s possible that everything radioactive (which is perhaps all matter - it’s believed that even protons decay, but at such a slow rate that it’s never been observed) - it’s possible that everything could decay and cause a mass extinction, or some other significant event that would be, again, unpredictable. </p>
<p>And it is also believed that a probabilistic description (of electrons, of radioactive decay)
is the ONLY description that can be given to them.</p>
<p>So it’s not that anything is 100% deterministic, but that all things are probabilistic (and to different degrees). With some systems (like planets) being very determinable, and others (like life) not.</p>
<p>
No, there is no probability. There is not an X% chance that the things you listed will happen; either they will happen or they will not happen. The event is already determined by all past events; we just don’t know everything, so we have the illusion of probability.</p>
<p>My favorite Stephen Hawking quote on this topic - </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that one thing only ever does happen does not preclude that probabilities couldn’t be involved in determining the thing that does happen. determinism makes assumptions about time, I think, about physics and the nature of our universe. It assumes that time is linear (even at the shortest of scales and for the smallest particles of matter), and so on, things that physics has, in that last century, proved are more complicated than we first thought.</p>
<p>hm maybe this quote is helpful </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Their upbringing and mental facilities have caused them to value their lives. The fact that they are not hit by a car is determined by the fact that they look to make sure they are not hit by a car. At no point did I state an outcome would occur regardless of our actions. Indeed, that outcome will exist, in part, because of our actions. However, our actions are determined by other actions past.</p>
<p>
I’ll ignore that you didn’t cite where this quote is from and address it. Probability is inherent in our understanding of quantum physics merely because we have a lack of understanding of the particles in question. Something does not come from nothing, and no event is random, merely unexpected. Everything, even the tiniest particles, will behave in a certain manner unto the end of all existence, if there ever is such an end, as determined by all things that have transpired before. Just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean it does not exist.</p>