We don't know how humans think. Does your AI have the ability to think?

For temporal change, sure. — noAxioms

I mean temporal change.

'nothing' isn't even really a defined thing, so the conclusion is more meaningless than impossible. — noAxioms

By nothing I mean no material, no space, no time,...

Here's the main one, perhaps the first one to generalize LET theory to include gravity. It was published almost a century after Einstein generalized his Special relativity theory.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45904833_Black_Holes_or_Frozen_Stars_A_Viable_Theory_of_Gravity_without_BlackHoles
It is an absolute theory, with the universe contained by time, hence absolute time. All the premises of special relativity are denied, and different premises are used. — noAxioms

I read the manuscript once last night and I found it very interesting. I have to read a couple of more times to understand it well. Just out of curiosity, where was the manuscript published, and how many citations does it have?

For the Christian, the fact that we are created 'imago dei' and return to the source of being at the time of death is fundamental to their faith. Life is regulated according to that belief, and according to the Biblical maxims and commandments. Whereas naturalism sees h.sapiens as the consequence of physical evolutionary processes that happen to have given rise to this particular species. They are very different attitudes and outlooks. — Wayfarer

Thanks for writing. I see what you mean.

If a system is incomplete, then it has unprovable truths. An unprovable truth is an inexplicable truth. The existence of such fundamentally inexplicable truths has nothing to do with our own evolution in terms of understanding. There simply does not exist a justification for such truth. The natural numbers is a system with fundamentally inexplicable truths. — Tarskian

I didn't mean mathematical truth when I said we may one day explain reality. I mean we may be able to explain why physical laws are like this and not the other ways.

And, by that do you mean, the so called self? — ENOAH

What do you mean by self? Soul?

Or is Mind a [deterministic] entity which decides autonomously, without input from a central authority or agent? — ENOAH

Mind is an indeterministic entity. It receives input from the brain.

First of all, if S(t) can be predicted from S(t-1) ... S(0) then the theory T for this system is complete. — Tarskian

In this thread, I am not interested to discuss whether different states predicate other states later. What I am interested is that these states have existed since the beginning of time.

Non-trivial systems do not have a complete theory. For example, the theory for the system of the natural numbers (PA) is not complete. — Tarskian

What is PA? Why the theory for the system of natural number is incomplete?

Secondly, theory T is axiomatic, which means that every single one of its rules has no further explanation in terms of deeper underlying rules. So, even if we had a copy of theory T with all its rules, we would still not understand why it is there, just by looking at it. Just like PA has no ulterior logical explanation, by its very nature, T does not have one either. — Tarskian

We may one day be able to explain why reality behaves like this.

Hence, from within the universe, you cannot figure out why the universe exists. Just staring at the universe or just staring at its theory (which we do not even have) won't help. — Tarskian

I would say that we have to be open to the situation. We may be able to explain things given our intellectual power. We are evolving creatures so even if we cannot explain things now we may be able to explain things in future when we are evolved well.

The idea that God created the heavens and the earth, is a belief. By merely by staring at the heavens and the earth, this belief can neither be logically justified nor logically rejected. This belief has spiritual origins that transcend logic. — Tarskian

Yes, that is a belief and you have the right to accept it. Are you in favor of the creation of things from nothing? If yes, I have an argument against it. You can find the argument here.

Interesting that arguments over whether the Universe has an origin in time is one of Kant’s ‘antinomies of reason’ (insoluble questions) and also a question declared unanswerable in Buddhism. — Wayfarer

Interesting. I didn't know that.

It’s kind of a shame that so many important ethical issues are believed to hinge on such a question. — Wayfarer

How ethical issues are related to the origin of the universe?

Can't doubt be a mechanism developed into, and operating within, a deterministic system; the "sense" that there is an agent doubting being, not a challenge posed by doubt so much as by the illusion of the agent "choosing" to doubt (the so called self/subject/ego)? — ENOAH

We don't choose to doubt. We face doubt.

Further, isn't it bad enough we superimpose a false duality by speaking of mind as a separate being from matter? — ENOAH

Matter including the brain as I discussed is deterministic entity so it cannot freely decide when we have doubt.

Do we really need to make mind itself consist of dualities--conscious/unconscious? — ENOAH

The mind is conscious. It is not unconscious.

Isn't the entire process we conventionally think of as mind, deterministic: choice, belief, and doubt? — ENOAH

The mind is not a process to me but an entity with ability to freely decide. We would have problem to decide when we have doubt if mind is deterministic.

So premise 1 is a premise that only applies to objects IN the universe, and even then it isn't necessarily true except under fully deterministic interpretations of physics. — noAxioms

I have one argument for nothing to something is impossible which I discussed it in this thread. The argument got refined in the final forms as following:

My argument:

P1) Time is needed for change
P2) Nothing to something needs a change in nothing
P3) There is no time in nothing
C1) Therefore, change in nothing is not possible (From P1 and P3)
C2) Therefore, nothing to something is not possible (from P2 and C1)

Bob Rose's argument:

P1: If an entity is the pure negation of all possible existence, then it cannot be subjected to temporality.
P2: ‘Nothing’ is the pure negation of all possible existence.
C1: Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to temporality.

P3: Change requires temporality.
P4: ‘Nothing’ cannot be subjected to temporality.
C2: Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to change.

P5: ‘Nothing’ becoming ‘something’ requires change.
P6: ‘Nothing’ cannot be subjected to change.
C3: Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to becoming

So I think that the first premise stands.

Premise 2 totally goes against the consensus view among cosmologists where time and space are contained by the universe instead of the other way around. — noAxioms

Actually I was aware of that problem as well but I wanted to discuss it in another thread. Time is needed for a thing to begin to exist since the thing does not exist at a point and then exists.

Such a model does exist, and it necessarily denies things predicted by the prevailing view such as the big bang or black holes. — noAxioms

Do mind to provide a link to such models? I studied cosmology around 20 years ago and I am very rusty now.

The universe is not posited to have been built from 'material'. Any material did not show up on the scene until several epochs beyond the big bang. — noAxioms

We still don't have the quantum gravity theory and that was why I hesitated to discuss Big Bang. Otherwise, I agree with you.

So we're in agreement about the lack of soundness of the argument, but for different reasons. — noAxioms

Cool.

Good points from you, too. But I liked to quote that specific phrase of your text with the aim of analysing the following: I guess we agree with the fact that interpreting Genesis is complex because it is full of metaphors and contradictions. You claim that Adam and Eve acted with confusion, I rather think that they acted doing what a large number of people also do: greed (why did they eat the apple when there were other foods?) and disobedience (why do they listen to the serpent when they should have obeyed God blindly?). — javi2541997

I think they were simply in a situation to believe God's or the serpent's words. They wouldn't eat the fruit if they believed in God's words. They ate the fruit therefore they believed in the serpant's words. It is important to notice the passage from Genesis which is about the serpent telling Eve that you certainly will not die after she says that God said that you will die if you eat the fruit. This means that they were resisting their temptation to eat the fruit before the serpent's intervention.

It is a metaphor. People always want more than they need and also disobey the authority when they don't need to in most cases. — javi2541997

If you treat the story of the fall as a metaphor then one could also argue the act of creation is a metaphor. The same applies to the existence of God as an agent so that is a metaphor as well.

:100: :up:

God didn't allow anything. — javi2541997

Correct. I should have said God gave them access to eat the fruit.

He just induced Adam and Eve to eat the apple with the aim of tasting if they would resist the greed or not. — javi2541997

God knew that they would fail since He is omniscient. God prohibited them not eating but He gave them access to the tree whether they eat the fruit or not. There was the serpent who intervened as well. The serpent said that you will not die if you eat the fruit. So there was not only the element of greed. There was confusion due to what the serpent said as well.

I'm still swayed by Augustine's 'evil as a privation of the good'. To put it another way, evil has the kind of existence that holes, fractures, shadows and illness has. — Wayfarer

Augustine mixed Positive (by positive I mean consisting in or characterized by the presence rather than the absence of distinguishing features, such as vision), and negative (such as blindness) with good (such as love) and evil (such as hate).

It is my opinion that God allowed evil to manifest in the world, according to His divine plan. — Shawn

We all know the story of Adam and Eve. Knowing that they fall but allowing them to commit evil is evil.

How are the clay and the statue related? — frank

Through the form.

For me, the word "doubt" applies to a conscious state, not a subconscious state. — jgill

Then why bring subconsciousness into the discussion? Ok. Is the conscious state the result of the brain process?

I don't believe we are aware of all the information that enters our mind. — jgill

We, our conscious minds to be more precise, are not aware of all the information that we perceive through our sensory systems.

If that is the case what the subconscious processes may indeed inform us - in what seems to be an act of free will. — jgill

Isn't the subconscious process deterministic? Doubts are not allowed in a deterministic system. That is true since a deterministic system moves from one state to another unique state later. So there is only one state available for a deterministic system at any given time. There are two states available to choose from when we have doubts though.

Even if we ignore quantum indeterminacy... As you say, we don't know what is going on in our own brains in any detailed way, so how can you rule out subconscious bias as being what amounts to a coin flip in your head? — wonderer1

Do you mind explaining what you mean by the subconsciousness? Does it have a mind or is it a deterministic entity?

Also, I don't recall you acknowledging the the sort of indeterminacy that can result from system complexity. IIRC you have a physics background, so perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to consider the relevance of the three body problem to the complex molecular environment of a brain. — wonderer1

I know problems related to a system with three or more particles. There is no analytical solution for such a system and the system could be chaotic depending on the initial condition.

Which brings us back to the role of ignorance in attributing things to free will.

We don't know anything remotely approaching the exact initial conditions of our brains and all the environmental factors which play a determing role in what happens in our brains. Furthermore, there is lots of good evidence for the powerful role of subconscious processes emerging in our conscious thought. — wonderer1

Correct. We don't know about the exact condition of neural activity of our brain but we know that it is deterministic. There is however a problem in the deterministic worldview so-called doubt. Options are real in the case we have doubts and a deterministic entity cannot deal with a situation when there are doubts.

How is a "mind" a better explanation than subconscious processes? — wonderer1

The subconscious process cannot resolve the conflict when we have doubt in a situation. That is true since the options are real when we have doubts and we don't have any reason to choose one option over another option.

Can coins be tossed in a deterministic world? — wonderer1

Yes, we can toss a coin. I however have to add that the outcome of tossing a coin is not known to us due to our ignorance about the initial condition of the coin and the situation of the environment. If one knows the exact initial condition of the coin when it is tossed and the situation of the environment, such as wind, then one can know the outcome of tossing the coin.

If so, then why can't a neural mechanism do something analogous to tossing a coin? — wonderer1

The neural mechanisms are well-defined and deterministic. The is no agent in each neural point with a coin available to it.

You are traveling through a maze and reach a fork. Here you experience a maximum degree of doubt (uncertainty), and the consequences of making a wrong decision are large. Now you ponder and then make a decision. Is this free will? — jgill

I used the maze example to ensure we can agree that the options are real. That is a huge step in the discussion of free will since many people simply argue that one of the options is an illusion and you cannot choose it. Why do people argue such a thing? Because they believe in determinism and within determinism options are not allowed. I also used the maze example to ensure that we have no reason to choose one path over another yet we can decide and choose one of the paths. That is to me the very definition of free will: "A decision is either based on a reason or not, in the first case we are dealing with an unfree decision, and in the second case we are dealing with a free decision". By this definition, I simply set up a dichotomy so given that one of the definitions is related to the unfree decision we are left with another definition for free decision.

Or does some internal neural mechanism in your subconscious "toss a coin"? — jgill

If we accept that neural mechanisms are deterministic then subconsciousness cannot toss a coin. That is true since the outcome of tossing a coin is not known whereas the outcome neural mechanisms are well defined and known.

Hi and welcome to the forum!

I would say that you need to pick a topic you are interested the most and focus on it. Go to the related subforum and read through the names of threads to see if you like a subject. Then read through the thread you are interested in. If you don't understand something then simply google it or ask within the thread (the mention command Ctrl+m is your friend). People here are knowledgeable and kind. Hopefully, you will be able to contribute to a discussion you are interested in soon.

Perhaps "a reason" would be clearer than "reason." — T Clark

Thanks for the correction.

Even then I'd be tempted to argue your point, but then we'd just get sucked into another of those unresolvable arguments that results whenever we dive into the bottomless pit of free will. — T Clark

It is alright if you don't want to engage in the discussion of free will. I don't think it is bottomless considering the argument provided in OP.

Most of our decisions are not based on reason, for example when I decide to order a cheeseburger rather than pate de foie gras or when I turn left on Washington Street without thinking about it. — T Clark

Are you talking about unconscious decisions?

Preferences and values are not generally rational. — T Clark

Correct. By reason, I generally mean a cause for an action, whether it is feeling, preference, value, rationality, etc.

You were the one who postulated a mind distinct from the brain, and that brains cannot produce random number generators is part of the point. The supposedly freely choosing mind only requires that the doubtful maze choice be made without reason; that is to say with doubt. Since the mind is distinct from the brain as per your definition, I'm saying that it is not necessary for this mind to make meaningful choices, as that would require reasoned intent. Thus, the mind could be choosing in the doubtful maze scenario according to things that have nothing to do with intentioned choices, but rather something like a coin flip or random number generator (even if those aren't totally random). When generalized, this conflicts with any sort of conception of free will there might be; that the mind must operate the way a brain does is not required to fit your definition of free choice. — ToothyMaw

Correct. What the mind does in a doubtful situation is random and it is similar to tossing a coin.

And a question I should've asked earlier: are you saying that the freely choosing mind has freedom of choice in situations in which there is no doubt? — ToothyMaw

That is a very good question! I believe so but I don't have a solid argument for it. Most of the time we make decisions even without being aware of them. For example, think of a situation that you are deriving on a familiar road, and your conscious attention is on the music playing in your car. You make tons of decisions while you are deriving, like turning left or right at a junction without being aware of them. But suppose that a cat jumps into the road that you are deriving. Suddenly, your mind is alerted and takes control of the situation. You press the brake and stop the car to avoid hitting the cat and probably killing it. So I think that the mind plays a role in such a situation.

Exactly right. :100: :up: @wonderer1

I could model the choice the mind makes in the "doubtful" maze situation on a random number generator, or a coin toss, and it could still have the kind of freedom you describe; there is not necessarily the kind of reasoned intention that is required for a mind to be making a meaningful choice. — ToothyMaw

To the best of my knowledge, there is no pure random generator but a pseudo-random generator. You can read more about pseudo-random generator here. Regardless, the brain cannot produce a random generator to decide about a situation when the outcomes of options are not known. How about a coin toss? You can use a coin to choose a path in the maze. You however don't need it since you have the ability to freely decide.

Would you say that having freedom is dependent on being ignorant about some things? — wonderer1

No, I would say that our freedom allows us to decide when we are ignorant about the outcomes of the options.

There are multiple senses of the word "indeterminism" and indeterminism in the sense discussed in the following article is relevant here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300312282_Indeterminism_in_System_Science — wonderer1

It seems to me that the author of the manuscript is a computer scientist and not a particle physicist so I won't buy his words. I read the manuscript once and I could see the author's ignorance in the field of physics. The standard model is our best theory that describes reality well and it is experimentally tested. The particles, fermions, in this model, interact with each other through forces, bosons. The form of forces are well known and they are deterministic. By deterministic I mean that you can derive a set of equations of motion for the field operator of fermions and the field operator of bosons.

Brains are enormously complex entities that aren't deterministic in the sense that, given complete information about a brain and some rather enormous amount of the environment in which the brain exists, we could make perfect predictions about what will happen in that brain in that environment. — wonderer1

The brain is a complex entity but it is made of particles in which particles interact with the well-known forces. Therefore, I don't think that the brain is an indeterministic entity.

I see room to disagree with this as an absolute in many if not most cases of general uncertainty. Should I pass the semi-truck in front of me? (the closest oncoming car appears to be miles away, though it would be safer not to) Should I really blow another $10 on another lotto ticket this week? (the odds of winning anything are astronomically low, though it's always possible) Etc. Though, your specific example of a (I would say generally uncommon) scenario where there is truly zero background information on the likelihood (or degree) of benefit or detriment of one option over the other, like a gamble, makes for an interesting thought experiment. — Outlander

I use the example of the maze to ensure we can agree that the outcome of options is not determined in this case. Once this is established I can discuss the rest of my argument. There are other cases which we are uncertain about the outcomes of options (the two examples you provided and many others).

I'd agree with that. But what of the most simple organism capable of traversal, say, a snail crawling through a log (or something that presents an identical physicality to your maze scenario)? Assuming it just doesn't turn around (or crawl up the wall as snails so often do), it will likely either end up going left or right absent of any relatable "mind-thought" process, wouldn't it?

People however will just "wing it", per se, and pick one to avoid losing time and ensure the destination, whatever it may be, is reached. By which I mean, I'd assume there would be very little deep thought on the matter other than "keep going" and "just pick one" if there is truly no information available or apparent distinction between one choice and another. — Outlander

Yes, that is correct. The point is however that we can choose one option over another when there is no information available on the outcomes of options.

I dabble in psychology but am certainly not a physiologist (how the body and "mind" work together and conversely affect one another). The brain allows "us" or "you" access to retrieve/recall our experiences and knowledge thus forming an identity or "consciousness" which can be referred to as a separate "entity" or a "mind". — Outlander

By mind, I don't mean the brain or anything like identity which is formed in the brain as a result of neurobiological processes.

But is it really? Like, what if, somehow, a person was raised in a sealed, pitch black room with zero interaction with any living being from infancy to adulthood (naturally with food and water), would they have a "mind"? — Outlander

They certainly have a mind, by mind I mean an entity that can experience what is produced by the brain. His/her ability to experience however is very limited (please see the next comment).

Would they be "conscious" in the way we consider human consciousness having no real sensory experiences or knowledge? — Outlander

Our ability to experience reality well develops over time since the time of infancy. There is ongoing research on this topic. For example, this article discusses how our visual ability developes over time.

What was the second case? Or if the maze was the second, what was the first? — Outlander

The first case is when a decision is based on a reason. We say that the decision is unfree in this case. And the second case is when a decision is not based on a reason. We say that the decision is free in this case.

I like your argument but I would say that the conclusion that follows is that D is an inadequate definition of a continuum. A continuum cannot be completely described with points. — keystone

Yes, my definition of the continuum is not adequate. Another poster gave a definition continuum close to mine but it is correct. I can search the thread and find the definition for you if you are interested.

Yes and thanks.

Yes exactly. — fishfry

Thanks for the clarification. Can we calculate the contribution of the $\omega$th term to the series?

It is alright guys. I learned lots of things from both of you and I am thankful for it. I don't think that personal attacks are useful though when people can discuss things openly, so one party learns and another party teaches. I have to say that the process of learning is time and energy consuming so it is alright if one person needs the explanation of things a few times.

You're very confused and resistant to the explanations given you to cure your chronic confusion. — TonesInDeepFreeze

@fishery already explained how to resolve the problem of indexing here.

Wrong. I explained the difference between them. Knowing the definition of 'the continuum' does not provide knowing the definition of 'continuous'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Do you mind elaborating?

Thanks. So you simply extend the natural number to the extended natural number and resolve the problem of indexing.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...

Is that not an infinite sequence? — fishfry

That is an infinite sequence. I am however interested in the sequence first mentioned by Zeno in Dichotomy Paradox in which the infinite member exists. Each member of the above sequence is finite, so you cannot use the above sequence to give indexes to all members of the sequence in Dichotomy Paradox since the infinite member exists.

You mean sequence. A series is a sum. — fishfry

Thanks for the correction.

The arrow paradox is that the arrow does not move but that it moves.

/

Average speed is distance/time. In Zenos's paradox, both are finite. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Please accept my apology. My, argument here was for Dichotomy paradox. You need to replace the arrow in that post with the runner, Atalanta.

(x+y)/2 is the arithmetical mean of {x y}, not the geometrical mean. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Thanks for the correction.

What does that mean? — TonesInDeepFreeze

I mean you cannot give indexes to all members of an infinite series.