It depends upon each individual's sensitivity to change. Everyone is different and evolving differently. So I don't know what's you mean by "we". There is no such thing when it comes to the sensitivity of each individual mind.

Small problem. Nature turns out to be quantum. There is a fixed fundamental grain of action and dimension. So spacetime and energy are discrete and not continuous at the bottom-most scale of things. — apokrisis

Small problem. Nature turns out to be a continuous connected wave. The wave is real.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26893-wave-function-gets-real-in-quantum-experiment/

And if course there is gravity waves:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/10/03/nobel-winning-research-on-gravitational-waves-ligo-and-gravity-explained/?utm_term=.09a243e888d3

Note the similarity to Bohm's Quantum Potential:

"Gravity is invisible, as you may have noticed, and a little bit spooky, because it seems to reach across space to cause actions at a distance without any obvious underlying mechanism. What goes up must come down, but why that is so has never been obvious."

Nothing is discrete. Discreteness is manufactured. Pretty much everything physicalists write is goal oriented and pretty much ignores quantum physical experiments over the last 100 years. Nothing is more pathetic then goal oriented science and philosophy and the presenting it as some "fact" when all it is is storytelling. Pretty sad.

While it is true that in our practical life we often accept a given framework as given, it is not true that the philosophical argument for necessary contingency is "lazy common sense." Indeed, it's a fairly abstract thought. It may even be offensive or terrible to those think they can explain this brute fact. — t0m

It's lazy.

Philosophy needs patience and insatiable curiosity. Or the other way around.

Storytelling is not a life time of exploration and observation. Patience comes with experience.

Exploration is detective work. It's takes time and all kinds of experimentation.

"It just happens", is not exploration. It is nothing.

The largest pattern just is. — t0m

There definitely is. Now to explore the is.

If I may ask, how do you see yourself — t0m

Exploring the observations of others and myself that reveal patterns in nature.

I am an explorer of life and nature.

You're right. It's not an explanation. It reveals the quest for or the question about the "ultimate ground" to be a fool's errand or a pseudo-question. — t0m

Not at all. It takes lots of time, patience, and development of keen observation. But who wants to spend their life exploring and discovering? Far easier to just make up stories.

In my view, "it just happened" is the only "ultimate" explanation, — t0m

It's not an explanation. It's a punt. Zero discovery because of zero effort. I guess with the time now available one can watch some TV. It's fine. Exploring and understanding nature is not for everyone. Philosophy seems to have become sci-fi story telling.

However, I was nought talking about memory. I was talking about the evidence that there is a past, which is a different problem than how we acquire information and store it. — Bitter Crank

It is the same. All evidence of the past comes from the sense if memory in flux. How we acquire it is different and how we share it is variable, but it doesn't change the fundamental flow. What is called the past is just memory and it changes all if the time. The "past" is something our minds construct along with others and it is different for everyone. Strictly speaking memory is the past flowing into present. There is no objective past.

My memory could only go back 71 years -- which is pushing it. — Bitter Crank

Bits and pieces, I guess depending upon the memory of each person. Mine is pretty cloudy.

If memory was the only means by which I could think there was a past, It could nought go back further than 1952. — Bitter Crank

How else does one think?

How do I account for my parents? — Bitter Crank

From what they told you? From what others told you. From what you might have read? It all ultimately depends upon your memory.

other peoples' memories
spoken records
written records
pictures and photographs
geology - fossils, studies of rock displacement
archeology - artifacts
biology - cladistics, genomes, observation, pollen studies
telescopes
etc. — Bitter Crank

First it has to enter your memory and then you recall what you can.

All of your knowledge is what you recall from memory. How you learn varies, books, teachers, direct observation, intuition, etc. It is all gathered in memory.

How does presentism ground ethical claims rooted in the past (and future) if the past and future do not exist? — darthbarracuda

Shared memories, learning.

But that's OK because we don't base our knowledge of the past on memory. — Bitter Crank

Then what?

What we call the past is memory, and everyone had different memory.

Do you have a purpose in your comments, Rich, or are you just trying to stir everyone one up? What's going on with you? — MikeL

Just underscoring that "It just happened" is no better or worse than "God did it". Neither have any evidence and both are a based upon a certain faith. It is a matter of taste. Nothing special with either explanation and I believe that it doesn't require much to believe in either. Whatever.

I imagine there are those who believe in either consider it to be the Truth.

that natural laws are not human beings, — szardosszemagad

I know all about God.

This is becoming abusive — Srap Tasmaner

Human nature shares faith.

I agree, all types of free will are constrained. — MikeL

There is no such thing as free will. There are only choices in direction. Duration unfolds as all is resolved.

This choice can only made based on preferences. — TheMadFool

We all have choices. I agree.

It does happen — MikeL

Now you are getting it. "It just happens". Remember this for all as scientific explanations for everything. Just remember to write a few hundred scientific words before and after this phrase so it looks really scientific, and you are set. Key words are thermodynamics, cosmic, inertia, entropy, endropisticoloical.

Natural laws are not all-powerful. The meaning of "omnipotent". You also said natural laws are omniscient. A law is not a sentient being that can know anything. Omniscient means "all-knowing". — szardosszemagad

They are the Laws that are everywhere, unchanging and eyeball, know everything that is happening, and guide everything. They are your God. An adjusted Calvinism so you can feel so very scientific. You do have Faith that they exist, correct?

Oh, don't tell me. You read about it? Maybe not? Maybe you actually know something about Daoism?

I don't read about Daoism. I've been practicing it for 30 years. Health practices, arts, meditation, everything. Your ideology is Daoism in a nutshell, Cosmic Purpose, Qi energy, and all. You've done a great job of describing it.

That is what it is Cosmic Intelligence. The Mind.

Where do you get this cheap crap? that I need to worship anything? — szardosszemagad

I'm not sure you need to, but that is what you are doing.

And that God = deterministic universe according to the Calvinist faith? — szardosszemagad

Let's just say they prefer the word God, while the Determinatist pseudo-scientific preference is Natural Laws. It's a matter of taste.

Natural laws are not omnipotent, — szardosszemagad

Exactly where do they not apply? Where everything ceases to exist? God?

Not really. The scientific gibberish masquerading for Daoism. The Daoists are able to say it simply and directly because they aren't trying to cover up.

I'm saving your choiced ideology for a summary so everyone can enjoy your poetic verbiage.

My apologies.

The purpose of thermodynamics is artificial or emergent. It's like having a 12-sided dice with 11 faces having a value of 1 and only one side having a different value. According to thermodynamics, it is only this asymmetry in the structure of reality that creates the entropic imperative in the long run - meaning the entropic imperative is only statistical and results from there being a lot more entropifying possibilities (a lot more possibilities to score '1' given a throw in the dice analogy) in the pool of possible choices than the opposite. So if anything this "purpose" is enforced by the a priori structure of reality. — Agustino

I really don't need you pseudo-scientific gibberish. The heart of your ideology is pure Daoism. Deal with it.

What is this philosophy in which ''you can say anything you want''? — TheMadFool

I don't know, but that is pretty much what is going on, so I accept it. Everyone is making up stories to fit their goal. What's your favorite story about determinism? That it exists? That you can bounce into the future and look back? That everything is fated? That we are all a bag of chemicals being guided by the all-knowing Natural Laws?

I disagree. I think the language sharply differentiates with different words between different concepts. If "natural" can be called "supernatural", as you suggest, then sonic could be called supersonic, imposed could be called superimposed, and so on. But these things are definitely different from each other. So is "natural" from "supernatural".

It is unnatural to call natural supernatural. — szardosszemagad

In magic, such a illusion is called sleight of hand.

Any Determinist should feel very comfortable in a Calvinist church as long as they substitute the phrase Natural Laws for the word God. I mean, we are all grown ups. No need to play games here. You have your faith in fate and you are entitled to it. Worshipping Natural Laws that are omnipotent, omnipresent, omnicient, and never changing is quite OK.

Apokrisis has quite specifically advocated a Cosmic Goal manifesting as a Thermodynamics with Purpose. This would be Doaism in a nutshell. He just wants to pretend (to himself) that he is oh, sooooo scientific. It's a game that scientists play.

I'm only interested in understanding more about the nature of nature. If I want to play parlor games, it would be chess.

The initial conditions that created the path were probabilistic — MikeL

This is not determinism

By changing our position in time we can see it. — MikeL

How do you perform this magic? Too much Dr. Who.

Multiple Worlds theory could explain a paradox of making a different choice knowing the outcome ahead of time. — MikeL

Sure, if one can absorb themselves into this mathematical absurdity.

But even then, only one path ends up being walked. — MikeL

Actually no. You, whoever you might be, is spread out over an infinite mega-universe that is growing exponentially all the time. Do you understand that your concept is far more fantastic than a God. All because of a pre-defined goal of no-God, fated universe. Oh well, one fantasy is as good as the next.

Perhaps an important conceptual point to consider is that probability does have an outcome — MikeL

This works. The problem is, and this will end our conversation, is that if I was interested in sci-fi, I would read some of the great authors. For now, I'm interested in philosophy.

Mike, you can watch it on the tape as long as it works correctly. After that you are up the creek. It is all probabilistic.

Take a deep breath and really try to understand. I mean REALLY try to understand. Everyone is so quick to the draw. No patience to deeply observe and understand nature.

Mike this is my thinking as of now:

1) We have memory which shapes our actions and choices.

2) We make choices as to which direction we wish to go and we used will to effect these choices.

3) Results unfold. Nothing is determined since there are enumerable probabilistic events that are also unfolding all around us. (I have no idea where any of gets the idea that anything is predictable. Is anyone actually observing the world?).

4) We learn and new memories are created as duration unfolds.

There are causes (internal and external), there are constraints, there are choices that the mind makes (forget about free will), and there are probabilistic results. This is all in conformance to daily observations. No need to make up absurd stories such as we are computers or chemicals that talk to each other.

What you have here Mike is a crater and you are filling it with every word and concept in the dictionary. It doesn't provide any understanding just to use words and create sentences with them.

duplicate

At the end of time, looking back I can see the path you walked. — MikeL

Nice story.

You created the path as you made your own choices- it was free will, but you did create the path. Thus it is about tenses. It will be determined, it was determined, it is being determined. Same thing, different time position. — MikeL

What a mess. "You created", choices, free will, determined". I don't think you left anything out. I suppose you could add all of the synonyms.

How would we formulate determinism or fate without causation? — TheMadFool

You can't. It's all part of the same dogma.

If I say determinism is true then I am presupposing causation of some kind. Of course, causation can be non-deterministic but, the point is, fate and determinism can't be explained without it. — TheMadFool

Right. You can say anything you want. And Determinism as well as other religions say exactly the same thing using different words. Zero evidence for either which is what makes it a story. But you can say anything you want.

natural is supernatural. — szardosszemagad

Well anyone can call supernatural natural. In this manner God is quite natural since S/He is exactly equivalent to Natural Laws. It's all about the nature of religion which words are used. But ultimately Determinism is exactly the same as Calvinism.

They had extremely keen observational skills as did other ancients. But it is much easier teaching parlor games like logic than it is to teach observational skills, hence logic finds its way into standard course curriculum.