I would recommend you write to the author of the article refuting his claims. I am sure he welcomes comments from religious zealots.

Might be a good idea to start with trying to decide - to define - what a number is. — tim wood

A number can be many things. It can be careful symbol that we hold on memory. It can be a multiplicity that we hold in memory of something we observed or possibly created in our memory. They all exist as memory but not necessarily shared in other memories. I prefer thinking in terms of memory that is private and memory that is shared since everything ultimately is memory of our mind of some sort.

I understand that you have your perspective which you feel comfortable with but others may see it differently from their perspective. Have you considered that your family member may be considering you as too judgemental. It goes with the territory of being human. You feel you are empathic? Ok be empathic. You may not agree, but differences exist among people in life.

spaceship's engines are accelerating the spaceship, — Michael Ossipoff

You won't find "Spaceship engines" as a variable in any Relativity equations.

The rest is literally Sci Fi.

I think the problem for me is that when people are judgmental, they have (in my view) chosen ignorance over open-mindedness and I can't abide that. It just makes me so crazy I can't think through my objections because why am i making them in the first place?

The second aspect is a little cynical, I admit, but I have never found any judgmental person who is willing to dismiss themselves or people who have real power over them with the same disregard as they dismiss people who don't impact them directly, so I tend to assume that judging people is a gateway to moral bankruptcy. — Dlaw

Everyone judges others all the time. You just judged people who you feel are judgemental. No harm, but recognize everyone does it.

http://scienceblogs.com/interactions/2007/06/08/on-quantum-mechanics-stochasti/

"QM is stochastic. Determinism is out the window, but that doesn’t mean that every damn thing you can think of is in the window."

gnorance of antecedent states do not invalidate determinism.
All QM experiments are reliably replicable and so assert a deterministic universe.
When science has worked its shit out on this matter this silliness will be silenced. — charleton

My oh my oh my. Someone has to redo a class.

Perhaps you'd like to explain that!! Oh can't ?? Never mind! — charleton

Zero support for determinism anywhere. The reason is that it is a completely fabricated story made up a few hundred years ago.

Time to request refunds for Phys101. I'll take 10%.

QM phenomena are all replicable. — charleton

Nope. Each event is probabilistic. The Schrodinger equation is a probability wave.

Basically, her idea is an extension of the low-impulse-control model of addiction expanded to a Neo-Calvinist view that a human being's true nature is this sum of their worst misdeed - that is, when the person's true nature is revealed by stress, drugs, whatever. — Dlaw

There isn't a true nature, since everyone is always evolving, though each of us probably do have a core values system which is more difficult to significantly change. It seems to be reasonable to suggest that aspects of a person's nature does manifest under more extreme conditions. So you might agree with her somewhat since it is not all that unreasonable. It is the True thing that creates problems because it ignores that people are evolving as they learn - which is really the whole thing about life.

My claim is that the day of understanding comes around as soon as we consider the immaterial. Failure to consider the immaterial will likely produce the "never will" option. — Metaphysician Undercover

Causual, yet critical, observation of scientific theories reveal that science is full lot immaterial, including but not limited to, the Observer, force, quanta, gravity, energy, negative/positive, natural ..., etc. It has to be, and always will be, there, just hidden by different words.

Saddness is the way the Mind knows that change is needed in one's path.

Depression is the result of inability or willfulness not to change.

It's difficult because humans are mostly habit, so one must try to imagine an answer: change to what? I find the arts most helpful when trying in imagine an answer.

That is not a Big Pharma conspiracy theory. It is an observation about our larger culture. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It has become a big part of all cultures ever since curing disease had become a social function and easily monetized. The more diseases, the more money. Disease had become a marketing tool because we have been convinced to fear everything that is different (abnormal) - and everything is.

I recently heard a lecture given in a "progressive" environment where the lecturer labeled gun ownership a mental disease. The audience took it seriously and more or less agreed.

Satre was right in that if we want to change things, it is up to reach individual to change it. Who is willing the whole effort to make everything a disease a sham?

I guess bottom line, as a philosophy Determinism is useless and as science it is a myth.

I hope this is a fine demonstration of Mind at its finest.

Natural is not metaphysical whatsoever, Natural is a word used to describe what happens without human manipulation. — SonJnana

Yes, as in Natural Selection

I think this shows how poorly you understand biology. Muscle memory isn't some type of memory — SonJnana

Muscle as some kind of memory? It's it natural?

It's not that I don't understand biology. It is just I am amused by how well they indoctrinated you.

thermodynamics is itself demonstrable. — SonJnana

Yeah, but it is the Imperative part that is so important to science, because the need a placeholder for Mind when the brain isn't there. No problem, they just make up a new word - and if course teach it as science. That's where the Thermodynamic thing becomes important. It makes the new placeholder seem so scientific.

If you choose to avoid the word Mind, no skin off my teeth. We all make our choices in life, don't we?

Natural is not metaphysical — SonJnana

It's as metaphysical as mind.

The rest of your post is just substitution electrical chemical, biochemical, procedurally learning (by a muscle???), for mind. Sleight of hand. I am surprised that you didn't stuff it in a gene. Thermodynamic Impressive never used by science.

http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5463/version/1

The reason scientists don't use the word mind is because the they choose not to. Nothing is determined.

The only metaphysical bias of science is that the metaphysical mind has not been demonstrated. — SonJnana

Of course it has. It is what is peering out the eyes. Science just used substitution words like natural and Thermodynamic Imperative, as if each of these words have been demonstrated.

The word brain is used as a substitute for Mind except where things happen outside of the brain in which case we have mind-gut, muscle memory, and if course the universal place holder "natural".

Science doesn't use the word mind, they just use the word brain, disregarding the mind in the gut as well as everywhere else in the body (muscle memory) The metaphysical bias is no accident. It is a matter of who is in charge.

The metaphysical element is the denial of Mind.

naturally is that how it could change — SonJnana

natural laws of physics — SonJnana

There is is again: Natural.

I am not misunderstanding. I understand why the placeholders are being used. The religious placeholder is God. The Eastern Philosophical placeholder is Mind. It is that which is effecting change.

The way they are using naturally there is the same way they'd say if you drop an apple — SonJnana

I don't believe so. The way I'm reading it is as a "placeholder". That is, we all know we have minds but we aren't going to say it. Too much is at stake.

The reason to admit to the Mind is because it is what we experience, defines us, and is creating, learning, and evolving throughout our duration in life. It is codified into law, it is so obviously there. It really is only biological sciences that refuses to say the unmentionable word. So instead new phrases are created such as Thermodynamic Imperative, or Natural.

As I said before, there is zero support for Determinism from any source. Is it possible? Of course. The Move is very creative and continues to create new concepts. But it is simply a story, a belief and it is up to each individual to choose to believe it or not. Scientists are free to express whatever idea they wish. They are humans. But one must question their Central Dogmas when they declare a belief is a scientific fact.

naturally — SonJnana

That's the important word. That's the substitution word for the action of the evolving Mind.

Natural Laws
Natural Selection
Natural Occurring changes

All are the creative, enjoining Mind. The Eastern Philosophies all understand this.

Researchers found that naturally occurring changes — Rich

This is the key phase. Ones eyes and ears should always perk up when "natural" is used. Just think Mind.

Here is an article that may interest you.

https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2015/dna-020415

"Traits passed between generations are not decided only by DNA, but can be brought about by other materials in cells.

Edinburgh scientists studied proteins found in cells, known as histones, which are not part of the genetic code, but act as spools around which DNA is wound.

Histones are known to control whether or not genes are switched on.

Researchers found that naturally occurring changes to these proteins, which affect how they control genes, can be sustained from one generation to the next and so influence which characteristics are passed on.

Research avenues
The finding demonstrates for the first time that DNA is not solely responsible for how characteristics are inherited.

It paves the way for research into how and when this method of inheritance occurs in nature, and if it is linked to particular traits or health conditions.

It may also inform research into whether changes to the histone proteins that are caused by environmental conditions - such as stress or diet - can influence the function of genes passed on to offspring."

One can always hold out for some miracle discovery that will explain all of life, but it will never come because all that we discover is a manifestation of Mind and Mind is always changing. It's like the donkey chasing the carrot.

It is if no mind to my life whether people believe there lives are fated, though it bothers me when they are told by science that all is fated. That is when science turns into religion.

Quantum is just not yet understood. It's a failing of the way we model some aspect of reality. But does not challenge determinism; in fact it asserts its importance. — charleton

There is zero support or need for determinism in quantum physics. It is merely a probabilistic equation and it would take some very clever redefinition of Determinism to turn it in a probabilistic philosophy. In such a case, only the word is preserved while the philosophy is jettisoned. Is the word that important. For some, apparently it is.

But we got to the moon without understanding it. We designed cars without understanding it and we built and even identified QM with an assumption of determinism. There would not even be any QM without that assumption. — charleton

The path to the Moon landing was filled with all kinds of failures including deaths. These failures are a testament to the unpredictability of things. Again, the hype should be contained.

No. All causes with partially known effects. — charleton

All causes? Nope only those that technicians feel are significant and can be measured. Again you are confusing what is adequate with absolute precision.

If you are interested, I'm sure you'll do the necessary research. It's definitely available.

It's not how little we know that is being questioned, rather it is the hype being projected by the scientific/industrial complex.

Yes. In other words reliable understanding of cause and effect — charleton

Some causes with approximate effects. One mustn't exaggerate for the goal seeking purpose to push a philosophy.

The article was written by a Phd in biology and was obviously simple for public consumption, however if up research the details it will be easier to understand the conclusions. In fact, the most recent book I read on the subject confessed early on that there are very, very few traits of a limited type that can actually be tied directly to DNA. Once again science is way ahead of itself and I conclude it is for marketing purposes.

I agree that whether it be DNA out Quantum Mechanics, neither speaks to the question of Choice (I don't embrace the Free Will nomenclature because it is very misleading). However, it does undermine the notion that all (including the choices we make) are all fated and determined in some manner (the mechanism remaining undefined).

As for what they teach in colleges, well they are still teaching that there are things called particles which is a concept that really ceased to exist 100 years ago. Textbooks die hard, and biologists for whatever reason are really heavily invested in DNA - as well as big industries. It actually takes enormous amount of courage for a person in the field, such as the one who wrote this article, to voice opposition. His isn't the only voice. I have read many others voicing similar critiques of DNA. I know from my own personal life experiences in many, many fields that Determinism is an empty proposition as a philosophical point of view which is why I am usually skeptical of pronouncements such as that which accompanied DNA.

The development of science relies on an assumption of determinism — charleton

No. It most certainly does not rely on determinism. If it did we would still be denying Quantum Mechanics

What science relies on its:1) repeatabiity of certain phenomenon (call them habits of nature) 2) a symbolic language (usually created by mathematicians) to approximately describe these repeatable events. I emphasize approximate because no two events are ever three same and calculations are always approximate for all practical purposes (FAPP) a concept set forth by the physicist John Bell.

Determinists far overstate their case by proclaiming that science depends on absolute determined accuracy. Far, far from it. In all cases it is approximate.

At some point we could ask why physics is the way it is. We may never know. But how do we go from asking that to assuming there is an immaterial soul inside of us. And then we would ask is there then a soul in other animals? In plants? In bacteria? In viruses? Where do we draw the line, after assuming there even is an immaterial soul inside of us? — SonJnana

We don't draw lines out of biases. We just observe. As it turns out, the more we observe the more similarities we find between life - as well as differences. That the Mind may function in different ways should be of no surprise it's fine simply observes the differences of opinions between humans.

DNA actually provides extremely little insight and it is surprising that it still carries much weight but then again, it had become its own self-perpetuating industry.

https://www.grain.org/article/entries/375-unravelling-the-dna-myth

"The mistakes might be dismissed as the necessary errors that characterise scientific progress. But behind them lurks a more profound failure. The wonders of genetic science are all founded on the discovery of the DNA double helix – by Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953 – and they proceed from the premise that this molecular structure is the exclusive agent of inheritance in all living things: in the kingdom of molecular genetics, the DNA gene is absolute monarch. Known to molecular biologists as the “Central Dogma,” the premise assumes that an organism's genome – its total complement of genes – should fully account for its characteristic assemblage of inherited traits. [5] Since Crick first proposed it forty-four years ago, the Central Dogma has come to dominate biomedical research. Simple, elegant, and easily summarised, it seeks to reduce inheritance to molecular dimensions. The molecular agent of inheritance is DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, a very long, linear molecule tightly coiled within each cell's nucleus (see diagram opposite). DNA is made up of four different kinds of nucleotides, strung together in each gene in a particular linear order or sequence. Segments of DNA comprise the genes that, through a series of molecular processes, give rise to each of our inherited traits."

"But the premise of the Central Dogma, unhappily, is false. Tested between 1990 and 2001 in one of the largest and most highly publicised scientific undertakings of our time, the Human Genome Project, the theory collapsed under the weight of fact. There are far too few human genes to account for the complexity of our inherited traits or for the vast inherited differences between plants, say, and people. By any reasonable measure, the finding (published in February 2001) signalled the downfall of the Central Dogma. It also destroyed the scientific foundation of genetic engineering and the validity of the biotechnology industry's widely advertised claim that its methods of genetically modifying food crops are “specific, precise, and predictable” [6] and therefore safe. In short, the most dramatic achievement to date of the $3 billion Human Genome Project is the refutation of its own scientific rationale."

Without determinism we could never have designed a car, build a computer or landed on the moon. — charleton

The Mind (I should say some Minds) created Determinism (for what ever reason) and there were other Minds that created all tools and symbols necessary to get to the Moon. Such an endeavor is possible whether or not one believes their lives are fated (Determinism/Calvinism). In fact, it is probable that most people who were involved in the moon landing believed in God. Didn't make a difference.

Read the article as it traces the origin story. Pretty fascinating with all of the religious overtones (not surprising).

Have you been able to figure out why Apostle Lindsay suggests that we all fight against the Imperative. Why would the Imperative be urging its offsprings to fight against itself? Reminds me of the age old Christian debate about God vs the Devil.

Is the Imperative Good or Evil?

While we are at it, is it Natural Selection or the Thermodynamic Imperative that is determining evolution? What we have here is clear evidence of how a philosophical musing is morphed into a science because Natural Selection was in big trouble explaining things. Science just invented something bigger and better.

He would have to be accepted as part of the Thermodynamic Imperative. An apostle no less. But less we forget, that Disorder (the Devil) exists in all of us and we should never succumb but instead continue our ceaseless fight against it.

And so goes modem evolutionary science. Quite iterally Calvinism reincarnate. And Determinists eat it up.

No one is too blame. You are just playing out your role as an Apostle proclaiming Truths of Science. But how does it feel being a desciple of Kant? Rather amusing I would say.

Thanks for the credit. But that's just mainstream science really — apokrisis

It's not mainstream anything. It is just your biased view. Determinists pull out stuff and just present it as "science". Now let's look at the origin of this cute little story:

http://www.eoht.info/m/page/Thermodynamic+imperative

"The term "thermodynamic imperative" was introduced in the lectures of American physicist Robert Lindsay in his physics classes at Brown University prior to 1959 and later popularized in his1963 book The Role of Science in Civilization. [2] Lindsay's version of the imperative states, based on the oft-reasoned generalized tendency that the universe (or systems) tend towards disorder, as embodied in second law, that one should fight the law as vigorously as possible “to increase the degree of order in their environment so as to combat the natural tendency for order in the universe to be transformed into disorder.” [1] In short, Lindsay's thermodynamic imperative is a type of ethics based on reducing entropy to the minimum or, in other words, increasing negentropy to the maximum, and for his theories on how humans should have guidelines on how to live and behave based on the laws of thermodynamics and what he called the entropy concept of human consumption. [3] His generalized living principle is what he called the thermodynamic imperative states that: [2] "

Besides the rather puzzling view that "we" should be constantly fighting the Law, (this is embarrassing even to repeat), one must fully understand that this beautiful story began as an exercise is some sort of philosophical theory of ethics. Then it slowly evolves into some sort of theory of evolution, as evolutionists desperately searched for their new version of Cause. Full credit should be given to Kant for putting the story in motion.

What, you think that you know how to discuss philosophy? You have barely scratched the surface. Read about world philosophy so you can go beyond your narrow If .. Than logic, which explains nothing but is a cute academic game. I grew out of it as fast as I grew into it.

the question is, why did 'evolution' result in the ability to, oh I don't know, understand the age and size of the Universe? — Wayfarer

My own personal question, which others may or may not share with me, is where is the evolutionary advantage in eating Big Macs it watching (and enjoying!) The Real Housewives of New Jersey? I am sure the Thermodynamic Imperative saw something that I am missing.

But physics has gone past such determinism — apokrisis

Right, it says it ain't so, so Determinists, the determined ones that they are, just reinvent their God. If I remember correctly, your small contribution was the magical Thermodynamic Imperative. Did I remember correctly. I remember it because it was so totally .... magical and creative. A true artist.