You seem to be defending the notion that entropy = asymmetry. — apokrisis

I think I am defending the notion that entropy-in-action is asymmetry in action. Maybe the state of maximum entropy (heat death?) can be understood to be, in some sense, a maximally symmetrical state, but I have also heard it referred to as a state of maximum disorder, which suggests maximal asymmetry.

So, in view of that kind of ambiguity, I certainly resonate with the idea that symmetry/ asymmetry and order/ disorder are two sides of one coin, although I am not clear on what that coin emerges from (which I guess is reasonable since it is said to be indeterministic).

I enjoy your very eloquent explanations, but I confess that I think some of it seems somewhat beyond me (possibly because I don't have a math/ physics background at all?) and I can only 'get an intuitive feel' for what you are saying, not a definite clarity about it.

The essential difference here would seem to be that we call purpose conscious when it involves a conscious choice. That is, when the organism knows it is doing one thing and not another. — apokrisis

But this is more a description of being self-aware, and this is quite different from consciousness, which is simply being aware. Intention is proper to both of these, and, as I've argued, to some non-conscious beings as well.

So when we watch a creature act, we might be able to see it could have acted differently, but is that a choice it was aware of? — apokrisis

Even in a conscious, intentional act, we do not need to be aware of the other possible choices, in order that the act is intentional. There are often vast numbers of other possible choices which we do not consider. Also, I don't think that a conscious decision requires being aware of any other possibilities, like when someone asks me something, and I reply immediately, without thinking about what to say. I don't consider other possibilities. So an individual can make a conscious decision without considering any other possibilities, even while having the capacity to consider other possibilities. Likewise, a being might make an intentional (purposeful) act without even being aware (conscious of the fact) that it is an intentional act.

I think I am defending the notion that entropy-in-action is asymmetry in action. Maybe the state of maximum entropy (heat death?) can be understood to be, in some sense, a maximally symmetrical state, but I have also heard it referred to as a state of maximum disorder, which suggests maximal asymmetry. — John

Yep. The asymmetry refers to the path or negentropic structure that gets you there. And then the symmetry is where the journey starts and ends.

However that is the simple view. And as you get into the detail, it becomes more awkward to make such an absolute distinction stick. This is because symmetry and symmetry-breaking aren't two distinct things, just two contrasting aspects of a general developmental trajectory (in my book).

This is why thermodynamics has a bundle of laws including the third. If you imagine a simple system like an ideal gas - non-interacting particles rattling around inside a container - there are two opposing states of maximum order. You could start off with all the particles in the same corner. Or instead, you could start off with all the particles exactly evenly spaced on a lattice or grid.

So two states that maximise order. And so disordering becomes the state sandwiched inbetween this upper and lower bound. If you release a gas from either of these two states, it will scramble both of them to arrive at a Gaussian statistical mix of positions and momenta. The gas will average itself away from being either stuck in a corner, or spread out with the geometric perfection of a lattice.

It seems that being released from a grid leaves a shorter distance to arriving at pure disorder. But still, that lower bound on entropy is why a third law of thermodynamics was needed.

So in this way, if you keep scrambling things, you could wind up coming out the other side to start getting more ordered again. And this is what the second law forbids. The equilibrium state is when all sources of constraint and freedom are in thermal balance - local differences cease to make a global difference.

This is a good article on the subtleties still being discovered....

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160712-hyperuniformity-found-in-birds-math-and-physics/

Torquato and a colleague launched the study of hyperuniformity 13 years ago, describing it theoretically and identifying a simple yet surprising example: “You take marbles, you put them in a container, you shake them up until they jam.”

The marbles fall into an arrangement, technically called the “maximally random jammed packing,” in which they fill 64 percent of space. (The rest is empty air.) This is less than in the densest possible arrangement of spheres — the lattice packing used to stack oranges in a crate, which fills 74 percent of space.

But lattice packings aren’t always possible to achieve. You can’t easily shake a boxful of marbles into a crystalline arrangement.

So note how maximum achievable disorder is the fluid solution. Marbles can only compact so far down through random motion - motion that does not pick out marbles and arrange them individually, just relies on an average degree of common settlement. Every marble is free to reverse its path during the shaking - there is a classical time reversal physics symmetry describing its individual motion. But collectively there is an emergent asymmetry as the marbles do evolve towards a single global average that tightly constrains their disorder to a single packing number.

So again, what ties it together is the semiotic definition of symmetry-breaking or asymmetry as a difference that makes a difference. And symmetry as differences that don't make a difference.

For a thermalising system, it makes a difference globally that it has gone from an ordered state to a disordered one. But a system in thermal balance is one that changes constantly without the changes making a general difference.

It was you who talked about non-conscious creatures. So I just went along with your use of terminology.

Did you want to distinguish now between sentience (in jumping spiders), consciousness (in squid) and self-consciousness (in language-equipped humans) now?

Did you want to distinguish now between sentience (in jumping spiders), consciousness (in squid) and self-consciousness (in language-equipped humans) now? — apokrisis

No, but I definitely don't want to talk about random motions, that's just the type of talk I believe is nonsense. To believe in such a thing is to believe in a myth. And to talk about such a thing is to propagate that myth.

I was just emphasizing the point that it is not nonsense to talk about non-conscious things behaving purposefully, and therefore intentionally. So we have two opposing views here, mine being reasonable, but varying from common social habits of word use, yours employing a nonsense myth.

I was just emphasizing the point that it is not nonsense to talk about non-conscious things behaving purposefully, and therefore intentionally. — Metaphysician Undercover

If non-conscious entities behave purposefully, then they must also possess the knowledge of how to achieve their purpose.

No, I don't believe that Tom. We often try for things we cannot obtain, or simply fail in our attempts, even if we do have the capacity. We've already discussed trial and error, which is a purposeful action, without knowing how to achieve the end.

I think, that if you look closely at intention, through introspection, you'll find that intention, which gives you ambition, is a vey general sort of thing, lying below the level of consciousness. It manifests, through consciousness, as particular "intentions". The particular intentions, are toward the things we know through past experience, will bring us satisfaction. However, these particular intentions are things intended as the means toward further ends. So if A is intended for the sake of B, which is intended for the sake of C, an infinite regress would render intention unintelligible. But seeking an ultimate end looses one in generality, such that we don't really know why we do A, B, and C. We are faced with the question of why are we alive. You could posit something as the ultimate end, like Aristotle did with happiness, but such assumptions are so general that they don't have a lot of specific meaning, and no direct way of "knowing how to achieve the end".

Because of these difficulties, we tend to just assume that there is some sort of ultimate end which we strive for, such as happiness, but we assume it without knowing it. Failing to assume this ultimate end leaves our lives meaningless due to the infinite regress.

Claiming that non-conscious objects have a purpose is, in English, an abuse of language. For Aristotle you can get away with it, since "purpose" can be conflated with "cause" and for Aristotle's first three causes the dumb effects of pure deterministic effects came into play. For his fourth cause you get a telos, which has to include a conscious purpose (unless you believe in god - then every thing and all cause is purposeful).

Claiming that non-conscious objects have a purpose is, in English, an abuse of language. For Aristotle you can get away with it, since "purpose" can be conflated with "cause" and for Aristotle's first three causes the dumb effects of pure deterministic effects came into play. For his fourth cause you get a telos, which has to include a conscious purpose (unless you believe in god - then every thing and all cause is purposeful). — charleton

Sure, but if you are going to abuse the language in that way, you are compelled to admit that the non-conscious entity also possesses the means to achieve that purpose. Knowledge is central to those means.

You might claim that there is no purpose to a genome, or you might abuse the language and claim that the purpose of a genome is replication. I'm not sure which one of those statements is closer to the truth. The genome certainly possesses the attribute that, in the appropriate environment, it will cause itself to be copied. Furthermore, if the genome is better at copying itself in its niche than variants of it, it will cause itself to become dominant.

If you accept the Popperian conception of knowledge, that it is a type of information that, once instantiated on an appropriate environment, causes itself to remain so, then the genome certainly possesses knowledge if not purpose.

Chance in evolution has to do with stochastic processes in molecular chemistry.

There is a comfortable majority in the scientific community that believe that the laws of the universe are deterministic. So your notion that the scientific community is "deceptive" about chance is...odd.

As to whether or not the universe is deterministic and chance simply amounts to nothing more than inaccessible information is a matter of opinion not fact. There is no conclusive proof that the universe, and evolution, is necessarily deterministic beyond all doubt.

Chance, in science, is not a "myth", it is a tool for making predictions about nature. A valuable tool that cannot be avoided at this point in scientific understanding.

Claiming that non-conscious objects have a purpose is, in English, an abuse of language. — charleton

What makes you think that this is an abuse of language. Do you not believe that plants produce seeds for a purpose, and, that plants are non-conscious objects?

As I explain to Michael already, the abuse of language here is being carried out by those who want to restrict "purpose" or "intention" to conscious choice. Clearly there is purpose in non-conscious activities, so to tell me that I am not correct in using the word this way is nothing more than a mistake on your part.

If you accept the Popperian conception of knowledge, that it is a type of information that, once instantiated on an appropriate environment, causes itself to remain so, then the genome certainly possesses knowledge if not purpose. — tom

Yes, knowledge is another word which is not well understood. Traditionally, "to know" would mean to be aware of, to be conscious of. Now, many epistemologists desire to give "knowledge" substantial existence, such that it is a thing independent of the conscious knower, who knows by being aware of something. We have to give knowledge a more substantial existence in order to account for things which we know, but are not presently aware of (principally things in the memory). Thus knowledge becomes understood as some type of information, which can be independent from consciousness, in the memory, and as some would argue, in the library, Under this definition, it would be difficult to argue that the genome does not contain knowledge. Where do you think it gets that knowledge from, experience?

Chance, in science, is not a "myth", it is a tool for making predictions about nature. A valuable tool that cannot be avoided at this point in scientific understanding. — m-theory

Yes I agree, but we've been through the two distinct meanings of "chance" already. When referring to a possible future event, we refer to a chance that it might happen. This is the principal use of "chance", to refer to a future possibility, and this may be a useful tool in making predictions.

The other meaning, which I have a problem with, is when we refer to a past event, as a chance or random event. This would mean that the particular event is claimed to have no cause, neither efficient cause nor final cause. Unless it is known that the event had no cause, then why would anyone claim that the event was chance, or random? And why is it common to hear people talk about chance, or random genetic mutations?

The reason randomness is necessary is because many causes may have the same probability of occurrence such that any particular cause is therefor unknown.

I do not agree that the scientific community "deceives" about this information.
There is plenty of technical dissemination of information surrounding how randomness and chance play a role in causation within the context of evolution.

The reason it is so common in evolution is because randomness is how variation occurs.
Without a stochastic process life would not evolve at all, instead all it would do is replicate...if it could come into existence at all.

The reason randomness is necessary is because many causes may have the same probability of occurrence such that any particular cause is therefor unknown. — m-theory

Fine, but consider this in relation to an event which has already occurred. You cannot say that this event has the same probability of occurrence as some other events which did not occur, because this one occurred, and the others did not. You cannot apply probabilities to past events in that way. Prior to the event, there was a chance that it may or may not happen, but afterwards, that knowledge is only useful in relating to other similar situations. To relate back to that particular occurrence, and say that it has a probability of occurrence, is nonsense, because it already occurred.

There is plenty of technical dissemination of information surrounding how randomness and chance play a role in causation within the context of evolution. — m-theory

By saying that randomness and chance "play a role", you imply that these things are acting in a causal way. The only way that randomness and chance can play a role is through the mediation of intention. Heads I win, tails you win. But the intentional agent must set up the parameters of the chance event (choose, and flip the coin), and fix things such that one outcome will cause X (I win), and the other outcome will cause Y (you win). Otherwise, the coin is just lying on the table and it doesn't play a role in anything. And even if you assume that coins are just naturally flipping, it makes no difference whether they land heads or tails, unless the intentional agent sets something up, such that heads will be interpreted as I win, and tails as you win. Without intention, randomness and chance, if they could exist without being designed, couldn't play a role in anything, they would be just continuous, ongoing, randomness and chance.

Perhaps I did not make this clear...the particular causal chain may be unknown.
Therefor we must us probability models to make predictions.

When we say an event occurred in the past and we are dealing with probability we are saying the outcome could have been any number of things all with equal chance to occur just because only one of these occurrences happens does not mean it is not random it only means that any given occurrence is mutually exclusive of the other occurrences.
It also does not mean that we can know why (other than probability) that one occurrence happened rather than another occurrence.
So yes...probability has a causal effect...and just because some events are mutually exclusive of each other does not mean that those events cannot occur...sometimes you get a heads sometimes you get a tails.
These options are mutually exclusive...but if they are the only two possibilities we must make a model that allows for the occurrence for both.
So if happen upon a coin in the street that is facing heads up...it does not change the fact that it was equally possible in reality that it could have settled face down.
That is to say no laws of nature would have been broken if the coin you found was face down instead.

It is not clear within science as to whether or not the universe is determined and so we must use probability as a tool to model reality and account for all the outcomes that are possible.

When we say an event occurred in the past and we are dealing with probability we are saying the outcome could have been any number of things all with equal chance to occur just because only one of these occurrences happens does not mean it is not random it only means that any given occurrence is mutually exclusive of the other occurrences. — m-theory

Let me get this straight. By "outcome", I infer effect, rather than cause. So are you saying that when a particular event occurred, in the past, the outcome (effect) of that event could have been other than it was? How could the outcome of an event be different than it was, without actually changing the event? In which case, it would not be the same event. So it would not be the case that the said event had a different outcome, it would have been a different event altogether. Therefore it appears to me, that to say that the outcome of a past event could have been different is incoherent. To have a different outcome would require a different event, such that there could not have been a different outcome from the same event. A different outcome would require a different event.

Let me get this straight. By "outcome", I infer effect, rather than cause. So are you saying that when a particular event occurred, in the past, the outcome (effect) of that event could have been other than it was? How could the outcome of an event be different than it was, without actually changing the event? In which case, it would not be the same event. So it would not be the case that the said event had a different outcome, it would have been a different event altogether. Therefore it appears to me, that to say that the outcome of a past event could have been different is incoherent. To have a different outcome would require a different event, such that there could not have been a different outcome from the same event. A different outcome would require a different event.

I am saying...like in the coin example.
That no laws of physics are violated and both outcomes are possible but only one outcome at a time can occur because the effect (head or tails) are mutually exclusive of each other.
You can't get heads and tails.
When more than one outcome is possible we have to use probability, randomness, chance to model things.
So to your point and with my coin example again.
If you find a coin on the street facing heads down...that violates no laws of physics.
If it had been heads up instead...that too would violate no laws.
Both outcomes are physically possible...just not at the same time.
Our models have to account for that fact and so we use randomness, probability, and chance to describe that phenomena.
So concerning the past the probability that an event occurs does not have to be different it will remain the same.
The only thing that would have to be different in the past for a different outcome is the outcome itself not the probability.

What you seem to be thinking of is something akin to Laplace's demon
In the link it shows the various arguments used as evidence against this type of model that you describe.

I am saying...like in the coin example.
That no laws of physics are violated and both outcomes are possible but only one outcome at a time can occur because the effect (head or tails) are mutually exclusive of each other.
You can't get heads and tails.
When more than one outcome is possible we have to use probability, randomness, chance to model things. — m-theory

OK, this explains the future event, there is a chance that the outcome of the coin toss could be heads, and there is a chance that it could be tails. I assume the probability is equal.

If you find a coin on the street facing heads down...that violates no laws of physics.
If it had been heads up instead...that too would violate no laws.
Both outcomes are physically possible...just not at the same time. — m-theory

You're still talking about a future event here, "if you find a coin on the street". In this event there are the same chances of heads or tails.

Now let's look at a past event. You have found a coin on the street, in the heads position. There is no chance that it could have been found at that time and place in the tails position, because it was in the heads position. The fact that it was in the heads position excludes the chance (possibility) that it was in the tails position.

So concerning the past the probability that an event occurs does not have to be different it will remain the same. — m-theory

This is incoherent to me. You cannot look at the past, and talk about the chance of an event occurring, because events don't occur in the past, they occur at the present. In the past, events have already occurred. I am not talking about Laplace's demon, I am simply making a proper distinction between future and past.

I don't know how to explain it it any better sorry.

You are saying that in order for something in the past to be different all of the past would have to be different.
That is not the modern view of physics because of probability.
The probability of something that occurred in the past does not change.
In the past you had a 50/50 shot of heads or tails and in the future this will also be true.
That does not change.

It seems to me you believe that probability only applies to some future event...that is not strictly true in modern physics.
You don't say that it was 100% tails or 100% heads in your model because both are physically possible outcomes even when we talk about the past, you still model the past event as a 50/50 chance for one or the other but not both.
The assumption in physics is that the laws of nature do not change over time so the same laws that apply now, applied in the past, and will apply in the future.
This is the modern principle of relativity.

Sorry but I cannot explain it any plainer than that.

There is plenty of source material you could review to get a better grasp of modern physics and the role probability plays.

From what I can tell by your posts you have a embraced a view of classical mechanics.

This is not how modern mechanics operates and one must contend with probability in the modern view of mechanics.

I don't see how I can further your understanding except to say that you are making classical arguments that do not lend themselves well to modern understanding of how physics work.

Here is some very import and relevant source material to the point I am hoping to make here.

In particular stochasticity is the randomness at work in biology.

A stochastic event or system is one that is unpredictable because of a random variable. The word stochastic comes from the Greek στόχος (stokhos, "aim"). It occurs in various professional and academic fields.

Researchers use the term stochastic systems to describe the physical systems in which the values of parameters, measurements, expected input, and disturbances are uncertain. In probability theory, a purely stochastic system is one whose state is randomly determined, having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely. In this regard, it can be classified as non-deterministic (i.e., "random") so that the subsequent state of the system is determined probabilistically. Any system or process that must be analyzed using probability theory is at least partly stochastic.[1][2] Stochastic systems and processes play a fundamental role in mathematical models of phenomena in many fields of science, engineering, finance, and economics.

In evolution when the term random is used it is often in reference to some chemical stochastic process.

Another distinction to make is regarding the term non-deterministic.
This term is somewhat agnostic as it does not imply that the laws governing the system are strictly truly random.
It simply means that there is no way to access the information that does determine outcomes if that information is in fact there.
It may well be that the information does exist and the universe is determined...or it may be that the universe is truly random at a fundamental level.

Again that is an unresolved question in science.

You may well be right to argue your point...but what I was hoping to impress upon is that you are arguing an interpretation of current understanding and not indisputable facts of reality as we currently understand it.

If the universe ultimately is random or deterministic may well be an unanswerable question in science.

I happen to believe randomness is very real and is fundamental to our universe, that would mean that evolution would be truly random as well, however I do realize that this is interpretation and not fact.
I cannot prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is true.

I was hoping you might admit the same about your beliefs.

Now let's look at a past event. You have found a coin on the street, in the heads position. There is no chance that it could have been found at that time and place in the tails position, because it was in the heads position. The fact that it was in the heads position excludes the chance (possibility) that it was in the tails position. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not true. Possibility is not actuality. What happens is not a measure of possibility.

If that were so, possibility would be incoherent because only what happened could occur. Every event would be pre-determined and there would only be on possible outcome in the future. Possibility would be an illusion present by lack of knowledge about the future.

Instead, possibility is a logical truth, one that does not change or alter with respect to what happens in the world. Consider I six-sided die in a traditional example. It's always true there are six possible outcomes. No matter what I end rolling, it is true the other five number were possible-- that's why one of the many numbers I rolled was a possible outcome, rather than the necessary one. I had chance to roll other numbers, I just didn't.

Free will is actually one of the best examples to demonstrate this. If we were to believe your account of possibility, no-one could make a choice between two possible options. What they end up doing would be the only action the could have taken, as them acting in a different way, in that time and space, would exclude any possibility the might have acted otherwise.

For free will to function, possible options have to be available, no matter what someone ends up doing. That's how we can say the murder had a choice about whether to kill someone. Despite the fact they acted one way, it was possible they could have acted otherwise. Other outcomes at points in space and time have to be possible if free will is to be coherent.

If the universe ultimately is random or deterministic may well be an unanswerable question in science. — m-theory

We already know the answer to that in metaphysics. It's both.

Logically, causality involves states of the world bringing about other states of the world of states of the world-- when X causes Y, then Y necessarily results from X.

Yet, it is also true there is no reason for any causal relationship. Why is that X causes Y (as opposed to say Z or not even existing at all)? There's no answer. Any casual relation relies on itself for definition. Thus, any caused state is, by definition, a random event (this is partly alluded to in QM). For no reason at all, causality involves state X causing Y.

lol

Can't argue with that.
>:O

It seems to me you believe that probability only applies to some future event...that is not strictly true in modern physics. — m-theory

I believe you are adequately demonstrating the myth of chance, which I am referring to. You believe, and you claim that modern physics supports your belief, that there is a possibility that a past event could be other than it actually was.

There is plenty of source material you could review to get a better grasp of modern physics and the role probability plays. — m-theory

Why would I want to do that, and support such an incoherent myth? I already know the truth, that a past event is what it is, and that it is impossible to change it. Until someone demonstrates that a past event can be changed, I'll continue to believe the inductive logic which says that it cannot. Therefore, there is no possibility that a past event could be otherwise. Once the accident happens, or whatever happens in the world happens, there is no possibility of reversing this. There is of course the possibility that the event which occurred, could be other than the way I describe it, or remember it, But this is a different sort of possibility altogether.

I don't see how I can further your understanding except to say that you are making classical arguments that do not lend themselves well to modern understanding of how physics work. — m-theory

So the myth of chance permeates through physics as well as biology. There is a chance that past events could be changed?

In probability theory, a purely stochastic system is one whose state is randomly determined, having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely. In this regard, it can be classified as non-deterministic (i.e., "random") so that the subsequent state of the system is determined probabilistically

Look, the passage here refers to a state, and a subsequent state which is predicted, determined probabilistically. It doesn't at all refer to a past state which is determined probabilistically. Why do you insist that physics treats past events, events which have already occurred, as probabilistic?

You may well be right to argue your point...but what I was hoping to impress upon is that you are arguing an interpretation of current understanding and not indisputable facts of reality as we currently understand it.

If the universe ultimately is random or deterministic may well be an unanswerable question in science.

I happen to believe randomness is very real and is fundamental to our universe, that would mean that evolution would be truly random as well, however I do realize that this is interpretation and not fact.
I cannot prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is true. — m-theory

The reason why I haven't given consideration to the perspective you describe, is that I haven't found a way to make sense of it yet. And it's not that I'm not tying. What I want, is a way to understand what you mean when you say that you believe "randomness is very real". As I explained, I can see how the outcome of a future event, like tossing a coin, could be said to be random, or chance. Further, I can understand that if an event like this occurred in the past, at that time, prior to the event occurring, the outcome of such a proposed event could have been said to be random. But when we look back, now, at the past event, there is no randomness. The coin was tossed, and there was a particular outcome. The randomness, or chance element of the event has been removed by the passing of time. Therefore randomness, or chance, is only something which exists at the present. And, it exists only in relation to the future, not in relation to the past.

In any case, since you believe that randomness, and stochastic systems are real, and so do I, with the temporal qualifications described, here's the relevant question. Do you think that a random event, or stochastic system, could exist without being designed?

If that were so, possibility would be incoherent because only what happened could occur. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You are not distinguishing between past and future, as I did. What I said is that what has already occurred in the past, cannot possible be different. We cannot change what has already occurred. Even if this is true, as I think it obviously is, it doesn't exclude possibility from the future. So with respect to the future, there are many things which could occur, are possible, may or may not occur, despite the fact that with respect to the past, things cannot possibly be different. The truth of this is supported by the empirical evidence that there is a substantial difference between past and future.

No matter what I end rolling, it is true the other five number were possible-- that's why one of the many numbers I rolled was a possible outcome, rather than the necessary one. I had chance to roll other numbers, I just didn't. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It is true, that at that time, before rolling the die, there were six possible outcomes. But with the passing of time, you rolled the die, one outcome was confirmed, and therefore the other five possibilities wee excluded. So it is no longer correct to say that there are six possible outcomes from that roll of the die which already occurred, there already was one outcome, and the other five are impossible. The passage of time, has removed the element of chance, from that roll of the die. This is the difference between before and after

Free will is actually one of the best examples to demonstrate this. If we were to believe your account of possibility, no-one could make a choice between two possible options. What they end up doing would be the only action the could have taken, as them acting in a different way, in that time and space, would exclude any possibility the might have acted otherwise.

For free will to function, possible options have to be available, no matter what someone ends up doing. That's how we can say the murder had a choice about whether to kill someone. Despite the fact they acted one way, it was possible they could have acted otherwise. Other outcomes at points in space and time have to be possible if free will is to be coherent. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, at the time, now, there are many options open to the organism with free will. But with the passing of time, many of these options disappear, The option to choose otherwise from what one did choose, is never available to the free will organism. When the choice is made, it is in the past, and cannot be changed to another choice. Therefore, all possibility that one might have acted otherwise, is in fact excluded by the passing of time. But this does not exclude free will. That is because free will allows us to act freely at the present, it does not allow us the possibility to change how we acted in the past. So as time passes, we can choose future acts, but we cannot choose past acts, they have already been chosen.

Yet, it is also true there is no reason for any causal relationship. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That the reason for something is unknown is distinctly different from there being no reason for that thing. When the reason for something is unknown, it is illogical to proceed to the conclusion that there is no reason for that thing, simply because the reason for that thing is unknown. When you consider the possibility of design, then you cannot logically proceed from "the reason for causal relationships is unknown", to "there is no reason for causal relationships".

So the myth of chance permeates through physics as well as biology. There is a chance that past events could be changed? — Metaphysician Undercover

The past has already changed to become the present???
Part of how that is possible is because of probability, chance, randomness.

Why do you insist that physics treats past events, events which have already occurred, as probabilistic? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because of the principle of relativity.
Why do you believe the laws of physics for the past are different from the laws of the present and/or future?

Do you think that a random event, or stochastic system, could exist without being designed? — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course not...humans designed these concepts in order to model reality.


It may be that the laws of nature are deterministic...it may be they are not...and it may be that we cannot know.

I am willing to admit that determinism is not possible to prove with our current state of scientific knowledge...if you are unwilling to accept that...that is your issue not mine...why should I be bothered to continue and point out all the reason why we cannot be sure of this?

It is not my problem if you can't be bothered to take probability, chance, and randomness seriously.
Science does take it seriously because it is necessary to do so in order to further our knowledge and understanding.

Why do you believe the laws of physics for the past are different from the laws of the present and/or future? — m-theory

It's very obvious, events which have already occurred cannot be changed, events which have not yet occurred can be promoted or prevented. This is a fundamental empirical truth, supported by all the evidence that I know of. If the laws of physics contradict, or fail to respect, this fundamental truth, how can I believe in them?

Of course not...humans designed these concepts in order to model reality. — m-theory

That might be what you believe, what I believe is that humans designed stochastic systems, and from these they produced the concept that parts of reality consist of random occurrences. Yes, it's true that parts of reality consist of stochastic systems, the parts that humans have designed and produced.

Consider that all parts of reality exist within a larger context. Some put a limit to that larger context, to assume a whole, the universe. To create a stochastic system, the human being isolates a small part of reality from the larger context That boundary is artificial, yet necessary for the existence of the stochastic system.

It is not my problem if you can't be bothered to take probability, chance, and randomness seriously. — m-theory

I take these things very seriously, as you can see, I am tying to understand them. But I think that those who take such things for granted, without properly understanding them, don't take them seriously. That's how myths are propagated, people take things for granted without properly understanding them.

The past is a relative term that depends of the frame of reference of the observer.
Whatever it means by "the past cannot be changed" is unclear to me.
If you are suggesting that the past is strictly determined...again that is not clear and remains an open question in science.

I don't know if the past can change or what that means....somehow the past has become the present and I don't see how that is possible without change and I know you can't model it without using randomness.

I don't know if the past can change or what that means....somehow the past has become the present and I don't see how that is possible without change and I know you can't model it without using randomness. — m-theory

Actually, the future has become the past, that's what the passing of time does. We can designate a point in time, such as August 21, 2016, 12:00 noon GMT, and that point in time will change from being in the future, to being in the past, as it changes at the present.

Once it has become the past, all changes which will occur have already occurred, as they occur at the present, when the future becomes the past. Therefore it is impossible that the past can change.

As for your model, which employs randomness, I suggest that the randomness is simply a reflection of your inability to comprehend what it means for the future to become the past (for time to be passing).

Actually, the future has become the past, that's what the passing of time does. We can designate a point in time, such as August 21, 2016, 12:00 noon GMT, and that point in time will change from being in the future, to being in the past, as it changes at the present.

Once it has become the past, all changes which will occur have already occurred, as they occur at the present, when the future becomes the past. Therefore it is impossible that the past can change. — Metaphysician Undercover

Another unresolved question in physics eternalisim vs growing block universe theory.

You seem to be an eternalist.

Again I should make it the point that this is currently an unresolved issue.

As for your model, which employs randomness, I suggest that the randomness is simply a reflection of your inability to comprehend what it means for the future to become the past (for time to be passing). — Metaphysician Undercover

Great...talk down to me...that is always a good way to get people to listen to your point of view.
:-}

Sorry M-theory, no offence intended

No problem...I just would rather that you not assume I have some inability and explain how you can know eternalism is true and presentism is false?

As far as I am abreast of this subject it is still very much open for debate.