Let me put it this way. We must be careful to keep in mind what physical determinism means. It means that any state can, in principle, be shown to be physically caused by the previous physical state. This assertion depends completely on using the physical laws of nature to demonstrate how one physical state leads to another.

Now, this physical determinism can be shown to obtain right up to the choice of the initial number (11 in this case) but if physical determinism makes the choice from the list then it must be shown how the laws of nature determine that choice. How could this happen?

It cannot happen by way of any brain state because no mental choice is made. The digit determines the choice. But if physical determinism is to obtain all the way through it must be shown how the value of the digit is determined by physical laws. But it is not. It is mathematically determined. This means that the choice is not determined by any physical law because no physical law determines the value of the digit.

Yes, there is, arguably, a great amount of determinism leading up to the arrival of the digit but there is no way that physical law can be shown to effect the choice.

The laws of nature may influence the digit that comes up but influence is not enough. It has to be shown that the choice is physically determined according to physical law but physical law cannot determine the value of the digit. So any physical determinism ends with the arrival of the digit and mathematical determinism takes over from there.

One has to be careful to distinguish between physical determinism influencing things and rigidly determining what happens according to physical law.

In what way is the “choice” the numbers make not moored to the equation itself and thus determined in precisely the same way as other deterministic processes? — DingoJones

This is the crux of the matter. When I say 'determinism' I am talking about physical determinism which says that every physical state is determined by the previous physical state. I am replacing physical determinism with mathematical determinism. What matters is the value of the digit. This value is not physically determined, it is an eternal mathematical truth. This means that the choice is not physically determined, it is mathematically determined. The determinist would say that a choice is determined by a brain state but there is no mental choice here as it is determined not by a brain state but by a digit. The point at which determinism is broken is when the digit is correlated with a number on the list. This correlation is not physically determined as the value of the digit is not physically determined.

So why then irrational numbers in the first place? — ssu

I chose irrational expansions simply because they are more in the spirit of the experiment, as opposed to predictable, repeating, rational expansions that could be known in advance. But there are all kinds of mathematical entities that would suffice.

I think the number has to be transcendental, — ssu

No. All that is required is that the digits are unknown in advance (to counter the argument for brain states making the choice.) I can say 'I will choose the 75th digit in the expansion of the square root of 7'. I then go and see what it is and act accordingly. In this way physical determinism has not made the choice, it has been replaced by mathematical determinism. Any physical determinism that would have made the choice is terminated at the point when the digit intervenes and makes the choice.

At each step of your process there is determinism. When you’re choosing the square root of 11, what to put on your list etc etc — DingoJones

As I think others implied, we would still have to address the decision to 'run' your algorithm in the first place. — macrosoft

Yes, I don't assert a complete escape from determinism. There are many threads of determinism throughout the experiment. Body temperature, heart rate etc. are not necessarily altered. But it is only necessary to focus on one thread; the decision itself. The decision is made by a digit, not by a physical state, therefore it is mathematically determined, but not determined by any physical state during the experiment. Yes, I do choose the starting number, 11, but I don't decide what the digits in the decimal expansion are, nor are they physically determined, they are eternal truths and they cause the choice. It helps if I don't know what the digits are before the experiment, - that way 'brain states' cannot be invoked.


There is no mental choice per se. The choice is mathematically determined. It is determined by digits that are outside any physically deterministic thread. That is the whole point.

The choice to follow the digits is determined, so the paradigm is still in effect. Its pretty inescapable. — DingoJones

Within the experiment many things are arguably determined including the choice to follow the digits but the choice itself is determined by the digit, not by a brain state or physical state: the digits determine what happens next and in this sense the choice itself is not physically deterministic. The digits are not determined to be what they are by any physical state. They are eternal truths.

Half way through it. Very interesting. I like your analysis of 'randomness' and probability.

Yes, the natural world is fallen, like the spirit is. This answers the 'problem' of evil. Not all natural things are directly created by God. Some of it is corrupt, as Hildegard says.

Teleology clearly exists in human affairs; a house is built from the ground up with a plan in mind. Why do materialists argue that while this is ubiquituous in human affairs it is absent in the rest of the natural world?

The example of rain is sometimes cited to illustrate the argument; it does not rain 'to' water the plant. But, looking at it from the opposite view point, we can say that the plant is there 'to' make use of the rain. That is, if the plant is evolved by an intelligence with a view 'to' make use of rain.

So the question of teleology comes down to whether there is intelligence driving evolution.

Kummer said that God created the integers and all else is the work of man. He did not believe that real numbers are real. If we consider, for example, the square root of 2 as an infinite expansion, we can argue that the digits of the expansion are only a 'map' of a (geometric) quantity. What is real is the proportional relationship between the unit and the square roof of 2. In geometry the unit is often taken to be the radius of a circle (or side of a square) and square root 2 is such in proportion to the unit line. When this proportion is translated into a real number the digits map the ratio.

This poses a number of questions-
1. Is the algorithm that generates the digits real? If so, are not the digits also real?
2. Does number precede geometry or vise versa? Some extraordinary infinite series have been discovered that map, with infinite precision, real numbers like Pi, e, etc.

If infinite series can map Pi exactly does that mean that number precedes geometry (space)? Do numbers exist in God's Mind before space or do numbers arise out of (Euclidean) space?

It seems to me that number is more primitive than space and as such they precede space.

The materialist implicitly asserts that a person is no more than a collection of molecules. How can a bunch of molecules produce a person? The person and the psyche are far too sublime and evolved to be merely a property of molecules. So I believe in dualism but not that Trump is a critter...

A mind in isolation is hardly alive. Life is a discourse between minds, between what is self and not self. Life is union.

In the "beginning" God was alone, in the void. 'Then' creation came into being and God emerged from mere existence - the void - into life and being. Through creation God becomes the living God.

Absence of evidence can be, and in some cases is, evidence of absence. — S

The argument hinges on the meaning of the word 'evidence'.

What is evidence? In the simplest terms evidence is a body of facts and objects that are to be interpreted: what do they mean?

The difference between evidence in this basic sense and 'evidence for' is that 'evidence for' exists in the mind. What the evidence supports is determined subjectively according to our mental machinations.

Every dust mote, every star, planet or galaxy is evidence. Every living thing from a house fly to an oak tree is evidence: it is there.

Evidence for what?

Atheists continually use the expression 'evidence for' in terms of provable things. But not all truth is provable in these terms. Therefore 'evidence for' needs to be extended into the subjective realm. That is, when atheists say 'there is no evidence for' they are usually saying 'subjective evidence is not objective evidence'.

But it should always be kept in mind that there is no 'evidence for' anything; evidence is mute. We must interpret it if it is to become 'evidence for' because what the evidence supports is determined in the mind, not out there, objectively. Without mind there is no 'evidence for'.

The slit experiment seems to be reviving idealism given that we supposedly change the universe by observing it. — Martin Krumins

This, to my mind, is a confusion of terms. When a scientist observes a quantum event, that whole process involves

1. Planning the experiment.
2. Implimenting it = detection.
3. Observing the results.

All this comes, loosely, under the heading 'observing'. But, for clarity, these three parts need to be separated. Observation is not important in terms of what physically happens. What is important here is detection. A particle can be detected without observation (the observation can take place months after the fact.)

Detection must be defined as follows:

Quantum particles live in their own spacetime, which is not classical spacetime.
When a quantum event interacts with a classical experiment it leaves a trace effect on the experiment. A spot on a photographic plate is a trace effect.

These trace effects are NECESSARILY classical objects because they exist in classical spacetime. Detection then is defined as a quantum event leaving a classical trace effect on classical spacetime.

Consequently, these trace effects are measured in classical terms. It cannot be otherwise. So the scientists are reduced to interpreting quantum spacetime, in classical terms; the measurements are according to a classical ruler.

The trace effects exist at the interface between quantum spacetime and classical spacetime. But they are classical objects.

If detection is defined in these terms it can be seen that the effect on particles is produced not by observation per se, but by detection; the 'collision' of a particle with a classical object (ie the experimental apparatus, which is a classical object). It is detection, not observation, that effects the change. Changing reality by 'observing' it is a confusion of terms; a confusion between detection and observation.

Time is not simply change. Change is evidence of time but not a definition of it. Time is that order according to which change happens. In the physical universe that order is outlined in General Relativity. (Space)time is essentially a mathematical description of how change happens. That is not exactly the same as our pedestrian experience of change. As for your experiment; the earth, including your room, has moved between Sunday and Monday and this has to be taken into account. The room is not in the same place, therefore it is not in the same time.

The mind is a construct of the brain. — Llum

Hmmm...

http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Mysteries-of-the-Mind/Living-without-a-Brain.html

Presumably to have it filled instead by wife beaters like Rob Porter, thieves like Scott Puritt, and sexual assault defenders like Bill Shine. — StreetlightX

Yes, but relatively speaking, they are only knaves compared to the truly dark people that have occupied the White House down through the years...

That is a joke, right? — Akanthinos

No it's not a joke! Removing evil people and replacing them with dubious knaves might be a great improvement, relatively speaking. That is all it may take to save the world, for the time being. Where can I find a LoveTrump site?

Trump is to be applauded for at least one thing; he 'drained the swamp' of the genocidal gargoyles and vampires that were crawling all over the White House. Don't be down on Trump, he may have saved the world.

What is the "non-physical mind"? Is it the sum of all the information stored in our brains, like the software is to the hardware of a computer? — Ron Besdansky

In my understanding it is what is traditionally known as 'spirit'. A living mind that does not arise out of material relations.

If a definition of irrational is required it might look something like;

Irrational thinking is when thinking is not in accordance with the natural order of the world.

Someone thinking they can be in Berlin and then be in London 1 minute later is being irrational.
Someone thinking they can be in Berlin and then be in London 1 day later is being rational.

Being rational is when thinking is congruent with the order of the world.

Maybe 'transrational' is a better word than irrational in some cases. Going by Richard Dawkins use of the word rational, religious people might be 'transrational'.

Because if you have free will you have to sin. — GreyScorpio

Not at all. Free will means you have a choice between sin and virtue. If you 'have' to sin you would not have the choice not to.

Alright yes, that's true: When it isn't known that a topic is unknowable and indescribable, then it's a legitimate topic of philosophy, for discussion about that. — Michael Ossipoff

If there is a fundamental substance that is and always has been and is the source of all contingent things we can say three things about it-

1. It is
2. It has creative potential because it evolved into everything that is not fundamental
3. It has the power to become life and consciousness, because this is what happened.

I dont think you can have a universe of processes or properties only. I tend to think of it in terms of properties. Suppose you have a bronze coin with the property 'circular'. You cannot remove the substance of the coin from the property circular; the property 'circular' IS the substance of the coin, but we conceive of it abstractly.

Consider the following propositions;-

1. A property must be supported by substance. This substance is either relative or absolute.
A relative substance is such when it too can be shown to be a property, playing the part of absolute substance. Absolute substance is not a property.

2. Every property is perfectly identified with its supporting substance.

Keeping these two propositions in mind we can examine properties and see if they hold.

In the example of the bronze coin, the supporting substance of the property 'circular' is bronze. But bronze, being matter, is a property of energy because matter is a pattern in a field of energy. What then is energy? Is it an absolute substance or is it too a property of some deeper substance?

Any analysis of this property/substance relationship in physical reality will quickly lead to this question; what is energy? Is it a relative or absolute substance?

Proposition 2. says that matter is perfectly identified with energy; it is merely a pattern in a field of energy. It is the energy in the way 'circular' is the bronze of the coin. Matter is a property; it is nothing. Can we have a universe made of nothings/processes? or is there a fundamental substance keeping the hierarchy of properties in being?

I think the confusion is purely semantic. POTUS is a position in a hierarchy that can be occupied by many people. Trump is only one person. T = P, is meaningless if P = 'the top position in the hierarchy'.
T = P has meaning if P = 'the present occupier of the top position in the hierarchy'

I think, at best, IQ tests can only measure very basic mental abilities. Intelligence is many different things. A stand up comic can have amazing social intelligence and linguistic skills. Art is another kind of intuitive intelligence. The creation of a joke requires many highly developed abilities;

Linguistic sophistication.
Social intelligence.
The ability to understand other minds.
The intelligence to understand that the joke is funny.
The pathos with which the joke is delivered.

I think computers will only be intelligent when they can spontaneously create a joke.


Teacher: Let x equal the number of sheep.

Pupil: But teacher, what if x is not the number of sheep?

Why should a omniscient being's mind be able to evolve, however? — GreyScorpio

Maybe (mathematical) knowledge is an intrinsic part of God's existence.

But you can't talk about god having a designer without talking about how he came to exist. Because that is the whole point, no? How did this complex knowledge come about in the first place? — GreyScorpio

As outlined in my first post, mathematics rests on very primitive concepts (essentially number as a set). If primitive knowledge can exist in God's mind it can evolve into mathematics, which is non physical complexity. But in God 'evolve' does not require time; perhaps God spontaneously knows mathematical truth, yet there is a logical abstract evolution in mathematics; one thing leads to another, endlessly.

Very good point. How I would answer that (and I know my view is almost universally contested on the forum) is that the philosophical understanding of the relationship of God and creation was mainly derived from the Greek tradition, principally neoplatonism — Wayfarer

I think you are correct in this. Try to get hold of Simone Weil's Letter to a Priest.

I don't follow how this would warrent God to be able to pop into existence. Why is God exempt from logical rules if he can only do what is logically possible? — GreyScorpio

The question is not about God's existence it is about how God can be complex without a designer. If abstract knowledge can exist in God's mind you have complexity right there; mathematical complexity.

Most definitely the designer needs a designer. — GreyScorpio

Not if the designer can know abstract mathematical complexity. This complexity can then be the basis for physical complexity.

At death, we stop having these choices — Relativist

Not necessarily.

What good comes from this brief period of moral freedom? — Relativist

Great good. If we become good we will be closer to God in the next life.

Why wouldn't an omnibenevolent God just create beings like THAT - without a freedom to sin, but free in infinite possibilities of goodness? — Relativist

Because freedom is necessary if goodness is to be freely chosen. Created beings must choose for themselves, God cannot make the choice for them. In time and space all creation is involved with this choice.

Are you really choosing to give up free will, or is that an unexpected consequence? — Relativist

No, I don't think so. They would give up the freedom to sin but would still be free in infinite possibilities of goodness. Like an alcoholic coming to the realization that everything good can (if with difficulty) be found in sanity and sobriety.

Is it impossible to fail in heaven, or are the souls in heaven changed in some way? — Relativist

I don't know. But maybe they choose to surrender the freedom to fall. Origen of Alexandria says that they remained loyal to God by free choice.
If all are eventually saved then maybe, at the end of time, 6. in your post above, will be finally realised.

btw, there are two 6s in your post. I'm talking about the first one.

But if there are non-sinning free-willed souls in heaven, then such beings can exist without contradiction. — Relativist

They are in heaven because they freely chose not to fall with the rest of creation, not because God made it impossible for them to fall.

Please address the actual argument and tell me what premise(s) you disagree with. — Relativist

This does not seem to be logically airtight-

4. There exist contingent free-willed souls in heaven who do not sin
5. Therefore God's omnipotence entails the ability to directly create free-willed beings that do not sin.
6. Therefore God could have created a world of free-willed beings who do not sin


4. they freely chose not to sin but could have chosen otherwise. Their choice was not determined by God, it was a free choice.

5. Omnipotence allows them to be free, it does not force them to desist from sin. The lack of sin is by their own choice, not God's omnipotence

6. He did create a world of free-willed beings who do not sin and do sin


Your argument is that God can make us free but determine the outcome of that freedom. Your argument is mostly logical except for this point. The choices must be made by created beings themselves and not determined by God. But, ultimately, God's omnipotence may create a world of free beings who do not sin, if all fallen spirits return to heaven. In other words, God may be in the process of doing just what you are saying, but that process requires a temporal fall from grace. 'All will be well, and all manner of things will be well' Julian of Norwich.


Freedom is a necessary part of goodness.

What you are saying is that God can allow creation to be free and not free at the same time, which is not logical.

I think it comes down largely to how you view the world. Many people these days are polarized between materialism and spirituality. The materialist argues that we are, to a large extent, biological entities and that is what determines our sexuality. If we were as rigidly determined as the materialists believe I doubt that gender issues would arise.

If the spiritual component makes a difference then our biological disposition may only be secondary. The mind can chemically change the body and have all kinds of physical effects on it.

The real question here is whether sex is a biological or spiritual reality, or both. If it is both, as I believe it is, it is enormously difficult to analyse. With some people it may be just a mistaken way of thinking and with others there may be a real longing to escape our biological identity. You cannot put all of them under the same label because the may have very different reasons for feeling the way they do.

I read that the physicist Boltzmann introduced probability in physics and his explanation turned out to be the correct one. I think thermodynamics was born with Boltzmann's statistical interpretation of physics. — TheMadFool

The digits in the decimal expansion of pi are said to be random. Does this mean that we can choose these digits and act upon them to make random choices?;-

If a digit is 1, do x (eg treat yourself to a coffee)
if it is 2, do y (go to the cinema)
if it is 3, do z, etc.

One could also do the same with quadratic residues, which are apparently proved to be 'random'. If we can act upon purely mathematical entities does this mean we have escaped the determinism of matter as numbers are not material things. Thoughts?

btw did you read The Diceman by Luke Rhenehart? Great read.
https://www.bookdepository.com/Dice-Man-Luke-Rhinehart/9780879518646?redirected=true&utm_medium=Google&utm_campaign=Base1&utm_source=IE&utm_content=Dice-Man&selectCurrency=EUR&w=AFFPAU9SKBXBUNA80R8S&pdg=pla-308360991107:kwd-308360991107:cmp-711089934:adg-39921983227:crv-163908794634:pid-9780879518646:dev-c&gclid=Cj0KCQjwpvzZBRCbARIsACe8vyK93wFogPY-WzE2FZ-Esv87PRLPFYCXr9kZNJtAM9744ZwgIqVX0kMaAlEcEALw_wcB