Yes one can apply patterns to all observations. That is the whole idea. Philosophy had nothing to do with logic. It is all about observations and patterns. This is what the Daoists and other ancients excelled at.

One observes and finds patterns, not the other way around. What in life c is predictable? It is just made up out of thin air. I have no problem with faith, but that is religion not philosophy. The two really should not be confused though everyone had both.

It depends, if one wishes to be a science fiction writer then creativity comes in very handy. If one wishes to be a philosopher, keen observation is more essential. A philosopher has to b find real patterns in life, not just make stuff up and then observe who can create a more fantastical tale. We already know how creative humans can be.

Why can't one person in time be walking a novel path while another person at the end of time sees the path that he will make through his novel choices? — MikeL

Better to actually talk about what you observe in life if you wish to understand life. These mind experiments are parlor games too pass the time and amuse.

There are no equations that model the brain, and nothing anywhere that explains the mind.

Determinism is not a religion. It is not, because it does not derive from some supernatural authorit — szardosszemagad

Sure it derives from a supernatural authority called Natural Laws, which in themselves were originally derived from Christian religion. That is your historical chain of events. As an atheist, you believe in fate and supernatural forces guiding your faith, you just leave out the word God. There is literally no difference between your religion and Calvinism. You even have your priests like Dennett. It's all very interesting to observe.

That may be your own personal interpretation, but your opinion is false. — szardosszemagad

I have no interpretation. There is zero determinism in QM. Never was and, as far as all evidence to date, never will be. Probabilistic behavior is baked into the universe as is the probabilistic wave. However, anyone is free to have faith that this may someday change as others have faith in the Second Coming. It is human nature to have faith.

Who cares about that mundane game of logic taught in academia. It is a parlor game that is easy to teach and can consume lots of credits.

Just one more time and that will be it. Causal has nothing to do with determinism.

It is simple to adopt a deterministic view of the universe. All one has to do is ignore that s/he is adopting it.

I challenge you to name one, just one rule of QM which is well-known in the public's awareness, and shows that its process is not causal. Thanks. — szardosszemagad

What the heck? There is nothing in QM that is causal. Bohm's interpretation is causal but non-deterministic.

If determininsm was false, then the world would be non-causal. — szardosszemagad

Wrong. There are causes but constraints, choices and novelty make the world probabilistic.

As for turning the QM probabilistic into a deterministic equation, well that is even more strange than determinism itself. Faith dies hard. But, as you wish.

Well you have a mixture of faith, rationalization, emotion, and a religion (spirituality), as do we all. Determinism is simply the religion of atheists and I firmly believe everyone needs some faith in their lives.

Evidence of a probabilistic universe?? How about Quantum Mechanics to begin with? Unfortunately, for determinists, it all ended about 100 years ago. Evidence of choice? We are making them throughout our lives, all the time.

Also, we know that we're not in control of all events that occur or can occur. Isn't this fate? — TheMadFool

Causal has nothing to do with fate or determinism. It is as if people are clueless about the choices they and everyone else is making. The world is exactly as it appears: causal, no control, probabilistic with novelty.

Of course everything is deterministic. But we can never prove it — Jake Tarragon

Not only can't it be proved, but there is zero experience or evidence of it. Determinism is literally a religion entirely based upon faith, which is fine but it should be worshipped in churches not public schools.

Rich, would you describe your idea of time as duration as analogous to a bubble passing through the time landscape whose path is unchartered and whose wake dissipates with distance? — MikeL

I would describe duration (the time of life) as exactly as it seems, i.e. I constant flux of observation and memories. It is all that is. It is not expanding but rather changing and morphing into something new.

Probably need to start another thread on time.

Please remember that this thread is about a light phenomenon, and not about consciousness — Hachem

They are ultimately intertwined. One cannot understand one without the other. Treating light as a wave or particle gets one no where. The ancients were on the right track. Light is about the spirit.

So you are arguing that there is no universality to something... I'm rushing a bit. What is it that has no universality? Time? — MikeL

There is duration which is exactly what you are experiencing: memories, possibilities of future actions, choices.

there is nothing probabilistic about material processes, — Hachem

There is no evidence in quantum mechanics or otherwise to support this idea. All evidence is to the contrary. However, one can believe what one wishes to believe.

When you look back, what you see are blurry memories and possible alternatives you could have chosen but didn't. The memories themselves will be constantly changing and will not be the same as the memory of others. This is not determinism in any fashion.

Observe what is really happening and not somemodel that some philosophers, or scientists, or science fiction writers have created. Most of what you read are just nice stories. If you are interested in learning about nature then observe it. If you are interested in writing stories and reading imaginative stories, that is fine, but it gets you no closer to understanding nature other than observing the human mind can be quite creative.

Isn't determinism and probabilistic outcomes two sides of the same coin? It's just where you want to place yourself in time. — MikeL

There is a huge difference between trying to place oneself in time (duration) and being placed (the block universe).

Focus on the mind and not the brain.

You never talk about your mind, the mind that created the post. Why the infatuation with a brain?

I remain firmly deterministic. Call it a metaphysical prejudice. — Hachem

Well, that's your choice.

Bit of a self-contradictory wish. If the universe is indeterministic, then the cause-effect chain is ineffective. Control does need cause-effect chain to be working. But it's not. So control is impossible, in a non-deterministic universe. — szardosszemagad

Choices are constrained and affected by the past memories but are non-deterministic in nature. Because of habits, the universe is probabilistic.

Bohm's Quantum Potential interpretation is completely different from the Copenhagen Interpretation. The wave is real. The particle is a wave perturbation and is also real. The wave doesn't move but rather the particle is guided by the form of the wave which extends in all directions and acts on the particle non-locally, at a distance. It was Bohm's Interpretation that inspired Bell to develop the Bell's Theorem.

I have not found any indication that the width of the wave played any role in constructive or destructive interference. — Hachem

Try looking at it using Bohm's version of the Quantum Potential which doesn't move through the slits but rather affects the "particle" by form. It much better, and yes mathematics is all symbolic. It has no relevance to what actually exists because it can't. It only provides some limited predictive measurements.

if one wishes to understand the nature of their existence, it is necessary to observe it, not read about it or ask people to explain it. Just observe closely and everything. It is very surprising what is perceived and it changes all if the time. Now we are talking philosophy.

To exist literally is to "have memory of". This is how we know that we are from moment to moment, hour to hour. No memory, no existence.

But this leads us to other states of existence, e.g. dreams. In dreams, we have a different line of memory flashing by and defining out existence. How does this change in state happen? BTW, d don't bother looking to science for any answers. Totally clueless as the search for existence in some chemicals. Should one laugh or cry?

Then we switch into a state of no memories. Unconscious of ourselves because there are no memories. And then we wake up! A clear distinction between existence and non-existence. How does the mind move between these states? Is there a spirit that ignites our will to existence?

Unfortunately, it has morphed into something entirely different due to the heavy influence of money in all forms. Text book science ceased to exist long ago. What is left is a huge industry codifying stories to please the benefactors.

Don't confuzzle knowledge and certainty. — jorndoe

In return don't confuse storytelling with science.

All of science is a demonstration of mindful intent and creativity.

At best some nucleic acids and amino acids have been produced in laboratory conditions trying to simulate what life on earth might have been like. — MikeL

There is a bit of an issue here. The mind is designing and initiating such experiments. There is creativity and intent introduced by experimenter. Such an experiment must spontaneously self-create. Now, should such a matter actually occur, indeed it would put the miracle of Genesis to shame.

An intelligent designer that has always existed? — praxis

Yes. Common vernacular would call it your mind. Most of use knew we had one until they began teaching us differently in public school. In many cases rather successfully. I'm going to start asking my friends if they think they are chemicals or whether they have a mind. Should be interesting, but then again my sample is somewhat self-selecting.

So, that I can be clear, it is rather interesting, from an audience perspective, how the human mind works so hard in some instances to deny itself. Certainly creative. No doubt in many cases money is a big motivator. However, the intricacies of such play are mind-boggling. One has to use the mind while at the same time denying it. That takes a tremendous amount of focus to accomplish.

Somewhat missing in these discussions is that science is the one that has demonstrated the Universe had a beginning. The Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago. — apokrisis

Pulling the science thing out of the bag. There is no way anyone knows what happened when it happened before any recorded history. In fact, I dare say it is impossible to say what happened an hour ago.

What scientists, who are paid some heavy bucks do, in order to justify their own existence, is to make some gross generalizations, simplifications, estimates, guesses, assumptions, and dare I say adjust observations to fit the goal, and then come up with a story which exactly mirrors Genesis sans God. Then the process of indoctrination begins under the umbrella of Science. In this way it can be taught in schools rather than churches where it really belongs.

Prigogine showed how order arises emergently and so is not prior but immanent. — apokrisis

More precisely, Prigogine's Mind created a story of how his Mind might have happened.

It's really difficult to get Mind out of everything we do.

All in all, observing the way you present science, actually represents the scientific process extremely well. Just make things up as required with the additional phase "science has proved". Evidence has become obsolete in the world of science where words are more than enough as long as it is what the people in charge want to hear. Makes life so much simpler.

Well, you are pretty much channeling Bergson. Robbins is dry and slow but incredible depth and insight.

Intelligent design doesn't give us an infinite regress, it says that there must be an intelligence at work which can account for increasing order. — Agustino

Yes, it is a continuous exploration and experimentation via creative will. As we, and all life forms, are evolving we are learning and also trying out new things. When I learn to dance or a new Tai Chi form, or singing, or playing piano, I am actually experiment and training my whole body, all of my cellular intelligence, to do new things. This is the process of evolution. It is neither chaotic nor determined. It is exactly as we are experiencing it, a process of creative evolution.

Another very interesting post. Have you read Bergson or watched any of Stephen Robbins YouTube videos?