The gist of what I want to say is the obvious contradiction in religion - that it appeals to our faith and at the same time offers miracles as evidence. Or is it that we can compartmentalize parts of religion that requires faith and parts which are evidence-based? — TheMadFool

As with all efforts to find Truth, there will be a mixture of evidence and beliefs (faith being a very strongly held belief) and disagreements be between Truths.

Ok but how does bringing in God distinguish fatalism from determinism? Presumably both require causation at some point. Perhaps determinism and fatalism are differentiated along those lines but it seems so contrived. Distinction without difference. — TheMadFool

I agree. God is exactly equivalent to the Laws of Nature: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. It is a matter of taste.

From an economic point of view, the Church knows the ways of God while Scientists know the ways of the Laws of Nature. It is a money flow issue not a philosophical issue.

And that's it. My goal is a tool to handle beliefs. Beliefs do not have to be true at all to be beliefs. They merely need to be believed. The difficulty - my difficulty - is with people who represent their beliefs as being true, and acting on them as if they were. — tim wood

The difficulty is finding a "truth" that is independent of the subject. The moment it is uttered it becomes dependent on the utterer.

To believe the evidence needs faith but the belief in Jesus is grounded in reason. Can you see the difference? — TheMadFool

It depends upon what the belief is.

A very straightforward belief is that Jesus existed as a human 2000 years ago. This belief rests upon what someone has read somewhere. How strongly do you believe in the source? Was the source a Donald Trump kind of source? Or a CNN source? Biases? Probably can't tell. I can hardly figure out what is going on today much less 2000 years ago. Or maybe the belief rests with some feeling of some type. This is a more personal kind of belief.

So historical figures are interesting and the strength of our beliefs run a spectrum and are determined by a whole set of experiences, subject to change as we experience more.

Everyone is different and learning in their own way in their own time. Discussions can be convincing or they can be about learning. It doesn't have to be about convincing.

Thanks for explaining determinism to me. The question that comes to mind is how do we form a coherent theory about fatalism without determinism? — TheMadFool

In this context, God (instead of illusions) is useful. Under such circumstances, combatibilism is not needed or useful. However, if you want to bring in responsibility with choice along with keeping Gid, then you introduce combatibilism which gives you fatalistic choice (I know it sounds as weird as illusions but that is what we have).

To understand all of these different philosophies, it is useful to understand the historical and social-political circumstances from which they arose. Back in history, you couldn't have a philosophy without God or else you get burned or worse. Later on and currently, you can't have spirituality (the free agent) without be being drummed out of academia where science money rules. (The selfish gene and the magic of illusions is a product of such a culture). Context always matters when learning about the source and biases of different sciences and philosophies.

I'm not sure how well this view can demarcate a clear boundary between fatalism and determinism. Determinism doesn't preclude a thinking and feeling agent. — TheMadFool

It's there because it somehow magically emerges from quanta. There really isn't an agent. You just think you are thinking because of the illusion. However, determinists actually see through it all and know that they really aren't thinking. If course, it could be that thinking that thinking is an illusion is actually an illusion. It gets pretty complicated for determinists (illusionists).

Alternatively, one can say that genes (selfish genes that is) are thinking and feeling little beings. Now, we get into a whole new paradigm of anthropomorphism. With determinism we really have to find that which is thinking and feeling and how it all emerges into such (the so-named hard problem). It's tough to do, but thinking in terms of illusions is helpful.

The distinction doesn't seem to make sense. The essence of both, even taking your definitions to be true, is our lives are beyond our control. The mechanism, or lack of it, that leads to this conclusion seems inconsequential apart from a purely theoretical perspective. If you think otherwise, can you tell me how the difference between fatalism and determinism is useful. Thanks. — TheMadFool

With fatalism there is actually a thinking and feeling agent.

With determinism, it is all about illusion created by some quanta banging into each other and somehow tricking some of us into thinking it is an illusion and some of us (the determinists) who see through it all and know that it is all about illusion (or is it an illusion of an illusion).

If the goal was an about-face but you end up in the same direction on the same path, the effort failed.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what is meant by "change direction". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It's a mindset thing, and this is where ones philosophy can create a different way of looking at life.

When someone tries to do something (choose to move in a certain direction), outcomes are always uncertain, though probabilistic in nature.

If one wishes to do an about face, and does an about face then however it is performed is learned. If someone ends up facing somewhere else, then something else is learned. Life is a process of learning. It is possible to look at it as a series of success and failures but in doing so one misses the essence of life which is a cycle of experimentation, exploration, creative expression, and learning. This is what a child does when learning to build with blocks and it continues throughout life. Observing oneself and others on such a manner creates a different feeling about life.

It's really one universe with quantum states in superposition as described by the wave function. The relativistic wave equation is the Dirac equation. — Andrew M

Ok. It's 'many-worlds" or never-ending branches (multi-verses?) that are interacting with each other (manifestation in one world creates another) non-locally totally entangled (one depended he upon the outcome of the other?). Now, how does Einstein's theory apply to all of these branches whatever they may be?

What the experiments have tested for and confirmed is that the measurements of two entangled particles separated by large distances conform to the predictions of quantum mechanics. That is, if Alice measures spin-up then Bob measures spin-down regardless of the distance separating them. The Copenhagen, Bohm and Everett interpretations all agree about the results of the experiment. What they don't agree on is whether they entail non-locality (action at a distance). — Andrew M

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/china-s-quantum-satellite-achieves-spooky-action-record-distance

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=quantum+nonlocality+experiments&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj97M_ro_zUAhVJNT4KHbVsAS0QgQMIGzAA

There is no failure. Everything is a experiment and learning experience. This allows us to become more skillful navigators in life.

Faith is nothing more than a strongly held belief. We all have beliefs and many are strongly held. Best for over not to get too wedded to any belief. Allow for mobility so that one can become a skillful navigator in life.

The Chinese proverb goes, "If you don't change direction, you'll end up where you are headed".

We all can choose to change direction but often we don't.

Merit is subjective as is any idea put forth. To penetrate requires many skills that takes time to develop and these skills can come from many, many different sources. A philosopher might study mathematics, physics, psychology, economics, history, literature, different cultures, the arts, music, meditation, sports, philosophy and via this multi-prong approach observe patterns and from these patterns maybe come to a new thought about the nature of nature via creative intuition. It is a long journey and everything that one observes on this journey is useful in creating this new idea.

— Rich

Non-locality hasn't been experimentally observed. That is an interpretational claim. The Everett model explains EPR-style experiments in a local manner. — Andrew M

Let's put it this way, the experiments that have been designed to test noon-locality gave confirmed non-locality, in the same manner any scientific experiment is interpreted. I'm totally on board with subjectivity all over science.

In any case, in would be interesting to ponder how sprouting universes for into Relativity. Are there equations for inter-universe frame of references? I don't think the Lorentz transformations can handle measurements between multiple universes. I guess that is something that Everett proponents will have to work on.

What Bell proved was that hidden variables and locality were incompatible. The Bohm model accepts hidden variables and rejects locality. Whereas the Everett model accepts locality and rejects hidden variables. Which makes it a more natural fit with Einstein's special theory of relativity. — Andrew M

Yes, but not-locality has been experimentally observed which is why Bell preferred Bohm's model. Plus it gets around the awkwardness of a never-ending multitudes of universes interacting with each other in a presumably super-non-local manner unless of course it can be shown that different universes preserve locality.

It's not for anyone to justify other life.

I have found that interesting metaphysics is a combination of knowledge, personal observations, pattern recognition (finding similarities within differences and differences within similarities), as well as excellent creative intuition. Most philosophers I've studied spent a good part of their life honing these skills each in their own way. It takes much time and patience to begin to develop a completely new way of looking at nature which moves toward a deeper understanding. I really appreciate new ways of looking at life.

The problem lies in elevating mathematical equations to ontological status. They are not. They are merely symbolic representations that are useful as tools.

It would be more appropriate to say that if the universe was different then physics would be different, which it would be. However, the universe is what it is and we continue to create new mathematical symbolism as useful tools for describing and living in it.

A "field" is not attributed to anything. It is not the property of anything, nor is it itself a thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

In Bohm's conception of the universe as a holomovement process the Implicate/Explicate order, the field would be a manifestation of this movement. Things appear to be moving about towards each other or away, because of the holomovement. Similarly electrons may appear to be jumping from states to states as they move in and out of the Implicate/Explicate order as a wave might.

There is full continuity, with allowances for the appearance of discontinuity, in this model, while preserving the essential elements of process and motion in the universe.

The Debate between Plato and Democritus. Emphasis added. — Wayfarer

Hiley put it quite eloquently when he says we have to think of the universe at both the micro and macro level as processes and not things. This viewpoint echos those of Bergson and Whitehead. The mind is constantly involved with processes and interacts as a process. It it's all entangled like a reconstructive wave interacting with holographic waves. There is no independent thing just continuous flow and interactions.

I would say the same of the Everett model except more so. As I see it, the Bohm model modifies the quantum picture and tries to provide a picture that conforms more with a classical view (using non-local hidden variables). Whereas the Everettian view interprets quantum mechanics on its own terms without needing to modify the equations, introduce non-locality or posit a quantum potential field. — Andrew M

My head spins when I consider the many world concepts that someone had to buy into with the Everett model (endless parallel universes) where everything that is not happening here is happening there and vice versa in some sort of manner which befuddles me. For me, it's just wild and I never seriously considered it, especially since the Bohm model is so tight and was the model that encouraged Bell to develop his theorem on non-locality that has been repeatedly verified in experiments at the macro and micro level. (Bell himself was an advocate for the Bohm model).

Here Basil Hiley, a close associate of Bohm, discusses the process nature of the Bohm model. He prefers to avoid wave/particle concepts. Pretty interesting if you are familiar with basic quantum theory. It's nice to hear directly from the source.

https://youtu.be/9gFCj5PPEyw

We can also have an option that's realist but that admits ignorance: Namely, particles are something real, but we don't really know their nature very well. The model we have of particles being something like a "chunk of stuff" is wrong--or at least what we're taking to be single particles isn't actually a single particle. — Terrapin Station

In his later writings, de Broglie dropped the notion of a particle and instead referred to it as a wave perturbation.

The Bohm model simplifies everything.

There is a real particle (actually a wave perturbation) that goes through one of the slits. It is being guided by a quantum potential field that has immediate, non-local action (confirmed by the Bell/Aspect and subsequent experiments).

The quantum potential field continues to guide the particle until it hits the screen. Thus, any changes to the slits (delayed choice) will immediately effect the particle even if it has passed the slit.

The Bohm model pretty much describes the universe of quanta. It is real, eliminates all quantum paradoxes, and easy to grasp. It was initially rejected (the deBroglie pilot wave model) because Van Neumann supposedly stated that it was mathematically impossible. Bohm showed her was wrong but to b do this, he had to introduce non-locality in the form of the quantum potential.

Bohm specifically states in his writings that model is causal not deterministic, thereby allowing for an agent of choice. The probabilistic nature of the model is embedded in the quantum potential field which is essentially a process.

seems to me that one of the mistakes in the early interpretation of the infamous Libet experiment was a lack of attention to the way in which intentional actions always are intentional under some descriptions and not under other descriptions. It's not just that some consequences of what you do are unintended, but even some aspects that you are perfectly aware (and in full control) of, regarding what you do, aren't deliberately chosen either, and need not be, for your action to count as intentional. — Pierre-Normand

A life form has Will that allows it to choose an action in a particular direction. Results are always unpredictable though probabilistic in nature (this parallels the essence of quantum physics). Willful movement is inherent in life forces.

She's doing what she wished to do, given that she is thus inclined. This is also, of course, a gross simplification of the standard argument(s) for compatibilism. — Pierre-Normand

This implies a choice is made, and as such the so-called deterministic chain is broken. As soon as any non-deterministic choice is made anywhere in the universe, the deterministic paradigm is crushed as is compatibilism.

My interpretation is that the Dao (intelligence or vital force) permeates the universe. It would be a analogous to waves of quanta (the Dao symbol) but the waves of quanta would be waves of intelligence. This you have the Dao creating and evolving via waves of intelligent energy. That which is creating and that which is created are fundamentally the same.

Probably the best way to understand human behavior is to observe and study it.

I believe, based upon observations, that most people feel this way about responsibility, though there is a very wide variance among the population. Even with criminal acts of misconduct there is a very wide bandwidth of interpretation such as the varying degrees of manslaughter and murder. So, we to a large extent accept that the degree or feeling of responsibility by ourselves and others has many conditionals associated with it and very subjective.

There are gradations in how one may feel responsibility. It's a feeling.

Do I feel responsible for a sneeze? If it is from a cold, maybe I could have done something to prevent it. From an allergy? Maybe I shouldn't have gone into the area filled ragweed? From sniffing pepper? Definitely shouldn't have done that. From causes unknown? Maybe, I can figure out what is causing the sneezing? This is all qualitatively different from a willful, pre-premeditated movement to push someone down there stairs this the feeling of responsibility will be different and along a broad spectrum. Certainly each person exhibits and feels a different level of responsibility for action of theirs and of others.

However, in the normal course of events there is a general feeling that people, to some extent, are responsible for willful actions (in some cases non-action as in the case of negligence). Such is the case that in general there is a consensus on the population and scientific data that supports the notion that we are making choices in our lives. For example, when the WHO reports that more than 80% of chronic illnesses are due to lifestyle choices, they mean precisely that.

His statement surprised me, because I didn't think that physics said anything about metaphysics. — Michael Ossipoff

I agree, it doesn't and never does. Quantum physics is an equation. You plug some numbers in and you get some results. Equations don't interpret themselves-they never do. They are simply a device for measurement and approximate predictions.

The moment scientists or philosophers decide to provide some interpretation of the ontological meaning of equations, they have entered into the world of metaphysics which is absolutely fine as long as it is presented as such. Unfortunately, scientists have this tendency of mixing up metaphysical musings with symbolic equations that in themselves have zero ontological meaning.

Since scientists disagree on wats to interpret the quantum equations and principles, I am extremely comfortable with my belief that this particular scientist is simply espousing his own interpretations as one of scientific fact. Naughty, naughty.

But I will say that his rejection of an objective, independently-existing world is in agreement with my metaphysics, and that suggests to me that just maybe his statement was valid. But neither of us know about that for sure, one way or the other.

I would agree that quantum experiments seem to indicate that the observer and the observed are entangled. This is not to say that there isn't something real out there. It is just that the mind is subjectively interpreting it.

Of course you realize that you're in the minority if you reject Special Relativity. There's some consensus that General Relativity needs work. But wholesale rejection of it would be a minority position.

I don't reject Relatively. Special relativity is simply a transformation method between frames of reference. No big deal. What I challenge is that time, as used for measurements (some physical displacement) has any ontological relevance to time as we experience it in life, which is psychological in nature, heterogenous, and indivisible. This was Bergson's objection. Strangely, Einstein either didn't get it or pretended he didn't get it, but then again he also rejected quantum physics.

What's more, General Relativity which establishes a differences in frames of references (accelerating over vs non-accelerating one) is in direct contradiction to Special Relativity. This particular problem creates all kinds of paradoxes which underscore the high probability that something is awry. Bohm wrote in one of his essays that where there are paradoxes, something further needs to be understood. I believe at the heart of the issue is the chasm between scientific time and real time.

I I thought that Einstein was only talking about the physics, with Relativity, and that he wasn't making metaphysical claims with it.

Einstein often used religious language, but Physicalists insist that he was only doing so as a figure of
speech. I don't know about that, one way or the other.

The metaphysics that you advocate has lots of assumptions and brute-facts.

When Einstein began talking about the space-time continuum being real he entered into the realm of metaphysics. As a result of the paradoxes this manner of thinking created, a whole slew of sci-fi worlds were created including the ever popular Dr. Who. It's not that what Einstein proclaimed had in any manner explained the life we experience, but it was so much fun the audience embraced it.

Metaphysics is speculation based upon observations and intuition. One can search for facts but there aren't any and if one insists on facts, then one becomes immobile. However, if metaphysical speculation is not one's cup of tea, there is always something else to do such as learning to play an instrument. I don't think any of my friends or acquaintances spend much time with metaphysics outside of their religion though as one ages certain questions about life do seem to become more relevant. I, on the other had, use my philosophy in a practical manner every day of my life, which is why I look for metaphysics that is very strongly grounded in my every day experience of life.

I believe that beliefs is all we have and I'm satisfied with that. When lots of people believe strongly about the same thing (there is spectrum) they call it a truth. If one reviews history and current events (or even this forum), one might notice that truths come and go depending upon the population. Truths are pretty fluid.

I will not attempt a Tarski and define truth with a circular definition (which is inevitable), but would assume that you and me share the meaning of the word "truth".

This is the primary issue with your argument. You can't assume anything especially when there is ample disagreement. It may be convenient so that you can continue but if someone disagrees, it's over. Best just to state your own beliefs about truths.

I agree with your proposition. The universe doesn't progress, it evolves and we, with memory, remember and learn as we evolve with it. One can make a very nice case for to the healthy and unhealthy physical, social, psychological, and spiritual effects of technology. The final contribution of nuclear weapons is still quite unknown. As for me, I just look for simple things in life like a good friend.

So the question is, is this predetermined (according to Daoism?) — FreeEmotion

Time unfolds (real psychological time, not scientific time) as a manifestation of all that is happening including the choices being made. There is no concrete future. Nothing is predetermined.

So is his statement not true? Does quantum-mechanics not contradict the notion of an objective physical world that exists independently of us?

I don't claim to be able to answer that, but I just re-emphasize that that author was someone with impressive credentials in quantum-mechanics. I should find the book, name the author, and quote the passage, but it was a long time ago. Obviously a quote without the name of the author, or his exact words isn't very compelling. — Rich

Based upon my so studies, physics only offers the equations, which are purely symbolic and have no meaning onto themselves. Any interpretations must necessarily be subjective and yes, physicists as most scientists have no problem providing subjective, metaphysical interpretations and labeling them as factual science. Scientists not only do this some of the time, they do it all the time but only a few will admit to it.

One egregious example is Einstein who took a scientific symbol of time (a physical movement) and without any hesitation elevated it to an ontological status. As a result we have a mess in science such as time travel, twins aging at different rates, etc., and the extremely strange situation of General Relativity contracting Special Relativity (Special claiming all reference frames being equal and General claiming they they are all different by virtue of acceleration). Scientific time is used to measure synchronicity. It has nothing to do with the psychological time that we experience in life.

As for the question of an objective world, things get tricky because words and metaphors are inadequate. I personally embrace the holographic analogy which would claim:

1) There is something real out there (using Bohm's version of the Schrodinger's equations) but it is entangled with the observation or consciousness.

2) What is real is are holographic wave forms that exist out there outside of the mind (not in the brain).

3) The brain creates a reconstruction beam that illuminates the hologram hence the subjective view of the real and the corresponding entanglement between the observed and the observer.

Much of the above is a composite of Bohm's Implicate Order and Pribram's view of holographic consciousness. I want to emphasize that this is a very small minority view of quantum and contradicts what most scientists espouse, but here is a link that provides some basis for this metaphysical point of view. Ultimately, you will have to come up with your own metaphysical view.

http://holographicarchetypes.weebly.com/holographic-paradigm.html

Well, maybe Physicalism isn't unfalsifiable: There was a quantum-mechanics specialist, someone with high academic standing (I don't remember his name) who wrote a book in which he said that quantum-mechannics lays to rest the notion of an objectively-existent physical world.

That sounds like a very rare instance of physics establishing a conclusion about metaphysics. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't see that physics is taking a position. Physics is offering the Schrodinger's equation as a way of probabilistically predicting the position of the election and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Beyond this we enter the domain of metaphysics, as we should be. Understanding the nature of nature is the providence of philosophy not science.

What we do have is a physicist taking a metaphysical position based upon his/her interpretation of quantum physics, which is fine, but it does cross the line into metaphysics. My own preferred interpretation is the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation. I prefer this approach because it is real, it embraces cause, it is non-deterministic allowing for the possibility of choice. In addition, the concept of a quantum potential that guides as acts non-locally fully explains all observed "spooky behavior" of elections, e.g. delayed choice and quantum entanglement at a distance. Undoubtedly there is more to be known and or understanding will evolve.

Metaphysics doesn't provide final answers, rather it continues to explore by positing questions and creating potential new ways of looking at things. This is all that is possible in a fluid, every changing universe where nothing stands still. In this regard, metaphysics is analagous to art, to the extent that I believe that understanding art provides a terrific doorway into metaphysics.

Understanding that spirituality is an individual exploration, for me, concretely, my spirituality is a recognition of the life force within me (variously referred to as Elan vital, qi, prana, etc.), and an awareness of its desire to explore, create, and learn. It's this awareness that helps guide me and inform me throughout my life (lives?).

You are committing yourself to an interpretation too quickly I think. — nishank gupta

I don't think so. I just believe that people tend to label as a truth what is merely an agreed consensus which it's constantly changing (and actually may be different depending upon where one lives), a consensus arrived at for practical purposes. For some reason, people seem to be always looking for truths whether it be in religion, science, or even mathematics (which in itself is nothing more than a string of symbols without any inherent meaning). It is an aspect of human consciousness that befuddles me. Why the desire to create immobility (Truths)? There is something there but I can't figure it out.