Does everything in life happen because it needed to happen?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do we learn those rules? By learning it will we know what decisions to make? Which path to follow? Our likely futures?
There are self help books for that. I think I've heard of something called life-hacking. Personally, if I knew the rules of life, I'd be in some big fancy house with a beautiful wife and full social calendar instead of this small two-bedroom apartment.
It's too difficult to learn the rules, it's like trying to make discoveries, usually it happens accidentally.
BUT your thoughts and desires are creating your reality. Be aware of what you're thinking each moment. Do NOT think anything that you don't want to happen. ONLY think those things that you want to happen. DO NOT think that you don't have anything. Because when you think that, this is the reality you are creating: I don't have anything.
Think: I have everything..... and if you keep only thinking positive, over time the Universe responds to your thoughts and brings you the things you are thinking of. There are limitations and constraints because there are other people involved and their desires could interfere with yours. But it will pay off eventually.
The problem is: for some of us it's just not possible to only think positive. We go back and forth: negative, positive, negative, positive. And the Universe cannot read instructions like that.
If it's possible for you, then you are the lucky one.
03-19-2013, 04:34 PM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 10 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,921,991 times
Reputation: 4052
Many philosophical theories of preconceived determinism align to ideas that reality and everything that happens follows a predetermined destined path. I believe that is mostly a false conception as spontaneous not planned events constantly occur and too many events seeming it was never supposed to happen.
However, maybe there is an even arrangement of actions that was supposed to happen and other actions that always had to be avoided.
Every thing that has happened in the past is the cause for what today is. Without every event in the past, no matter how small, it is part of what has become today.
Just my opinion, in order for today to be exactly as it is, depended on every thing in the past happening exactly as it did.
What Woodrow and have said is somewhat interesting to me when it comes to talking about the cause of things (causality?). The universe, space and time are all determined by physics. One event causes the next event to happen which causes another event so on and so on. A person drops a mug of coffee, it falls and breaks on the ground. while there is nothing in physics that says that mug can jump up from the ground reassembling and return to the person's hand,it just doesn't happen. The forces governing our universe (on the macro level at least) won't let that happen. In a way that is what is completely predetermined in the universe.
What might be a little harder to figure out is whether the events and decisions we make in our lives are because of free will or predetermined. (I might be going into some things I don't have a full grasp on again.) How do we know if our actions and decisions are things that are supposed to happen or not? For example, let's say you're looking around in a store maybe shopping for a gift. You see three different vases that you like. A red one, a blue one and a purple one. You choose, let's say, the red one. You buy it and you go home.
The question would then be were you supposed to pick the red one? Was this the predetermined point in your history that said you must pick the red one? If you were supposed to pick it how do you know? What would have happened if you picked the purple or the blue? Obviously, since it's buying a vase, not much would effect anything but still it would raise those questions about free will versus predetermination.
The question would then be were you supposed to pick the red one? Was this the predetermined point in your history that said you must pick the red one? If you were supposed to pick it how do you know? What would have happened if you picked the purple or the blue? Obviously, since it's buying a vase, not much would effect anything but still it would raise those questions about free will versus predetermination.
I believe that there is free will, but I have to admit that the concept runs into some deep logical problems that I have not yet resolved to my full satisfaction. Here are a few basic ideas to consider:
Quantum mechanics has almost entirely destroyed the credibility of strict determinism, and thus we can safely throw "predetermination" out the window, from a scientific point of view. (Technically, David Bohm's version of QM would allow for determinism, but it doesn't require determinism, and Bohm himself rejected determinism. For all practical purposes, the scientific consensus is that strict determinism is dead.) This leaves room in physics for free will, but it is important to realize that "leaving room for" free will is not the same as providing the logical or scientific grounds for free will. QM gives us indeterminism in the form of random chance, and chance is just as unhelpful to understanding free will as determinism is. If our choices are only determinism on one hand, and chance on the other, then we still have no basis for free will - or, at least, there is still no basis for the sort of free will that I (and most people) really want to explain. (I'm not a "compatibilist".)
What I mean by "free will" is a third choice - one that is not compatible with determinism, nor with chance, nor with a mere mixture of the two. This third choice is "agent causality," and this is where I get into trouble. Here is how I conceive of agent causality, although I admit that it runs into deep trouble:
Determinism and chance are both real. Some processes unfold according to laws and are thus, in principle, fully predictable. Other processes are purely random and are, thus, totally unpredictable, even in principle. I postulate that there is a spectrum between predictable and unpredictable, and that somewhere in the middle of this spectrum there is room for agent causality. If I am right, and if we ever get to a point, technologically, where we can study the detailed activities of large numbers of neurons in a living, awake brain, we will find that the laws of physics - as we currently understand them, are violated. Which is to say, we will need to introduce some new theories to explain the activity. The reason we will need the new theories is this: We will bump into brain activity that correlates with free will.
Per my hypothesis, here is what free will is going to look like in the physics of a living brain: The brain is a physical system that is too unpredictable to be explained by classical physics, but too long-term predictable to be explained by quantum uncertainty. In very rough terms: Quantum uncertainty is understood in terms of probability, which gives us something like a bell curve. Based on this, QM will predict brain activity along the lines of the logic of probability. If I am correct about the reality of free will, then this approach to explaining brain activity will ultimately fail. Again, very roughly: the "bell curve" will fail, but it won't fail randomly. It will fail in a certain way. The best way (not the only way, but I think the best way) to explain this particular type of failure will be to introduce a theory of free will. Literally, the failures of the bell curve will correlate to a statistically high degree with the desires of the person whose brain is being monitored. It will, quite frankly, seem like a subtle sort of “psi” effect at the quantum scale. This will force science to confront the mental/qualitative aspects of reality in a way that we have not yet done.
One way to think of agent causality is to think in terms of the beginnings of causal chains. By the rules of strict determinism, all causal chains must ultimately go back to the big bang. By the rules of QM, causal chains start at various random quantum events, then flow deterministically until some unspecifiable future “observation” event, at which point the rule-following chain breaks and a new chain begins. (Basically, this is “the problem of measurement” in QM). Agent causality introduces a third option: Some causal chains begin with choices made by a sentient mind (a "qualia experiencer") and then flow quasi-deterministically (i.e., with high probability, but not always in accordance with a bell-curve type of predictability) until the next agent-choice event.
I realize that this line of thought is vague and incomplete, but it's all I can give you at the moment. One of the key problems is that we don't have a theory of qualia. This is one of the reasons why I started a thread about "the hard problem." I think we really need to have a good theory linking the laws of physics as we currently understand them, to qualia. This will almost certainly require theoretical concepts that, at the moment, it seems we can't even imagine. One of my major goals in life is to at least get to a point where I can roughly imagine what a possible solution to the hard problem might be like. Any plausible solution to the hard problem, I think, would give us further insights into the nature of free will.
I believe that there is free will, but I have to admit that the concept runs into some deep logical problems that I have not yet resolved to my full satisfaction. Here are a few basic ideas to consider:
Quantum mechanics has almost entirely destroyed the credibility of strict determinism, and thus we can safely throw "predetermination" out the window, from a scientific point of view. (Technically, David Bohm's version of QM would allow for determinism, but it doesn't require determinism, and Bohm himself rejected determinism. For all practical purposes, the scientific consensus is that strict determinism is dead.) This leaves room in physics for free will, but it is important to realize that "leaving room for" free will is not the same as providing the logical or scientific grounds for free will. QM gives us indeterminism in the form of random chance, and chance is just as unhelpful to understanding free will as determinism is. If our choices are only determinism on one hand, and chance on the other, then we still have no basis for free will - or, at least, there is still no basis for the sort of free will that I (and most people) really want to explain. (I'm not a "compatibilist".)
What I mean by "free will" is a third choice - one that is not compatible with determinism, nor with chance, nor with a mere mixture of the two. This third choice is "agent causality," and this is where I get into trouble. Here is how I conceive of agent causality, although I admit that it runs into deep trouble:
Determinism and chance are both real. Some processes unfold according to laws and are thus, in principle, fully predictable. Other processes are purely random and are, thus, totally unpredictable, even in principle. I postulate that there is a spectrum between predictable and unpredictable, and that somewhere in the middle of this spectrum there is room for agent causality. If I am right, and if we ever get to a point, technologically, where we can study the detailed activities of large numbers of neurons in a living, awake brain, we will find that the laws of physics - as we currently understand them, are violated. Which is to say, we will need to introduce some new theories to explain the activity. The reason we will need the new theories is this: We will bump into brain activity that correlates with free will.
Per my hypothesis, here is what free will is going to look like in the physics of a living brain: The brain is a physical system that is too unpredictable to be explained by classical physics, but too long-term predictable to be explained by quantum uncertainty. In very rough terms: Quantum uncertainty is understood in terms of probability, which gives us something like a bell curve. Based on this, QM will predict brain activity along the lines of the logic of probability. If I am correct about the reality of free will, then this approach to explaining brain activity will ultimately fail. Again, very roughly: the "bell curve" will fail, but it won't fail randomly. It will fail in a certain way. The best way (not the only way, but I think the best way) to explain this particular type of failure will be to introduce a theory of free will. Literally, the failures of the bell curve will correlate to a statistically high degree with the desires of the person whose brain is being monitored. It will, quite frankly, seem like a subtle sort of “psi” effect at the quantum scale. This will force science to confront the mental/qualitative aspects of reality in a way that we have not yet done.
One way to think of agent causality is to think in terms of the beginnings of causal chains. By the rules of strict determinism, all causal chains must ultimately go back to the big bang. By the rules of QM, causal chains start at various random quantum events, then flow deterministically until some unspecifiable future “observation” event, at which point the rule-following chain breaks and a new chain begins. (Basically, this is “the problem of measurement” in QM). Agent causality introduces a third option: Some causal chains begin with choices made by a sentient mind (a "qualia experiencer") and then flow quasi-deterministically (i.e., with high probability, but not always in accordance with a bell-curve type of predictability) until the next agent-choice event.
I realize that this line of thought is vague and incomplete, but it's all I can give you at the moment. One of the key problems is that we don't have a theory of qualia. This is one of the reasons why I started a thread about "the hard problem." I think we really need to have a good theory linking the laws of physics as we currently understand them, to qualia. This will almost certainly require theoretical concepts that, at the moment, it seems we can't even imagine. One of my major goals in life is to at least get to a point where I can roughly imagine what a possible solution to the hard problem might be like. Any plausible solution to the hard problem, I think, would give us further insights into the nature of free will.
Nice. But if we succeed in finding a solution, then life wouldn't be such a confusion anymore. That'd be actual fortune tellers. All in the name of Science. xD I still think that there's a transcendental force though. you can use the big bang theory and the multiverse theory to deny the existence of that transcendental being but in the end everything has to start from something.
Nice. But if we succeed in finding a solution, then life wouldn't be such a confusion anymore. That'd be actual fortune tellers. All in the name of Science.
Actually, no. With determinism out of the picture, "fortune telling" can be nothing but guesswork. Agent causality is somewhat more predictable than random chance (due to general patterns based on personality, etc.), but still fundamentally unpredictable.
Quote:
xD I still think that there's a transcendental force though. you can use the big bang theory and the multiverse theory to deny the existence of that transcendental being but in the end everything has to start from something.
I agree with the need for something transcendental (in the sense of not being located in time or space, or to put it another way: something that is the source of spacetime, not in spacetime). Even physics accepts this, by default, with the concept of the quantum vacuum (virtual particles in QED, etc.) But the primordial void does not have to be an intelligently directed or purposeful force. Intelligence and purpose can emerge from something like the quantum void, so long as the void is "qualitative" in some fundamental sense, and essentially chaotic. (Just to be clear: By positing a qualitative aspect to the primordial void, I'm going beyond the current theories of physics. Current theories in physics don't address the qualitative aspect of reality very well, hence "the hard problem.")
I agree with the need for something transcendental (in the sense of not being located in time or space, or to put it another way: something that is the source of spacetime, not in spacetime). Even physics accepts this, by default, with the concept of the quantum vacuum (virtual particles in QED, etc.) But the primordial void does not have to be an intelligently directed or purposeful force. Intelligence and purpose can emerge from something like the quantum void, so long as the void is "qualitative" in some fundamental sense, and essentially chaotic.
But if it's essentially chaotic then this world would be long dead by now. Or at least we'll all be in war. Very disorganized.
But if it's essentially chaotic then this world would be long dead by now. Or at least we'll all be in war. Very disorganized.
Sorry, I should have specified that by the term "chaotic" I'm referring to the mathematical sense of chaos, as in Chaos Theory. This is different than the general popular use of the term "chaos" to refer to disorganization (as in "My house is in chaos.") In math/science, a chaotic system is a dynamical system compose of interconnected elements. A chaotic system can start out as a disorganized mess (chaotic in the general popular sense), but due to the interconnected nature of the elements, intricate patterns can spontaneously emerge (driven by an input of energy to the system). This is literally "order from chaos" without requiring the guidance of a pre-existing intelligence.
One additional note: None of this speculation rules out the possible existence of an intelligent designer. All this does is remove the need for an intelligent designer in order to explain the emergence of order. This also leaves us with the possibility that there is a God, but that God (or, at least, God's intellectual capacity) emerged from the chaotic qualitative void.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 03-21-2013 at 11:42 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
