Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Ex-Muslims on Mythvision ...
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:58 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 09:14 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 01, 2025, 12:31 PM

ركن المتحدثين هايد بارك ل...
by akay
October 30, 2025, 08:24 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
October 23, 2025, 06:54 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 23, 2025, 01:36 PM

New Britain
October 21, 2025, 01:10 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
October 07, 2025, 09:50 AM

What's happened to the fo...
October 06, 2025, 11:58 AM

Kashmir endgame
October 04, 2025, 10:05 PM

الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
September 24, 2025, 11:55 AM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
September 20, 2025, 07:39 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Discussion on freewill with friends.

 (Read 22945 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #90 - November 18, 2010, 12:35 AM

    I don't use concious in the sense that an organism is self aware. I think thats a different concept. Everything is concious, as in a single objective reality doesn't exist.


    Not that I actually believe that yet....
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #91 - November 18, 2010, 12:38 AM

    I don't use concious in the sense that an organism is self aware. I think thats a different concept. Everything is concious, as in a single objective reality doesn't exist.

    How can we reproduce experimental results then?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #92 - November 18, 2010, 12:38 AM

    I'd also like to know what z10 thoughts on particle consciousness is..


    Apparently some of the questions I asked him have made him realise he needs to spend more time thinking about it. Tongue I offer reply #78 as my attempt at reconciling those problems...
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #93 - November 18, 2010, 12:40 AM

    How can we reproduce experimental results then?


    I don't understand the question and I definitely don't have an answer. I will wait for an actual proponent of the idea to respond...
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #94 - November 18, 2010, 12:46 AM

    I was responding to this \/
    Everything is concious, as in a single objective reality doesn't exist.


    Most scientific results can be reproduced reliably time & time again, particularly when related to non-life e.g. gravity, speed, acceleration of particles. 

    If such particles had any degree of consciousness, then presuably they would not follow an exact pattern, but would have a 'mind' of their own.  Dunno if Ive completely got the wrong end of the stick,

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #95 - November 18, 2010, 12:46 AM

    I maintain that randomness, and therefore free will, does not have to be unconstrained.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #96 - November 18, 2010, 12:58 AM

    You say his knowledge determines our actions.  They say our actions determine his knowledge.


    Wouldn't that mean that you are affecting allah through your judgment and therefore joining partners with him?



    "Modern man's great illusion has been to convince himself that of all that has gone before he represents the zenith of human accomplishment, but can't summon the mental powers to read anything more demanding than emoticons. Fascinating. "

    One very horny Turk I met on the net.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #97 - November 18, 2010, 01:02 AM

    I cant see how observation can cause actual physical laws to collapse QM.  I think we are just waiting for a single unified theory, which will explain this phenomenon.  Although I can see how your post could make sense given our current scientific juxtaposition.


    'wavefunction collapse' does not mean that the laws in QM collpase. It's a term used to describe what happens to the wavefunction (the probability wave) when an observation is made. The wavefunction describes for example the probabilty of say an electron to be found here or there or in the andromeda galaxy (the probabilty of it being found anywhere in the universe according to QM is always a non-zero value). Howver according to QM, before an observation is made, the electron exists in a probabilstic mixture of all possibiliteis (in a sense it doesn't exist). Once an observation is made however, one definite outcome is randomly selected from the quantum haze and is realised - in this sense the elctron only comes into existence once it is observed - and when it does so, the probabilty of it existing at all other locations become zero - hence this is described as 'wavefunction collapse', since the wavefunction 'collapses' onto the one value that is selected upon observation.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #98 - November 18, 2010, 01:13 AM

    Wouldn't that mean that you are affecting allah through your judgment and therefore joining partners with him?




    no, think you misunderstood

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #99 - November 18, 2010, 01:18 AM

    'wavefunction collapse' does not mean that the laws in QM collpase. It's a term used to describe what happens to the wavefunction (the probability wave) when an observation is made. The wavefunction describes for example the probabilty of say an electron to be found here or there or in the andromeda galaxy (the probabilty of it being found anywhere in the universe according to QM is always a non-zero value). Howver according to QM, before an observation is made, the electron exists in a probabilstic mixture of all possibiliteis (in a sense it doesn't exist). Once an observation is made however, one definite outcome is randomly selected from the quantum haze and is realised - in this sense the elctron only comes into existence once it is observed - and when it does so, the probabilty of it existing at all other locations become zero - hence this is described as 'wavefunction collapse', since the wavefunction 'collapses' onto the one value that is selected upon observation.


    What I want to know is by what mechanism does probability (in this sense) arise? How are some outcomes more probable than others? The first thing that springs to mind is that each possible outcome is in itself a random event, constrained by varying limits. I will look into it, but if you have the answer already you can save me the trouble...
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #100 - November 18, 2010, 01:20 AM

    How can we reproduce experimental results then?


    with experiments to do with physical reality i.e. quantum mechanics, we can't and don't reproduce experimental results. If we performed exactly the same experiment under the exact same conditions - we end up getting different answers. The only thing we can do is use schrodingers wavefunction to predict the probability of a certain outcome - and it appears that only when an observation is made that one of these outcomes is randomly selected.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #101 - November 18, 2010, 01:23 AM

    'wavefunction collapse' does not mean that the laws in QM collpase. It's a term used to describe what happens to the wavefunction (the probability wave) when an observation is made. The wavefunction describes for example the probabilty of say an electron to be found here or there or in the andromeda galaxy (the probabilty of it being found anywhere in the universe according to QM is always a non-zero value). Howver according to QM, before an observation is made, the electron exists in a probabilstic mixture of all possibiliteis (in a sense it doesn't exist). Once an observation is made however, one definite outcome is randomly selected from the quantum haze and is realised - in this sense the elctron only comes into existence once it is observed - and when it does so, the probabilty of it existing at all other locations become zero - hence this is described as 'wavefunction collapse', since the wavefunction 'collapses' onto the one value that is selected upon observation.


    Excuse my ignorance because my knowledge of physics is quite basic compared to yours but let me see if I've understood you correctly..


    In other words you are talking about the probabilities of the possible states in which the said electron may be found, and so logic states that some probabilities are higher than others and therefore I'm assuming that this may used to predict it's most likely location and prove its existence.  Wave function is just a term used to describe all the hypothesised probabilities in layman's terms...

    "Modern man's great illusion has been to convince himself that of all that has gone before he represents the zenith of human accomplishment, but can't summon the mental powers to read anything more demanding than emoticons. Fascinating. "

    One very horny Turk I met on the net.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #102 - November 18, 2010, 01:27 AM

    no, think you misunderstood


    You said that our actions determine his knowledge.  That implies that we are affecting the divine essence's perceptions and predictions capabilities thus rendering him dependent on us to respond.  It would be as with any organism responding to external stimuli.

    "Modern man's great illusion has been to convince himself that of all that has gone before he represents the zenith of human accomplishment, but can't summon the mental powers to read anything more demanding than emoticons. Fascinating. "

    One very horny Turk I met on the net.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #103 - November 18, 2010, 01:33 AM

    Yes, thats sort of what I was saying - if you read this thread you'll get a wider explanation of how I believe this apparent contradiction 'could' be reconciled with religionists.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #104 - November 18, 2010, 01:41 AM

    Yes, thats sort of what I was saying - if you read this thread you'll get a wider explanation of how I believe this apparent contradiction 'could' be reconciled with religionists.


    Your argument is that god guesses but makes100% accurate guesses.  In other words it is very diplomatic fence sitting.  Guessing leaves room for uncertainty, hence freewill comes in, but the predictions are 100% accurate so god is not offended either and is still all knowing in a way.  In the end it all comes back to were you started because a 100% accuracy rate is just as good as being all knowing in the first place

    "Modern man's great illusion has been to convince himself that of all that has gone before he represents the zenith of human accomplishment, but can't summon the mental powers to read anything more demanding than emoticons. Fascinating. "

    One very horny Turk I met on the net.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #105 - November 18, 2010, 01:46 AM

    I still see it as a contradiction. If there is absolutely no chance that god's predictions are wrong, then we dont have free will. If there is a chance (even if it doesnt come to pass), then his knowledge isn't infallibe, he is not omniscient. If his predictions are dependent on what we do, then it's hardly a prediction is it... If you cite God's omnipotence as a resolution to the problem, in effect you are conceding that nothing about Islam is disprovable, because God can do anything, even make a non-contradiction seem a contradiction...
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #106 - November 18, 2010, 01:59 AM

    Your argument is that god guesses but makes100% accurate guesses.  In other words it is very diplomatic fence sitting.  Guessing leaves room for uncertainty, hence freewill comes in, but the predictions are 100% accurate so god is not offended either and is still all knowing in a way.  In the end it all comes back to were you started because a 100% accuracy rate is just as good as being all knowing in the first place

    you missed my time-travel post  grin12

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #107 - November 18, 2010, 11:23 AM

    Good to see Hassan is watching from up above, and keeping an eye on our progress  Old geezer

    Anyhow he wanted me to post this on his behalf..



    Thanks Islame - I browsed this thread last night and wanted to contribute but couldn't and so asked you to post - but then thought that is frankly daft - so got my self-ban removed! Smiley
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #108 - November 18, 2010, 11:27 AM

    Quote
    Thanks Islame - I browsed this thread last night and wanted to contribute but couldn't and so asked you to post - but then thought that is frankly daft - so got my self-ban removed!


    you're so gay  Smiley

    glad to have you back!

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #109 - November 18, 2010, 11:38 AM

    Thanks Islame - I browsed this thread last night and wanted to contribute but couldn't and so asked you to post - but then thought that is frankly daft - so got my self-ban removed! Smiley

    Good & about time too

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #110 - November 18, 2010, 11:40 AM

    you're so gay  Smiley


    I know you are but what am I?  Tongue
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #111 - November 18, 2010, 12:19 PM

    What I want to know is by what mechanism does probability (in this sense) arise? How are some outcomes more probable than others? The first thing that springs to mind is that each possible outcome is in itself a random event, constrained by varying limits. I will look into it, but if you have the answer already you can save me the trouble...


    I'm no expert but I would agree with you here. The only thing I can think of is that interactions with other particles influences what outcomes are more probable than others (i.e. in addition to it's current properties such as velocity, position, spin etc.). So for an electron for example it is most likely to be found in the orbital of the atom with which particles in the nucleus it is interacting, less likely to be found somewhere outside but in the close vicinity of the atom and even less likely to be found somewhere in another galaxy - but the possibility for it to be found anywhere in the universe is always a nonzero value. But if this were true, it's important to remember that these interactions don't determine which outcome will occur, they just determine the likelihood of each outcome occurring - the selection of which outcome actually occurs is still random (and apparently only occurs upon concious observation).

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #112 - November 18, 2010, 05:31 PM

    with experiments to do with physical reality i.e. quantum mechanics, we can't and don't reproduce experimental results. If we performed exactly the same experiment under the exact same conditions - we end up getting different answers. T


    So we get consistent results on the macro scale because of the sheer number of probable events/interactions involved, and limits in accuracy?
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #113 - November 18, 2010, 06:01 PM

    yep, i think that is what he is saying - looks like you both are heading for the same direction by different means  (you more philosophically & him more scientifically)

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #114 - November 18, 2010, 09:18 PM

    I am not sure of the mechanism it could use or even how something can make a 100% reliable predication-but like I repeat these facets are taken for granted.  Perhaps Allah is infinitely aware of his creation, so he can understand the mechanisms of decision making with the genes & environment he gave us.  Perhaps he can time travel or something like that.  This would enable him to see what you did with your free-will.


    As I see it there are two main ways in which God could be omniscient, and thereby, know exactly what actions we are going to perform, to the extent that God knew whether we were going to end up in heaven or in hell from the moment he created us, as stated in the Qur'an:

    God as omniscient and bound by time, or God as omniscient but not bound by time.

    The conception of God that is bound by time is the one who knows our future by making "predictions". And if this God is omniscient his predictions must be 100% correct.

    The conception of God that is not bound by time makes no prediction at all. This kind of God is capable of time travel, or more conveniently for him, has all of space and time laid out in his presence to watch over. This kind of God knows our future actions because he can see us committing them all in his presence, all at once.

    How does the God that is bound by time come to predict the future with 100% accuracy? You asked, what is the mechanism behind it? Good question. He can make a prediction that is 100% correct if and only if he knows of a law governing all events and occurences and which is therefore guiding those events and occurences to take one and only one particular direction. If he can predict all of our future actions, then we must also be subject to some law of nature, just as all objects are subject to the law of gravity, for instance. God has therefore used that law to calculate what future actions we are going to commit. But if our actions, intentions and decisions are all subject to a law of nature, our direction has been determined and we have no free choice in the matter. Therefore, free will is incompatible with this type of divine omniscience.

    What about the God who can see all of time and space in front of him? Let's take the past: We can't change the past because it has already happened. Therefore, it's not within our power to change things that have already happened. If an event has been witnessed or observed, then it has already happened. God has witnessed and observed all of our actions. Therefore, all of our actions have already happened. But we have no free choice in the matter of changing things that have already happened. And so free will is incompatible with this type of divine omniscience, also.

    Do you still think human free will can be reconciled with God's omniscience?

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #115 - November 18, 2010, 10:15 PM

    Hmmm Thinking hard  I'll have to get back to you..

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #116 - November 18, 2010, 11:34 PM

    So we get consistent results on the macro scale because of the sheer number of probable events/interactions involved, and limits in accuracy?


    actually i think this is a question that physicists still tussle with - there is still much debate about how the fundamental laws of QM morph into the laws of classical physics that successfuly describe our everyday world i.e. how particles at the quantum level shed their 'weirdness' when they combine to form macroscopic objects. Neils Bohr simply stated that rules change (i.e. from quantum to classical) when the sizes change i.e from quantum to macroscopic - and that the question of how and why this occurs is not answerable (i.e big collections of elementary particles are simply different from individual elementary particles and and therefore we can describe the former using deterministic classical laws). Of course many people find this an unsatisfactory description of nature and therefore have formulated different interpretations of the theory (many worlds, hidden variables etc.).

    I sometimes get confused myself on this issue but the way I think of it is that although Quantum mechanics determines the underlying physical reality of our universe, when we are describing a big collection of interacting elementary particles, classical laws can be used to successfuly describe how those particles behave as a collection.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #117 - November 18, 2010, 11:40 PM

    AbuY - you got any thoughts on James post below?  Is it possible to reconcile free-will with God's omniscience?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #118 - November 19, 2010, 12:19 AM

    Excuse my ignorance because my knowledge of physics is quite basic compared to yours but let me see if I've understood you correctly..


    In other words you are talking about the probabilities of the possible states in which the said electron may be found, and so logic states that some probabilities are higher than others and therefore I'm assuming that this may used to predict it's most likely location and prove its existence.  Wave function is just a term used to describe all the hypothesised probabilities in layman's terms...


    The wavefunction is the technical term used to describe the probability wave which is described mathematically by Schrodingers equation (it is the key mathematical equation of QM). You can use it to assign probablities of say finding an electron at any given location at some time in the future. According to the copenhagen interpretation, an elementary particle has no intrinsic properties and does not exist at any place until an observation or measurement is made to locate it i.e. it does not have a velocity or any other physical attribute until it is measured. QM says nothing about a physical reality that exists inedependantly of measurement/observation and therefore only in the act of measurement does the electron become 'real' - an unobserved electron or any other elementary particle for that matter does not exist and therefore according to Bohr and Heisenberg, a quantum reality does not exist independently of the observer. According to these pioneers of the theory, fundamental physics is closely tied with human awareness. This has left scientists and philosphers asking questions such as if humans were not here to make observations and cause wavefunction collpase then would the universe have been a vastly different place before human concioussness evolved on this planet? Or would there be a difference if only animals or computers were the only obesrevers - would their observations also be enough to cause wavefunction collapse?

    All this might sound a bit stupid, but when you hear physicists say things like 'if you are not shocked by QM then you have not understood it' or that 'no-one really understands QM in their gut' - it is because of really bizarre concepts such as these. We also shouldn't forget that the pioneers of the theory (who were amongst the smartest people to have ever walked the face of this planet), perhaps understood the theory the best and they formulated it in a non-contrived manner compared to recent interpretations to try and get round these biarre concepts. I think if you were to poll physicists today, you would get a range of different answers to which interpretation they think is correct. Although the original copenhagen interpretation has bizarre implications it is still regarded by many as the most accurate description of reality.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Discussion on freewill with friends.
     Reply #119 - November 19, 2010, 12:29 AM

    AbuY - you got any thoughts on James post below?  Is it possible to reconcile free-will with God's omniscience?


    I agree with James and PS here actually - if God is omniscient then any free-will we supposedly have is just an illusion - a few months ago I never would have admitted this, hehe

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 6 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »