God does neither roll dice nor play determinism

[Bagheera]

First, how such a thing is possible that law of mind is independent of law physics knowing the fact that law of physics is the underlying law?

I tried to explain it in the “blue” highlighted text. What is there that needs more explanation? The laws of physics are only applicable to physical objects. The mind is not a physical object, it is the activity of physical objects.

Here is an example. Take an open pair of scissors, with very long blades. Close the blades. The point where the two blades meet is not a physical “object”, and it moves faster than the speed of light. The laws of nature apply to the actual objects, but they do not apply to what the activity of those objects MEAN.

The electro-chemical activity of the brain is deterministic, but the thoughts they represent are not.

 

[tonyrey]

I tried to explain it in the “blue” highlighted text. What is there that needs more explanation? The laws of physics are only applicable to physical objects. The mind is not a physical object, it is the activity of physical objects.

If the mind is no more than the activity of physical objects how can it understand and control physical objects?

Movement is physical and has nothing to do with meaning which is intangible.

The electro-chemical activity of the brain is deterministic, but the thoughts

they represent are not.
What causes the thoughts to occur and “represent” electro-chemical activity?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Bahman]

I tried to explain it in the “blue” highlighted text. What is there that needs more explanation? The laws of physics are only applicable to physical objects. The mind is not a physical object, it is the activity of physical objects.

No, the law of physics applies to matter in all forms, including our bodies and brains. You cannot find any action in brain which disobey the laws of physics in materialistic point of view. Simply, the movement of charge produce electric field which this filed interact with charge and that is all you have in brain.

The electro-chemical activity of the brain is deterministic, but the thoughts they represent are not.

The question is whether the thoughts are outocme of electro-chemical activity or not? If yes then thoughts are deterministic as well which means that we lose the concept of free will in this picture.

 

[Bagheera]

No, the law of physics applies to matter in all forms, including our bodies and brains. You cannot find any action in brain which disobey the laws of physics in materialistic point of view. Simply, the movement of charge produce electric field which this filed interact with charge and that is all you have in brain.

The question is whether the thoughts are outocme of electro-chemical activity or not? If yes then thoughts are deterministic as well which means that we lose the concept of free will in this picture.

I will make one final attempt.

Forget about the brain. Consider a computer, which runs a very sophisticated program. The 0-s and 1-s which are represented by the electricity are subject to the laws of physics. Their MEANING, or what they represent is NOT. In the program you can have a spaceship emulation in some universe, and you can observe its behavior on the monitor. The speed of the spaceship can be higher than the speed of light. The spaceship can stop or start without delay. It can even change or reverse direction without being subject to inertia.

You can emulate physical objects, which will “move” against entropy. A broken vase will re-assemble itself. The laws of nature are NOT applicable in an artificial world.

The same applies to our thoughts. In our thoughts we can do whatever we want, whether those thoughts defy the physical laws, or not.

That is all. If you still don’t understand, that is no concern of mine.

 

[tonyrey]

God does neither rolls dice nor plays determinism. The clear example is free will that violates determinism and is not stochastic either. The creation of self that owns free will as a very unique property is a mysterious phenomena. The self is an anomalous being meaning that one cannot find a set of laws by which the outcome of them could provide a better understanding of how self functions. The self is a singularity that no one knows how it functions meaning that giving one (name removed by moderator)ut, one cannot know what is the output since otherwise it was like a device with known outcome. The anomalous behaviour of the self is so important that without that we could not say that we are something since for example we could not have free will with unpredictable outcome and turned to a simple device.

As well as being anomalous from the physical point of view the self is autonomous from every point of view. We are one of the miracles of Creation - and we tend to take our power for granted. Filial ingratitude…

 

[Solus_vistor]

All this deterministic / stochastic dichotomy is irrelevant in this problem.

What problem? The thread started with a reference to Einstein’s “God does not play dice” which is not a statement about theology but about philosophy of science. The question of determinism or not is a legitimate question in the philosophy of physics, i.e. in how to interpret physical theories (notably QM or the so far speculative superstring theories). There is an abundance of articles by professional physicists on the question of determinacy also on the internet.

Free will is a concept unrelated to physical theories as such, unless you assume (which I gather you don’t) the reducibility of the mind, the human consciousness, to the physical. Of course, we who believe in God don’t assume this reducibility.

Roger Penrose sees free will as the active aspect of consciousness, calling awareness the passive aspect.

The workings of the mind or consciousness is still a mystery, whether you assume its reducibility to the processes in the brain or not. Comparing it to the workings of a computer is a good metaphor, however only to a point. According to Penrose (Shadows of the Mind, OUP 1994):

Appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness, but this physical action cannot even be properly simulated computationally

His book is devoted to showing why “computationality” is not sufficient to explain consciousness, including free will, but in my opinion it still leaves the door open to a theistic interpretation, namely that awareness cannot be fully explained by physical, computational or any other scientific terms. By “fully explained” I mean like the movement of the planets (that Kepler needed the angels to keep them there) was fully explained by Newton.

I do not understand what you mean by “laws of the mind”? One can certainly create all sorts of “artificial environments” in our minds, even without computer programming. (By the way, science fiction spaceships do not move faster than light - that would be too absurd to depict - only make an exaggerated use of physical theories involving warped space or worm holes.)

The fact that a computer programme is not a sum of its AND- and OR-gates is a simple illustration of the fact that a properties of an emergent system are not reducible to the lower level properties of its parts.

I agree that there is a lot of scientific research into consciousness to be done, whether or not one believes that science can fully explain it. However, eferring again to Penrose, I do not think QM, hence the question of determinacy, is here completely irrelevant.

 

[Bagheera]

The workings of the mind or consciousness is still a mystery, whether you assume its reducibility to the processes in the brain or not. Comparing it to the workings of a computer is a good metaphor, however only to a point. According to Penrose (Shadows of the Mind, OUP 1994): His book is devoted to showing why “computationality” is not sufficient to explain consciousness, including free will, but in my opinion it still leaves the door open to a theistic interpretation, namely that awareness cannot be fully explained by physical, computational or any other scientific terms. By “fully explained” I mean like the movement of the planets (that Kepler needed the angels to keep them there) was fully explained by Newton.

Penrose is a great mathematician (I am still awed by the beauty of Penrose tiling ), but he does not have the last word in the nature of consciousness, or the concept of free will. No one else is.

I do not understand what you mean by “laws of the mind”? One can certainly create all sorts of “artificial environments” in our minds, even without computer programming. (By the way, science fiction spaceships do not move faster than light - that would be too absurd to depict - only make an exaggerated use of physical theories involving warped space or worm holes.)

The point was that the physical laws of universe are not applicable to the working of the mind. The electrons and the molecules are subject to the physical laws, but their MEANING is not. Our thought processes are not deterministic and neither are they random or stochastic. Just because one accepts the concept that our mind is the ACTIVITY of the brain, it does not follow that one should accept a reductionist view.

The fact that a computer programme is not a sum of its AND- and OR-gates is a simple illustration of the fact that a properties of an emergent system are not reducible to the lower level properties of its parts.

Very well said. And that was my point, too.

 

[Bahman]

Penrose is a great mathematician (I am still awed by the beauty of Penrose tiling ), but he does not have the last word in the nature of consciousness, or the concept of free will. No one else is.

Free will is anomalous part of subconscious mind which interacts with other part of subconscious and conscious minds when a decision is involved. It is anomalous so it could be described by a set of laws otherwise its outcome in principle could be predicted using laws of mind.

The point was that the physical laws of universe are not applicable to the working of the mind.
Bagheera;11259797:

So mind is not material.
Bagheera;11259797:

The electrons and the molecules are subject to the physical laws, but their MEANING is not.

Electron and molecules do not have any meaning and they are subjected to physical law.

Our thought processes are not deterministic and neither are they random or stochastic. Just because one accepts the concept that our mind is the ACTIVITY of the brain, it does not follow that one should accept a reductionist view.

How brain function is subject of longer study, however its outcome is sole electromagnetic fields. The main question is how consciousness could emerge from sole electromagnetic fields which is inanimate from materialistic point of view?

 

[Bagheera]

Free will is anomalous part of subconscious mind which interacts with other part of subconscious and conscious minds when a decision is involved. It is anomalous so it could be described by a set of laws otherwise its outcome in principle could be predicted using laws of mind.

Says who? And moreover, says “what”? This sentence is meaningless as stated.

So mind is not material.

The mind is not a material OBJECT. Just like “distance” is not a material object either. Material OBJECTS have 1) actions, 2) **attributes **and 3) relationships. None of these are material objects, but none of them exist without material objects either. “Walking” (action) is not a material object, but it cannot exist without “legs”. The color “red” (attribute) is not a material object, but it cannot exist without a certain wavelength of light. “Heaviness” (attribute) is not an object, but it cannot exist without an object to be lifted, and a person who tries to lift that object. “Behind” (relationship) is not an object but it does not exist without TWO objects and an observer.

Lots of things are not material objects, but they all rely on the material underpinning we call physical reality. Thoughts are not material objects. Concepts (like “existence”, “freedom”, “love”, “beauty”, “justice”) are not material objects. From that it does not follow that these actions/attributes/relationships/concepts are somehow “supernatural” or need some “supernatural” explanation. “Freedom” and “love” are subsets of human interpersonal relationships. “Beauty” is a subjective assessment of an object, which stimulates a certain portion of the mind. “Justice” is a concept expressed by the other concept called “reciprocity”. It is also part of human relationships.

Electron and molecules do not have any meaning and they are subjected to physical law.

They do not have intrinsic “meaning”. Meaning is established by an observer. A picture has no “meaning” to anyone, who cannot “see”.

How brain function is subject of longer study, however its outcome is sole electromagnetic fields. The main question is how consciousness could emerge from sole electromagnetic fields which is inanimate from materialistic point of view?

That is a scientific question, not philosophical. You could just as well ask: "how can the wetness of water emerge, when neither oxygen nor hydrogen are “wet”? Such questions cannot be asked. Emergent attributes (or properties) cannot be reduced to the underlying lower level of reality, and only uneducated and/or stupid people expect that. Chemistry cannot be reduced to physics, biology cannot be reduced to chemistry or physics. Sociology / economics cannot be reduced to biology. It is ridiculous to expect that socioeconomics or politics could and should be reduced to the “dancing” of the electrons, even though without the “dancing” of the electrons none of them would exist. There are some idiotic people who keep asking “how can meaningless particles produce meaning”… don’t join their ranks.

 

[Bahman]

Says who? And moreover, says “what”? This sentence is meaningless as stated.

Do you want to discuss it? To my understand it make sense.

The mind is not a material OBJECT. Just like “distance” is not a material object either. Material OBJECTS have 1) actions, 2) **attributes **and 3) relationships. None of these are material objects, but none of them exist without material objects either. “Walking” (action) is not a material object, but it cannot exist without “legs”. The color “red” (attribute) is not a material object, but it cannot exist without a certain wavelength of light. “Heaviness” (attribute) is not an object, but it cannot exist without an object to be lifted, and a person who tries to lift that object. “Behind” (relationship) is not an object but it does not exist without TWO objects and an observer.

Lots of things are not material objects, but they all rely on the material underpinning we call physical reality. Thoughts are not material objects. Concepts (like “existence”, “freedom”, “love”, “beauty”, “justice”) are not material objects. From that it does not follow that these actions/attributes/relationships/concepts are somehow “supernatural” or need some “supernatural” explanation. “Freedom” and “love” are subsets of human interpersonal relationships. “Beauty” is a subjective assessment of an object, which stimulates a certain portion of the mind. “Justice” is a concept expressed by the other concept called “reciprocity”. It is also part of human relationships.

You have two options: Either mind is byproduct of brain activities or it is something different.

That is a scientific question, not philosophical. You could just as well ask: "how can the wetness of water emerge, when neither oxygen nor hydrogen are “wet”? Such questions cannot be asked. Emergent attributes (or properties) cannot be reduced to the underlying lower level of reality, and only uneducated and/or stupid people expect that. Chemistry cannot be reduced to physics, biology cannot be reduced to chemistry or physics. Sociology / economics cannot be reduced to biology.

That is a philosophical question as we can never ever experience our consciousness. This means that the concept of consciousness cannot be a problem of science since it cannot be experienced. Chemistry and biology can be reduced to physics.

It is ridiculous to expect that socioeconomics or politics could and should be reduced to the “dancing” of the electrons, even though without the “dancing” of the electrons none of them would exist. There are some idiotic people who keep asking “how can meaningless particles produce meaning”… don’t join their ranks.

Why not, if you do solely believe in material world then that is what you left with it. A group of dancing electrons plus electromagnetic field determine what you are. Remove a group of these electron from your brain, then you become another person with tons of dysfunction.

 

[Bagheera]

Chemistry and biology can be reduced to physics.

This is the point where I decline to waste time on nonsense.

 

[Bahman]

This is the point where I decline to waste time on nonsense.

I am a physicist and I discuss many topics with my biophysicist friends so I am aware of what I am saying.

 

[tonyrey]

That is a philosophical question as we can never ever experience our consciousness.

We are aware that we are conscious.

This means that the concept of consciousness cannot be a problem of science since it cannot be experienced.

Consciousness is not a scientific problem because it transcends physical events.

Chemistry and biology can be reduced to physics.

That hypothesis requires evidence…

 

[Bahman]

We are aware that we are conscious.

The self awareness is another property of consciousness. We cannot experience our consciousness though.

That hypothesis requires evidence…

Please read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophysics and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_chemistry

 

[tonyrey]

Please read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophysics and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_chemistry

The opening line “It has been suggested…” reveals that it is a tentative hypothesis.

 

[hazcompat]

qualia (just a bookmark).

Peace

 

[thegrons]

One doesn’t need to be a physicist to comment on QM such as the indeterminacy principle or other models that posit self-creation or electrons mysteriously appearing. This reminds me of the 17th century theory of self creation where scientists saw larva appear from seemingly nothing. I think a prudent good scientist would say that we cannot see what causes these electrons to vanish and reappear just yet before jumping to the logically impossible view of self-creation which violates the law of non-contradiction and undermines all of science which relies on causality.

Now God does not play dice, randomness does not exist but is really our ignorance of all the outcomes of a cause. The roll of the dice are not random, there are only some many outcomes - each being affected by motion, friction, etc. But hypothetically (and I say this because I wasn’t there to consult the Lord) what if God could have allowed a “near” infinite number of possible worlds to actualize, but the best possible worlds that He chose from were those where we had true free will? Free will in the sense in that we are free enough to make moral decisions (not flap our arms and fly)? And we are free enough to be judged? Now God obviously could have allowed a world where Adolf Hitler was a Christian but for reasons unknown to us He didn’t. Or maybe given all of the possible worlds where free agents reside, our actual world was one which was the best? So in one sense we are morally free to choose and also free to decide which shoe to tie first, which side of our toast to butter…But God ultimately is responsible for these actions because He allowed this world to actualize. So here is a view of compatibility that I think works. We can never escape the sovereignty of God but still be free enough to be judged!

Often the argument between free will and determinism is explained so simplistically that we see it as one side having free will and the other side being robots; but this isn’t the case. But we see this robot vs self-evident free will and we take sides and dig our heals in for the fight. Not necessary!

Second point of interest is that knowledge (including foreknowledge) is not causal. God’s knowing something before it happens is not causal. We have no good analogies to use because this is one of those areas where the bible declares that our ways are not His ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. But what the heck: I foreknow that when I take my vegetarian wife out for dinner she will of her own free will not order a steak. Did my knowledge of this cause this?

But as a strong advocate of free will, I can live with the view I just put forward because in the end, this universe is really a little snow-globe on God’s desk and there is no escaping it. We can apprehend God’s ways but cannot comprehension His ways. To think that a contingent being can begin to know how an eternal being thinks should not even be on the table for discussion. Let’s just say in ignorance that God has a clairvoyant knowledge that is beyond ours.

Sorry for budding in on the thread but I have lived on both sides of this debate and have come to peace with my view which is by no means conclusive but good enough for me!

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Tomdstone]

Now God does not play dice, randomness does not exist but is really our ignorance of all the outcomes of a cause.

This sounds like you believe as did Einstein, that there are hidden variables and the quantum mechanics is incomplete. If so, how do you explain Bell’s theorem which says that local hidden variables of certain types are impossible.

 

[thegrons]

What are you arguing for, are you a Christian? There are no random events in the universe to an omniscient being. In fact if we knew the exact impact of every single cause in the roll of the dice we could predict the outcome with certainty. I am a logician not a physicist but needless to say, there is no self-creation of electrons in the universe and this is God’s universe and there are no surprises to Him. As I see Bell’s experiment it seems as though we as of now cannot predict the movement of electrons. Again to an eternal omniscient being this should be no trouble. I would see trying to determine the free will decisions of a sentient rational being such as humans more challenging that a few electrons. But again just because we can’t predict exact patterns does not entail indeterminacy. Randomness as Hume stated is our ignorance of the true causes of events. I am sure given time and better instruments we will see the bacteria that causes the larva to hatch!

What position are you defending, Libertarian Free Will? Are you a Christian or non-Christian?

 

[Tomdstone]

What are you arguing for, are you a Christian? There are no random events in the universe to an omniscient being. In fact if we knew the exact impact of every single cause in the roll of the dice we could predict the outcome with certainty. I am a logician not a physicist but needless to say, there is no self-creation of electrons in the universe and this is God’s universe and there are no surprises to Him. As I see Bell’s experiment it seems as though we as of now cannot predict the movement of electrons. Again to an eternal omniscient being this should be no trouble. I would see trying to determine the free will decisions of a sentient rational being such as humans more challenging that a few electrons. But again just because we can’t predict exact patterns does not entail indeterminacy. Randomness as Hume stated is our ignorance of the true causes of events. I am sure given time and better instruments we will see the bacteria that causes the larva to hatch!

What position are you defending, Libertarian Free Will? Are you a Christian or non-Christian?

If you accept quantum mechanics, you have to reject local realism. This has been shown by D. Greenberger, M. Horne, A. Shimony, A. Zeilinger (1990 and references therein). “Bell’s theorem without inequalities”. Am. J. Phys. 58 (12): 1131. Bibcode:1990AmJPh…58.1131G. doi:10.1119/1.16243.