Z
zro_x
Guest
according to physicists, it is within the realm of possibilities. That is to say, the laws of physics don’t prohibit it.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
Could you back that up with a link to a credible source? I say the laws of not just physics, but common sense, make it impossible.
Peace,
Ed
Z
zro_x
Guest
*a brief history of time *, by Stephen Hawking, discusses the possibilities.
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you.
Ed
Ed
K
kingpomba
Guest
Well to have any meaningful debate or reach any kind of conclusion, both people of course must accept certain common ground (this is why a lot of religious debates go around in circles i think).
I don’t know if i really buy the concept of free will (whether or not free will exists is probably far past the scope of this thread and i have no wish in derailing this one really), so, we might run into problems.
Might seem a bit odd in general but it isn’t that odd among philosophical thought.
I actually largely agree with you below, it’s all very reasonable and i can accept it.
So, don’t take not responding to much as lack of agreement or reading it. If i disagreed with it a lot there would probably be a lot more below if i felt like writing it up anyway.
Free will by its very nature has to be free and unconstrained.
If you are urged towards a certain outcome by your personality, i’m not sure if i’d agree you’re totally free.
Maybe a few illustrations.
Taken to the extreme, say your daughter or wife is kidnapped. They’ll execute them unless you give them money, you have the money. I mean, you could conceivably keep it and go to hawaii, you have free will to do so but would you really? Would anyone? You’re technically free but i think there is only one real choice here due to the situation.
Another one. Say we have a very very good, saintly person. A very very “bad” person and finally, just a regular happy medium. It seems like the good person actively wants to do good, he would always tend to good by default, in-fact, it might be so crucial to their world view, they might otherwise feel disgusted if they failed to. They might not even think there is another option.
Are they* as free *as the average joe in their decision to do good?
A very bad, spiteful person that is full of malice im sure would find it very easy to lie, cheat or steal. It would be very hard for our saint or even our average joe (i think everyone is basically good) to do this of their own free will, if they would at all.
Of course this can then snowball into how much of your personality and disposition is of your own creation or making, how much of it is due to your background and upbringing and how much of it is down to biology.
I think you did a *very *good job if intergrating the kind of ideas i said above within the wider framework of heaven/hell though. Really enjoyed reading it and if it was a response to a philosophical argument, i’d be very satisfied with it.
Despite my background, i don’t think we can really reduce everything down to genes or chemicals or anything like that. So, we might have a real hard time genetically engineering charity or kindness, nice thought though.
Time travel into the **past **is apparently impossible (makes sense i guess).
So is time travel into the future, in the sense of stepping into a time machine.
In the documentary, he suggested he fly a spaceship around the rim of a black hole and continuously orbit it. Somehow (im no physicist) time slows down around black holes. So, while an hour might pass on your ship, a week or a month might pass on earth. So, what would be a year to you, might be 1000 on earth. Time is still taking its natural passage on earth, you’re not necessarily jumping ahead, its just that the time where you are is slower.
What would you say in the case of addiction? What about for very addictive drugs like heroin? Saying no is a *technical *possibility but once you slip so, so, low and are on it for a long, long time, i’m not sure if its an *actual *possibility for most addicts.
I don’t know if i really buy the concept of free will (whether or not free will exists is probably far past the scope of this thread and i have no wish in derailing this one really), so, we might run into problems.
Might seem a bit odd in general but it isn’t that odd among philosophical thought.
I actually largely agree with you below, it’s all very reasonable and i can accept it.
So, don’t take not responding to much as lack of agreement or reading it. If i disagreed with it a lot there would probably be a lot more below if i felt like writing it up anyway.
There seems to be a contradiction between these two for me.
Free will by its very nature has to be free and unconstrained.
If you are urged towards a certain outcome by your personality, i’m not sure if i’d agree you’re totally free.
Maybe a few illustrations.
Taken to the extreme, say your daughter or wife is kidnapped. They’ll execute them unless you give them money, you have the money. I mean, you could conceivably keep it and go to hawaii, you have free will to do so but would you really? Would anyone? You’re technically free but i think there is only one real choice here due to the situation.
Another one. Say we have a very very good, saintly person. A very very “bad” person and finally, just a regular happy medium. It seems like the good person actively wants to do good, he would always tend to good by default, in-fact, it might be so crucial to their world view, they might otherwise feel disgusted if they failed to. They might not even think there is another option.
Are they* as free *as the average joe in their decision to do good?
A very bad, spiteful person that is full of malice im sure would find it very easy to lie, cheat or steal. It would be very hard for our saint or even our average joe (i think everyone is basically good) to do this of their own free will, if they would at all.
Of course this can then snowball into how much of your personality and disposition is of your own creation or making, how much of it is due to your background and upbringing and how much of it is down to biology.
I think you did a *very *good job if intergrating the kind of ideas i said above within the wider framework of heaven/hell though. Really enjoyed reading it and if it was a response to a philosophical argument, i’d be very satisfied with it.
Despite my background, i don’t think we can really reduce everything down to genes or chemicals or anything like that. So, we might have a real hard time genetically engineering charity or kindness, nice thought though.
Haven’t read his book but i saw a documentary by him.
Time travel into the **past **is apparently impossible (makes sense i guess).
So is time travel into the future, in the sense of stepping into a time machine.
In the documentary, he suggested he fly a spaceship around the rim of a black hole and continuously orbit it. Somehow (im no physicist) time slows down around black holes. So, while an hour might pass on your ship, a week or a month might pass on earth. So, what would be a year to you, might be 1000 on earth. Time is still taking its natural passage on earth, you’re not necessarily jumping ahead, its just that the time where you are is slower.
It’s a logical and technical possibility but it is it an actual possibility? I guess it depends to the degree on just how psychotic he was (surely there must be something wrong with you to be able to be a spree killer).
What would you say in the case of addiction? What about for very addictive drugs like heroin? Saying no is a *technical *possibility but once you slip so, so, low and are on it for a long, long time, i’m not sure if its an *actual *possibility for most addicts.
Z
zro_x
Guest
You’re *free will *is entire unaffected by background and genetics. You’re actions, however, are not.
We all start our lives equally close to God. Every one of us goes through life making various decisions, and those decisons are affected both by free will and external influences on our psychology. We move closer to god only on the basis of our free will.
Saintly people are saintly for one of two reasons. Either they are saintly by nature, or else they consistently choose to do good with their free will. If they are the first type, any positve action they do moves them a very tiny amount toward god, or not at all. They don’t actually have to use their will very much, if at all, to do positive actions. If they do a negative action, on the other hand, contrary to their psychology, they move a very large distance from God.
On the other hand, when this person does an evil act(if he is bad by natural temperament), he moves further from God only a slight amount, if at all. However, when he does a the same good act that the saint above did, despite his temperament, he moves much, much closer.
Remember, both the “good” person and the “bad” person start equally close to God. A person’s outward actions can not show how close that person is to God, because we can’t know how much of that person’s actions are based on psychology, and how much is from his free will
Shame.
If you’re psychology is truly insurmountable by human free will, than the evil acts a person commits aren’t actually sinful. A sin is a freely chosen move away from God. However, In the case of the addict, there was probably some free will involved in the early stages of addiction.
In short, A person’s psychology influences their decision, but ultimately, in most circumstances, we have the power to choose our actions. The same good action often requires different levels of willpower from different people. The amount of willpower we use is ultimately what determines our holiness.
I knew about the idea with the black whole. The same effect happens when you approach light speeds. Though I am surprised that he said backwards time travel was impossible. Last I heard, physicists had not ruled that possibility out. But perhaps my refrences are out of date.
- Status