Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That would be 100% deterministic novelty then.

Still, if ever you feel like providing an example of the non-deterministic variety you claimed by all means check back in.

What do you mean 100 per cent deterministic? Was the calculating machine always predicted? Did it's perfect form exist eternally? Was the calculating machine inevitable?
What about uncertainty?

I check in and out whenever I like Hillside. Now be a good bell boy and take my cases up to my usual suite.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What do you mean 100 per cent deterministic? Was the calculating machine always predicted? Did it's perfect form exist eternally? Was the calculating machine inevitable?
What about uncertainty?

Ah, I see your mistake there. "Deterministic" and "predictable" are not synonyms. Unpredictability is just a function of unexpectedness, but that's no problem at all for a deterministic model of the universe. For there to be an actual problem you'd have to show creation ex nihilo.

I check in and out whenever I like Hillside. Now be a good bell boy and take my cases up to my usual suite.

Already have - usual spot, just by the bins.

[Outrider]

I would give the same example.

Well colour me shocked...

What you would describe as no one else coming up with, I would describe as New.

Yet from both Babbages and Ada Lovelace's accounts we know where the inspiration for this came from.

The components are not the calculating machine. There can be no calculation on the components although I guess you could count them.

That's not the argument that was being made, though. No-one said the functions of the prior components had to come through, you're now conflating 'novelty' and emergent behaviours.
 

It could be said that there was a time when logical mathematics was new although we are now into arguments as to whether it comes together or is discovered.

Either way, it's based upon prior phenomena, so doesn't fall into your definition of 'new'.

Still waiting on your example, obviously.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Ah, I see your mistake there. "Deterministic" and "predictable" are not synonyms. Unpredictability is just a function of unexpectedness, but that's no problem at all for a deterministic model of the universe. For there to be an actual problem you'd have to show creation ex nihilo.

Already have - usual spot, just by the bins.

Yes but you are now equating unexpectedness with new. Just one more false equation of terms around this issue. Determinism suggests predictability does it not?

Perhaps you can explain WHY CREATION EX NIHILO has anything to do with this?

[Outrider]

Perhaps you can explain WHY CREATION EX NIHILO has anything to do with this?

I think, probably, because it appears to be your definition of 'novelty'.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes but you are now equating unexpectedness with new. Just one more false equation of terms around this issue. Determinism suggests predictability does it not?

Not. That I might not have the maths to model the shape of a breaking wave for example doesn't for one moment imply that it's not a deterministic phenomenon.

You're very confused.

Perhaps you can explain WHY CREATION EX NIHILO has anything to do with this?

Because that would have to be your claim if you wanted to identify "novelty" as a problem for determinism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think, probably, because it appears to be your definition of 'novelty'.

O.

All I am saying is that once there was no calculating machine and then there was .....and it seems you do to.
Why did you choose a clockwork thing to illustrate your determinism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.
Because that would have to be your claim if you wanted to identify "novelty" as a problem for determinism.

Why?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why?

Because, obviously, whether or not you have knowledge in advance of the outcomes combinations of prior events will cause is entirely irrelevant to the fact that those outcomes are produced by combinations of prior events.

That's why your "novelty is a problem for determinism" is a crock - it would only be a problem if the novelty occurred ex nihilo.   

[Alan Burns]

ALAN BURNS a question

when a photon leaves the suns core does your god determine the path it takes  or is it random or is it something else .
Perhaps you think it chooses its own path?  Id like to know what you think ,please.

I read once of someone claiming that photons from the sun could be responsible for many of the mutations in DNA which are needed to drive the process of evolution.  If this is correct, then I must assume that God can aim these photons with a precision beyond our understanding.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

All I am saying is that once there was no calculating machine and then there was .....and it seems you do to.

If that's "all" you're saying then it's no problem whatever for determinism.

[Shaker]

I read once of someone claiming that photons from the sun could be responsible for many of the mutations in DNA which are needed to drive the process of evolution.  If this is correct, then I must assume that God can aim these photons with a precision beyond our understanding.

Including mutations which cause ghastly birth defects?

[Outrider]

All I am saying is that once there was no calculating machine and then there was .....and it seems you do to.

No, I'm saying that the Calculating Engine was the result of Babbage bringing two prior concepts together. Your suggestion was that there were things - and you've now suggested the Calculating Engine amongst them - which do not emerge from prior events or ideas. I've shown that the Calculating Engine was not one of these things, do you have an example?

Why did you choose a clockwork thing to illustrate your determinism?

I like clockwork. I find Babbage an intriguing case, too.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If that's "all" you're saying then it's no problem whatever for determinism.

Although I think there are still questions in terms of determism's aspects of predictability and necessity.

[Alan Burns]

This makes no difference whatsoever.  It is still subject to the same logic; that it is 'deliberate' or 'conscious' is irrelevant.

What is it that you most want to do in the next moment ?  Maybe I might want to tell a lie, full knowing that it is immoral; maybe I might want to read a poem or take a glass of pop or catch a bus to Luton (no, probably not that) or say boo to a goose or make a carrot cake.  The possibilities of the next moment are multitudinous and in so far as no one is obstructing my cunning schemes I feel free in that.

However, my point is that whatever my choice is, all I am doing is expressing my preference at that moment in time, and I do not choose what preference to have, I merely try to identify it act upon it.  My desires, hopes, fears, feelings in the present moment were formed before the present moment and in a moment of choice we identify which of the multitude of competing urges is the strongest at that moment.  We do not choose what should be the strongest urge, we cannot choose that any more than we can choose what to believe or what to enjoy or what to hate or how to find the taste of chocolate.  These things we discover, not choose.

Just a few comments on your choice of wording:

all I am doing is expressing my preference
What precisely is it that does the expressing?

I merely try to identify it act upon it
What is it that does the trying?

we identify which of the multitude of competing urges is the strongest
What is it that can identify?

 These things we discover, not choose
What does the discovering?

And in answering these comments - bear in mind that you said "conscious" is irrelevant.

[floo]

Including mutations which cause ghastly birth defects?

AB doesn't seem to realise his posts don't do his idea of god any favours at all, just the opposite.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I'm saying that the Calculating Engine was the result of Babbage bringing two prior concepts together. Your suggestion was that there were things - and you've now suggested the Calculating Engine amongst them - which do not emerge from prior events or ideas. I've shown that the Calculating Engine was not one of these things, do you have an example?

I like clockwork. I find Babbage an intriguing case, too.

O.

But those previous events or ideas are not the 'new' thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Although I think there are still questions in terms of determism's aspects of predictability and necessity.

If you think there to be "questions" about that then by all means tell us what you think them to be.

Back to the argument you attempted though (ie, that novelty is a problem for determinism), that horse has keeled over and died. 

[Outrider]

I read once of someone claiming that photons from the sun could be responsible for many of the mutations in DNA which are needed to drive the process of evolution.  If this is correct, then I must assume that God can aim these photons with a precision beyond our understanding.

Yes... and no. It's true that there is nothing in the nature of the universe that disproves the existence of a god, and one could well be targeting lifeforms with stray cosmic rays and solar photons to initiate particular outcomes which are indistinguishable to human detection from naturally occurring phenomena.

What there isn't, though, is any evidence in any of those phenomena for the existence of a god. If there isn't a god, those photons still emerge, they still have the same chance of causing spontaneous minor transcription errors in DNA, and therefore of introducing variety into a species' genome - no god required.

You need something more than 'science doesn't disprove it' to justify the existence of a deity.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But those previous events or ideas are not the 'new' thing.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the "new thing" occurred as a function of cause and effect - ie, deterministically. 

[Outrider]

But those previous events or ideas are not the 'new' thing.

And nobody suggested that they were. You suggested that (some?) new things sprang unbidden with no prior causation, whilst I argued that 'new' things were unexpected combinations of prior phenomena. I've demonstrated an example of mine, and we're still waiting on your example.

O.

[Walter]

I'm talking about novelty Hillside. You just seem to be reaching for whatever to engage in dispute it seems.....should I encourage that with my continued presence? Not sure?

when you beg the question don't complain about the answer , pathetic !

[Gordon]

Just a few comments on your choice of wording:

all I am doing is expressing my preference
What precisely is it that does the expressing?

I merely try to identify it act upon it
What is it that does the trying?

we identify which of the multitude of competing urges is the strongest
What is it that can identify?

 These things we discover, not choose
What does the discovering?

And in answering these comments - bear in mind that you said "conscious" is irrelevant.

You, Alan, or various other people, be it consciously or unconsciously.

[Shaker]

You need something more than 'science doesn't disprove it' to justify the existence of a deity.

As we know from long and tiresome experience, no he doesn't 

[SusanDoris]

Alan Burns

I want to see an answer to Shaker's post #22,786