Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Nature of Time: A-Theory vs. B-Theory

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    In that case vanilla would never have been a possible choice for you so God couldn't have actualized it. I also believe that God would actualize the universe with the greatest good for you and for his plans.
    But why would God go to such elaborate lengths as messing with alternative universes when there are so much simpler and more elegant solutions?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. The Compatibilist version of FREEDOM has nothing to do with metaphysics. They do not believe in METAPHYSICAL FREE WILL. Only libertarians do. Compatibilists believe in determinism.
      Compatabilists believe in 'soft' determinism.'

      Glad you clarified it was previously not clear, but you may clarify the following.

      Originally posted by JimB
      Compatibilism actually is a form of metaphysical determinism. Compatibilists believe that all of our actions are determined by the past but that we have circumstantial freedom, ie we are free to act on our wills and desires. They believe we have the kind of freedom that makes us fit subjects for moral responsibility, but they don't think we are really free, that we could have done otherwise. So it could be a clockwork universe as BP is saying and one could still be a compatibilist
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-18-2020, 08:54 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        The evidence, from a laymans perspective, I believe goes like this. All of the atoms that make up the world, at the beginning of time, the Big Bang, began their journey through the universe, and from that beginning they are fated, determined to go wherever it is they end up. They don't have free will. Well, those atoms are the building blocks, so to speak, of you and me, of our nervous systems, are brains. Therefore, we, who are composed of these determined atoms, must also be determined. It's physics.

        Okay.

        Do you have another theory?

        Okay, object away my friend.
        I kind of messed up my response before I thought I would make it clear.

        I do not have another theory, I believe in 'soft' determinism that allows for a limited free will, which is described in the literature I cite.. You believe in hard determinism, OK!, but again, I do not hold to either a rigid A not B theory of time. Time simply exists in a space time relationship of our universe.

        Right, but the question is, is the universe, are we, determined. And those are the only 2 theories of time I can think of. The future is either open or closed. Do you have another theory?
        I believe there are more choices concerning time actually simply the physics of time that does not take sides.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-18-2020, 09:36 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          But why would God go to such elaborate lengths as messing with alternative universes when there are so much simpler and more elegant solutions?
          such as?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            But why would God go to such elaborate lengths as messing with alternative universes when there are so much simpler and more elegant solutions?
            Why would God have allowed his creation to come about over 12 billion years via evolution? There would seem to be much simpler and more elegant solutions.

            (In case the point isn't obvious: should there be a divine being, we should be very cautious about attributing our own sense of motivations, simplicity, and elegance to it.)
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Compatabilists believe in 'soft' determinism.'

              Glad you clarified it was previously not clear, but you may clarify the following.
              Compatibilists believe that universal determinism is compatible with the kind of freedom that grants us moral responsibility. "Soft" determinism is not meant as a contravention of universal determinism. It means that even if we are determined, we can still be "free" in our actions in that we can act in accordance with our wills and desires, and thus be fit for moral responsibility. Compatibilists generally tend to be determinists.

              https://www.informationphilosopher.c...atibilism.html


              Compatibilists argue that determinism is compatible with human freedom, and that indeterminism is not compatible or at best incoherent. They feel (correctly) that there must be a deterministic or causal connection between our will and our actions. This allows us to take responsibility for our actions, including credit for the good and blame for the bad. ...

              Compatibilists (or "soft determinists" as they have been known since William James) identify free will with freedom of action - the lack of external constraints. We are free, and we have free will, if we are not in physical chains. But freedom of the will is different from freedom of action.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                such as?
                Free will through agent causation.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  Why would God have allowed his creation to come about over 12 billion years via evolution? There would seem to be much simpler and more elegant solutions.

                  (In case the point isn't obvious: should there be a divine being, we should be very cautious about attributing our own sense of motivations, simplicity, and elegance to it.)
                  Of course, but then does that mean as far as God is concerned, any theory is as plausible as any other? The principle of parsimony goes out the window?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    Free will through agent causation.
                    But, afaics, agent causation doesn't fit into the B-theory of time. All of time exists in B-theory, the future is as real as the present and the past. In other words the future is closed, people don't flow with time into the future, they, their future selves, already exist. The B-theory is like the Block universe in which the whole of time is real.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Free will through agent causation.
                      All choices would still be free. He wouldn't be able to actualize a timeline for instance where you would choose to do something that you didn't freely choose. If you had a choice between chocolate, vanilla and butterscotch ice cream and you hated butterscotch (who doesn't?) then God couldn't actualize a universe where you chose butterscotch. Since you would freely choose vanilla or chocolate, either one would be your free will choice. In the many worlds theory, both would be chosen and branch off into two parallel universes. Each with you choosing freely, one chocolate and one vanilla. So if God just actualized one or the other, it would still be your choice.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        All choices would still be free. He wouldn't be able to actualize a timeline for instance where you would choose to do something that you didn't freely choose. If you had a choice between chocolate, vanilla and butterscotch ice cream and you hated butterscotch (who doesn't?) then God couldn't actualize a universe where you chose butterscotch. Since you would freely choose vanilla or chocolate, either one would be your free will choice. In the many worlds theory, both would be chosen and branch off into two parallel universes. Each with you choosing freely, one chocolate and one vanilla. So if God just actualized one or the other, it would still be your choice.
                        I guess I'm not following you at all. Why the need to invoke other universes at all? Why not just a free agent who makes a free choice structured by but not caused by reasons? Boom. Done. (And BTW, I don't hate butterscotch!)

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          All choices would still be free. He wouldn't be able to actualize a timeline for instance where you would choose to do something that you didn't freely choose. If you had a choice between chocolate, vanilla and butterscotch ice cream and you hated butterscotch (who doesn't?) then God couldn't actualize a universe where you chose butterscotch. Since you would freely choose vanilla or chocolate, either one would be your free will choice. In the many worlds theory, both would be chosen and branch off into two parallel universes. Each with you choosing freely, one chocolate and one vanilla. So if God just actualized one or the other, it would still be your choice.
                          I don't think that helps. In B-theory, both choices wuld be determined prior to the choices being made. Only in A-theory is the future open to free will in any sense.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            I guess I'm not following you at all. Why the need to invoke other universes at all? Why not just a free agent who makes a free choice structured by but not caused by reasons? Boom. Done. (And BTW, I don't hate butterscotch!)
                            I was just explaining Molinism and how it could relate to B-theory and the multi-worlds theory in such a way that we both have free will, and God is completely sovereign.

                            And if you don't hate butterscotch, then you are of the devil and I can't listen to you any longer.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                              Compatibilists believe that universal determinism is compatible with the kind of freedom that grants us moral responsibility. "Soft" determinism is not meant as a contravention of universal determinism. It means that even if we are determined, we can still be "free" in our actions in that we can act in accordance with our wills and desires, and thus be fit for moral responsibility. Compatibilists generally tend to be determinists.

                              https://www.informationphilosopher.c...atibilism.html
                              Daniel Dennett and I would disagree with this rather brief 'too simple' a limiting definition of Compatibilism. In fact Dennett does not propose we have any free will, but only 'wiggle room' in our decision making process. I consider a concept limited potential free will where we cannot always have the kind of freedom that grants us complete moral accountability.

                              More to follow. . .
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-19-2020, 03:11 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                **saying more dumb stuff***
                                What part of "I am ignoring you in this thread because you say dumb stuff" do you not understand?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X