Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Volcanic Wastelands > Thread: The matter of choice - Philosophy
Thread: The matter of choice - Philosophy This thread is 9 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT»
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted March 21, 2017 12:46 PM
Edited by artu at 12:49, 21 Mar 2017.

AlHazin, trying to defend one of the most transparently human-made abstractions of all time and then blaming others to have a human point of view is quite ironic. I am not talking to a God beyond me or the genies(!), I am talking to you who claims there is a God and tries to support it with absolutely arbitrary claims such as he is out of time, out of dimensions, out of our grasp etc...

First of all, it's epistemology 101, if you define something as beyond your grasp, you voluntarily lose all claims on its qualifications. So, saying God is beyond our understanding on one hand and saying God is good, truthful, merciful etc on the other, is incompatible. If God and his ways are beyond you, he may as well be a prankster who send Quran just to mess with your head. Or there may be more than one God, there can be a million Gods, there can be a God who is not communicating on any basis... It is an absolutely mystical state where nothing and I mean nothing can be hypothesized.

Second of all, and it is getting repetitive to answer to this, if God knows everything, there can be no choice, even if God is not dictating your acts directly, if they are knowable beforehand, they are already determined. But the whole concept of free will is based on the idea that it is your will that determines how things can turn out. Saying "God is out of time" is really not changing anything. If he is out of time, whatever that means and really, it means nothing at all unless you can define "to exist out of time" one way or the other, then his existence is irrelevant to what you do, if from any point in space-time he already knows what you are going to do in the future, the future is not determined by your choices in any degree and free will is moot. The paradox is not caused by his act of dictating but his position of knowing beforehand.

Edit: Well, I see JJ posted a very similar reply about claiming the qualities of the unfathomable. Cheers.
____________
Arts but facts - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
frostysh
frostysh


Famous Hero
WHY?
posted March 21, 2017 12:47 PM
Edited by frostysh at 13:07, 21 Mar 2017.

Maurice -
Maurice said:
Ahh, you're touching upon the very pit trap in which many a scientist has fallen in the past. We have a saying here in the Netherlands, "you heard the bell toll, but have no idea where the clapper is to be found",  which basically means you heard something but don't fully grasp the concept or details.

It's a bit like Schrodinger and his cat, where he wondered if the cat was dead or alive when inside a box and the only way to know would be to open the box and look. Besides the fallacy of using a macroscopic event to try and visualise a quantum mechanical principle - not in the least because looking at the cat isn't a destructive process (unless you're Cyclops from X-Men and not wearing your glasses), whereas measuring a quantum state pretty much is - but it also falls short of the fact that the cat doesn't behave in quite the same way as an elementary particle does under quantum mechanics.

The very core of quantum mechanics is that in order to determine the state of such a particle, you have to measure it, while the measurement itself affects the state of the particle. This implies that you can never say anything about the state of a particle before measuring it, save this: it won't be in a state that requires a measurement to begin with. To return to the false comparison of Schrodingers's cat: the answer to the question of whether the cat is dead or alive, is "neither". It's in a state different from either of those, but we can never know what, because we have no way to determine it without interfering with it at the same time.

As a side note, I despise the term "measurement", as that implies human observation of the phenomenon, while what they really mean is an interaction between different particles - regardless of human observation. It's this concept of "measurement" coupled with a proper understanding of what's happening on a quantum level, which has lead to for instance the insane notion that reality doesn't exist until the human brain registers it.
A very interesting topic, indeed, but I see no falacity in my words, at least for now. I have expressed the future as "cloud" of a quantum possibilies, as a bucket of possible places where you can find frostysh after he will made a decision on the bed.
Thank you for your explaining of the Quantum Mechanics, but it is looks only as a Copenhagen Interpretation, and this is not the axiom like in the Geometry, or the Mathematics in general, or something like that - but just a matter of agreement, as you know, a many-many interpretation exist. Some of them - Interpretations of quantum mechanics, in addition our mind can be quantum, who knows.
The reality itself, is a VERY difficult question, we see only the image of the reality in our brain, mr Maurice, but not the reality itself. Is this a true image, or not - who knows, as you may remembered the film "The Matrix" - the "reality" definition, can be a very traitorous.
Maurice said:

Young's two-slit experiment is actually a very clear case of seeing a quantum mechanical effect in our macroscopic world. The premise of that experiment is that light can exist as a particle or as a wave - since using two slits implies a pattern of destructive and constructive interference. However, this is a serious case of "hearing the bell toll and not knowing where the clapper is", as no actual destructive or constructive interference takes place on a particle level. As such, the notion of "collapse of the wave function" is a false interpretation of what's really happening. Destructive interference implies that whatever occurs at such a spot within the wave annihilates the particle in question. Since this also happens with entire molecules, this simply can't be the case; the total amount of energy released by such a destructive interference would imply the release of a large amount of nuclear energy or something.
I have doubts that I can speak with you on this advanced level, but I don't remember any conservative stuff lacks, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, the case of "self-interference" is not an exception.
Maurice said:

What really happens is that the distribution of particles changes. The sum of the total intensity measured by the detector is the same when using 1 or 2 slits, it's just that the distribution is different (Gaussian curve vs. narrow bands). In its free state, we can't say what it looks like and some scientists lately have started to consider that in its free state, it may not even exist in our physical reality, but rather in some weird state beyond the quantum boundary, only to get "pulled into" reality once it encounters another particle, with which it interacts (i.e. "it gets measured", to keep that fallacy going). The wave function that collapses is then nothing else but a probability field at which point it is likely to "materialize" in our physical reality from beyond that quantum boundary, to engage in that interaction, rather than being the partcile itself spread out in our physical reality. Since the probability field looks like a wave, we can actually observe this field with the two-slit experiment. Once the "materialisation" takes place, it acts like a particle as it always has.
Thanx, very interesting, but why I cannot say the same about frostysh on the bed? The future exist in somekind of probability field, but as actual reality? I think you are confirmed the fact, the we talking about a very edge of the Science, and about a very reality itself - there is a many theories exist, but how to check them?
Maurice said:
Something that I don't really understand, though, is that if you use multiple slits (more than two, in any case), you can create complex interference patterns and thereby very narrowly determine in 3D coordinates where the particle is most likely to interact with other material. This can have usage within the field of holographic projections (seemingly in thin air, so to speak) as well as for medical applications by very narrowly and precisly pinpointing an X-ray beam at a clump of cancercells for instance, severly limiting damage to surrounding healthy tissue.
I think it is beyong of ma' understanding,



But in the Quantum World, when you trying to explain and systemize how to many things will evolve trough the time - you will have a lot of problems due to that "probabilities fields" .
Maurice said:
Evolution and Darwinism are different from quantum physics, totally different area of expertise. It's like talking about the effects of temperature changes in a small cluster of molecules and the overall weather on the planet. They're not even in the same ballpark.

If you want a clear-cut case of evolution, look at the Spanish Conquistadors who invaded South America a couple hundreds years ago. Diseases like the flu and measles caused thousands upon thousands of casualties among the native population, while they were relatively harmless to the Spanish Conquistadors. In return, though, the Spanish succumbed to jungle diseases that were relatively harmless for the natives.

The reason? Evolution of the viri and bacteria responsible for those diseases and the human immune defense system. In Europe, the human body was in an arms race against diseases like the flu and measles and as that "war" raged through the centuries/millenia, both were able to hone their effectiveness against one another. Then those diseases were unleashed upon a people who had not been in that arms race, mostly due to the ocean in between keeping the ecological systems apart - and those diseases had a field day. Infections running rampant and killing people by the droves, because their immune systems weren't used to those diseases, while those diseases sure as heck knew how to handle the human immune system. The same was true for tropical diseases, for which the Europeans had no immediate response.

Studies of genetics often employ fruitflies, because they're easy to breed and have a relatively short lifespan with an equally fast reproduction rate. It's easy to cross-breed them for specific genetic attributes and observe how those differences enable or disable them to cope with changes in their environment. Spontaneous mutations occur in their DNA during breeding, just as well as for every living being, but given their short lifecycle, it's extremely easy to observe with them - and see how it affects their survival rate based on the environment they live in. Attributes that increase their odds to survive in such a place soon become dominant and prevalent throughout the population, whereas attributes that are useless or even decrease the odds to survive quickly perish and fade out of the population.

And this is what about the first post was - When the first intelligent creature on the Earth has been developed, genetics and stuff lose it's power to make a choice. Nowadays Scientists can change the genetic stuff by their will - this is means Genes <<< Mind.
And I am agreed about deceases and stuff, I think same happens to Cromagnon and Neanderthals, coz' Cromagnon-guys was Africa 70% + something like Asia 30%, and Neanderthals have no armor against Africa deceases. There is interesting book about that - "Germs Food and Steel" or something like that, but the author himself proposed idea that Neanderthals has been killed by genocide, as for my self, I don't think that it is a true - too large area, to primitive technologies for normal genocide with effectiveness. In addition, according to Wikipedia a clues that Cromagnon and Neanderthals coexisting in the France, has been found, and many-many another stuff.

So ma' main point in this case - You CHOICE is much more important and powerful than GENETICS, and it is confirmed by the History of mankind.
____________
Albert Einstein(1929AD)-Nationalism, Eric Hoffer(1976AD)-Communism, Steven Weinberg(1999AD)-Religion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
Chewer of Expensive Shoes
posted March 21, 2017 01:23 PM

@ jj and artu: forget for a second that what i saw, i saw during an acid trip. now i want to pose something to you both:

what if someone has actually seen god? what if someone has seen that what you think of as "reality" is merely the physical plane of existence CREATED by god? ponder on those 2 questions, just for a second.

assume, just for the sake of argument, that:

1. someone has actually seen god.

2. someone has seen that "reality"(our planet, and all the galaxies of the universe and everything contained in and around them) is only the physical plane of existence, and is actually an illusion.

how would that make either of you feel, knowing that these two are truths? would it change the way you live? what exactly would you do with that knowledge?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
AlHazin
AlHazin


Supreme Hero
Erwin freed Tibet!
posted March 21, 2017 01:28 PM

Look, people, we should clarify that we're not here to convince. Trying to go by maths, or science to try to prove that God exists or not is impossible, if not absurd. You can't prove that God exist just as much as you can't prove He doesn't. A key element in this equation is faith, which is rejected by atheists.

Again artu, you know what you're feeling when you keep repeating " if God knows everything, there can be no choice, even if God is not dictating your acts directly, if they are knowable beforehand, they are already determined." well I feel exactly the same by telling you the reverse. To each of us, things are evidence and others are impossible. That's why usually we get nowhere. Again, as stated to our brave Baronus, God is good, and bad, he's merciful, and merciless, he is everything and its reverse, which is, according to maths, impossible. Because 1 can't equal -1, and can't equal all the rest of the numbers.

But, it's interesting to note that in some languages, amongst which English (thanks to Elvin), there are some words that mean something, and its opposite. So, I don't know if maths are not applicable to everything, if they are purely abstract or a human creation, since even philosophers didn't settle the question, but what I can say, is that there's no more hypocrisy in the religious side than on the atheist one. As I assume, that most atheists actually inherit their atheism, which reminds me of people inheriting their religion, which is imo a nonsense.

Plus maths can seem strange too, I'm thinking about x > 0, and then you got i=-1, which totally makes sense as you can use it in robotic.
____________
"The Erwin is out there as they say once in a while lol" - Verriker.
A felt change of consciousness - Markkur

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
frostysh
frostysh


Famous Hero
WHY?
posted March 21, 2017 01:37 PM

AlHazin said:
Look, people, we should clarify that we're not here to convince. Trying to go by maths, or science to try to prove that God exists or not is impossible, if not absurd. You can't prove that God exist just as much as you can't prove He doesn't. . .

+1, but the Nature is not a Mathematics (well, it is questionable, but for sure - we have only approximations for now). But some Theoretical Physicist, that is like to look at situation from a different angles, even from opposite, such mr Hawking, tried to say something reasonable about God - this is not means, that their words a true, or a total false - mr Hawking only proposing a version that we need no God to obtain our Universe, as it appearing for nowadays, and of course this conclusions depends only on the data that is available for now to the Scientists, and particularly mr Hawking.
____________
Albert Einstein(1929AD)-Nationalism, Eric Hoffer(1976AD)-Communism, Steven Weinberg(1999AD)-Religion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted March 21, 2017 01:45 PM

fred79 said:
@ jj and artu: forget for a second that what i saw, i saw during an acid trip. now i want to pose something to you both:

what if someone has actually seen god? what if someone has seen that what you think of as "reality" is merely the physical plane of existence CREATED by god? ponder on those 2 questions, just for a second.

assume, just for the sake of argument, that:

1. someone has actually seen god.

2. someone has seen that "reality"(our planet, and all the galaxies of the universe and everything contained in and around them) is only the physical plane of existence, and is actually an illusion.

how would that make either of you feel, knowing that these two are truths? would it change the way you live? what exactly would you do with that knowledge?
The problem is, that no matter what you see, whether under influence or not, you can NEVER be SURE, that it's NOT just a figment of your mind.
There are a lot of guys who hear voices, right?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
Chewer of Expensive Shoes
posted March 21, 2017 01:58 PM

JollyJoker said:
The problem is, that no matter what you see, whether under influence or not, you can NEVER be SURE, that it's NOT just a figment of your mind.
There are a lot of guys who hear voices, right?


so, what you're saying is, even if you were to see those two things as truths, that you'd STILL refute them?

so basically, you're just arguing to argue, then. got it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted March 21, 2017 02:07 PM
Edited by artu at 14:08, 21 Mar 2017.

@fred

If someone comes with such a claim (and many people still do), the first thing I'd check out would be his mental health, because directly seeing or hearing such things is usually a sign of schizophrenia. If he's not mentally ill, I would then check out what his experience actually is, is it an interpretation of a vague "transcendental" moment of emotion or is it something that can be communicated through evidence, something that can actually be displayed to other people by any objective means.

If it is, I'd thank him for the introduction. But that is such an implausible "what if" scenario, it's not much different than asking what if the Silver Surfer turned out real.

AlHazin said:
To each of us, things are evidence and others are impossible.

Sorry but there is no such symmetry. You are claiming a logical inconsistency should be possible because a dogmatic tradition you embrace tells you so, not any sort of evidence. Your religion tells you that God is omniscient, he knows the future, everything is written  as he wills it and yet humans still have free will, you ignore the inconsistency in this because not doing so would be admitting that your religion is not infallible. It indicates eclectic historical influence rather than metaphysical reality and you can't have that. When you claim "the reverse," it is not an alternative line of rational thinking but a blanket of mysticism that is based on something such as "transcending time" that has no actual content. It's a pseudo-explanation. Anybody who claims that "God's word is infallible" is voluntarily leaving critical thinking behind anyway. That is not the case with atheism, since atheism is not an ideology or dogma, it is simply a state of not assuming a God or his purely imagined qualifications arbitrarily. You are also an atheist when the God in question is Zeus or Odin. Had people who claimed Zeus is throwing around thunderbolts been here, your position to them wouldn't be a clash of different evidences or difference of interpretation on a single evidence. Your stance would be, "nothing suggests thunderbolts are caused by Zeus."

It is of course more probable that a child of atheist parents also becomes an atheist. Yet, generally speaking, atheists don't indoctrinate their children according to atheism. They don't teach them not to question such things, on the contrary, they leave it to them to decide, using myself as an example, when I asked my parents if there was a God around 7 or 8, my father replied, you figure that out on your own when you grow up. Atheism is not supported by state propaganda in schools or social pressure, there is no cultural pattern to atheists world wide, yet most people who are religious stick to the religion of their cultural habitat. None of the people in this thread are exceptions.
____________
Arts but facts - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
Chewer of Expensive Shoes
posted March 21, 2017 02:11 PM

artu said:
If he's not mentally ill, I would then check out what his experience actually is, is it something that can actually be displayed to other people by any objective means.

If it is, I'd thank him for the introduction.


i'll draw something in ms paint or photoshop soon. after that, i'll say, "you're welcome".

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted March 21, 2017 02:13 PM

But you're crazy as a bat, fred!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted March 21, 2017 02:20 PM

No, what I say is, no matter how "true" something may SEEM to you, the subjective nature of your existence makes it NEVER more than a subjective truth.
Which means, even if you believe in God or in whatever else, or if you had a "revelation" that strikes you true, there is no way to verify that in any objective way means that it will always be just your personal and subjective truth and never more.

Keep in mind that this is a principal problem:

Say, you had a revelation: God spoke to you, and you think, it was a true experience. However - you want prove. In your thoughts you say, "dear god, I'm unable to simply believe, I need proof, and since I couldn't live with the idea of having all this only imagined, I will now jump from a skyscraper. Prove to me, this is true, and dave me." God says, done deal, you go ahead, and lo and behold, when you jump, an angel appears out of thin air, catches you and lands you safely on the ground.

Fine? No, not at all. You may still be dreaming all this. You may phantasizing. You may just have stood right were you are and imagined everything. And even if now everyone around you would start to sing and say we all saw it, oh holy, this might STILL be your own personal dream, and you might actually live in some home for the mentally challenged, being in some stupor.

It's a FUNDAMENTAL problem of existence.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
AlHazin
AlHazin


Supreme Hero
Erwin freed Tibet!
posted March 21, 2017 02:22 PM

You're wrong, I taught my father how to pray, not the reverse. What you imagine as social religious pressure is wayyy overrated, as most people, near and far, think the same as you and act the same as you. And I assume you father is clearly not a muslim.

Now that I think of it, these are the wastelands ^^

Curse you all I shall burn you for your heresy. Yes, even you, Frostych.
____________
"The Erwin is out there as they say once in a while lol" - Verriker.
A felt change of consciousness - Markkur

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Neraus
Neraus


Supreme Hero
Emperor of the Bromans
posted March 21, 2017 02:26 PM

AlHazin said:
Curse you all I shall burn you for your heresy. Yes, even you, Frostych.


Burning people for heresy is our trademark, be more original Saracen.
____________
I walk this empty street on the boulevard of broken streets.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted March 21, 2017 02:33 PM

Well, if you happen to think your choice of religion has nothing to do with being born in Algeria, okie dokie.
____________
Arts but facts - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Maurice
Maurice

Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
posted March 21, 2017 03:05 PM

AlHazin said:
... God is good, and bad, he's merciful, and merciless, he is everything and its reverse ...


Interesting proposition. However, if this is the case, then why pay tribute and honor God with prayer and the like? He's basically two-faced then, with a mirror side that's a perfect opposite to the side you seem to rever. And isn't that mirror side then actually what people describe as the devil?
____________
The last Reasonable Steward of Good Game Design and a Responsible Hero of HC. - Verriker

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted March 21, 2017 03:38 PM

Well, maybe it's about trying not to piss off an unstable character, he controls all the volcanoes, you know!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
AlHazin
AlHazin


Supreme Hero
Erwin freed Tibet!
posted March 21, 2017 03:58 PM

artu said:
Well, if you happen to think your choice of religion has nothing to do with being born in Algeria, okie dokie.


Mind you that I studied all the history of Jewish people, history of Talmud, Buddhism, notions of Christianity, multiple worldwide mythologies, Greek, Indian, Arab and Mayan philosophy when I was a teenager before I acknowledged Islam as the unique way to go. I got raised in a very European-like family, and learned to speak in French as a first language before Arabic. So yes, being Algerian is indeed irrelevant, I can certify you.

@Maumau: Actually, you bow to God for two reasons, out of love, so that He fulfills your wishes, and out of awe, so that He doesn't blow you. Both ways lead to the same result, we worship God to access paradise, just as much as we worship him to avoid hell. God is named Al Nafi' (helpful) and Al Thaar (the harmful), Al Khaafith/Al Raafi', Al Mu'izz/ Al Muthill (respectively, the one who lowers/highers, and the honouring/the humiliating).
The choice is up to you as to which side you wanna face.

Of course you have Al 'aalim (the omniscient) and you'll never have Al Jahil (the ignorant), so as you said you can't be ignorant when you're omniscient, that said, God keeps us in ignorance from many things, so how ignorance exists in opposition with God? I'll have to ask way more qualified people to answer.

Names of God

Now the following is strictly for those who believe a bit lol atheists stop reading now and skip to the next post.

***As for the devil, the one we all call THE devil is a genie, Lucifer or Iblees in Arabic. He was a loyal follower of God, Who elevated him to the rank of angel. There's not a single place on Earth where he didn't bow to God, it's just that upon witnessing God creating Adam, and honouring him by blowing from His own soul within him -which is why humans are considered superior to genies despite all the abilities they got, which made him breath and move, refused to bow to him (Adam). And then got punished by God for disobeying. He got a delay to corrupt humans though. But his case is closed, he's going to hell, no matter what.

In the end, when the day will come for this whole world to vanish, the devil will bow again before God, to the greatest stupor of hos followers, then he will tell them: "I disobeyed God once, look how many times YOU disobeyed him, I fear the god of the two worlds". Basically, he will be ******* everyone who followed him.***
____________
"The Erwin is out there as they say once in a while lol" - Verriker.
A felt change of consciousness - Markkur

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Maurice
Maurice

Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
posted March 21, 2017 04:10 PM
Edited by Maurice at 16:11, 21 Mar 2017.

frostysh said:
Thank you for your explaining of the Quantum Mechanics, but it is looks only as a Copenhagen Interpretation, and this is not the axiom like in the Geometry, or the Mathematics in general, or something like that - but just a matter of agreement, as you know, a many-many interpretation exist. Some of them - Interpretations of quantum mechanics, in addition our mind can be quantum, who knows.


I was aware of various interpretations of quantum mechanics, but not really interested in whatever label I fell under. That being said, after reading up a bit, the Copenhagen interpretation seems relatively close to what I believe in (and not being well-versed in quantum mechanical history, it's funny to see some of the thoughts I had about it have in fact been considered before by other () brilliant minds), with regards to quantum mechanical theories and interpretations. However, not everything there suits my personal opinion, but I guess it's close enough.
____________
The last Reasonable Steward of Good Game Design and a Responsible Hero of HC. - Verriker

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted March 21, 2017 05:01 PM
Edited by artu at 17:21, 21 Mar 2017.

AlHazin said:
artu said:
Well, if you happen to think your choice of religion has nothing to do with being born in Algeria, okie dokie.


Mind you that I studied all the history of Jewish people, history of Talmud, Buddhism, notions of Christianity, multiple worldwide mythologies, Greek, Indian, Arab and Mayan philosophy when I was a teenager before I acknowledged Islam as the unique way to go. I got raised in a very European-like family, and learned to speak in French as a first language before Arabic. So yes, being Algerian is indeed irrelevant, I can certify you.

Reading and learning these as anthropological knowledge is not exactly a position of standing in a market of religions where each is presented like a fruit in a shelf and you get to pick one in the end from a blank state, when one of those religions is in the background of your actual life, culture, childhood. Btw, I haven't proposed each and every individual who picks a religion is sorely motivated by cultural factors, I said, this is the mainstream pattern when it comes to religions unlike being an atheist or non-religious person, because you compared them based on inheritance, as if they were identical positions about just guessing things. To simplify, "inheritance" is THE major factor when it comes to people devoting themselves to ANY religion, while it is not when it comes to people not devoting themselves to such stories.

And the relevance of this to the context was that your argument of God being omniscient and people having free will at the same time was not based on a rational conclusion of yours (as opposed to the counter-argument of these two things being antithetical), but based on inherited knowledge. And the type of that inherited knowledge is not categorically rational (akli) but revealed (nakli). In other words, it's only valid if you believe that dogma is revelation first, you don't arrive at the dogma on your own individual critical thinking or observation. You do not conclude or witness God's omniscience first hand, you won't even be able to, according to your own cosmology anyway. You blindly trust a tradition, and unlike philosophy or science, that tradition is not one that is constantly testing its own propositions. There is no "leap of faith" required in what I say, but yours require an almost forced one.

If this all sounds like being picky, let me use a simple contrast instead. You ramble on about dimensions, quantum, mathematics etc to validate a mythological story such as this:
Quote:
The devil is a genie, Lucifer or Iblees in Arabic. He was a loyal follower of God, who elevated him to the rank of angel. There's not a single place on Earth where he didn't bow to God, it's just that upon witnessing God creating Adam, and honoring him by blowing from His own soul within him -which is why humans are considered superior to genies despite all the abilities they got, which made him breath and move, refused to bow to him (Adam). And then got punished by God for disobeying. He got a delay to corrupt humans though. But his case is closed, he's going to hell, no matter what.


The hyper jump is so arbitrary, so culturally local, so irrational, so absurd, and all of this is so transparent, it is not hard at all to figure out that your religion is not something you arrived at, because your unbiased cognition or skepticism led you to it. Here's a little anecdote, some time ago, on an Islamic TV channel here, they made a "documentary" about how CIA uses genies to repair their satellites. Yes, as crazy as it sounds, not only there are people who can believe that, they have enough money to put it on TV. Naturally, this became an internet phenomenon and everybody was laughing their asses off, making jokes about CIA officials asking the genies to bring over some huris etc. At one point, somebody came and wrote something like this:
- You laugh at these things because you're ignorant, genies are real, they are revealed. There are different states of matter and energy even scientists don't know about yet. How can you deny genies when there is so much we don't know about!
The reply to this was inevitably down to the point:
- Oh dear, please do tell me about states of matter and energy that repair satellites.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Gryphs
Gryphs


Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
posted March 21, 2017 06:35 PM
Edited by Gryphs at 10:32, 22 Mar 2017.

Stevie said:
Logically, God's foreknowledge is caused, not causing. It's because something happens that God knows about it, not because God knows it will happen. It's no use trying to understand it chronologically, God transcends time.

Amy will take drugs, therefore God knows beforehand. No problem with free will.
What? This does not make a whole lot of sense. If "something happens" as you put it than it was not a choice.

You cannot place God as a passive observer, either, being the creator of the universe. In order for a knowable timeline to exist he would have to create one and every knowable event within.

So, Amy will take drugs and God knows beforehand, however, God must know this well before Amy is even born. God cannot be wrong therefore Amy is predestined to take drugs.


@Fred79

I assumed you would just get rid of it all.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 9 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll Post New Topic Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1064 seconds