Determinism and quantum mechanics

If your interest doesn't fit anywhere else, leave it here.
panacea
Posts: 990
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

You are of course right that there is tremendous empirical evidence that many events are causally determined by previous events.
But this is not empirical evidence for determinism! Why ?
No, not many events, all.

You've already admitted many events are determined causally by previous events, give me one event that has no cause... You're asking for empirical evidence of some non-existent event that needs to be tested? C'mon. (edit: remember, it has to be shown not to have a cause, not simply have an unidentified cause or unknown if it has a cause or not). Science has shown that causes exist, so if you want to come up with some other idea, show that non-causes do, not just undecided events.
IF many events are caused by a previous event THEN every event is caused by a previous event
This is not what I said at all, you're mistaking your own misunderstanding of what I said to be a logical fallacy. ALL events (that we know of at least) are caused by a previous event, 99.9% of these are generally accepted by the majority of society to be true. It would be the same as if all people we know of are white, there is no reason to believe in black people if we haven't found evidence for them yet, for example. They may be out there, but without evidence, pink is just as likely as black, and nothing more than more white people is just as likely as black or pink, etc. What they've done with the double slit experiment is find an unidentified color person, and people jump to conclusions that they must be a black or pink when (just using your example) all we've found evidence for is white. Something without a cause has never been shown scientifically, the most famous example of this is the notion of a god or gods, who created the universe and have no cause themselves for being there - and science just doesn't align with this kind of causeless superstition.
If something can come into existence that doesn't have a cause, not even a cause to tell it when or where to come into existence, then everything will be everywhere at all times.
Logical fallacy...
If something can come into existence without cause, than that something can be everywhere at all times.
The first statement was false. and the rest of your theory doesn't make sense anymore...
No, it's not a fallacy or a mistake or false - if something can come into existence, no matter how small or big or undefined in size, without some cause telling it how, when, where, how much, etc, then it will be uncontrollable, unbound by time or any other variable, and this one 'something' would instantly be 'everything' (including everywhere). Looking at all the diversity and varying behavior around us, we can see non-cause is fiction.

It doesn't make sense in regard to reality because non-cause doesn't make sense, it's not the feedback the universe is giving us through our 5 senses and through scientific testing.
Sorry both are logical fallacies, and you clearly haven't refute my statement:
Statement B: There is no scientific reason to believe that determinsm is true.
I thought this was self evident from my previous posts, as all science models determinism and there isn't even another notion raised by science. All things which have no cause come from speculation and assumption based on scientific results or on nonscientific results, the scientific results have never shown something to not have a cause. Scientific results have shown things to have a cause more times than I can fathom. A simple experiment showing that 'car engines perform better when in certain weather conditions because temperature effects core components' (totally made that up may or may not be true), and similar experiments show the cause-effect relationship of the universe every single day all the time. It's so redundant I don't know how you can't see this.
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

No, not many events, all.
You've already admitted many events are determined causally by previous events, give me one event that has no cause... You're asking for empirical evidence of some non-existent event that needs to be tested? C'mon. (edit: remember, it has to be shown not to have a cause, not simply have an unidentified cause or unknown if it has a cause or not). Science has shown that causes exist, so if you want to come up with some other idea, show that non-causes do, not just undecided events.
Well this isn't correct. If something has an unidentified cause we don't know if it has a cause, or that it maybe act probabilistic.
For example, a roulette wheel, we have researched this, but we can't find the cause that the ball will end at a certain number yet.
And you can assume that if you able to account for all variables, we are able to find these cause. But you can also assume that if we are able to account for all variables we able to find the cause that there is high chance that the ball will end at a certain number. Both assumptions, we can't disprove. We can only find out if we do more research and find all variables.
ALL events (that we know of at least) are caused by a previous event
It's clear that we don't have empirical evidence that all events are causally determined by a previous event. You know that yourself.
Like the roulette wheel, there are many events. Like the weather etc. we don't know yet, if they are causally determined. We just don't know.
We only know that many events are causally determined by a previous events. But as said before, it's logical fallacy to say that therefore all events are causally determined by a previous event.
No, it's not a fallacy or a mistake or false - if something can come into existence, no matter how small or big or undefined in size, without some cause telling it how, when, where, how much, etc, then it will be uncontrollable, unbound by time or any other variable, and this one 'something' would instantly be 'everything' (including everywhere). Looking at all the diversity and varying behavior around us, we can see non-cause is fiction.
Okay, we got a new one. What you are saying is that if there is a particle with the property to become without cause everything everywhere, than this clearly doesn't represent reality.
So what you prove is that there cannot be a particle width this property... But that is really all you prove. I hope it's clear that did not prove determinism width this.
Particles, like an electron can still act probabilistic, if they have other properties than you have defined to your particle.
I thought this was self evident from my previous posts, as all science models determinism and there isn't even another notion raised by science. All things which have no cause come from speculation and assumption based on scientific results or on nonscientific results, the scientific results have never shown something to not have a cause. Scientific results have shown things to have a cause more times than I can fathom. A simple experiment showing that 'car engines perform better when in certain weather conditions because temperature effects core components' (totally made that up may or may not be true), and similar experiments show the cause-effect relationship of the universe every single day all the time. It's so redundant I don't know how you can't see this.
Okay, panacea, this is really arrogant. Saying determinism is self evident, and it's redundant. And saying "I don't know how you can't see it."
If you ever will have a conversation width a professor in physics I can assure you that he won't say determinism is self-evident. I don't think there is any professor, even the professor who believe determinism is true, won't say it's self-evident. And would you say to those professors: "I don't know how you can't see it".. ? I mean you don't say this to me, but you say it to physics. Quite arrogant.
all science models determinism and there isn't even another notion raised by science
This isn't true. And I've said this for a hundred times now, quantum mechanics is a science model, and it's is probabilistic model, not a deterministic model.... So there is another notion raised by science. And you might think that this is an incomplete model, I don't care. Because it's about this statement:
Statement B: There is no scientific reason to believe that determinism is true.

Even if quantum mechanics is incomplete, even if determinism can be true, than you still have to show me that there is scientific reason to believe that determinism is true. Can be true and is true, are different things.

So, I've gone through all of it. But you still need me to show empirical evidence or show me that determinism is a consequence of deductive reasoning...
I say, you can try again...

But you really don't have to try again, because how hard you try, you probably won't be able to find scientific reasons to believe that determinism is true.
I've read many articles about professors in physic who think internal determinism can still be an option, and though they give scientific reasons to believe determinism could be true. None of the articles I read give scientific reasons to believe determinism must be true. And as they can't find scientific reasons, there is little change you can't find them.
panacea
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

You've been saying the same thing for many posts now, it's getting nowhere.

I say that the roulette wheel has causes (for example it won't turn into a giraffe because a series of causes before it made it a roulette wheel, and also a series of causes, generalized we can say these are gravity, air resistence, force of spin push, etc, which make some result). Obviously it's hard to quantify just how much force a human hand pushes on the roulette wheel as it's very sensitive, so the outcome appears different every time, but really the environment and variables (force of push, air resistance, starting location of piece, and even minute things like atomic friction etc) are different each time.

You are arguing that this probability effect of the results is all there is, I'm saying it goes deeper to become systematic and predictable, even in electrons, and even if we can't quantify all the variables just like the roulette wheel.

So, whenever I argue my point of view, you say fallacy, and obviously I say it's not. You have no proof that will show any human without a doubt determinism is flawed, and I have no way to convey to them without a doubt it's true. It's a dilemma and you have to take your own point of view. My original post before someone split this topic off was arguing that my view (determinism) creates an image of a peaceful reality which is workable and usable, realizing no free will, everything being cause and effect, there is no longer need for blame, guilt, long emotional pain, resentment, violence - and then we can start to selfishly cooperate. Superstitious view is the one used predominantly now, and in our past, and as we can see the effect is violent disagreement because it's so vague and opinionated. This is a stressful view of reality to me, while determinism elicits no bias - just like the universe has no bias. This was my original argument that the deterministic world view makes the most sense in terms of an emotional stress solution - I was not trying to convince anybody that it was true, you're the one who came to my thread trying to prove that randomness and probability was a scientific fundamental truth, when no such thing has ever been shown, only guessed at based on results - results can show anything, such as all the non-probabilistic results of thousands of other experiments, it proves nothing in and of itself to the nature of the universe, I rely on interconnected logic not individual test results which are effects.
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

Come on, or you aren't reading my post, or you just don't want to admit it that your opinion doesn't hold.

As I repeated in three posts know, my statement is:
Statement B: There is no scientific reason to believe that determinism is true.

I dont say that you must give up your belief in determinsm! I'm only saying you can't give me scientific reasons to belief it, you don't have to convince every human determinism is true, you "only" have to convince the scientific world width scientific arguments. Or at least give 1 scientific argument, give 1 scientific reason to believe determinism is true.
My point is that you don't give/have scientific arguments for your statement. While you say that everyone in this forum should.
You just don't want to admit that you believe in determinism is solely based on the feeling that this make sense, on the feeling that this is logical. And your faith that such feelings represent reality.
Come on, just admit that you can't back up your statement width empirical evidence or deductive reasoning, how difficult is this ?
Nobody in this world is able to give scientific reason to believe that determinism is true, so it isn't strange that you can't.
I didn't want to make a big point out of this, I don't care that your believe in determinism isn't based on science.
I just can't stand that you don't want to admit this...
So, whenever I argue my point of view, you say fallacy, and obviously I say it's not.
It is a logical fallacy, or it isn't. It is just the rules of logic, the rules of deductive reasoning, you can't twist about them, they are just defined this way.
Of course, it could be that I interpreted these rules wrong, or stuff like that, but we must be able to come to consensus. That is the beautiful thing about logic.
I was not trying to convince anybody that it was true, you're the one who came to my thread trying to prove that randomness and probability was a scientific fundamental truth, when no such thing has ever been shown, only guessed at based on results
I only said that external determinism is disproven, and that general consensus in science about internal determinism is that this can't be true.
It's not guessed, it follows from quantum mechanic theory, and if quantum mechanics is complete, than this is true. But we can't prove quantum mechanics is complete. But we also have no reason to assume it isn't complete.
panacea
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

No reason I give will meet your qualifications, I've already given many.
I'm reading your posts, and my beliefs do hold true - saying otherwise is your opinion and just trying to make me look bad, it has no substance.
I've given up replying to your questions because I've given all the answers and it's a dead end.
There is no magic information that will convince you or me to the opposite side.
Basically you say a bunch of statements that are very untrue and ridiculous to me, and to you I do the same. I've already told you this, there is no reluctance to answer your questions as I already have, you just didn't acknowledge the answer. Instead, you asked biased questions with labels like 'scientific reason', when 'scientific reason' can mean whatever your individual brain wants it to mean, when to me, many scientific reasons have already been well explained in my recent posts.

If you're going to have a meaningful debate about reality, we have to have some common ground. I've realized that we don't have enough common ground to make any progress.
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

If you're going to have a meaningful debate about reality, we have to have some common ground. I've realized that we don't have enough common ground to make any progress.
Come on, I believe in the scientific method, and you claim to belief in the scientific method..
I believe in logic (as used in science), and you do, this is the only common ground we need...
I'm reading your posts, and my beliefs do hold true
That's okay.. You can believe what you want. I'm only asking what your reasons are to believe it, and whether they are scientific.
Instead, you asked biased questions with labels like 'scientific reason', when 'scientific reason' can mean whatever your individual brain wants it to mean, when to me, many scientific reasons have already been well explained in my recent posts.
No it science cannot mean whatever you want. That's not how science works...
You need, 1. Empirical evidence and 2. Deductive reasoning
And you haven't showed any argument without making logical fallacies...
Surely, therefore it can't be called scientific. If you think something like that is scientific, than you use a wrong interpretation of science.

Edit:
No reason I give will meet your qualifications, I've already given many.
These qualifications are just the qualification of something being called scientific. So if you can't meet these qualifications than you agree with me, right?! :D
There is no scientific reason to believe that determinism is true. And your belief in determinism, therefore must be based on faith.
panacea
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

Come on, I believe in the scientific method, and you claim to belief in the scientific method..
I believe in logic (as used in science), and you do, this is the only common ground we need...
You can say this all you want, however the way you determine your beliefs doesn't follow logic to me. And you've already said the same about me. You argue that logic is fixed can't be interpreted, yet I see you interpreting it wrong and you see me interpreting it wrong - ironically, your logic is again flawed. This is why I'm saying we are getting nowhere, the fact you refuse to accept this I can't help you with.
That's okay.. You can believe what you want. I'm only asking what your reasons are to believe it, and whether they are scientific.
I've given them, they are scientific... you just didn't agree with that.
No it science cannot mean whatever you want. That's not how science works...
You need, 1. Empirical evidence and 2. Deductive reasoning
And you haven't showed any argument without making logical fallacies...
Surely, therefore it can't be called scientific. If you think something like that is scientific, than you use a wrong interpretation of science.
I had 1. and 2., whether you believe I did or not is your own reasoning, which is great for you but has no substance for reality.
I have shown many arguments without making logical fallacies, you just simply don't agree with that.
It's still scientific as it was, you just don't agree with it. I've been trying to tell you we don't agree and don't have common ground, so stop asking for more debate. I say you use a wrong interpretation of science, you say I do - it's a disagreement, you are in no position to say which is absolutely right and neither am I, it's called perspective. In a meaningful debate, when we have common ground, we can call each other right and wrong because at least we agree on some basic things and interpret things the same - unfortunately we don't so we can't communicate and make progress. You'll continue believing what you believe and I'll continue in my way - we don't have enough in common to share any new insight.
These qualifications are just the qualification of something being called scientific. So if you can't meet these qualifications than you agree with me, right?!
Incorrect, you believe the qualifications you have are purely scientific, they're not. You can't prove otherwise because we are humans, open to interpretation (yes even you).

No, my determinism is not based on faith but rather vast interconnected high forms of logic, as I've already explained before in this same thread...
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

You can say this all you want, however the way you determine your beliefs doesn't follow logic to me. And you've already said the same about me. You argue that logic is fixed can't be interpreted, yet I see you interpreting it wrong and you see me interpreting it wrong - ironically, your logic is again flawed. This is why I'm saying we are getting nowhere, the fact you refuse to accept this I can't help you with.
Come on panacea, what is this... If you want to quit the discussion in this way, because you don't want to admit that can't back up a statement width scientific evidence, than that is quite pathetic.
Otherwise you must really agree, that I didn't invent logic, and you didn't, the rules of logic are defined by other people. So if we use these same laws defined in for example first-order logic, and we don't make mistakes, we must come to the same conclusion which is a logical fallacy is and which isn't.
I say you use a wrong interpretation of science, you say I do - it's a disagreement, you are in no position to say which is absolutely right and neither am I, it's called perspective
I'm not in the position to say which is absolutely right, this, I 100% agree width you.
But I'm able to say what is scientific and what isn't, of course I can make a mistake here, but as scientist I'm in the position to say what is scientific and what is not.
Incorrect, you belief the qualifications you have are purely scientific, they're not. You can't prove otherwise because we are humans, open to interpretation (yes even you).
Panacea, what you don't seem to get is that humans have defined what is scientific and what isn't... this is something else as what is the truth, what science mean to you regarding the truth, you can decide yourself...
panacea
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

What you don't seem to understand is your interpretation of things, no matter how strongly you believe is synonymous with reality, is not necessarily right. I can't explain this simple concept more clearly.
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

What you don't seem to understand is your interpretation of things, no matter how strongly you believe is synonymous with reality, is not necessarily right. I can't explain this simple concept more clearly.
Well actually I understand this concept, and I agree width you, my interpretation of reality is not necessarily right. I never claimed it is.

But that is not what I was talking about, I was talking about if something is scientific. And since humans have defined what is scientific, we have defined what logic is, we must agree about question whether something is a logical fallacy, etc..
Right ? We can't disagree about something which is defined.
panacea
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

I was pointing out your interpretation of what humans have defined is not necessarily right.... (that's part of reality). Humans interpret *everything*, thought this was obvious.

You seem to think you got your idea of what is scientific absolutely right and backed up by some absolute truth scientific establishment, I'm saying you're crazy since determinism has not been disproven and no other notion besides cause and effect has been proven true in any scientific experiment. Obviously you're saying I'm wrong and fallacious bla bla bla, we don't agree. Whether you think science is somehow immune from interpretation or not is irrelevant, as all non-vegetable state, non-dead, and awake humans interpret constantly, there are no exceptions.

No amount of babbling in disagreement is going to make progress since it's just a contest of who can repeat what they've already said in a different way until the other one dies of old age.

Show me what is immune to interpretation and only said in one way about this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl ... d=0CCIQkAE
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

I was pointing out your interpretation of what humans have defined is not necessarily right.... (that's part of reality). Humans interpret *everything*, thought this was obvious.
I already said I can make mistakes, you can make mistakes... I can interpret it wrong, but it's not that we "just" can interpret it differently, if we do, one must be wrong and one must be right, and since it all are definitions, you must be easily be able to show that I interpret it wrong.
So please show me, why your arguments weren't logical fallacies...

Have you ever read somewhere that one scientist claims to have found a logical fallacy in a theory, and that the other scientist says:
"Well that is your interpretation, I just think it isn't." ?????
No, of course, not, the other scientist will say, no it isn't. Because of those reasons.
Or, hey, interesting, you might be right...

"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." from wikipedia

And of course, we can disagree about whether this definition makes sense etc...
For example, string theory, a new theory which tries to explain everything, this is from wikipedia:
"The theory has yet to make testable experimental predictions, which a theory must do in order to be considered a part of science."

Width the technology we have today it's impossible to deliver empirical evidence which can test the truth about this theory.
Therefore string theory can't be considered to be a part of science. Of course, string theory scientist debate if our definition of science makes sense.. etc.
But width the definition we got at the moment, your theory about determinism isn't called a part of science either. It's philosophy.
I'm saying you're crazy since determinism has not been disproven and no other notion besides cause and effect has been proven true in any scientific experiment
1. Determinism has not been disproven
This is not an scientific argument for determinism must be true. This is an argument for "there is no scientific reason to believe determinism must be false"
Agree ? Do I make a mistake here ? If so, please tell me.

2. no other notion besides cause and effect has been proven true in any scientific experiment
Okay, this is an argument for that determinism is self-evident, right ?
Firstly, as I said, since the discovering of quantum mechanics, there is no physicist who will agree that determinism doesn't need to be proved and it's self-evident.
You agree that therefore you can just call determinism self-evident, right ? If not, please tell me why.

Secondly, there aren't many experiments where we can conclude that it is 100% deterministic. Because than we must be able to predict an event width 100% certainty and 100% exactness. There is always some statistical deviation. And we don´t know if this is because 1. of our mistakes in measurement 2. variables we didn´t include .. etc. etc. but it could also be that it just isn´t 100% deterministic, and it has a (partly) probabilistic nature.
No amount of babbling in disagreement is going to make progress since it's just a contest of who can repeat what they've already said in a different way until the other one dies of old age.
If you really believe that we can't say whether something is scientific, why do you say we have to back up our statements width scientific arguments ?
If there isn't defined something like that, than everyone can claim something is scientific, and this won't make any sense, right ?
it's just a contest of who can repeat what they've already said in a different way until the other one dies of old age.
It's just contest until I become completely freaked out, or you finally admit that you aren't and that nobody is able to show arguments (and these are arguments must be composed of empirical evidence and deductive reasoning) to believe all events are causally determined by a previous event.
Do you really think you are able to do something no scientist has ever done??? Because this is what you are claiming panacea.
panacea
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

I keep telling you, that you don't understand me... it's simple. I can't make you any more understanding. There's nothing more I can inform you of, lol, except that you should re-read and re-read until you get it, maybe.
I already said I can make mistakes, you can make mistakes... I can interpret it wrong, but it's not that we "just" can interpret it differently, if we do, one must be wrong and one must be right, and since it all are definitions, you must be easily be able to show that I interpret it wrong.
See what I mean, there is absolutely no common ground, that's why we can't get anywhere, I don't believe this - you do. There is not 'either or' one of us has to be right, neither of us can establish what is 'right', as we are just guessing at reality. You're not an all knowing being and neither am I, we can argue over which is more probable or realistic, but it has to be from common ground or it's just insulting back and forth "NO I'm more aligned with science, as a matter of fact!" , "No I am!!" it's pointless, if you can't even understand this simple concept of a dead end to our progress in this thread then how do you expect to understand reality?

Definitions are not set in stone, you're interpreting the definition. (there's also more than one definition for anything on the internet, all interpreted by people to mean either slightly different things or completely different things) Write the definition all you want, as soon as you say 'this means what I said all along!' you're being biased and interpreting it to mean whatever you want it to. Other people may share your feelings and so you might feel it is more true and more true, etc, it doesn't make it any more true. People need to have common ground and some degree of value for one another in order to learn and debate from one another, and frankly you can't even agree to be in disagreement, you're in denial about that too - there is no more benefit for me to keep endlessly repeating myself as it's just regurgitating what I've said.

Basically this is what's happening - anything I say gets filtered out by your qualifications of what is scientific - regardless of what is actually scientific to the rest of the world. People have varying definitions of what is scientific, you don't believe so, you believe your definition is the only one that makes sense. This is a close minded perception at best, and it can't be informed of anything outside of what it is inclined to already accept.
Kasper
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:48
Location: Utrecht; The Netherlands

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by Kasper »

It seems you have the chosen to just really freak me out, instead of admitting, right ?
I hope you realize that you are still claiming that you have done in this topic something what no scientist has ever done...
If you are really convinced that you have shown using the scientific method that all events are causally determined by a previous event. I think you are considering to publish this, aren't you ? Just a honest question, are you ? You could become rich width this, really.

If you are not publishing this, please tell me why.
People have varying definitions of what is scientific, you don't believe so, you believe your definition is the only one that makes sense.
Well, let's state it this way. I've learned this definition at university. And I read at everywhere on the internet:
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

If you have learned on other definition of what is scientific, tell me.
panacea
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Determinism and quantum mechanics

Post by panacea »

I don't know what gave you that idea - debates rage on across the internet about this, if it was so easy to explain to people these wouldn't be going on continually.

It's not about anything I've done, I've never carried out a big funded experiment, I just realized what everyone else has found, and interconnected it all into a world view, I didn't even know about determinism until someone on another forum pointed out that it seemed to be what I believed in, and I don't really like how the wikipedia article on determinism words it, but for the sake of people understanding me a little easier I use that label.

There is no great glory to determinism, it's simply what's left when you remove all the faithful superstitions and dogma mankind has adopted for so many years. If I could change anything about my life it would have been being immersed in this indoctrination of superstition my entire childhood, where I was raised with religious morals and views, and it's very hard to remove when it gets inside you that early. Even if you completely take up a different world view, some things still affect your perception, and it would just blow my mind to see someone raised who had no idea about these superstitions, in my mind they would be so peaceful it would be like looking at a master monk because they wouldn't have all of these lies to give them pain and suffering and feelings of lack. Of course they would need intelligent education as well to overcome the pain and suffering of our animalistic nature - just as modern man is now, and that's the challenge since even our education system is bathing in superstitions. EVEN if you could somehow avoid as much as possible, just think of raising a kid in america without the idea of a god, when everyone even atheists say 'oh my god!' when they're excited or shocked, it's ingrained in us like a plague. And I don't mean to single out religion, it's just the one people relate to most, ghosts, luck, good and evil, are all equally superstitious. Even when people say 'that's just not who I am, who I am is important' etc they are delusional, but everyone is like this so it looks and feels normal. That's the dilemma we are in today and I'm not pretending I'm immune from it, many people get angry because they think I'm trying to tell them how they live is wrong and bad, when actually I've just told them that wrong and bad are mythical concepts and the only reason my tone is like that is because I was raised to believe in it (and now i don't).

My forfeit of our debate wasn't a sign of weakness that I was trying to avoid admitting anything, it was an attempt to stop a meaningless drama that was getting nowhere. I would love nothing more than to be shown wrong and while you may be perfectly right, nothing you've said has given me a reason to believe it, and your questions are framed in a way to be non-productive and missing the essence of the debate itself.

It's a sad reality that no matter how much time you put into discovering something to a higher degree of certainty than the general population, the status quo is virtually immovable by one peaceful mans views, you have to have power and generally corruption to change the world at all as it stands now.

I think the only way to reduce the stressors put on the worlds people without them knowing is to adopt a world view which doesn't spur violence and misunderstanding, and people believing in a deterministic world view, even if it's proved false someday, would at least diminish the violence and separation amongst mankind to almost Utopian measures.
Post Reply