Philosophy: Determinism Accurately Describes Reality

========== The Microcosm ========== I'll begin by pointing out that my opponent did not effectively respond to my presentation of Einstein's Paradox, which indeed has effectively combatted his faulty ideology of indeterminism. Instead, he continued posting information that the paradox I have presented had already dismantled. For instance, Con keeps insisting that Bohm said that atomic particles are "self-determined" but never explains how/why Bohm believes this, or how it refutes Einstein's Paradox (it just seems to me like he skipped it entirely without consideration). ========== Microcosm Pt.2 ========== Then Con presents this ridiculous syllogism: P1: Indeterminism is something that is not determined by an external agent or cause. P2: If it is not determined by anything else but itself, it is self-determined. P3: If it is self-determined, it is free. So, in symbolic logic terms, his argument is such: P = ~Q P = R --------- R --> S Which completely doesn't follow. Syllogism = fail. Then he claims that free will is randomness. Randomness actually means zero control. If atoms are moving in "random" ways, and they are "indetermined" as my opponent is claiming, then they are NOT free with their will. This goes against even my opponent's flawed definiton of free will: the philosophical doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. As you can see, randomness does not involve choice. The answer is as simple as that (excluding the blatant fact that whatever the atom does is a physical force). ========== The Macrocosm ========== Next, Con brings up this random concept of time supported by an unknown modern philosopher; certainly not of the caliber of Einstein, Bohm or Schrodinger. In fact, Alan Watts is seen by many as a kook with theories no more valid than Geo's typical pantheist prapganda. In looking up Watts' credentials, I came to see that he's a British speaker who held both a master's degree in theology and a doctorate of divinity. Famous for his research on comparative religion, he was best known as an interpreter and popularizer of Eastern philosophy (hahaha). He wrote more than 25 books on subjects such as personal identity, the true nature of reality, higher consciousness, meaning of life, concepts and images of God and the non-material pursuit of happiness. Need I say more? Ladies and gentleman, this man has a doctorate in something called DIVINITY STUDIES. Is this for real? Geo's presented theory in this final round is not suitable for judgment; it's based on unsupported make believe. But let's entertain this silly idea anyway. Geo is essentially saying that just because you can analyze one's past (i.e. observe the ship's wake), that scrutinzinzing the past won't allow you to predict the future. This is a perfect example of what logicians call the BAD ANALOGY FALLACY. What Geo and Watts are trying to do is compare the human conciousness to the wake of a ship, when no such correlation can reasonably exist. I'll provide two examples explaining why this is so [1]: A) "The solar system reminds me of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun like electrons orbiting the nucleus. We know that electrons can jump from orbit to orbit; so we must look to ancient records for sightings of planets jumping from orbit to orbit also." B) Or, "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is." Here's why this analogy is logically flawed [2]: A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P. (Where the analogy between A and B is weak.) If we can all agree that A and B are weak analogies - i.e. time is NOT like the course of a ship in ocean - then we can accept this analogy as just bad and flawed all around. =========== Macrocosm Pt. 2 =========== Right off the bat, Con opens this section with, "So you see, the past doesn't drive the present, the past is the result of the present." Right there that is blatantly an obviously begging the question! He makes this statement as if it's a known fact, meanwhile that is the topic of this entire debate. This circular argument commits one of the biggest fallacies; another reason my opponent's argument is simply unsound all around. He continues, "It is only when you try to figure out what determined the present, do you come to a problem. When you do that, then you are voluntarily letting the past drive you. You are looking back at the trail left behind and telling yourself that your actions are the result of that [the past.]" Okay, this sounds like some Oprah interview or a therapist session - not a philosophy debate. Here Con is making NO real argument against any of my presented points which represent how determinism is irrefutable at a quantum physical level and the only option that makes sense at a logical level. Con says, "Every moment is a new and creative moment, and it is only when we look back to the past to figure out why something happened, that we feel like everything is determined." I honestly don't understand why he had to vary so off topic to start talking about this spiritual crap. Let's get back to his example of the hungry person on a diet. The hungry person who doesn't break their diet chooses not to go off their diet because of motivation to lose weight. Where does motivation (or any drive) come from? The past. Things that have happened in the past are the cause for their current state. Therefore, it IS determined; my opponent is making this a complete straw man argument when in fact it is blatantly obvious that my side rings true. I'll break it down once again: Think of what state you're in right now. If you think about why you're in that state, you'll see that there are a zillion antecedent causes of why you are in that state. All of those causes are out of your control. Determinism posits that if it could SOMEHOW be known on the quantum level the original cause that all subsequent actions resulted from, that you could predict the entire universe following that moment. However, this will never ever ever happen because humans simply don't and can't have the capacity to have such knowledge. Con wants to disagree by saying that humans have "overcome" being able to be predicted but that's false. Why? Even your personality i.e. choices are the result of (a) all of the actions in your life; so if you knew them - you could determine how one would react because (b) people's personalities and habits stem from not only their experiences but biology (chemicals in the brain and other laws of nature). =========== Macrocosm Pt. 3 =========== LOL! Geo, this is blatant pantheist prapoganda with NO logical or philosophical bearing! Con says, "When we get hungry, it's not an external agent determining us to eat, we are that hunger... The water in the river is flowing together as one... Where do we draw the line between the person and the environment... It's all interconnected." Once again, we visit the bad analogy fallacy I presented earlier. Until this point (round, really) it had been an excellent debate. However, Geo completely lost me when he wandered out of the world of physics and philosophy and into the world of unsupported [eastern] spirituality. Nowhere did he effectively combat determinism. Instead, he presented kookoo examples and analogies that didn't refute a thing and instead just made bad and irrelevant connections. The fact is that determinism is a supported theory on the quantum physics level. Many think that indeterminism is equally valid; however Einstein's Paradox dismantles it. So, we use logic and reason to determine determinism (hehe) is accurate. [1] http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org... [2] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...