No, everything is not already determined.
Could you expand on this?
metta
No, everything is not already determined.
clw_uk wrote:There is a difference between the deist and science version of it, deist involves some kind of being or intelligence behind it, perhaps even intentional or not. Science leaves that outdetermined
this has several possibilities
deist - same as predetermined exept that everything that happens had an initial starting point and course which without other influences its target would fall in the predetermined bracket but as it does effects and alters the couse of everything else it comes into contact with.
science - same as above
theistic - miricles
Just because something is determined doesnt mean there is or was something doing the determining
metta
"And did you ever say to me, 'Lord, I will live the holy life under the Blessed One and [in return] he will declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'?"
"No, lord."
"Then that being the case, foolish man, who are you to be claiming grievances/making demands of anyone?
but if we say the first cause is the big bang and the numerous causes which led up to that is also part of the cause then the deistic model I used earlier could apply although this has the draw back of forming a theistic interpretation instead of a humanistic one which would be why the buddha said a first cause can not be known, which renders worshiping a first cause.......... unnessesary and prevents sliding onto either exream.
Quantum mechanics does not disprove determinism in the physical world, because there are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics. Personally, find that none of the deterministic interpretations, such as many-world, many-minds, Bohm-de Broglie makes intuitive sense, so I would -in agreement with the majority of physicists- keep to the probabilistic/indeterminist interpretation, but this is a metaphysical conclusion which goes beyond the realm of hard physics. It is a strong argument in favour of an non-determinist physical universe, but it falls short of being a proof.Mawkish1983 wrote:As I said, quantum physics shows that determinism is forbidden...
"If any one says that a man must reap according to his deeds, in thatPannapetar wrote:
Despite the notion of karma, Buddhism rejects "hard" determinism. Unfortunately, I cannot cite a sutta to support this right now,
Well I've leave the philosophical interpretations to the philosophers. Heisenburg's uncertainty principal, however, is clear; the exact position and the exact momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously known. Note that 'particle' is a bit abstract and the reason they're not known is because their 'position' and 'momentum' are defined as a probability distribution. Put simply, the universe makes it up as it goes along and there's no reason to conclude it would make the same thing up twice in the same situation. Like I said, rewind time and start again and you'll get something different. This is what makes quantum physics so different from classical physics.Pannapetar wrote:Quantum mechanics does not disprove determinism in the physical world, because there are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics.
clw_uk wrote:Is this what you were looking for?
"And did you ever say to me, 'Lord, I will live the holy life under the Blessed One and [in return] he will declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'?"
"No, lord."
"Then that being the case, foolish man, who are you to be claiming grievances/making demands of anyone?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
These are not -strictly speaking- philosophical interpretations, but different interpretations within physics. Please have a look at this wonderful Wikipedia entry that lists the various interpretations. Physicists are themselves divided on the question whether the physical universe is ultimately deterministic or not. As things stand now, the majority seems to think that nature is indeterministic.Mawkish1983 wrote:Well I've leave the philosophical interpretations to the philosophers.
Yes, but even the Uncertainty Principle can be interpreted in two ways, namely that (a) it describes a property of nature, or (b) that it describes only the limitation of the interaction between nature and an observer. It is not -in the strict sense- proof for an indeterministic universe. For example, Einstein followed the second thought when he introduced the concept of hidden variables.Mawkish1983 wrote:Heisenburg's uncertainty principal, however, is clear; the exact position and the exact momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously known.
I believe the 'Big Bang' theory to be flawed from the outset. If the big bang is supposed to be the source of both space and time, what did the universe expand into?Does the big bang mean that everything is already determined?