There is no Hope without Jesus

[Nils]

PS. I don't see any questions at that link which aren't my own.

Sorry, it was an indirect question: "I am interested" should be interpreted as "Which are you arguments?" or similar.

An answer to your other post is forthcoming

Nils

[Kenny]

The argument about Me
1. How I a now depends on how I was at some earlier time some moments ago and the environment between that earlier time and now (and on nothing else).

I think the actions you’ve engaged in between the earlier time vs now can determine who you are right now; also.

I said and meant :”and nothing else”. You change this to “also” which spoils my argument.

Yes; that’s where we disagree.

Assume that the “Earlier time” is close to conception. Then you agree that how you are then is only determined by H&E.
It seems that you think that there are at least one first action A between the Earlier time and Now that is not determined by H&E (directly or indirectly through some earlier action that was determined by H&E, i.e. determined by the how I was at the Earlier time and the environment after that time). The conclusion is that it the action A is at least partly determined by something else. But what else is that?

Free will; the ability to conjure independent thought, and act on it

Everything in me up to the Earlier time was determined by H&E (and nothing else). There was no independent Me before action A.

The independent “me” begins when personhood begins.

So what you have to explain is how an “independent You” (or Me) can emerge in a person when the person at some time is fully determined by heredity and environment (H&E).

. . . . . .

You seem to have made an argument about how you became the person you are right now (though IMO you left out how the actions you have chosen in the past can determine who you are right now also) but we are talking about free will; not how you became the person you are right now.

If how you are is only dependent on heritage and environment it is not up to you how you are, it is just a matter of luck. You have not had any opportunity to change how you are and how you act. That is what I mean to not have free will. When you don’t have free will it seems unfair to blame you if you break moral rules for example, you don’t deserve it.

Nils

That would be the case if we didn’t have free will. But as I explained above, I believe we do have free will thus it is up to us how we are

[abelcainsbrother]

Kenny you may need to know that atheists are now claiming that we have no free-will and cannot make decisions for ourselves. It is something new I'm having to deal with when debating atheists.So not only do they have no evidence,muchless proof atheism is true,but claim that they reject God because there is no proof for God,but now they are claiming that we have no free-will and cannot choose what we believe or accept as true.This means for them that evidence is worthless because we cannot choose what we believe.Yet they claim there is no proof for God.Thinking like this leads to gullible people who are easily indoctrinated and propagandized.

I think you need to re-evaluate atheism because it is the most empty world view out of any other religion,conspiracy theory,etc out there as atheists ar the only group in the world that admits they have no evidence atheism is true but claims that because they're atheists they don't have to have any evidence it is correct to live as an atheist. And yet if atheism were true then it would mean just death and nothing more,no afterlife,etc,just death which is boring and not appealing at all.

[Kenny]

Kenny you may need to know that atheists are now claiming that we have no free-will and cannot make decisions for ourselves. It is something new I'm having to deal with when debating atheists.

Yeah; a lot of them are Democrats too! Something I’ve been having to deal with when debating some of those guys.

So not only do they have no evidence,muchless proof atheism is true,but claim that they reject God because there is no proof for God,but now they are claiming that we have no free-will and cannot choose what we believe or accept as true.This means for them that evidence is worthless because we cannot choose what we believe.Yet they claim there is no proof for God.Thinking like this leads to gullible people who are easily indoctrinated and propagandized.

I think you need to re-evaluate atheism because it is the most empty world view out of any other religion,conspiracy theory,etc out there as atheists ar the only group in the world that admits they have no evidence atheism is true but claims that because they're atheists they don't have to have any evidence it is correct to live as an atheist.

Not sure what you mean when you say; “atheism as true” but I think it’s important to remember, there isn’t any belief that all Atheists hold, (which is why I believe the term shouldn't even exist) because as a group they are known for what they do not believe. I can’t think of anything else that is known for what it does not do or believe.

And yet if atheism were true then it would mean just death and nothing more,no afterlife,etc,just death which is boring and not appealing at all.

Fiction is always more appealing and fascinating than reality.

[abelcainsbrother]

Kenny you may need to know that atheists are now claiming that we have no free-will and cannot make decisions for ourselves. It is something new I'm having to deal with when debating atheists.

Yeah; a lot of them are Democrats too! Something I’ve been having to deal with when debating some of those guys.

So not only do they have no evidence,muchless proof atheism is true,but claim that they reject God because there is no proof for God,but now they are claiming that we have no free-will and cannot choose what we believe or accept as true.This means for them that evidence is worthless because we cannot choose what we believe.Yet they claim there is no proof for God.Thinking like this leads to gullible people who are easily indoctrinated and propagandized.

I think you need to re-evaluate atheism because it is the most empty world view out of any other religion,conspiracy theory,etc out there as atheists ar the only group in the world that admits they have no evidence atheism is true but claims that because they're atheists they don't have to have any evidence it is correct to live as an atheist.

Not sure what you mean when you say; “atheism as true” but I think it’s important to remember, there isn’t any belief that all Atheists hold, (which is why I believe the term shouldn't even exist) because as a group they are known for what they do not believe. I can’t think of anything else that is known for what it does not do or believe.

And yet if atheism were true then it would mean just death and nothing more,no afterlife,etc,just death which is boring and not appealing at all.

Fiction is always more appealing and fascinating than reality.

Actually I do know that there are atheists that voted for and support Trump and are not liberals/Democrats.However after so much stuff has been revealed I'm starting to think that this whole new atheist movement was started to produce more liberal voters.For instance,we know George Soros funded and paid for the violent protesters that interrupted Trump rallies,and continued their violent protesting even after Trunp won the election.Groups like BLM and ANTIFA. So I'm starting to think that this whole new atheist movement was financed by somebody to produce liberal voters,however they did not realize feminism would divide atheists eventually.Still most atheists are liberals,especially the vocal atheists on youtube. I still think you need to re-evaluate atheism as it is empty,I'm talking bottom of the barrel empty,but you are free to believe as you choose.Christians are the reason you have that freedom to reject God if you choose to,I just think it is a dumb decision,but you can.

[Kenny]

Kenny you may need to know that atheists are now claiming that we have no free-will and cannot make decisions for ourselves. It is something new I'm having to deal with when debating atheists.

Yeah; a lot of them are Democrats too! Something I’ve been having to deal with when debating some of those guys.

So not only do they have no evidence,muchless proof atheism is true,but claim that they reject God because there is no proof for God,but now they are claiming that we have no free-will and cannot choose what we believe or accept as true.This means for them that evidence is worthless because we cannot choose what we believe.Yet they claim there is no proof for God.Thinking like this leads to gullible people who are easily indoctrinated and propagandized.

I think you need to re-evaluate atheism because it is the most empty world view out of any other religion,conspiracy theory,etc out there as atheists ar the only group in the world that admits they have no evidence atheism is true but claims that because they're atheists they don't have to have any evidence it is correct to live as an atheist.

Not sure what you mean when you say; “atheism as true” but I think it’s important to remember, there isn’t any belief that all Atheists hold, (which is why I believe the term shouldn't even exist) because as a group they are known for what they do not believe. I can’t think of anything else that is known for what it does not do or believe.

And yet if atheism were true then it would mean just death and nothing more,no afterlife,etc,just death which is boring and not appealing at all.

Fiction is always more appealing and fascinating than reality.

Actually I do know that there are atheists that voted for and support Trump and are not liberals/Democrats.However after so much stuff has been revealed I'm starting to think that this whole new atheist movement was started to produce more liberal voters.For instance,we know George Soros funded and paid for the violent protesters that interrupted Trump rallies,and continued their violent protesting even after Trunp won the election.Groups like BLM and ANTIFA. So I'm starting to think that this whole new atheist movement was financed by somebody to produce liberal voters,however they did not realize feminism would divide atheists eventually.Still most atheists are liberals,especially the vocal atheists on youtube. I still think you need to re-evaluate atheism as it is empty,I'm talking bottom of the barrel empty,but you are free to believe as you choose.Christians are the reason you have that freedom to reject God if you choose to,I just think it is a dumb decision,but you can.

So what is it about atheism that makes it empty?

[Nils]

You didn't answer my question: When electrons or photons are fired through a double slit, what is the differentiating factor between whether you get a particle effect or wave disambiguation effect?

I tried to explain why I don’t think the answer is important, but I think that the answer you are looking for is: The difference is the measuring device. If a quantum event is measured upon it will change. Isn’t that obvious . If you were taught that when you were young you may have thought now that it was intuitively true.
I insist that the free will mystery would be an other kind of mystery, more fundamental.

Actually, no - the difference isn't the measuring device. The delayed choice/quantum eraser experiment shows that it wasn't the measuring device that caused the particle effect to happen rather than disambiguation. There are various YouTube videos around that explain the eraser experiment in detail. So then, what would be your second answer? Really, the answer I'm looking for is the one often said by scientists/physicists.

I have looked at some more videos and checked the Wikipedia entry. Without digging deep in the topic I have no more comments than that I can adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation that particles are kind of probability waves, but the comment that probabilities are a bit tricky.

I hope your questioning is part of answering my questions in
viewtopic.php?p=235409#p235409

So then, you would agree that observation collapses the wave function, that is, the mere act of observing determines a physical outcome in a range of possibilities? This seems to me an extremely hard fit with your views on the material world, physical realism, determinism and such.

About determinism, see below. Yes, it seems that observation collapses the wave function. But why that is hard to fit with materialism you have to explain. It must depend on how you define physicalism/materialism. What I include in physics are every thing that can be observed by repeated experiments. For instance if parapsychology could be demonstrated reliably the physicist would have to find out the mechanism by which it worked by different experiments in the same way that for instance radioactivity was analysed when it first was observed. Then parapsychology would be a part of physics and materialism. Even if you could find evidence for a soul it would be included.

You trust your intuition to much.

To make things more clear and quote from a paper I found online The Observer in the Quantum Experiment:

Given the determinism of Newtonian physics, the almost universal assumption of free will was early on seen as paradoxical. With classical physics it was, however, a benign paradox. The conscious mind receives information from the physical world only through eyes or other organs that are presumably understandable deterministically. Conscious free will is manifest through deterministically understandable muscles. The mind of the observer, that entity making free choices, being on the far side of eyes and muscles, could be considered an aspect of the universe isolated from the physical world to be treated by physics. Since within that realm the different experiments which could be freely chosen by the observer never led to inconsistent pictures of the prior physical reality, classical physics could deal with only one part of a divided universe without considering the observer.

An analogous argument is not available for quantum physics. Different quantum experiments that could be freely chosen by the observer do lead to inconsistent pictures of the prior physical reality. This apparent intrusion of the free choice of the observer into the aspect of the physical world addressed by physics constitutes a measurement problem in the quantum experiment. Our discussion will focus on this issue of the observer’s choice.

Stapp emphasizes that a quantum measurement involves two choices(4). The first is the choice by the observer of what experiment to do, that is, the choice of what question to ask of Nature. (Within the theory this involves the choice of basis.) The second choice Stapp identifies is that by Nature giving the probabilistic answer to the experimenter’s question, that is, providing a particular experimental outcome. For reasons dating back to the 1927 Solvay Conference, Stapp calls the choice by the observer the “Heisenberg choice” and that by Nature the “Dirac choice,” and we adopt this terminology. Taking the example of the two-slit experiment, the Heisenberg choice might be the decision by the experimenter to find out either through which slit each particle comes, or in which maxima of the interference pattern each lands. The Dirac choice by Nature would determine, in the first case, the particular slit, and for the second case, the particular maximum for each particle.

In other words, under a Newtonian view (like you appear to believe) the observer (us) is a passive observer. The world physically exists independant of us or any conscious agent. We ourselves are a part of the physical furniture within the world, a part of the physical landscape, and are ourselves physically determined. This classical physics and picture of reality is what I see you arguing for throughout. You're so tunnel-visioned with seeing the world through this lens of classical physics that for you "free will" isn't just not had but is logically unintelligible i.e., it's not even a possibility.

Are you serious? I have repeatedly said that I don’t think that the world is deterministic. In #393 (viewtopic.php?p=235288#p235288) I wrote:
“Yes, I know, and that’s one of the main reasons why I don’t believe in Christianity. I find it incoherent. Peter van Inwagen is on of the most prominent free will philosophers. He has shown that free will is not compatible with determinism but lately that it isn’t compatible with indeterminism either. He concludes that free will is a mystery but as a Christian, in the choice between no free will and a mystery, he chooses the latter. I chose the former.” You have apparently read it because you commented that post in #397.
Above I said that I prefer the Copenhagen interpretation. How do you match that with your statement of “tunnel-visioned with seeing the world through this lens of classical physics...”
When I have discussed no free will arguments I have added: “and also randomness” several times (even if I leave it out sometimes to simplify the discussion). You must have noted that.
So let it be clear, I am NOT believing in classical physics.

Coming back to the free will issue. It is not a matter of determinism, it is a matter of causation. As long as you think that all events are caused there is no free will. And that is independent of randomness (which does not add to free will) or even that observation causes quantum physical phenomena. That I am convinced of. Laura Waddell Ekstrom who is a distinguished philosopher and one of the few (nowadays) that thinks that free-will requires indeterminism was very clear on the problems with her view. She wrote in a foot note that there should be something between event causation and randomness to facilitate her view, but she didn’t think that that was the case.

Yet, the venturing of modern science into the quantum world contradicts this classic view, and indeed even upsets physical realism. It seems that reality, to some extent, is being determined by consciousness which is at least minimally independant of the physical outcome it determines. So then, we aren't just passive observers like classically thought, but rather our mere observation helps to determine and shape the physical landscape. Indeed, where our conscious act of observing determines physical outcomes, it can be said the physically deterministic reigns snap and lose their control over us who are conscious agents and rather it is we who do the controlling. Therefore, it seems by no means any stretch to believe our conscious will can be exerted over the physcial order, indeed even over our physical nature such that we determine rather than be determined.

You say that “the physically deterministic reigns snap and lose their control over us who are conscious agents and rather it is we who do the controlling.” I am not sure who you argue with now. My world view is that consciousness is part of the physical world and that is the standard materialistic view. Then the consciousness is caused by the physics and the other way around because it is a part of the physical world. Which part of the physical world controls or causes which other part is as usual up to discussion, but that is not an argument against the world view. Your argument is not valid against a materialist.

As I have mentioned several time earlier, my argument against free will doesn’t rely on physicalism. It is a metaphysical argument that relies on causation.

When I read your reference, especially the conclusion, and for example Wikipedia about Schrödingers cat it seems that your conclusion is a bit far fetched. There is no agreement that the measurement has to be done by a conscious mind to collapse the wave function. Even if it were so it takes a lot of extra argumentation to go from that statement to a defence of free will, an argument that is missing completely.

Nils