[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by joecooool

Going deeper; our brains are made of the same deterministic matter as everything else. Our mental activity is electrical impulses, electricity is the flow of electrons, electrons are particles of matter, matter obeys cause and effect. Our minds are not exempt from the laws of physics.

so our brains are predetermined

Your brain may be predetermined. Not necessarily your consciousness. Especially if you subscribe to the notion of non-physical entities. Which presumably do not have a physical brain (Or heart. or lung. or kidney).

More to the point, your reference to the laws of physics, in the context of the present discussion, indicates your view that if X is referable to the laws of physics, then X is predetermined.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. Firstly the laws of physics, as we currently understand them, don't deal very well with consciousness. Mass, momentum, energy, force, frequency, wavelength, time, distance - these we can fit into a physics equation and use as building blocks for each other. But so far I haven't seen a physics equation into which you can insert "consciousness".

For example, suppose I ask a physicist to prove, according to the laws of physics, that one rock has more mass than another rock. This is quite possible. I may ask the physicist to prove, according to the laws of physics, that one rock moving at high velocity has more energy than another rock (stationary). This is also quite possible.

But if I ask the physicist to prove, according to the laws of physics, that he has more consciousness than a rock, that is not quite possible. Even if intuitively we know that this must be so. The laws of physics simply cannot take consciousness into account, in their equations which describe reality.

Secondly, you have assumed that the fact that X is referable to the laws of physics means that X is predetermined. This, IMO, is also a debatable proposition. Simply because the laws of physics ultimately contain elements of non-determinacy, and introduce probability instead.

Refer for example to the collapse of the wavefunction (specifically the fact that a particle is neither a particle nor a wave, until a certain event occurs, and ujtil such event, it exists merely as a mathematical ghost). Refer also to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Add quantum entanglement into the picture, and if we assume that every quantum particle has collided with at least one other quantum particle, what we get instead seems to be ......

..... an extremely uncertain, quite un-predetermined universe.

------

In addition, this argument of yours:

Why did you get up to eat, because you were hungry. Why did you get up to eat when you were full, because you wanted to prove me wrong lol. You see everything we choose has a causal reason behind it. no matter what.

...... appears to be highly flawed to me. No need to refer to the laws of physics, everyday common sense reasoning will do.

Assume that I have a reason for everything I do. While there may be a reason for everything I do, the reason is not necessarily the cause of the action.

For example, at 8 pm tonight, I may be full, or I may be hungry. In either case, I may or may not get up to eat.

Whether I ultimately get up or do not get up to eat, there will be a reason for doing or not doing so. But it is not predetermined whether I do get up to eat or not.

If you disagree, then tell me whether I will get up at 8 pm to eat or not. Whatever your answer, you may be right, or you may be wrong. I myself do not know. It's not pre-determined.

Furthermore, we have assumed that I have a reason for everything I do. In fact, this may not be true. There could be many things which I do, for which there is no particular reason, or whose reasons are unknown to myself, or whose reasons are ultimately not capable of being known (something like quantum particles existing as mathematical ghosts, prior to existing as a particle or a wave).