“Nature’s” always present and has an intelligence that we’ve been attempting to discern.
I’m just saying your formulation of “evolution of nature” is functionally similar solely to the Calvinist idea of God, not to all ideas of God.
—
Having no choice but to choose what we choose implies a form of predestination of choice. Calvinist. Calvinism is interesting because it’s amenable to logic, one of its greatest flaws.
===
If you get 5 philosophers around a table who have their right hands tied behind their backs with forks placed on the right side and plates of food in front of them, they will starve to death.
====
I’m not criticizing Calvinism per se. I’m saying that your formulation of evolution of nature is functionally similar to a Calvinist view of God.
====
It is not a flaw for your evolution of nature to be amenable to logic. But it is a flaw of Calvinism for its view of God to be amenable to logic. The reason is: it’s easy to disprove and dismiss with logic.
====
I just thought you might find it interesting that you’re expressing what is functionally a Calvinist belief.
====
It doesn’t matter if I’m sure. Certainty is an illusion.
====
I have several. One I have been favoring lately is a form of David Lewis’ Possible Worlds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism
=====
Maybe certainty isn’t an illusion. But I’d bet it is – and I *can* bet because I believe in an indetermate future, even if some aspects can be presumed to be predictable based solely on past systems.
====
No probabilities in certain futures.
===
I’m sure your answer will have something to do with belief. I’ve given you my answer. Having someone consider my reasoning fallacious is not a fearful thing to me.
=====
An incalculable number of actors and systems behaving as actors, including complex system such as humans who are intelligence gathering actors whose inputs are measurable and whose outputs are measurable, but whose inner processes are hidden (what connections and logic and inference and metaphors and whatever are used to produce output), cannot be inferred because there’s not enough information available. These are hidden processes.
—-
Everything that happened. Past tense is appropriate here.
—
how can you declare without lying that the future is determined if we have lack of knowledge of it?
===
The present is determined by the past. As far as I know, the past is frozen and fixed. A series of choices lead to the present moment. Randomness is a feature of the universe. Randomness is another way of saying choices by unknown actors, which might be anything from quantum foam or the choices of individual people.
—-
Randomness is a statistical version of “pur gas molecules in a perfect sphere” and is fundamentally, a practical lie, yes.
However, randomness is a practical truth because our lack of resources to go back in time to have an objective, outside-of-the-universe view that starts at the beginning and goes to the end of time (if such a thing ends) in order to prove that you’re right instead.
—
Also, your way of thinking can lead to dangerous shortcuts in logic because of what it is dis-including, having the potential to lead you to false beliefs that seem logically sound but are missing too many variables to be useful for true value approximation.
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]