The problem with Evil

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,710

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,710
Ah, sorry dude. I wasn't paying close attention and I responded to one of your posts as if you were Prawnapple.
No problem, no offence taken, I understand what you are saying. Just offering a short-term view.
The problem I have with these debates is I now have more things to keep me awake at night other than Evolution.
:eek::unsure:
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,969
No problem, no offence taken, I understand what you are saying. Just offering a short-term view.
The problem I have with these debates is I now have more things to keep me awake at night other than Evolution.
:eek::unsure:
Maybe it's better if you just put me on ignore, then... :ROFL:

:p
 

cupcake

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
4,384
So in relationships, there is a dynamic that even a non-answer is effectively a no. This goes for all relationships.
So when there's an argument, all the one side of the argument has to do is tear down or stall the other viewpoint and they will get their way.
Stalling is an especially useful tactic because you're not saying no and required to explain, you simply keep stalling/not committing which never requires an answer except another stall.
So if you disagree with something, just don't say no until it is no longer a yes.

People have found this to be very powerful, because it requires absolutely no effort except stubbornness. If you stall long enough, people give up and you can get your way and there's no accountability to anyone because they've left.
It's called stonewalling and has been extensively studied in relationship psychology. Gottman (psychological researcher and clinician who did extensive work over four decades on divorce prediction and marital stability) dubbed it as one of "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse." The other three are Criticism, Defensiveness and Contempt. Together they are extremely accurate predictors of the breakdown in a relationship.

When done as a "tactic" with the intent of manipulation and control the most accurate term is Gaslighting which is considered psychological abuse.

Probably not the best strategy unless your intent is to destroy the relationship.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,243
It's called stonewalling and has been extensively studied in relationship psychology. Gottman (psychological researcher and clinician who did extensive work over four decades on divorce prediction and marital stability) dubbed it as one of "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse." The other three are Criticism, Defensiveness and Contempt. Together they are extremely accurate predictors of the breakdown in a relationship.

When done as a "tactic" with the intent of manipulation and control the most accurate term is Gaslighting which is considered psychological abuse.

Probably not the best strategy unless your intent is to destroy the relationship.
Thank you, very enlightening and I shall be reading up more.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,710
Came across the term gas lighting the other day in an article dealing with fringe group fanaticism and their tactics. It is a favourite debating technique amongst flat earthers and creationists
 

KT-B

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
25,465
Sounds like a loaded question, but I'll try my best.

My stance was pretty well mentioned previously in this thread and other threads. I don't believe in libertarian free will. Physics, science, tells us we don't have free will. Objects, the universe as a whole, everything we know to be true which we've observed by using the scientific method, biology, our brain chemistry, everything is governed by the laws of cause and effect. There is no free will. When I speak about making decisions which would benefit me, it's because I've created an idea of what beneficial means to me, and I am deciding to act upon. The fact that I can decide to do something, doesn't make me any more free than if I was, say, tired and running on auto-pilot after like 3 Red Bulls.
So, if I was to cheat, that would not have been preventable ? Not a decision I made ? I would have been designed to do that ?
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,268
Came across the term gas lighting the other day in an article dealing with fringe group fanaticism and their tactics. It is a favourite debating technique amongst flat earthers and creationists
And climate doom prophets
 

Prawnapple

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
588
It seriously wasn't a loaded question. It's a question from a viewpoint that differs.

Have you run into Quantum Gravity or the emergence theory yet? I mentioned it in my post as being the theory (so far) that is able to tie standard physics and general relativity together.
The theory firstly, is required because standard physics and general relativity both use the speed of light as a measurement device. However, the exact speed of light is unknown.
I am not going to go into huge detail, I can post a video if you want (I have posted it a few times already in different places, for brevity i'll post a summary of information below.).
Something that is becoming increasingly accepted amongst physicists is that reality is made up of information. Those that don't agree, also do not have an alternative theory.
Information implies meaning.
Meaning is a comparison, a perception of of something relative to something else. (beneficial or damaging)
Therefore meaning is subjective and requires choice.
For meaning to be subjective, it needs to be perceived or measured by some form of consciousness.

Consciousness, along with non-determinism, is one of the clues given by nature and used in Emergence Theory.
So I would agree with you, were this universe only dictated by Standard physics, but it is not. Quantum physics and Quantum Gravity have come along and tipped over the pot.
Okay now I need to say something along the lines of, "no" - I checked into Quantum Gravity, pretty interesting stuff. As for Emergence Theory.... yeah no. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Klee_Irwin

"Non locality and relativity can be perfectly consistent"
Relativity requires that causality is preserved, so no "faster-than-light" information flow, but none of these entangles experiments allow any real information to be transmitted between particles. It's only possible to see the influence between the entangled partners after measurements have been made and those measurements are compared. The universe seems to conspire to avoid the paradox of information travelling faster than light or backwards in time. Realistic and hidden variable interpretations are also consistent as long as they abandon locality.

"I choose that I can't choose," and that is absurd.
This is incorrect. That's not how determinism works. It's not a statement about something. It is the something. Or as Sam Harris puts it, "You are not controlling the storm, and you are not lost in it. You are the storm.”. Have you thought about reading Sam Harris's book, it's quite a short book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Will_(book) - You can get it online or you can buy a physical copy from Takealot for like R200 - You can also get it in audio book format, narrate by Harris. I would recommend it highly.

I digress, it's not about choosing at all. It's that you can never, ever, choose, anything. You can only ever have the illusion of having made any decision, ever. You're still not in control of it. It's still being caused by events that you didn't cause.

So, if I was to cheat, that would not have been preventable ? Not a decision I made ? I would have been designed to do that ?
Correct
 
Last edited:

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,969
"Non locality and relativity can be perfectly consistent" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tafGL02EUOA Relativity requires that causality is preserved, so no "faster-than-light" information flow, but none of these entangles experiments allow any real information to be transmitted between particles. It's only possible to see the influence between the entangled partners after measurements have been made and those measurements are compared. The universe seems to conspire to avoid the paradox of information travelling faster than light or backwards in time. Realistic and hidden variable interpretations are also consistent as long as they abandon locality.
Right, so then there's lots of space within whatever produces the non-locality to preserve free will, because every time you look it will appear determined with the universe conspiring to avoid any paradoxes.

This is incorrect. That's not how determinism works. It's not a statement about something. It is the something. Or as Sam Harris puts it, "You are not controlling the storm, and you are not lost in it. You are the storm.”. Have you thought about reading Sam Harris's book, it's quite a short book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Will_(book) - You can get it online or you can buy a physical copy from Takealot for like R200 - You can also get it in audio book format, narrate by Harris. I would recommend it highly.
Forget everything Sam Harris ever said, you'll be better off for it.

I digress, it's not about choosing at all. It's that you can never, ever, choose, anything. You can only ever have the illusion of having made any decision, ever. You're still not in control of it. It's still being caused by events that you didn't cause.
You claim this, and yet you are the one who holds that realism be the correct position without having any direct evidence to back up your assumption. So you can't show me that your choice wasn't in fact a choice, you can just assert it despite my clearly pointing out the axiom(realism) you've adopted arbitrarily. It's a sophistic position.
 

Prawnapple

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
588
Right, so then there's lots of space within whatever produces the non-locality to preserve free will, because every time you look it will appear determined with the universe conspiring to avoid any paradoxes.


Forget everything Sam Harris ever said, you'll be better off for it.


You claim this, and yet you are the one who holds that realism be the correct position without having any direct evidence to back up your assumption. So you can't show me that your choice wasn't in fact a choice, you can just assert it despite my clearly pointing out the axiom(realism) you've adopted arbitrarily. It's a sophistic position.
https://www.space.com/41968-quantum-entanglement-faster-than-light.html

So you believe in free will? Is 1 experiment about quantum entanglement, which itself says it may be flawed enough to convince you?

"The researchers admit that there's still an extremely tiny chance that the results came through a loophole. In the future, the team plans to run a similar test using some of the oldest light in the universe – microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang itself." <- I think I'll stick to this until we have better data on this whole thing.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,969
What's with the red herring? That the wave-function must be treated as real and is still consistent with special relativity is relevant to the discussion of free will, how?

So you believe in free will? Is 1 experiment about quantum entanglement, which itself says it may be flawed enough to convince you?
I'm agnostic on it, but I think that the arguments against it are bullshit and people act as if their choices are real, and they get sick if they don't act that way.

"The researchers admit that there's still an extremely tiny chance that the results came through a loophole. In the future, the team plans to run a similar test using some of the oldest light in the universe – microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang itself." <- I think I'll stick to this until we have better data on this whole thing.
Where is this quote supposed to be coming from?

Edit: https://www.sciencealert.com/freedom-of-choice-loophole-narrowed-quasar-light-7-8-billion-light-years

What if we have quantum entanglement's 'spooky' nature all wrong, and we're missing something?
A new experiment using the wavelength of photons created more than 7.8 billion years ago makes that more unlikely than ever. If there's a classical physics explanation for the phenomenon, it's extremely well hidden.


MIT physicists have pushed the limits on an experiment they conducted last year that used light from a nearby star. This time they used photons from much further away, ones that started their journey long before our own Sun set blazing.
Entanglement is weird. There's no doubting that. It's so weird, brilliant minds like Einstein's couldn't accept it at face value, leading them to dismiss it as 'spooky'. Something else had to be at work.
And who could blame them? The phenomenon relies on a mind-boggling idea – particles don't have clearly defined properties until they interact with the apparatus that measures them.
Momentum, spin, position … these only make sense when we look hard enough at the particle. Before then, they're not 'real', at least not in an everyday sense.
So what if two particles have their properties entwined in some way, such as when they form together? Einstein figured you could measure one particle and immediately know something 'real' about the other. Dust hands, walk away.
The answer still blows our minds today. The moment one is measured, the other one – no matter where it is in the Universe – goes from being a blur of possibility to having a set measurement as well.

It's almost as if you buy a pair of shoes, but they're not real until you get home and open the shoe box. Noticing you've only got the left one, the one you left behind spontaneously turns from a 'maybe right or left' into a 'definitely right'.
In the 1960s, an Irish physicist named John Stewart Bell came up with a set of proofs showing either quantum mechanics is wrong – which isn't likely – or it's correct, and there are indeed no hidden laws operating behind the scenes that could explain this strangeness.
Bell's theorem still leaves some possible explanations, including the slim chance we're wrong about quantum mechanics. But physicists are slowly ruling them out one by one.
One persistent option is the "freedom-of-choice" loophole. Maybe when we decide what to measure in a particle, there's some knock-on effect that just creates an illusion of a correlation between particle properties?
If you sit in the shoe shop and lift your left foot, the cosmic shopkeeper behind the counter might notice and grab out a left shoe for you while holding onto the right one. Sure it's a cheat, but it's still classical physics, meaning the Universe would operate under the guidance of that familiar light-speed message service rather than something weirder.

Creating pairs of photons and then deciding exactly what to measure in a laboratory leaves plenty of room for a classical physics equivalent of the shopkeeper to create the illusion of a mysterious correlation.
But putting some distance between the choice of measurement and the actual measurement process would make it harder for those choices to be limited by a non-spooky knock-on-effect.
Last year, it was six centuries of distance, as the MIT team used the light from a nearby star to serve as a cosmic coin flip in deciding what to measure in an entanglement experiment.
This time the team turned their sights onto a pair of quasars – the energetic cores of distant galaxies. Light from one was emitted 12.2 billion years ago. Light from the other set course some 7.8 billion years ago.
A pair of telescopes took a peek at the colours of each and used them to decide how to measure the polarisation of each photon in a pair that had been entangled in a separate laboratory.
In two trials, the team found correlations between 30,000 pairs of photons, which goes far beyond what Bell calculated was necessary for the freedom-of-choice explanation.
That huge gap of time and space between coin flip and measurement leaves very little opportunity for some behind-the-scenes flim-flam to affect the experiment's measurement conditions.
How big? The chance that there's still a classical explanation is now one part in one hundred billion billion.
"If some conspiracy is happening to simulate quantum mechanics by a mechanism that is actually classical, that mechanism would have had to begin its operations – somehow knowing exactly when, where, and how this experiment was going to be done – at least 7.8 billion years ago," says the study's co-author Alan Guth.
 
Last edited:

Prawnapple

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
588
I'm agnostic on it, but I think that the arguments against it are bullshit and people act as if their choices are real, and they get sick if they don't act that way.
Not sure if you typed that out correctly? I would agree that people act as if their choices are real, but what is this about getting sick if they don't act that way?

Regardless, my mind remains unchanged on determinism. Those entangle particles came from somewhere, didn't they? Who in turn came from somewhere else, which in turn came from somewhere else, etc etc, this unbroken chain of causation can me mapped all the way back to the big bang.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,969
Not sure if you typed that out correctly? I would agree that people act as if their choices are real, but what is this about getting sick if they don't act that way?
If your choices aren't real, they don't matter. People who act as if their choices don't matter suffer from depression and existential nihilism.

Regardless, my mind remains unchanged on determinism. Those entangle particles came from somewhere, didn't they? Who in turn came from somewhere else, which in turn came from somewhere else, etc etc, this unbroken chain of causation can me mapped all the way back to the big bang.
No, this is precisely what non-locality shows is not true. You're still trying to think from within a classical paradigm.

https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time
Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?

The answer, as it turns out, is yes. Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.

Here’s how they did it. First, they created an entangled pair of photons, ‘1-2’ (step I in the diagram below). Soon after, they measured the polarisation of photon 1 (a property describing the direction of light’s oscillation) – thus ‘killing’ it (step II). Photon 2 was sent on a wild goose chase while a new entangled pair, ‘3-4’, was created (step III). Photon 3 was then measured along with the itinerant photon 2 in such a way that the entanglement relation was ‘swapped’ from the old pairs (‘1-2’ and ‘3-4’) onto the new ‘2-3’ combo (step IV). Some time later (step V), the polarisation of the lone survivor, photon 4, is measured, and the results are compared with those of the long-dead photon 1 (back at step II).

What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.

Lest this scenario strike you as too outlandish, Megidish and his colleagues can’t resist speculating on possible and rather spooky interpretations of their results. Perhaps the measurement of photon 1’s polarisation at step II somehow steers the future polarisation of 4, or the measurement of photon 4’s polarisation at step V somehow rewrites the past polarisation state of photon 1. In both forward and backward directions, quantum correlations span the causal void between the death of one photon and the birth of the other.
 

Prawnapple

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
588
If your choices aren't real, they don't matter. People who act as if their choices don't matter suffer from depression and existential nihilism.

No, this is precisely what non-locality shows is not true. You're still trying to think from within a classical paradigm.

https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time
"If your choices aren't real, they don't matter. People who act as if their choices don't matter suffer from depression and existential nihilism."

That's a pretty big assertion and it also doesn't matter. Are you a theist by any chance? I know a LOT of Christians and Muslims who are depressed in their situations, regardless of their belief. "Facts don't care about you feelings" comes to mind here.

"No, this is precisely what non-locality shows is not true. You're still trying to think from within a classical paradigm."

I'm just saying entangled particles wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the big bang, so they too, had / have a cause.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,969
"If your choices aren't real, they don't matter. People who act as if their choices don't matter suffer from depression and existential nihilism."

That's a pretty big assertion and it also doesn't matter.
Ok, so nothing matters, lol. :rolleyes:

Are you a theist by any chance? I know a LOT of Christians and Muslims who are depressed in their situations, regardless of their belief. "Facts don't care about you feelings" comes to mind here.
I wouldn't call myself a theist. The fact that theists can get depressed has no bearing on the fact that operating as if determinism is true causes depression and existential nihilism.

"No, this is precisely what non-locality shows is not true. You're still trying to think from within a classical paradigm."

I'm just saying entangled particles wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the big bang, so they too, had / have a cause.
That doesn't mean the way those particles exist depends upon the prior event and is determined by it, which is the article of faith that determinism clings to. This is a motte & bailey argument.
 

Prawnapple

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
588
Ok, so nothing matters, lol. :rolleyes:
Sad but true indeed. We do give subjective meaning to things. It still doesn't mean that meaning we give isn't governed by determinism. Luckily for me, I subscribe to secular humanism. As such, I can say things like, this is wrong and that is bad or this is good and that shouldn't be allowed as it fits into a world view of sorts. Lest we forget, you cannot get an ought from an is.

That doesn't mean the way those particles exist depends upon the prior event and is determined by it
I would argue the opposite, it is people who believe in libertarian free will who need to provide evidence for their position. We either have complete and utter free will, or we don't. If you want to create a scenario or universe where both can exist simultaneously, please provide the evidence for such.
 
Top