TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is the world Super-deterministic or not?

If there was empirical evidence that showed that the world was indeed "Super-deterministic" (as defined by physicist John S Bell) thus void of free will, would you accept the evidence based on its validity or reject the evidence outright and why?

How significant would the ramifications of such knowledge affect science, philosophy, and theology?

See evidence at: http://temptdestiny.com and at: http://temptdestiny.com/science.html


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Dec 2 2012: I don't know if some new Einstein will appear on the scene to ever answer this question once and for all - by the very nature of our existence one question answered leads to many new questions. But I can speak of trends. From the time of Newton up to Einstein the world was a mechanical, one equation explains all type of world - perhaps super-deterministic. Since Einstein with quantum physics, dark energy and dark matter, etc it seems the more we know the more we know we don't know. The mystical world and science have been getting closer after many years of going the opposite direction. Physicist Amit Goswami has written a book on the subject - The Self-Aware Universe. Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander who went brain dead, and revived, attests to an unbelievable world he entered while brain dead - book - Proof of Heaven. Free will implies conscious thought is 100% of the equation. If there is a mystical world beyond the conscious with which we interact (as in sleep or meditation) in unknown ways then free will is not a 0 or a 1, but somewhere in between.l
    • Dec 4 2012: I totally agree with your statement about finding the answer to the nature of our existence will lead to many new questions. If you visited the findings at TemptDestiny.com web site you see that this fundamental question has been addressed.

      Regarding trends that you have mentioned, they all stem from lack of knowledge of causality. Currently all of what we call "knowledge", i.e., epistemology/ontology, is based on effectual causality (guessing). What I mean by that is without knowledge of how causality works, what we now call knowledge is nothing more than speculation.

      Case in point: Let's say that you drop a coin "directly" into a cup; the outcome is certain, for there is only one potential selected - coin-in-cup. Conversely, you drop a coin "indirectly" into the cup by dropping the coin onto the rim of the cup; the outcome is uncertain, for there are more than one potential selected - coin-in-cup/coin-not-in-cup. By obtaining certain effects from a direct selection and by obtaining uncertain effects from an indirect selection, you now have addressed all causal possibilities.

      You now observe two cups, each with a coin in them; can you tell which coin-in-cup "effect" was generated by an indirect or direct selection?

      Without knowing which selection caused the coin-in-cup effect you can only make an assumption of how the effect was made. As demonstrated, if you know what "type" of selection occurred, you will know in advance if the effect of that selection is certain or uncertain for the two acts of selection predetermines both effectual states of existence.

      So you see the answer to the question of "Is the world Super-deterministic" has been staring at us all along. I have found that once we change our perspective of what we "think" causality is you can't help but wonder why it has taken us (humanity) so long to see it. - See more at: http://temptdestiny.com/

      REVELATION - How will this knowledge affect science and religion?
      • Dec 5 2012: I am trying to grasp the bottom line of what you are saying here, and the material world part of me asks what if you see the coin on the table next to the cup instead of in the cup?
        • Dec 6 2012: ... then you see the effect of a coin next to a cup. What caused the coin to be there is anyone's guess without knowledge of causality.

          If you are referring to "How will this knowledge affect science and religion?" then consider this. Although science and religion are of different fields, they both share the same foundation/knowledge of how effects cause effects whether we are talking about a deity (effect) causing our existence (effect) or an observed or measured effect (elementary particle) bringing mass to the universe (effect). We have place causality as an effect of effects. Is it no wonder why we are so confused? ... and so the paradox of effectual causality rages on.
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2012: You said, "So you see the answer to the question of "Is the world Super-deterministic" has been staring at us all along. I have found that once we change our perspective of what we "think" causality is you can't help but wonder why it has taken us (humanity) so long to see it".

        You have yet to explain your answer. What is the answer to the question and how did you arrive at it?

        If you are arguing in favor of it, you have given discreetly determined beginnings and discreetly determined endings, but you seem to have gone out of your way to avoid explaining the middles as well as the before the beginnings and after the ends.
        • Dec 19 2012: What makes you assume that the "causal" agents of selections of potentials exist before they exist? Such an assumption would negate causality as being causal.

          One final note, I am not arguing for the evidence just presenting it. The evidence stands on its own. My opinion or anyone else's is irrelevant to the facts. Hence, the term "absolute" determinism.
      • thumb
        Dec 20 2012: I am not suggesting that a causal moment does not exist before it exists. Science demonstrates that it PROBABLY does.

        You are trying to present an argument that it is all mechanical (deterministic - non-sentient cause). I come from the perspective that reality is sentient down to the smallest possible thing - each being sentient while part of a larger whole that is also sentient. (multidimensional)

        Hence, I see you ignoring the before the beginnings as well as how the middles relate to that first cause, and you ignore the possibility of after the ends.

        So far, you have not presented evidence for your position. You presented an argument that Bell (whom you referenced) found troubling. He said that it was the only way for his theory to be wrong. But Bell's theory was proven right about 5 years ago at CERN labs.

        Your evidence does not stand on its own. It is dependent upon explaining a first cause. I can provide an explanation (theory), but can you?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.