Deterministic Pantheism

[idav]

There are aspects of god in forms of monism that one should consider determinism. There are some aspects of classical pantheism with extreme monism where god decides everything.

The*Encyclopedia of Religion*refers to this form of Pantheism as an "extreme monism," stating that in Classical Pantheism, "God decides or determines everything, including our supposed decisions."[7]*Other examples of deterministic-inclined pantheisms include the views of*Ralph Waldo Emerson,*Ernst Haeckel, and*Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
Classical pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am just not so sure god is so tied down especially since reality doesn't appear deterministic.

Thus, quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism of classical, Newtonian physics in so far as reality does not seem to be absolutely determined. This was the subject of the famous*Bohr–Einstein debates*between Einstein and*Niels Bohr*and there is*still no consensus.
Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Willamena]

In what way does reality appear?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

There are aspects of god in forms of monism that one should consider determinism. There are some aspects of classical pantheism with extreme monism where god decides everything.



I am just not so sure god is so tied down especially since reality doesn't appear deterministic.

I highly disagree, friend. And I am a monist, and whether I'm either a pantheist or a panentheist depends on your definitions

How isn't reality deterministic? My "choice" to reply to this thread is actually based on pre-existing factors: 1. That I saw this thread on the boards. 2. That I was interested in the topic. 3. I had an opposite opinion.

All thoughts are based off of previous thoughts, they're never exactly original. You cannot think of something random unintentionally - if you think of cats, and then you think of fish, and then you think of whales, and then you think of cheddar whale crackers, and then you think of milk, and then you think of cows... etc. it's all because of influence.

All actions are determined by the way all things around react to each other. If you think about it, look closely at it; reality is just a series of events, not just any events, but effects to a cause. It's a series of cause and effect, and the only original, chaotic activity to ever had occur is the point when it went from Nothing to Something (but if you think about that literalisticly, something always had been, because before something there was nothing, and thus there was no before.)

 

[idav]

One thing to look at is the whole vs the sum of the parts.

Quantum relational holism, resting on the nonlocal entanglement of potentialities, is a kind of holism not previously defined. Because each related entity has some characteristics - mass, charge, spin - before its emergent properties are evoked, each can be reduced to some extent to atomistic parts, as in classical physics. The holism is not the extreme holism of Parmenides or Spinoza, where everything is an aspect of the One. Yet because some of their properties emerge only through relationship, quantum entities are not wholly subject to reduction either. The truth is somewhere between Newton and Spinoza. A quantum system may also vary between being more atomistic at some times and more holistic at others; the degree of entanglement vary. Where a reductionist believes that any whole can be broken down or analyzed into its separate parts and the relationships between them, the holist maintains that the whole is primary and often greater than the sum of its parts. Nothing can be wholly reduced to the sum of its parts.

Another thing to consider is the many worlds interpretation of qm in regards to holism.

According to many-worlds all the possible outcomes of a quantum interaction are realised. The wavefunction, instead of collapsing at the moment of observation, carries on evolving in a deterministic fashion, embracing all possibilities embedded within it. All outcomes exist simultaneously but do not interfere further with each other, each single prior world having split into mutually unobservable but equally real worlds.

Copenhagen Interpretation

 

[idav]

In what way does reality appear?

Limited probably.

I highly disagree, friend. And I am a monist, and whether I'm either a pantheist or a panentheist depends on your definitions

How isn't reality deterministic? My "choice" to reply to this thread is actually based on pre-existing factors: 1. That I saw this thread on the boards. 2. That I was interested in the topic. 3. I had an opposite opinion.

All thoughts are based off of previous thoughts, they're never exactly original. You cannot think of something random unintentionally - if you think of cats, and then you think of fish, and then you think of whales, and then you think of cheddar whale crackers, and then you think of milk, and then you think of cows... etc. it's all because of influence.

All actions are determined by the way all things around react to each other. If you think about it, look closely at it; reality is just a series of events, not just any events, but effects to a cause. It's a series of cause and effect, and the only original, chaotic activity to ever had occur is the point when it went from Nothing to Something (but if you think about that literalisticly, something always had been, because before something there was nothing, and thus there was no before.)

Yes I understand newtonian physics, billiard balls and cause and effect. It just doesn't always apply in reality.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Yes I understand newtonian physics, billiard balls and cause and effect. It just doesn't always apply in reality.

Where does it not? At the quantum level, it's not guaranteed that cause and effect doesn't apply there, it could simply appear more chaotic however be deterministic at a deeper level.

 

[idav]

Where does it not? At the quantum level, it's not guaranteed that cause and effect doesn't apply there, it could simply appear more chaotic however be deterministic at a deeper level.

It is debateable, scientists have been debating it for a long time. As I quoted in the op from wiki on determinism, there still is no concensus, and some serious minds on the matter.

I believe the many worlds interpretation. Their are deterministic interpretations but experiments don't support it afaik.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It is debateable, scientists have been debating it for a long time. As I quoted in the op from wiki on determinism, there still is no concensus, and some serious minds on the matter.

I believe the many worlds interpretation. Their are deterministic interpretations but experiments don't support it afaik.

What experiments? How do they know for sure?

The fact that it's still being debated means there isn't a definitive answer. Throw in Occam's Razor; Everything studied above quantum level is determinable to some extent. Before it was only what was predictable, but now it's known that things that aren't predictable are no less deterministic. Considering this, there is no reason to believe that at a quantum level it'd be any different - in fact it is more reasonable to believe that it is similar because of the fact it never turned out differently for sure.

 

[idav]

What experiments? How do they know for sure?

The fact that it's still being debated means there isn't a definitive answer. Throw in Occam's Razor; Everything studied above quantum level is determinable to some extent. Before it was only what was predictable, but now it's known that things that aren't predictable are no less deterministic. Considering this, there is no reason to believe that at a quantum level it'd be any different - in fact it is more reasonable to believe that it is similar because of the fact it never turned out differently for sure.

Einstein argued this issue known as the epr paradox and einstein argued hidden variables. He alluded to "spooky actions at a distance".

A main point of disagreement is the ontological reality of a super position and whether there is a collapse. However despite any interpretation the predictability is not there.

Many world theory would suggest no collapse and the super positions are real but yet is a simpler and less mystical interpretation. Complexity is a given with qm especially when dealing with space-time but its reconcilable simply as physics. Many worlds fixes the issue. Why does it seem like the particles are everywhere at once? Cause they are rather than saying its created at the moment of interaction giving that copenhagen mystical type of solution, as if we should wonder if the moon is really there.