[RD] Why is there so much suffering in the world?

[Kyriakos]

It's hard to see how determinism and predestination are different, though I think there's a hair that can be split there. "Predestination" implies (maybe?) that some entity could or has predicted the outcome. I'm certainly a weak deterministic, in that I think that all actions result from previous inputs.

There is always the possibility that a system is not deterministically chaotic, in that some non deterministic potential for change has not yet been made available but will under future conditions.

An interesting, imo, question is whether there can be a crucial parameter which at the same time produces change but is not itself accountable (thus the theory attributes the change to something else etc).

 

[Farm Boy]

Then the hair is a matter of adequately accurate observation, no?

 

[El_Machinae]

Then the hair is a matter of adequately accurate observation, no?

Maybe. Or, 'yes', if we're talking about any type of much-smarter entity. To the best of my knowledge, the universe is not actually predictable because quantum events are probabilistic. We know that rolling a d6 a million times will have ones turn out about 1/6th of the time, but there is not actual way to know the exact percentage ahead of time.

That said, an outside agent that knows how the quantum probabilities will shake out makes the universe much more strongly deterministic.

That said, I'd also (weakly) suggest that 'predestination' implies some type of knowing causal agent as well. So, if God knows what will happen, it's deterministic. If He is the one that started the ball rolling, it's predestination. Or somesuch. I'm just working off of feels here.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Determinism addresses the ball in the same way as Calvinism, it just wore different shorts to the range. Shrugging one's shoulders at it isn't quite the same as shrugging it off, but near enough?

It's hard to see how determinism and predestination are different, though I think there's a hair that can be split there. "Predestination" implies (maybe?) that some entity could or has predicted the outcome. I'm certainly a weak deterministic, in that I think that all actions result from previous inputs.

Perhaps:
Determinism predicts actions
Predestination predicts outcomes

 

[Farm Boy]

Actions and inaction are outcomes tho?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Actions and inaction are outcomes tho?

They are outcomes of other actions, but they also produce outcomes. You raise the question of whether a determined action can produce an undetermined result. I would say yes.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Err... I said that MORALS are a human creation, not SUFFERING ^^
I'm pretty sure that a lion eating a prey alive causes a lot of suffering too. Just as it suffers a lot from it if it breaks its leg or starves.
Unless you're speaking of metaphysical suffering and so on, but I was more literal here.

how can you say that animals suffer when both the word and the concept are man-made, though? that is what I tried to say with "humanity is literally the author of all suffering". we may (even this is kind of weak, but let's not resort to qualia arguments here) be able to measure animals experiencing pain or somesuch, but that is not the exact same thing as suffering. for suffering there must be "being" first.

 

[Farm Boy]

They are outcomes of other actions, but they also produce outcomes. You raise the question of whether a determined action can produce an undetermined result. I would say yes.

Yeah, but you don't seem a Calvinist.

 

[Birdjaguar]

how can you say that animals suffer when both the word and the concept are man-made, though? that is what I tried to say with "humanity is literally the author of all suffering". we may (even this is kind of weak, but let's not resort to qualia arguments here) be able to measure animals experiencing pain or somesuch, but that is not the exact same thing as suffering. for suffering there must be "being" first.

Ah...pain is a human concept too. Animals don't have "being"? Of course they do.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yeah, but you don't seem a Calvinist.

I certainly am not. But I am also not a Catholic or evangelical for that matter.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeas, but if you reject Calvinist determinism your view on the matter does put in you in the same general category with Catholic works, and who the hell knows about Evangelicals. It's a blanket term anyways.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Ah...pain is a human concept too. Animals don't have "being"? Of course they do.

pain is indeed a human concept and imho not even measurable properly, as i alluded to in my post. however, we definitely can measure brain response to certain stimuli, which is more than nothing. as for being, that is a difficult question to answer. i definitely think animals are intelligent, and are conscious, and are even self-reflexive. i do not know if they have a concept of being or time that is even comparable to ours.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yeas, but if you reject Calvinist determinism your view on the matter does put in you in the same general category with Catholic works, and who the hell knows about Evangelicals. It's a blanket term anyways.

Not at all. Christianity is all about salvation and what one must do to be saved (eternity with god). For pantheists that isn't an issue.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not sure that I would agree.

 

[Birdjaguar]

pain is indeed a human concept and imho not even measurable properly, as i alluded to in my post. however, we definitely can measure brain response to certain stimuli, which is more than nothing. as for being, that is a difficult question to answer. i definitely think animals are intelligent, and are conscious, and are even self-reflexive. i do not know if they have a concept of being or time that is even comparable to ours.

Certainly their sense of self is not the same as ours, but why should that matter?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not at all. Christianity is all about salvation and what one must do to be saved (eternity with god). For pantheists that isn't an issue.

I'm not sure that I would agree.

With which part?

 

[Farm Boy]

You're doing blue I think, so you tell me you.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Pantheism is pretty huge category full of subsets and it is hard to make a simple statement that covers all the possibilities. The idea that god is all in all and has always been so makes salvation in the Christian sense not really an option. This underlying existence is the natural and permanent state of things. To experience god one must "escape" from the illusion of this world's permanence. There is no one path to do so. Neither atheism nor Christianity are excluded.

 

[Farm Boy]

Christian salvation, as discussed, is more frequently ad hoc cultural than theological.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Christian salvation, as discussed, is more frequently ad hoc cultural than theological.

Huh? You think so? You are probably closer to it than me.