Many determinists although argue that materialism does not present a complete understanding of the universe,

No such conclusion can be agreed upon on the matter as we can never have full awareness outside of ourselves as Human Beings, and thus we will never be able to fuse both inner and outer experiences to form a better understanding of life.

The philosophical concept which hypothesises that the Mind is not exempt to the laws of Quantum Mechanics and thus is not immune to the same principles as any other material in the Objective World of space in/and time is determinism.

I have to thank Rupert Sheldrake for this interesting idea.
If everything in the universe is evolving there is reason to believe that even physical laws evolve. If this is so, and the laws of physics are evolving (a possibility) then there is reason to doubt any notion of determinism since the laws of nature (as they are called) may be nothing more than habits that are subject to change, and are therefore possibilities or probabilities instead of certainties..Rich

If everything in the universe is evolving there is reason to believe that even physical laws evolve.
Rich

It is by no means certain that Everything in the universe Evolves. Rocks do not evolve; rocks change. So one might rephrase the first part of the conditional argument to "if everything in the universe changes." But doesn't this statement apply, as far as we know, to physical objects and their spacial and temporal positions?
If so, then the conclusion that "physical laws" Evolve (or better, change) is without warrant since laws are not things. Laws may be modified to take into account new data, or to increase the field of their explanation, but they do not seem to change in a strict sense:--- we do not have a law of gravity one morning and a law of un-gravity the next.

It is by no means certain that Everything in the universe Evolves. Rocks do not evolve; rocks change.

If so, then the conclusion that "physical laws" Evolve (or better, change) is without warrant since laws are not things.

Laws may be modified to take into account new data, or to increase the field of their explanation, but they do not seem to change in a strict sense:--- we do not have a law of gravity one morning and a law of un-gravity the next.

The laws of nature do not appear to be deterministic but stochastic (ordered possiblities). Although I like the notion of the laws of nature as habits, there is no evidence that the laws of nature have changed over time or that the laws of nature are not uniform throughout our universe.

It appears to me that the quantum structure is changing in all cases. This would be the case for the universe as a whole which is evolving (changing) all the time. Humans and other species are just part of the general overall evolving structure. Everything is being pulled along with it. What we view as temporary laws seem to be nothing more than habits - of ourselves and our surrounding universe, which are evolving and changing.

I think Sheldrake provides remarkable insights with this simple observation. I personally think it is a marvelous evolving way to view an evolving universe.

Rich

I have a process evolutionary view of life and the physical sturcture of the universe.
but
I am pretty sure gravity existed before newton and fundamentally has not changed in the way it operates since the birth of the universe.
It should take some kind of actual evidence to change that notion.

Even speculative philosophy is based on reason (coherence) and takes into account the facts of experience and science (correlation).

The notion of freewill has been a philosophical topic of which some of the most prominent Intellectuals have debated refutably over since the Ancient Greek era up to the Contemporary age with no agreeable concur.
The philosophical concept which hypothesises that the Mind is not exempt to the laws of Quantum Mechanics and thus is not immune to the same principles as any other material in the Objective World of space in/and time is determinism. In this concept it infers the view that every event, including human cognition, behaviour, decision, and action, is casually determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.
The premises of which are usually postulated to contrary the idea is that the consciousness of the Mind is indeed unique in its relationship with that of the Object body of which adheres to the same laws of physics as every other object that is apparent to us within the realm of 3 Dimensional reality of contiguity and causality (The contiguity and causality of which establishes motion and change to exist). Due to the Human Mind's seemingly alternative reality which seems to somewhat contradict the Laws and principles of Science, the same set of principles are not applicable to the Human consciousness and thus to freewill.

The principles of physics are not applicable to free will or anything else insofar as those things are experienced phenomena. The succession of one's experiences in consciousness has not the slightest respect for laws of physics. In fact, even trying to apply scientific principles to experienced phenomena is nonsense: a confusion of terms, like saying that the action 'walking' is red.

However, if we're talking about our behavior as observed from a 3rd person perspective, then I don't see any argument for free will as a casual force. If we assume that our behavior is the product of physical developments in the animal man, then those developments are subject to cause and effect like everthing else in the physical world.

So I would say that free will exists insofar as it is the familiar experience of willing, but that it does not if by 'free will' we mean the actual causal power of some unknown agent (soul e.g.) over physical reality.

Well explained Sir, nice thread

For every action, equal and opposite reaction, relative to the set scale. The more or less free will application of two people duct taped together, and on opposite sides of the planet, can be equitable. But when causal chains are erroneously sustained with the intentions of equally valuable distribution, then erroneously breaking such chains is also true.

So counter to err, we have more and more choice, relative to quantified states of individual qualia, to distribute value through such sustainable physics.


I see more and more of self refutation, like the quote above, regarding scalar physics in human choice. What worries me most, for the sake of sustainability, is most of these people don't know they're doing it - yet continue to make devaluing choices while the more valuable physics math is right there in front of them, and within them.

If the transitional sequencing of the laws of physics are too often breached with our own genetic hardware, what chance does our philosophical software stand in sustainability? And as the hardware is to the software, so the software is eventually to the hardware.

Education, as usual, is key.