Are Time and Consciousness Interdependent ?

.

A diagram of space-time looks like a three-dimensional drawing of a bell. See one at http://quothethesaint.tumblr.com/post/75541923759/ancient-media-the-big-bang

 

 The inside of the bell contains galaxies separated by space.  Oriented from left to right, with the “bell” laying on its side, the “Big Bang” event is the tiny point on the far left.  Proceeding from left to right, the “bell” begins to take shape, with an initial rapid expansion, then a more gradual expansion, and finally, an accelerated expansion.

This procession from left to right is intended to represent the progression of time, from its initial beginning, through the past, and into the present.  If one continues the progression, one can diagram the future.  However, the problem is that we do not know if the future will be of infinite duration, or if time will eventually end.

The progression of time, however, is itself a bigger problem.  The diagram is static.  It does not move; it does not progress.  It is all of one piece, one structure.  In the diagram, time does not pass.

If this is the case, if the entirety of time is static, then why does time seem to progress from past, to present, and thence to future?

The only explanation for this is consciousness.  Our consciousness experiences time.  More to the point, our consciousness experiences time as a flow—a flow of experiences—a memory of past experiences, the consciousness of the present experience, and the anticipation of an unknown future.

This explanation, however, does not fit the diagram.  The diagram illustrates all of time as a single, unchanging reality.  In the diagram, the absolute certainty of the past is mirrored as an absolute certainty of the future. 

We do not, however, experience time in this way.  To us, the future is uncertain, and it is uncertain because it can be, to use a word imprecisely—“changed.”  For example, if I predict that a certain course of my action will result in tragedy, I perceive that I can prevent that future tragedy by changing my course of action, through an effort of will.

If this is a correct interpretation of our experience of time, and if our experience is not an illusion, then it strongly implies that the diagram should not be static, but rather, dynamic.  It is almost as if time itself moves through an even larger reality of some sort, a reality that might be analogous to time.  In other words, our smaller subset of time moves through a larger set of time. 

Granted, that may not seem to make sense at first, but physics already postulates that our universe is part of a multi-verse.  Since our one universe incorporates space-time, then our space-time might be part of a larger framework of both space and of time.  Just as space is dynamic, so might also time be alterable.

Going further along this line of thought, we might characterize eternity as both being outside of time, and also, dynamic.  Life in eternity might be, not a boring experience of sitting on a cloud, playing a harp, but a joyful adventure which continually enriches our experience.

Of course this is a heavy dose of speculation, but I think, not unreasonable.

-

Free Will, Determinism, or Something Else?

.

The question of whether we have free will, or whether we are biological robots doing only (and exactly) as nature compels us to do, presents problems which the best minds have struggled to resolve.  An article by Roy F. Baumeister at https://slate.com/technology/2013/09/free-will-debate-what-does-free-will-mean-and-how-did-it-evolve.html seeks to offer a third possibility.  Is there, in fact, a compromise position?  Or is there something that is truly a third way?

 

If we answer simply that, yes, we do have free will, then we run afoul of physics—at least the current paradigm which guides physics research.  The current theory of physics relies on something called, determinism.  A familiar way of describing determinism is to use the familiar analogy of a row of dominoes.  Tip the first domino and it knocks over the second, which knocks over the third, and so forth.  This simple chain of cause and effect exhibits the physics principle of causation, which in however complex a form, applies to everything that happens, including the choices we make.  Another way of expressing this principle is to cite the maxim that, everything in physical nature can be explained by other things in physical nature; no other explanation is needed.  Free will simply does not exist.  It cannot.

 

Therefore, if we do have free will, we must conclude that physics, in its current state, is wrong.  Stated another way, there is something more than physical cause and effect which results in physical events.  If I am confronted with the choice between turning left or turning right, the physical event of my turning is not dictated by the dominoes that have previously fallen.  It is determined by something that physics has not defined, something like a spirit or soul, something not of this physical world.

 

That conclusion is considered heresy in physics, not just heresy, but by purists, a despicable falsehood, either the delusions of fools, or the intellectual crime of superstition.

 

The irony is this:  if a person believes in free will, but if at the same time there is no free will, then that person did not choose to believe in free will.  That belief was forced upon him by preceding physical events.  Then, how can he be blamed?

 

The online article at Slate, by Roy F. Baumeister, cited above, makes a valiant attempt to resolve the issue, in a way that the author seems to hope, might be acceptable to both sides.  The effort fails.  It basically concludes that free will is actually what we only think is free will.  We think so, due only to the complexity of the mechanics of how we make decisions—but they are still mechanics, after all, not the truly independent decision of a sovereign entity.

 

The doctrine of free will does not necessarily assert that every decision we make is independent of physical causes.  On the contrary, all our decisions are at least partially influenced by physical causation, and the degree of that influence may be overwhelming in many cases.  Some of our actions are so routine that we do not bother to use our power of free will.  But, at its core, there is no compromise.  As to whether free will is possible, or not possible, that is either yes, or no. 

 

If we are to accept that we never, ever, have any power to act volitionally as independent, sovereign agents of physical causation in nature, then we must accept unavoidable absurdities.  One of them has already been mentioned, which is that our belief or disbelief that free will is possible, is not the result of our investigation of the facts, but rather, the result of an inexorable chain of physical causation. 

 

There is a greater issue—in fact, two of them.  One of them asks, are we active participants in our own lives, or merely passive observers?  The other issue asks, does physical nature just happen to give rise to living, conscious, volitional beings—or is physical nature designed around us, to be our habitat?

 

It quickly becomes apparent, then, that the question of free will is not isolated from other profound questions.  It involves the fundamental essence of natural reality.  It addresses our own reality as either biomechanical machines, or spiritual beings in physical form. Moreover, it involves the great mysteries of science, religion and philosophy.

 

If the standard model of physical causation is wrong, then that opens exciting avenues of research which are currently considered to be heretical.  If, on the other hand, we truly have no free will, then we are actors on a stage, reciting lines that nobody wrote.  We are as futile as, as Shakespeare puts it, in Macbeth 5:5, a sound and fury signifying nothing, a tale told by an idiot.

-

Crisis in Science

 

Science is on the brink, either of a stunning breakthrough, or the abyss of defeat. 

For centuries, science has progressed from superstition to discovery, and current predictions include the promise of solving nature’s greatest mysteries.   New discoveries, it is said, will lead to dramatic advances in technology that will usher in the dawn of the age of Star Trek.  Flying cars, miracle cures, and servant-robots are just some of the astonishing changes that are expected, changes that will revolutionize our lives beyond our present ability to imagine.  Could the earliest cavemen have imagined the impact that the discovery of fire would portend?  Could they have imagined nuclear power?

But not all the predictions include the beaming up of Scotty.  There is a principle of diminishing returns, less additional profit for each additional dollar of investment.  That principle may apply as mercilessly to science as it does to business.  Worse yet, for the hopes and dreams of future Captains Kirk, is the specter of a brick wall, or alternatively, of a vast canyon that cannot be bridged.

That brick wall may already have been encountered.  It is something we all know about, and yet, most of us underestimate.  We all take for granted our consciousness, but science can no longer take it for granted.  Science cannot explain consciousness.  It cannot even adequately define our inward experience of it, despite the fact that we all have it.  How do atoms give rise to organisms that can wonder about what an atom is?

We do, of course, explain it, but not in scientific terms.  Science struggles with the question, and so far, cannot leap across that grandest of canyons. 

Worse yet, for science, is the fact that science itself has made some astounding discoveries that indicate that consciousness may be, not merely a result of atoms, but rather, the foundation of them.  The most popularized example of this is demonstrated in what is called the double-slit experiment, something which every physicist knows about.  Videos about it are well worth looking up on your web-search-engine, but the main take-away is that atoms seem, according to many scientists, to behave very differently when a conscious observer is watching them.  In other words, consciousness may be, not a happenstance byproduct, without which the universe as we know it could exist, but rather, an underlying principle of the cosmos.  Read that slowly, because science may be flailing (and failing) to avoid that conclusion.

It is as if we had souls.  It is as if in addition to physical reality, there is a spiritual reality.  To many scientists, this is heresy.

Ironically, the acceptance of a new paradigm, a spiritual one, might actually rescue science, not end it.  If science can look upon the human brain, not as the generator of conscious thought, but rather its instrument, then new avenues of research become available.  Who knows what doors may be opened?

Who knew what the discovery of fire would bring about?

 

 

 

The Unseen Light; the Unheard Sound

There is a mildly humorous question which asks, when I close the refrigerator door, how do I know that the light goes out?

 

A related matter is expressed by the poetic maxim that, “A tree which falls in the forest when no one is around, makes no sound.” 

 

Both of these make a distinction between a physical event, and its perception.  We may assume that a tree that falls in the forest produces air vibrations, but sound is produced only when those vibrations result in someone hearing.

 

The basic question involves the relationship between objective reality and subjective reality.  The bias of the physicalist is to believe that the only reality is physical, and that subjective perceptions of reality are not themselves a separate reality, for they do not modify what is real.  In other words, the brain is objectively real, as are its reactions to other objects, but those reactions (perceptions) are simply other phenomena in physics.

 

On the other hand, there are those who say that only perceptions are real, and that physical reality is simply a concept produced by subjective thought.  We perceive colors, for example, in terms that cannot be expressed in objective terms, neither in words nor in mathematics.

 

This “either/or” mindset has resulted in two opposing philosophies, that of Physicalism and that of Idealism.

 

The Idealist has a strong argument from the outset.  He correctly points out that the only thing of which we can be sure is that we are conscious, or the famous maxim, “I think, therefore I am.”

 

This philosophical argument made strong inroads into physicalism with the advent of quantum physics.  Well-established experiments give strong indications that material things exhibit physical properties that are affected by, or even defined by, conscious perceptions.  Without conscious perception, physical reality is said to exist only as a formless void of probabilities, an abstraction.

 

However, the physicalist rebuts the interpretation of these experiments, affirming that it is the underlying physical reality, not its perception, that dictates the behavior of matter.  To the physicalist, thought and perception are physical interactions between atoms which, upon death or dissolution, cease to exist except as dispersed energy that has no consciousness.

 

The debate can go on endlessly, because both sides are absolutist, and insist that they are right, and that the other is wrong.

 

The truth does not lie in the middle, but off the chart.

 

The fundamental reality is neither consciousness nor matter, but reality itself.  Consciousness and matter interact with each other.  Neither is a product of the other, but rather, both are aspects of a hierarchy, a grand architecture of reality.

 

The central reality is unknowable.  How could it be otherwise?  Can the finite encompass the infinite?

 

While we cannot (of course) know the unknowable, we can receive knowledge from it.  We can receive it only in the amount which is beneficial for us, and only according to the capacity with which we are endowed.

 

As regards this, we can know (not of our own knowledge, nor as a result of our own intellect) that there is a Supreme Being, and that He has endowed us with three of His attributes:  Life, Consciousness and Free Will.

 

We can know that He created heaven and earth, the twin realities of spirit and matter.  He created us, and did so for a divine purpose.  We can also know that, because we have free will, we can choose whether to follow our divinely assigned destiny, or to rebel against it.

 

We rebelled, but our Creator did not abandon us to our dismal fate.  All the rest remains shrouded in divine mystery, but bit by bit we are guided along a difficult and painful path of sorrows, toward an eternal destiny that is more than worth our efforts.

 

Has Physics Gone Stale?

Here is the link to a very good commentary about the present state of physics,
a state of affairs which seems to be running out of steam.

http://nautil.us/blog/the-present-phase-of-stagnation-in-the-foundations-of-physics-is-not-normal

Here are some brief excerpts:

Nothing is moving in the foundations of physics.

Experimentalists are just poking in the dark.

[The word,] Crisis is so optimistic. It raises the impression that theorists realized the error of their ways, that change is on the way, that they are waking up now and will abandon their flawed methodology. But I see no awakening.

Physicists knew about these two problems already in 1930s. And until the 1970s, they made great progress. But since then, theory development in the foundations of physics has stalled.

[End of excerpts]

My response is that science needs a new paradigm.
May I suggest
http://thegodparadigm.blogspot.com/ ?

-

Did Ancient Technology Exceed Ours?

Part I
The present view of world history is incomplete at best, and grossly inaccurate at worst.

 

I recently viewed a lengthy video documentary, similar to others I have seen before, which calls into question the accepted historical paradigm.  That paradigm characterizes our present level of technological advancement as being the highest point ever attained.  There is some evidence, albeit tentative, that before recorded history, human society may have exceeded our present-day technology, at least in certain respects.

 

I wish to exclude from this particular discussion all references to possible extraterrestrial visitors.  While such references may or may not be appropriate in other discussions, their removal here is based on the simple fact that the topic does not need them.  All the known ancient technologies of humans can be explained in more ordinary terms, and the topic of ancient aliens unnecessarily complicates the discussion.

 

The discussion here focuses on the possibility, based on widely accepted physical evidence, that human civilizations existed at least ten thousand years ago, which had developed at least some technologies that were lost to present-day knowledge.

 

While this may sound extraordinary, there are ordinary examples in historical times that demonstrate the actual fact of lost technologies.  A literally concrete example of how this is possible exists in ancient Roman technology less than three thousand years old.  Concrete.  The Romans had developed a form of concrete that can set under water.  Many hundreds of years passed before this technology was reinvented, only recently.  It is used today, after having been forgotten for centuries.

 

Another ordinary example is steam power.  In the year 90, in Alexandria Egypt, a working, rudimentary steam turbine engine was invented and put on display.  However, while the invention proved the principle that steam power can be harnessed to do work, no one at the time took the demonstration seriously enough to further develop it into a practical, useful steam engine.  This further development took centuries, and when it did, steam engines powered the Industrial Revolution.  One can only imagine how radically history might have been changed had the ancient engineers recognized the potential of their invention, a potential which today we recognize as obvious. 

 

If these examples exist within recorded history, perhaps there is evidence that before recorded history, these, or other, potentials were recognized and developed to a high degree, higher than we have developed them today—but then lost, just as in the case of the concrete.

 

Before we dismiss this possibility as being unfounded speculation, we should consider that even the most conservative archaeologists admit that the present paradigm needs revision at the least, and perhaps even an overhaul.

 

The dig at Göbekli Tepe is one example.  Before it was explored, the paradigm stated that human civilization began in caves, attested to by the drawings therein.  This culture stagnated through millennia of hunting and gathering.  Then, around 6,000 years ago, came the development of agriculture.  This led to the agricultural revolution, in which humans settled into farming communities.  Only after stable, settled communities had been established, did humans begin their practice of building large stone structures (megaliths), such as Stonehenge and the Pyramids.  At least, that is the paradigm.

That paradigm was strongly shaken, however, because Göbekli Tepe is dated as being around 11,000 years old.  Further evidence shows that the builders were hunter-gatherers, not farmers.  How is this possible?  How could hunter-gatherers build megaliths?  Sociologists struggle to revise their model of how societies formed and advanced.

While all of this may be dismissed as anecdotal curiosity, there are too many more data points to ignore.

 

---1.       When the corpse of the so-called Ice Man was discovered after having been frozen for five thousand years, there was found among his possessions a copper hammer.  The production of such an artifact proved that his society was capable of a degree of technology well in advance of what had previously been considered possible. 

 

---2.       The pyramids in Egypt are a well-known example of ancient engineering that continues to defy explanation.  Modern-day builders cannot duplicate them without extensive use of power tools that are deemed not to have been available in ancient times.  Contrary to popular belief, no human remains have ever been discovered inside the three largest pyramids, making their purpose a matter of controversy.  Indeed, the very age of these three pyramids may be far older than present estimates. 

---3.       The Sphinx also presents well-documented issues that call into question its age.  It has features that indicate extensive erosion caused by heavy rains or floods, conditions which have not existed in Egypt since before the Sphinx is said to have been built.  Its facial features do not conform to the pharaoh that scholars say it represents.

 ---4.       It is also known that the pharaohs of ancient Egypt often reinvented their own history to glorify whichever pharaoh was in power at the time.  Each pharaoh claimed credit for the achievements of others, denigrated former rulers, and embellished accounts of their own exploits.  Therefore, all claims that the pyramids were built by known Pharaohs are subject to doubt and dispute.  It is nothing extraordinary to suggest that the pyramids were built long before any pharaoh came into power.

 

Part II
Replacing the historic paradigm presents its own uncertainties.

 

The megalithic structures such as pyramids could not have been built without extensive infrastructure.  This would have included tools and means of transport.  The evidence for the necessary infrastructure is scant at best.  Other forms of infrastructure would have included record keeping.  The ancient Egyptians seem to have kept meticulous records, but where are the records of tools, of labor, and technique?

 

At https://www.history.com/news/egypts-oldest-papyri-detail-great-pyramid-construction

There is an indication that ancient accounting documents have been discovered which record the construction of one of the three great pyramids.  If the documents do indeed give a detailed analysis that reasonably answers the questions, then this will provide powerful support for the current paradigm, or at least a large portion of it.

 

What would really help is a set of engineering documents, comparable to modern-day blueprints, along with something like flowcharts that show the schedule of steps in construction.  Such documents would permit, at least in principle, a means of constructing a duplicate pyramid using ancient tools and techniques.  It seems inconceivable that a complicated project could be successful without a high level of documentation both before and during the construction.  Such documentation might have existed, and the recent discovery might include them.

 

Even so, there remains the mysteries of technique and tools.  Massive amounts of stone had to be quarried, measured and cut with great precision.  Doing this with copper tools would have required enormous amounts of copper, because copper is soft, and the tools would quickly wear out.  Did the ancients recover the tiny grains of copper that would fall from the tools, or did they simply quarry more copper? 

 

Lifting the stones into place would also have posed significant problems.  How that was done remains unclear.  Were levers and pulleys used?  Block and tackle?  Wood?  Is there evidence, or recordings, that shed light on the tools and methods of construction?

 

Speaking of shedding light, another problem with the pyramids is that there seems to be no evidence of torches or lamps that lit the interior passageways.  Such items should have left soot or other residue.  Were these cleaned up?  Or was some other, as yet unknown method of illumination used?

 

If the latter, then why was the method lost?  Why is there no record of this—or is there?

 

Finally, there is the question, for what function, or expected function, were the pyramids built?  Do the written records specify a function?  Their supposed use as tombs seems to be unsubstantiated by the physical evidence.  No mummies, coffins or other such evidence has been found.  Some of the passageways seem to be at peculiar angles.  Were these design details ceremonial?  Were they based in myth, legend, and superstition?  Did the pyramids serve some purpose as astronomical observatories? 

 

All of these questions should be addressed by ancillary evidence, such as documents, or by implements such as tools, measuring devices or the like.

 

Turning again to the mysteries at Göbekli Tepe, there not only seems to be no formally kept records, it is questionable whether writing had even been invented at the time.  The structures there are far simpler than the pyramids, and it is conceivable that they could have been built without a high degree of infrastructure.  Even so, they did require enormous amounts of time and labor, something which requires constant motivation by large numbers of people for long periods of time.  The mystery here is as much one of human nature as it is of the physics of construction.

Part III

Has human nature evolved significantly in the past 12,000 years?

 

The advent of science and technology has redirected human activity from superstition and symbolism to logic and reason.  In this regard, there have been suggestions that humans think differently now than they did in prehistoric times.  How much differently is unknown, but clearly, in ancient times, superstition and symbolism were much more dominant among the ruling classes than is now the case.

 

People then lived much closer to nature than we do today.  They were intimately familiar with its nuances.  In modern times, by contrast, these nuances escape the notice of city dwellers, who have little or no contact with the wilderness.  Because of this, it has been suggested that some ancient societies were able to exploit principles of nature that we do not understand, and thereby to develop advanced technologies which we have not.

 

If this seems to be too extraordinary to believe, consider, for example, the modern science of quantum physics.  This branch of science allows technologists to produce the components necessary for computers.  Consider also, the physics of general relativity.  This branch of science allows technologists to produce such things as global positioning satellites. 

 

Neither of these sciences is intuitive.  They both require ways of thinking that at first seem illogical, unreasonable, and mysterious.  What is more problematic, is that the quantum and relativistic theories are incompatible with each other.  We have a seeming paradox, in which two scientific bodies must both be correct, while at the same time, they seem to contradict each other.  How can this be?

 

Almost certainly, they do not really contradict each other, but rather, our human ways of thinking need to change in such a way that scientists can resolve the seeming discrepancies.  We probably need new discoveries, but at the same time, we need new methodologies, indeed a new paradigm.

 

This need is beginning to show up in social structures and politics.  Two opposed systems of economics are at the heart of political movements around the world.  Socialism and capitalism are being positioned in a conflict that cannot end well for either side.  Socialism has too often been interlocked with authoritarian regimes that wreck their economies.  Capitalism has succeeded in spreading wealth to billions of people, but has concentrated too much wealth in too few hands, leaving the lowest rungs of society to feel oppressed by debt, and by a system rigged against them.  Whichever system people live under, many are perceiving that their system does not work for them, and in both cases, there is the irony that the grass seems greener on the other side.

 

Our ways of thinking dictate our actions.  They direct our science.  They direct our systems of governance.  They shape our ethics and morality.  The question is, did the ancients have a way of thinking, a way of perceiving reality, that enabled them to detect natural principles that are invisible to us?  Did they apply these principles to technology?

 

If they did, then surely, something catastrophic must have happened to obliterate all, or nearly all, traces of those technologies.  Coincidentally or not, nearly all societies today have legends of precisely such a catastrophe, a worldwide event, before which there is little or no record.

 

In South America, recent satellite images have revealed that a very large civilization once existed, that ended about 6,000 years ago, right about the time when the catastrophe is thought to have occurred.

 

At this point, our discussion must stop, to await further developments.  Speculation can be useful if it is well reasoned, debated, and set aside to await those developments.  Far too many people are selling books based on these speculations.  When they do, they become locked in to one or another paradigm, the details of which are either too sketchy to be informative, or far more detailed than is warranted by the known facts.

For now, it is enough that we recognize our limitations, work diligently to overcome them, and to remain open to the ideas that other people present to us.  The universe is a place of seemingly endless mysteries, and if we cannot solve all of them, we can at least savor and delight in them.

 

Indeed, perhaps doing that is part of the secret of the ancients.

The Prediction Paradox

The prediction paradox is a thought experiment which may demonstrate that a deterministic universe is inherently impossible.  It attempts to show that under some circumstances, a deterministic chain of events may lead to two mutually exclusive outcomes, both of which must happen.  The impossibility of that is what produces the paradox.

The thought experiment begins with the stipulation, already accepted by many (if not most) physicists that the universe is in principle predictable in every detail, and has been since it began.  The chain of cause and effect, in principle, is immutable and inalterable.

A familiar way of simplifying that concept is to cite a row of dominoes, wherein the tipping of one domino produces a chain reaction that leads to the tipping of all the dominos.  In this example there is no paradox.

Let’s use another example.  Suppose that one has planned a picnic on a certain date.  One then forecasts the weather, and sees that there will be inclement weather that day.  This forecast causes one to change the plans for the picnic, either to cancel it or to reschedule it.

This is still not the paradox, but it sets the stage for it.

Now, let us examine the paradox.  It begins with the question of whether the predictability (in principle) of the universe can produce a correct prediction (in actual fact) by a human (or other agent).   

If the answer to that question us no, that in itself poses a philosophical dilemma which bears careful investigation—what principle prevents accurate prediction in a theoretically predictable universe?

On the other hand, if the answer yes—if practical inerrant predictability is possible—then can such a prediction be the cause of altering subsequent events, thereby rendering the inerrant prediction to become false?

At this point, the paradox becomes a bit more convoluted, as do the rebuttals.  Those rebuttals perhaps are made plausible because there may be a flaw in the way the paradox is expressed, but there is a persistent underpinning that seems to remain despite all the rebuttals.

The most convenient way out of the paradox is to reject the idea that the universe is, whether in principle or not, inherently predictable.

If predictions are made by human agents whose thinking is not dictated by inexorable cause and effect, but rather, by people who can think as truly independent agents through their free will—if this is the case, then the chain of cause and effect in the universe is alterable by such free-thinking agents.

Since most physicalists seem to reject even the possibility of such volition, it remains their duty (imposed by me) to answer the following questions:

1. Can the predictability (in principle) of the universe produce a correct prediction (in actual fact) by a human (or other agent)?   
2. If not, then what principle prevents accurate prediction in a theoretically predictable universe? 
3. What would be the consequences of practical unpredictability in a deterministic universe?
4. On the other hand, if the answer yes—if practical inerrant predictability is possible—then can such a prediction be the cause of altering subsequent events, thereby rendering the inerrant prediction to become false?
5. Is there a way out of the paradox other than the existence of free will?

= = = = = =

Other recipients:

Thanks for a well-stated post, Adur. As you say, there are so many problems with determinism and multi-verse theory that the proponents bear a heavy burden of proof. For example, the theory that says, "anything that can happen, must happen, and

A reader responded on another discussion board.

My reply:

As you say, there are so many problems with determinism and multi-verse theory

that the proponents bear a heavy burden of proof.

For example, the theory that says, "anything that can happen, must happen, and must happen an infinite number of times," is in my view, another way of saying that "nothing ever happens."

i.e., if you flip a coin, and it lands both heads and tails, then in effect, the outcome is neutral.The two cancel each other out.  Things may happen locally, but on the whole, nature would be a non-event.

My proposal takes a short-cut, by attempting to prove that determinism cannot rule the universe,

and that, therefore, free will must come into play.  Since free will is a force external to physics, it
strongly implies that there is a nature above nature, a super-nature, a spiritual reality that underpins
physical reality.
 
But that's jumping ahead.  Let's back up.
 
In the past, when I have proposed the paradox, the response has been something like this:
 
In a deterministic universe, any possible prediction would already have been "foreseen" (so to speak)
by the chain of events, by cause-and-effect.  Not only would the chain of events have predicted that the
prediction would be made, but also, any consequences of that prediction are also predetermined.
Therefore, there can be no paradox.
 
While this initially sounds like it disqualifies the paradox, a deeper dive is required.

That is why I ask the five questions at the end of the OP.

 

1.       Can the predictability (in principle) of the universe produce a correct prediction (in actual fact) by a human (or other agent)?   

2.       If not, then what principle prevents accurate prediction in a theoretically predictable universe? 

3.       What would be the consequences of practical unpredictability in a deterministic universe?

4.       On the other hand, if the answer yes—if practical inerrant predictability is possible—then can such a prediction be the cause of altering subsequent events, thereby rendering the inerrant prediction to become false?

5.       Is there a way out of the paradox other than the existence of free will?

I have not seen these questions asked or answered in any other forum.

Perhaps there are really good answers to them that disqualify the prediction paradox,
and perhaps any answers are beyond my limited intellectual abilities.
 
Even a blind squirrel can find a nut now and then, and I smell a nut in here somewhere.

= = = = =
It would seem absurd that in a predictable, deterministic universe,

a predictor could be forced to make a prediction which is accurate,

and then be forced to predict that his accurate prediction will now alter the original prediction,

rendering it inaccurate, in which case, he would no longer have to alter the prediction,

making it accurate once again, in an eternally oscillating series of conflicting predictions.

= = = = =
 

Previously poorly worded post:

Here is a puzzle.  Can you solve it?

In a deterministic universe, it should be possible, in principle, to predict the future course of events.  Furthermore, if such a prediction were made, it would itself be made because deterministic cause-and-effect forced it to be made.  Moreover, the prediction might be correct, insofar as it was based on the inevitable outcome of the past chain of cause-and-effect.  Herein, a paradox could arise.  The very act of making the prediction could itself cause the prediction to not occur, even though based on determinism, it was correct and inevitable. 

However, if the prediction were accurate, it would have to predict that the prediction itself would render the prediction inaccurate.

Therefore, because of this possible paradox, it must be concluded that a predictable determinism cannot exist.

Can a correct prediction, based in determinism, predict that the prediction itself will alter what it predicted, making it incorrect?