halsienkiewicz1

Determinism within space-time means that one is merely responding to actions and reactions. It is a bottom-up phenomenon. A conscious analysis of patterns signals and ability to stand aside and look at the system perform rather than being victim of it. We can observe from an objective distance and predict and test. The results inform our decisions to play with space-time, interrupt what would normally be merely a domino effect from the big bang. It is a top down causation that explains our ability to manipulate our environment with the benefit of our imagination.

Consciousness's relationship with time is a bigger question. This question really is about the agency of consciousness. Is it able to rise above the mechanics of classical physics, to observe, predict and test nature, then use this knowledge to interfere with the domino effect started by the big bang in order to impose the will of our mind, e.g., go to the moon, make a car, design and build a computer that actually works. Some consider a determined universe leaves no room for science or the accumulation of objective knowledge of it.

So the question is, if we live in a determined universe, which follows classical laws of action-reaction, in which consciousness (an ability of the mind to sit above space-time and override action-reaction) is an illusion, does this suggest that there is no relationship between us deciding to go to the moon, calculating how to do this and us landing on the moon?

I never heard anyone say their own views are illogical.

There are many apparent paradoxes in life, and as our understanding develops, they tend to fall away, e.g., light as a wave length and a particle, nature vs nurture, five different string theories which all seemed contradictory until M-Theory came along and many others. Some consider a paradox a sign that there is a bigger picture out there for us to discover which our minuscule minds (when you consider the size of the universe) are having difficulty coming to grips with. Either way the ability of our minds to hold seemingly contradictory propositions is something we should should be proud of not avoid by thinking we have to take a particular side.

The suggestion that people who believe in a God are weak, in need of a crutch, is patronizing and an exercise in self flattery, usually by atheists. There is no sound evidence that suggests the level of intelligence or indeed knowledge, is the cause of religious beliefs.

We have very little understanding of what is possible in the universe, and we are so far from a solid understanding that it is far safer not to put things in the impossible basket. So the answer to the question suggests that it is possible.

Lest we forget... In 1894 revered scientist Albert A. Michelson,[1] reflected a general feeling in the scientific community at the time when he said, ‘the more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote . . . Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.’ Six years later Lord Kelvin,[2] widely known for determining the correct value of absolute zero as approximately -273.15 Celsius, the formulation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the first UK scientist to be elevated to the House of Lords, also represented a common view in the scientific establishment at the time when he said, ‘there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.’ Not long after these statements were made, two revolutions in science occurred that turned classical 19th Century science (the science the above two scientists were talking about) on its head: Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. [1] Albert Abraham Michelson was an American physicist known for his work on the measurement of the speed of light and especially for the Michelson–Morley experiment. In 1907 he received the Nobel Prize in Physics. [2] William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), 1900