modified

Now

Why should spirituality be considered under scientific conditions? That's not valid at all, but give more context and I might see why you add that. Or is this question for theists only? If so you should indicate
.

I think that whichever position is taken, Freewill or Determinism will run into difficulty when stretched to absolutes, same thing happens when you compare Nature agains Nuture.
I will illustrate my view with the help of an anology. Consider the split between Freewill and Determinism to be like a game of chess, what the players can do has already been predetermined by the size of the board, number of piece, rules of the game and time allowed to finish the game. But within these constraints a player has a near infinite choice of moves to finish a game. Faced with the same problem two players might chose different moves bounded by the constraints of the game.
I admit that no anology is perfect, but my point is that whatever action we take or decide not to take is predetermined by a complex web of constraints governing our individual existence and withing these constraints are infinite choices to be made.

wiegraf: Why should spirituality be considered under scientific conditions? That's not valid at all, but give more context and I might see why you add that. Or is this question for theists only? If so you should indicate
.

For anybody that can think and maybe take å stand and saying ŵĥŷ he/she took such stand.

dorox: I think that whichever position is taken, Freewill or Determinism will run into difficulty when stretched to absolutes, same thing happens when you compare Nature agains Nuture.
I will illustrate my view with the help of an anology. Consider the split between Freewill and Determinism to be like a game of chess, what the players can do has already been predetermined by the size of the board, number of piece, rules of the game and time allowed to finish the game. But within these constraints a player has a near infinite choice of moves to finish a game. Faced with the same problem two players might chose different moves bounded by the constraints of the game.
I admit that no anology is perfect, but my point is that whatever action we take or decide not to take is predetermined by a complex web of constraints governing our individual existence and withing these constraints are infinite choices to be made.

From your first point,u opting for determinism.Like I pointed out,determinism is of different sort.I would appreciate if u can relate ur analogy to å specific type of determinism.It throws more light on ur point.

bright007: For anybody that can think and maybe take å stand and saying ŵĥŷ he/she took such stand.

I have no idea as to what you are trying to convey here.

wiegraf:

I have no idea as to what you are trying to convey here.

pls go carefully through my first and second post and I âm sure u will understand d message.I have just summarised what freewill and determinism is all about.
Now which do u go for and why?.
Does man have freewill or is he predertermined in totality?

I am familiar with the topic, what I don't understand is how you expect science to consider spirits, souls or whatever you want to call that. At best, that's trollish (in which case, well done, as I'm fairly irritated), worse, you really don't understand what science is about. You want science to consider imaginary stuff in its calculations? Do you think there are millions of little people in your computer furiously switching things and putting on little lights in order to illuminate your monitor? Or maybe when you make a call some invisible man listens then runs at the speed of light to the other end to relay your message? Faith is not a factor where science is concerned, not at all. To come around now and suggest so is so....

Let me put it in perspective a christian may understand (again, not sure how you guys seem completely unable to see other pov). You know how some muslims oppressed by the system in their countries decide 'well, the grass is greener on the other side so I might as well work my way out of this hell hole'. Said muslims then work their way out their country and reach more prosperous lands, a lot of the time at great cost too. Upon arriving though guess what these great examples of human reasoning do? They ask for shariah. A critical part of the system which they escaped, they somehow show up and logically deduce it is better than the system which they struggled to get into. Which they have admitted is superior to the system they escaped from by their going out of their way to join. Sheer arrogance or unadulterated stupid.ity, I don't know. Can you see what I am saying now?

It could get even worse, but it seems you've not crossed that line yet. Some start to somehow credit science's accomplishments to some faith based system...

If you tag this thread as christian only, then you're good, atheists would just take this as religious people just being religious. As it stands now its premises are flagrantly incorrect.

I, personally, am very much in the determinism camp. But with today's science as it stands I understand that my stance is technically incorrect. On the macrosopic scale they can make accurate predictions but when they get down to quarks etc, apparently it's impossible to make accurate predictions. Just like they can use newtonian physics for most common tasks but for larger scales or very high velocities they have to switch einstenian stuff. Just observing the system at the microscopic level alters its state even, and some other really strange stuff happens. So it boils down to probabilities (they still make excellent predictions with that though). But, as there's an element of chance, though ridiculously unlikely to affect most events on a macroscopic level, the universe technically isn't strictly deterministic. Their theories are not complete yet so a deterministic theory may still triumph (and einstein could say 'I told you so' from the grave).

wiegraf: I am familiar with the topic, what I don't understand is how you expect science to consider spirits, souls or whatever you want to call that. At best, that's trollish (in which case, well done, as I'm fairly irritated), worse, you really don't understand what science is about. You want science to consider imaginary stuff in its calculations? Do you think there are millions of little people in your computer furiously switching things and putting on little lights in order to illuminate your monitor? Or maybe when you make a call some invisible man listens then runs at the speed of light to the other end to relay your message? Faith is not a factor where science is concerned, not at all. To come around now and suggest so is so....

Let me put it in perspective a christian may understand (again, not sure how you guys seem completely unable to see other pov). You know how some muslims oppressed by the system in their countries decide 'well, the grass is greener on the other side so I might as well work my way out of this hell hole'. Said muslims then work their way out their country and reach more prosperous lands, a lot of the time at great cost too. Upon arriving though guess what these great examples of human reasoning do? They ask for shariah. A critical part of the system which they escaped, they somehow show up and logically deduce it is better than the system which they struggled to get into. Which they have admitted is superior to the system they escaped from by their going out of their way to join. Sheer arrogance or unadulterated stupid.ity, I don't know. Can you see what I am saying now?

It could get even worse, but it seems you've not crossed that line yet. Some start to somehow credit science's accomplishments to some faith based system...

If you tag this thread as christian only, then you're good, atheists would just take this as religious people just being religious. As it stands now its premises are flagrantly incorrect.

.

thanks for really taking your time in ur last comment.I believe that freewill and determinism are to be understood from an ontological perspective.In this sense,it cuts across all spheres of life from religion,biology,economics etc.
In essence,determinism $ freewill seeks to know if man has absolute freedom(or maybe he is limited to some extent) or He is simply unable to alter himself or his environment due to either known or unknown forces.
Now to ur first analogy,determinism in science does not seek to question d achievements of science.We all know dat telecommunication is made possible due to d existence of different rays in d electromagnetic spectrum.It is the properties dat is inherent in these rays that gives them the ability to convey message from one location to another.
Also the concept of freewill or determinism does not revolve around what makes å particular discovery in science works rather seeks to know if man is not guided/aided by forces beyond his control to make such discoveries.
You seem to be plying d route of religious determinism which seeks to know whether man is predetermined or becomes what he makes of himself.

I'm not sure you want to interpret that, but yes, I think like 99.999... of a persons actions could be determined if you had sufficient tools. The tools necessary to accomplish this are at least 100s of years away though. Philosophically determinism is a view many find repulsive, I do as well to an extent, but I think that's reality. Note I've said science does not support this view at the moment but as the model is still not complete if the final 'theory of everything' ends up being deterministic then this view will be justified.

As for religiously which is what I assume interests you, I would say if the judeo-christian personal god existed, or any other similar god/s, then he/it predestined a lot of people to hell forever (as well as untold amounts of suffering here), just for kicks. In fact, I understand there are people who believe in god but are really disgusted at it for reasons such as this. Off topic I know, so I'm off unless you want any more details.

In essence, man, or any other macroscopic material item, is not in control of it's action (my view again, not science's)


Edit: btw I think you misunderstand what my first analogy was trying to point out, which is that by insisting science considers things like 'spirits' which have no observable, testable etc elements (frankly they are imaginary ) you corrupt the process. But if you're looking about it from another perspective I'm cool with that, you just have to make that clear (which you sort of eventually did)

wiegraf:
I, personally, am very much in the determinism camp. But with today's science as it stands I understand that my stance is technically incorrect. On the macrosopic scale they can make accurate predictions but when they get down to quarks etc, apparently it's impossible to make accurate predictions. Just like they can use newtonian physics for most common tasks but for larger scales or very high velocities they have to switch einstenian stuff. Just observing the system at the microscopic level alters its state even, and some other really strange stuff happens. So it boils down to probabilities (they still make excellent predictions with that though). But, as there's an element of chance, though ridiculously unlikely to affect most events on a macroscopic level, the universe technically isn't strictly deterministic. Their theories are not complete yet so a deterministic theory may still triumph (and einstein could say 'I told you so' from the grave).

there is absolutely no such thing as freewill or chance or whatever you may call it. everything in nature is determined by natural laws, no matter what level, be it macro, micro, quark, etc. freewill or chance implies that an event occurs from nothing, that energy and matter can suddenly "become", without cause. It just doesn't make sense. You speak about the availability of scientific methods by which predictions can be made and therefore without such method, then chance comes into the equation. That is flawed logic, determinism does not depend on the means to observe, measure and predict, rather it depends on the matter itself. Every matter has a nature, state, structure and cause. Thus determined. it dosen't matter that you have not YET found a way to observe it.

okeyxyz:

there is absolutely no such thing as freewill or chance or whatever you may call it. everything in nature is determined by natural laws, no matter what level, be it macro, micro, quark, etc. freewill or chance implies that an event occurs from nothing, that energy and matter can suddenly "become", without cause. It just doesn't make sense. You speak about the availability of scientific methods by which predictions can be made and therefore without such method, then chance comes into the equation. That is flawed logic, determinism does not depend on the means to observe, measure and predict, rather it depends on the matter itself. Every matter has a nature, state, structure and cause. Thus determined. it dosen't matter that you have not YET found a way to observe it.

Basically this "Every matter has a nature, state, structure and cause." is only part of the picture. You cannot tell exactly where a particle will be at an exact period of time without altering it's direction (or something like that), among other properties, unpredictably. Even without altering its state (by observing it) you can never tell exactly where it is. So they do have properties, but you cannot determine their exact values.

I speak of the uncertainty principle and waveform collapse, which I assume you are familiar with (for those not, check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment). There's Feynman and his sum over histories, Schrodinger's equation etc. I'm not even going to bother with Bell's theorem and other stuff as that is way over my head. The standard model as it stands now, is probabilistic. You can send a particle off on its way and only guess where it will land, you cannot determine exactly where. Unless I'm missing something then kindly point it out.

To calculate where and what every particle in your body is doing (not to mention those that are interacting with your body would be. Edit: to actually truly determine one's actions, it would have to determine the actions of every single particle in the universe, as they all interact you, one way or another) would require some astronomical computing power, no? Even if you managed to simulate that, considering that at its core nature is probabilistic, you can never get completely accurate results.

Note though I say as the item becomes bigger, the odds of something behaving counter-intuitively become smaller, by orders of magnitude I think. So even with natures probabilistic properties I still believe we could make some pretty accurate predictions, or determine someone's actions. Anyways, I never say because it can't be done at the moment that means it's impossible. Why would you assume something so silly?

You should get some professional to verify though if you're in doubt.

AAAnnnd, there is also the issue of virtual particles. Will probably edit later, out of time. I will indicate if I do.

Edited for clarity

okeyxyz:

there is absolutely no such thing as freewill or chance or whatever you may call it. everything in nature is determined by natural laws, no matter what level, be it macro, micro, quark, etc. freewill or chance implies that an event occurs from nothing, that energy and matter can suddenly "become", without cause. It just doesn't make sense. You speak about the availability of scientific methods by which predictions can be made and therefore without such method, then chance comes into the equation. That is flawed logic, determinism does not depend on the means to observe, measure and predict, rather it depends on the matter itself. Every matter has a nature, state, structure and cause. Thus determined. it dosen't matter that you have not YET found a way to observe it.

Good point u have here.
But how do we explain d concept of destiny as it relates to freewill and determinism?Is man predetermined/destined?
Does he have d freedom to become whatever pleases him?

wiegraf:

Basically this "Every matter has a nature, state, structure and cause." is only part of the picture....

You keep hammering on scientific methods as the determiner of nature, this is erroneous, scientific methods are merely the means(as yet) to observe nature. The fact that you have no means of measuring(determining) the position of particles does not mean such particles do not obey natural laws, it simply means we have not yet accurately mapped these laws that govern them but we can see their effects on the particles. It's like the higgs particle before now, we couldn't isolate it's properties but we could see it's effect in nature. We will continue to find new methods to understand nature better but nature itself will always remain itself, waiting for us to catch-up. You are like saying "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". One recurrent theme i notice in your arguments is "probabilistic", The fact that there is probability is evidence that there are constraints and parameters, thus determined. Even if the probability is one out of a zillion, you have put a quantity on it, you have given it a reference, you have acknowleged that it's nature is fixed even if with margins of errors because these errors can be quantified. So every particle/entity/phenomenon has it's attributes, therefore it is fixed, even if we have no means to accurately observe them now.

bright007: Good point u have here.
But how do we explain d concept of destiny as it relates to freewill and determinism?Is man predetermined/destined?
Does he have d freedom to become whatever pleases him?

I believe Everything is destined, The one thing we have no control over are the options available to us to choose from. Every concept or principle in nature exists, the best we can do is to discover them, not create them out of our own imaginations. No man has yet created an alternate universe. No matter how much you excel in whatever field you choose, you achieve them by invoking natural laws available to you to use. When I say everything is destined, I don't mean one is destined to be in heaven/hell, or that one is destined to be a doctor/athlete, but that all options are available and fixed, nothing is new even if you have not discovered them yet. So you have freedom to choose from these options. You cannot go beyond the constraints & parameters of nature.

wiegraf:
I am speaking from a scientific perspective, I make that clear. In that regard, nature, as far as the standard model and most physicists are concerned, is probabilistic. That is a fact. I do not place much importance to other ways of interpreting nature, especially if they contain elements that cannot be tested, or are subjective, or basically just not scientific. That's just me.

You misunderstand me, I was also speaking from a scientific perspective. I merely pointed out that you were defining determinism strictly from the point of view of the methods of observation while disregarding the phenomenon itself. Of course the methods of observation will always be limited, bound by constraints and parameters, thus any effect beyond such parameters is treated as unknown. But we know that such an effect, if it exists has to be unique, we can describe it's behavior, It has to be the result of some underlying entity/principle and if so, then it's characteristics are dependent, it is not infinite, it is determined. Unless your argument is that matter/energy can "become" by itself, in which case you are delving into "god territory" . SO, the fact that you are yet unable to predict the outcome of a natural phenomenon only demonstrates the limits of your methods, rather than the infiniteness of the phenomenon itself.

wiegraf:
If some hacker had access to the encrypted data generated from a time based x, knew the algorithm used to generate the data and also knew the time period in which the x was produced, he could run the algorithm against a range of tick values and crack the encryption as one of them would be x. With the quantum based x though, said hackers task becomes exponentially more difficult because x is truly random. He could never recreate it. Even if he acquired some magical powers, went back to the exact moment in spacetime the scientists were in when they initially generated x and sent the exact same particle through the exact same equipment in the exact same state he will get a different result every time. It's also possible, scientifically, that the particle which is used in the procedure will not hit the apparatus which is supposed to record its position, instead it will land somewhere in andromeda. Of course that is highly unlikely. There is no way to determine what x would be, it is truly random.

The only message missing from your argument is "according to current scientific methods", so to rephrase: "There is no way(according to current scientific methods) to determine what x would be, it is truly random", correct? Unless you are saying that nature can evolve out of nothing.

okeyxyz:

You misunderstand me, I was also speaking from a scientific perspective. I merely pointed out that you were defining determinism strictly from the point of view of the methods of observation while disregarding the phenomenon itself. Of course the methods of observation will always be limited, bound by constraints and parameters, thus any effect beyond such parameters is treated as unknown. But we know that such an effect, if it exists has to be unique, we can describe it's behavior, It has to be the result of some underlying entity/principle and if so, then it's characteristics are dependent, it is not infinite, it is determined. Unless your argument is that matter/energy can "become" by itself, in which case you are delving into "god territory" . SO, the fact that you are yet unable to predict the outcome of a natural phenomenon only demonstrates the limits of your methods, rather than the infiniteness of the phenomenon itself.




The only message missing from your argument is "according to current scientific methods", so to rephrase: "There is no way(according to current scientific methods) to determine what x would be, it is truly random", correct? Unless you are saying that nature can evolve out of nothing.

It's not missing, I state that what I say is based on current knowledge/theories a few times. Also, that is not I am saying. I'm saying theoretically, as far as science is concerned today, it will never be possible to absolutely determine certain properties of quantum particles. Just like, as an example, it's impossible for anything with mass to move faster than the speed of light. There will never be tools that can determine what x in your question would be.

There are virtual particles that pop in and out of existence all the time, performing amazing feats like walking through walls and borrowing and returning energy from where? I'm not sure (all particles do this apparently). Ask god to explain how that works. I understand they are constantly canceling themselves out, matter - antimatter. Many think the big bang is a virtual particle collision going ballistic. So long as there's spacetime there is no absolute nothing apparently.

We are not using the word determinism in the same way. All particles have properties that can be determined true, but determinism as I understand it would also require that you are able to make accurate predictions using data you have as well as repeat a process and get the exact same results. My criteria cannot be met theoretically as far as science is concerned today. I'm not sure if even yours ( which I assume is simply measuring a particles exact values) can be met as the very act of simply observing it alters its state.

wiegraf:
We are not using the word determinism in the same way.

True!

bright007: Hello forumites,I have been doing å lot of philosophy and have decided to share some disturbing topics on philosophy that have defied permanent solutions.I believe we all have the ability to think critically and come out with our opinion on specific issues.
The question being asked here is "Does Man have freewill?.Is he predetermined?.
Now let's discuss:It is generally assumed that man is free and consequently has freewill,that is,the freedom to do
things and not to,act in one way or another.Despite this claim.it seems man's freewill is not nearly as free as its is generally assumed.Å gainst this background,there has been å plethora of arguments for and against freewill.For instance,John Searle in his arguments in favour of freewill states that Evolution has given us å form of experience of voluntary action where the experience of freedom,that is to say,the experience of of the sense of alternative possibilities,is built into every conscious,voluntary,intentional human behaviour".
John Hospers on the other hand evaluated human freedom and freewill from å different perspective.According to Hospers,freewill is å mere illusion,we talk about freewill,and say for example,the person is free to do so-and-so if he wants to and forget that his wanting is caught up in the stream of determinism,that unconscious forces drive him into wanting to do the thing in question.The analogy of the puppet whose intentions are manipulated from behind in wires....is å telling one at almost every point"
Though Searle accepted freewill ,he is not unconscious of the difficulty associated with the problem of determinism. Despite the irreconcilable positions between freewill and determinism,Searle though it was more commonsensical to opt for Freewill since man is å rational,free,conscious and mindfull agent.What is meant by freedom of d will?
Freewill is the capacity to take decisions to act in one way or another.It is the decision to act or not act at all.
According to Echekwube,freewill is:"the choice of å person to act in å manner suitable to å particular situation.The concept of freedom views it as the delberate act of somebody who acts from personal initiative at all times without being guided"
According to Clement of Alexandria"the only reason ŵĥŷ moral discourse makes sense is because of the Freewill human possesses.And if there is nothing as freedom then sanctions and praises become meaningless".
Thomas Aquinas also reasoned along this line on subject of freewill.He argued that man endowed with reason so that he could use it,and that morality hinges on this endowment.Hence man can reason,make decisions and act on his decisions.The philosophers above are those in favour of Freewill.

man truly has a will to choose esp btw good and evil. Man is not predetermined he is predestined.
Peace

okeyxyz:

True!

The more I think about, even using your criteria you are still technically incorrect. You measure x, you alter y unpredictable, you then measure y then alter x... Reality seems to be constantly being tuned, like tv tuning of sorts. And as physics theories stand today, it will never be possible to absolutely determine certain properties, it is not an issue of equipment. I've actually already mentioned this but I've been more focused on other aspects of what a deterministic system should do.

That said, as odds even out as a particle(s) grows bigger, you can live your life assuming the universe is deterministic in most scenarios. But there's still that element of chance playing a vital role in various situations (well, chance is always there, it's a question of how important is it to said situation).

wiegraf:
The more I think about, even using your criteria you are still technically incorrect. You measure x, you alter y unpredictable, you then measure y then alter x... Reality seems to be constantly being tuned, like tv tuning of sorts. And as physics theories stand today, it will never be possible to absolutely determine certain properties, it is not an issue of equipment. I've actually already mentioned this but I've been more focused on other aspects of what a deterministic system should do.

Not correct, you measure 'x' by isolating 'x' from 'y', meaning that 'y' is not your subject of interest and if it's altered in the process of isolation, it's still not important in such experiment. But if 'y' is altered as part of the system of 'x', then we must have started with a whole 'y' in the beginning and part of the experiment, therefore altering it to determine it's effect on 'x'. So, any alteration to 'y' can only be limited since the whole 'y' was limited in the first place, it's effects on 'x' likewise can only be limited since you cannot have more results than the entities/quantities/principles causing them.

wiegraf:
That said, as odds even out as a particle(s) grows bigger, you can live your life assuming the universe is deterministic in most scenarios. But there's still that element of chance playing a vital role in various situations (well, chance is always there, it's a question of how important is it to said situation).

Well, if the odds even out as particles grow bigger, then you cannot be measuring the same particles as before because the now "bigger particle" is a different entity and a different function. As I am made up of atoms, but i am not an atom, it is not my design/function, therefore I should not be treated like one, to do such would be to violate/assault me. Atom & I = different entities, therefore if you are measuring me, I have my unique characteristics and they are defined and fixed, even if my characteristics digress, it is still within a defined/fixed range, therefore deterministic. Ditto for the atom.

Ubenedictus: man truly has a will to choose esp btw good and evil. Man is not predetermined he is predestined.
Peace

what will are u talking about here?
Å man is usually driven by his genetic make-up to make choices.He has already been determined by his make-up and as such,he is limited to the ability/properties what he is composed of.so where is d freewill?

bright007: what will are u talking about here?
Å man is usually driven by his genetic make-up to make choices.He has already been determined by his make-up and as such,he is limited to the ability/properties what he is composed of. so where is d freewill?

+1

okeyxyz:

you cannot have more results than the entities/quantities/principles causing them.

They can, I've already mentioned that. They temporally gather energy from somewhere then replace it, constantly. Overall though everything
usually adds up over time. At any exact instance you cannot predict accurately that y will be exactly here, rather you can only say it will likely be somewhere, and scan a range for its value. In theory it could be anywhere, but the odds of it being a ridiculous value are astronomical. Also yes, both x and y are vital to the system, like say velocity and location, they depend on each other. Again, like I already said, you alter x, you have then altered y [b
]truly unpredictably[/b]. This is what you seem to have a problem with. You are not the only one (einsteins 'god does not play dice' was part of his response to this. He and many others have failed to prove the theory's supporters wrong while many experiments on the other hand have so far have proven them right, like the random number generator from a vacuum I linked earlier)

okeyxyz:
Well, if the odds even out as particles grow bigger, then you cannot be measuring the same particles as before because the now "bigger particle" is a different entity and a different function. As I am made up of atoms, but i am not an atom, it is not my design/function, therefore I should not be treated like one, to do such would be to violate/assault me. Atom & I = different entities, therefore if you are measuring me, I have my unique characteristics and they are defined and fixed, even if my characteristics digress, it is still within a defined/fixed range, therefore deterministic. Ditto for the atom.

Yes, most particles are made of other particles of course, atoms being rather big when compared to the scales we are talking about. Atoms are made of other particles, and they made of other particles till we get to the very basic ones (I forget which are most basic, I think the photon is one). Anyways these atoms are attracted to each other through the various forces, nuclear, gravity etc (again I forget their names, but there are 4 of them, also basically energy particles), produce a synergy of sorts through the various actions till eventually we get to a being like you. That does not means that theoretically one of the neurons in your brain cannot teleport to the moon. As far as science is concerned this is possible albeit unlikely (in fact it's possible all of you would teleport to the moon, calculating the odds of that happening though would crash your pc maybe).

As for practical purposes, I've stated several times that you can live assuming the world is deterministic. In fact I hope a deterministic model is eventually developed (the current models can't fit gravity in, so it's likely incomplete). But regardless of what I wish for, technically as far science is concerned, this universe isn't strictly deterministic. Just like a random number from your pc isn't truly random, but will do for the vast majority of tasks.

bright007: what will are u talking about here?
Å man is usually driven by his genetic make-up to make choices.He has already been determined by his make-up and as such,he is limited to the ability/properties what he is composed of.so where is d freewill?

ofcourse a man is driven by his genetic makeup, but the genetic makeup unlike a computer program can reply in two different ways when given the same variable, man is rational and posses reasoning ability he can decide for his situation and can even go against the expected because genes arent programs. They have a role to play in every decision but most times those decisions are finalised in the mind. Mans ability to act in different given same variable and his ability to reason 'outside the box' is what i refer to when i say man has a will, the ability to chose either this or that. And please remember i didnt add the word 'free' to the word 'will'.
Peace