Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Amperage
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:15 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;146224 wrote:
What? Randomness is contingency. Please explain yourself. Your entire post makes no sense to me.
For something to be random it means that one cannot say, "If A then B" since with randomness, IF A then ___ cannot be established. Since we have reasonable evidence to suggest that If A then B CAN be established, it makes more sense to believe that B must be contingent upon A(at least in part) rather than B is just defying the odds and perhaps next time IF A then not B...
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:18 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;146204 wrote:
Science only explains one thing in terms of another which itself requires explanation and so on. Nothing is ever really explained. The difference between an explanation and a description is purely psychological.



Stating that laws control the universe also demands explaining. Where do these laws come from? Why these laws and not others? The problem is, you can't even test for the laws existence so you can't possibly explain them. You are only raising additional questions by postulating the existence of something untestable. You haven't solved any mystery. The existence of complete randomness is actually less mysterious then untestable laws that come from who knows where.


That is the logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance. First of all you can test the laws existance because that is the purpose of all experiments. Even you by saying it is random but appears to be done by law is at least conceding the appearance of the law, which is why I still believe that Occam's law is in my favor. As far as not knowing where something came from, this do anything as far as disproving something or making it irrational to believe it. (in reference to saying the laws are of unknown origin) When ancient man lived on earth they had no way of knowing where the earth came from but it would have irrational to not believe it existed because the earth is where they were living!
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:20 am
@Amperage,
Amperage;146225 wrote:
For something to be random it means that one cannot say, "If A then B" since with randomness, IF A then ___ cannot be established.


No, it doesn't. Anyway, this is pointless since I'm arguing against contingency. So if you say contingency isn't random then whatever. It doesn't hurt my argument.

To refresh everyone's memory, my claim is "The simplest belief is that the universe is completely contingent. It doesn't have to be the way it is, it just is."

Here's a better version:

Quote:
There is orderliness is Nature. That's the way Nature is. There are no secret, sublime, mystical laws forcing Nature to be that way. Or at least, there is no good rational reason to believe that there are such queer entities.


Regularity Theory
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:23 am
@Amperage,
Amperage;146225 wrote:
For something to be random it means that one cannot say, "If A then B" since with randomness, IF A then ___ cannot be established. Since we have reasonable evidence to suggest that If A then B CAN be established, it makes more sense to believe that B must be contingent upon A(at least in part) rather than B is just defying the odds and perhaps next time IF A then not B...



I think I know what he means so I will explain it for him because i dont think he did a good job in this case. The only way that someone could say that randomness is contigency is assuming an infinite number of times something random will happen. That would mean all possibilties would at some point be happening. My main objection with this is that, while yes under the said conditions this is true reality does not reflect this being the case at all.

I dont know for sure if that was your view by saying random=contigent, but you should really clarify that.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:23 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;146230 wrote:
No, it doesn't. Anyway, this is pointless since I'm arguing against contingency. So if you say contingency isn't random then whatever. It doesn't hurt my argument.

To refresh everyone's memory, my claim is "The simplest belief is that the universe is completely contingent. It doesn't have to be the way it is, it just is."
I guess this is the confusing part on the one had you believe the universe is contingent and on the other hand you don't think that we can establish why something is physically impossible.....(or in other words none of us can establish why something is impossible contingent upon the laws of nature)

Meanwhile we've been posting again and again about why this or that is impossible contingent upon(or based upon) the laws of nature being what they are.

I don't think any of us are arguing about the laws themselves which is what it appeared(at least to me) that you were doing. In terms of it seemed to me that you are arguing that there are NO laws at all and it's all impossible odd defying luck that anything is "seemingly" contingent upon anything else.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:25 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;146215 wrote:
The description is incomplete. The real comparison is this:

1. The plate shattered when it was dropped on a hard surface.
2. The plate shattered because it was dropped on a hard surface.

The difference between (1) and (2) is purely psychological.




They aren't obvious but they are true. The pathetic thing is that you can't handle the argument so instead you turn your attention to personal attacks. Oh I must be in the grip of theory! It can't possibly be because I have a sound argument!


But to say that the plate shattered when it was dropped on a hard surface says nothing about why it shattered. So how can they be the same.

Suppose I say that the plate shattered when it was dropped on a bed of feathers. Is that the same as saying that the plate shattered because it was dropped on a bed of feathers? Of course not. The first is true, but the second is false. The plate did shatter when it was dropped on a bed of feathers, but that is not why the plate shattered. It shattered because it was shot at just when it hit the bed of feathers.

So how can the description of what happened to the plate be the same as the explanation of why what happened to the plate happened to the plate? Answer, it isn't, and it cannot.

By the way, do you agree that it follow from the premise that a four-sided triangle is a logical impossibility that such a triangle cannot be constructed?

You really have to come up with more plausible replies.
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:26 am
@Amperage,
Amperage;146232 wrote:
I guess this is the confusing part on the one had you believe the universe is contingent and on the other hand you don't think that we can establish why something is physically impossible.....(or in other words none of us can establish why something is impossible contingent upon the laws of nature)
Meanwhile we've been posting again and again about why this or that is impossible contingent upon(or based upon) the laws of nature being what they are



Well I am a hard determinist so I the only thing that is contigent is the future in regards to the past. What i think anyway
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:26 am
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand;146229 wrote:
That is the logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance. First of all you can test the laws existance because that is the purpose of all experiments.


No, you can't. I've refuted this claim several times. You cannot test for what must happen.

OntheWindowStand;146229 wrote:
Even you by saying it is random but appears to be done by law is at least conceding the appearance of the law, which is why I still believe that Occam's law is in my favor.


The universe is random and appears to have regularities not laws.

OntheWindowStand;146229 wrote:
As far as not knowing where something came from, this do anything as far as disproving something or making it irrational to believe it.


That's a strawman argument. I never said that. The fact that you can't know where the laws came from means that you've only created another mystery. You need to quote exactly what I'm saying line by line if you can't respond to what I wrote accurately.

---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 12:30 PM ----------

kennethamy;146233 wrote:
But to say that the plate shattered when it was dropped on a hard surface says nothing about why it shattered. So how can they be the same.


You're begging the question of whether or not there is a why. There is no why.

kennethamy;146233 wrote:
By the way, do you agree that it follow from the premise that a four-sided triangle is a logical impossibility that such a triangle cannot be constructed?


Only if you agree that, it follows from the premise that a Prep Gwarlek is a meaningless phrase that such a Prep Gwarlek cannot be constructed.
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:33 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;146236 wrote:
No, you can't. I've refuted this claim several times. You cannot test for what must happen.



The universe is random and appears to have regularities not laws.



That's a strawman argument. I never said that. The fact that you can't know where the laws came from means that you've only created another mystery. You need to quote exactly what I'm saying line by line if you can't respond to what I wrote accurately.


I know never claimed to be testing for what must happen. But experiments do attest not because they are testing that but because an experiment repeated with the exact same variables in the same enviroment will always act the same way.

on the second point I think thats a non sequitar. Something that is always random will have no regularities except for a pattern of no pattern.

On the third point you said that not knowing where something came from makes it more mysterious. I think i addressed that in a appropriate way. What do you think i misunderstood exactly about your post.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:40 am
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand;146239 wrote:
I know never claimed to be testing for what must happen. But experiments do attest not because they are testing that but because an experiment repeated with the exact same variables in the same enviroment will always act the same way.


Unless you're testing for what must happen, no experiment or observation can support your position. It equally supports my position.

OntheWindowStand;146239 wrote:
on the second point I think thats a non sequitar. Something that is always random will have no regularities except for a pattern of no pattern.


That's not true. If you write down every possible string of 100 coin flips on a separate slip of paper:

THHTHTHTHHT...
THTHTHHTHTH...

Then one of those pieces of paper will also contain a string of 100 heads in a row. Also a string of 100 tails. Also a string of alternating heads and tails.

HHHHHHHHHHH...
TTTTTTTTTTT...
HTHTHTHTHTH...

There are many patterns that could be selected at random.

OntheWindowStand;146239 wrote:
On the third point you said that not knowing where something came from makes it more mysterious. I think i addressed that in a appropriate way. What do you think i misunderstood exactly about your post.


For you to appeal to Occam's Razor you would need to solve a mystery by appealing to the addition of something else. In this case, you solve a mystery by creating a new mystery. Even worse, this new mystery is unsolvable because it's untestable. That's an even worse position than before, as bad as it may seem.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:41 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;146236 wrote:
No, you can't. I've refuted this claim several times. You cannot test for what must happen.



The universe is random and appears to have regularities not laws.



That's a strawman argument. I never said that. The fact that you can't know where the laws came from means that you've only created another mystery. You need to quote exactly what I'm saying line by line if you can't respond to what I wrote accurately.

---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 12:30 PM ----------



You're begging the question of whether or not there is a why. There is no why.



Only if you agree that, it follows from the premise that a Prep Gwarlek is a meaningless phrase that such a Prep Gwarlek cannot be constructed.



There are no explanations? Is that what you want to say? Does that mean that we don't know why summer follow spring, and why winter follows the fall? What are you talking about?

You think that it is meaningless to say that four-sided triangles are logically impossible. But earlier, you said that it was true. What are you talking about?

You really should try to remember what you said earlier.
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:47 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;146241 wrote:
Unless you're testing for what must happen, no experiment or observation can support your position. It equally supports my position.



That's not true. If you write down every possible string of 100 coin flips on a separate slip of paper:

THHTHTHTHHT...
THTHTHHTHTH...

Then one of those pieces of paper will also contain a string of 100 heads in a row. Also a string of 100 tails. Also a string of alternating heads and tails.

HHHHHHHHHHH...
TTTTTTTTTTT...
HTHTHTHTHTH...

There are many patterns that could be selected at random.



For you to appeal to Occam's Razor you would need to solve a mystery by appealing to the addition of something else. In this case, you solve a mystery by creating a new mystery. Even worse, this new mystery is unsolvable because it's untestable. That's an even worse position than before, as bad as it may seem.


On the first point are you saying that when something has distinct exact variables an enviroment that the experiment will sometimes be something else? If no then it must be that way if it will NEVER happen another way.

Your second completely goes around what I was saying. The APPEARance of a pattern will appear when the random scenario is between only a set number of options. COMPLETE randomness has no such set and so far you have been arguing from randomness and you have not defined any other parameters thus far. The explaination as to why its an appearance of a pattern is because a pattern imitates something this is inherent in the definition, ironically this is the opposite of randomness. No matter the appearance randomness can have no patterns.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:53 am
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand;146244 wrote:
On the first point are you saying that when something has distinct exact variables an enviroment that the experiment will sometimes be something else? If no then it must be that way if it will NEVER happen another way.


I don't think I'm saying that mainly because I don't know what that means.

I've explained it several times:

Experiments tell us if something happens or not. You claim things have to happen. I claim they just happen. In either case they happen and that's all experiments can ever tell us.

OntheWindowStand;146244 wrote:
Your second completely goes around what I was saying. The APPEARance of a pattern will appear when the random scenario is between only a set number of options. COMPLETE randomness has no such set and so far you have been arguing from randomness and you have not defined any other parameters thus far. The explaination as to why its an appearance of a pattern is because a pattern imitates something this is inherent in the definition, ironically this is the opposite of randomness. No matter the appearance randomness can have no patterns.


No, that's false. I can expand the example to include not just a set number but an infinite number of options. If we are selecting from an infinite string of infinite possible options then we can still select one at random that is an infinite string of THTHTHTHT... etc. Nothing changes.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 12:03 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;146248 wrote:


Experiments tell us if something happens or not. You claim things have to happen. I claim they just happen. In either case they happen and that's all experiments can ever tell us.



.


Then what is the point of having controlled experiments, if they cannot show us that since a placebo does not have the same effect as the pill being tested, that it has to be the pill that caused that effect (after the other variables have been controlled for)? The point of controlled experiments is to determine whether what is being tested has the effects it is thought it might have. Do you understand what controlled experiments are for, and how they work?
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 12:08 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;146253 wrote:
Then what is the point of having controlled experiments, if they cannot show us that since a placebo does not have the same effect as the pill being tested, that it has to be the pill that caused that effect (after the other variables have been controlled for)?


Experiments tell us what happens or does not happen, they can't test for what must happen or can't happen.

kennethamy;146253 wrote:
Do you understand what controlled experiments are for, and how they work?


Yes, do you?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 01:03 pm
@Night Ripper,
I have been thinking on this lately, and the answer I got for determinism or indeterminism as turn odder and odder...it may be that both are "true" in a loose sense ! In this "envisionement" still prevails Hard-determinism, as it has the last word, but at least accounts for how indeterminism could be explained away as a phenomena, and accepted for practical purposes...all of this without questioning the Imutability and Eternity of BEING itself...

Lets take Super-string Theory as a base platform but change some things only for the purpose of sustaining the hypothesis : (no harm meant as it is a brilliant and elegant Theory)

1 - Consider that Multiverse is in fact standing still in a 11 dimension film elongated in an Axis of discrete Space/Time were the entire set of possible Universes is perfectly determined or defined to a maximum number, thus covering all possible choices of what there is...(this is the"material" basis of Logic for the purpose) (this could also be considered a mix between Information Theory and Superstring, I guess )

2 - Now consider that the entire set of Universes implies a link between its parts but with a partial barrier (not an ultimate barrier)

3 - Consider that Human beings and all the other conscious possible beings, are somehow aware of they "other selves options" in parallel Universes, (a Meta-Human Conscience) and this, through the complete set of all possible choices they do in each of them, being each world, on a macro level, perfectly determined...and considering on a micro level that the collapse of the wave function is caused from other worlds "interference" in the dialectical process of mutual "observation" from all the set of worlds on each other through the axis of the, in fact "frozen", 11 dimension "Meta-Space/Time...( bear in mind that all dimensions must be linked obviously so this is actually conceivable...)

4 - apply the same idea to objects probabilistic statistical behaviour...

...Are you getting to what I am aiming ?

This is far from finished as this is a radical an very recent idea that I have...but it certainly sounds great, and appeals to me !

(by worlds "observing" each other, I mean Information, on each other actual internal state in all internal possible locations)

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 02:10 PM ----------

This kind of impossible reconciliation, between Determinism and Indeterminism, reminds me of Superstring fight with Supergravity...

---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 02:35 PM ----------

...We can in a final step bring all this to a perfect one dimension axis of binary programming data...or is it, a step to far ?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 01:43 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;146257 wrote:
Experiments tell us what happens or does not happen, they can't test for what must happen or can't happen.



Yes, do you?


You mean that if it is false that the placebo did not have a particular effect, but the pill being tested does, that it isn't true that the effect must have been caused by the pill? Why not? I should explain, of course, that when I say that the pill must have caused the effect, I do not mean it was logically necessary, of course. I mean it was physically necessary. Experiments tell us what what is likely physically necessary, but not, of course what is logically necessary.

So, I think our part of our disagreement is verbal. I agree with you that experiments cannot tell us what is logically necessary. But you appear to think that logical necessity is the only kind of necessity. Why?

By the way, since you say you know what a controlled experiment is, could you tell me what is going on when the pill being tested has a statistically significant positive effect? For example that is what happened in the case of aspirin and the reduction of heart attacks. Aspirin reduced the incidence of heart attacks as compared with a placebo. It was later that it was hypothesized that aspirin has a special effect on the platelets of the blood, and this hypothesis was tested and found to be correct. Don't you believe that the hypothesis explained why aspirin reduced the incidence of heart attacks? If not, then what was the point of the hypothesis?
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 01:50 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;146297 wrote:
You mean that if it is false that the placebo did not have a particular effect, but the pill being tested does, that it isn't true that the effect must have been caused by the pill? Why not? I should explain, of course, that when I say that the pill must have caused the effect, I do not mean it was logically necessary, of course. I mean it was physically necessary. Experiments tell us what what is likely physically necessary, but not, of course what is logically necessary.

So, I think our part of our disagreement is verbal. I agree with you that experiments cannot tell us what is logically necessary. But you appear to think that logical necessity is the only kind of necessity. Why?


No, again you refuse to recognize the real issue. The difference between our positions is the difference between what must happen and what does happen. Experiments can only tell us what does happen. Experiments say nothing at all about what must happen. Experiments cannot settle the issue for us. We have to appeal to something else. I'm appealing to empiricism and simplicity. You're appealing to intuition.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 01:59 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;146298 wrote:
No, again you refuse to recognize the real issue. The difference between our positions is the difference between what must happen and what does happen. Experiments can only tell us what does happen. Experiments say nothing at all about what must happen. Experiments cannot settle the issue for us. We have to appeal to something else. I'm appealing to empiricism and simplicity. You're appealing to intuition.
experiments can tell us what MUST happen(in some cases) if we presuppose there ARE laws of nature which are set

can you agree to that?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 01:59 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;146298 wrote:
No, again you refuse to recognize the real issue. The difference between our positions is the difference between what must happen and what does happen. Experiments can only tell us what does happen. Experiments say nothing at all about what must happen. Experiments cannot settle the issue for us. We have to appeal to something else. I'm appealing to empiricism and simplicity. You're appealing to intuition.


But what must happen need not be what logically must happen. Experiments cannot show what logically must happen. But I am not talking about what logically must happen. I am talking about what physically must happen. And experiments can tell us what physically must happen. There is a difference. For some reason you believe that the only kind of "must" is a logical "must".
But it isn't. And that is the point you miss. What "must happen" is ambiguous. It may mean: 1. What logically must happen, and it may mean, 2. What physically must happen. You are right about 1. Wrong about 2.

---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 04:02 PM ----------

Amperage;146303 wrote:
experiments can tell us what MUST happen(in some cases) if we presuppose there ARE laws of nature which are set

can you agree to that?


I think it goes just the other way. Experiments tell us what must happen, and what explains that is that there are laws of nature. Unless there were laws of nature, experiments would tell us nothing.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/03/2024 at 01:01:28