without destroying the basis of Logic and causation...of course such thing to me seams impossible !

As neither logic nor causation have anything to do with determinism, any impossibility is purely imaginary.

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 01:59 PM ----------

...but more, it shatters existence and cohesion, to pieces...

...but more, it shatters existence and cohesion, to pieces...

I especially don't see how one can say causation and determinism have nothing to do with one another when dealing with non-sentient beings/objects.

Determinism is a global thesis, it is not something that applies a bit here and a bit there, it's all or nothing.

I especially don't see how one can say causation and determinism have nothing to do with one another when dealing with non-sentient beings/objects.

I would, however, like to hear your opinion on why compatibilism fails or soft determinism or whatever name you want to call it

effectsfog of war

I enjoy your wise posts also. We may disagree. My understanding is allowed to be in flux. I'm only exploring when it comes to your statements.

Yes, I know the bubble is an effect. The thing posited outside of it is a point of view from which some statement can be made regarding the bubble. I'm just noting: the ground you stand upon when you speak. You can think as multidimensionally as you want, it still comes to this:

When you're on the mountain, you can clearly see the valley, but you can't see the mountain. Down in the valley: there's the mountain! But where's the valley? You know you're in the valley because you're looking at the mountain. The eye can never see itself.... you can never see your present position.

I think that in this is a hint as to the nature of statements about the bubble. If you're making statements as if you don't exist, could that have some bearing on the meaning of the statement?

In short: there are no false contradictions... only oppositions.. components that require each other for existence relative to each other.

Infinity basically means unbounded. Find the boundary of your own being.

Infinite isn't built on finite. We never knew finite until we also knew infinite.

Actually I forgot the original question now. I'll have to look again.:Glasses:

...if you take being, all hell comes loose with indeterminism comprehension...

Even with the definition you gave, random entails not being predictable.

First of all, although that argument is invalid, it does not commit the modal fallacy, since it does not switch a modal operator illegitimately.

Second of all: No one who think that necessarily when someone's head is chopped off, thinks that the necessity is logical necessity.

I'll take being. It definitely beats the alternative.

Is non-being part of the concept of discontinuity? If time is like frames of a movie... what's between the frames? Nothing. Two adjacent frames, with nothing between them... was it Aristotle who said we're really seeing continuity here?

Nevertheless, without some discontinuity... how could there be a finite thing?

An atom that has always existed? Is this conceivable?

But I'll bother you with only one last thought.. to hear your opinion.

Free-will vs Determinism:

In the middle of a sentence, it seems to me that I can say whatever I want. I'm free. And yet... as I continue speaking, I find that I'm bound... to end the sentence... in only several... or maybe only... one way. What binds me to the structure? Is it not my will to say something? Will and Structure are twins. Meaning is their parent. ?

How could I have the will to speak in the absence of a pattern of language necessary for expression?

How could there be language without the will to speak?

One creates the other for the sake of its own existence. There is a position from which it's obvious that events are determined. This has been touched on repeatedly in this thread: post event.

Post event is only one perspective on an event. There's another one: pre event. Again... we've nailed this one about fifty times in this thread: free will belongs to the pre-event perspective.

One perspective doesn't trump the other. Yes the event looks different depending on which one you're standing in. Trying to reconcile that difference is like looking at a table from two opposite sides and trying to understand which is the correct view. They're both correct. But there's only one way to see that: you have to move.

But you haven't moved psychologically until you have entirely let go of your first position. You can do that because you know both perspectives are always there.

Pre-event, there really is more than one possibility. We know that. One possibility becomes the "man of destiny." He's our hero. We make him transition from possibility to actuality by our will. Is this a function of randomness? No. It's volition.

Pre-event and Post-event are the boundaries of the arc.
The arc is Now. Yes?

Where's your argument for this? Because you read it in a dictionary? Do you have any thoughts of your own?



All arguments in this thread of that sort have invoked the modal fallacy.




I didn't claim anyone thought that. Your point is irrelevant.

Pyrrho;146739 wrote:

Even with the definition you gave, random entails not being predictable.

Where's your argument for this? Because you read it in a dictionary? Do you have any thoughts of your own? I provided an argument that shows how a random universe can nevertheless have predictable patterns in it. Do you have any objections to it other than a book said I was wrong?
...

No, there is no modal fallacy since the scope of the modal operator has not been switched, and for there to be a modal fallacy, the scope of the modal operator has to be switched (illegitimately) Where has the scope of the modal operator been switched in the argument you presented? That fact is, it has not, and for the reason that there not even a modal operator in the premise. You do not understand what the modal fallacy is. It involves switching the scope the the modal operator illegitimately. So, you are simply wrong.

The argument is in post 289. It follows from YOUR definition, not the dictionary, which you should already know, since you previously responded to the post, but ignored the inconvenient portions showing your inconsistency. Your abusive responses and your selective approach in ignoring inconvenient parts of what others post shows that you are not serious about discussing the matter.

The argument that is being presented in this thread(as I see it) is an argument(or variation thereof) of David Hume's in which he said causality cannot be perceived and instead we can only perceive correlation. This thread is attempting to take it one step further by suggesting that since we cannot perceive causality and we can only perceive correlation then causality therefore doesn't exist. Which in no way follows

In spite of Hume's statement, he did argue that we CAN rule out false causes(according to what I've read on the matter in recent days).

To me, the fact that we can rule out anything suggests that there exists some premise X which CANNOT cause(or even correlate) conclusion Y.

This would seem to indicate(in my mind anyway) that a purely random, non causal world is not possible since the ability to rule out what cannot cause something eliminates the possibility for random occurrences in which such an act does cause such an effect.