I think he thinks we were claiming that, since we stated events contrary to natural laws are physically impossible. Why or how did he come to that conclusion? That I do not know.

Kennethamy is wrong, because he doesn't understand determinism. Are you a determinist?

No one in particular.

I detest using these isms all the time (I've often observed it makes people lazy, and they are less willing to attempt critical thought about the subject matter). But I will say that I identify most closely with compatibilists (that is, those who think determinism and free will are compatible). What I believe is that every event has a cause, that natural laws are true generalizations of the world, and that it is physically impossible for an event to occur which is contrary to a natural law. But I don't believe that because A.) Everything has a cause, and B.) That natural laws exist and are true, that we don't have free will. We of course have free will, no matter if there is a chain of events which are causally recorded.

This is when you explain to me why kennethamy's understanding of determinism is flawed. And, it seems, why my understanding is flawed.



But you were just making sure we didn't think that?

What I believe is that every event has a cause, that natural laws are true generalizations of the world, and that it is physically impossible for an event to occur which is contrary to a natural law.

This is when you explain to me why kennethamy's understanding of determinism is flawed. And, it seems, why my understanding is flawed.

Besides, "determinism" is not the name of anything clear. Different theories go under that same name. So that the question, "are you a determinist" is impossible to answer intelligently.

---------- Post added 04-06-2010 at 09:08 AM ----------

You have often claimed that determinism is true, that claim makes you a realist about determinism, in short, a determinist. It's a rather simple question to answer intelligently.

1) you seem to me to be talking about laws of science, not about laws of nature

2) if by "cause", you mean what Kennethamy has said, on this thread, that he means, then I have already explained why this claim is false. If not, what do you mean by cause?

I'm talking about what is, independent of what we think or know. We can know what the natural laws are, but things would operate the way they operate no matter how much, or how little, we know. Do you agree?

What is false? You think it's false that everything has a cause? Well, how do you suppose things happen, then?

I dont see how "true generalisations" can describe anything independent of generalisers, ie human beings, so, these seem to be laws of science.
I see no reason to suppose that there are laws of nature.Kennethamy style determinism is false, and if cause is defined as he defines it, almost nothing is caused.

I dont see how "true generalisations" can describe anything independent of generalisers, ie human beings,

I don't think I know what this means very well, but why do you believe it is true? Why doesn't "all dogs are mammals" "describe anything independent of generalisers (sic) ie (sic) human beings"?

I tell you what, deal with the various outstanding points, made by me in posts to you, on this thread, and I'll get back to you about this irrelevancy.

Some laws of science are also laws of nature. The laws of science may or may not be true or may be only approximate but the laws of nature are literally true statements about the universe. For example, the following is most likely a law of nature even though it's also a law of science.

1. No mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.

I wonder what makes it a law rather than just a description of what occurs.

And, if it just is a true description, then aren't you curious as to why it is true, since it is a contingent statement, and therefore, not a necessary truth.

In your case, something mysterious called nomological necessity. In my case, nothing, they are the same thing other than they are universal, timeless, contain no proper names, etc.

Read: Laws of Nature[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]



True statements about the world are true because they reflect the facts. Why else would they be true? Because you want them to be?

No, actually my question is, why do they "reflect the facts"? Since the laws of nature are contingent, they might have been false. But since they are not false, isn't there some explanation for that? For example, all dogs are mammals is a law of nature. We believe we know why all dogs are mammals.

all dogs are mammals is a law of nature.

We believe we know why all dogs are mammals.

By definition the laws of nature are true whatever they are. Maybe what you mean to ask is, why do we have this set of laws and not another. Is that it?

Why are the facts the way they are, and not otherwise?

The reason why facts are the way they are is just yet another fact that requires a reason. All explanations must come to an end or result in an infinite regress. Those that end, end in brute facts.

1. Why are things the way they are?
2. They just are.

1. Why are things the way they are?
2. They have to be that way.
3. Why do they have to be that way?
4. They just do.

The dictionary is right. All compulsions cause. But not all causes compel. So I agree that all natural laws cause, but I do not agree that they need compel. All A is B, is not the same thing as, all B is A.