Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;149809 wrote:

No, I dont. Unless by "rational" you mean amenable to scientific modeling. However, this is a metaphysical matter, so the convenience of scientists is unimportant, what I'm concerned with, is the truth.

---------- Post added 04-09-2010 at 12:36 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;149821 wrote:

The question was:

Coercion to be true as not the need to be known...Is this the case ?

You win my gobbledegook award for the morning.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu, to say something is indeterminate is to say it can be more than one thing correct?

But where does this make sense? For example take the cat in the box.....how can it realistically be alive or dead at a given moment? It cannot. At any given moment it is either alive or it's dead. Agreed?

btw I'm all for free will I just see most of the world as deterministic

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;149818 wrote:

If I flip a coin to decide on something, it is not the coin which decides for me. It is me who decides to do X action based on the side of the coin.

@Night Ripper,

ughaibu wrote:

If you mean the standard dictionary definitions, I didn't miss them, but they were too vague, and without a supporting theory they dont suggest anything about causal completeness.

Well, you asked what I meant by "cause", and I told you what I meant by "cause". So, either you're not asking the right questions, or I'm just not understanding what you're seeking in an explanation.

---------- Post added 04-08-2010 at 11:42 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque wrote:

But that there are regularities which I must be in accordance with, does not mean that I am not making the choice I am.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149822 wrote:

You win my gobbledegook award for the morning.

Does Coercion to be true as the need to be known ??? How so ? and why not with everything else ? This is a matter of formal logic in case you have forgotten...

@Amperage,

Amperage;149825 wrote:

ughaibu, to say something is indeterminate is to say it can be more than one thing correct?

But where does this make sense? For example take the cat in the box.....how can it realistically be alive or dead at a given moment? It cannot. At any given moment it is either alive or it's dead.

If determinism is the case, then when the cat enters the box, it is either true or false to say "the cat will die in the box". If determinism is not true, then the above sentence is neither true nor false. There is no need for the cat to be simultaneously dead and alive.

@Fil Albuquerque,

ughaibu Clarify your notion on coercion !

---------- Post added 04-08-2010 at 10:48 PM ----------

ughaibu;149830 wrote:

If determinism is the case, then when the cat enters the box, it is either true or false to say "the cat will die in the box". If determinism is not true, then the above sentence is neither true nor false. There is no need for the cat to be simultaneously dead and alive.

Amperage here you have to consider a superposition of states explained in many worlds theory for instance...actually in the past late years is becoming very popular in Science.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;149827 wrote:

Well, you asked what I meant by "cause", and I told you what I meant by "cause". So, either you're not asking the right questions, or I'm just not understanding what you're seeking in an explanation.

For example; Kennethamy has defined cause in terms of scientific explanations, but this view is incompatible with causal completeness. Generally, there is no satisfactory notion of cause in either philosophy or science, so, while it's easy to say "everything has a cause", it doesn't seem to mean much.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;149827 wrote:

But that there are regularities which I must be in accordance with, does not mean that I am not making the choice I am.

The question is why do you think you are making the choice alone ? are you the first cause of this choice ? No, there is indeed a chain. So ? Why were you not coerced even if on an unconscious level ? Does Coercion has the special characteristic of needing to be known to be true ??? Or on the other hand do you not believe on indirect causes ??? and WHY ???

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;149830 wrote:

If determinism is the case, then when the cat enters the box, it is either true or false to say "the cat will die in the box". If determinism is not true, then the above sentence is neither true nor false. There is no need for the cat to be simultaneously dead and alive.

but isn't that the case? How is it not true or false that the cat will die??? When the cat entered the box surely he would either die or he wouldn't. This seems like you made an argument FOR determinism

I don't remember the exact setup but whatever triggered it(i think radioactive decay or something) could be determined at least if Bohmian mechanics is true.

This would be like saying I'm going to flip a coin and either he dies or he doesn't and calling that random. It is random in one sense, but surely someone could figure out how much force you put on the flip, the weight of the coin, the angle of trajectory, the surface it would land on etc. etc. etc. and determine based on that if he was going to die or not before the coin ever reached the ground.

"There is no need for the cat to be simultaneously dead and alive."
there are interpretations of QM that would say just that.....at least until observed

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;149829 wrote:

Does Coercion to be true as the need to be known ???

assuming the absense of some technology , no

Quote:

How so ?

because the free-will , will question the coercion

Quote:

and why not with everything else ?

above

Quote:

This is a matter of formal logic in case you have forgotten...

so it seems this formal logic fails

@Amperage,

---------- Post added 04-08-2010 at 11:08 PM ----------

north;149836 wrote:

assuming the absense of some technology , no

because the free-will , will question the coercion

above

so it seems this formal logic fails

@Amperage,

Amperage;149835 wrote:

but isn't that the case? How is it not true or false that the cat will die???

The cat will either live or it will die, in a non-determined world, but there is no fact about which will be the case before it enters the box. Thus the sentence "the cat will die in the box" can not be true or false, at that time. Whereas, in a determined world the truth or falsity of any statement about the future accords with a fact now, so the above statement will be either true or false, before the cat enters the box.

@ughaibu,

"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7SDrj4Tjvk

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;149841 wrote:

"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7SDrj4Tjvk

which is non-sense

if you put a posion in the box , the cat will die

the only reason one needs to look in the box is the lack of understanding or taking the idea of possibility to far

---------- Post added 04-09-2010 at 12:27 AM ----------

which is non-sense

if you put a posion in the box , the cat will die

the only reason one needs to look in the box is the lack of understanding or taking the idea of possibility to far

@north,

Check this also:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.2182v2.pdf

@Fil Albuquerque,

so let me get this straight

we now the cat will die if given posion , in the open

but we question the cat dying from posion , in a closed box ?

well thats rational

@north,

north;149849 wrote:

so let me get this straight

we now the cat will die if given posion , in the open

but we question the cat dying from posion , in a closed box ?

well thats rational

Well that is the alternative to classical determinism so far as I know...and is the one you and others have been defending so far....

Please answer my question on Coercion definition earlier in the thread...cards on the table and open game please !

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:
Originally Posted by north

http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif

so let me get this straight

we now the cat will die if given posion , in the open

but we question the cat dying from posion , in a closed box ?

well thats rational

Fil. Albuquerque;149850 wrote:

Well that is the alternative to classical determinism so far as I know...and is the one you and others have been defending so far....

Quote:
Please answer my question on Coercion definition earlier in the thread...cards on the table and open game please !

coercion is forcable restriant , morally or physically ( as defined by my dictionary )

@north,

Fil. Albuquerque;149850 wrote:

coercion is forcable restriant , morally or physically ( as defined by my dictionary )

When you say morally restriant do you mean that it as to be known ?

---------- Post added 04-09-2010 at 12:29 AM ----------

Other interesting speculations that relate to free will...

YouTube - Do we really exist?

---------- Post added 04-09-2010 at 12:34 AM ----------

What I find amazing is that some people come to the Forum speaking as if this matters are settled by Science, when they are in fact far from it !

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know