When I say "necessitated" without qualification, it implies any kind of necessity. Just like when I say "car", I don't mean "only 2-door cars".

Causal (or nomological) determinism is the thesis that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. Such determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon. Imagine an entity that knows all facts about the past and the present, and knows all natural laws that govern the universe. Such an entity might be able to use this knowledge to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail.

Future events aren't necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. Therefore causal determinism is not a threat to freewill.

Such an entity might be able to use this knowledge to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail.

But why would that in any way show that there was no free will? Knowledge of what someone will do in the future is no reason to think that the person will not do what he does of his own free will. Predictability is not incompatible with free will, is it?

What about the claim that future events are necessitated by the laws of nature and initial conditions?

But that is not the same claim. In any case, much depends on the notion of necessitation, as I have been saying. If it is that of logical necessitation, then free will is not compatible with that. But not all necessitation is logical necessitation.

It means any kind of necessity, period. When will you get that through your thick skull? When I say "car" I'm not talking about only "2-door cars". Likewise, when I say "necessity" I mean "necessity" not "logical necessity".

Future events aren't necessitated by the laws of nature in any shape, form or fashion. Got it?

Oh. I don't agree with that. Since physical necessity is not incompatible with free will. How can you both mean "necessity" but not mean, "logical necessity". Isn't logical necessity, necessity? Anyway, what other than logical necessity do you mean? I was under the impression that you thought that the only necessity was logical necessity.

biological necessity

I doubt that this can be well defined, if it cant, then there is no such necessity.

That's irrelevant to this discussion. It was just a throw-away example.

Oh. I don't agree with that. Since physical necessity is not incompatible with free will.

How can you both mean "necessity" but not mean, "logical necessity". Isn't logical necessity, necessity?

Future events aren't necessitated by the laws of nature in any shape, form or fashion. Got it?

You're basically saying that you don't believe in fatalism (I am pretty sure the fatalists' argument rests upon everything being logically necessary). I agree with you. Fatalism is a rather weak position.

It seems like you're willfully being dense. I do mean logical necessity. I also mean physical necessity, biological necessity, moral necessity, all forms of necessity.

Future events are not necessitated by the laws of nature. Period. That includes physical necessity as well as logical necessity.

Your thoughts on this have triggered me to think about cause. And that has led me to the notice the nature of questions.

When I ask a question, I've created a blank space. Something needs to fill it. I go on a quest to fill the blank.

If I ask why the man climbed the mountain, and you say: because he climbed the mountain, I'm not happy. I was looking for something beyond the basis of the question. It's actually amazing to me all of the sudden that people can do that: create a blank space.

Why can be taken in two ways: efficient and final cause. If I ask why the heart beats and I mean what triggers it to beat, the answer is: a nerve. If I ask why it beats, and I mean as in Spanish, por que? For what? The answer is: to make blood pressure. This is what Aristotle called the final cause... the purpose. In either case, we see that the blank space created by why is filled by something outside the heart. (Or so it would seem.)

So, as folks have commented, when you ask for the cause of everything... you need to notice something. You just posited something outside of everything. What's the definition of everything? It can't have a cause.

On the other hand, we could notice that if we delete the sympathetic nerve and blood pressure from reality: there is no heart. There couldn't be. That situation warrants a little pause for thought.

We start with a discreet object: the heart. We create a blank space for something we will then draw into a causal relation to the heart. But hello... this isn't just any kind of relationship where they meet and have a chat over coffee. This is a relationship where the parties can't exist without each other. So aha! This sheds light on the real situation with that blank space.

What actually happened with the blank space is that I'm expecting a widening of my field of understanding. (!) I'm not looking to just link another car on my choo choo train. The question is actually an expansion from one car (the heart) to the bigger train (nerve, heart, and blood pressure).

This is why Regularist are onto something. They're drawing our attention to a sort of error. We might think cause must be something outside of the effect. While the blank is still empty, the two are distinctly different. One we know, the other we don't. But once the blank is filled, we don't actually have two separate things. We have one bigger picture. :Glasses:

Future events aren't necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. Therefore causal determinism is not a threat to freewill.

So, I suppose that had I lowered the temperature of water to 0 centigrade, according to you, the water might have boiled instead of freezing, or might have turned into a serpent. It is circular to say that we have good reason to think that it will freeze because it always has? Why would that be circular? Where is the circle? By the way, it is false that it will freeze because it always has. It will freeze because lowering the temperature will affect the molecules so that they slow down. That it has always frozen at 0 C is not what causes the water to freeze. But that is has always frozen at 0 C is what justifies our belief that it will freeze. Quite a different proposition! Don't you agree?

---------- Post added 04-10-2010 at 03:42 PM ----------

Arjuna;144641 wrote:

This is why Regularist are onto something. They're drawing our attention to a sort of error. We might think cause must be something outside of the effect. While the blank is still empty, the two are distinctly different. One we know, the other we don't. But once the blank is filled, we don't actually have two separate things. We have one bigger picture. :Glasses:

If I raise the temperature of water to 212 degrees (in normal conditions) then the water will boil. There is a "bigger picture" all right. The raising of the temperature affects the molecules of the water in a certain way. So the "bigger picture" is a "picture" of what is the relation between those two events, raising the temperature of the water to 212 and the boiling of the water. But why would that mean that we do not have "two separate" events?

Your metaphor of a picture (painting) is fine. But there might be several separate things in one big picture, mightn't there. In fact, there usually are.

How could physical necessity not necessitate anything?

Apparently you don't understand the difference between de dicto and de re.

Superman saves lives. How could Superman not save lives? By not existing.

Superman could not save lives by deciding not to do so.