Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150597 wrote:

Superman doesn't exist. How could Superman decide anything?

Oh come on. You know he meant if Superman existed.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;150598 wrote:

Oh come on. You knew he meant if he existed.

Exactly. It's the same kind of silliness that he pulled in post #755 by asking me "How could physical necessity not necessitate anything?"

Physical necessity would necessitate something if it existed but it doesn't.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150601 wrote:

Exactly. It's the same kind of silliness that he pulled in post #755 by asking me "How could physical necessity not necessitate anything?"

Physical necessity would necessitate something if it existed but it doesn't.

Ok, so you don't think that laws of nature exist?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;150632 wrote:

Ok, so you don't think that laws of nature exist?

Laws of nature exist but they don't necessitate future events.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150597 wrote:

Superman doesn't exist. How could Superman decide anything?

You got me..............again!

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 01:19 AM ----------

Night Ripper;150601 wrote:

Exactly. It's the same kind of silliness that he pulled in post #755 by asking me "How could physical necessity not necessitate anything?"

Physical necessity would necessitate something if it existed but it doesn't.

But I have defined physical necessity.

Event E is physically necessary iff its occurrence is deducible from a natural law and initial conditions.

Are you denying that this makes no sense, or that there can be no such event? Just what are you denying when you say that there is no physical necessity?

@kennethamy,

Everyday, at any moment, in each nano second that goes on, the opposite is proven, and physical necessity occurs. Things come into being as they are needed to do so...THEY are in fact so needed, that they HAPPEN ! (They happened already...from always !)

The problem with this comes in the way we look at necessity.

1 - Is Necessity trans-temporal ? (Truly Universal)
2 - Could it be that the 2 Law of thermodynamics is wrong on entropy ?
3 - Does Existence "embraces" the entire set of Space Time frames of an object, or only one of its points ? Or both ?
4 - If both, can indeed the part/unit contain the Whole ? How ? Is that what we call potential ? If no, should it be ? A sense of Dialectics makes sense ?
5 - Are things/facts/objects linked together, reflecting law?s on their behaviour, or apart ?
6 - If they are apart, how are they able to communicate without a common nature ? (exchange information)
7 - Should n?t they be "alien" to each other ? Thus, transcendent ?
8 - Is there a set of all sets, or nothing is a set in the classical sense ?
9 - 1+1=2 ? Is there absolute quantity ? or relative quantity ? "local" "contextualized" quantity ?
10 - Quantity, more of the same, implies Quality to differentiate what is not the same, what could be besides ONE ? Zero ?
11 - Is Zero an empty set ? Can there be an empty Universal set ? if not, what remains as existent, with that property, does n?t necessarily forms a Universal set, as what exists ? if no other, having the property of at least being ?
12 - Could it be that Zero may only be a "function" sub-set but never a set alone? A "shadow" of what is partially absent in a given set of space/time frames, but never totally absent ?

I think we need a reset on our system of beliefs...and lots of navel gazing to achieve something on this... Smile

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 01:35 AM ----------

13 - Can Infinity be something else but a loop ? A "false" Infinity ?

Whatever is wrong, is wrong with the concept of number itself !

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;150725 wrote:

Just what are you denying when you say that there is no physical necessity?

I'm denying that future events are necessitated by the laws of nature and initial conditions. You're not very quick to pick up on that are you? I've said it a number of times by now.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150834 wrote:

I'm denying that future events are necessitated by the laws of nature and initial conditions. You're not very quick to pick up on that are you? I've said it a number of times by now.

do you deny this for ALL things or just SOME things? Do you deny that I could set up a domino array and by tipping the first one that the last one will necessarily fall in the future if all other outside influences are controlled?

Secondly how does physical necessity not exist? Am I not physically necessitated to consume sustenance to live?

@Amperage,

Amperage;150839 wrote:

do you deny this for ALL things or just SOME things?

All things.

Amperage;150839 wrote:

Do you deny that I could set up a domino array and by tipping the first one that the last one will necessarily fall in the future if all other outside influences are controlled?

I believe that it will happen but not necessarily. It will happen contingently.

Amperage;150839 wrote:

Secondly how does physical necessity not exist? Am I not physically necessitated to consume sustenance to live?

No, physical necessity is not testable. You can't establish it by experiment or observation. There's no way to tell the difference between something that happens necessarily or contingently because all you can see is that it happens.

It could be physically contingent that you need to consume sustenance to live?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150834 wrote:

I'm denying that future events are necessitated by the laws of nature and initial conditions. You're not very quick to pick up on that are you? I've said it a number of times by now.

But there is physical necessity. I have just defined the notion. And there are clearly cases of physical necessity. Isn't it clear that necessarily, if all metals expand when heated, and copper is a metal, then copper expands when heated. What is disputable about that?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;150843 wrote:

Isn't it clear that necessarily, if all metals expand when heated, and copper is a metal, then copper expands when heated.

That's logical necessity not physical necessity.

If X is true then necessarily, X isn't false.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150842 wrote:

I believe that it will happen but not necessarily. It will happen contingently.

maybe I can make some ground by asking you, 'contingent upon what'? and perhaps expanding from there

@Amperage,

Amperage;150848 wrote:

maybe I can make some ground by asking contingent upon what? and perhaps expanding from there

Contingent upon nothing. It's just contingent. The universe doesn't have to behave the way that it does, it just does.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150846 wrote:

That's logical necessity not physical necessity.

If X is true then necessarily, X isn't false.

No, that is physical necessity. And what you say is false. What is true is that necessarily, if x is true, then x is not false. I am afraid that you are committing the modal fallacy.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150851 wrote:

Contingent upon nothing.

pardon my lack of understanding but to my knowledge to be contingent upon nothing is to be necessary, is it not?

the problem may lie with either your or my understanding of the word contingent. most likely mine

I take contingent to mean dependent upon something

@Amperage,

Amperage;150853 wrote:

pardon my lack of understanding but to my knowledge to be contingent upon nothing is to be necessary, is it not?

the problem may lie with either your or my understanding of the word contingent.

I take contingent to mean dependent upon something

Contingent means "possible but not certain to occur".

kennethamy;150852 wrote:

No, that is physical necessity.

No, that is logical necessity. Try again.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150855 wrote:

Contingent means "possible but not certain to occur".

then by your definition is it not certain that I will die without food?

In other words more than possible.....it's certain.

Also, IMO, you are using contingent in a manner that is not "the norm" in this context.

@Amperage,

Amperage;150858 wrote:

then by your definition is it not certain that I will die without food?

In other words more than possible.....it's certain.

It's not certain, no. There's also no way you could test that it was certain and couldn't have not happened.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;150860 wrote:

It's not certain, no.

well I challenge you to live by your assertions.

Also realize the depth of this position. we must ask ourselves just how big of a skeptic do I want to be? If this is the road I wish to travel then I must be willing to deny EVERYTHING beyond my own existence. Just how many times do I have to see the dominoes fall before I start to bank on it? IMO this view leads us further away from learning and expansion of knowledge than towards it.

@Amperage,

Amperage;150858 wrote:

In other words more than possible.....it's certain.

.

If you mean by "possible" that we do not know (and that is what you mean) that the person will not die without food, that is, of course, false.

If you mean by "possible" that it is logically impossible that the person can live without food, that is false. It is logically possible for a person to live without food, since that a person lives without food does not imply a contradiction

But if you mean by "possible" that it is not physically possible for a person to live without food, you are, of course, correct.

So, it depends.

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know