Rubbish. The denier must surely be aware that disinterested readers can see that they are misrepresenting reality, not just about the matter of primary denial but in their willingness to swear that black is white in support of that denial. You are now the third denier in the last few days to make statements which can be confirmed as false, by anyone reading these threads. This puts the credibility of your position at less than zero.

Quote:

Rubbish. The denier must surely be aware that disinterested readers can see that they are misrepresenting reality, not just about the matter of primary denial but in their willingness to swear that black is white in support of that denial. You are now the third denier in the last few days to make statements which can be confirmed as false, by anyone reading these threads. This puts the credibility of your position at less than zero.

It is easy to call someones argument rubbish and say they are misrepresenting reality without any argument. You have not convinced me or anyone else that has seen that a pattern of increasing accuracy of prediction occurs with more knowledge of that system that this pattern could not be followed to the conclusion of having complete knowledge of a system gives us the ability to predict it. This is of course outside our ability if that requires infinite knowledge. But that conclusion is staring you straight in the face and all you can say is thats rubbish.

What if we had two human clones and from conception put them in as close of identical environments as possible. I would suspect that there would be a close correlation in the actions taken by the two subjects. If as the identicalness of the clones perception of their environments increases the actions of the clones become more and more similar would you then agree that human beings are determined? Or would you talk about continuous ontology and try to cast impossible conditions on top of the clear evidence.

tomr wrote:

Quote:

Rubbish. The denier must surely be aware that disinterested readers can see that they are misrepresenting reality, not just about the matter of primary denial but in their willingness to swear that black is white in support of that denial. You are now the third denier in the last few days to make statements which can be confirmed as false, by anyone reading these threads. This puts the credibility of your position at less than zero.

It is easy to call someones argument rubbish and say they are misrepresenting reality without any argument. You have not convinced me or anyone else that has seen that a pattern of increasing accuracy of prediction occurs with more knowledge of that system that this pattern could not be followed to the conclusion of having complete knowledge of a system gives us the ability to predict it. This is of course outside our ability if that requires infinite knowledge. But that conclusion is staring you straight in the face and all you can say is thats rubbish.

What if we had two human clones and from conception put them in as close of identical environments as possible. I would suspect that there would be a close correlation in the actions taken by the two subjects. If as the identicalness of the clones perception of their environments increases the actions of the clones become more and more similar would you then agree that human beings are determined? Or would you talk about continuous ontology and try to cast impossible conditions on top of the clear evidence.

Being able to predict a system doesn't prove that it's deterministic. See the previous thought experiment involving coin flips. In the completely random universe you are still able to predict the string of coin flips forever.

Night Ripper wrote:

tomr wrote:

Quote:

Rubbish. The denier must surely be aware that disinterested readers can see that they are misrepresenting reality, not just about the matter of primary denial but in their willingness to swear that black is white in support of that denial. You are now the third denier in the last few days to make statements which can be confirmed as false, by anyone reading these threads. This puts the credibility of your position at less than zero.

It is easy to call someones argument rubbish and say they are misrepresenting reality without any argument. You have not convinced me or anyone else that has seen that a pattern of increasing accuracy of prediction occurs with more knowledge of that system that this pattern could not be followed to the conclusion of having complete knowledge of a system gives us the ability to predict it. This is of course outside our ability if that requires infinite knowledge. But that conclusion is staring you straight in the face and all you can say is thats rubbish.

What if we had two human clones and from conception put them in as close of identical environments as possible. I would suspect that there would be a close correlation in the actions taken by the two subjects. If as the identicalness of the clones perception of their environments increases the actions of the clones become more and more similar would you then agree that human beings are determined? Or would you talk about continuous ontology and try to cast impossible conditions on top of the clear evidence.

Being able to predict a system doesn't prove that it's deterministic. See the previous thought experiment involving coin flips. In the completely random universe you are still able to predict the string of coin flips forever.

Predictability is consistent with indeterminism, but it does not follow that predictability is not good evidence for determinism.

kennethamy wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

tomr wrote:

Quote:

Rubbish. The denier must surely be aware that disinterested readers can see that they are misrepresenting reality, not just about the matter of primary denial but in their willingness to swear that black is white in support of that denial. You are now the third denier in the last few days to make statements which can be confirmed as false, by anyone reading these threads. This puts the credibility of your position at less than zero.

It is easy to call someones argument rubbish and say they are misrepresenting reality without any argument. You have not convinced me or anyone else that has seen that a pattern of increasing accuracy of prediction occurs with more knowledge of that system that this pattern could not be followed to the conclusion of having complete knowledge of a system gives us the ability to predict it. This is of course outside our ability if that requires infinite knowledge. But that conclusion is staring you straight in the face and all you can say is thats rubbish.

What if we had two human clones and from conception put them in as close of identical environments as possible. I would suspect that there would be a close correlation in the actions taken by the two subjects. If as the identicalness of the clones perception of their environments increases the actions of the clones become more and more similar would you then agree that human beings are determined? Or would you talk about continuous ontology and try to cast impossible conditions on top of the clear evidence.

Being able to predict a system doesn't prove that it's deterministic. See the previous thought experiment involving coin flips. In the completely random universe you are still able to predict the string of coin flips forever.

Predictability is consistent with indeterminism, but it does not follow that predictability is not good evidence for determinism.

Again, looking at the previous example, in either universe, deterministic or random, the same pattern holds and is predictable. You could very well be sitting in the random universe and yet claim that you have good evidence to think otherwise. So, your good evidence is rather unreliable and therefore not very "good".

Night Ripper wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Night Ripper wrote:

tomr wrote:

Quote:

Rubbish. The denier must surely be aware that disinterested readers can see that they are misrepresenting reality, not just about the matter of primary denial but in their willingness to swear that black is white in support of that denial. You are now the third denier in the last few days to make statements which can be confirmed as false, by anyone reading these threads. This puts the credibility of your position at less than zero.

It is easy to call someones argument rubbish and say they are misrepresenting reality without any argument. You have not convinced me or anyone else that has seen that a pattern of increasing accuracy of prediction occurs with more knowledge of that system that this pattern could not be followed to the conclusion of having complete knowledge of a system gives us the ability to predict it. This is of course outside our ability if that requires infinite knowledge. But that conclusion is staring you straight in the face and all you can say is thats rubbish.

What if we had two human clones and from conception put them in as close of identical environments as possible. I would suspect that there would be a close correlation in the actions taken by the two subjects. If as the identicalness of the clones perception of their environments increases the actions of the clones become more and more similar would you then agree that human beings are determined? Or would you talk about continuous ontology and try to cast impossible conditions on top of the clear evidence.

Being able to predict a system doesn't prove that it's deterministic. See the previous thought experiment involving coin flips. In the completely random universe you are still able to predict the string of coin flips forever.

Predictability is consistent with indeterminism, but it does not follow that predictability is not good evidence for determinism.

Again, looking at the previous example, in either universe, deterministic or random, the same pattern holds and is predictable. You could very well be sitting in the random universe and yet claim that you have good evidence to think otherwise. So, your good evidence is rather unreliable and therefore not very "good".

Again, you are simply repeating that predictability is consistent with randomness (or at least what you call "randomness"). But that does not meet my point that even if it is consistent with "randomness" it is excellent evidence against it. Consider this analogy: my holding a smoking gun in my hand, with a dead body at my feet, is consistent with my innocence. It is not logically impossible that I should be innocent even given the evidence. But does that mean that the smoking gun is not excellent evidence that I am guilty of the murder? That E is consistent with ~P does not imply that E isn't evidence for P. (Just as although high correlation is consistent with no causation doesn't mean that high correlation is not evidence for causation).

Predictability is consistent with indeterminism, but it does not follow that predictability is not good evidence for determinism.

It's been explained, many times and at tedious length, why the degree of predictability observed is not any kind of evidence for determinism. In any case, you're probably off in your own world, and not actually talking about determinism.

Quote:

It's been explained, many times and at tedious length, why the degree of predictability observed is not any kind of evidence for determinism. In any case, you're probably off in your own world, and not actually talking about determinism.

Then according to you there is no evidence for anything in the world.

tomr wrote:

Quote:

It's been explained, many times and at tedious length, why the degree of predictability observed is not any kind of evidence for determinism. In any case, you're probably off in your own world, and not actually talking about determinism.

Then according to you there is no evidence for anything in the world.

If you want this kind of comment to be taken seriously, you'll need to explain the inference by which you arrived at it.

The question is, however how you would explain a high degree of predictability unless causation was the most likely explanation

kennethamy wrote:

The question is, however how you would explain a high degree of predictability unless causation was the most likely explanation

The question is nothing of the sort, as we're not talking about evidence for causation, we're talking about evidence for determinism.

I thought determinism was the view that all events are causally determined.

ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

The question is, however how you would explain a high degree of predictability unless causation was the most likely explanation

The question is nothing of the sort, as we're not talking about evidence for causation, we're talking about evidence for determinism.

Yes, I know you have this weird stuff about how causation has nothing to do with determinism that no one understands. I forgot.