Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 09:00 pm
@ughaibu,
Alright. I'll try to hunt down the answers you provided earlier and then respond to them. No need to repeat yourself.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 09:02 pm
What kind of satisfactory proof for cause would fit then ?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 09:02 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
no satisfactory notion of cause in philosophy. . . . . fundamental physics
But there is a satisfactory notion of cause used in philosophy. And in fact, it is a very commonly used word in science, too.

Let us start with why you find the notion of "cause", used in various fields, unsatisfactory.
I didn't write "science", I wrote "fundamental physics", and dont expect me to tell you what's unsatisfactory about a notion of cause which you haven't posted!
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 09:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
What kind of satisfactory proof for cause would fit then ?
What the hell are you talking about? The point is that Tomr thinks he can use predictability to support determinism, supporting cause, regardless of what you mean by that, is beside the point.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 09:09 pm
@ughaibu,
I don't why you bothered to point out that you wrote "fundamental physics" and not "science". As far as I know, science encompasses fundamental physics (physics is a science, isn't it?), so I was saying that the term is used in fundamental physics too. And I do not know why you find it to be unsatisfactory.

Why would I have to post a notion of cause? You can look it up for yourself. Here's a link to get your started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 09:21 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
I don't why you bothered to point out that you wrote "fundamental physics" and not "science". As far as I know, science encompasses fundamental physics, so I was saying that the term is used in fundamental physics too, as far as I know. And I do not know why you find it to be unsatisfactory.
Mammals are viviparous, the platypus is a mammal, the platypus is oviparous. That there is a notion of cause used in science doesn't imply that there is a notion of cause in fundamental physics.
Zetherin wrote:
Why would I have to post a notion of cause? You can look it up for yourself. Here's a link to get your started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
Of course I can look it up, or I can guess, or I can fabricate something that you obviously dont mean, the fact is that if you have in mind some specific notion of cause, I need to know, from you, what that is.
If the definition you mean, is the one at the top, it's not cause as is talked about generally in the sciences, as these are to do with changing statistical expectations, and it's philosophically unsatisfactory because it doesn't explicate the notion of "consequence". If this means no more than "follows in a temporal sequence", then it suffers from the triviality mentioned earlier and is incompatible with determinism.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 09:21 pm
@Night Ripper,
Sprrookja
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 09:22 pm
@Night Ripper,
i know LaPlaxe
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 09:38 pm
ughaibu wrote:
That there is a notion of cause used in science doesn't imply that there is a notion of cause in fundamental physics.

There is a notion of cause in fundamental physics. I just linked it. See how there is a "(physics)", next to it? Or, perhaps you will point out that "physics" is not "fundamental physics", and that just because there is a notion of cause in "physics", that doesn't imply there is a notion of cause in "fundamental physics". I said what I said because many sciences, including physics, use the same notion of cause.

Quote:
Of course I can look it up, or I can guess, or I can fabricate something that you obviously dont mean, the fact is that if you have in mind some specific notion of cause, I need to know, from you, what that is.

I think the first option is best. Look up how "cause" is used in fundamental physics.

Quote:
If this means no more than "follows in a temporal sequence", then it suffers from the triviality mentioned earlier and is incompatible with determinism.

I suppose why you think it is incompatible with determinism was mentioned earlier, so I won't ask.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 09:56 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
There is a notion of cause in fundamental physics. I just linked it.
And have you read that section? There is no notion of cause in fundamental physics because the statements of fundamental physics are time symmetric, and the reason that they are unavoidably time symmetric is that they are deterministic mathematical statements. Temporal symmetry is a feature of determinism, temporal asymmetry is a feature of cause, causes precede effects. On top of which, cause is an irreducibly local notion, whereas determinism is an irreducibly global notion. This means that cause and determinism are, at least, independent, and any notion of cause which allows for the construction of trivial causal chains, allows for the construction of non-determined causal chains. But as you've read all this before, I guess I'm writing for the benefit of new readers.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 10:09 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

Zetherin wrote:
There is a notion of cause in fundamental physics. I just linked it.
And have you read that section? There is no notion of cause in fundamental physics because the statements of fundamental physics are time symmetric, and the reason that they are unavoidably time symmetric is that they are deterministic mathematical statements. Temporal symmetry is a feature of determinism, temporal asymmetry is a feature of cause, causes precede effects. On top of which, cause is an irreducibly local notion, whereas determinism is an irreducibly global notion. This means that cause and determinism are, at least, independent, and any notion of cause which allows for the construction of trivial causal chains, allows for the construction of non-determined causal chains. But as you've read all this before, I guess I'm writing for the benefit of new readers.

If there is no notion of cause in fundamental physics, what on earth do you think they were discussing in that article?

See how they start this off?

Quote:
Causality describes the relationship between causes and effects, is fundamental to all natural science, especially physics, and has an analog in logic.

It would strange for them to start the article off that way, if there were no notion of cause in physics, wouldn't you say?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 10:14 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
If there is no notion of cause in fundamental physics, what on earth do you think they were discussing in that article?
I have already answered this. Go to the subsection entitled "physics", if you think that there is a definition of cause as used in fundamental physics, which can be extracted from that section, then extract it. Do I really have to provide quotes from refereed journals, saying exactly what I've already said, before you'll make the effort to get your head round it?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 10:20 pm
@ughaibu,
This is the article I've been reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

And despite what it says in the subsection you point out, it goes on to say that it is still an important concept in physics and many other natural sciences.

There is most certainly a notion of cause in physics. If there wasn't, why would there be an entire article dedicated to "Causality (physics)"?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 10:27 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
There is most certainly a notion of cause in physics. If there wasn't, why would there be an entire article dedicated to "Causality (physics)"?
I'll take it that you cant understand my explanation. So, I guess you'll be stuck with a misunderstanding of determinism, which puts you outside the conversation.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 10:52 pm
I believe I have a Choice ? Sophia C*
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 10:53 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Determinator Hex
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 11:04 pm
@ughaibu,
Fair enough.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 01:12 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

Zetherin wrote:
There is most certainly a notion of cause in physics. If there wasn't, why would there be an entire article dedicated to "Causality (physics)"?
I'll take it that you cant understand my explanation. So, I guess you'll be stuck with a misunderstanding of determinism, which puts you outside the conversation.


That is lovely. You cannot understand my explanation so it is you who are stuck with a misunderstanding of determinism. It couldn't possibly be , of course, that "my explanation" is wrong.

Determinism: "The view that every event of state of affairs is brought about in accordance with universal causal laws that govern the world. "

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (Second Edition) General Editor Robert Audi. page, 228-229.

 
ughaibu
 
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 05:41 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
Fair enough.
Sorry, I was very short of time earlier. There are two points about our recent exchanges; first, that determinism is not the claim that all events have a cause, and second, the question of whether or not causal completeness can be defended.
On the first point, the confusion of causal completeness with determinism seems to be one reason why free will denial persists, and why people who are probably not determinists, claim to be. As such, clearing this matter up is important for understanding one's stance.
On the second point, any defence of causal completeness requires a notion of cause which is consistent and applicable in all fields. I dont know of any such notion. And, if the notion of cause has a scientific basis, then causal completeness is false. So, defenders of causal completeness need to address this. But, in any case, causal completeness is not determinism and, in itself, doesn't conflict with free will. Whether any conflict is implied will depend, primarily, on the definition of cause employed.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 07:27 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu wrote:

Zetherin wrote:
Fair enough.
Sorry, I was very short of time earlier. There are two points about our recent exchanges; first, that determinism is not the claim that all events have a cause, and second, the question of whether or not causal completeness can be defended.
On the first point, the confusion of causal completeness with determinism seems to be one reason why free will denial persists, and why people who are probably not determinists, claim to be. As such, clearing this matter up is important for understanding one's stance.
On the second point, any defence of causal completeness requires a notion of cause which is consistent and applicable in all fields. I dont know of any such notion. And, if the notion of cause has a scientific basis, then causal completeness is false. So, defenders of causal completeness need to address this. But, in any case, causal completeness is not determinism and, in itself, doesn't conflict with free will. Whether any conflict is implied will depend, primarily, on the definition of cause employed.


Sorry, but I still don't see how any of this shows that determinism is not as the The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines it. And it defines it in terms of causal laws.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 10:59:24