The Fatal Paradox

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 09:37 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;161724 wrote:


I have never been to UR. Where is it located? The best I can do is try to discover un-ultimate reality. And sometimes that's hard enough. When next you go, please pay my respects.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 09:37 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;161722 wrote:
Why not? People sometimes do things even if they don't want to do them. I used to visit my old aunt in hospital even though I really, really, did not want to do so. Sometimes people just have to do things they don't want to do. Isn't that true in Portugal?


---------- Post added 05-08-2010 at 10:39 AM ----------

kennethamy;161726 wrote:
I have never been to UR. Where is it located? The best I can do is try to discover un-ultimate reality. And sometimes that's hard enough. When next you go, please pay my respects.


You are being picky...change for Reality alone, all there is, and answer please, or leave it if fed up...thanks !
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 09:42 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;161727 wrote:


No, I am not implying that, for I believe that determinism is true. But I am saying that I sometimes do things I do not want to do. So wanting to do something is not the only cause for doing it. (In fact, there are times I do things I not merely don't want to do, but I want not to do). But that does not imply there was no cause for doing it, of course. Why is that relevant anyway.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 09:45 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;161727 wrote:


"The beginning" is a necessary condition (a partial cause) for all the decisions I have ever made. This does not entail "the beginning" is causally sufficient (fully causal) for all the decisions I have ever made since I am also the partial cause of my actions. "The beginning" in conjunction with my decisions to act are causally sufficient. "The beginning" is not causally sufficient.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 09:45 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;161730 wrote:
No, I am not implying that, for I believe that determinism is true. But I am saying that I sometimes do things I do not want to do. So wanting to do something is not the only cause for doing it. (In fact, there are times I do things I not merely don't want to do, but I want not to do). But that does not imply there was no cause for doing it, of course. Why is that relevant anyway.


Granted. Now sum up all that, and give me a result...like 2+2=4 shows the cause, and the result cannot be otherwise !

---------- Post added 05-08-2010 at 10:47 AM ----------

Extrain;161731 wrote:
"The beginning" is a necessary condition (a partial cause) for all the decisions I have ever made. This does not entail "the beginning" is causally sufficient (fully causal) for all the decisions I have ever made since I am also the partial cause of my actions. "The beginning" in conjunction with my decisions to act are causally sufficient. "The beginning" is not causally sufficient.


You are a consequence of the beginning if there are causes, you are not out of the scope of the set and initial conditions, are you ?
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 09:50 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;161732 wrote:
Granted. Now sum up all that, and give me a result...like 2+2=4 shows the cause, and the result cannot be otherwise !


"2+2=4" is necessarily true in all possible worlds regardless of initial conditions (or causes).

Fil. Albuquerque;161732 wrote:
You are a consequence of the beginning if there are causes, you are not out of the sciope of the set and initial conditions, are you ?


Each condition (or cause) is necesary for my doing x in the future. Each condition is not sufficient for my doing x in the future.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 09:55 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;161736 wrote:
"2+2=4" is necessarily true in all possible worlds regardless of initial conditions (or causes).

Each condition is necessary for my doing x. Each condition is not sufficient for my doing x.


---------- Post added 05-08-2010 at 10:56 AM ----------

And that was what I presented above...the reason why I reported to Realitty as all there is...
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 09:59 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;161738 wrote:
Exactly, but the sum of all necessary conditions make the cause and the case that it could not have been differently...it comes to be sufficient !


I am partial necessary cause. The conjunction of past conditions along with my decision to act is causally sufficient for the outcome (the effect). So of course the future could have been different if I had so chosen it to be different. I have causal power.

You continue to assert the same modal fallacy over and over again. You're not listening.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 10:03 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;161740 wrote:
I am partial necessary cause. The conjunction of past conditions along with my decision to act is causally sufficient for the outcome (the effect). So of course the future could have been differently if I had so chosen it to be different. I have causal power.


If you are the cause to your actions and you incorporate the set of the World, how could you do differently, of what you have reason, a cause, to do has you do ? unless of course there is no causes or hard Determinism is true ?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 10:03 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;161732 wrote:
Granted. Now sum up all that, and give me a result...like 2+2=4 shows the cause, and the result cannot be otherwise !

---------- Post added 05-08-2010 at 10:47 AM ----------





But, as David Hume pointed out, causes do not necessitate. If A causes B, then if A happens, then B will happen. But that does not mean that if A cause B, and A happens then B must happen. That is what Spinoza (and the Rationalists) believed was true. What Hume called, "(Spinoza's) horrible hypothesis". The point is exactly that A causes B is not like 2+2=4. 2+2=4 is a necessary truth; freezing water causes ice is a contingent truth.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 10:05 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;161742 wrote:
If you are the cause to your actions and you incorporate the set of the World, how could you do differently, of what you have reason, a cause, to do has you do ? unless of course there is no causes or hard Determinism is true ?


You continue to assert the same modal fallacy over and over again. You're not listening. If I had chosen differently than I would have acted thus. It is not necessary that I choose thus.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 10:06 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
The result of necessary cause world, from which you emerged, and your reason to act (also necessary) should be sufficient to chose A not B without otherwise.

---------- Post added 05-08-2010 at 11:09 AM ----------

Extrain;161744 wrote:
You continue to assert the same modal fallacy over and over again. You're not listening. If I had chosen differently than I would have acted thus. It is not necessary that I act thus.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 10:10 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;161745 wrote:
The result of necessary cause world, from which you emerged, and your reason to act (also necessary) should be sufficient to chose A not B without otherwise.


Translation please. But remember, saying something is true does not make it true. It is not even evidence that it is true.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 10:13 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;161749 wrote:
Translation please. But remember, saying something is true does not make it true. It is not even evidence that it is true.


The sum of all necessary causes rise sufficient cause to A rather then B.
So how could have been otherwise ???
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 10:13 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;161745 wrote:
The result of necessary cause world, from which you emerged, and your reason to act (also necessary) should be sufficient to chose A not B without otherwise.


Perhaps. That is how I have causal power. But my reason's for doing X are not sufficient reasons. So it is still false that I could not have a different reason for my doing Y instead of my doing X. I could easily have entirely different reasons for choosing a different outcome.

Again, you still commit the same old modal fallacy. It is false that I could not have done otherwise.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 10:16 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;161754 wrote:
Perhaps. That is how I have causal power. But my reason's for doing X are not sufficient reasons. So it is still false that I could not have a different reason for my doing Y instead of my doing X.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 10:19 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;161756 wrote:


No. You still commit the same old modal fallacy. It is false that I could not have done otherwise. Just because I do P does not entail I necessarily do P. I could still have done ~P, and have done Q instead if I really wanted to.

You are putting the cart before the horse.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 10:19 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;161753 wrote:
The sum of all necessary causes rise sufficient cause to A rather then B.
So how could have been otherwise ???


But that need not be true. He may many reasons not to visit his mother, but if he wanted to do so, he would. Evil son!
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 10:23 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
but that need not be true. He may many reasons not to visit his mother, but if he wanted to do so, he would. Evil son!


were are this many reasons if a the time he decides they were weighted and he chose what he chose necessarily and sufficiently, given all causes sum up ? ( him and the world )
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sat 8 May, 2010 10:26 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;161763 wrote:
were are this many reasons if a the time he decides they were weighted and he chose what he chose necessarily and sufficiently, given all causes sum up ? ( him and the world )


I repeat:

No. He doesn't "choose necessarily." You still commit the same old modal fallacy. It is false that I could not have done otherwise. Just because I do P does not entail I necessarily do P. I could still have done ~P, and have done Q instead if I really wanted to.

You are putting the cart before the horse.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.85 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 07:54:10