Well, if you believe the latter, then wouldn't you also believe there is nothing absurd about quantum entanglement, and hence, some events not having causes? There are no causal relations between entangled particles, but somehow it seems they carry the "same information" as if they did interact with eachother in a causal relationship.

Hi again,

I believe that every event has a cause and every cause has an effect - I also perceive every effect as being an event.

As you say "It seems" they carry the same information - How it appears, is not necessarily how it is. But, I agree - they MUST carry the same information if they are merely a residual effect in the wake of a sole-particle.

After all, organic material, however different, has inherent genetic traits.

Thank you Extrain

Mark...

Yes, I do. Don't you?

How can you know what your next action is when -

A) you cannot without the sum knowledge of the entire universe, and the variables beyond, identify with your next action at the subatomic level.

B) What if you die, lightning strikes, the earth implodes, aliens invade, your chair collapses or someone superglued the chair before you sat on it?

Is anything for certain
Can anything be known
When each man's wisdom
Is, primarily, His own

Thank you and fare well.

But you said you believed in quantum non-locality. If you do, quantum non-locality means that particles just do this without cause. That's exactly the problem of it. If, on the other hand, you think every event has a cause, then you are prespposing there is another "hidden" factor, or particle, that is causing (or responsible) for the event of non-locality for which you don't actually "see".

Hi Extrain,

I didn't choose to be born - or to be male - I didn't choose the external variables that have acted upon me, making me the sum total of who and what I am. Am I replying to this post because I choose to, or as a natural effect of the cause?

I am restricted by cultural exposure to the criteria of local and global influences, to my outlook, no matter how alternate or original it may be.

I don't control the progressive quadrant of my memory.

I can't choose what my episodic or semantic memory stores.

I may appear to choose my next action, yet am governed by the actions of random peripheral changes, and so on.

If I do, indeed believe I have the ability of free will, what , exactly, am I free to choose?

Helo guys,

To assume that an event has no prior cause sounds absurd to me. To assume that an effect can take place without cause - also absurd. Where there is no action there can be no reaction, therefore where there is no cause, there can be no effect.

Here is where my mind tends to lead, even though I absolutely agree with the above - Where (I remain within the confines of this universe, for the purpose of this question) is there a place where no event is taking place? If such a place existed, it would prove the existence of "Nothing" And this cannot be so.

I don't wish to wander off the point though.

Do either of you believe that YOU are responsible for the decisions YOU make?

Thank you

Mark...

Every past, present, and future event had, has, or will have a preceding cause, and I base this on the belief that Determinism is true, but what else ought I believe supposing that Determinism is true?

You are free to choose whatever is within the scope of your range of possible actions. They can be very limited if you are in prison.

A better approach is to adapt your beliefs to facts about the world, not to assume the facts accord with your beliefs.
1) there are no isolated interactions, in this world. So, if determinism is the case, then it concerns global states. This puts determinism at odds with any notion of an event, because events are irreducibly local and determinism is irreducibly global.
2) if determinism is the case, the state of the world at all times is exactly and globally specified by the state of the world at any arbitrarily selected time, in conjunction with unchanging laws of nature. This means that a determined world is temporally symmetric. Cause is a temporally asymmetric notion, causes precede effects, therefore, cause and determinism are incompatible.
3) in fundamental physics, the only science with any pretensions to expound on or require determinism, there is no concept of cause. In philosophy, there is no satisfactory concept of cause.
4) you seem to be following Kennethamy's recent adoption of Hempel's theory, for the notion of cause that you espouse. Under this model, the probability of an event having a cause is zero.
5) there are often several equally adequate explanations for the one event, so your view of explanatory completeness is also at odds with determinism.
6) the view that all events have causes is known as causal completeness, it is not determinism.
7) this stuff has been explained to you hundreds of times. Why dont you try thinking about things, instead of blundering along in Kennethamy's mistaken footsteps?

never explaining.

You have made this comment in response to a succinct and adequate explanation of why determinism concerns neither events nor causes. Your reader cant help wondering if you understood any of it.

if determinism is the case, the state of the world at all times is exactly and globally specified by the state of the world at any arbitrarily selected time, in conjunction with unchanging laws of nature. This means that a determined world is temporally symmetric. Cause is a temporally asymmetric notion, causes precede effects, therefore, cause and determinism are incompatible.

A better approach is to adapt your beliefs to facts about the world, not to assume the facts accord with your beliefs.

1) there are no isolated interactions, in this world. So, if determinism is the case, then it concerns global states. This puts determinism at odds with any notion of an event, because events are irreducibly local and determinism is irreducibly global.

2) if determinism is the case, the state of the world at all times is exactly and globally specified by the state of the world at any arbitrarily selected time, in conjunction with unchanging laws of nature.

This means that a determined world is temporally symmetric.

Cause is a temporally asymmetric notion, causes precede effects,

therefore, cause and determinism are incompatible.

4) you seem to be following Kennethamy's recent adoption of Hempel's theory, for the notion of cause that you espouse. Under this model, the probability of an event having a cause is zero.

5) there are often several equally adequate explanations for the one event, so your view of explanatory completeness is also at odds with determinism.

6) the view that all events have causes is known as causal completeness, it is not determinism.

7) this stuff has been explained to you hundreds of times. Why dont you try thinking about things, instead of blundering along in Kennethamy's mistaken footsteps?

And this is the guy who cant get his head round the notion of realisable possibilities.

But determinism is the view that all events are causally determined by prior events. That is, all events have a cause.

You deny the existence of causality.

Rubbish. Quote the post in which I make this denial.

3) in fundamental physics, the only science with any pretensions to expound on or require determinism, there is no concept of cause. In philosophy, there is no satisfactory concept of cause.

Wrong.
When the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy asked me to write the entry on determinism, I found that the title was to be "Causal determinism".
I therefore felt obliged to point out in the opening paragraph that determinism actually has little or nothing to do with causation
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002071/01/Causality_and_Determinism.pdf
This is written by the author of the article which you cite.

Which is not a denial of the existence of causality, is it?

That one philosopher (sorry, two, including you) tells us that he doesn't mean by "determinism" what is standardly meant by that term, is just an anomaly, an eccentricity.

Not againt, u. Please, not again. That one philosopher (sorry, two, including you) tells us that he doesn't mean by "determinism" what is standardly meant by that term, is just an anomaly, an eccentricity. Not an argument. It is still true that the term "determinism" as used by professional philosophers implies universal causality. That is simply a fact. The meaning of a technical term like "determinism" consists in the conventions of it use by practitioners in the field. It isn't as if the term had a real meaning which had to be discovered apart from the conventions of its use. You do see that , don't you?

Rubbish. The author is an acknowledged expert in the field and Stanford articles are peer reviewed. If by "standardly" you mean 'ignorantly', then it is important to keep making this point. Does it never occur to you that you might well be wrong? After all, you can work these things out for yourself, determinism is a simple claim with clear consequences. Try thinking about it.