The Fatal Paradox

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;162582 wrote:

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.

I mean by "standardly" that that is how the term is used by professional philosophers who discuss matters having to do with freedom of the will, and its supposed incompatibility with determinism. Those who do suppose free will is incompatible with determinism precisely because they use "determinism" to imply universal causality. Isn't that clear?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162587 wrote:

I mean by "standardly" that that is how the term is used by professional philosophers who discuss matters having to do with freedom of the will, and its supposed incompatibility with determinism.

But the term is not used by these philosophers, in the way that you use it! You're not one such philosopher, are you? But people like Hoefer, Dupre, Belnap, etc, are. Why the hell would I believe you rather than those experts who work in the relevant field?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;162593 wrote:

But the term is not used by these philosophers, in the way that you use it! You're not one such philosopher, are you? But people like Hoefer, Dupre, Belnap, etc, are. Why the hell would I believe you rather than those experts who work in the relevant field?

What is your point? We have all been using "determinism" to mean "causal determinism" at it is standardly understood by philosophers within the context of the alleged incompatibility of free will and causal determinism. Look it up on the SEP!

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Arguments for Incompatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

@Extrain,

Extrain;162596 wrote:

Look it up on the SEP!

Comic relief. I love it.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;162598 wrote:

Comic relief. I love it.

@Extrain,

Extrain;162599 wrote:

Yeah, as if the one article you pulled from the SEP is not comical, but the following articles from the SEP are comical. Get a grip.

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Arguments for Incompatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories of Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Laws of Nature (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Causation and Manipulability (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Metaphysics of Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Causal Processes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Probabilistic Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Counterfactual Theories of Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Backward Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Mental Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"In the grip of a theory". Wittgenstein. Aristotle pointed out that there are matters we can debate about , but that factual matters, like how a word is spelled, is not something up for debate. And neither is how the term, "determinism" is used in philosophy.

@Extrain,

Extrain;162599 wrote:

Yeah, as if the one article you pulled from the SEP is not comical, but the following articles from the SEP are comical. Get a grip.

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Arguments for Incompatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories of Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Laws of Nature (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Causation and Manipulability (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Metaphysics of Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Causal Processes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Probabilistic Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Counterfactual Theories of Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Backward Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Mental Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Pulling stuff from the internet?!? What's up, cant you think for yourself?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;162612 wrote:

Pulling stuff from the internet?!? What's up, cant you think for yourself?

It is really astonishing that you should say that, for the entire point is that what a term, like "determinism" means is not up to what we think it means. It is not to be settled by "thinking about it for yourself. What it means depends on its conventions of use by professional speakers of the language. In this case, philosophers. Therefore, it is not only appropriate to present citations of how the term is used: it is exactly how the issue is settled. It is just like the correct spelling of a term which, as Aristotle pointed out, is not a matter for debate, but one for research, or looking up. That you fail to make the distinction between what is a matter of debate or thinking about ("for yourself") and what is a matter of simply finding out about or looking up, is just incredible. If a person does not make that distinction, it is difficult to understand what distinctions he will make. It is as if when I try to deal with the question, "What is the population of Quito?" I try to look it up on Google, and you admonish me by saying, "Looking it up on Google? What's up, can't you think for yourself?"

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162617 wrote:

But the entire point is that what a term, like "determinism" means is not up to what we think it means.

So why do you continue to support your mistaken definition?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;162622 wrote:

So why do you continue to support your mistaken definition?

And when did you stop beating your wife?

It isn't my definition. I own no definitions. Definitions are public property. They are to be found in authoritative sources like, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Apparently, you think, like Humpty-Dumpty, that words mean exactly what you want them to mean. That is not how it works. "Words are wise men's counters, but they are the money of fools". Thomas Hobbes.

There are three main theories of (linguistic) meaning:

1. Words mean whatever we like them to mean. (Humpty-Dumpty).
2. Words have intrinsic meanings which we have to discover. (Plato)
3. Words have the meanings fluent speakers of the language collectively give them in terms of the conventions of the way the fluent speaker use them to communicate among one another. (Thomas Hobbes).

Apparently, you swing between 1. and 2. Both 1 and 2 are false. 3. is true.

@kennethamy,

ughaibu wrote:

This is written by the author of the article which you cite.

I did see something to that effect in the first paragraph. And I noted that here:

Quote:

However, in that article I linked to, I do see that the author chooses to distinguish between determinism and causal determinism. But, even with that said, I don't think he means cause and determinism are incompatible.

This is actually what he writes:

SEP author wrote:

For the most part this disengagement of the two concepts is appropriate. But as we will see later, the notion of cause/effect is not so easily disengaged from much of what matters to us about determinism.

From that paragraph alone, I didn't get the impression that causality is incompatible with determinism.

But again, answer my question. If determinism isn't how I've defined it, then what do you think determinism means?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;162622 wrote:

So why do you continue to support your mistaken definition?

Why do you insist on defending a case you don't have? It makes you look idiotic. What is your case, anyway? And for that matter, what is your point? You tell everyone they are wrong to be talking about determinism in terms of causal determinism, by using an argument by appeal to authority--for which that authority is not even clear he thinks determinism is incompatible with causation anyway. So your point is moot once again.

And what happens when one authority is a clear minority against the mainstream majority of philosophers? There is clearly a conflict of views...uh oh. So what happens to your argument by appeal to authority? It becomes invalidated. So give it up, and let us return to our discussion.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;162628 wrote:

If determinism isn't how I've defined it, then what do you think determinism means?

As I have stated, umpteen times:
a determined world meets three conditions:
1) at all times the world has a definite describable state
2) there are laws of nature which are the same in all times and places
3) given the state of the world at any time, the state of the world at all other times is exactly and globally specified by the given state in conjunction with the laws of nature.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;162630 wrote:

As I have stated, umpteen times:
a determined world meets three conditions:
1) at all times the world has a definite describable state
2) there are laws of nature which are the same in all times and places
3) given the state of the world at any time, the state of the world at all other times is exactly and globally specified by the given state in conjunction with the laws of nature.

Wow, and everyone is suddenly enlightened...

@Extrain,

Extrain;162629 wrote:

So give it up, and let us return to our discussion.

You're free to ignore me and carry on with your head-wanking, I rejoined this thread with a post to Fast, not to you.

@kennethamy,

ughaibu wrote:

1) at all times the world has a definite describable state

So, determinism says nothing about how the world operates state to state? That is, it speaks nothing about how the world goes from one definite describable state, to another definite describable state. That, according to you, is another matter, and causality is one of those positions related to that matter. Am I correct in understanding you?

@Extrain,

Extrain;162631 wrote:

Wow, and everyone is suddenly enlightened...

Determinism: The world is deterministic if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
"Fixed as a matter of natural law" means simply that the specification of how things are (everywhere) at time t, together with the laws of nature, jointly logico-mathematically determine a single possible future for the world. Notice that I have only defined the determination relation to be past -> future, so as to make the doctrine as weak as possible while still deserving the name. But we should bear in mind that the existing theories in physics that are deterministic, or close to it, are all theories in which the logico-mathematical determination works as well from later -> earlier as it does in the customary direction.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002071/01/Causality_and_Determinism.pdf

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;162632 wrote:

You're free to ignore me and carry on with your head-wanking, I rejoined this thread with a post to Fast, not to you.

It doesn't matter. You are wrong, unless you can present a clear case for thinking otherwise instead of religiously appealing to one article over and over again while ignoring the rest which trump it.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;162633 wrote:

So, determinism says nothing about how the world operates state to state? That is, it speaks nothing about how the world goes from one definite describable state, to another definite describable state. That, according to you, is another matter, and causality is one of those positions related to that matter. Am I correct in understanding you?

No, causality is local, determinism is global, so the transformation of global states is one thing that causality is not.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;162637 wrote:

No, causality is local, determinism is global, so the transformation of global states is one thing that causality is not.

But when we speak of causal completeness, I thought we were speaking globally. What makes determinism global, and causality local? When we speak of cause and effect, aren't we speaking about the world, globally, operating through a series of causes and effects?

Philosophy Forum

The Fatal Paradox

Quick Links

My Account

able2know