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...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"

The philosopher's concept of causation involving, as it does, the law of universal determinism that every event has a cause and the associated concept of causation as a relation between events, is "otiose" and in modern science is replaced by the concept of causal laws understood in terms of functional relations, where these causal laws are not necessarily deterministic.

1. Nature and Functions of Causation

Law is concerned with the application of causal ideas, embodied in the language of statutes and decisions, to particular situations. This involves, first, a conception of what a cause is outside the law. To this a variety of answers empirical (Hume) and metaphysical (Kant ) have been given and each has its contemporary supporters.

A theory is required of how causal notions should function in different contexts. In the context of application the notion of cause is a multi-purpose tool. One function, perhaps fundamental, is forward-looking: that of specifying what will happen and by what stages if certain conditions are present together. This use of cause serves to provide recipes and make predictions. It also yields the idea of a causal process.

Another function is backward-looking and explanatory: that of showing which earlier conditions best account for some later event or state of affairs.

A third function is attributive: that of fixing the extent of responsibility of agents for the outcomes that follow on their agency or intervention in the world.

For the first of these purposes the emphasis falls on a cause as consisting of the whole complex of conditions required if a certain outcome is to follow (J.S. Mill). Even when applied to a specific situation this involves considering what generally happens when certain conditions are present. In the second, explanatory, context the focus is on selecting from the whole complex the particular condition or conditions that best explain a given outcome. The aim can be either to explain a class of events or a particular event. In the third, attributive, context the aim is again selective, but from a different point of view. It is to attribute responsibility to an agent for those outcomes that his, her or its agency serves to explain and that can therefore plausibly be treated as part of the agency's impact on the world. Here the purpose is to settle the extent of responsibility that attaches to a particular human action or other event or state of affairs. This responsibility is then attributed to an agent or, metaphorically, to the other event or state of affairs in question (e.g. outbreak of war, high unemployment).

The Postulate of Quasi-permanence' which states that there is a certain kind of persistence in the world, for generally things do not change discontinuously. The second postulate, 'Of Separable Causal Lines', allows that there is often long term persistence in things and processes. The third postulate, 'Of Spatio-temporal Continuity' denies action at a distance. Russell claims "when there is a causal connection between two events that are not contiguous, there must be intermediate links in the causal chain such that each is contiguous to the next, or (alternatively) such that there is a process which is continuous." (1948, p. 487). 'The Structural Postulate', the fourth, allows us to infer from structurally similar complex events ranged about a centre to an event of similar structure linked by causal lines to each event. The fifth postulate, 'Of Analogy' allows us to infer the existence of a causal effect when it is unobservable.

But when we speak of causal completeness, I thought we were speaking globally.

When we speak of cause and effect, aren't we speaking about the world, globally, operating through a series of causes and effects?

And the mechanism of that Lawlike regularity are causal relations since Natural Laws are Causal Laws: P-->Q.

Causal completeness is a thesis about events and events are local, not global.

That my computer posts the messages that I write, is independent of what my wife is doing on her computer, so, my writing causes an effect locally.No, we're speaking about local phenomena.

In any case, cause is also incompatible with determinism due to the problem of irreversibility, causes precede effects, by definition.

Ah, so you support the position that two plus two causes four?

Then, as you yourself have pointed out, asymmetry is a problem.

Why cant you remember the future? After all, you appear to believe that propositions are timelessly true.

Not necessarily. What do you think "backwards causation is"?

The alleged "Symmetry" is the problem. There is no problem with asymmetry.

If time were symmetrical, then I would be able to remember the future. I would also be able to causally influence the past. Why do we not experience both of these things? As far as we know, it is much more plausible to believe time and causation are asymmetrical, rather than symmetrical.

An attempt to rescue determinism.Therefore, the more plausible position is that determinism is false

Tell that to Price, he devoted a book to the attempt to rescue determinism from symmetry: Amazon.com: Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time (9780195117981): Huw Price: Books.

If you think determinism is false, then why are you defending it?

There is no evidence of temporal symmetry. How could there be? It is purely speculative. The direction of time is obviously asymmetrical.

You cant possibly be serious?? How could anyone get the idea that I'm defending determinism?

Appeal to the obvious, well done Mr. Genius. Let me repeat; in fundamental physics there is no concept of cause, because fundamental physics is reversible, and this means, fundamental physics is time symmetric.

Because you think determinism logically implies symmetry.

I cannot do these things, so symmetry is false.

And how the hell does that entail that I'm defending determinism?

Then determinism is false! Are you ever going to manage to get your head round this simple point?

Because you think determinism is symmetry (which it is not). If determinism is symmetry, and determinism is false, then symmetry is false.

1) quote the post in which I state "determinism is symmetry"

"This means that a determined world is temporally symmetric."

Which is not the statement "determinism is symmetry", is it? The second time today that I've pointed out you distorting my statements.
And, even had I said "determinism is symmetry", how does this entail that I'm defending determinism?

So you think determined worlds are not symmetric worlds?

Last chance, how does the statement "determinism is symmetry" entail that I'm defending determinism?

ughaibu;162680 wrote:

Last chance, how does the statement "determinism is symmetry" entail that I'm defending determinism?

Last chance, do you think determined worlds are symmetric worlds or not?

In short, there is no such entailment. Well done. The thread now has another three pages of your irrelevancies, ranging from the tangential to direct misrepresentation, all expressed in your refreshing style of outrageously unwarranted arrogance. Yes, you really are a hell of a time waster.

Have you noticed every conversation into which you get involved, ends up being a fruitless discussion lacking real substantive content?

You are the only one with whom every one else consistently has the same problem.

You suffer from a bad case of cognitive dissonance and self-projection.

Nothing you say is ever substantively thought out, but only argumentative.

You don't belong here.

Always, always, always...we ask you to explain what you mean.

But you tell everyone that they are stupid for not undestanding you, and you NEVER expound further on your views.

It's because you don't even understand fully what you are talking about.

The miscommunication always engendered between you and others is your own fault.

Impossible to notice because demonstrably false.Demonstrably false.Groundless cliches.Demonstrably false.Who the **** are you?Speak for yourself, not everyone has the difficulties that you have.Insulting and demonstrably false.Your arrogance is incredible. Because you dont understand things doesn't mean that there aren't people who do understand them.The post to which I'm replying epitomises your bullshit, I'm seriously tempted to report it to the mods. This is the end of me wasting my time on you.

Causal completeness is a thesis about events and events are local, not global. That my computer posts the messages that I write, is independent of what my wife is doing on her computer, so, my writing causes an effect locally.

In any case, cause is also incompatible with determinism due to the problem of irreversibility, causes precede effects, by definition.