We wouldn't say the theory of gravity only applies to my jumping out of a window

we apply the theory globally, illustrating how gravity acts on all things.

Can you explain the problem of irreversibility?

Not "only", but if we're talking about cause, in this case, then we consider the phenomena in isolation, that is locally, we dont consider intergallactic gravitational effects, for example.If there are laws of nature that are described by theories of gravity, then that application meets the assumption of condition 2, required by determinism. I dont see how this extends cause from the local to the global. Under a global model, jumping from the window is a detail in the global description, it cant be isolated.If determinism is the case, in principle, condition 1 allows for any state of the world to be expressed as a, possibly infinite, string of symbols and conditions 2 and 3 entail that, again in principle, there is a mathematical statement exactly mapping the state of the world at any given time to the state at any other given time. As the transformation of states is exactly specified, in a determined world, this mathematical statement can be expressed as an equation, and as no point in space or time can be privileged, this equation is reversible. The problems arise from things like thermodynamic decay and wave propagation, which can not be derived from reversible equation, except as inequalities, and inequalities are insufficient for determinism.

Well, if it is an a posteriori claim, then give me some empirical reasons for believing it. (Actually, fatalism is NOT an a posteriori claim. It is an a priori philosophical one.) Fatalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Do I need to remind you that I am not the one ranting and swearing like a child, while personally attacking his interlocutor?

If you must know I have a BA in philosophy, and about to finish my MA. I don't waste my time with amateur hogwash, so I apologize my answers are very curt. Some amateurs are genuine critical thinkers who know what they are talking about, and they say very substantive things from which I continue to learn. Unfortunately, some do not, and just enjoy creating *word salds* that sound "smart" to their own ears, but are really empty of any real philosophical value. It all depends on how much one is willing to apply himself.

But if fatalism is false in the actual world, does it really matter? You said you don't even know if it is true in the actual world.

Possible worlds are merely theoretical postulates anyway, unless you're like David Lewis who thinks possible worlds really exist. I don't, however.

Sheesh...

First, if you don't know it is false in the actual world, then you don't know that it is true in the actual world, either. And if you don't know it is true in the actual world, then you are not justified in believing it is true in the actual world since all knowledge is justified, true belief.

Second, what's really backwards is that you think Fatalism is an a posteriori claim, but then simultaneously assert you don't even know if it is true in the actual world! Well, if you don't know it is true in the actual world, then what makes you think it is an a posteriori claim? You obviously don't have any evidence of this claim being true, because if you did, you would be able to offer that evidence. But you have none. So there is not any good reason to think fatalism is an a posteriori claim at all!

Get a grip on what you really think before you come to the table with a well-defined thesis. So far, you don't have one, and lack any arguments for what you "may or may not" think is true. I am wasting my time.

:rolleyes:

I am claiming that given any event E in a deterministic world W, E is determined by the laws governing W, and the initial conditions in W. I claim that E is necessary, given the laws, and the initial conditions.

The terms a priori ("prior to") and a posteriori ("subsequent to") are used in philosophy (epistemology) to distinguish two types of knowledge, justifications or arguments. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example 'All bachelors are unmarried'); a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example 'Some bachelors are very happy'). A priori justification makes reference to experience; but the issue concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in question-what justifies or grounds one's belief in it.

Can anything be more simple than that? I have problem seeing why this is contentious with you.

Me, a child? You must be ******* joking. Are you?

This is funny. Perhaps, it is from some online school at a community college?

Are you ******* joking? You are the one that made the retarded claim that fatalism is metaphysically necessary. Yes, i do think possible worlds exist. :sarcastic::sarcastic:

Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do. It may be argued for in various ways: by appeal to logical laws and metaphysical necessities; by appeal to the existence and nature of God; by appeal to causal determinism. When argued for in the first way, it is commonly called "Logical fatalism" (or, in some cases, "Metaphysical fatalism"); when argued for in the second way, it is commonly called "Theological fatalism". When argued for in the third way it is not now commonly referred to as "fatalism" at all.

???? Fatalism is a a posteriori claim that is outside of our epistemic capacity to know if it is true. What the ******* is so hard about this?

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. They can be very numerous if you have 1 million dollars. But freedom of will is not defined by the range of more or less alternatives available for selection. It is defined by what one would have done, if one could choose otherwise.

Again, this is not an a posteriori claim since no "necessity" is observable within our immediate sense-experience, nor is there any empirical justification found in experience for claims of necessity, either. I only have to ask you, "if 'E is necessary' is known posteriori, then how do you know this from your experience? Have you observed that necessity in your immediate experience? If you have so observed this, then where??"

Maybe you need to refresh your memory what "a priori" and "a posteriori" mean. They are both terms which refer to the kind of knowledge one is claiming to have:

To make matter worse, you say fatalism is a posteriori claim; but if it is, then you know it is true through your own immediate sense experience. But if you know it is true, then why do you also say you don't know it is true because knowing it is true is completely "beyond our capacity for knowing that it is true"? You are contradicting yourself. And the discussion is pointless.

..because it is false.

Your language is abusive and vulgar, and I kindly ask that you change your tone. It's getting old, not to mention, terribly boring.

You can always compare at your own discretion the relatively higher ranking of the CU philosophy department in Boulder, Colorado with other departments throughout the nation at the Philosophical Gourmet Report online, if you're so curious...

? I think fatalism is false. I merely made the claim that if fatalism is true at all, then there is better reason to suppose it is necessarily true than contingently true since it is an a priori claim either involving logical necessity or metaphysical necessity about the modal status of all true propositions concerning the actual world past, present, and future.

...then you don't know it is true. Q.E.D.

The argument is over. Since you claim you don't even know fatalism is true, and if fatalism is even "outside our capactiy" to know altogether, then you don't know fatalism is true! What's the problem? Am I missing something here?

Why do you think that in order to know my next action, I must know the sum knowledge of everything in the universe?

Because your existance is intrinsically bound to the events thereof

Are you asking me what if what I intended to happen, didn't happen? Well, then I would not have known what I was going to do. For me to know, it would have had to be true, since knowledge is justified, true belief.

But the mere fact that I can be wrong, does not mean that I cannot know things. If I had a justified belief that I would get up from the chair, and I did in fact get up from the chair, I did know that I would get up from the chair. Remember also that knowledge does not imply absolute certainty; there is an acknowledgement that we are fallible. Though certainty may sometimes have correlation with knowledge, they are two different beasts and should not be confused with one another. I can be uncertain about something but still know, and I can be very certain about something and not know.

If you admit that you can be wrong, then how do you know when you aren't?

Why do you use "very" certain to emphasise your claim ?- Certain is certain, and doesn't require amplification

That my wisdom is my own (of course it is my own. who else's would it be? my grandfather's?) does not mean that I cannot be certain or know things. I don't know why you would think this.

Your wisdom is not your own - It is imparted by others, processed in accordance to your processing ability and applied to relative criteria.
The acquisition of material - yours? Questionable




Haha, I hope you're not leaving me quite yet. But thank you for your politeness, it is noble of you.

You are right. There could be no effect unless there is a cause. Just as a person could not be a sister unless she is a female, There is no effect without a cause is just too, too, true. For an event is an effect only if that event has a cause. Unless the event has a cause, how could it possibly be an effect? But that, of course, is no reason to think that unless something has a cause, it is not an event. That every effect has a cause is trivially true. That every event has a cause may be true. But it is not trivially true.

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.

Are you not, as you state "prone to err", therefore certain of anything?

Let me know...

Thankyou Zetherin, I thoroughly enjoy your input.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 03:16 PM ----------



Hi ken,

"Trivially"? please define - My definition is "Insignificant"

What is the difference between an event and an effect? Is not an effect an event? Indeed, What (effect included) can take place in the realm of physicality, that is not also regarded as an event (occurence)?

Are you stating that an effect does not occur?

Thankyou Ken and as always... fare well.

Mark...

"Trivially true" = "true by definition". For example, all sisters are females, is trivially true since "sister" means, "female sibling" and that all female siblings are female is trivially (or definitionally) true. Simple knowing the meaning of the words involved is necessary and sufficient for knowing whether the statement that all sisters are females, is true.

The very same is true of every effect has a cause. For, "effect" is, by definition, a caused event. And it is definitionally (or trivially) true, that every caused event as a cause.

Since all effects are events (although that does not mean that all events are effects) and, since all events occur (trivial truth), then it follows (as the night the day-only more certainly than even that) that all effects occur. QED.[/QUOTE

Hi Ken,

Didn't think I'd get back in - Is it always that enthusiastic?

Doesn't it stand to reason though - that if all effects are events, and we apply this to an equasion, thus A(effect) = B(event), then, unless I'm out of sync with exact mathematical principles, If A=B then B=A?

And, excuse me for noticing, but, highlighted, How can something have a greater quantity than the sum of its' quantity? Certain cannot exceed its own parameters by amplification. Certain is certain - there cannot be a case where certain is MORE certain than its own definitive absolution.

Thank you Ken, Hope to hear from you soon

Mark...

kennethamy;162941 wrote:

"Trivially true" = "true by definition". For example, all sisters are females, is trivially true since "sister" means, "female sibling" and that all female siblings are female is trivially (or definitionally) true. Simple knowing the meaning of the words involved is necessary and sufficient for knowing whether the statement that all sisters are females, is true.

The very same is true of every effect has a cause. For, "effect" is, by definition, a caused event. And it is definitionally (or trivially) true, that every caused event as a cause.

Since all effects are events (although that does not mean that all events are effects) and, since all events occur (trivial truth), then it follows (as the night the day-only more certainly than even that) that all effects occur. QED.[/QUOTE

Hi Ken,

Didn't think I'd get back in - Is it always that enthusiastic?

Doesn't it stand to reason though - that if all effects are events, and we apply this to an equasion, thus A(effect) = B(event), then, unless I'm out of sync with exact mathematical principles, If A=B then B=A?

And, excuse me for noticing, but, highlighted, How can something have a greater quantity than the sum of its' quantity? Certain cannot exceed its own parameters by amplification. Certain is certain - there cannot be a case where certain is MORE certain than its own definitive absolution.

Thank you Ken, Hope to hear from you soon

Mark...[/QUOTE]

As my beloved 42 president once immorally (sorry, immortally) intoned, 'It depends on what the meaning of "is" is'.If the "is" is the "is" of predication as in the sentence, "All butter is yellow" then the "is" there is a one-way track, for that does not mean that all yellow things are butter. But, if the "is" is the "is" of identity, as in, "All bachelors are unmarried men", then the track is two-way, and it is also true that all unmarried men are bachelors.

There are, as I have been saying, two different senses of "certain":

1, "certain" in the sense of confidence. So, in that sense, "I am certain that there is a God" means something like, "I am (highly) confident that there is a God". The certainty of confidence admits of degrees. Some people are more confident than are others that God exists, for example.

2. There is a different sense of "certain" which is usually meant when philosophers use that term. We can call it "objective certainty" to distinguish it from the kind of subjective certainty described in 1. above. (It is sometimes also eponymously called, "Cartesian certainty". This kind of certainty does not admit of degrees. And what it means is the impossibility of error. To claim certainty in this objective sense, is to claim infallibility.

So, it depends on what the meaning of "certain" is.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 12:16 PM ----------

fast;162951 wrote:

Interactions in the world may not be isolated from the world, but there are certainly isolated interactions in this world.

What is an isolated interaction?

Are you not, as you state "prone to err", therefore certain of anything?

Remember that absolute certainty (infallibility, but to be honest I don't even like the term "absolute certainty") and certainty, are different. I'm not claiming that I cannot be wrong when I state I am certain about something. I'm simply claiming I have a strong belief I am right.

Not sure if that's what you were getting at here; let me know. Thanks.

Remember that absolute certainty (infallibility, but to be honest I don't even like the term "absolute certainty") and certainty, are different. I'm not claiming that I cannot be wrong when I state I am certain about something. I'm simply claiming I have a strong belief I am right.

Not sure if that's what you were getting at here; let me know. Thanks.

Hi Zetherin,

I only deal with absolute definitives - I find any deviation from can lead to imprecise statements and discussions, because of the variability of the detractment from the absolute.

But, I know inderstand you more clearly, thank you for returning to this quote, by the way.

What, indeed, can anyone be certain of - if not their own beliefs.

Fare well fellow philosopher.

Mark...

So, you're asking me if we are infallible? No, we're fallible :flowers:

Hi Zetherin,

Are you certain of this?

Fare well.

Mark...