The Fatal Paradox

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;163029 wrote:

Yes, indeed, That is an excellent question since he blithely insinuates that you are being cryptic or unclear, without a scintilla of evidence that he is right. But, it has to be admitted, he does so in a deceptively pleasant way.

Hello Ken,

From a literal perspective, I am correct. We use words in their exactitude - To alter the degree of the subject matter, we apply adjectives. We don't use words like "Fast" has recently enlightened me, "Certain" - to express that we are fallible - We use the word "fallible to do This. "Certain" means "Indisputable" or "Definite" from my perspective. But I now understand that the terminology and related jargon, in use on this forum is not as regimented as, in literature.

Blithely insinuates? Which variation of "Blithely" - Carelessly, joyously, gayly? Insinuates = introduce by subtle manipulation, I take it? from your subsequent use of "deceptively"?

My evidence is this Ken.= I misinterpretated what seemed logical to me by my inability to understand the respective terminology.

Deceptively pleasant way??? This speaks for itself.

I am now going to psychologically profile this most recent post of yours.

You Ken, are extremely bitter with my earlier abruptness - the level of said bitterness is equal (as in causation) to the level of its redirection.

Your attachment to Zetherin is typical of a vulnerable beast's to its relative flock. Safety in numbers. I see it all day, every day.
Your use of words, I liken to a snake in the grass. kinda like the early christian zealots who twisted "Surrender" into "betray" and left us with the ghastly image of Judas, most perceive today.

I can see the snake sir, and so will anyone who tends your (above) quote,
it is visibly direct.

I don't need to deceive anyone, anywhere. I desire nothing in life and I have nothing to sell. I enjoy conversing, and am prone to err.

I forgive you Ken and mock you not, sir
But know this: Vengeance destroys the soul it inhabits, and those who dig pits - generally fall into them, themselves.

Anyway, thankyou for trying to paint me as the anti-christ, but, do get over it, because - I Don't Care.

See you later Ken, and fare well (that's referring to your well being) in case you think otherwise.

Mark...

@fast,

fast;163058 wrote:

We are in agreement.

Ibid:

But all those events which have a cause are effects of those causes.

[QUOTE=fast;163058]We are still in agreement.[/QUOTE]Ibid:

And since every event has a cause, then every event is an effect of some prior cause.

[QUOTE=fast;163058] Now, this is something different altogether. "Every event is a cause" and "every event has a cause" do not mean the same thing. I agree with latter but not the former. Well, maybe I agree with both, but I'm still arguing that they are different, but I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, as this all goes back to what we were discussing earlier about what determinism is.[/QUOTE]They may not "assert" the same thing, but they logically imply the same thing. We just run the argument through again the other direction:

Every event has an effect.
All those events which have effects, are causes of those effects.
And since every event has an effect, then every event is a cause of some subsequent effect.

Combining the two conclusions of both arguments we get the conjunction:
Every event is a cause, and every event is an effect.

There is no reason to be supposing "every event has a cause" is true, but "every event has an effect" is false, and, "every event is a cause" is false, but "every event is an effect" is true. Drawing the distinction is totally arbitrary and without reason.
[QUOTE=fast;163058] Every event has a cause, but that alone isn't enough to jump to the conclusion that every event will have a SUBSEQUENT effect. Not even the recognition that where there is no effect there is no cause will help make that jump.[/QUOTE]Yes, the former does not entail the latter. But the logical implication in the second argument does entail that every event will have a subsequent effect when running the argument through the other direction since the conclusion is that every event is a cause.

[QUOTE=fast;163058] Now we're finally getting somewhere. At this juncture, it doesn't matter all that much whether I'm right or wrong about whether all effects are causes. [/QUOTE]But there is not any rhyme or reason to hold one thing and deny the other. You are explicitly saying that every event is an effect (you agreed to this), but not every event is a cause. Why? You are countenancing that there are some events which are effects but not causes, as you know, while maintaining that every event is an effect. But why?

@mark noble,

mark noble;163080 wrote:

Hello Ken,

From a literal perspective, I am correct. We use words in their exactitude - To alter the degree of the subject matter, we apply adjectives. We don't use words like "Fast" has recently enlightened me, "Certain" - to express that we are fallible - We use the word "fallible to do This. "Certain" means "Indisputable" or "Definite" from my perspective. But I now understand that the terminology and related jargon, in use on this forum is not as regimented as, in literature.

Blithely insinuates? Which variation of "Blithely" - Carelessly, joyously, gayly? Insinuates = introduce by subtle manipulation, I take it? from your subsequent use of "deceptively"?

My evidence is this Ken.= I misinterpretated what seemed logical to me by my inability to understand the respective terminology.

Deceptively pleasant way??? This speaks for itself.

I am now going to psychologically profile this most recent post of yours.

You Ken, are extremely bitter with my earlier abruptness - the level of said bitterness is equal (as in causation) to the level of its redirection.

Your attachment to Zetherin is typical of a vulnerable beast's to its relative flock. Safety in numbers. I see it all day, every day.
Your use of words, I liken to a snake in the grass. kinda like the early christian zealots who twisted "Surrender" into "betray" and left us with the ghastly image of Judas, most perceive today.

I can see the snake sir, and so will anyone who tends your (above) quote,
it is visibly direct.

I don't need to deceive anyone, anywhere. I desire nothing in life and I have nothing to sell. I enjoy conversing, and am prone to err.

I forgive you Ken and mock you not, sir
But know this: Vengeance destroys the soul it inhabits, and those who dig pits - generally fall into them, themselves.

Anyway, thankyou for trying to paint me as the anti-christ, but, do get over it, because - I Don't Care.

See you later Ken, and fare well (that's referring to your well being) in case you think otherwise.

Mark...

Another satisfied customer.

@Extrain,

Extrain;163087 wrote:

Ibid:
But there is not any rhyme or reason to hold one thing and deny the other. You are explicitly saying that every event is an effect (you agreed to this), but not every event is a cause. Why? Now you are countenancing that there are some events which are effects but not causes. Why?

Hi Extrain,

The only event I can perceive as "Not being a cause" is the event that hasn't caused anything yet.

The most recent event (Here and now) that leads to it innevitably being recorded as a cause (future), that is about to, but hasn't yet, taken place. Must be - future pending, and thusly - an event with no cause.

It is, of course, ever changing, but, ultimately, there has to be a present event.

I believe that the event MUST, as long as time remains progressive, result in a cause, but, there is always ONE cause pending.

Am I correct? Or not?

Thank you both, I enjoyed that - fare well.

Mark...

@mark noble,

[QUOTE=mark noble;163080]We don't use words like "Fast" has recently enlightened me, "Certain" - to express that we are fallible - We use the word "fallible to do This. [/QUOTE]Just to rehash, I said the word is ambiguous and thus has more than one meaning. Context disambiguates, so we can figure out the meaning depending on the context in which it is used.

Context 1 (lost keys on a trip to the beach):

Bob: Did you leave the keys in the car?
Anna: No, I put them in my pocket.
Bob: Are you sure?
Anna: I'm certain of it.

Notice that Anna is simply conveying confidence in what she believes (and perhaps knows) to be true.

Context 2: (conversation turns philisophical):

Bob: But, you might be wrong.
Anna: Yes, I might possibly be wrong, but I'm not actually wrong.
Bob: You can't know that.
Anna: No, what I can't be is so certain that it's impossible that I am mistaken, but I can know and not merely believe what I say.

Notice that Anna in not simply conveying confidence. She is outright denying that she cannot know something just because she might possibly be mistaken.

[QUOTE]You Ken, are extremely bitter with my earlier abruptness - the level of said bitterness is equal (as in causation) to the level of its redirection.[/QUOTE]He's not bitter.

[QUOTE]See you later Ken, and fare well (that's referring to your well being) in case you think otherwise.

Mark...[/QUOTE]
I don't wish people fare well while having full intentions of continuing a conversation.

@mark noble,

mark noble;163101 wrote:

The only event I can perceive as "Not being a cause" is the event that hasn't caused anything yet.

Events are either causes or not causes. Events are not non-causes one day and then suddenly become causes the next. I am not sure what that means.

mark noble;163101 wrote:

The most recent event (Here and now) that leads to it innevitably being recorded as a cause (future), that is about to, but hasn't yet, taken place. Must be - future pending, and thusly - an event with no cause.

huh? Causes are not "future pending." They are presently sufficient for their effects. If they are not presently sufficient for their effects, then they are not causes at all.

Read about Mackie's "INUS condition." Each event (or condition) is the insufficient but necessary part of the total unecessary but sufficient cause of the effect E.

US--->E.

@Extrain,

Every event has a cause, but that doesn't imply that every event is a cause. Let's say there is a sequence of three events: Event 1, event 2, and event 3.

Focus on event 2. Event 2 has a cause, and that cause is event 1. Event 2 is a cause, for what it causes is event 3. Do you see why I said event 2 has a cause and why event 2 is a cause?

If you want to know if an event has a cause, you look to the past, and if you want to know if an event is a cause, you look to the future.

Move on to event 3 and focus on that. Event 3 has a cause, and that cause is event 2. Now, is event 3 a cause? If it is, then event 4 is the effect, but that assumes there is an event 4. If there is not an event 4, then although event 3 has a cause, event 3 is not a cause.

@fast,

fast;163114 wrote:

Every event has a cause. Let's say there is a sequence of three events: Event 1, event 2, and event 3.

Focus on event 2. Event 2 has a cause, and that cause is event 1. Event 2 is a cause, for what it causes is event 3. Do you see why I said event 2 has a cause and why event 2 is a cause?

I understand what you are saying. This is not rocket science. I just don't understand why you think every event is an effect, but not committed to believievng every event is a cause. I already discussed this.

fast;163114 wrote:

If you want to know if an event has a cause, you look to the past, and if you want to know if an event is a cause, you look to the future.

What does our knowing and not knowing have to do with the question of whether an event is, in fact, a cause? An event either is, or is not, a cause, irrespective of our knowing or not knowing that.

In any case, how is it even possible I look to the future to find out that an event IS a cause of another event if that future event has not come around yet? Don't I have to look at the present and the past?

fast;163114 wrote:

Move on to event 3 and focus on that. Event 3 has a cause, and that cause is event 2. Now, is event 3 a cause? If it is, then event 4 is the effect, but that assumes there is an event 4. If there is not an event 4, then although event 3 has a cause, event 3 is not a cause.

That's invalid. If 3 has a cause, and event 4 has not yet "come around" (or doesn't come around at all), it does not logically follow, that 3 is not a cause. You are just begging the question whether or not 3 is a cause of 4, based on what we do and do not know about causal sequences. 3 could be a cause of any future event. So I want to know why you think 3 is not a cause at all.

Again, why do you think every event is an effect, but not committed to believing every event is a cause? Do you just think causal chains stop in some places but continue in others? Why? You are denying Newton's Law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Until you give me good reason for thinking this is false (which you are assuming it is since you think causal chains stop), then I don't have to take your view with too much seriousness. sorry.

@Extrain,

[QUOTE=Extrain;163121]Again, why do you think every event is an effect, but not committed to believing every event is a cause? Do you just think causal chains stop in some places but continue in others? Why? You are denying Newton's Law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Until you give me good reason for thinking this is false (which you are assuming it is since you think causal chains stop), then I don't have to take your view with too much seriousness. sorry.[/QUOTE]
Grrr!

I'm not trying to espouse the view that causal chains stop, but I am arguing that you shouldn't deny that they do based on these two lonely premises alone: 1) All events are caused and 2) Where there are no effects, there are no causes. Your recent decision to throw in Newton's law kinda changes things a bit.

Oh well, I guess I should give more weight to those barely noticeable events you were talking about earlier.

@fast,

fast;163129 wrote:

Grrr!

I'm not trying to espouse the view that causal chains stop, but I am arguing that you shouldn't deny that they do based on these two lonely premises alone: 1) All events are caused and 2) Where there are no effects, there are no causes. Your recent decision to throw in Newton's law kinda changes things a bit.

Oh well, I guess I should give more weight to those barely noticeable events you were talking about earlier.

I am not concerned with what premises you hold, and with what premises you find questionable (for no apparent reason, I might add). I, on the other hand, hold that every event is both cause and effect. It is most consistent with science, and it doesn't violate any Laws or Principles. You are making trivial and pointless arguments based off "two lonely premises." But there is no reason to think to be a determinist we have to hold only those two premises which you arbitrarily selected everyone should be holding, and not others. You've got only one half of the philosophical view most people take it to be, and I see no eason for denying the truth that "every event is a cause," or the truth of "every event has an effect." I still think those are both true statements, because I think causal chains are real.

And yes, you ARE calling into question causal chains since you think there is no reason we should be holding that every effect is also a cause. But effects are also actions, and for every action there is a future reaction. So effects are also causes. And I see no good reason for thinking this is false.

@mark noble,

mark noble;163080 wrote:

Hello Ken,

From a literal perspective, I am correct. We use words in their exactitude - To alter the degree of the subject matter, we apply adjectives. We don't use words like "Fast" has recently enlightened me, "Certain" - to express that we are fallible - We use the word "fallible to do This. "Certain" means "Indisputable" or "Definite" from my perspective. But I now understand that the terminology and related jargon, in use on this forum is not as regimented as, in literature.

Blithely insinuates? Which variation of "Blithely" - Carelessly, joyously, gayly? Insinuates = introduce by subtle manipulation, I take it? from your subsequent use of "deceptively"?

My evidence is this Ken.= I misinterpretated what seemed logical to me by my inability to understand the respective terminology.

Deceptively pleasant way??? This speaks for itself.

I am now going to psychologically profile this most recent post of yours.

You Ken, are extremely bitter with my earlier abruptness - the level of said bitterness is equal (as in causation) to the level of its redirection.

Your attachment to Zetherin is typical of a vulnerable beast's to its relative flock. Safety in numbers. I see it all day, every day.
Your use of words, I liken to a snake in the grass. kinda like the early christian zealots who twisted "Surrender" into "betray" and left us with the ghastly image of Judas, most perceive today.

I can see the snake sir, and so will anyone who tends your (above) quote,
it is visibly direct.

I don't need to deceive anyone, anywhere. I desire nothing in life and I have nothing to sell. I enjoy conversing, and am prone to err.

I forgive you Ken and mock you not, sir
But know this: Vengeance destroys the soul it inhabits, and those who dig pits - generally fall into them, themselves.

Anyway, thankyou for trying to paint me as the anti-christ, but, do get over it, because - I Don't Care.

See you later Ken, and fare well (that's referring to your well being) in case you think otherwise.

Mark...

You seem like a pretty intelligent guy. Let's direct that intelligence back to the topic. Because, after all, these psychological profiles aren't helping the conversation.

Are you confused about the difference between infallibility and certainty? Do you think, for instance, that when I say I am certain that I have a test tomorrow, that I am claiming there is no way I could be wrong? If you think this, please explain why. Because, as I noted, all I'm claiming here is that I strongly believe I will have a test tomorrow. And I acknowledge that, for instance, my professor could change his or her mind.

@Extrain,

Extrain;163135 wrote:

And yes, you ARE calling into question causal chains since you think there is no reason we should be holding that every effect is also a cause.

Yes, I suppose you would think that.

@Extrain,

Extrain;163024 wrote:

This is irrelevant. You say that "Fatalism is true" is an a posteriori claim ("possibly true" or not, it doesn't matter). "A posteriori" MEANS the knowledge you have about fatalism being true is derived from your own sense-experience. For the last time, what empirical evidence do you have that suggests fatalism is true?

For the last time, there is no contradiction if you don ` t understand. A posteriori is knowledge gain by experience, but it does not say which agent. The entire human race will probable never ever know if there are multiple universes, but it is not logically impossible that some life form can know.

Quote:

It simply doesn't mattter you think some worlds are fatalistic and not others. You explicitly say fatalism is an a posteriori claim. That means you know fatalism is true via your own sense-experience. So again, what empirical evidence do you have that suggests fatalism is true?

Are you joking? Since when is a posteriori knowledge dependent on a single observer, me? I am flattered by the way.

Quote:

That's pretty cool--just like "The Incredible Hulk"?

Yes, i am turning green everytime you ignore my example, and i have to repeat endlessly later on. You fail to reply to my response to what you noted as a contradiction between "a posteriori knowledge", and my claim that there are somethings outside our capacity to know. Are you going to ignore it again?

Not to mention the endless time you misread me by saying i claim fatalism to be true in the actual world. Your ridiculous claim that that fatalism is metaphysically necessary is also something you ignore knowing that i am right. Too shy?

@kennethamy,

Compare, the fatalistic slogan "whatever will happen will happen" with the two slogans, "business is business", and "war is war" (we might call them "the cynical slogans"). And just as the cynical slogans taken in one way are trivially true, and taken in a different (non-trivial) way are, to say the least, morally controversial, so the fatalistic slogan, taken in one way, is trivially true, but taken in another way, is, to say the least, empirically controversial.

@fast,

fast;163103 wrote:

I don't wish people fare well while having full intentions of continuing a conversation.

Hi Fast,

I do understand the nature of the philosophical view of the interpretation of "Certain" now.

I always understood its' literal, contextual nature.

Thank you for your input though, it is Much appreciated.

"Fare" - old english (journey) and "well" = Journey well - in body and mind, that is.

Why does this gesture of well-being draw so much attention?
I mean it, because I wish positive events in the lives of those I come into contact with.

If I'm perceived as a git for using this gesture, I don't care. I like me.

Thank you fast, and fare well,

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 03:38 PM ----------

Zetherin;163169 wrote:

Are you confused about the difference between infallibility and certainty? Do you think, for instance, that when I say I am certain that I have a test tomorrow, that I am claiming there is no way I could be wrong? If you think this, please explain why. Because, as I noted, all I'm claiming here is that I strongly believe I will have a test tomorrow. And I acknowledge that, for instance, my professor could change his or her mind.

Hi Zetherin,

I believe I'm going to use the word "definite" in place of "certain" from here on.
So, what I would be asking, regarding your (above) question, would read -Can you be indisputably definite that you have a test tomorrow?
Or, indeed, of any event?

Thank you Zetherin, and fare well.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 03:56 PM ----------

Extrain;163108 wrote:

huh? Causes are not "future pending." They are presently sufficient for their effects. If they are not presently sufficient for their effects, then they are not causes at all.
.

Hi Extrain,

I'm thinking on this front - If the future is definite, it will be comprised of events. Seeing as those events will exist, but do not, as yet, exist - they are unquantifiable, at this point. Yes, they will only be developed by the criteria that precedes them, but have yet to develop.

Am I wrong, in assuming that there is one event that is always the foremost present event? Now (in the infinitesimal), of course.

Or do you believe that more than one event can take place, at once. (Not on the scale of relative perception)?

Thank you Extrain, and fare well.

Mark...

@kennethamy,

mark noble wrote:

Can you be indisputably definite that you have a test tomorrow?
Or, indeed, of any event?

Right. Once again you're asking if I am infallible. And the answer to that is no. I am fallible.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;163444 wrote:

Right. Once again you're asking if I am infallible. And the answer to that is no. I am fallible.

Hi Zetherin.

Do you believe that everything is fallible? And, if you do, as I think you do, is not even your belief that it is, fallible?

Thank you again -I only hope my train of thought is tangible to you.

Mark...

@mark noble,

mark noble;163450 wrote:

Hi Zetherin.

Do you believe that everything is fallible? And, if you do, as I think you do, is not even your belief that it is, fallible?

Thank you again -I only hope my train of thought is tangible to you.

Mark...

Is the belief that all beliefs are fallible, fallible? Of course. There is nothing paradoxical about that. No one has claimed that his belief in fallibilism is not, itself, fallible. Why should he? Naturally, that does not imply that someone who is a fallibilist does not think that fallibilism is true. Indeed, all of us believe that every one of our beliefs is true. For unless we believed a belief was true we would not hold that belief in the first place.

P.S. Why would you want your train of thought able to be touched by anyone?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;163451 wrote:

Is the belief that all beliefs are fallible, fallible? Of course. There is nothing paradoxical about that. No one has claimed that his belief in fallibilism is not, itself, fallible. Why should he? Naturally, that does not imply that someone who is a fallibilist does not think that fallibilism is true. Indeed, all of us believe that every one of our beliefs is true. For unless we believed a belief was true we would not hold that belief in the first place.

P.S. Why would you want your train of thought able to be touched by anyone?

HI OmniKen,

Do we all not occassionally question and, indeed, reformulate our beliefs, even at the most seemingly, insignificant levels?

Her I am, trying to be more flexible with my absolutes and you throw in the "absolute-Tangible" factor.
Well spotted, and, indeed, I smile.
I know humour when I see it.
Nice one.

I'm using a dial-up connection and my connection fails an awful lot. so, if I dissappear occassionally, that's why.

fare well Ken.

Mark...

P.s. My "Russian-Doll" query?

@mark noble,

Hey ken, do you think it could be otherwise ?
...hell no !!!

YouTube - Liszt Sonata in B Minor (Part 1) - Evgeny Kissin

Philosophy Forum

The Fatal Paradox

Quick Links

My Account

able2know