Laplace's Demon makes Nietzsche Affirmation

@Deckard,

I read up on it. Rest assured. Different interpretation. Such is life.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;115143 wrote:

I read up on it. Rest assured. Different interpretation. Such is life.

Yes. One interpretation is right, and one is wrong. Mine is right since that is exactly how the terms "hard determinism" and "soft determinism" are used. It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of correct or incorrect. Look the terms up.

@Deckard,

Umo say he right. Me bang chest.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;115148 wrote:

Umo say he right. Me bang chest.

O.K. You surrender. I understand. You just did not know what you were talking about.

@Deckard,

Right. I'm actually quite illiterate. I have one of those machines that turn speech into type. So, yeah, I guess the secrets out. You win big time. Just like you knew you would all along.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;115142 wrote:

You simply don't know what "soft determinism" and "hard determinism" mean. To say that someone is a soft determinist is not to say he is not a fully fledged determinist. It is to say that he believes that determinism is compatible with free will. And a hard determinist is also a fully fledged determinist. But he holds that determinism is not compatible with free will. So, the issue between the two kinds of determinist lies in whether they think that determinism is compatible with free will or not.

Quit trying to force things into black or white categories. You can try to cram that square peg into a round whole all you want, but it is not not going to fit.

The issue is not as simple as whether the determinist thinks that free will is compatible with determinism, but rather, how far stretching the belief in determinism is. The hard determinist is the strict determinist that believes in it 100% in nearly everything. The soft determinist or weak determinist is less so, but still not necessarily believe in free will.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;115163 wrote:

Quit trying to force things into black or white categories. You can try to cram that square peg into a round whole all you want, but it is not not going to fit.

The issue is not as simple as whether the determinist thinks that free will is compatible with determinism, but rather, how far stretching the belief in determinism is. The hard determinist is the strict determinist that believes in it 100% in nearly everything. The soft determinist or weak determinist is less so, but still not necessarily believe in free will.

But you are mistaken. The issue between "hard determinism" and "soft determinism" is exactly whether determinism is compatible with free will. For that is exactly how those technical terms are used in philosophy. If you do not believe me, then why don't you look it up? If you do, you will see that I am right, and that you are wrong. This simply is a question of fact as to how certain terms are used by philosophers. It is not, itself, a philosophical issue. No more than how the terms, "acceleration" or "mass" are used by physicists is a physical issue. It is a simple issue as to how those terms are used. You are simply wrong about "soft determinism" meaning "weak determinism" whatever that may mean. There is no discussion about this. No more than there is any discussion about how the term "weird" is spelled. It is just a matter of fact that "weird" is spelled in the way it is spelled, and it is just a matter of fact that the words, "soft determinism" and "hard determinism" are used in a particular way, and any speculations about how they are used are simply pointless.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;114978 wrote:

Of course the past is pregnant with the future (Leibniz). So what? How do you distinguish between causation and determinism? Determinism, I learned, is the thesis that every event has some cause without which the event would not have occurred. And every cause is, itself, an event.

I would say determinism is the notion that there is only one possible event for a given cause or set of causes and that the future is perfectly fixed, predictable and determined by the past and current conditions..

I would say quantum reality is that the same causes or experiment can give rise to different events which while not random are stochastic and in some sense observor dependent probablities. Quantum events are caused but they are not deterministic (in the classical sense of the term).

Although quantum randomness does not directly give way to the libertarian notion of free will or to macroscopic unpredictability, if reality on a small scale is not deterministic then the possiblity that reality on a larger scale is not deterministic needs to be seriously entertained. In fact there are demonstrations of quantum uncertainty giving rise to uncertainty on larger scales.

So my basic response is hard determinism Laplace type and causation are not the same notion. The same causes may give rise to different events and the same events may have different causes. The hard determinism of Laplace arose from Cartesian notions of time and space and Newtonian notions of matter as point particles both of which are apparently "wrong" when viewed from the perspective of modern science (general relativity and quantum mechanics).

@prothero,

prothero;115475 wrote:

I would say determinism is the notion that there is only one possible event for a given cause or set of causes and that the future is perfectly fixed, predictable and determined by the past and current conditions..

.

Don't you mean "effect" and not just, "event"? Can't I cause you to die by shooting you, or by cutting off your head, or my suffocating you, or by stabbing you....?

What you seem to mean is that nothing than what did happen could have happened. But is that true? Suppose that I ordinarily walk a mile a day. But that today, I woke up late, and decided not to walk my mile. Could I not have walked my mile if I wanted to? I was in the same physical shape as yesterday. Everything was the same. So, although I did not walk my mile, I could have done so, if I had chosen to do so.

@kennethamy,

[QUOTE=kennethamy;115485]Don't you mean "effect" and not just, "event"? Can't I cause you to die by shooting you, or by cutting off your head, or my suffocating you, or by stabbing you....? [/QUOTE]

kennethamy;115485 wrote:

What you seem to mean is that nothing than what did happen could have happened. But is that true? Suppose that I ordinarily walk a mile a day. But that today, I woke up late, and decided not to walk my mile. Could I not have walked my mile if I wanted to? I was in the same physical shape as yesterday. Everything was the same. So, although I did not walk my mile, I could have done so, if I had chosen to do so.

You asked if there was a difference between the notions of causation and determinism. I replied I felt there was.

I am not a determinist. I think hard determinism is false. That is not to say everything is unpredictable or that events do not have causes; only that some things are unpredictable and that the same causes in some situations do not invariably give rise to the same events.

After reading your posts in several different threads on "free will" I still can not tell if you are a libertarian free will advocate or an incompatiblist or a compatibilist or what. You seem to change your argument and in some cases just for the sake of argument.

Do you think hard determinism of the LaPlace type is true?
If not how do you see the posiblities of the future, open and in some respects inherently unpredictable? (please answer, straight up).

It is simply not true that there is no relationship between determinism and free will. A persons position on determinism almost invariably reflects and informs their position on "free will". Compatiblist are simply determinists who redefine "free will" into an illusion of choice in order to avoid the argument that is inherent in determinism versus free will. I want more from my "free will" then Dennetts offer of the avoidance of futility.

The fact that an "event" is "caused" does not mean that the outcome is precisely "determined". Quantum reality is a good example and "free will" may be another.

---------- Post added 12-29-2009 at 11:35 PM ----------

kennethamy;115170 wrote:

But you are mistaken. The issue between "hard determinism" and "soft determinism" is exactly whether determinism is compatible with free will. For that is exactly how those technical terms are used in philosophy.

As far as I can tell from you the only difference between "hard determinism" and "soft determinism" is in compatibility with free will.
Other than "free will" compatibility: how do hard and soft determinism differ. Looks like sleight of hand (sophistry) to me.

@prothero,

I've been reading up on the compatibalist incompatibalist problems and so far my original naively assumed incompatibalist stance is not all that shaken by the opposing arguments. It seems to be more a matter of definitions than anything else but I will continue to read about it.

If I may, I would like to add another parallel line of discussion to this thread. Well I'm going to whether you like it or not. I just said 'if I may' to be polite.

Nietzsche writes that by affirming a single moment all eternity is redeemed for the one who affirms. Regardless of the first person plural 'we', the Nietzsche quote is referring to a subjective viewpoint. There is nothing implicit or explicit that suggests that the affirmation of one person redeems other peoples subjective experiences. In fact, if there was, it would be out of character for Nietzsche.

The omniscient demon of Laplace's thought experiment can make the claim of being completely objective. It knows all. It's knowledge is not limited to a single subjective viewpoint.

At first I was focused on the differences and similarities in the types of causality and/or determinism described in the two quotes but I think this difference may be of equal or greater importance. Perhaps this line of discussion, if taken up, will eventually intersect with the first.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;115101 wrote:

What does "soft on determinism" mean? I think you are confusion soft and hard determinism. Else, you would not be saying what you are saying. A soft determinist is just as much a determinist as a hard determinist. The difference is in the implications for free will.

Precisely a "soft determinist" just redefines "free will" in order to avoid incompatibilism and to claim that "free will" and "soft determinism" are compatible. Just how does that contribute to, clarify or solve the problem at all?. The soft determinist has a different definition or understanding of "free will" than the incompatibilist or libertarian free will advocate.

@prothero,

prothero;115492 wrote:

---------- Post added 12-29-2009 at 11:35 PM ----------

As far as I can tell from you the only difference between "hard determinism" and "soft determinism" is in compatibility with free will.
Other than "free will" compatibility: how do hard and soft determinism differ. Looks like sleight of hand (sophistry) to me.

I don't know why you say that. And I don't know why you use the term, "hard determinism" when all you mean is, "determinism" (whatever that is).
The question for you is why you distinguism between "hard" and "soft", since you have already decided (for yourself) that determinism is incompatible with free will. And, I don't think that is true.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;115525 wrote:

I don't know why you say that. And I don't know why you use the term, "hard determinism" when all you mean is, "determinism" (whatever that is).
The question for you is why you distinguism between "hard" and "soft", since you have already decided (for yourself) that determinism is incompatible with free will. And, I don't think that is true.

The real use of the term "soft determinism" it would seem is to change the notion of "free will" and to hope no one notices, . The notion of determism it would seem it pretty much the same hard or soft.

@prothero,

prothero;115580 wrote:

The real use of the term "soft determinism" it would seem is to change the notion of "free will" and to hope no one notices, . Tso
Quote:

Change it from what to what?

@Deckard,

From the ability to "have done" or "to do" otherwise. To hold oneself and others responsible for their actions.
to
that which necessarily had to occur as the result of the deterministic laws of nature.

@prothero,

prothero;115624 wrote:

From the ability to "have done" or "to do" otherwise. To hold oneself and others responsible for their actions.
to
that which necessarily had to occur as the result of the deterministic laws of nature.

Yes, as I said, you are a hard determinist. But you have not shown that hard determinism implies that what occurred "necessarily had to occur". You might start with the term, "necessarily".

@kennethamy,

I'm seeing something different in the two quotes in the OP. They both refer to realizing that whole exists in each of the parts. The whole universe is implied by one raindrop.

To say "yes" to the raindrop is to say "yes" to all things. Including where the Greek soldier tossed the prince off the city wall in front of his mother's eyes.

Everything is connected to everything.

Laplace was talking about a mind that could hold all the branches and roots of possibility that this moment implies. It looks like Nietzche was talking about just knowing that all things are connected without being aware of every possibility. Mr. Deckard may be making the astonishing suggestion that in order to know all the possibilities, one must accept all of them. And I have to say: holy guacamole. I think you're right. What's an incompatibilist?

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;115680 wrote:

. What's an incompatibilist?

Incompatibilism is the view that determinism is incompatible with free will. Either a hard determinist, or a libertarian.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;115684 wrote:

Incompatibilism is the view that determinism is incompatible with free will. Either a hard determinist, or a libertarian.

Libertarian. Oh. Well since neither really makes any sense without the other, I guess they either have to learn to be compatible or suffer the pains of an ugly divorce. Nobody wants that.

Philosophy Forum

Laplace's Demon makes Nietzsche Affirmation

Quick Links

My Account

able2know