[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I for one happen to feel like material determinism is highly likely. Just basically impossible to conclude, because of the calculation problem that is involved. I would think given perfect knowledge you might be able to accurately predict things. Obviously this is unlikely to ever occur. But unpredictability absolutely does not imply free will. I cannot predict the outcome of a coin toss, but I would hardly say the coin has free will.[/quote]
I am interested by what you mean by calculation problem, are you talking about heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and probability bounds that occur in wave functions or something else entirely?[/quote]
The calculation problem he refers to is this. That if you knew all the factors of a certain even you could predict every moment if it’s existence from then on. Not having the knowledge, we therefore cannot predict something’s movements. This would account for the Uncertainty principal as well. If we knew everything, there would be no uncertainty, in anything.
I do believe in freewill, but that is only a function of consciousness. That which does not have consciousness can not do other than the preceding ‘moment’ demands.
It’s been called ‘soft determinism’. That’s a bullshit term because even if most things are determined, at least materially they are, even one instance of freewill invalidates determinism. The problem with determinism is it’s absoluteness.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Assuming that is true, are metaphysical entities contingent?
[/quote]
Yes. Anything that possess existence is contingent whether it be material or immaterial. I would go further to say physical existence cannot exist with out it’s metaphysical counter part, but metaphysical existence can exist with out a physical counter part. [/quote]
How do you define “possess existence”?
And how sure are you that absolutely EVERYTHING that possesses existence is contingent?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Assuming that is true, are metaphysical entities contingent?
[/quote]
Yes. Anything that possess existence is contingent whether it be material or immaterial. I would go further to say physical existence cannot exist with out it’s metaphysical counter part, but metaphysical existence can exist with out a physical counter part. [/quote]
How do you define “possess existence”?
[/quote]
If it exists, then by definition, the property of existence belongs to it, or it belongs to existence. It’s just a uniform property that everything has.
[quote]
And how sure are you that absolutely EVERYTHING that possesses existence is contingent?[/quote]
Not everything is, one thing cannot be, the rest must be. Two things that exist uncaused and yet cause, cannot definitionally exist, it can only be one…
I guess this is where we logically part paths. If it’s possible one thing exists without being contingent, it’s possible other things exist without being contingent. Whatever quality allows that one thing to be noncontingent could be shared by other things.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I for one happen to feel like material determinism is highly likely. Just basically impossible to conclude, because of the calculation problem that is involved. I would think given perfect knowledge you might be able to accurately predict things. Obviously this is unlikely to ever occur. But unpredictability absolutely does not imply free will. I cannot predict the outcome of a coin toss, but I would hardly say the coin has free will.[/quote]
I am interested by what you mean by calculation problem, are you talking about heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and probability bounds that occur in wave functions or something else entirely?[/quote]
It is a general problem often spoken of in economics as ‘the economic calculation problem’. Broadly speaking the ‘calculation problem’ simply means that while given perfect knowledge something may be possible (like central planning in economic debates) the rejoinder is often that barring perfect knowledge it is impossible to calculate the outcome given the overwhelming amount of data required and our limited ability to use it all coherently. Thus you cannot calculate the outcome.
I think it applies in deterministic debates, because so many people simply conclude that since we cannot predict something that free will must be involved. My point is that perhaps as humans we cannot know it simply because of a calculation problem and that we are in fact still materially determined despite us not being able to comprehend the future.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I for one happen to feel like material determinism is highly likely. Just basically impossible to conclude, because of the calculation problem that is involved. I would think given perfect knowledge you might be able to accurately predict things. Obviously this is unlikely to ever occur. But unpredictability absolutely does not imply free will. I cannot predict the outcome of a coin toss, but I would hardly say the coin has free will.[/quote]
I am interested by what you mean by calculation problem, are you talking about heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and probability bounds that occur in wave functions or something else entirely?[/quote]
It is a general problem often spoken of in economics as ‘the economic calculation problem’. Broadly speaking the ‘calculation problem’ simply means that while given perfect knowledge something may be possible (like central planning in economic debates) the rejoinder is often that barring perfect knowledge it is impossible to calculate the outcome given the overwhelming amount of data required and our limited ability to use it all coherently. Thus you cannot calculate the outcome.
I think it applies in deterministic debates, because so many people simply conclude that since we cannot predict something that free will must be involved. My point is that perhaps as humans we cannot know it simply because of a calculation problem and that we are in fact still materially determined despite us not being able to comprehend the future.[/quote]
Even if the calculation problem is resolved if determinism is true it could not be rationally affirmed. It also undermines the rationality with which one does science. For example if one take determinism to be true and takes people to be material beings whose thoughts are the product of electrons moving in ones brain. Then the reason for one believing determinism to be true was that he was determined to do so even the thought that his brain is made of atoms; and gives no possibility for one to weigh arguments for any conclusion one comes to for one was just determined to do so.
This is one of the basis that I reject materialistic determinism which ironically enough is held by many of those who subscribe to scientism even though it undermines science itself.
If I am not wrong in my assumption what has made materialistic determinism to be tenable to you? In that light how do you view people?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I guess this is where we logically part paths. If it’s possible one thing exists without being contingent, it’s possible other things exist without being contingent. Whatever quality allows that one thing to be noncontingent could be shared by other things.[/quote]Aristotle and Aquinas continue to fail you Pat. As long as you insist on using their own weapons the pagans will continue to win just like here. Ya really don’t get it. You both have the same foundation. It serves them well, but is an affront to the God who commands light to exist and who CANNOT be contorted and compressed to fit into your (or my) puny, pathetic little skull.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I guess this is where we logically part paths. If it’s possible one thing exists without being contingent, it’s possible other things exist without being contingent. Whatever quality allows that one thing to be noncontingent could be shared by other things.[/quote]
I was going to say no, flatly. But let’s play with this thought process, how would this work. I mean how could there be multiple non-contingent beings?
Are they also, causal or they exist with out cause, and also do not cause?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I guess this is where we logically part paths. If it’s possible one thing exists without being contingent, it’s possible other things exist without being contingent. Whatever quality allows that one thing to be noncontingent could be shared by other things.[/quote]Aristotle and Aquinas continue to fail you Pat. As long as you insist on using their own weapons the pagans will continue to win just like here. Ya really don’t get it. You both have the same foundation. It serves them well, but is an affront to the God who commands light to exist and who CANNOT be contorted and compressed to fit into your (or my) puny, pathetic little skull.
[/quote]
You don’t get it.
If you think it’s wrong, prove it.
It actually serves me quite well as I have an outstanding record, and incredibly intricate knowledge on the subject matter.
Just because you do not understand it, doesn’t mean I don’t. That’s your problem, not mine.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I for one happen to feel like material determinism is highly likely. Just basically impossible to conclude, because of the calculation problem that is involved. I would think given perfect knowledge you might be able to accurately predict things. Obviously this is unlikely to ever occur. But unpredictability absolutely does not imply free will. I cannot predict the outcome of a coin toss, but I would hardly say the coin has free will.[/quote]
I am interested by what you mean by calculation problem, are you talking about heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and probability bounds that occur in wave functions or something else entirely?[/quote]
It is a general problem often spoken of in economics as ‘the economic calculation problem’. Broadly speaking the ‘calculation problem’ simply means that while given perfect knowledge something may be possible (like central planning in economic debates) the rejoinder is often that barring perfect knowledge it is impossible to calculate the outcome given the overwhelming amount of data required and our limited ability to use it all coherently. Thus you cannot calculate the outcome.
I think it applies in deterministic debates, because so many people simply conclude that since we cannot predict something that free will must be involved. My point is that perhaps as humans we cannot know it simply because of a calculation problem and that we are in fact still materially determined despite us not being able to comprehend the future.[/quote]
Even if the calculation problem is resolved if determinism is true it could not be rationally affirmed. It also undermines the rationality with which one does science. For example if one take determinism to be true and takes people to be material beings whose thoughts are the product of electrons moving in ones brain. Then the reason for one believing determinism to be true was that he was determined to do so even the thought that his brain is made of atoms; and gives no possibility for one to weigh arguments for any conclusion one comes to for one was just determined to do so.
This is one of the basis that I reject materialistic determinism which ironically enough is held by many of those who subscribe to scientism even though it undermines science itself.
If I am not wrong in my assumption what has made materialistic determinism to be tenable to you? In that light how do you view people?[/quote]
But it doesn’t undermine science at all. In fact the reason many scientists and rationalists go for determinism is because it makes sense scientifically as compared with the alternatives. Now I am no physicist, so the latest and greatest theory may disprove what I am about to say, but generally the only alternative to determinism is belief in magical/spiritual forces that create “free will” independent of material objects. So many skeptically minded folks conclude it isn’t rational to think ghosts or spiritual material exist separately from the material world.
Secondly, material determinism does not imply FATE in the same way many take it to. For example, the same person plopped down in two wildly different environments will have a significantly different life direction. This may all be predictable and played out with perfect knowledge, but the point is there isn’t some mystical fate-type thing wrapped up in a person. Just as computers with Artificial Intelligence respond to problems they are presented with so too would humans respond. The fact that a computer doesn’t have free will doesn’t mean that it won’t hypothesize and check its results when prompted to. Science and experimentation flatly do not require free will to function properly. AI adds to a computers knowledge base by evaluating information and increasing its network of information and data connections. Humans do roughly the same thing. Science and experiments are just one tool humans use to gather information about the world and make sense of it. Doesn’t matter what the motivation is for doing it free will or materially determined imperative.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Pat. I am sitting here in genuine gape jawed awe at your incomparable expertise at missing my points. It is not possible for anybody to grasp LESS of what I say than you. You may Think I mean that as an insult. I honestly do not, but it is something to behold. It is an utter waste of time for me to talk to you. Maybe it’s my fault. I don’t know.[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Language gap.<<< And Augustine was a Platonist. [/quote]I know that Chris. Augustine’s epistemology was inconsistent with his theology which is not at all uncommon even now. Every non presuppositional Calvinist is in exactly the same boat. Thankfully their theology is better than their epistemology just like Augustine.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I guess this is where we logically part paths. If it’s possible one thing exists without being contingent, it’s possible other things exist without being contingent. Whatever quality allows that one thing to be noncontingent could be shared by other things.[/quote]
I was going to say no, flatly. But let’s play with this thought process, how would this work. I mean how could there be multiple non-contingent beings?
Are they also, causal or they exist with out cause, and also do not cause?[/quote]
I wouldn’t categorically restrict it to beings, as that implies life and intelligence, neither of which is required for noncontingency.
That said, why couldn’t there be multiple noncontingent things?
They could be causal, or not.
Being causal doesn’t imply that you cause everything, only that you cause something.
There’s nothing illogical about multiple noncontingent, noncausal things.
There’s also nothing illogical about multiple noncontingent, causal things.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I guess this is where we logically part paths. If it’s possible one thing exists without being contingent, it’s possible other things exist without being contingent. Whatever quality allows that one thing to be noncontingent could be shared by other things.[/quote]
I was going to say no, flatly. But let’s play with this thought process, how would this work. I mean how could there be multiple non-contingent beings?
Are they also, causal or they exist with out cause, and also do not cause?[/quote]
I wouldn’t categorically restrict it to beings, as that implies life and intelligence, neither of which is required for noncontingency.
That said, why couldn’t there be multiple noncontingent things?
They could be causal, or not.
[/quote]
How? And what would such things be?
Never said any different.
[quote]
There’s nothing illogical about multiple noncontingent, noncausal things.
There’s also nothing illogical about multiple noncontingent, causal things.[/quote]
Yeah, that is highly fallacious. What exist uncaused and non causal, but yet exists for no reason. It just is? What would something like that be, even hypothetically speaking? Is there any evidence at all in either in physical or metaphysical reality of such multiple things existing?
Second, causal regress necessitates rolling up to a single and not multiple uncaused-causation. It is impossible to regress to multiples. Demonstrate an argument where this would work.
Before I get into examples, I’d like to get agreement that there’s nothing illogical whatsoever about multiple noncontingent things existing.
Causal regress doesn’t apply to noncontingent things that don’t cause. There is no conflict here.
Furthermore, there’s nothing illogical about having multiple “uncaused causes”, each of which has their own associated series of effects. Logic doesn’t require that everything ultimately is caused by the same original cause…things may have different causes.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Before I get into examples, I’d like to get agreement that there’s nothing illogical whatsoever about multiple noncontingent things existing.
Causal regress doesn’t apply to noncontingent things that don’t cause. There is no conflict here.
Furthermore, there’s nothing illogical about having multiple “uncaused causes”, each of which has their own associated series of effects. Logic doesn’t require that everything ultimately is caused by the same original cause…things may have different causes.[/quote]I agree
[quote]forlife wrote:
Before I get into examples, I’d like to get agreement that there’s nothing illogical whatsoever about multiple noncontingent things existing.
[/quote]
I cannot agree. You’ll have to lay down something compelling for me to agree with.
If said things existed, then yes. But what are these things…Here’s a big problem, if they are in anyway observable, then they become causal. So I need you to explain how this works.
I cannot agree with out a sufficient reason to do so.
[quote]
Furthermore, there’s nothing illogical about having multiple “uncaused causes”, each of which has their own associated series of effects. Logic doesn’t require that everything ultimately is caused by the same original cause…things may have different causes.[/quote]
Yeah, that is highly illogical. It completely sodomizes the causal chain and and regression. It is completely impossible for there to be more than one. I’d like to see an argument that demonstrates this possibility.
I don’t have to lay down anything. I do have examples in mind, but I want to keep the discussion focused on the topic of logical viability.
It’s your responsibility to demonstrate why it’s illogical for multiple noncontingent things to exist. I don’t understand why this idea is troubling, to be honest.
Logic doesn’t depend on whether or not something is actually true. It simply describes what could be true. So please stop focusing on whether or not it is true, and address the logic of the assertion.
Do you agree that it isn’t illogical for noncontingent, noncausal things to exist? And that infinite regress has no bearing on this point, since these things are noncausal?
On multiple noncontingent causal things existing, why are you assuming there is, and can only be, one causal chain? Why aren’t you allowing for the logical possibility of multiple causal chains?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I guess this is where we logically part paths. If it’s possible one thing exists without being contingent, it’s possible other things exist without being contingent. Whatever quality allows that one thing to be noncontingent could be shared by other things.[/quote]
I was going to say no, flatly. But let’s play with this thought process, how would this work. I mean how could there be multiple non-contingent beings?
Are they also, causal or they exist with out cause, and also do not cause?[/quote]
I wouldn’t categorically restrict it to beings, as that implies life and intelligence, neither of which is required for noncontingency.
[/quote]
In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the phenomenon in which a wave function initially in a superposition of several different possible eigenstates appears to reduce to a single one of those states after interaction with an observer.
Something has made our observable universe collapse from being a superposition of possible states, to a collapsed single state.
Here are some scientific variations in opinion:
The existence of the wave function collapse is required in
the Copenhagen interpretation
the objective collapse interpretations
the so-called transactional interpretation
the von Neumann interpretation in which consciousness causes collapse.
On the other hand, the collapse is considered as a redundant or optional approximation in
the Bohm interpretation
the Ensemble Interpretation
the Many-Worlds Interpretation
interpretations based on Consistent Histories
[quote]forlife wrote:
I don’t have to lay down anything. I do have examples in mind, but I want to keep the discussion focused on the topic of logical viability.
[/quote]
Uh, yeah you do if you want to convince me. You brought it up, therefore you have to defend it with something.
Uh no, the burden of proof is on you. You need to make an argument that proves the multiple non-contingent entity thing. You haven’t made an argument yet, I have nothing to refute. There is no evidence what so ever, to support such a claim. Should I just believe you just cause? Establish the argument, then I will dissect it and explain what’s wrong.
Logic doesn’t WHAT?! That’s all logic does. It focuses on what is true. That is the reason it exists. Further, you made the assertion, so you have to prove it’s right. I already explained that the nature of causal relationships and regression forbids more than a single uncaused-cause. It is logically impossible to regress to multiple uncause-causes. You need to show me how it’s true. There is not a single solitary shred of evidence, even conceptually, to support this claim.
No, I absolutely don’t agree. If you can even make an argument for such a thing, it would contradict in that it would be causal. Your knowledge of it is contingent upon it’s existence. It’s existence, caused you to know about it. So no, absolutely impossible.
[quote]
On multiple noncontingent causal things existing, why are you assuming there is, and can only be, one causal chain? Why aren’t you allowing for the logical possibility of multiple causal chains?[/quote]
It’s not an assumption. The argument demands that it is one thing, not many. If you got a good argument supporting multiple uncaused-causes, I wanna hear it, real bad.
