A definition of contingency\non contingency may be helpful as well.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
A definition of contingency\non contingency may be helpful as well.[/quote]
Something that is contingent is something that relies on something else for its existence(directly or indirectly) and could have failed to exist. A non contingent thing is something that isn’t dependent on anything for its existence and exist by necessity or in other words it could not possibly have failed to exist.
An example of a contingent thing that could have failed to exist would be my theoretical 1 pound perfectly cubic quartz paper weight. Is it by necessity that this paper weight would have to exist, couldn’t I have an approximately 1 pound approximately cubic quartz paper weight. The perfectly cubic paper weight and approximately cubic paper weight are not the same so the perfectly cubic quartz paper weight doesn’t exist by necessity. I also could of have a granite paper weight or no paper weight at all. As one goes through this exercise one sees that even the universe is contingent.
A non contingent being would be God for which it is impossible for him to not exist and depends on nothing for his existence. Even if he has decided to create nothing he would still be God and be the epitome of Love, Truth and Justice etc… and would be impossible for him to lack any of his qualities since they are part of his nature. I have been intrigued by the modal ontological argument recently.
Quantum physics absolutely confirms that the collapsed wave function that is the material universe must be contingent-MUST BE.
Now what makes sense-that its contingent on a material object within the universe (that would not itself exist until the wave function collapsed) or on something that is not itself contingent on the universe.
In other words, no God and the universe can never become anything but a superposition of multiple states.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hard science is a philosophical method based on observation. It only requires the existence of a falsifiable premise (hypothesis) and method of measurement that bears repeatable results. [/quote]
Falsifiability requires free will. If we did not have free will, our conclusions about the outcomes of experiments would be predetermined, therefore science requires free will.
Free will puts humans in a special place. Where does free will come from? [/quote]
Lol. you’re retarded.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Quantum physics absolutely confirms that the collapsed wave function that is the material universe must be contingent-MUST BE.
Now what makes sense-that its contingent on a material object within the universe (that would not itself exist until the wave function collapsed) or on something that is not itself contingent on the universe.
In other words, no God and the universe can never become anything but a superposition of multiple states.[/quote]
Really makes one look at Colossians 1:17 in a whole new light.
Colossians 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
Pat, I’ve made an argument that multiple uncaused causes is logically possible.
Your rebuttal is the assertion that regression forbids there being more than one uncaused cause.
I’m asking for an explanation of why you believe regression makes multiple uncaused causes logically impossible.
That would only be true IF all things ultimately derive from a single cause. If all things don’t derive from a single cause, regression doesn’t make multiple uncaused causes logically impossible.
So where is your proof that all things derive from a single cause?
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:<<< Something that is contingent is something that relies on something else for its existence(directly or indirectly) and could have failed to exist. A non contingent thing is something that isn’t dependent on anything for its existence and exist by necessity or in other words it could not possibly have failed to exist >>>[/quote]I would add to this that a contingent being is one who relies on external influences for self governance. In other words one whose freedom is limited by another. A non contingent being would be one whose freedom and self governance is entirely self contained. In a nutshell.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[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]
You haven’t address the argument that if determinism is true it can’t be rationally affirmed; what basis do I have in trusting what my mental faculties are telling me is accurate if I start from the world view that matter is all there is. Before I even being to do science, do I not have to assume that the universe is rationally intelligible? Naturalism does not give one any basis in trusting ones mental faculties or even that the universe is intelligible.
What you have described though are some scientist’s(and “rationalist’s” though I am sure you mean empiricists)strict adherence to methodological naturalism leading them to apply it outside of the limits of the scientific methods which then leads one to metaphysical naturalism. A famous example would be Stephen Hawking. Discrediting non-naturalism without looking at the shortcomings and self refuting nature of taking naturalism to its logical conclusion isn’t a good basis for dismissing it as irrational.
Secondly I do not understand how you are escaping fatalism by positing two different possible environments a man could be in while in each one he is still determined to do what he does; this implies that its possible for him to change some of the conditions to which then he can behave deterministically. If ones thoughts are the product of deterministic processes of the atoms in ones brain which the initial conditions have already been set at the big bang, then it is impossible for one to experience any other set of conditions that were not determined by the initial conditions set at the big bang, though one may have the illusion(which is determined itself) they are able to change the conditions one experiences.
Comparing humans to computers also doesn’t solve anything if materialistic determinism is true; one just runs into the same problem as described above. Computers are just programed to do what they do, they really don’t know anything and behave deterministically with certain initial conditions yielding a certain outcome. AI as interesting as it is, is just intelligent programing on our part. The computer which isn’t conscious just operates deterministically on its programing with the unchangeable input conditions it was determined to operate on given by the initial conditions set at the big bang.
I agree that science is just one tool used for obtaining knowledge about the world, but before I do it I first have believe that the world and its information content is rationally intelligible and my mental faculties which process it are reliable. Taking naturalism to be true give one no basis for believing either, even the belief that naturalism is true. Are you saying you acknowledge other tools than science for obtaining knowledge or that other people do? If you do acknowledge other tools than science for knowing what are they?
Certainly relevant to this thread.