Immanuel Can wrote:But surely there is no "likely" in Determinism. For "likely" indicates a state of diverse possible outcomes, the "likelihood" of which can be calculated as more or "less" likely.
But in Determinism, there only ever is or was ONE outcome possible, and so there is no "likelihood" involved at all.
From my perspective your question about my use of “likely” illustrates my point about language perfectly. Your point about the lack of alternatives in determinism is a good one, so I must either debar myself from using this simple little word or I must take the trouble to explain how I am using it. I’m up to the task, though.
When I use “likely” I speak of subjective probability. I believe that all future events are determined, and will happen as they must. But, of course, I cannot predict with accuracy what these events will be. But, from my knowledge and experience, I can take a view of how probable, or likely, certain events might seem to be. Let’s take the standard mathematical convention that the probability of an event that is certain to happen is 1, and that the probability of an event that cannot happen is 0. Obviously, the probability that I will die one day is 1. I would guess, and it's only a guess, though an informed one, that the probability that I die within the next twenty years is greater than .5. So I’d express that by saying I believe it’s likely I’ll die in the next twenty years. I do believe there’s a fixed point in the future when I’m going to die, but I don’t know when it is. And I’m grateful for that!
My intention was to persuade you that the normal use of the word “failure” was consistent with determinism. Clearly I have “failed” to so persuade you. It was determined that I should “fail” to persuade you, just as it was determined that I should “fail” to understand why I have “failed” to persuade you, as is in fact the case. (I’m going to drop the apostrophes again, going forwards. They look messy.) I do hope you’re not holding to the line that any sort of intentionality is incompatible with determinism. My position denies free will, not the existence of any sort of will.Just as there can be no "failure".
I’m not saying that language is flawed. As you suggest, it is what it is. What I’m saying is that my task of articulation is made more difficult when I’m pulled up short for using a simple word like “likely” because of the free will connotations that you see in it. But don’t worry, I’m not complaining. I’m not asking for your sympathy!But I suggest that is not merely because language is "flawed," (for what else could it be but what it is, according to Determinism?), but because Deterministic language is actually incompatible with the very real way people encounter and understand the world.