Free Will vs Determinism

[Eodnhoj7]

"Some time the problem is not the problem itself, but the angle it is approached from."

I agree. Literally, where a body stands in relation to the problem can hobble or help.

Me, I fully admit my bias...I make no claim to being neutral...my perspsctive (where I'm standing) makes it impossible for me to take determinism (as philosophy) seriously...I'm skewed (by experience and character) to see myself, to act, as a self-director.

I believe the human experience is multidimensional, and because of it's multidimensionality we can reflect and manifest various realities through observation. Now I may not of convinced you of a point, my intention was never to do so. Instead my intention was just a separate perspective, and in some degree you were affected by it... at least enough to respond to me. And vice versa, where I share the same respective desire of self-direction, the conversation we are having (and the one's I have had with others) to some degree had some form of effect on me.

To limit the will to strictly reactive leads to an infinite regression of no definition. To limit the will to strictly proactive leads to an infinite regression of no definition. It through the reflections of dimensions, I believe, that all structures gain a stability through proportionality...and I would argue the same for the will as a "structure".

To say it has unlimited freedom or no freedom reduces it to something that has no definition as their are not dimensions to it. To say it has both deterministic and non-deterministic properties at the same time in different respects, different times in the same respect, or different times in different respects enables a form of dimensionality that enables enough definition where as people (like all of us on the forum) are able to communicate observations with a minimum amount of definition (enough for all of us to warrant responses from the other).

[Hobbes' Choice]

Haha, at least we have something in common, I prefer throwing big rocks from high trees.


Anyhow to simplify my point:

A causal chain can be viewed as a measurement of definition relative to the axioms/primitives they are composed of. Take for instance a standard "ruler". All it is a chain of primitives (whole numbers) who relative place in space manifest definition to whatever they are reflected against.

A simultaneous perspective would be to look at the ruler and see a chain or numbers who relative points in space reflect against other numbers therefore defining themselves and the others.

ex 1-2-3-4-5-6-7

4 gains a degree of definition through its linear relations to 3 and 5
4 is a series of 1 reflecting eachother.
4 is a synthesis of 1 and 3 (1+3) or a synthesis of 10 and 6 (10-6) etc.... (to potential infinity)



Even a more specific statement would be: We used the dimensional limit of the line (potential curvature) and curvature (angles, points, etc.) in order to manifest further lines and curvature. From the proportionality between these lines/curvature and other lines/curvature we establish dimensions of measurement. This applies to all abstract and physical realities. It is in this ability to manifest dimensions and observe their relative proportionality that I believe the "will" to have a degree of freedom.

My point is not specifically to be a smart ass, even though I would be a hypocrite to say I didn't enjoy it at times, but rather to approach the discussion of the nature of the "will" and "freedom" from different angles of perspectives. Some time the problem is not the problem itself, but the angle it is approached from.

Cause is not a chain.
And drawing an illustration using a analytic concept does not help. Causality happens in reality, not in the conceptual or abstract.

Since when does the abstract not reflect into reality or vice versa? Take for example the nature of this conversation, discussing the nature of reality (in this instance the "will"), reflects upon ideas, experiences, etc. These reflections reflect through further actions and thoughts, and through their reflection manifest into reality. Abstractions, such as metaphysics, reflect in the choices people make.

A concept such as "convenience" which is fundamentally an abstraction as it is strictly axiomatic, is physicalized into technological changes and progress.

Should I go on?

Nonetheless you are misrepresenting causality. And whilst abstractions are a way to represent reality, there is no Vice versa. Obviously!
You need to consider why you are not respecting Hume's fork.
By offering causality as a chain you are simply narrativising a human interested account, and not understanding the nature of causality.
Throw a switch and a light comes on. So much , so linear? No throwing the switch is NOT the cause of the light coming on, so much is obvious during a blackout (brownout). There are a possibly infinite set of causalities that make the light shine invested in the structure and actions of the hand, human body, the power station, the nature of copper in the wires ad infinitem.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SoB,

The reason Doc doesn't defend me is cuz he knows I can do that myself.
No, he does defend you, but it's not that you can't defend yourself, of course you can, it's just that friends usually stick together, and he is in fact your friend, and on occasion has stepped up to the plate and batted along side you. There is nothing wrong with that, at least in my book!

As for Dave: he doesn't bother me...determinism does.
I hope Dave means well, and it's not just that he's done something terribly wrong, such that his deterministic view is the only way he can live with himself. Even if someone sees themselves as having free will, there is still an out. Ignorance being the main.

As I say: if you convince a man he's just a product and not a source, when you strip him of self-direction and -responsibility (actually make those qualities 'bad') then you can make him into an instrument.
One of the biggest problems with humanity is that they can't see that even in a deterministic universe, where in truth, there is no universal right or wrong, (meaning, "that which is declared by the universe,") the moral compass can and should only be fueled by reason along the lines of, "the golden rule," (reciprocity). As within such reason, right and wrong can be negotiated, and free will can be observed as one chooses to do that, which according to that reason, assures their freedom, as well as that of others. Of course often people seemingly exhibit the free will to ignore such reason, whether it was actually free or not, as their ignorance in understanding such reason may have led them to act such.

It's like some people think in so many layers deep, as some can't; determinism? The deeper the layers, the more understanding, the more consideration. Make no mistake, different types of social determinism, born of mankind's current version of what a, so called, civilization includes, pleads the determinism argument. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Our free will only exists, and is inversely proportional to, any particular framework, that any particular combination of deterministic attributes allows. Both that of the universe and mankind's selfishness, (greed)! Knowledge of this, can create some pretty nasty characters, as the current deterministic machine of mankind's, so called, civilization, is huge indeed!


I got a problem with that.

Determinism? Free Will? They are relative to one another. So no human has 100% free will, rather only ever variably small quantities. It's only a slight bit of light, amongst the darkness of what it is to be alive with inordinate numbers of the, so called, top predator, (I prefer, "top fool").

If HQ was the only one, then only the universe could relatively shape his free will.


To say we are a social animal is a euphemism, for the fact that we use one another as stepping stones to become king of the human mountain of remains.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Dave Mangnall wrote:

I feel free to go to the pub tonight. I’m not incarcerated, or impaired, or broke. My wife wouldn’t try to stop me. The only reason I won’t be going to the pub tonight is that I don’t want to. I’m thinking that so far my feeling of freedom is the same as yours.
Here’s the difference, trivial except for its philosophical import. For me, if I don’t want to go to the pub, it could not be otherwise. I read my inner script, and find it involves not wanting to go to the pub. For you, it could be otherwise. You’ve used your free will to choose to not to want to go to the pub. (For all I know, of course, you could be down the pub as I write!)

For all know not wanting to go to the pub may be one your most constant traits. If this is so, together with not wanting to go to the pub tonight, if you were to do violence to your feelings and go to the pub despite your established preference , to prove that FreeWill existed, would this act prove that your will was free?

Hi, Belinda.

As a Determinist, I’m unlikely to find myself doing anything in order to prove that my will is free. And the Free Willies are confident in (what I see as) their mistaken and unsubstantiated beliefs not to need to do so either. But if any one were to do violence to their feelings in order to prove that free will existed, then I would say it was because it was determined that they do so!

So as to try and wash your hands of your folly!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Gosh, you're a feisty little fellow aren't you?
Surely your opinion! Which are like as. ho..s, yes? Projection?

I've read all your ravings with interest,
A self stroking characterization! Projection?

and I hope that very soon you find the professional help that you surely need!
Again, A self stroking characterization! Projection?

But you are surely 'free' to dodge using those ploys. Or could it be that your response was in fact 'determined' by your fear! But then you have the 'free will to instead 'choose' to quell that fear, to finally think for yourself.

Fear, the mind killer!

Hi again, Spheres.

You’re going to an awful lot of time and trouble to be rude to me. At least when I’m rude to you, I’m brief. You may not be fairly stupid (I’m keeping an open mind on that) but the way you write surely makes you seem so.

I do like the fancy colours, though.
If you are incapable of understanding why they are required in such a response as this one, then it's no wonder you believe as you do, it's that your minds eye is blind!

(And the reason I often keep it going below the end quote, should be equally understood, by anyone with half a brain that is! Make a guess, let's see how smart you are. Or not, Your "CHOICE." )


You 'believe' as you do, so you can wash your hands of your folly, without a blink! Or it certainly seems so!
You 'believe' you're uncontrollable, I 'know' you're just unreasonable! Or it certainly seems so!
You believe you've found someone's writings that give you an out, that makes you a parrot and a bad parrot at that! Weak minds often can only align themselves with so called authorities, that are largely accepted. Within that bubble of acceptance, is contained their strength of belief; their holier than thou self stroking allusion (illusion). Or it certainly seems so!
Where you're full to the brim of euphemisms, I'm not! Sure I relatively blacken your minds eye, it's to be expected! Or it certainly seems so!

To believe in determinism, as one hundred percent the reason we act, is of the mind of a terrorist! It denies all of our growth, our evolution, our science, our history. Of it is born our apathy, disregard of progressive change. It's a reason not to try. It's a losers perspective! Within such falsehood can only contain our eventual premature demise. I'm not saying that free will accounts for a lot. I mean look how long it's taken us to get this far, and we're still basically barbarians. Instead of spears and clubs, it's nukes and money, sure we're still basic animals. But it's been largely our infinitesimal free will that's allowed us to change to even this, still very much archaic, level of advancement. To believe as you do is to let go of the reigns and allow your horse to do whatever it wants to do, go ahead, let go, it's all determined anyway, right? I mean there is no way for me to prove it, right? We can't turn back time and have you hold on to them that time, to see the difference between the two versions. But if we could that would certainly shoot your determinism in the foot, because I assure you there would be differences.

The next time you're all alone, on a very curvy road, let go of the steering wheel. But before you do so, ask yourself if it's determined that you'll arrive home in one piece, if you don't let go, or you do let go. And while many many things would determine either scenario's outcome, that decision to either let go or not, though it be only one of the many plethora of things that would answer the question, can be freely chosen, that is all free will is, nothing really complicated, certainly not necessarily the end all, of all things to be considered.

There is no such thing as an accident, (euphemism), only ever carelessness, (truth)! Though it's not very popular amongst humans!

Human languages are 'full' of contradictions. Largely in denial, they'll paint any fancy picture that seems to colour them in any light accept for the actual full spectrum. It's all to suit their selfish agendas. I'm one that's had enough of the human coverup! All I give a damn about is the universal 'truth' of things, no matter where it may lead, and in truth it's not the prettiest picture. And yes, there is a method to see it in the truest of light, untainted by self serving bias!

[Eodnhoj7]

Cause is not a chain.
And drawing an illustration using a analytic concept does not help. Causality happens in reality, not in the conceptual or abstract.

Since when does the abstract not reflect into reality or vice versa? Take for example the nature of this conversation, discussing the nature of reality (in this instance the "will"), reflects upon ideas, experiences, etc. These reflections reflect through further actions and thoughts, and through their reflection manifest into reality. Abstractions, such as metaphysics, reflect in the choices people make.

A concept such as "convenience" which is fundamentally an abstraction as it is strictly axiomatic, is physicalized into technological changes and progress.

Should I go on?

Nonetheless you are misrepresenting causality. And whilst abstractions are a way to represent reality, there is no Vice versa. Obviously!
You need to consider why you are not respecting Hume's fork.
By offering causality as a chain you are simply narrativising a human interested account, and not understanding the nature of causality.
Throw a switch and a light comes on. So much , so linear? No throwing the switch is NOT the cause of the light coming on, so much is obvious during a blackout (brownout). There are a possibly infinite set of causalities that make the light shine invested in the structure and actions of the hand, human body, the power station, the nature of copper in the wires ad infinitem.

Reality can manifest abstractions no different than a painter who is reflecting upon a sunset or stream. Physical reality reflects into the abstract. The abstract reflects into the physical.

As to why I am "not respecting Hume's fork", well I was unaware I was being disrespectful....after all it is not a law but rather an attempt at a linear demarcation between dimensions of existence (language, abstractions, physicality, etc.) Hume's fork is not a law, but rather an attempt at definition through the separation of dimensions within observation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume%27s_fork). I am not for or against it, but even the aforementioned article and the examples with which it contains points to its limits.

In regards to the "light switch" the example does not strictly work as you imply the light switch does not work because of the blackout. The blackout may not be "the cause", but it is "a" cause.

There are a possibly infinite set of causalities that make the light shine invested in the structure and actions of the hand, human body, the power station, the nature of copper in the wires ad infinitem This sentence resembles a chain of reasoning.

I am not arguing causality as strictly linearistic, as I have a thread in epistemology or somewhere about the failure of linearism. Linearism fails on its own terms as I point out in the thread, but reflective against other methodology is has its usefulness. Linearism has its place within the field of philosophy as it is not a be all end all.

The next point to address is the linearism relies upon a dimension of infinity in order to stabilize its structure, so in regards to the "ad infinitem" that argument does not strictly work.

This leads to the next point I have: Infinite possibilities is congruent in structure to randomness, which random being equivalent to a deficiency within structure.

If there are infinite possible sets as to why the light is shining, then the light that is shining cannot be limited to interpretation of Hume's fork.

Sometimes when I am finished with work, or some important event, my writing "skills" become deficient (laziness, lack of focus, etc.). I am going to assume the same for you strictly out of respect, because the word's such as "obviously", "obvious", "So much, so linear", "you need to respect", etc. obscure the nature of the conversation by implying a level of subjective axioms and ad hominism.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Since when does the abstract not reflect into reality or vice versa? Take for example the nature of this conversation, discussing the nature of reality (in this instance the "will"), reflects upon ideas, experiences, etc. These reflections reflect through further actions and thoughts, and through their reflection manifest into reality. Abstractions, such as metaphysics, reflect in the choices people make.

A concept such as "convenience" which is fundamentally an abstraction as it is strictly axiomatic, is physicalized into technological changes and progress.

Should I go on?

Nonetheless you are misrepresenting causality. And whilst abstractions are a way to represent reality, there is no Vice versa. Obviously!
You need to consider why you are not respecting Hume's fork.
By offering causality as a chain you are simply narrativising a human interested account, and not understanding the nature of causality.
Throw a switch and a light comes on. So much , so linear? No throwing the switch is NOT the cause of the light coming on, so much is obvious during a blackout (brownout). There are a possibly infinite set of causalities that make the light shine invested in the structure and actions of the hand, human body, the power station, the nature of copper in the wires ad infinitem.

Reality can manifest abstractions no different than a painter who is reflecting upon a sunset or stream. Physical reality reflects into the abstract. The abstract reflects into the physical.

That does not make the abstract real. The abstract only reflects perceptually into the physical, not in reality

As to why I am "not respecting Hume's fork", well I was unaware I was being disrespectful....after all it is not a law but rather an attempt at a linear demarcation between dimensions of existence (language, abstractions, physicality, etc.) Hume's fork is not a law, but rather an attempt at definition through the separation of dimensions within observation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume%27s_fork). I am not for or against it, but even the aforementioned article and the examples with which it contains points to its limits.

You read but you do not understand.

In regards to the "light switch" the example does not strictly work as you imply the light switch does not work because of the blackout. The blackout may not be "the cause", but it is "a" cause.

There are a possibly infinite set of causalities that make the light shine invested in the structure and actions of the hand, human body, the power station, the nature of copper in the wires ad infinitem This sentence resembles a chain of reasoning.

I am not arguing causality as strictly linearistic,

You expressed it as such so I picked you up on it.

as I have a thread in epistemology or somewhere about the failure of linearism. Linearism fails on its own terms as I point out in the thread, but reflective against other methodology is has its usefulness. Linearism has its place within the field of philosophy as it is not a be all end all.

The linear is simply a simplification for the human narrative.

The next point to address is the linearism relies upon a dimension of infinity in order to stabilize its structure, so in regards to the "ad infinitem" that argument does not strictly work.

yes it does. All you need to do is think about it.

This leads to the next point I have: Infinite possibilities is congruent in structure to randomness, which random being equivalent to a deficiency within structure.
There is no such thing as randomness. That is also a human convenience to "explain" events when the salient causalities cannot be measured. When a coin leaves the hand its fate is set by things that are not easy to measure; air resistence, force of the hand, rotation of the coin, the resistence and bounce back of the table, the time it will take to stop spinning ad infinitem.

If there are infinite possible sets as to why the light is shining, then the light that is shining cannot be limited to interpretation of Hume's fork.
Rubbish. This is just nonsense without meaning; irrelevant.

Sometimes when I am finished with work, or some important event, my writing "skills" become deficient (laziness, lack of focus, etc.). I am going to assume the same for you strictly out of respect, because the word's such as "obviously", "obvious", "So much, so linear", "you need to respect", etc. obscure the nature of the conversation by implying a level of subjective axioms and ad hominism.

I've not used any ad hominems, as I know nothing about you.
I can explain that is you wish.

[Dave Mangnall]

But you are surely 'free' to dodge using those ploys. Or could it be that your response was in fact 'determined' by your fear! But then you have the 'free will to instead 'choose' to quell that fear, to finally think for yourself.

Fear, the mind killer!

Hi again, Spheres.

You’re going to an awful lot of time and trouble to be rude to me. At least when I’m rude to you, I’m brief. You may not be fairly stupid (I’m keeping an open mind on that) but the way you write surely makes you seem so.

I do like the fancy colours, though.
If you are incapable of understanding why they are required in such a response as this one, then it's no wonder you believe as you do, it's that your minds eye is blind!

(And the reason I often keep it going below the end quote, should be equally understood, by anyone with half a brain that is! Make a guess, let's see how smart you are. Or not, Your "CHOICE." )


You 'believe' as you do, so you can wash your hands of your folly, without a blink! Or it certainly seems so!
You 'believe' you're uncontrollable, I 'know' you're just unreasonable! Or it certainly seems so!
You believe you've found someone's writings that give you an out, that makes you a parrot and a bad parrot at that! Weak minds often can only align themselves with so called authorities, that are largely accepted. Within that bubble of acceptance, is contained their strength of belief; their holier than thou self stroking allusion (illusion). Or it certainly seems so!
Where you're full to the brim of euphemisms, I'm not! Sure I relatively blacken your minds eye, it's to be expected! Or it certainly seems so!

To believe in determinism, as one hundred percent the reason we act, is of the mind of a terrorist! It denies all of our growth, our evolution, our science, our history. Of it is born our apathy, disregard of progressive change. It's a reason not to try. It's a losers perspective! Within such falsehood can only contain our eventual premature demise. I'm not saying that free will accounts for a lot. I mean look how long it's taken us to get this far, and we're still basically barbarians. Instead of spears and clubs, it's nukes and money, sure we're still basic animals. But it's been largely our infinitesimal free will that's allowed us to change to even this, still very much archaic, level of advancement. To believe as you do is to let go of the reigns and allow your horse to do whatever it wants to do, go ahead, let go, it's all determined anyway, right? I mean there is no way for me to prove it, right? We can't turn back time and have you hold on to them that time, to see the difference between the two versions. But if we could that would certainly shoot your determinism in the foot, because I assure you there would be differences.

The next time you're all alone, on a very curvy road, let go of the steering wheel. But before you do so, ask yourself if it's determined that you'll arrive home in one piece, if you don't let go, or you do let go. And while many many things would determine either scenario's outcome, that decision to either let go or not, though it be only one of the many plethora of things that would answer the question, can be freely chosen, that is all free will is, nothing really complicated, certainly not necessarily the end all, of all things to be considered.

There is no such thing as an accident, (euphemism), only ever carelessness, (truth)! Though it's not very popular amongst humans!

Human languages are 'full' of contradictions. Largely in denial, they'll paint any fancy picture that seems to colour them in any light accept for the actual full spectrum. It's all to suit their selfish agendas. I'm one that's had enough of the human coverup! All I give a damn about is the universal 'truth' of things, no matter where it may lead, and in truth it's not the prettiest picture. And yes, there is a method to see it in the truest of light, untainted by self serving bias!

Ah, there you are, Spheres. I was wondering what had become of you.

I’ve never encountered an evil little troll before. I’m so old, and so innocent in the ways of the internet, that I had to have my daughters tell me that this was what you were. And I know I shouldn’t feed you, but, what the heck, what harm can it do?

I can see you in my mind’s eye, hunched over your computer, eyes glowing, your little fingers banging away fit to break the keyboard, your malevolent misshapen features twisted into a permanent snarl of impotent fury as you seek for the sledgehammer insult that will finally smash through my defences and inflict some real emotional distress on me. Well good luck with that, but do keep on trying.

And we’ll keep on laughing!

[Dave Mangnall]

(Belinda)No. An individual, whether he is a Freewilly or a Determinist, is a pawn to the extent that he reacts to circumstances and fails to use his reason.

Inconsistent arguing, I'm afraid. A person who is Deterministically controlled cannot "fail" to do anything. He or she does whatever he or she was predetermined to be obliged to do. Nothing more, less or other. And you cannot fault such a person for "failing" to do what (s)he could not possibly have done anyway.

Under Determinism, everyone is a pawn, the smart and the foolish alike. The smart are only smart because they were predetermined to be; the foolish are only foolish because they could not be anything but foolish. But foolish or wise, they are both not praiseworthy or blameworthy; for pre-existing causes, not the individual, are responsible for that situation in either case.

Hi, Immanuel.

I hope you and Belinda will both pardon my interjecting a comment here.

I agree with your second paragraph and most of your first. Nevertheless, I also think that Belinda’s views of reason are quite consistent with determinism. If we think of “failure” as a misalignment between the results of one’s endeavours (determined, of course) and the intention behind them (also determined), then a person who ( as it is determined to happen) uses his or her reason is less likely to encounter such “failure” than one who (as it is determined to happen) does not.

I do find that one difficulty in discussing this topic is the free will model is so embedded in our normal logic that a determinist has to use quite convoluted language to avoid giving the impression of accepting the free will principles!

[Immanuel Can]

Dave:

I find it interesting that you find yourself unable to avoid "free will" language, even while trying to make a closed case for Determinism. For example, you use the expression...

...less likely to encounter...

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. Just as there can be no "failure".

No wonder, then, that you say,

I do find that one difficulty in discussing this topic is the free will model is so embedded in our normal logic that a determinist has to use quite convoluted language to avoid giving the impression of accepting the free will principles!

Quite so. 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.

And if we find that every time we try to articulate a conception of our situation we lapse inevitably into free-will language, how long do we wait before we start to take our own, persistent intuition seriously, and then to explore the very real possibility that Strict Determinism is too narrow and reductional?

[Eodnhoj7]

Nonetheless you are misrepresenting causality. And whilst abstractions are a way to represent reality, there is no Vice versa. Obviously!
You need to consider why you are not respecting Hume's fork.
By offering causality as a chain you are simply narrativising a human interested account, and not understanding the nature of causality.
Throw a switch and a light comes on. So much , so linear? No throwing the switch is NOT the cause of the light coming on, so much is obvious during a blackout (brownout). There are a possibly infinite set of causalities that make the light shine invested in the structure and actions of the hand, human body, the power station, the nature of copper in the wires ad infinitem.

Reality can manifest abstractions no different than a painter who is reflecting upon a sunset or stream. Physical reality reflects into the abstract. The abstract reflects into the physical.

That does not make the abstract real. The abstract only reflects perceptually into the physical, not in reality

As to why I am "not respecting Hume's fork", well I was unaware I was being disrespectful....after all it is not a law but rather an attempt at a linear demarcation between dimensions of existence (language, abstractions, physicality, etc.) Hume's fork is not a law, but rather an attempt at definition through the separation of dimensions within observation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume%27s_fork). I am not for or against it, but even the aforementioned article and the examples with which it contains points to its limits.

You read but you do not understand.
No argument presented, ad hominum.

In regards to the "light switch" the example does not strictly work as you imply the light switch does not work because of the blackout. The blackout may not be "the cause", but it is "a" cause.

There are a possibly infinite set of causalities that make the light shine invested in the structure and actions of the hand, human body, the power station, the nature of copper in the wires ad infinitem This sentence resembles a chain of reasoning.

I am not arguing causality as strictly linearistic,

You expressed it as such so I picked you up on it.
Truth has a linear element to it, simply from the observation of linearism alone. However truth is not limited in degree to linearism as non-linearism and circular rationality are elements within all reasoning and logic at one level or another.

as I have a thread in epistemology or somewhere about the failure of linearism. Linearism fails on its own terms as I point out in the thread, but reflective against other methodology is has its usefulness. Linearism has its place within the field of philosophy as it is not a be all end all.

The linear is simply a simplification for the human narrative.
Observation is also a simplification of the human narrative, does the human narrative make anyone thing less true?

The next point to address is the linearism relies upon a dimension of infinity in order to stabilize its structure, so in regards to the "ad infinitem" that argument does not strictly work.

yes it does. All you need to do is think about it.

This leads to the next point I have: Infinite possibilities is congruent in structure to randomness, which random being equivalent to a deficiency within structure.
There is no such thing as randomness. That is also a human convenience to "explain" events when the salient causalities cannot be measured. When a coin leaves the hand its fate is set by things that are not easy to measure; air resistence, force of the hand, rotation of the coin, the resistence and bounce back of the table, the time it will take to stop spinning ad infinitem.

If there are infinite possible sets as to why the light is shining, then the light that is shining cannot be limited to interpretation of Hume's fork.
Rubbish. This is just nonsense without meaning; irrelevant.
Ad hominem, so I will continue my point from here: The infinite possible sets that determine "why the light is shining" must include, in one degree or another, a level of abstract reasoning upto and including Hume's fork, but not limited to it.

Sometimes when I am finished with work, or some important event, my writing "skills" become deficient (laziness, lack of focus, etc.). I am going to assume the same for you strictly out of respect, because the word's such as "obviously", "obvious", "So much, so linear", "you need to respect", etc. obscure the nature of the conversation by implying a level of subjective axioms and ad hominism.

I've not used any ad hominems, as I know nothing about you.
I can explain that is you wish.

To be quite frank, your lack of argument is boring me. I will let you have the last word, unless you decide to present an argument other than "you don't understand...because I said so."

Ball is in your court.

[Eodnhoj7]

Reality can manifest abstractions no different than a painter who is reflecting upon a sunset or stream. Physical reality reflects into the abstract. The abstract reflects into the physical.

That does not make the abstract real. The abstract only reflects perceptually into the physical, not in reality

As to why I am "not respecting Hume's fork", well I was unaware I was being disrespectful....after all it is not a law but rather an attempt at a linear demarcation between dimensions of existence (language, abstractions, physicality, etc.) Hume's fork is not a law, but rather an attempt at definition through the separation of dimensions within observation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume%27s_fork). I am not for or against it, but even the aforementioned article and the examples with which it contains points to its limits.

You read but you do not understand.
No argument presented, ad hominum.

In regards to the "light switch" the example does not strictly work as you imply the light switch does not work because of the blackout. The blackout may not be "the cause", but it is "a" cause.

There are a possibly infinite set of causalities that make the light shine invested in the structure and actions of the hand, human body, the power station, the nature of copper in the wires ad infinitem This sentence resembles a chain of reasoning.

I am not arguing causality as strictly linearistic,

You expressed it as such so I picked you up on it.
Truth has a linear element to it, simply from the observation of linearism alone. However truth is not limited in degree to linearism as non-linearism and circular rationality are elements within all reasoning and logic at one level or another.

as I have a thread in epistemology or somewhere about the failure of linearism. Linearism fails on its own terms as I point out in the thread, but reflective against other methodology is has its usefulness. Linearism has its place within the field of philosophy as it is not a be all end all.

The linear is simply a simplification for the human narrative.
Observation is also a simplification of the human narrative, does the human narrative make anyone thing less true?

The next point to address is the linearism relies upon a dimension of infinity in order to stabilize its structure, so in regards to the "ad infinitem" that argument does not strictly work.

yes it does. All you need to do is think about it.

This leads to the next point I have: Infinite possibilities is congruent in structure to randomness, which random being equivalent to a deficiency within structure.
There is no such thing as randomness. That is also a human convenience to "explain" events when the salient causalities cannot be measured. When a coin leaves the hand its fate is set by things that are not easy to measure; air resistence, force of the hand, rotation of the coin, the resistence and bounce back of the table, the time it will take to stop spinning ad infinitem.

Randomness exists as a deficiency in observability or measurement. Randomness is not a "thing" in and of itself but rather a form of gradation relative to a form of being. As to the examples chaos theory observes some of those things as probabilistic flux. In regards to human conveniance, hume's fork fall's under this category.

If there are infinite possible sets as to why the light is shining, then the light that is shining cannot be limited to interpretation of Hume's fork.
Rubbish. This is just nonsense without meaning; irrelevant.
Ad hominem, so I will continue my point from here: The infinite possible sets that determine "why the light is shining" must include, in one degree or another, a level of abstract reasoning upto and including Hume's fork, but not limited to it.

Sometimes when I am finished with work, or some important event, my writing "skills" become deficient (laziness, lack of focus, etc.). I am going to assume the same for you strictly out of respect, because the word's such as "obviously", "obvious", "So much, so linear", "you need to respect", etc. obscure the nature of the conversation by implying a level of subjective axioms and ad hominism.

I've not used any ad hominems, as I know nothing about you.
I can explain that is you wish.

To be quite frank, your lack of argument is boring me. I will let you have the last word, unless you decide to present an argument other than "you don't understand...because I said so."

Ball is in your court.

[Eodnhoj7]

Reality can manifest abstractions no different than a painter who is reflecting upon a sunset or stream. Physical reality reflects into the abstract. The abstract reflects into the physical.

That does not make the abstract real. The abstract only reflects perceptually into the physical, not in reality

The abstract, through the causality of an ideal, physicalizes certain ideas. Takes for example: The Ipad. It is just the physicalization of an ideal of convenience, even though "convenience" is not strictly a physical being.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I've not used any ad hominems, as I know nothing about you.
I can explain that is you wish.
Ball is in your court.

Step one; Look up "ad hominem". You haven't got a fucking clue what it means.
Step two; Get some grammar lessons; WTF? "I can explain that is you wish."

[Belinda]

Reality can manifest abstractions no different than a painter who is reflecting upon a sunset or stream. Physical reality reflects into the abstract. The abstract reflects into the physical.

That does not make the abstract real. The abstract only reflects perceptually into the physical, not in reality

The abstract, through the causality of an ideal, physicalizes certain ideas. Takes for example: The Ipad. It is just the physicalization of an ideal of convenience, even though "convenience" is not strictly a physical being.

Eodnihoj07i, can you find a usage for the verb 'to abstract'? What do you think "the abstract" is abstracted from?