Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12376
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:23 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:14 am
Can't do that. If you're a Physicalist, then "minds" and "living things" also have to be nothing but "physical."
lol. That's not the idea.
It's the idea of "Physicalism," by definition.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:14 amLike?
Like a particle spontaneously appearing or disappearing or spontaneously moving or whatever. It could be any event imaginable.
We don't know what "spontaneously" means in that sentence. It clearly doesn't mean "volitionally," so you must mean "probabilistically," in which case, see my last answer on that.

You also can't say, with an event that appears to you "spontaneous" whether it is "spontaneous," or whether it on has a cause unknown to you at the moment. So you need to prove an "acausal" event can occur. It's not obvious that it can, and certainly not at all obvious --or even theoretically possible-- in a Physicalist world.
That's Determinism
Huh? By what definition of determinism? It's not determinism by the definition I'm using.
Stanford's definition, and the definitions of anyone who understands Causal Determinism.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4364
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:40 am
It's the idea of "Physicalism," by definition.
Are you autistic or something? It wasn't the idea of what I typed, the scenario I presented in that particular post.
We don't know what "spontaneously" means in that sentence. It clearly doesn't mean "volitionally," so you must mean "probabilistically," in which case, see my last answer on that.
With no cause at all. It just happens "out of nowhere," for no reason.
So you need to prove an "acausal" event can occur.
It's not logically impossible. Thus it's logically possible.
Stanford's definition, and the definitions of anyone who understands Causal Determinism.

Re Stanford, what I described doesn't fit this, for example: "Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature."

I described something with no necessitated effect period (where the B particle velocity event was not necessitated by anything.)

So maybe you'd like to suggest a definition that would fit?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12376
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:54 am With no cause at all. It just happens "out of nowhere," for no reason.
If you believe such events happen, then you're a believer in magic, not science.
So you need to prove an "acausal" event can occur.
It's not logically impossible. Thus it's logically possible.
Prove it's "not logically impossible." Because if you can't even identify one such real event, then it means the burden of proof is on you, and nowhere else.
Re Stanford, what I described doesn't fit this, for example: "Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature."
Yes. You don't seem to know what Causal Determinism is. Stanford does.

Let's go with Stanford.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4364
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:23 am
If you believe such events happen, then you're a believer in magic, not science.
If you want to call it "magic," that's fine (even though conventionally that term has connotations that don't apply here). The question is how you're ruling it out as a logical possibility.

And yeah, I definitely wouldn't characterize myself as a "believer" in science. I'm certainly not prone to anything akin to scientism. In my view, science gets some things right, and the basic gist of its methodology is valuable (even if it the methodology makes a number of unwarranted assumptions--the methodology still has instrumental value despite the unwarranted assumptions), but it also forwards a lot of crap and there is a lot of very bad philosophy committed under its rubric.
So you need to prove an "acausal" event can occur.
It's not logically impossible. Thus it's logically possible.
Prove it's "not logically impossible." Because if you can't even identify one such real event, then it means the burden of proof is on you, and nowhere else.
Someone has no idea what logical possibility is. You're conflating it with empirical fact. Whether something obtains in actuality has nothing to do with whether it's a logical possibility.

And you don't "prove that something is logically possible." In lieu of something being logically impossible, it's logically possible. To show that something is logically impossible, we have to show that it entails a logical contradiction, where we actually have to do the work for that--we can't just assume that something is logically impossible, and simply claiming it isn't sufficient (and then ideally, we'd also have to show why paraconsistent logic doesn't resolve it). We'd need to present a logical argument that's sound (it's valid and the premises are true) and that identifies the P that is both affirmed and denied unequivocally.
Re Stanford, what I described doesn't fit this, for example: "Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature."
Yes. You don't seem to know what Causal Determinism is. Stanford does.

Let's go with Stanford.
??? The bit in quotation marks there was copy-pasted from Stanford. So does Stanford know what causal determinism is or not?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12376
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:13 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:23 am
If you believe such events happen, then you're a believer in magic, not science.
If you want to call it "magic," that's fine (even though conventionally that term has connotations that don't apply here). The question is how you're ruling it out as a logical possibility.
Well, for one thing, you have provided no reason for us to think it's a "possibility" at all. It seems you can't actually provide a single instance of an "acausal" event, but rather presume somehow that quantum probability is not a "cause."

Well, that, and that everything is "physical" -- presumably with the exception of quantum events. Because if they're "physical," then they're not "acausal" either. Their cause would then have to be something physical.
I definitely wouldn't characterize myself as a "believer" in science. I'm certainly not prone to anything akin to scientism. In my view, science gets some things right, and the basic gist of its methodology is valuable (even if it the methodology makes a number of unwarranted assumptions--the methodology still has instrumental value despite the unwarranted assumptions), but it also forwards a lot of crap and there is a lot of very bad philosophy committed under its rubric.
Well, for a Physicalist, the sort of things science investigates (physical phenomena) have to be the totality of things. There can't be anything outside of that.
Someone has no idea what logical possibility is. You're conflating it with empirical fact.
No, I think it's neither logical nor empirical. The empirical merely tells us where the prima facie case is, and hence, who has the burden of proving the case.

That would be you. On the side opposing you are all appearances, the presuppositions of science, and the natural presumptions of all human beings when they act.

On your side is...? :shock:
Re Stanford, what I described doesn't fit this, for example: "Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature."
Yes. You don't seem to know what Causal Determinism is. Stanford does.

Let's go with Stanford.
??? The bit in quotation marks there was copy-pasted from Stanford. So does Stanford know what causal determinism is or not?
Yes. I copy-pasted it. I know where it came from. Stanford's definition is colloquial, but it's generally accurate, and one Causal Determinist would recognize. So I will accept it.

The definition you offered, (roughly, that there can only be one outcome for one cause) is not an adequate definition of Causal Determinism, for the very obvious reason it does not even address cause :shock: ; and also because it focuses on the idea of "one outcome," which is not required for Determinism, since probabilistic Determinism is also an option, one that your defence of non-Determinism needs to address.

Thus, your chosen definition does not include what's important, and it excludes possible elements of Determinism. I'm afraid it's just not adequate for the task.

Causal Determinism is not outcome-focused, but is also called "Historical Determinism." Here's another brief summary: "The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs."(Free Dictionary)

"Antecedent." That means that Causal Determinism points primarily back to the chain of causes, not merely forward to the outcome. It's concerned with what causes things to happen. Hence, the name.

And the OP question is whether or not human volition is one of the causes. So let's go back to focusing on causes.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4364
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:15 pm Well, for one thing, you have provided no reason for us to think it's a "possibility" at all.
I'm not going to keep explaining the same thing over and over.

X is a logical possibility just in case x isn't logically impossible.

Logical possibility has nothing to do with whether something obtains in the actual world.

Do you disagree with either of the above statements? If so, what is the disagreement?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12376
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:20 pm X is a logical possibility just in case x isn't logically impossible.
Prove it ISN'T logically impossible.

So far as any of us know, "acausal event" isn't actually possible at all, but rather inherently self-contradicts. After all, especially in Physicalism, "event" means "a phenomenon that has a prior physical cause." It certainly doesn't mean "a thing that can have no physical explanation at all." :shock:

But I know what you're trying to say: you're trying to say it's like "unicorn" -- that is, it may not actually exist, but it could in pure theory, in a different kind of world than we happen to have.

That's not good enough, however; because we have no reason at all to assume that "acausal event" could even exist in theory. At least in the case of unicorns, we already have real horses and animals with real single horns, so we have reason to say that they could exist in theory. We have nothing at all in the case of "acausal event." It may well be just an oxymoron, a verbal trick of contradiction.

Now, if we actually could imagine a world in which one cause is genuinely "acausal," then in another possible world, we would have to say more causes could be "acausal." Why just one? Why not two or ten? And if we can have a world with more causes being "acausal," then we'd have to think of a possible world in which ALL phenomena are "acausal." However, that's a realm that cannot even be imagined, because it would be pure chaos. So we can happily say that that world is not a "possible world." But why, then, would we think a world with fewer or no "acausal" situations is possible? We would need reason to think that.

But you can defeat that: show one case of a real "acausal" situation, and we'll know it's "possible."

The upshot is this: to avail yourself of the "possible worlds" strategy, you need to prove "possibility." We need some reason to assign the word "possible" to the phrase "acausal event." If there's no justification in even saying such a thing is imaginable, then there's no possible world in which it exists. It's just an inherently incoherent utterance, and that's all.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4364
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:00 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:20 pm X is a logical possibility just in case x isn't logically impossible.
So on your view, for any x, x is only logically possible if we "prove" that it is?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12376
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 5:46 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:00 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:20 pm X is a logical possibility just in case x isn't logically impossible.
So on your view, for any x, x is only logically possible if we "prove" that it is?
No, a view is only "logically possible" if there is some possible world in which it could be actualized.

So far as we can tell, "acausal event" is simply an irrational combining of contradicting terms, like "wet dryness."
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4364
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:10 pm No, a view is only "logically possible" if there is some possible world in which it could be actualized.
So if a claim of logical possibility doesn't require proof, why are you asking for proof?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12376
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:29 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:10 pm No, a view is only "logically possible" if there is some possible world in which it could be actualized.
So if a claim of logical possibility doesn't require proof, why are you asking for proof?
Your claim that "acausal events" exist, or can exist in some possible world, is, quite frankly, just not believable. On the surface, the words don't even make sense when paired.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 3:17 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:34 am
Age wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:55 am

If you are going speak like this and use the second 'a' word here, like you have to either to 'try to' deflect away from the actual point I made, or not, you still need to provide 'an' example so that we can LOOK AT that 'one' to then be able to DISCUSS if there are OTHER 'ones' besides that ONE VERY PARTICULAR ONE that you are thinking about.



The one WHAT, exists through the many WHAT?
1. You are projecting your own deflection.

REALLY?

Some can SEE and are SAYING that this appears to be an attempt at DEFLECTION, projected, itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:34 am The truth is that there are many truths and this truth is a singular entity as a singular truth.
OF COURSE, there are MANY, so called, "truths". Each and EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, has and holds their OWN, so called, "truth".

Also, so if 'this truth' is a singular entity as a 'singular truth', then does that mean that 'this truth' is irrefutable?

If yes, then does that now make 'this irrefutable truth' absolute?

And if yes, then would that now make 'this irrefutable and absolute truth', 'A truth of things'?

If yes, the I just refer to this kind or type of 'truth' as 'thee ACTUAL Truth of things', or shortened, 'thee Truth', which just makes expressing 'that thing' SIMPLER and EASIER.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:34 am 2. The singular totality of being exists through many grades/images, each grade/image is a microcosm of the macrocosm.
OF COURSE.

Contrary to YOUR BELIEF 'this' has NEVER been DISPUTED.

What I did was ask you to PROVIDE an EXAMPLE of the 'a "specific thing", which you were 'trying to' CLAIM NOT everyone agrees with, which you THEN 'tried to' CLAIM was "one singular truth".

Talk about DEFLECTION.

To me, there are SOME 'things' that EVERY one does AGREE ON, so if this is True, then that would REFUTE your CLAIM here. And then, this THE OPPOSITE of YOUR CLAIM would NOW become 'one singular (irrefutable and absolute) Truth. Surely this NOT to HARD NOR COMPLEX to UNDERSTAND?

Also, the ONLY other thing I did here was to ask you, 'one WHAT, exists though many WHAT/S?'

What can be SEEN here is you have FAILED to answer my CLARIFYING QUESTION posed to you, as well as FAILING to PROVIDE an EXAMPLE of what I CHALLENGED you about.

Now, if you had been Truly OPEN and Honest, by PROVIDING BOTH the EXAMPLE and the ANSWER, then we could have come together in AGREEMENT, MUCH EARLIER, MUCH SIMPLER, MUCH QUICKER, and MUCH EASIER than we are going to now.
1. The constant nature of the truth being "there are multiple truths" necessitates it as absolute. Absoluteness is consistency.

2. One form exists through many forms, this form is a loop as a form whose beginning is the same as the end when traced.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4364
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:37 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:29 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:10 pm No, a view is only "logically possible" if there is some possible world in which it could be actualized.
So if a claim of logical possibility doesn't require proof, why are you asking for proof?
Your claim that "acausal events" exist, or can exist in some possible world, is, quite frankly, just not believable. On the surface, the words don't even make sense when paired.
So "x is logically possible" requires proof when you don't personally believe "x is logically possible," otherwise no proof is necessary?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:37 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:29 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:10 pm No, a view is only "logically possible" if there is some possible world in which it could be actualized.
So if a claim of logical possibility doesn't require proof, why are you asking for proof?
Your claim that "acausal events" exist, or can exist in some possible world, is, quite frankly, just not believable. On the surface, the words don't even make sense when paired.
To say an event is uncaused is to say it is random, however this random event results in a causal chain of forms which reflect from the original form. An uncaused event results in a chain of events which follows from it.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 12376
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:37 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:29 pm
So if a claim of logical possibility doesn't require proof, why are you asking for proof?
Your claim that "acausal events" exist, or can exist in some possible world, is, quite frankly, just not believable. On the surface, the words don't even make sense when paired.
So "x is logically possible" requires proof when you don't personally believe "x is logically possible," otherwise no proof is necessary?
You should read what I say, not try to paraphrase.

The burden of proof is on you. You're arguing that "acausal events" are logically possible, or possible in some "world." So prove your claim, because it's not at all obvious you're right.
Post Reply