Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

[Immanuel Can]

But "acausal" means "non-physical" as well.

Source?

Physicalism, by definition. There is nothing not "physical," according to Physicalism. And a "nothing" cannot "cause" anything, also by definition.

[Terrapin Station]

But "acausal" means "non-physical" as well.

Source?

Physicalism, by definition. There is nothing not "physical," according to Physicalism. And a "nothing" cannot "cause" anything, also by definition.

You said that "acausal" means or implies "not physical." Didn't you just say that? Here, I'll quote you: "But 'acausal' means 'non-physical' as well."

I'm asking you for the source of that definition of "acausal."

I don't know if you chat this bad on purpose (as trolling) or not, but it's kind of funny.

[Immanuel Can]

You said that "acausal" means or implies "not physical." Didn't you just say that?

Hmmm....I'm finding this exchange particularly tedious.

Your explanation relies on us believing in a thing called "acausal events," not one example of which you can produce. You can't show that the concept has any logic in it, nor that it is even a tenable idea within Physicalism. You refuse to accept your rightful burden to prove your case, and prefer to cavil over nothings.

If I take the OP seriously, then I have to imagine that somehow, out of that, you think you get non-Determinism, and maybe free will. If you could, then that would be interesting. But you don't say how.

Not informative. You know my questions. I can't make you answer them.

Thanks for your time. I don't see spending any more of mine on this particular question.

[Terrapin Station]

You said that "acausal" means or implies "not physical." Didn't you just say that?

Hmmm....I'm finding this exchange particularly tedious.

Nope. You're not going to continually weasel out of every stupid thing you say.

Answer the question. Didn't you just say that "acausal" means "nonphysical"? Yes or no.

Give the source for that definition.

[Terrapin Station]

You said that "acausal" means or implies "not physical." Didn't you just say that?

Hmmm....I'm finding this exchange particularly tedious.

Your explanation relies on us believing in a thing called "acausal events," not one example of which you can produce. You can't show that the concept has any logic in it, nor that it is even a tenable idea within Physicalism. You refuse to accept your rightful burden to prove your case, and prefer to cavil over nothings.

If I take the OP seriously, then I have to imagine that somehow, out of that, you think you get non-Determinism, and maybe free will. If you could, then that would be interesting. But you don't say how.

Not informative. You know my questions. I can't make you answer them.

Thanks for your time. I don't see spending any more of mine on this particular question.

You're either an idiot or you're trolling as one. I said this earlier. I can't make you understand things you're either incapable or unwilling to understand (or act like you understand if trolling). But continually weaseling your way out of confronting stupid things you say certainly isn't going to help, unless the goal is simply trolling. If you're not trolling and you want to understand something you presently aren't understanding, you need to go step by step through simple things with me, stop being so confrontational, and make an effort to understand things you presently do not.

[Immanuel Can]

...make an effort to understand things you presently do not.

I went to you for that.

The well was dry.

Time to find a new well.

[Terrapin Station]

...make an effort to understand things you presently do not.

I went to you for that.

The well was dry.

Time to find a new well.

Incapable or unwilling or trolling. It's one of those three. Are you an idiot or are you just playing one here? Whatever the answer, it's hardly my fault. Take some responsibility.

In any event, being incapable or unwilling or just trolling is hardly an argument for anything.

[Immanuel Can]

Take some responsibility.

I do. I've let this go on far too long, and I've let it become personal to you, somehow. So I've made a misstep somewhere.

But I gave you tons of time, and asked you repeatedly for a single instance of "acausal events," and for some reason, you just won't answer. I can't make you. And if I've let it go to long, on the other side, I think I've been generous enough with my time on that. But sooner or later, the conversation's got to go somewhere, and it seems you're determined just to circle and to ignore your burden of proof, the incoherence of your claim, and its incompatibility with Physicalism...all of which I have exhaustively (and exhaustingly) explained to you already. I can neither think of how to word it differently nor of how to make you understand, or admit you do, whichever it is.

So carry on, I guess. I'm content to leave you with those three objections. Consider them, ignore them, or whatever. This is a place for conversation, not compulsion, so I guess that's it.

[Terrapin Station]

But I gave you tons of time, and asked you repeatedly for a single instance of "acausal events,"

Because you were asking in the context of logical possibility, and actual acausal events have jackshit to do with logical possibility.

Re outside of that context, every single thing that happens could be an example. We don't know. We just assume causality, but that's an assumption.

[Immanuel Can]

But I gave you tons of time, and asked you repeatedly for a single instance of "acausal events,"

Because you were asking in the context of logical possibility, and actual acausal events have jackshit to do with logical possibility.

Again, I asked in the context of three things, not one. Because there are at least three ways in which "acausal events" make no sense at all. But you ignored that.

This is the third time, after the original time, that I have pointed that out. And I'm betting you'll ignore it again.

So what's the point? I'm going to do something more useful...like bathing my cat.

[Terrapin Station]

But I gave you tons of time, and asked you repeatedly for a single instance of "acausal events,"

Because you were asking in the context of logical possibility, and actual acausal events have jackshit to do with logical possibility.

Again, I asked in the context of three things, not one. Because there are at least three ways in which "acausal events" make no sense at all. But you ignored that.

This is the third time, after the original time, that I have pointed that out. And I'm betting you'll ignore it again.

So what's the point? I'm going to do something more useful...like bathing my cat.

Way to ignore "outside of that context, every single thing that happens could be an example. We don't know. We just assume causality, but that's an assumption."

[Immanuel Can]

...every single thing that happens could be an example. We don't know."

If you don't know, then they serve as no "example" for your case.

Everybody else, including science itself, already is convinced causality is a thing. As for you, you get up in the morning and brush your teeth, presuming that this will "cause" them to endure better the vicissitudes of plaque damage. You work your garden, presuming that it will grow tomatoes, not chaos or dragons. You act all the time as if causality works...and find yourself vindicated, when you do.

Science assumes that causality is how things operate, and is vindicated in that presumption every single time a scientific discovery is made. Science has its presumptions, such as causality; but least science works ex post facto.

In contrast, acausality, as an idea, is completely unfruitful. It does no work. As an explanation of a phenomenon, it implies, "There's no point in inquiry; there are no possible answers as to why or how these phenomena take place -- they're totally acausal." For that reason, it's about as anti-scientific and anti-rational a creed as one could possibly invent. And a "creed" it is, since, as you admit, "we don't know" anything about it, least of all whether there is anything in the universe that actually DOES serve as an example of it.

Now, if you prefer magic, that's your preference, absent evidence. What could I possibly say about a mere preference? You can opt for what you want. However, you really can't expect any rational interlocutor to feel obliged or even tempted to jump to the same sort of dogmatic anti-rational belief.

Between the two presumptions, a rational person is likely going to remain more impressed by science's confirmations than acausal speculations that clearly come from nothing and go nowhere.

[uwot]

Science assumes that causality is how things operate...

No Mr Can it does not. Science is not an autonomous creature; it is what scientists do and the idea that all scientists subscribe to the same set of directives is something that only some one who knows fuck all about science could claim. Here's a lovely little potted history of science, lead article in issue 133 of Philosophy Now, the magazine supporting this site, written by yours truly. Get your head around that and you should appreciate that Francis Bacon, influential as he was, is not the last word on the scientific method. https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

[Terrapin Station]

Everybody else, including science itself, already is convinced causality is a thing.

Which of course doesn't imply that something definitely is the case.

As for you, you get up in the morning and brush your teeth, presuming that this will "cause" them to endure better the vicissitudes of plaque damage. You work your garden, presuming that it will grow tomatoes, not chaos or dragons. You act all the time as if causality works...and find yourself vindicated, when you do.

You understand, from earlier comments, that "Either determinism is true or things are equiprobably random" is a false dichotomy, right?

And "anything could be an example" doesn't imply that "everything is an example." It just could be. We don't actually know whether it is or not. There's not actually any way to demonstrate that determinism is the case in any particular sequence of events. "Firm beliefs" don't do it, and certainly the popularity of a belief has no bearing on anything.

[Immanuel Can]

"Either determinism is true or things are equiprobably random" is a false dichotomy, right?

Well, who said that?

It wasn't me, because I haven't talked at all about "equiprobable" anything. I have no idea who you are quoting.

And I note that you ignored most of my message, pretty much as you ignored my three objections to "acausality." How about you respond to the fact that punting to "acausality" is an anti-intellectual and anti-scientific strategy?

But I'm past believing you're going to admit any problem here, including that one, so I think I'll save my breath to cool my porridge.