Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

[Terrapin Station]

Ah, okay, thanks, but did you catch where I clarified that we're talking about A causing B's velocity? Would you still say that a physicalist could believe something other than d where you understand that we're talking about A causing B's velocity?

Determinism, in relation to free will, is about one's ability to cause, or inability to cause, not about whether or not there is a single or multiple set of possible outcomes. The question is, "Is 'will' really a thing at all, or merely the latest manifestation of a chain of previous physical causes, none of which are volitional?"

Yeah, not what I asked you. Again, I am NOT proceeding with a conversation with you at any point if you do not address points I'm making and answer questions I asked, one step at a time. I am NOT following you as you ignore stuff and attempt to divert, etc.

So when I write something like "did you catch where I clarified that we're talking about A causing B's velocity?" etc. you need to actually answer whether you caught that, and then answer the question I asked you re "Would you still say that a physicalist could believe something other than d . .." Or it's a no go for continuing. This is going to happen at every single step.

And if you keep doing this and not cooperating, you're going into the pile with skepdick. (Which I probably should have done already.)

[Immanuel Can]

...to observe this beginning point ...

To observe the beginning of the universe? You can't.

this creation is an extension of God as a mirror image of God.

"Mirror image"? No.

1. If you cannot observe the beginning point of a phenomenon then you cannot necessarily say all is cause and effect.

You've misplaced the burden of proof again. Since there are billions of cases of cause-and-effect, it's on you to show "acausality" can exist.

You can't say, "Well, unless you can disprove unicorns, uncorns exist." That's silly.

2. All creation is a mirroring of the creator as it is an extension of the creator.

A car does not "mirror" the creator of the car. "Mirror" implies exact representation.

Unless the creator of the car has two side mirrors, four fenders and a nice set of tires, it's not correct to speak of the car "mirroring" him. Better to say, "In some ways, it reveals the creative propensities of the creator, or his intentions in creating it."

But "mirror" is the wrong word.

[henry quirk]

TS,

Bein' honest: I'm havin' a hard time gettin' your view.

Best I can tell, you're sayin' the world is just stuff or substance that does what it does becuz it does what it does.

Am I in the ballpark?

[Skepdick]

A line divided into further lines necessitates the same thing being different to itself. It is both the same and different.

Google for "embedding" and "compactness theorem".

[Immanuel Can]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=517374 time=1625507892 user_id=14533
1. You cannot differentiate the mind and "reality" without using the mind thus necessitating the mind as real through the categories of "mind" and "reality" which exist as real. You are creating a paradox.[/quote]
Not even close.

To say that something "exists as a delusion" is really to say, "It does not exist in reality." The mind itself is real, but the ideas it contains are often fictive, and have no "real" correspondent. Think leprechauns.

Both "exists in reality" and "exists in imagination" have the common term of "exists"

You're fooling yourself. To "exist in reality" is not at all the same as "to exist only in imagination." In practice, the latter is actually the opppsite of the former, not a restatement of the former.

5. Epiphenomenon are the branching of one phenomenon into another.

You don't know what "epiphenomena" are, apparently. Time to do some research.

[Terrapin Station]

TS,

Bein' honest: I'm havin' a hard time gettin' your view.

Best I can tell, you're sayin' the world is just stuff or substance that does what it does becuz it does what it does.

Am I in the ballpark?

Sure, in the sense that that's ultimately all that anyone can be saying.

Where we'd have disagreements would be in what the nature of the stuff/substance is (on my view it's all physical--that is, it's all dynamic relations of matter) and in the nature of how it does/can behave (on my view, it doesn't all behave deterministically).

[Skepdick]

If you think that if A strikes B with velocity x, then no matter how many times we repeat that (theoretically--we wouldn't be able to literally repeat it)

What type of mathematical entity is "velocity x"?

Is it a real number?
Is it a range of numbers?
Is it a probability density function?

What are you referring to when you use the term "x" to describe the velocity of A?

However, if there are no real physical laws, then that can't be the regulator, and you'd have to go with it being a brute fact (or you'd have to resort to something like "It's God's will" or whatever).

Sophistry. Sophistry and more sophistry.

For the purpose of the thought experiment when somebody says "ALL THINGS BEING THE SAME" they mean x, and y, an z (speed, velocity, friction, temperature, wind speed, quantum state, all other complementary variables and ALL possible configuration variables) having the same real-value such that the outcome of the experiment is completely described as a function of those variables.

So IF all possible configuration variables have "the same" real-number value will the ball go into the same pocket or not?

Your argument that "there is no reason for it to do so" is bullshit. There is no reason for them to do otherwise.

If ALL things are the same (including the entropy of the Universe's random number generator) what could possibly make the outcome be different?

God's capriciousness or whatever.

[Skepdick]

By the way, in addition to being a physicalist, I'm also a nominalist. And I'm a nominalist in all senses of that term. So I don't believe that there are ANY real (non-mental) abstracts, I don't believe that there are any real types/categories/universals, etc., I don't believe that any numerically distinct things can be literally the same or identical, I don't buy identity through time, and so on.

You are also a silly dualist.

"beliefs" are abstracts. Do you believe in beliefs?

If you don't believe that that your beliefs are real then how can you believe anything?
If beliefs are not real how do your beliefs cause anything?

"Sameness" is an abstract judgment.
"Difference" is an abstract judgment.

What do you make of your use of those words if they don't refer to anything real?

[henry quirk]

TS,

Bein' honest: I'm havin' a hard time gettin' your view.

Best I can tell, you're sayin' the world is just stuff or substance that does what it does becuz it does what it does.

Am I in the ballpark?

Sure, in the sense that that's ultimately all that anyone can be saying.

Where we'd have disagreements would be in what the nature of the stuff/substance is (on my view it's all physical--that is, it's all dynamic relations of matter) and in the nature of how it does/can behave (on my view, it doesn't all behave deterministically).

Okay, good, I'm in the ballpark. I think I have a decent (not complete, but decent) grasp on your view.

Thanks.

-----

Skep, sorry again I put you in my penalty box (I really wanted to get to the root with TS without distraction...I think I've done that [to my satisfaction, anyway])...anyway: you're not in my penalty box any more.

[Skepdick]

Sure, in the sense that that's ultimately all that anyone can be saying.

Where we'd have disagreements would be in what the nature of the stuff/substance is (on my view it's all physical--that is, it's all dynamic relations of matter) and in the nature of how it does/can behave (on my view, it doesn't all behave deterministically).

If the range of values is bounded, and the range of measurements can be captured in a probability density function, logistic curve - or really, any bounded function.... That's not non-deterministic behaviour. There's an infinite continuum of differences between randomness and non-determinism.

To speak of regularities is to be able to distinguish between regularities (non-deterministic or deterministic regularities) and irregularities (randomness).

It's just a non-commital re-description.

[Eodnhoj7]

To observe the beginning of the universe? You can't.


"Mirror image"? No.

1. If you cannot observe the beginning point of a phenomenon then you cannot necessarily say all is cause and effect.

You've misplaced the burden of proof again. Since there are billions of cases of cause-and-effect, it's on you to show "acausality" can exist.

You can't say, "Well, unless you can disprove unicorns, uncorns exist." That's silly.

2. All creation is a mirroring of the creator as it is an extension of the creator.

A car does not "mirror" the creator of the car. "Mirror" implies exact representation.

Unless the creator of the car has two side mirrors, four fenders and a nice set of tires, it's not correct to speak of the car "mirroring" him. Better to say, "In some ways, it reveals the creative propensities of the creator, or his intentions in creating it."

But "mirror" is the wrong word.

1. Each case of cause and effect necessitates a beginning cause which is either unobserved (thus necessitating cause and effect as a belief) or observed but nothing lies behind it thus necessitating it as a causal. The beginning of any cause and effect chain necessitates nothing behind it thus acausal. The proof of acausality lies in the fact there is a large number of beginning causes with nothing behind them.

2. The observer is the thoughts which are entertained. The thoughts of the observer being embodied through a creation is to observe the creation as an extension of the observer.

[Eodnhoj7]

A line divided into further lines necessitates the same thing being different to itself. It is both the same and different.

Google for "embedding" and "compactness theorem".

Embed:

"1. fix (an object) firmly and deeply in a surrounding mass."

Compactness theorem:

"In mathematical logic, the compactness theorem states that a set of first-order sentences has a model if and only if every finite subset of it has a model."



A line within a line is the phenomenon containing itself.

[Skepdick]

Embed:

"1. fix (an object) firmly and deeply in a surrounding mass."

Compactness theorem:

"In mathematical logic, the compactness theorem states that a set of first-order sentences has a model if and only if every finite subset of it has a model."

A line within a line is the phenomenon containing itself.

Yeah, don't just parrot. Read/understand the implications.

[Eodnhoj7]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=517374 time=1625507892 user_id=14533
1. You cannot differentiate the mind and "reality" without using the mind thus necessitating the mind as real through the categories of "mind" and "reality" which exist as real. You are creating a paradox.

Not even close.

To say that something "exists as a delusion" is really to say, "It does not exist in reality." The mind itself is real, but the ideas it contains are often fictive, and have no "real" correspondent. Think leprechauns.

Both "exists in reality" and "exists in imagination" have the common term of "exists"

You're fooling yourself. To "exist in reality" is not at all the same as "to exist only in imagination." In practice, the latter is actually the opppsite of the former, not a restatement of the former.

5. Epiphenomenon are the branching of one phenomenon into another.

You don't know what "epiphenomena" are, apparently. Time to do some research.
[/quote]

You have yet to define imaginary and reality.

1. All delusions are connected to that which is not an illusion (ie a unicorn as a horse and a horn). All delusions are grounded in some real phenomenon thus have some degree of truth value as having some degree of relation to reality.

2. Yet existence occurs for both as evidence by the fact existence is an underlying term for both.

3. Do you know what epiphenomenon are?

[Eodnhoj7]

Embed:

"1. fix (an object) firmly and deeply in a surrounding mass."

Compactness theorem:

"In mathematical logic, the compactness theorem states that a set of first-order sentences has a model if and only if every finite subset of it has a model."

A line within a line is the phenomenon containing itself.

Yeah, don't just parrot. Read/understand the implications.

You are diverting the subject by pointing to outside theories. A line within a line observes that a thing can be different and the same at the same time in different respects.