Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:45 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:35 pm Well, it seems to me that the conditional was pointless.
Yeah, that would only be the case if you're not getting this.
Heh. :D You want a hypothetical that CAN'T be true? "IF wishes were horses, beggars would ride." Likewise, "IF 'physical' meant 'unreal,' then Unrealist Physicalists would have a point."
We know that the world moves and changes;
Not everyone agrees with that, and it's not at all part of what it amounts to to be a physicalist.
If anyone "doesn't agree with it," and yet calls themselves "Physicalists," then they have neither logic nor knowledge of what "physical" entails.

Otherwise, they know.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:18 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:54 pm
Do you or do you not understand that physicalism is NOT....
No, don't tell me what it's "not." Tell me what it "is."

Tell me how a Physicalist characterizes the forces that produce change and motion: are they "physical," or what?
I told you what physicalism is. It's the view that only physical things exist. That's it.

IF a physicalist has forces that produce change and motion in their ontology, then those forces are physical.

Physicalism isn't a commitment to any particular existents. It's ONLY a commitment that all existents in one's ontology are physical (or as I explained a number of times prior in this thread at least supervene on physical things).
If all is physical, including thought, then the physical universe is self referential and as self referential results in a circle.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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: Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:16 pm Heh. :D You want a hypothetical that CAN'T be true?
I wouldn't say it can't be true. There are very few things that I'd say couldn't be the case.

Aren't you familiar with "block time" or "B-time" theory? There are actually quite a few people who buy that . . . and of course historically there was Parmenides. I don't buy block time/B-time, of course, and I think it requires positing a murky theory of subjective experience, but I don't think we can successfully argue that it's impossible. Again, there are very few claims that I think we could successfully argue are impossible.
If anyone "doesn't agree with it," and yet calls themselves "Physicalists," then they have neither logic nor knowledge of what "physical" entails.

For like the 20th time in this thread, "physical" in "physicalism" ONLY entails that one believes that the world is comprised of something like matter and perhaps things that supervene on matter. That's it. It doesn't entail anything about motion.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:57 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:16 pm Heh. :D You want a hypothetical that CAN'T be true?
I wouldn't say it can't be true. There are very few things that I'd say couldn't be the case.
Self-contradictory ones. They're never true.
If anyone "doesn't agree with it," and yet calls themselves "Physicalists," then they have neither logic nor knowledge of what "physical" entails.
For like the 20th time in this thread, "physical" in "physicalism" ONLY entails that one believes that the world is comprised of something like matter and perhaps things that supervene on matter. That's it. It doesn't entail anything about motion.
Well, for the 21st time, that also has to be hogwash. Because if the dynamics are not explicable in terms of nothing but "physical stuff," then Physicalism is untrue.

Matter, dynamics, the whole package has to be "physical." There can't be any other substance or agency in the universe, no non-physical things or forces...or Physicalism is just plain false.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:03 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:44 am Determinism may be false but the fact that some things are determined exists.
Again, you don't know the difference between "determined" (i.e. "cause and effect) and Determinism. But Stanford does. And so does any proper definition.

Oxford: "The doctrine that every event has a cause. The usual explanation of this is that for every event, there is some antecedent state, related in such a way that it would break a law of nature for this antecedent state to exist yet the event not to happen."

Cambridge: "the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way."

Webster: "a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws"

And on, and on, and on. Every source points out that Determinism is an absolute doctrine.
If every one of THOSE SOURCES 'points outs' that determinism in an absolute doctrine, then what does the SOURCE that one has the ability to FREELY choose that determinism is NOT an absolute doctrine, 'point out', EXACTLY?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:02 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:29 pm
If truth is determined by agreement an acceptance then multiple groups of agreement means multiple truths on one hand,
Yes very true, but there is ONLY one Truth.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:29 pm in another hand it means someone must agree with you to be right.
This is untrue and NOT right at all.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:29 pm Third it necessitates truth as existing in parts if truth is determined by agreement of various individuals.
And, what would happen if EVERY one agrees on and accepts one thing?

Could that then be thee one and ONLY, or ACTUAL, Truth of things?
It is a truth that not everyone agrees on a specific thing yet this truth is singular.
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:02 pm The one exists through the many.
The one WHAT, exists through the many WHAT?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:02 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:40 am

Yes very true, but there is ONLY one Truth.



This is untrue and NOT right at all.



And, what would happen if EVERY one agrees on and accepts one thing?

Could that then be thee one and ONLY, or ACTUAL, Truth of things?
It is a truth that not everyone agrees on a specific thing yet this truth is singular.
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:02 pm The one exists through the many.
The one WHAT, exists through the many WHAT?
1. You are projecting your own deflection. The truth is that there are many truths and this truth is a singular entity as a singular truth.

2. The singular totality of being exists through many grades/images, each grade/image is a microcosm of the macrocosm.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:49 am If...
Not bothering, Age.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:34 am
Age wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:02 pm
It is a truth that not everyone agrees on a specific thing yet this truth is singular.
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.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:02 pm The one exists through the many.
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.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:54 am
Age wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:49 am If...
Not bothering, Age.
You do NOT ANYMORE "immanuel can" because if you were Truly OPEN and Honest with me, then you would REFUTE "your own self", and as such PROVE "your own self" as being Wrong. Which, OBVIOUSLY, you do NOT want to do.

So, THANK 'YOU', immanuel can", for being a PERFECT and PRIME EXAMPLE of just how CLOSED some human beings were, sometimes, in the days when this was written.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:24 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:57 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:16 pm Heh. :D You want a hypothetical that CAN'T be true?
I wouldn't say it can't be true. There are very few things that I'd say couldn't be the case.
Self-contradictory ones. They're never true.
In my view there's utility in paraconsistent logic, too. But generally I agree with you there. However, you've been claiming contradictions without ponying up the P that's being both asserted and denied (as with my view). I asked you what the P was in my view that's supposedly contradictory and that's one of countless things you've ignored.
Well, for the 21st time, that also has to be hogwash. Because if the dynamics are not explicable in terms of nothing but "physical stuff," then Physicalism is untrue.
We just got done explaining that a possible view is that there's no motion. (B-time, Parmenides, etc.) What happened to me bothering to explain that?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:03 am I asked you what the P was in my view that's supposedly contradictory and that's one of countless things you've ignored.
Actually, I answered...directly and specifically. So perhaps you missed it. But feel free to track back and see. (Page 20, box ten, last three lines)
We just got done explaining that a possible view is that there's no motion. (B-time, Parmenides, etc.) What happened to me bothering to explain that?
I wasn't reading your conversation with others. I'll have to go and see what you've said.

But the old Xeno mistake, that there's no motion in the universe, is only a product of the category error that produced his "Xeno's Paradox" problem. It's only ostensible, but not an actual problem at all. What's empirically obvious is that there IS motion and change in the universe. So the burden is on anyone who says that what we all empirically observe and assume is somehow not true.

And if such evidence were produced, then the fact that it was "produced" (whereas it formerly had not been) would prove that change and motion exist. So I think that also is likely to be exposed as self-refuting.

P.S. -- I went and checked: all you did was "name drop" a speculative theory of time. There's no evidence, not demonstration that the thing is even possible, let alone the right explanation. So I don't feel too bad for having failed to notice such a vague and unsupported claim.

Now, if you want to make something out of that, go ahead. Prove that the B-Theory is the right theory, and we might have something to talk about. Heck, prove it's even plausible, and we might have something to talk about. But prove nothing, and what's to talk about?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:18 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:03 am I asked you what the P was in my view that's supposedly contradictory and that's one of countless things you've ignored.
Actually, I answered...directly and specifically. So perhaps you missed it. But feel free to track back and see. (Page 20, box ten, last three lines)
Ah, yeah, I think I did miss that.

So first you're saying that I'm either asserting or denying "(the existence of) dynamics"?

Where is an example of either me asserting or denying that?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:18 pm P.S. -- I went and checked: all you did was "name drop" a speculative theory of time. There's no evidence, not demonstration that the thing is even possible, let alone the right explanation. So I don't feel too bad for having failed to notice such a vague and unsupported claim.

Now, if you want to make something out of that, go ahead. Prove that the B-Theory is the right theory, and we might have something to talk about. Heck, prove it's even plausible, and we might have something to talk about. But prove nothing, and what's to talk about?
Re all of this, AGAIN, I'm not arguing that any particular view is correct/true. etc.

What I've been talking about is our ability to understand that something is a possible view. (And that it's not contradictory, etc.)

So what I asked is if you're not familiar with the "B" or block theory of time. There are many adherents to that view. I don't at all agree with the view. That's irrelevant. I'm familiar with the view and I understand how it's a possible view.

You apparently keep wanting to get into arguments about whether something is a correct view or not. I'm not interested in that and that's not at all what I've been doing. I simply want you to understand how something can be a possible view. Maybe you have a problem accepting things as possible views that you don't personally agree with? That would be a serious impediment to understanding philosophy overall, because most views you encounter are going to be views you don't personally agree with. It's important to be able to understand them (and understand how they're possible as views that someone could have) even though you don't agree with them.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:18 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:03 am I asked you what the P was in my view that's supposedly contradictory and that's one of countless things you've ignored.
Actually, I answered...directly and specifically. So perhaps you missed it. But feel free to track back and see. (Page 20, box ten, last three lines)
Ah, yeah, I think I did miss that.[j/quote]
That's okay; it happens.

So first you're saying that I'm either asserting or denying "(the existence of) dynamics"?
Well, we know from logic that there are only two conditions: exist/not-exist. You can't "sort of exist," just like you can't be a little bit pregnant or slightly dead. So it's one or the other, not both. To "exist a little bit" means "to exist."

So either you affirm or you deny the existence of dynamics. If you deny it, you deny that the empirical observation of motion and change is real; if you affirm it, then as a Physicalist, you have to believe it's a purely physical dynamic.

Pick which position you wish. But having to pick one is inevitable.
Post Reply