Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:50 pm
If you believe that there isn't a standard/conventional view on this, at least, then you'd say as much.
I believe two things are wrong with your claim: one is that the Materialist-Physicalist and quantum views do NOT make Determinism impossible; by themselves, they
necessitate it. The second is that to make the Materialist-Physicalist the equivalent of "science" is wrong.
If the statement made its mistakes one at a time, I could deal with them more easily, and without confusion. But the best thing I could stay about a statement that was wrong in at least two dimensions was "No." Nobody should say "Yes" to it.
Both Materialism/Physicalism and quantum physics (if either is what you were bundling into your term "conventional wisdom in the sciences at present") would produce the conclusion that Determinism is inevitably true.
I've already explained why this isn't the case.
You have not, actually. Not
"why." You just said it
was the case. You gave no proof of that.
I am ready and eager to see your proof, but I wish you'd provide it.
You need to specifically argue with the explanation if you disagree with it.
I'd love to. But in order for me to do so, you'd actually have to make the argument. Gratuitous affirmation affords no such chance.
Here's the explanation again: materialism/physicalism merely requires that one endorses the view that the world is comprised solely of material/physical things and perhaps phenomena that supervene on material/physical things, such as relations of material/physical things.
That's a definition. But it does not prove that Determinism is not entailed. In fact, it would
necessitate Determinism. For if all things are material/physical, then there is no volitional, personal aspect to causality. It is utterly excluded by that explanation.
The above doesn't include the view that "For all phenomena, it's the case that from any antecedent state, one and only one consequent state is possible." (Which is what determinism is.)
Actually, that's only
one part of Determinism. It's not the whole, as the three definitions I gave to you clearly show. Determinism doesn't just refer to "one consequent state," but also to the mechanics that produce that alleged "one consequent state." Those are traditionally exactly the mechanics you list: Materialism or Physicalism.
Indeed, the existence of "one consequent state" isn't even the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of Determinism; a situation could have a web of possible outcomes, and still be predetermined by another impersonal agency, probability. Quantum theory is thus
also Deterministic.
What I said was that the standard present view in the sciences doesn't forward determinism,
Well, if by "standard present view" (you didn't say which you meant) you meant Materialism, Physicalism or quantum theory (did you?), then this was false.
Because I think it's highly suspect.
So now you also don't believe that there are views that are held by the vast majority of some population (such as physicists or scientists or whatever)?
Sure there are such views. But the allegation you made, that Determinism is not sponsored by Materialism/Physicalism or quantum theory, is no part of the views of the scientific establishment. That's
your own view, clearly; but it needs proving.
And that's what I'd like to see:
show me that Materialism/Physicalism or quantum theory DO NOT support the Determinism. Because Determinism doesn't just mean "one outcome": it means that the only things in the causal chain are
impersonal forces, not
personal agencies.