“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[peacegirl]

The fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise, makes the "free" in compatibilist free will, false on all levels.

Unfortunately, this is not a fact. Contingent (could-have-been-otherwise) propositions are always contingent, even after the fact. They are, in act, necessarily contingent and true at all times — principle of modal fixity. Once again, you fail logic.

A contingent property does not mean something could have been otherwise.

That is what it means by definition.

Have you forgotten that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless it reflects reality.

Your choice at this moment whether to eat eggs or cereal for breakfast is contingent on what your brain is considering to help you make this decision.

A contingent proposition (not property) does not refer to “depending on something else.” It means “could have been otherwise.”

Thanks for the correction but it changes nothing.

You finally choose eggs. Does this mean you could have chosen cereal theoretically? Yes, in theory, but in actuality, no, not after you make the choice.

Wrong as a matter of logic, no matter how many times you repeat this.

It is not wrong. Contingent means "dependent on something else." What is that something else? The antecedents that precede the decision. Just because we are able to choose does not mean those choices are free (either/or). It is impossible to choose to kill someone if not to kill him is the preferable choice. You are not free Pood in any sense, compatibilist or libertarian. It's just harder to see that your choice to eat eggs over cereal is also under a compulsion if you have a reason to eat eggs which becomes your preference. Your choice to eat eggs over cereal is not a moral issue so it's inconsequential when it comes to moral responsibility, which is the reason this debate has gone on for so long.

To repeat: Choice is dependent on the antecedents (or the options being considered by your brain state, which you have no control over). By no means does this indicate that you "could have done otherwise" once a choice is made.

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. And you can't prove that you could have.

No determinist says that "necessarily" you must have eggs for breakfast IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE EGGS FOR BREAKFAST. Your participation is included in the decision making, which has been explained to you over and over and over again.

No, it is I who explained it to you over and over. Of course YOU are involved in the determinism process! Maybe now DBT will answer if he agrees with the hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz musician’s improv piece was determined in advance, which cuts the musician OUT of the determinism process.

Actually, everything could be said to be determined in advance, but we don't know exactly how it will play out until it plays out IN ACTUALITY. Pre-determinism doesn't say the jazz musician's improv has to occur before it occurs. It doesn't specify like that. IOW, it can only be said that whatever plays out is predetermined but it cannot say what that outcome will be because no one has clairvoyant abilities to correctly predict such occurrences in advance 100% of the time. We can make predictions, but those predictions are oftentimes wrong, even prophetic prophesies have been way off the mark.

When people try to refute determinism by saying that the Big Bang did not cause you to choose eggs for breakfast, that is true. There is no DIRECT cause/effect from the past to now. It only means that the movement of life itself has always been in one direction (away from that which dissatisfies to that which offers greater satisfaction) ultimately leading up to the present day. No one escapes this immutable law, which is why it's a law, but it does not prescribe anything, so please stop using this to support compatibilism.

 

[pood]

It is not wrong. Contingent means "dependent on something else."

You do realize words have multiple meanings, or no? In THIS CONTEXT, “contingent” means “could have been otherwise,” and NOT “depends on something else.” Since propositions never change their modal status, you lose.

 

[pood]

The fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise, makes the "free" in compatibilist free will, false on all levels.

Unfortunately, this is not a fact. Contingent (could-have-been-otherwise) propositions are always contingent, even after the fact. They are, in act, necessarily contingent and true at all times — principle of modal fixity. Once again, you fail logic.

A contingent property does not mean something could have been otherwise.

That is what it means by definition.

Have you forgotten that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless it reflects reality.

Right, just like “the eye is not a sense organ” and “we see in real time” mean nothing where reality is concerned.

No, it doesn't. And you can't prove that you could have.

I already did prove it.

No determinist says that "necessarily" you must have eggs for breakfast IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE EGGS FOR BREAKFAST. Your participation is included in the decision making, which has been explained to you over and over and over again.

No, it is I who explained it to you over and over. Of course YOU are involved in the determinism process! Maybe now DBT will answer if he agrees with the hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz musician’s improv piece was determined in advance, which cuts the musician OUT of the determinism process.

Actually, everything could be said to be determined in advance, but we don't know exactly how it will play out until it plays out IN ACTUALITY. Pre-determinism doesn't say the jazz musician's improv has to occur before it occurs.

Good god, what are you talking about now? NOBODY claims it occurs before it occurs; the claim by the hard determinist is that it is determined IN ADVANCE of the composer actually performing the piece!

 

[peacegirl]

To rehash old ground for the hard of learning:

A contingently true proposition is true in at least one logically possible world.

All contingent propositions are possibly true, but not all possibly true propositions are contingent. Goldbach’s conjecture is possibly true or possibly false; we do not currently know its truth value. However, if it is true, is necessarily true, and if it is false, it is necessarily false.

Necessarily true propositions are true at all possible worlds. Necessarily false propositions are false at all possible worlds.

A contingently true (could have been otherwise) proposition is always true in at least one possible world. Thus it can never change its modal status to necessarily true.

All this by way of stating the obvious: All contingently true propositions about the past could have been false, they just were not false.

All possible worlds is a logical construct that means bupkis when it comes to the macro-world of decision-making. You can say the past could have been different until the cows come home. What matters is that the choices made are the only ones that matter. No "could have" does anything to alter what is unless we take that "could have" to another point in time and make another choice based on past experience.

 

[peacegirl]

The fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise, makes the "free" in compatibilist free will, false on all levels.

Unfortunately, this is not a fact. Contingent (could-have-been-otherwise) propositions are always contingent, even after the fact. They are, in act, necessarily contingent and true at all times — principle of modal fixity. Once again, you fail logic.

A contingent property does not mean something could have been otherwise.

That is what it means by definition.

Have you forgotten that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless it reflects reality.

Right, just like “the eye is not a sense organ” and “we see in real time” mean nothing where reality is concerned.

No, it doesn't. And you can't prove that you could have.

I already did prove it.

Where? You proved nothing with your modal logic. All possible worlds are a logical fallacy. We live in this world. The rest is pure science-fiction that goes on and on until you don't know your left from your right.

No determinist says that "necessarily" you must have eggs for breakfast IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE EGGS FOR BREAKFAST. Your participation is included in the decision making, which has been explained to you over and over and over again.

No, it is I who explained it to you over and over. Of course YOU are involved in the determinism process! Maybe now DBT will answer if he agrees with the hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz musician’s improv piece was determined in advance, which cuts the musician OUT of the determinism process.

Actually, everything could be said to be determined in advance, but we don't know exactly how it will play out until it plays out IN ACTUALITY. Pre-determinism doesn't say the jazz musician's improv has to occur before it occurs.

Good god, what are you talking about now? NOBODY claims it occurs before it occurs; the claim by the hard determinist is that it is determined IN ADVANCE of the composer actually performing the piece!

You still don't get it. I tried to explain it to you but you are failing to grasp what I'm saying. Determinism does not prescribe, Pood. It just states that if the laws of determinism are true, everything that follows is determined in advance but we don't know what it is until it is expressed in ACTUALITY!

 

[Jarhyn]

The fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise, makes the "free" in compatibilist free will, false on all levels.

Unfortunately, this is not a fact. Contingent (could-have-been-otherwise) propositions are always contingent, even after the fact. They are, in act, necessarily contingent and true at all times — principle of modal fixity. Once again, you fail logic.

A contingent property does not mean something could have been otherwise.

That is what it means by definition.

Have you forgotten that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless it reflects reality.

Right, just like “the eye is not a sense organ” and “we see in real time” mean nothing where reality is concerned.

No, it doesn't. And you can't prove that you could have.

I already did prove it.

No determinist says that "necessarily" you must have eggs for breakfast IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE EGGS FOR BREAKFAST. Your participation is included in the decision making, which has been explained to you over and over and over again.

No, it is I who explained it to you over and over. Of course YOU are involved in the determinism process! Maybe now DBT will answer if he agrees with the hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz musician’s improv piece was determined in advance, which cuts the musician OUT of the determinism process.

Actually, everything could be said to be determined in advance, but we don't know exactly how it will play out until it plays out IN ACTUALITY. Pre-determinism doesn't say the jazz musician's improv has to occur before it occurs.

Good god, what are you talking about now? NOBODY claims it occurs before it occurs; the claim by the hard determinist is that it is determined IN ADVANCE of the composer actually performing the piece!

I would argue that this is in fact what the hard determinist's statement evaluates to, bolded, and why it is incoherent.

Arguably this is because "occuring" is "being determined" and "being determined" is "occurring".

 

[pood]

The fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise, makes the "free" in compatibilist free will, false on all levels.

Unfortunately, this is not a fact. Contingent (could-have-been-otherwise) propositions are always contingent, even after the fact. They are, in act, necessarily contingent and true at all times — principle of modal fixity. Once again, you fail logic.

A contingent property does not mean something could have been otherwise.

That is what it means by definition.

Have you forgotten that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless it reflects reality.

Right, just like “the eye is not a sense organ” and “we see in real time” mean nothing where reality is concerned.

No, it doesn't. And you can't prove that you could have.

I already did prove it.

No determinist says that "necessarily" you must have eggs for breakfast IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE EGGS FOR BREAKFAST. Your participation is included in the decision making, which has been explained to you over and over and over again.

No, it is I who explained it to you over and over. Of course YOU are involved in the determinism process! Maybe now DBT will answer if he agrees with the hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz musician’s improv piece was determined in advance, which cuts the musician OUT of the determinism process.

Actually, everything could be said to be determined in advance, but we don't know exactly how it will play out until it plays out IN ACTUALITY. Pre-determinism doesn't say the jazz musician's improv has to occur before it occurs.

Good god, what are you talking about now? NOBODY claims it occurs before it occurs; the claim by the hard determinist is that it is determined IN ADVANCE of the composer actually performing the piece!

I would argue that this is in fact what the hard determinist's statement evaluates to, bolded, and why it is incoherent.

Arguably this is because "occuring" is "being determined" and "being determined" is "occurring".

Right. So according to the HD it was “occurring” at the big bang.

 

[steve_bank]

No, that's simply how determinism is defined

No, it's you that determine it because A causes b and B causes C, therefore B still caused C (it's a tautology buried in the original premise, in fact).

Nooo! Your logic doesn’t add up!

I am confused, how can you add up logic?

It’s a false syllogism.

Commentary: Beware of False Syllogisms | Iowa Agribusiness Radio Network

Does 1 logic plus 1 logic equal 2 logics? Or are you using a metaphor?

It's misleading. A does not cause C, without the necessary step B in the process that leads to "greater satisfaction."

I am trying to see if you actually have a thought process or are just going form one thing to adopther citing wrote philosophy in a deterministic causal chain.

It seems the latter.

 

[peacegirl]

The fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise, makes the "free" in compatibilist free will, false on all levels.

Unfortunately, this is not a fact. Contingent (could-have-been-otherwise) propositions are always contingent, even after the fact. They are, in act, necessarily contingent and true at all times — principle of modal fixity. Once again, you fail logic.

A contingent property does not mean something could have been otherwise.

That is what it means by definition.

Have you forgotten that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless it reflects reality.

Right, just like “the eye is not a sense organ” and “we see in real time” mean nothing where reality is concerned.

No, it doesn't. And you can't prove that you could have.

I already did prove it.

No determinist says that "necessarily" you must have eggs for breakfast IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE EGGS FOR BREAKFAST. Your participation is included in the decision making, which has been explained to you over and over and over again.

No, it is I who explained it to you over and over. Of course YOU are involved in the determinism process! Maybe now DBT will answer if he agrees with the hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz musician’s improv piece was determined in advance, which cuts the musician OUT of the determinism process.

Actually, everything could be said to be determined in advance, but we don't know exactly how it will play out until it plays out IN ACTUALITY. Pre-determinism doesn't say the jazz musician's improv has to occur before it occurs.

Good god, what are you talking about now? NOBODY claims it occurs before it occurs; the claim by the hard determinist is that it is determined IN ADVANCE of the composer actually performing the piece!

I would argue that this is in fact what the hard determinist's statement evaluates to, bolded, and why it is incoherent.

Arguably this is because "occuring" is "being determined" and "being determined" is "occurring".

Golly gee, how you like to twist what is being said to suit your agenda of alternate possibilities. If determinism is true” (which compatibilists agree is true), then what has occurred, is occurring, and will occur cannot deviate from the inexorable laws that govern us. You can wish upon a star that you can choose to do what you already chose not to do, but you cannot prove this, number one, and number two, the belief that you could have chosen otherwise and are therefore morally culpable is logically incoherent and is actually hindering the progression to a more peaceful world. If you believe threats of harsh punishment is the only deterrent for wrongdoing, it’s no wonder you won’t listen.

 

[peacegirl]

The fact that the choice, once made, could not have been otherwise, makes the "free" in compatibilist free will, false on all levels.

Unfortunately, this is not a fact. Contingent (could-have-been-otherwise) propositions are always contingent, even after the fact. They are, in act, necessarily contingent and true at all times — principle of modal fixity. Once again, you fail logic.

A contingent property does not mean something could have been otherwise.

That is what it means by definition.

Have you forgotten that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned unless it reflects reality.

Right, just like “the eye is not a sense organ” and “we see in real time” mean nothing where reality is concerned.

No, it doesn't. And you can't prove that you could have.

I already did prove it.

No determinist says that "necessarily" you must have eggs for breakfast IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE EGGS FOR BREAKFAST. Your participation is included in the decision making, which has been explained to you over and over and over again.

No, it is I who explained it to you over and over. Of course YOU are involved in the determinism process! Maybe now DBT will answer if he agrees with the hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz musician’s improv piece was determined in advance, which cuts the musician OUT of the determinism process.

Actually, everything could be said to be determined in advance, but we don't know exactly how it will play out until it plays out IN ACTUALITY. Pre-determinism doesn't say the jazz musician's improv has to occur before it occurs.

Good god, what are you talking about now? NOBODY claims it occurs before it occurs; the claim by the hard determinist is that it is determined IN ADVANCE of the composer actually performing the piece!

I would argue that this is in fact what the hard determinist's statement evaluates to, bolded, and why it is incoherent.

Arguably this is because "occuring" is "being determined" and "being determined" is "occurring".

Golly gee, how you like to twist what is being said to suit your agenda of alternate possibilities. If determinism is true” (which it is), then what occurs, has occurred, and will occur cannot deviate from the inexorable laws of our nature. You can wish upon a star that you can do what you chose not to do, but you cannot prove it, number one, and number two, the belief that you could have chosen what you did not choose and are therefore is actually hindering the progression to a more peaceful world.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

Are your posts a series of deterministic causal links predetermine before you were born and before the planet formed?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

Are your posts a series of deterministic causal links predetermine before you were born and before the planet formed?

I tried to explain the best way I can as to why man’s will is not free. This entire universe is controlled by mathematical laws over which we have absolutely no control. Our destiny is predetermined by these laws which means that even though our destiny has not yet unfolded, we can only go in one direction. Determinism does not force on us what we ourselves don’t permit.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl

Are your posts a series of deterministic causal links predetermine before you were born and before the planet formed?

I tried to explain the best way I can as to why man’s will is not free. This entire universe is controlled by mathematical laws over which we have absolutely no control

Mathematical “laws” do not “control” anything. They are descriptions.

. Our destiny is predetermined by these laws which means that even though our destiny has not yet unfolded, we can only go in one direction.

No laws “determine” anything.

Determinism does not force on us what we ourselves don’t permit.

Right. That’s a compatibilist point of view.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

Are your posts a series of deterministic causal links predetermine before you were born and before the planet formed?

I tried to explain the best way I can as to why man’s will is not free. This entire universe is controlled by mathematical laws over which we have absolutely no control

Mathematical “laws” do not “control” anything. They are descriptions.

I guess it depends how you want to define "law." In my dialectic, natural laws do control what we can and cannot do. I cannot do what I prefer less. I do not prefer to kill someone, so the alternative is not free. I am subject to this law just as you are. You still don't get it.

. Our destiny is predetermined by these laws which means that even though our destiny has not yet unfolded, we can only go in one direction.

No laws “determine” anything.

You're playing with words Pood. Our will is not free and we cannot change that no matter how you try to use modal logic to disprove what is. Call it a law or not, it doesn't change a thing. Unfortunately, the longer the belief in compatibilist or libertarian free will continues, the longer it will take for world peace to prevail.

PREFACE: Any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for recognition and development.

Determinism does not force on us what we ourselves don’t permit.

Right. That’s a compatibilist point of view.

No it is not. It just shows me that you carelessly glossed over his explanation as to why "doing something of one's own free will" only means "doing something of one's own desire", but that desire is not a free one. This has nothing to do with compatibilism.

We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively, not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false.”

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

Are your posts a series of deterministic causal links predetermine before you were born and before the planet formed?

I tried to explain the best way I can as to why man’s will is not free. This entire universe is controlled by mathematical laws over which we have absolutely no control. Our destiny is predetermined by these laws which means that even though our destiny has not yet unfolded, we can only go in one direction. Determinism does not force on us what we ourselves don’t permit.

That appears fundamentally contradictory.
\

Lawsaws are a bit of a misnomer. Models is a better term. A foundation in electronics is Ohm's Law. Current flows through a resistor. Voltage = Current * Resistance. It is called a law barbecue it was used so many times it is used without question. At the macro level it is a simple deterministic equitation. Below that is quantum mechanics and probabilities. As current gets low Ohm's Law is no longer deterministic.

We construct models based on observation and experiment, what the universe 'is; is not known.

A scientific model works under defined conditions.The tail does not wag the dog and the universe does not conform to science.

Your posts seem fundamentally contradictory. If the universe is deterministic and predicable, then as I asked are your posts predetermined from back before the planet was formed?

It is a simple yes or no answer. Your thoughts and choices are based in physical processes in your brain, if the inverse is deterministic then surely so is your brain and your thoughts.

Maybe you do not understand the question and its implications.

An old question from quantum mechanics is whether or not the universe is fundamentally probabilistic at the lowest levels.

 

[DBT]

You won't because in any instance of 'won't,' it is 'won't' that is determined

Not quite correct, it's not that I won't because "won't is determined" it is "won't because won't will be determined".

You appear to be agreeing.

Tense is important there, because of what this tense implies to how determination happens.

Won't will be determined, but can't is not determined because can has nothing to do with determinations at particular points and everything to do with what is never determined at any point.

'Can't'' just refers to all the things that won't happen because these events were not determined to happen. It's pointless to invoke what does not happen within a system which determines what in fact does happen. Where what does happen, being inevitable, could not have been otherwise.


Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

I give you so much credit DBT for calling out on the discongruency that they claim gives compatibilist free will a chance. It doesn’t. The effort to try to disqualify determinism is exquisite yet holds no power to change what is determined. There is no confusion here, other than the minds that cannot accept that they could not have done otherwise. DBT, I commend you for not giving up. I don’t have the stamina. You are so appreciated.

Yet I do not support claims that are made in the book, such as light at the eye/instant vision.....which is not supported by physics or biology.

 

[DBT]

No, that's simply how determinism is defined

No, it's you that determine it because A causes b and B causes C, therefore B still caused C (it's a tautology buried in the original premise, in fact).

What you neglect to consider is that you, yourself are bound within the system as it evolves from past to present and future states, all the events that that led to your birth and your activity within the system,events, both external and internal that shaped and formed your body and mind, and your thoughts and actions.
Internal necessity. The very reasons why compatibilism fails as an argument for free will.

Proclivities:
''It is unimportant whether one's resolutions and preferences occur because an ''ingenious physiologist' has tampered with one's brain, whether they result from narcotics addiction, from 'hereditary factor, or indeed from nothing at all.' Ultimately the agent has no control over his cognitive states.
So even if the agent has strength, skill, endurance, opportunity, implements, and knowledge enough to engage in a variety of enterprises, still he lacks mastery over his basic attitudes and the decisions they produce. After all, we do not have occasion to choose our dominant proclivities.' - Prof. Richard Taylor -Metaphysics.

 

[Jarhyn]

What you neglect to consider is that you, yourself are bound within the system

Me currently being a part of the system doesn't change the fact that I have influence on events such as I am through the decisions I make.

A causing B and B causing C does not abrogate B causing C.

It's not zero sum nor useful to try to reduce it

 

[DBT]

What you neglect to consider is that you, yourself are bound within the system

Me currently being a part of the system doesn't change the fact that I have influence on events such as I am through the decisions I make.

A causing B and B causing C does not abrogate B causing C.

It's not zero sum nor useful to try to reduce it

Your influence in the world is determined by how events progress. If the world is deterministic, what you think and do is shaped by everything that has happened to shape and form your thoughts and actions.

Where nothing that you think or do happens in isolation, where you have no autonomy from the world at large or the environment in which you exist and function.

You can't separate yourself from the world as a deterministic system, you don't exist outside of it, you don't think or act outside of it.

 

[peacegirl]

You won't because in any instance of 'won't,' it is 'won't' that is determined

Not quite correct, it's not that I won't because "won't is determined" it is "won't because won't will be determined".

You appear to be agreeing.

Tense is important there, because of what this tense implies to how determination happens.

Won't will be determined, but can't is not determined because can has nothing to do with determinations at particular points and everything to do with what is never determined at any point.

'Can't'' just refers to all the things that won't happen because these events were not determined to happen. It's pointless to invoke what does not happen within a system which determines what in fact does happen. Where what does happen, being inevitable, could not have been otherwise.


Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

I give you so much credit DBT for calling out on the discongruency that they claim gives compatibilist free will a chance. It doesn’t. The effort to try to disqualify determinism is exquisite yet holds no power to change what is determined. There is no confusion here, other than the minds that cannot accept that they could not have done otherwise. DBT, I commend you for not giving up. I don’t have the stamina. You are so appreciated.

Yet I do not support claims that are made in the book, such as light at the eye/instant vision.....which is not supported by physics or biology.

I wasn’t referring to this claim. I know your stance but you don’t understand why he made that claim or his reasons behind it. But it’s okay, you don’t have to agree. His proof will have to wait until his first discovery is validated. I said I appreciate you because you understand that man’s will is not free and will defend it to the death figuratively. If it wasn’t for you and Michael Pearl, my frustration would compel me to leave. It’s just too hard to convince people that they could not have done otherwise due to their genetics, predispositions, and environment and that they can only move in one direction.