Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Dreadnote wrote: I'm cool with that; still suggests the absence of free will.

Not really. If free will is the ability to do anything that you want, then there must still be a "you" to do the wanting. That "you" will determine the "want", and thereby limit what you might do.

We cannot be free from ourselves, not without dieing.

Okay I didn't follow that at all.

whatwhat wrote:
Things determine themselves? That's not determinist at atll.

Sure it is. Well, technically its compatiblist, but that's a subset of determinism.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Things determine themselves? That's not determinist at atll.

Sure it is. Well, technically its compatiblist, but that's a subset of determinism.

Everything in a determinist world is bound by causality. You can't use an infinite regress to explain the cause of a determinsit world then flunk out of exlaining the cause of said infinite rgress by saying it determined itself. If that was the case you never needed the infinate regress in the first place did you.

The Dreadnote wrote:Okay I didn't follow that at all.

I'll try different phraseology:

We are things. All things have properties. Properties define the nature of the thing. The nature of thing defines the behavior of the thing. The behavior of the thing is indicative of the wants of the thing.

Therefore: The wants of the thing are defined by the properties of the thing.

Is that not what I was arguing in the OP?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHQ2756cyD8

whatwhat wrote:
Everything in a determinist world is bound by causality.

Yes, but causality doesn't have to be linear, predictable, or finite.

whatwhat wrote:
You can't use an infinite regress to explain the cause of a determinsit world then flunk out of exlaining the cause of said infinite rgress by saying it determined itself. If that was the case you never needed the infinate regress in the first place did you.

You're not understanding. An infinite regress cannot have a cause. If it had a cause it would be a finite regress because it would have an end point. Positing an infinite regress is to state that a general state of being has always been.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Dreadnote wrote:Is that not what I was arguing in the OP?

Sort of, but you reached the conclusion that we have no free will. I'm saying that to even talk about the possession of will we must talk about a possessor.

In essence, we are free to be ourselves.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Everything in a determinist world is bound by causality.

Yes, but causality doesn't have to be linear, predictable, or finite.

whatwhat wrote:
You can't use an infinite regress to explain the cause of a determinsit world then flunk out of exlaining the cause of said infinite rgress by saying it determined itself. If that was the case you never needed the infinate regress in the first place did you.

You're not understanding. An infinite regress cannot have a cause. If it had a cause it would be a finite regress because it would have an end point. Positing an infinite regress is to state that a general state of being has always been.

whatwhat wrote:
Remember what you are arguing here. What you are explaining is not determinist.

I know full well what I'm arguing. I think that perhaps you aren't well versed in what determinism constitutes. Your position is essentially the one that was popular in the '80's.

Recall that linearity, predictability, and finitude are all human properties. There is no necessary reason for the universe to obey them, and simply because it does not do so does not indicate that it isn't deterministic.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Remember what you are arguing here. What you are explaining is not determinist.

I know full well what I'm arguing. I think that perhaps you aren't well versed in what determinism constitutes. Your position is essentially the one that was popular in the '80's.

We are not arguing whether an infinate regress needs a cause (what you just explained) we are arguing if it needs one in a determinst world.

Of course you would try and get out of that by telling my definition of determinsm is wrong, rather than your own.

Nurglitch wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHQ2756cyD8

thank you

whatwhat wrote:
We are not arguing whether an infinate regress needs a cause (what you just explained) we are arguing if it needs one in a determinst world.

Yes, I know, and I'm saying that it doesn't. An infinite series cannot have a cause by definition. If a deterministic world involves an infinite series, then said series would be an infinite progression of deterministic events.

The series itself needs no cause because it is literally the sum of all caused events.

Again your argument is held up on your own definition of determinism which seems to be far beyond it's simplest terms. And also seems to undermine much of your earlier arguments about it.

whatwhat wrote:
Of course you would try and get out of that by telling my definition of determinsm is wrong, rather than your own.

I didn't say that your definition was wrong. I said that your definition seems old, and therefore does not encompass the position that I'm arguing from.

That might mean that its wrong, or it might not. But it does mean that there may be a clear reason that we cannot come to an understanding.

http://www.theophoretos.hostmatrix.org/hume.htmt

whatwhat wrote:Again your argument is held up on your own definition of determinism which seems to be far beyond it's simplest terms.

Of course it does. I'm not interested in arguing from the layman's position.

whatwhat wrote:
And also seems to undermine much of your earlier arguments about it.

How so? I've argued from the same position the entire time.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Again your argument is held up on your own definition of determinism which seems to be far beyond it's simplest terms.

Of course it does. I'm not interested in arguing from the layman's position.

Simplest terms is the wrong choice of words. How about recognised terms.

Nurglitch wrote:http://www.theophoretos.hostmatrix.org/hume.htmt

404

Dogma's law is he can argue anything is anything provided anything is not constant.

If you believed me to be arguing from one standpoint of determinism from the start what was the point in rebuting me using your own definition of determinism?

whatwhat wrote:
Simplest terms is the wrong choice of words. How about recognised terms.

Recognized by whom?

I mean, I know the definition that you're using. You're basically arguing from the same sort of determinism that made Einstein create the cosmological constant. A definition that turns on predictability. I'm arguing that there is not reason for any sort of determinism to consider predictability at all. Instead, we should only be concerned with whether or not things have causes. Once we get to that point we can conclude that any deterministic universe (where universe is used in the classical sense, or meaning "all things") must be an infinite series of caused events. In your parlance, even the infinite series would have been caused by another infinite series.

This is true both of God burdened universes, and God free universes.

ftr your own definition of determinism is unlike anything I have heard before, and contrasts most scientific theory on the subject.

Determinism is strictly reliant on causality.

whatwhat wrote:Dogma's law is he can argue anything is anything provided anything is not constant.

Well, yeah. That's pretty much how argument works.

whatwhat wrote:
If you believed me to be arguing from one standpoint of determinism from the start what was the point in rebuting me using your own definition of determinism?

That's not what I said. I said you're arguing against a certain sort of determinism that I don't consider to be valid, and that my definition of determinism escapes your criticism.

whatwhat wrote:ftr your own definition of determinism is unlike anything I have heard before, and contrasts most scientific theory on the subject.

Determinism is strictly reliant on causality.

Causality does not rely on the pretense of a progenitor event.

No, determinism relies on constant conjunction, at best. Causality is a the premium package.

dogma wrote:my definition of determinism escapes your criticism.

I read this in my head as if you were playing a tabletop RPG.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Dogma's law is he can argue anything is anything provided anything is not constant.

Well, yeah. That's pretty much how argument works.

So you can argue black is not black provided black is not constantly black? That's how argument works?

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
If you believed me to be arguing from one standpoint of determinism from the start what was the point in rebuting me using your own definition of determinism?

That's not what I said. I said you're arguing against a certain sort of determinism that I don't consider to be valid, and that my definition of determinism escapes your criticism.

Again your definition of determinism is the akward one, not mine. This determinism pre 80s crap is nonsense.

whatwhat wrote:ftr your own definition of determinism is unlike anything I have heard before,...

Then you aren't very widely read, because this isn't even my argument. I'm paraphrasing Dennet.

whatwhat wrote:
...and contrasts most scientific theory on the subject.

Actually, that's not the case. String theory (especially Susskind's), quantum mechanics, and just about all of theoretical physics turn on an infinite series of caused events.

whatwhat wrote:
Determinism is strictly reliant on causality.

I didn't say that it wasn't. I've basically been explaining to you what the word "infinite" means in the context of causality.

whatwhat:

Black is not black when the Black in question is Conrad Black, and the black in question is the attribution of a distinct ethnicity.

This reminds me of when you argued with the generic dictionary definition of atheism.

Nurglitch wrote:whatwhat:

Black is not black when the Black in question is Conrad Black, and the black in question is the attribution of a distinct ethnicity.

Black is not black when Mr T says he pittys the fool who jay walks outside his property either.

whatwhat wrote:
So you can argue black is not black provided black is not constantly black? That's how argument works?

Yes. In fact, you just made a pretty good argument for black not being black. I mean, if we discovered a black that was unlike any other black that we knew, then we would at least need to revisit our conception of black.

whatwhat wrote:
Again your definition of determinism is the akward one, not mine. This determinism pre 80s crap is nonsense.

Who said anything about pre-80's? I said you definition was popular in the '80's. I said nothing of pre-80's.

Perhaps if you read my posts more closely we wouldn't have this issue.

In any case, my definition is quite clear. You just can't seem to wrap your head around the meaning of "infinite".