tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2665624247767206529..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Keith Parsons Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger256125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18208585945284654662017-10-07T13:21:26.267-07:002017-10-07T13:21:26.267-07:00Thanks Hal,
It's good to know that even if St...Thanks Hal,<br /><br />It's good to know that even if Stardusty isn't convinced, my comments have at least been helpful for some readers.<br /><br />Stardusty,<br /><br />This is a little better. There's not much in the way of argument here, but there does seem to be some. You've left several phrases unexplained, but I think I grasp your meaning in your argument about the past. By "past deterministic", I think you mean that based on what we know about the present, the past "must have been" a particular way. Of course it doesn't follow from that that it couldn't have been any other way, just that we're sure it wasn't. <br /><br />If that's not consistent with your analysis, then I simply don't know what you're saying here. Or at least I don't know what the point of saying it is.<br /><br />So assuming that I have understood correctly, why should temporal analysis directed to the future be any different? God, along with whomever else He reveals His knowledge to, knows with certainty what will occur. These "knowers" know that the future "must be" a particular way. But then just like with the past, it doesn't follow that it couldn't be any other way, just that we're sure it will not be any other way.<br /><br />To argue against free will, you need that stronger conclusion. I don't see here any reason to endorse it. Indeed, we are in fact simply using different terms to talk again about what we previously called absolute and conditional necessity.<br /><br />I notice you've complained about the difficulties in capturing in logical arguments the alleged subtleties of a temporal analysis. Well, I can agree that it is difficult to put your argument into a logically valid form. But the reason for that is that it's not a valid argument. If your attempts at defending your argument lead you to resort to denying the adequacy of formal logic to capture the structure of your argument, then I think it's pretty clear your argument has failed.<br /><br />Suppose you found the defenders of a particular argument for theism defending their argument by saying, "well, so much the worse for logical analysis ... it's a valid argument, it just isn't well handled this way". I think you'd laugh them out of court.<br /><br />Remember, you're here asserting not merely that the theist is wrong, but that they are committed to a contradiction, that two of the things which they normally assert cannot be held consistently. It's one thing to say that there are inductive considerations which bring two propositions into tension, it's quite another to claim they are entirely contradictory. You're making the latter sort of claim, and to support that claim you need a deductively valid argument. To take refuge in the alleged inadequacies of logical analysis at this point is simply to admit defeat.Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70275695772720378512017-10-07T10:34:05.665-07:002017-10-07T10:34:05.665-07:00Blogger Hal said.. October 07, 2017 9:22 AM.
&...<br />Blogger Hal said.. October 07, 2017 9:22 AM.<br /> " Steve,<br /> Just wanted to throw a thank you your way. Found your posts in this thread to be very well thought out and illuminating."<br />--How unfortunate for you, then. Steve suffers from several manifest problems, perhaps most glaring his inability to realize that translation from English to logical notation often fails to capture the full content of the original English text, particularly in a time sequence analysis.<br /><br />Having failed to accurately model the problem he uses logical notation to come to erroneous conclusions. This is a common problem, for example, David Haines committed similar errors in using logical notation to analyze the First Way.<br /><br />His self satisfaction with his asserted training compounds the problem as does his perceived notion that somehow the authors of all reference materials agree with him and therefore it would be foolish to disagree. <br /><br />For Steve these manifest shortcomings substitute for sound critical thinking.<br /><br />By way of illustration consider the past determinism of a past event as a mirror example of the future determinism of a future event.<br /><br />Suppose we know with a probability of 1 that past event X did occur.<br />The prior probability of X remains unknown.<br />The posterior probability of X having occurred is 1.<br />Any valid regression analysis must necessarily reach X.<br />Any valid regression analysis cannot fail to reach X.<br />For any valid regression analysis X is past deterministic.<br /><br />This is a knowledge based indication of determinism.<br />Prior to X we had no knowledge X would occur so we could not say if X is or is not determined to occur.<br />After X occurs we still cannot say X was determined to occur but we can say with a probability of 1 that X did occur.<br />Once we know for certain that X did occur the fact that X did occur is past deterministic by any valid regression analysis.<br /><br />But what of the future event Y?<br />Suppose we know with a probability of 1 that Y will occur.<br />The prior probability of Y is 1.<br />We still don't know what Y will lead to after Y occurs.<br />Any valid progression analysis must necessarily reach Y.<br />Any valid progression analysis cannot fail to reach Y.<br />For any valid progression analysis Y is future deterministic.<br /><br />A time traveler who brings back from my future knowledge of Y on my timeline with a probability of 1 mandates that Y is for me deterministic. Y cannot fail to occur. If I get to the time of Y and Y does not occur then the time traveler was wrong. At that point in my time it is too late for the time traveler to tell me Z was to occur. Perhaps you can speculate that the time traveler can bounce back and forth in time at will, but I cannot. I cannot go back in time to change the prediction of Y to a prediction of Z.<br /><br />To assert that the time traveler observed a random event and then came back to tell me with a probability of 1 what that random event will turn out to be is oxymoronic.<br /><br />Pity, Hal, you waste your admiration on one so enamored with his own asserted training that he is now unable to identify the palpable flaws in his temporal analysis.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54181332691547924382017-10-02T06:55:48.082-07:002017-10-02T06:55:48.082-07:00Stardusty,
SP: This isn't complicated. If any...Stardusty,<br /><br />SP: This isn't complicated. If anybody knows the future with a probability of 1 then the future is predetermined.<br />SL: But you need an argument for that. It isn't trivially true, at least not in the sense your position requires. The arguments you have offered have been dealt with separately.<br /><br />In short, you have again added nothing to the discussion. You have an impressive streak going on that front.Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18680957778525403892017-10-02T06:51:59.770-07:002017-10-02T06:51:59.770-07:00Blogger Steve Lovell said. October 02, 2017 5:0...<br />Blogger Steve Lovell said. October 02, 2017 5:07 AM..<br /><br /> Stardusty,<br /><br />" In case anyone is "keeping score" in this discussion, I simply note that none of your more recent comments add anything to the discussion."<br />--You lack the analytical capabilities to keep an accurate score.<br /><br />This isn't complicated. If anybody knows the future with a probability of 1 then the future is predetermined.<br /><br />A predetermined future is deterministic.<br /><br />Arguments to the contrary are hand waving.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68498530425447867312017-10-02T05:07:56.009-07:002017-10-02T05:07:56.009-07:00Stardusty,
In case anyone is "keeping score&...Stardusty,<br /><br />In case anyone is "keeping score" in this discussion, I simply note that none of your more recent comments add anything to the discussion.<br /><br />Hugo,<br /><br />Thanks for your note. My comment about "truth" was simply in relation to this so-called-argument for the incompatibility of free-will and omniscience. Although you don't agree that either exist, you are happy to acknowledge that this argument against them is a bad one.<br /><br />It seems to me that lots of people on both sides of many debates think, or at least behave as if, it is legitimate to use <i>any</i> argument in support of a conclusion that they endorse and that simply having a conclusion they agree with is sufficient reason to endorse the argument: "Any stick is good enough". On the contrary it is necessary to assess every argument on its own merits.Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61594563860280189532017-10-01T21:03:47.077-07:002017-10-01T21:03:47.077-07:00Blogger Hugo Pelland said...
" Yep, that&...<br />Blogger Hugo Pelland said...<br /><br />" Yep, that's what it was, "<br />--An uninsulting insult is an oxymoron.<br /><br />" No, it means that, from the omniscient being's point of view, it has already happened. "<br />--Deterministically.<br /><br />Your speculated magic time traveler can observe it.<br /><br />If X was predetermined with a probability of 1 the observed event was deterministic.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48844573226762367182017-10-01T18:51:36.253-07:002017-10-01T18:51:36.253-07:00Stardusty Psyche said...
"It wasn't inten...Stardusty Psyche said...<br />"<i>It wasn't intended as an insult and you were not insulted yet it is an insult?</i>"<br />Yep, that's what it was, or an ad hominem if you prefer... it's a point, a sentence, a passage that serves no purpose but to attack the other side's character.<br /> <br />"<i>That means the future is predetermined.</i>"<br />No, it means that, from the omniscient being's point of view, it has already happened. That's why the time traveler analogy is incorrect. Because the time traveler would re-experience that choice a second time and that would mean it's predetermined. In the case of the omniscient being, it happened once, then the being got to know about it. That's all. For us, it has not happened yet, and we cannot know what will happen.<br /><br />"<i>It is an attempt to define an irrational proposition into being.</i>"<br />Not really, even though I agree it is often the case; see any discussion on physicalism on this blog... But here, in my posts at least, I am just talking about the definition itself. The definition is consistent, regardless of whether arguments using that definition are correct. But you cannot even address such arguments if you cannot agree on definitions with whoever you are trying to have a discussion with. <br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58658890611447165902017-10-01T18:31:04.557-07:002017-10-01T18:31:04.557-07:00Hugo Pelland said.. October 01, 2017 5:32 PM.
...Hugo Pelland said.. October 01, 2017 5:32 PM.<br /><br />" No, I don't find it insulting; I am saying it was an insult. Can you tell the difference? "<br />--No. It wasn't intended as an insult and you were not insulted yet it is an insult?<br /><br /><br />" Again, they start with freewill, i.e. not determinism, being a real thing. It cannot, by definition, be the case that freewill does not exist when omniscience is defined as being the knowledge of actions taken out of freewill."<br />--Begging the question by definition is logically invalid.<br /><br />I don't have that problem. All that is required to prove determinism is the assertion that I or anyone else possesses knowledge of the future that is 100% certain by any means.<br /><br />That means the future is predetermined. If X is known to be a future event with probability of 1 then X is predetermined. The mechanism of predetermination is irrelevant. The method for obtaining that knowledge is irrelevant.<br /><br />If one knows future event X will occur with a probability of 1 then determinism is the case, irrespective of the method of obtaining that knowledge or the mechanism for implementation of X.<br /><br />" Again, I don't believe that's true, but it's consistent."<br />--No it isn't. It is an attempt to define an irrational proposition into being.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32705981812100022892017-10-01T17:32:49.245-07:002017-10-01T17:32:49.245-07:00Steve Lovell said...
"Hugo,
Thanks for your ...Steve Lovell said...<br />"<i>Hugo,<br /><br />Thanks for your input here. It's always encouraging to find people who can recognise and acknowledge truth wherever they find it.</i>"<br /><br />Thanks for the kind words Steve. As noted above, I don't agree with you but I can certainly respect your approaches and intellectual consistency. <br /><br />But I want to be extra clear here, given that you used the word 'truth': I don't think it's true that omniscience exists, or is even possible. I don't know whether it's possible. It does not really make sense to me. There is no proposed mechanism by which it would even be possible to have such foreknowledge, and I don't get how a mind, some being, could have that ability.<br /><br />"<i>line from G.K. Chesterton: "It looked not so much as if Christianity was bad enough to include [m?]any vices, but rather as if any stick was good enough to beat Christianity with. What again could this astonishing thing be like which people were so anxious to contradict, that in doing so they did not mind contradicting themselves?"</i>"<br /><br />I like that quote, I think, as it basically mean that it's not because one disagrees with a set of beliefs, Christianity for example, that one has to find everything wrong with that set of beliefs. I certainly endorse that view with my entire hearth. There would be so much less issues in our world if we could separate certain ideas from the people who present them. It seems almost impossible to do; try to talk against certain ideas and people feel like it's an attack on their entire person, or even group they are part of. We can only hope for the best!<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15291927323137059062017-10-01T17:32:42.936-07:002017-10-01T17:32:42.936-07:00Stardusty Psyche said...
"You find that insul...Stardusty Psyche said...<br />"<i>You find that insulting? I suggest you look at it as a learning opportunity.</i>"<br />No, I don't find it insulting; I am saying it was an insult. Can you tell the difference? Let me help... your content-less writings are meaningless to me. I am just pointing out the bits and pieces of your comments that are insults, for no reason. Here's the part I was criticizing:<br />"That's because most people, like you for example, have not thought this issue through very carefully."<br />You could be talking about literally anything and state that same insult. So yes, it was an insult, whether you want to admit it or not. It has no content; it just makes you look silly and/or not serious. And you post several of these little snippets here and there. It's your style I guess... and that's what I am commenting on.<br /><br />But moving on to the actual content:<br />"<i>Even if one fantasies about a magic time traveler observing future events the fact that the time traveler comes back to my time and provides certain knowledge of my future events on my timeline in my temporal process necessitates that those future events are pre-determined and thus necessarily deterministic.</i>"<br /><br />This does not fit with the definition of omniscience, or foreknowledge, that Steve and others present. The way I understand it, this contradicts the definitions. It fits under 'your' definition of omniscience and its link with determinism, but that's because you are reversing the definitions. Again, they start with freewill, i.e. not determinism, being a real thing. It cannot, by definition, be the case that freewill does not exist when omniscience is defined as being the knowledge of actions taken out of freewill.<br /><br />Therefore, when you say:<br />"<i>Omniscience mandates determinism.</i>"<br />That's a contradiction, an oxymoron, in the specific context presented here; people have freewill and some omniscient being, somehow, knows already about these choices they made. From that being's point of view, the beings have already made their choices. We, mere mortals, don't know yet because we don't have foreknowledge, but because we have freewill we do, and continue to, make choices.<br /><br />Again, I don't believe that's true, but it's consistent. The definitions they use make sense. But I need to address Steve points as well...<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39826569083798478472017-09-29T07:36:37.476-07:002017-09-29T07:36:37.476-07:00Hugo Pelland said.. September 28, 2017 12:45 AM...Hugo Pelland said.. September 28, 2017 12:45 AM.<br /><br />SP --That's because most people, like you for example, have not thought this issue through very carefully.<br />" Starting with an insult. Again."<br />--Omniscience mandates determinism. Many people do not understand this fact. All of them have yet to sufficiently consider omniscience to come to understand this fact. You find that insulting? I suggest you look at it as a learning opportunity.<br /><br />SP --No. A computer makes choices for particular reasons, very deliberately, but they are not free.<br /><br />" I agree with you. But that's not the point."<br />--There are many points, not merely "the" point.<br /><br />" Aren't you able to do a thought experiment?"<br />--Not only do them, but find the flaws in those that others attempt.<br /><br />SP --may be more helpful for you and Steve to come to terms with your analytical errors.<br /><br />" I don't agree with Steve..."<br />--Yes you do, in part, and that is the part you are in error.<br /><br />" how can I make the same analytical error. I am pointing out an issue with definitions."<br />--Dependency of observation does not mandate randomness of action be physically possible. This magical time traveler's observation is dependent on observing X, but that does not physically necessitate that X could be intrinsically random.<br /><br />I, in my time, on my real timeline, already knew with a probability of 1 that X would occur, requiring that X is pre-determined.<br /><br />Since you wish to consider definitions, how are the words "deterministic" and "pre-determined" related definitionally?<br /><br />Even if one fantasies about a magic time traveler observing future events the fact that the time traveler comes back to my time and provides certain knowledge of my future events on my timeline in my temporal process necessitates that those future events are pre-determined and thus necessarily deterministic. <br /><br />Since this fantasied magic time traveler is asserted to know all future events with a probability of 1 and has been kind enough to provide me with a book in my present describing all future events with a probability of 1 then all future events in my temporal existence are pre-determined and are thus all deterministic.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73423536278299752912017-09-28T08:34:33.446-07:002017-09-28T08:34:33.446-07:00Hugo,
Thanks for your input here. It's always...Hugo,<br /><br />Thanks for your input here. It's always encouraging to find people who can recognise and acknowledge truth wherever they find it.<br /><br />In contrast, Stardusty here is reminding me of a line from G.K. Chesterton: "It looked not so much as if Christianity was bad enough to include [m?]any vices, but rather as if any stick was good enough to beat Christianity with. What again could this astonishing thing be like which people were so anxious to contradict, that in doing so they did not mind contradicting themselves?"<br /><br />Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40201534549114159582017-09-28T07:54:56.552-07:002017-09-28T07:54:56.552-07:00Stardusty,
Let us add to your thought experiment....Stardusty,<br /><br />Let us add to your thought experiment. I don't equate free-will with randomness, but they have enough in common for me to work with that.<br /><br />Suppose the world is indeterministic, that there is "real" randomness. Now suppose rather than one "book" which contains all future positions of every subatomic particle there are many "books", each containing that level of detail. But rather than all being the same, each one represents a "possible future". They are all different. Clearly the existence of such a set of books would not entail determinism, nevertheless, one of those books is the book you were originally imagining ... we just don't know which one.<br /><br />Why would it be impossible for God to know which one? Or why would His knowing which book is true make the course of events deterministic? Remember you said that the mechanism by which God knows isn't important. Your argument relies not just on their being no plausible mechanism by which God could know such things, but that (a) it is impossible for God to know these things without some mechanism and that (b) no mechanism for gaining such knowledge is so much as logically coherent.<br /><br />Also you seem to be equating foreknowledge and prediction. It may be legitimate to lampoon prediction as you do. Predictions are based on knowledge of how things are now and making extrapolations into the future. If that was our model for foreknowledge, you'd have a good point. But it's not. Your thought experiment depends on God revealing the content of foreknowledge to humans. So, God doesn't predict the future, and although the humans in your thought experiment possess a what is for them a prediction, it's not a prediction they have made on their own.<br /><br />As such it seems to me your phrase "Predictable Instrinsic Randomness. How absurd." rather misses the mark.Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27123092244083126552017-09-28T00:45:16.752-07:002017-09-28T00:45:16.752-07:00--That's because most people, like you for exa...--That's because most people, like you for example, have not thought this issue through very carefully. <br /><br />Starting with an insult. Again.<br /><br />--No. A computer makes choices for particular reasons, very deliberately, but they are not free.<br /><br />I agree with you. But that's not the point. Aren't you able to do a thought experiment?<br /><br />The rest of your post has nothing to do with the consistency... for instance:<br /><br />--may be more helpful for you and Steve to come to terms with your analytical errors.<br /><br />I don't agree with Steve... how can I make the same analytical error. I am pointing out an issue with definitions.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3816780441922988062017-09-27T21:47:50.449-07:002017-09-27T21:47:50.449-07:00Hugo Pelland said.. September 26, 2017 9:50 PM....Hugo Pelland said.. September 26, 2017 9:50 PM.<br /><br />" It's fascinating to see 2 people constantly repeat the same thing over and over again"<br />--That's because most people, like you for example, have not thought this issue through very carefully. People who have carefully analyzed omniscience as it mandates determinism sometimes try various wordings to illuminate errors, such as yours.<br /><br /><br />" First, let's assume we have true libertarian freewill. What does that mean? We make choices, at least some choices, entirely on purpose."<br />--No. A computer makes choices for particular reasons, very deliberately, but they are not free.<br /><br />" We can decide, sometimes, to change our mind about what we will do, up to the last second before we do it."<br />--So can a computer. A program can present a preliminary result but then continue to refine its calculations and then present a different result. No freedom indicated.<br /><br /><br />But recall, <br />omniscience mandates determinism,<br />determinism rules out free will.<br /><br />So, concentration on the first part, determinism, may be more helpful for you and Steve to come to terms with your analytical errors.<br /><br />Intrinsic randomness is required to negate determinism. If determinism is the case then intrinsic randomness is not the case. If intrinsic randomness is the case then determinism is not the case.<br /><br />What would intrinsic randomness mean for a real physical temporal process? It requires that something happens for no reason, by no cause, by no transfer function.<br /><br />Intrinsic randomness requires an effect without a cause.<br /><br />In the case of intrinsic randomness things just happen spontaneously and completely unpredictably. Something is here and then suddenly without any warning it just moves over there and there is no reason, no formula, no transfer function, no algorithm, no equation. A change occurs but there is no cause for that change or individually accurate prediction for that change.<br /><br />Intrinsic randomness is a discontinuity in the temporal process of mutual causation understood as cause and effect.<br /><br />If I, as a temporal physical being, can predict the outcome of an event in advance then in what sense do you say it is intrinsically random?<br /><br />Suppose I have a book, and I read that particle X will move to position Y at time Z, and in fact X does move to Y at Z, and in fact I have prior knowledge that X could not have possibly done other than move to Y at Z, and X had a probability of 1 to move to position Y at time Z then in what sense do you suppose that move was intrinsically random?<br /><br />Oh, but suppose there is a magic unseen being that can flit about forwards and backwards in time to tell me the result of an intrinsically random event. So magic man observes X go to Y at Z then flits back to tell me X will go to Y at Z.<br /><br />That's nice, but I am not a magic time traveling fantasy being. I am a real material temporal being. So I arrive at time Z, and this is key, because on the notion of intrinsic randomness X can go to A, B, C or anyplace, yet I know with absolute certainty it will go to Y. In what sense is that random? <br /><br />Still don't get it? Ok, consider every particle in the universe. Because magic man does not simply know about X, rather, 10^90 particles, at every nano second, he told me about every particle in the universe at every nano second for the next 100 years. They are all intrinsically random yet I predict with 100% what every particle in the universe does nanosecond to nanosecond for 100 years.<br /><br />Really? That is intrinsically random? I have a means to predict all this with a probability of 1 but it is all actually just popping off in any old direction and completely unpredictable.<br /><br />You might just as well assert 10^90 round squares.<br /><br />Predictable intrinsic randomness. How absurd.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80424939634412623862017-09-26T23:42:34.293-07:002017-09-26T23:42:34.293-07:00Stardusty,
I have no particular objection to usin...Stardusty,<br /><br />I have no particular objection to using words as they are defined, however you need to stick with a single definition throughout the argument. For reasons I cannot guess you've singled out a definition which clearly isn't fit for purpose. I quote from the online version of the Oxford Dictionary to which you referred, however I also include the examples they use to illustrate both meaning and use of the word:<br /><br />1 - Be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)<br />‘you must show your ID card’<br />‘the essay mustn't be over 2,000 words’<br />‘she said she must be going’<br /><br />In short, this sense of the word "must" indicates a moral or quasi-moral obligation. Taken in that sense "must do X" is equivalent to "ought to do X". Surely you don't mean to assert that in your argument? And if you did it would be clearly invalid to argue from there to determinism the way you outline.<br /><br />I take the relevant sense of "must" to be "necessarily will". But we've been here before. To do the work that you require of it this must be understood as an unconditional necessity, but there is no reason for me to accept it on those terms. If instead you understand it as a mere conditional necessity, while I would then assent to lines 1 to 4 of your argument becomes invalid as it will not rule out the possibility of action to the contrary, only the actuality of it. So you don't get determinism.<br /><br />Your continued attempts to explain your position using probability are puzzling. How are the probabilities you mention supposed to be related to the modalities of the issue? Supposing there is no real randomness in the world then while we might assign probabilities of 1/2 to the outcome of a coin toss, "in reality" the probability is either 1 or 0. One of these probabilities is epistemological, the other is physical or metaphysical. The two come apart. Epistemic probabilities do not tell you about physical/metaphysical probabilities and physical/metaphysical probabilities do not tell you about epistemic ones. Determinism is a physical/metaphysical thesis but you only have epistemic probabilities to hand. They simply cannot do the work you require of them.<br /><br />It's that same question as the relationship between certainty and necessity. So again, we've been here before.Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18868672938666980222017-09-26T21:50:03.170-07:002017-09-26T21:50:03.170-07:00It's fascinating to see 2 people constantly re...It's fascinating to see 2 people constantly repeat the same thing over and over again... may I try to clarify? Yes? Good...<br /><br />First, let's assume we have true libertarian freewill. What does that mean? We make choices, at least some choices, entirely on purpose. We can decide, sometimes, to change our mind about what we will do, up to the last second before we do it.<br /><br />Next, let's assume there is an entity, some kind of mind, that knows everything. Does that mind know what I will pick tomorrow? Yes, by definition. Does that violate my freewill? No, because I already assume I have freewill. Is it a contradiction then? Now that's the tough one...<br /><br />SP says yes, Steve says no. I think Steve is right. It is not a contradiction because that entity's knowledge depends on what I choose, not the other way around. That's why it's called foreknowledge, knowing in advance. It's a special kind of knowledge that only makes sense for gods or something like that.<br /><br />And now I ran out of explanations because I don't personally believe any of this, so I really don't know how to defend this position further. But again, the point is that the timeline that you are constantly refering to SP is not relevant here. The omniscience view presented here is consistent, but I agree with you that there's absolutely no good reason to believe an omniscient mind exist, and I don't know whether that it's even possible. It's just definitions, but consistent ones. World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32337698419457693982017-09-26T21:04:42.007-07:002017-09-26T21:04:42.007-07:00Steve Lovell said.. September 26, 2017 6:19 AM....Steve Lovell said.. September 26, 2017 6:19 AM.<br /><br /> Lines 1 to 3 conjure "musts" from nowhere and I reject them as unsubstantiated.<br /> Line 4 does the same<br /> Line 6 repeats the unsubstantiated "must"<br /> Lines 7 and 8 conclude determinism based on unsubstantiated premises<br />--So then, your entire objection rests upon my use of the word "must".<br /><br />I said<br />*If god writes X today I must do X tomorrow.*<br />You differ with that statement. How exactly?<br /><br />What does the word "must" mean in this context? It has various single word synonyms and equivalent phrases. Which definition or meaning or synonym of "must" do you think is demonstrably not the case in my sentence?<br /><br />Oxford says the first definition of "must" is:<br />Be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)<br /><br />Perhaps you have another preferred source?<br /><br />The antecedence in my sentence is<br />"god writes X today"<br />What does that mean? It means that an asserted omniscient being has written that I will do X. By definition an omniscient being has perfect knowledge, and thus cannot possibly be wrong. <br /><br />If god writes X how can I possibly fail to do X? What is the probability that I will do anything other than X? 0.<br /><br />Suppose I am not obligated to do X. Instead I choose to do Y, despite god having written I will do X. That makes god not omniscient, which is fine by me, but it destroys a fundamental asserted trait of your imagined god.<br /><br />You can't have it both ways.<br /><br />If I have a choice to do Y instead of X then from time to time I will choose differently than god has foretold, making god not omniscient. <br /><br />The only way for X to have a probability of 1 is that I must do X, I will necessarily do X, I have to do X, X is predetermined for me to do, I cannot fail to do X.<br /><br />If it is not necessary for me to do X, if I "not must" do X, then the probability I will do X is less than 1, which cannot be the case on an omniscient god.<br /><br />Your error is connected to the fact that I cannot travel into the past. You may fancifully speculate about a magical being that can flit about in time or outside of time or whatever such silliness you wish to engage in. But irrespective of such idle speculations I must follow the arrow of time, only forward, always moving temporally into the future, never the past.<br /><br />The antecedent, again is<br />"god writes X today"<br /><br />Given that as true the consequent follows inexorably, with no possible alternative, with a probability of precisely 1:<br />"I must do X tomorrow"<br /><br />Else god is not omniscient.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53678838581404885232017-09-26T06:19:12.138-07:002017-09-26T06:19:12.138-07:00Since you insist ... you have indeed "made it...Since you insist ... you have indeed "made it easy for me". The argument completely begs the question. <br /><br />Lines 1 to 3 conjure "musts" from nowhere and I reject them as unsubstantiated.<br />Line 4 does the same<br />Line 5 is may be assumed for the sake of argument<br />Line 6 repeats the unsubstantiated "must"<br />Lines 7 and 8 conclude determinism based on unsubstantiated premises<br /><br />'nuff said.<br /><br />Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23647357439512776872017-09-26T05:09:46.469-07:002017-09-26T05:09:46.469-07:00Steve Lovell said.. September 24, 2017 12:31 PM...Steve Lovell said.. September 24, 2017 12:31 PM.<br /><br />" At this point it's pretty clear this discussion is going nowhere."<br />--Right, I keep laying out the clear argument that omniscience mandates determinism and you keep engaging in nothing more than argument from authority, diversion, and incomplete statements.<br /><br />" but nothing has been added to the discussion (by either of us) for some time."<br />--You have never presented a thorough counter argument. <br /><br />" Either or both of us could, with some plausibility, chalk this up as a victory. "<br />--No, you cannot plausibly do so. If you think you can then demonstrate clearly where the flaw is in the argument summarized at the end of <br />September 24, 2017 8:35 AM<br /><br />" I will attempt to refrain from creating such an unedifying spectacle."<br />--You have never presented a thorough argument. You stop half way through every time.<br /><br />Here, I will make it easy reading for you. Please find the flaw in this argument. During your attempt you will likely move abstractly forward and backward in time. To check the validity of your abstract time travel continue the process through several iterations. The value of such repeated iterations is that it exposes incomplete analysis.<br /><br />If god writes X today I must do X tomorrow.<br />If god writes Y today I must do Y tomorrow.<br />If god writes Z today I must do Z tomorrow.<br />Whatever particular thing god writes today I must do tomorrow.<br />God will always write some particular thing today.<br />Therefore, I must always do tomorrow whatever particular thing god writes today.<br />Therefore, whatever particular thing I do tomorrow is pre-determined as indicated by what god wrote today.<br />Thus my future is entirely pre-determined as indicated by what god writes today.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80253450605755338332017-09-24T12:31:59.632-07:002017-09-24T12:31:59.632-07:00Stardusty,
At this point it's pretty clear th...Stardusty,<br /><br />At this point it's pretty clear this discussion is going nowhere. Indeed, that's been clear for a while. There's lots I could find fault with in your latest posts, but nothing has been added to the discussion (by either of us) for some time.<br /><br />Either or both of us could, with some plausibility, chalk this up as a victory. We haven't been forced to admit that the other person is right and that we were wrong. Any remaining readers will, no doubt, have already reached their conclusions about where the truth lies.<br /><br />Having bashed our heads against each other for so long it is tempting, and we've both succumbed to the temptation at points, to move from discussing the arguments to discussing the psychological make up of our opposition. If you wish to do that, that's up to you. I will attempt to refrain from creating such an unedifying spectacle.<br /><br />If you have something new to say, or a different way of making your points (it needn't be a "snowjob" to express your point in multiple ways), I'll keep checking back here for the next few days.<br /><br />Until we meet again ...Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28482605716234935952017-09-24T08:35:57.141-07:002017-09-24T08:35:57.141-07:00Steve Lovell said.. September 24, 2017 4:14 AM....Steve Lovell said.. September 24, 2017 4:14 AM.<br /><br />" As requested,"<br />--You volunteered with no suggestion from me. It was your idea to send me a copy of your certificate.<br /><br />" and promised in my most recent comment (but not before), here is a link to a copy of my PhD certificate."<br />--How do we know that is actually your certificate? How do we know you did not simply find it on line and claim it is yours? How do we know you did not simply put that name on an existing certificate using Microsoft Paint (that program has a color picker which can be used to erase text, then new text can be added and a new jpg saved, very easy to do and the program is a free accessory on PCs)?<br /><br />" This link will be disabled within the next 10 hours (so by 10pm UK time)."<br />--Why are you being so circumspect about this certificate? There is no personal information in it other than your name (of course, there never is). You already provided a link to a thesis with much the same information in it...just seems inconsistent of you.<br /><br />As I said at the outset, who knows?<br /><br />I could not care less about your credentials, or how you supposedly have the whole of academia on your side about certain aspects of your statements or any of your attempts at argument from authority.<br /><br />The topic at hand is<br />Omniscience necessitates determinism<br />Determinism rules out free will<br /><br />On<br />September 23, 2017 10:06 AM <br />above I provided a detailed time sequence analysis. You have displayed no ability to follow it thoroughly, so if you are the PhD you say you are then we have evidence that there is a gap in the analytical methodology in practice in your academic environment. <br /><br />Here is another wording of the argument:<br />If god writes X today I must do X tomorrow.<br />If god writes Y today I must do Y tomorrow.<br />If god writes Z today I must do Z tomorrow.<br />Whatever particular thing god writes today I must do tomorrow.<br />God will always write some particular thing today.<br />Therefore, I must always do tomorrow whatever particular thing god writes today.<br />Therefore, whatever particular thing I do tomorrow is pre-determined as indicated by what god wrote today.<br />Thus my future is entirely pre-determined as indicated by what god writes today.<br /><br />You can go to the above date for a more thorough explanation.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88213074730398130552017-09-24T08:05:15.871-07:002017-09-24T08:05:15.871-07:00Steve Lovell said.. September 23, 2017 2:25 PM ...Steve Lovell said.. September 23, 2017 2:25 PM .<br /><br /> ----<br /><br />" At which point I expect an apology."<br />--Apologize for what? Maybe you are a PhD after all, you display the self important and thin skinned nature common among them. I should apologize for questioning your voracity? What, do you suppose all you have to do is claim you are a PhD and I am just supposed to take your word for it and be in awe of your magnificence?<br /><br />All you do is lecture on textbook material and make incomplete arguments.<br /><br />The topic under discussion is <br />Omniscience mandates determinism<br />Determinism rules out free will<br /><br />You have provided no thorough counter arguments to my detailed time sequence analysis and thorough thought experiments.<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65618318309456935702017-09-24T08:03:51.054-07:002017-09-24T08:03:51.054-07:00Steve Lovell said.. September 23, 2017 2:25 PM ...Steve Lovell said.. September 23, 2017 2:25 PM .<br /><br />" My difficulty with your argument isn't that it's a "temporal sequence""<br />--Actually, yes, that is a part of your problem. Not that you have no ideas about time, rather, that you are not applying sound time sequence analysis to omniscience.<br /><br />" is that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises."<br />--Actually, yes, it does. You just have not come to that realization as of yet.<br /><br />"Now, you can create logically valid arguments about things which themselves involve tensed facts and temporal sequences, but the logical relations involved would still obtain timelessly."<br />--Right, and you have yet to realize I have created logically valid arguments and you have yet to provide any sound temporal counter arguments.<br /><br /><br />" Facts about what is the case at t1 do not entail facts about what is the case at t2 without some sort of bridge to connect the two. Moreover, even with such a bridge the facts at t2 would only be "necessary" if the facts at t1, and the bridge between t1 and t2 were themselves both "necessary"."<br />--The premise of perfect foreknowledge makes the bridge between t1 and t2 deterministic and therefore "necessary".<br /><br /><br />" That's how modal logic works. There could be some legitimate debate about the kinds of "necessity" involved, as it seems pretty clear that at least the facts at t1 cannot be assumed to be "logically necessary". But we haven't even begun that debate. We're stuck on questions of structure."<br />--You only lecture in logic textbook generalities without providing a specific counter argument regarding omniscience.<br /><br /><br />" I note that at no point have you offered a statement of your own argument in terms of numbered premises and conclusion. I've done that for you. If you want to offer a different formulation which is valid AND doesn't have a harmless conclusion, I'd be happy to read it."<br />--I'm sorry you are manifestly unwilling to engage in or incapable of reading and understanding simple paragraphs of logical reasoning.<br /><br />May I assume you know what a thought experiment is? Do you suppose that logical notation is the only means to reason carefully, validly, and otherwise soundly?<br /><br />This seems to be a part of the deficiency of your education, the narrow view of needing to translate and argument into notation before you can reason carefully about it.<br /><br />A major shortcoming of logical notation is that a very great deal can get lost in the translation, particularly in a time sequence analysis. A clear example is here<br />http://philosopherdhaines.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-defense-of-aquinass-first-way.html<br />His source was here<br />http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ca/2011/01/first-way-in-syllogistic-form.html<br />Which was used for a Reppert post here<br />https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10584495&postID=6725134901932984729&page=7&token=1494536017718<br /><br />One major problem with the many theistic PhDs who engaged in constructing and analyzing that notation was their fundamental errors in translating words translated from Latin to English into logical notation. Even when I took the time to analyze the language to complete their notation it has no effect because those PhDs were simply incapable of reasoning soundly in response to the fully written argument.<br /><br />That is where your breakdown in reasoning is occurring and all your pedestrian lectures about how logic works do not alter the fact that you have shown no ability to follow a thorough time sequence analysis through to a sound conclusion, nor have you presented any sound counter arguments, rather, you argue from authority, diversion, and incompleteness.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90629889977058684052017-09-24T04:14:52.262-07:002017-09-24T04:14:52.262-07:00As requested, and promised in my most recent comme...As requested, and promised in my most recent comment (but not before), <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/f45cwgcth07eke1/Steve%20Lovell%20PhD%20Cert.pdf?dl=0" rel="nofollow">here is a link to a copy of my PhD certificate</a>.<br /><br />This link will be disabled within the next 10 hours (so by 10pm UK time).Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.com