Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

Nope... I have been referring to a genuine universe as one that may be deterministic.

There are so many versions of determinism all attempting to reconcile observed reality and yet here you are not attempting to do so at all. Simply arguing an abstraction with out any relevance to reality is not what this thread is about.
You say "We" have assumed a deterministic universe and indeed we have but a real one not a fantasy one.
As usual you fail to see the point and divert to a strawman.

I can only assume you are intelligent enough to know the difference between reality based determinism and fantasy based determinism...and that you are deliberately attempting to cross-purpose.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it is your mistake to assume I wasn't referring to a reality based determinism...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so where did you learn logic?
You obviously have ( to some extent)
You have determined that the correct answer is that the logic string is "invalid".
When did you learn to do that ?
About how old were you, do you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sarkus, Baldeee,
When did you learn basic logic skills?
And why?

re:
(#1) For the logic of determinism to be valid it is essential that a genuine actor be present to make the genuine determination that that logic is indeed valid or not.
(#2) Why does determinism ( all current mainstream branches) arbitrarily limit the capacity of a deterministic universe to evolve a human that is capable of learning how to determine for him self?

Note: Unless other wise indicated all my posts on this subject are reality premised. ( I shouldn't have to stipulate it)

 

You have patently been referring to a deterministic universe. This thread was an offshoot of another thread that assumed a deterministic universe, and per your OP it continued that assumption. It is not my, nor anyone else’s fault that you weren’t aware that our universe was not deterministic, or that you don’t grasp what determinism entails.

When someone refers to the universe as deterministic, it is quite clear what is meant. And it is clearly not what you thought it did. Yet you are another who makes that someone else’s fault.
But you are wrong in that I, and capracus, and baldeee, et al, are indeed trying to reconcile observed reality with that deterministic universe, hence recognising things as being illusory, the lack of an ability to do otherwise etc. It is that very reconciliation that is being discussed by all.

Provide an example of a “real” deterministic universe, please, given that ours is not deterministic but probabilistic? Provide an example, show that it is indeed “real”.

As usual you put words together without fully appreciating what they mean, and thus fail to see the contradiction you thus come out with. In case you are still unaware, you are in effect asking for a real griffin and not a fantasy one.

Please enlighten me as to the difference, QQ. You have here implicitly asserted there to be a difference, so what do you think the difference is? To remind you: our universe is not deterministic.

You we’re assuming determinism, QQ. Now it is everyone else’s fault for assuming determinism and not the muddled mess that you think determinism is. Nice.

 

Don’t recall, and why does it matter?

You are equivocating on the word “determine”, and question begging the need for a “genuine actor”. Other than that...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They don’t.

So you’re no longer assuming a deterministic universe?

 

yes it is true I am referring to a deterministic universe, one premised on reality.

yep,


usually it refers to a deterministic universe that is premised on reality.
You do know how many versions of determinism there are don't you...?

Co-determinism is a good one... It doesn't exclude anything including probabilit-ism, indeterminism, or any other factors etc... because they are irrelevant to the nature of learning to self co-determine.
The issue is the reality of freewill not the reality of determinism as that is a given when discussing a real universe premised on causal and effect relationships.

So you say....

 

if you can not understand common English and all it't nuances then your bad not mine.
The simple fact is that with out a genuine actor your have no logic to determine your determinism with.
How is that begging the question?

well then why have they over looked it then for over 2500 years?
It's a no brainer ... seriously....

see above and above and above and above....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

(#1) For the logic of determinism or any logical statement to be valid it is essential that a genuine actor be present to make the genuine determination that that logic is indeed valid or not.

 

I was a full charge bookkeeper for a larger non-profit umbrella corporation for 7 years. Nothing to do with logic except for mathematics.

p.s. writing 3 = 1 - 2 is not a choice under any circumstance unless they hold a gun to your head. Deterministic, but no FW. In fact if you were being robbed with that equation the robber would be paying you......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think you have this backward. Deterministic cause/effect is the norm. The question is if human decision making is due to deterministic causality or from FW without a deterministic causality.

 

The only people asking that question are the ones who have assumed only the supernatural is free - usually expressed here as "able to to other than it must" or words to that effect.

The most concise illustration, from Baldeee, two of his wordings labeled here I and II, presented as equivalent, as the same argument twice, by Baldeee himself. Bolding mine:

So: "not free" and "cannot do other than it must" and "deterministic" appear in the premises, assumed, and are presented as equivalent assumptions - declared to be interchangeable, even, the common formal mathematical definition of equivalence.

For the rest of us: human decision making proceeds entirely according to natural physical law,

meaning that it is governed by deterministic causality in a deterministic universe such as we have assumed here,

and has significant degrees of freedom accordingly - perhaps even, depending on future discussion, to the point of providing to the human will all the significant properties of classical (supernatural) free will.

 

P1: Socrates is a man.
P2: All men are mortal.
C1: Socrates is mortal.

This is how most would recognise this classic syllogism.

Iceaura, on the other hand, and some others, would interpret it thus:
P1: Socrates is a is a mortal creature.
C1: Socrates is mortal.
I have merely exchanged "man" for "mortal creature" after all.

Based on this we can all happily claim that in the original syllogism it is being assumed that Socrates is mortal, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Obeying physical law is only equivalent to determinism if those laws are deterministic. That does not include probabilistic laws. If you include them, as you are wont to do, you end up with indeterminism, not determinism, while still obeying physical laws. Thus determinism and proceeding according to natural physical law are not synonymous.

 

Are there uncaused causalities? If not, then the universe is deterministic because if every causal result is preceded by a causal result, that is the definition of determinism, no?

 

and when a human learns to determine for himself as you have demonstrated, his decisions are entirely deterministic, in part, universe, in part human ~ aka co-determinism.

The human is compelled to determine as you have demonstrated. The choice as to what that determination is belongs to the human. He has no freedom to NOT choose. Even if he decides to not choose he is still determining.
So
C=a-b can be written even though invalid. ( no gun needed)

 

Probabilistic laws are just fudging for a lack of information...a qualified speculation about deterministic causation and effect...IMO
For example:
A coin toss: the probability of either head or tails is 49.999.../50 ( not 50/50 as most would assume) unless you need to allow for it to land on it's edge, which further complicates the speculation. All the same it is merely speculation about unknown deterministic causality.

 

I think I have demonstrated that all decisions have prior causalities, which simply makes them deterministic. There is nothing wrong with determinism. It allows for focused reactions.

C = a - b is not only non-deterministic it is logically impossible.

The point you are making demonstrates the deterministic function in decision making.
You are trying to prove indeterminism, but all you are succeeding in is demonstrating that your posit of C = a - b had a causal origin namely trying to prove free will via that false equation.

You cannot prove free will without invoking determinism ........ You cannot make any decisions on a prior state unless there is a prior state which demands a decision.

Do I turn left or right? It depends if you are going to the store or to church.

 

AFAIK, the probability of a coin toss is about 2/Pi

Watch Mario Livio's demonstration of the needle dropping on a lined page and counting when the needle falls between the lines and when it crosses a line. Result 2/Pi

 

I would rather just have free will. Choose free will, problem solved.

 

How does learning logic prove indeterminism?