Free will and the necessary evil

[Angrboda]

What about it?

Thomas Reid stated, "That whatever begins to exist must have a cause which produced it...":

Thomas Reid: Theory of Action

Modern physicists reject such statements, as I suspect, do most modern day philosophers.  Hawking Radiation is one example of modern physics informing philosophy.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too. Here you're telling me that physics has shown a metaphysical proposition to be false. A few posts ago you were arguing that metaphysical propositions could not be shown to be false. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, Jehanne.

[Jehanne]

Thomas Reid stated, "That whatever begins to exist must have a cause which produced it...":

Thomas Reid: Theory of Action

Modern physicists reject such statements, as I suspect, do most modern day philosophers.  Hawking Radiation is one example of modern physics informing philosophy.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too. Here you're telling me that physics has shown a metaphysical proposition to be false. A few posts ago you were arguing that metaphysical propositions could not be shown to be false. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, Jehanne.

No, I am citing a universal empirical observation(s) that was predicted from a theoretical model that has disproved some prior metaphysical claims about the natural world.

[Angrboda]

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too.  Here you're telling me that physics has shown a metaphysical proposition to be false.  A few posts ago you were arguing that metaphysical propositions could not be shown to be false.  You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, Jehanne.

No, I am citing a universal empirical observation(s) that was predicted from a theoretical model that has disproved some prior metaphysical claims about the natural world.

Yes, and a few posts back you were saying this is impossible. I like you as a person, Jehanne, but after several interactions with you I've come to the inescapable conclusion that you're dumber than a sackful of cunt hair. What you are laboring under is a form of scientism, likely a result of ignorance about philosophy, physics, or both.

[Jehanne]

No, I am citing a universal empirical observation(s) that was predicted from a theoretical model that has disproved some prior metaphysical claims about the natural world.

Yes, and a few posts back you were saying this is impossible. I like you as a person, Jehanne, but after several interactions with you I've come to the inescapable conclusion that you're dumber than a sackful of cunt hair. What you are laboring under is a form of scientism, likely a result of ignorance about philosophy, physics, or both.

No, what I claimed is that philosophers "do not have a laboratory" in which they can test their ideas. Scientists, in general, and, physicists, in particular, do have laboratories in which various propositions may be testable, and, either, provisionally verified, or falsified outright.

[LinuxGal]

Thomas Reid stated, "That whatever begins to exist must have a cause which produced it...":

Thomas Reid: Theory of Action

Modern physicists reject such statements, as I suspect, do most modern day philosophers.  Hawking Radiation is one example of modern physics informing philosophy.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too.  Here you're telling me that physics has shown a metaphysical proposition to be false.  A few posts ago you were arguing that metaphysical propositions could not be shown to be false.  You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, Jehanne.

Certainly such is in keeping with the spirit of metaphysics, where the practicioners make up the rules as they go along. At least physical propositions have data to fall back on.

[Angrboda]

Yes, and a few posts back you were saying this is impossible.  I like you as a person, Jehanne, but after several interactions with you I've come to the inescapable conclusion that you're dumber than a sackful of cunt hair.  What you are laboring under is a form of scientism, likely a result of ignorance about philosophy, physics, or both.

No, what I claimed is that philosophers "do not have a laboratory" in which they can test their ideas.  Scientists, in general, and, physicists, in particular, do have laboratories in which various propositions may be testable, and, either, provisionally verified, or falsified outright.

Now you're just lying.

Metaphysical ideas are not testable ... and no mechanisms exist to adjudicate the disagreements amongst them.

[Jehanne]

No, what I claimed is that philosophers "do not have a laboratory" in which they can test their ideas.  Scientists, in general, and, physicists, in particular, do have laboratories in which various propositions may be testable, and, either, provisionally verified, or falsified outright.

Now you're just lying.

Metaphysical ideas are not testable ... and no mechanisms exist to adjudicate the disagreements amongst them.

Well, again it's definitions, and, you, apparently, do not agree with the linguists at Merriam-Webster who, in your view, may also be in the "dumb as coal category". If you grant the definition of metaphysics as being "beyond physics", then, yes, such ideas are not testable. It was, after all, Auguste Comte, a prominent French philosopher, who stated that humanity would never be able to understand the chemical composition of stars, an idea that was disproven a few decades later by the physicist Jean Foucault.

And, so, philosophers can and do make mistakes.

[HankMoody316]

A more general way of saying that is that necessity places limitations on what is possible. I see the principle of sufficient reason at work in your point as in there could be reasons that only certain sets or outcomes obtain.

I just woke up so pardon my ignorance, but according to google, this is what the Principle means:

> The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground

I hope that the author of that principle has been dead for more than 100 years so as not to cause any insult to his surviving family members but here is my preliminary response to having read and first learned about this principle just now:

• "What a load of fatuous nonsense!" 🤦‍♂️
  

[Belacqua]

• "What a load of fatuous nonsense!" 🤦‍♂️
  

Why?

[HankMoody316]

• "What a load of fatuous nonsense!" 🤦‍♂️
  

Why?

Because of the author's flabbergast-inducing decision to use the word "must". Here is what the word means:

must (definition) be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)

Source: I searched google and used these 2 keywords "define + must"

It's a complete and total non-sequitur to me. 🤦‍♂️