RE: Determinism Is Self Defeating
July 24, 2013 at 8:45 am
(This post was last modified: July 24, 2013 at 9:08 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(July 24, 2013 at 12:06 am)bennyboy Wrote: Let me clarify something here. I'm not arguing non-determinism; I'm a confirmed agnostic, and worse, an ambiguist.B and ital mine.
Re the OP, I'm arguing that determinism is an assumption, not a provable position, and not one for which even sufficient evidence can be provided (due to calculation issues, and the fact that knowing 100% of the state of even a very small system is probably not even theoretically possible).
The bolded bit is strange, you don't seem to feel that ambiguity belongs in the case of the falling rock. Do we simply assume that the rock will fall, or do we expect the rock to fall because of repeated experiments and understanding of the underlying cause that states that given t (an unsupported rock at altitude) t+ (the rock falls)? This is a very simple system. It isn't mysterious.
The ital bit is -yet another- call for total knowledge. You and I could not prove anything.....anything at all....if this is a requirement or disqualifying metric. Offering evidence for determinism (and even proving determinsim) does not hinge on having total knowledge of any given system. To be blunt, you're being entirely unreasonable. Perhaps if I offered the same criticism of non-deterministic things - the one you love so well....you cannot prove or show evidence for any such thing as you are (equally) unaware of knowing the state of something 100%.
This all has to do with our ability to know something, or anything - and nothing to do with determinism or non-determinism specifically. That's why this particular line of skepticism is not compelling to me, being a highly skeptical person myself. It's a complete and total disconnect. If such knowledge is a requirement, I concede. Nothing can be proven or shown in evidence. Hell, I can't even prove that nothing can be proven or shown in evidence...I can't even prove...that I cant prove ...that... -ad infinitum.
Quote:I'm not arguing that the mind is non-deterministic, though in a thread about that, I might lean that way. However, if any part of mind is outside of physical causality, then the universe is non-deterministic.Non seq bud. Determinism can also be true for "immaterial chains of causality". It doesn't really matter whether or not the given is material or immaterial, so long as given t, t+1. It would be a bitch to pin down "immaterial chains of causality" though, eh?
Quote: If mind is, as many now believe, just the subjective experience of objective processes, then it has no effect on determinism.Incorrect, that would be fatalism, not determinism. Under a deterministic model your mind does have an effect (regardless of how woefully wrong our idea of "self" or "mind" may be under said model).
Quote:If it is something else, then it may represent an additional causal influence.-which is fine for a deterministic model.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
