Determinism

[Edwardo Piet]

1) I haven't stated that you defend determinism, nor am I attacking you on such a position

Ok, understood, I thought you were implying that I was.

2) I disagree whith you that "one possible future" is necessarily implied in both the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy version and Wiki version of the definition of causal determinism.

I was only talking about the Wiki one.

In which case can you please explain how the following quote does not imply "one possible future"

Determinism is the philosophical view that every event, including human cognition, behaviour, decision, and action, is causally determined by the environment. It is, in essence, the view that one's life is predetermined before one is even born. Determinism proposes there is a predetermined unbroken chain of prior occurrences back to the origin of the universe.

Determinists believe the universe is fully governed by causal laws resulting in only one possible state at any point in time.

(my emphasis).

If it is the view that every event is a predetermined event of an unbroken chain of events then how can the future be more than one possibility if it is predetermined (since every event is) and it is part of the completely unbroken chain (of every event)?

3) You ascribe to another definition of causal determinism (that of Dennett) and use an argument from authority to argue that you have the "real" definition: "and Dennett knows the definition of determinism!!"

I'm not using the argument from authority at all. I'm just using his definition because it is through Dennett that I understand determinism. I'm not saying that his definition is the correct one because he knows what he's talking about. I'm just saying that 1. I believe he does know what he is talking about, and 2. Its his definition I'm using.

I'm not making an argument here.

b) Dennett's definition fails to take into account the possibility of multiple futures in combination with fully deterministic laws of nature

I'm not making an argument so much as saying that if a future, if any future truly is 100% predetermined then it is tautologically true that it is the future - that it is therefore what will happen (because that's what the future means, whatever happens=the future - determined or otherwise, the future is therefore inevitable whether it's determined or otherwise, etc, etc.) and that there is "only one possible future" because these are all different ways of saying the same thing.

5) You haven't responded even once on my EMW counter example

I have already responded by saying I haven't made an argument, I'm just using tautology. And so your response only applies if I used your definition of determinism. Because the way I understand it "only one possible future" and "a 100% predetermined future (meaning it has to be that future therefore it's not just a future but the future that will be" are just different ways of saying the same thing.

6) You are in denial about the fact that you are makking an argument, while you at the same time are argumenting that "one possible future" is implied in all quoted definitions we have considered here.

I'm saying that it's implied in the wikipedia one, I dunno about others. I'm saying it's implied because it's saying the same thing in different words. I don't know how you can claim I'm "in denial" without any proof. There is a difference between denial and ignorance. I could be either of the two, or you may be mistaken and all my "arguments" may have indeed not been arguments but just tautologies.

Please continue on this road you're taking, but whatever it is, it will not be mine.

Well, apologies if I misunderstood any of your arguments - and I'll continue to take my road unless I see a reason to follow a road that surprises me by being more correct and/or by just providing more clarity.

Causal determinism is what it says it is. Its the doctrine that all phenomena are caused. In a Newtonian universe this would imply that the future is pre-determined (that there is only one future).

In both cases, 'one possible future' is incorrect, [...]

(my bolding)

What is the difference between the two boldings here? Because in the above bolding it seems that you agree with me that casual determinism means/implies that there is only one possible future. Whereas with the second bolding you seem to then contradict yourself and disagree with me.

Unless, I presume you mean that determinism itself is found to be incorrect by quantum mechanics and yet the definition (and the one I also use) of "only one possible future" is still correct?

To get more pedantic, you say that determinism ="that there is only one future", well what's the difference between that and "that there is only one possible future"? If it's the only, the one, possibility then that is the future so it's the same thing right? So I presume you agree with my definition (and I've only been arguing for the definition of determinism I've never argued for the truth of it - although I'd hope you realized that ).

Just asking for some clarity here on your position over whether you believe my definition/Dennett's definition of determinism being "only one possible future" to be correct. Apologies if I've wrote this post a bit awkwardly :S

EvF