Dawkins vs Sartre/ existentialism vs biological determinism

roosh · 01-05-2020 6:12pm

Fourier wrote: »

The particle seems to have a non-spatiotemporal existence, so it doesn't really exist prior or after to the colour change although it does exist.

Again, we don't need to apply spatiotemporal concepts to the particle itself. We can ask a basic question at every moment of the experiment. We are the ones operating in the spatiotemporal domain but we can ask questions about the state of the Universe at each moment that do not make reference to spatiotemporal notions.

It might be more fruitful to talk purely in terms of the classical level, at which level the predictions of QM are observed.

We have a detector plate which changes colour. In order for the plate to change colour, something must happen to or in the plate. If nothing happens to the plate then it won't change colour. The change in colour is what we call an effect. The "something happening" is what is colloquially known as a "cause".

Something happening to cause an effect, i.e. something happening to cause the change in colour, is determinism by another name.

It might not be the kind of determinism we are used to, where we can track the every movement and location of the objects involved, but it is, nonetheless, determinism. Something happening to effect a chance is determinism in its most basic form.

What QM says, or more importantly, doesn't say, does not change this basic fact.

Fourier wrote: »

So you agree with QM that no mathematical or logical account can be given for the choice of observable?

I'm taking your word for it for the purposes of this discussion.

Fourier wrote: »

It does, you just have a funny notion of "evidence" that's essentially unscientific. QM has postulates that have implications, free choice being one. All evidence we have found is consistent with those postulates and their implications.

Precisely, free choice is an implication, a logical necessity of the theory. Logic isn't empirical evidence. That's not to say that it is incorrect on that basis alone.

Fourier wrote: »

If QM was wrong about this one would not obtain Tsirelson's bound. That's a fact. To me that is evidence. I've no idea what you mean by no evidence since that is direct evidence.

I'll take your word for this, for the sake of argument, and will get around to looking into it. But, as you said

Fourier wrote: »

The theory provides no mechanism for its occurrence but its existence is a consequence of the axioms.

There is no direct evidence, the theory says there can not be direct evidence, It is a logical necessity.

Fourier wrote: »

However several times in this and the other threads it's clear that consistency and scientific evidence aren't enough for you, you need something else that I think lies outside science.

Consistency is essential, but consistency with the world we live in, not internal self-consistency because even circular arguments are internally self-consistent.

With regard to relativity, the preclusion of relative motion in a block like structure is an example of a lack of consistency. With regard to free will, it is the abundance of scientific evidence from fields such as behavioural psychology which have direct import for the very notion of freedom in decision making.

The first-person empirical investigation is in addition to this and as it is the only possible way to actually investigate the notion of free-will, because free will is a first-person subjective phenomenon.

Fourier wrote: »

Take free choice in QM. The scientific case is clear, QM implies Free Choice, Free choice implies Tsirelson's bound. Go do an experiment on Tsirelson's bound and you will it will be confirmed. The alternative is superdeterminism which has no evidence and plenty contradicting it.

I'll take your word for this, but that still doesn't mean that free will exists or that we have to accept it in spite of an abundance of evidence to the contrary.

Fourier wrote: »

For you this isn't enough. It isn't "evidence". I don't know what is as far as you're concerned. Almost direct unassailable experience of the truth like a god? For this reason I don't think you should bother with science. The fact that consistency and evidence for a theory doesn't budge your opinion makes it clear you require something else and since science is only about internal consistency and empirical evidence you're not going to get it. I'll say more below.

It's you who doesn't appear to be budged by the evidence. There is an abundance of evidence in the field of behavioural psychology, including those studies on the effects of priming, which have very real and direct implications for the notion of freedom of choice. These fields actually study decision making!! Directly!

And yes, priming is incredibly pertinent to the question of free will/freedom of choice because the very premise is that our choices are not only influenced, but in many cases dictated by priming factors in our environment, beyond what we normally perceive. This appleis equally to experimenters who choose the experimental settings in QM machines.

Fourier wrote: »

It's just Zeno's paradox. I suggest you read the literature on that since your objections don't have much to do with the block universe specifically, but with Zeno related issues.

I have read literature on Zeno's paradoxes and there is nothing in the attempts to refute the paradox of Zeno's arrow that rescues relative motion form the frozen block Universe. Perhaps you are confusing Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise with the arrow paradox.

Fourier wrote: »

This ends the discussion for me. You've basically said there can't be a logical, mathematical and now (via the removal of third party methods) scientific investigation of this. The scientific evidence is consistent with QM, but you say your personal reflections are not. For me there is little to say then because I can only talk about evidenced scientific theories not your internal experience. As I said above for you it is just "Gut Intuition" > "Science".

Can you propose a scientific study to test for free will? Bearing in mind the difficulty expressly stated the paper you referenced.

There is an abundance of scientific evidence which has major, negative implications, for the notion of free will because it suggests that our decisions are affected by myriad factors which are not only not of our choosing but actually sabotage us in doing the things that we would like to do.

Fourier wrote: »

This is similar to your objection to time in Relativity above. Your issues are really ones to do with the experience of time passing and as such more about Zeno's paradox.

It's not about the experience of the passage of time at all - bear in mind I argue against the existence of time - its about motion. This is where Zeno's paradox diverges - it is similar, but not the same, as I said. Zeno wasn't discussing motion in a 4D static block universe, he was discussing moments in time, in a 3D universe.

If I believed that your decision not to address this particular question was a free one, I might be upset

But seeing as how I can't possibly tell whether you have free will or not, I won't be.

Before we get onto this particular parameter and how its variance gives rise to relative motion in a frozen block structure, am I correct in saying that each embedding i.e. each 3D slice would have a fixed value for this parameter; that the variance in the parameter applies when we consider a number of points along the world line?

To try and clarify, if we take your worldline/worldtube and pick three different points along it, corresponding to different stages in your life. Does each point have its own value for this parameter with each of the three points having a different value, thus giving rise to this variance?

Fourier wrote: »

The evidence that QM and Relativity have accumulated doesn't really matter to you since you basically put first person intuition above them. That's fine but I think it would be best for yourself to then target discussions on those issues in philosophy rather than bothering with scientific theories. I only enter these discussions to explain QM and Relativity, not to talk about your personal reflection and how it can end thousand year old debates and contradict a scientific theory. It's clear QM is just a red herring here as you have dismissed its actual evidence for free choice from the Tsirelson bound as not being evidence for no scientific reason but for vague philosophical ones.

Relativity and QM are both phenomenally predictive theories. The evidence to support them is absolutely overwhleming.

That doesn't change the fact that relativity leads us to a physical structure which precludes the possibility of relative motion. This, I see, as a pretty big issue given that relative motion appears to be self-evidently true. As you know, I would be inclined to believe that the mathematics of relativity could be interpreted differently, without losing any of the predictive power. This of course remains a conjecture and is separate to the very critical issue of the preclusion of relative motion.

The idea of freedom of choice is, if not contradicted, then certainly challenged by the scientific findings in the field of psychology.

In addition to this, it is contradicted by first-person empirical observations.

Fourier · 01-05-2020 8:13pm

roosh wrote: »

What QM says, or more importantly, doesn't say, does not change this basic fact.

Here we go again. "Linguistic games + my gut" > "Verified Scientific Theory".

All you have described is an event occurring. That's not determinism. The occurrence of an event is not determinism. If proving determinism in spite of QM was as ridiculously easy as saying "some thing happened" and "something caused it" this it would have been done years ago.

In order to be determinism you have to identify the cause and show that the outcome is a unique consequence. Not just say "hey there was an event.

Surely you can see that you have not shown the outcome is a unique consequence as needed for determinism?

I'll take your word for this, but that still doesn't mean that free will exists or that we have to accept it in spite of an abundance of evidence to the contrary

So what is wrong with Tsirelson's bound?

It's you who doesn't appear to be budged by the evidence. There is an abundance of evidence in the field of behavioural psychology, including those studies on the effects of priming, which have very real and direct implications for the notion of freedom of choice. These fields actually study decision making!! Directly!

I'm not disputing or denying the work in psychology. It's simply that from reading the literature whether priming has any real consequences for Free Will in general is under debate.

I am moved by evidence. The point is only by evidence. You're coming to priming with a preconception of no free will arrived at from non-scientific considerations. However when I actually look at the priming literature some psychologists think it doesn't negate Free Will, some think it does, some think it mollifies it rather than negates it and others think it modifies it. That's from my reading of currently >30 scientific papers on the subject since this conversation began. The field of psychology does not seem to be presenting the current priming findings as "no free will" with even a slight majority.

Have you read and gone through the statistics in the major priming papers and then read analysis of them. I have. It's not "no Free Will" like you are portraying it. In fact I'm prone to think that you simply know some bits about the experiments, have cursorily read some paragraphs here and there out of context and have a preconceived conclusion. I think this because it seems to be what you do with physics and once again are presenting another field in a distorted fashion.

In psychology of the mind papers that reference Free Will most seem to think it has no insurmountable implications for Free Will, even the people who think there is no Free Will say priming holds nothing in particular against it.

I can be budged, but I don't think you've critically analyzed the field or read widely. Have you read a monograph on priming?

Before we get onto this particular parameter and how its variance gives rise to relative motion in a frozen block structure, am I correct in saying that each embedding i.e. each 3D slice would have a fixed value for this parameter; that the variance in the parameter applies when we consider a number of points along the world line?

There's only one embedding. We can either foliate and embed the 3D structure into the 4D one or form a fiber bundle and embed the 4D structure over the 3D one. The latter shows the 4D structure is isomorphic to the 3D one with moments of time.

4D static block universe, he was discussing moments in time, in a 3D universe

A 4D block universe is isomorphic to a 3D universe with moments.

That doesn't change the fact that relativity leads us to a physical structure which precludes the possibility of relative motion

This isn't a "fact", it's a conclusion you have reached that nobody else seems to hold. You can't speak to it as a fact.

Fourier · 01-05-2020 10:09pm

I think it's best to just stick to the determinism in QM issue as this is the simplest case above and the clearest that doesn't require bringing in other fields. I think I won't respond to the other points for now since the one about determinism in QM is the easiest to deal with.

roosh · 01-05-2020 11:14pm

Fourier wrote: »

Here we go again. "Linguistic games + my gut" > "Verified Scientific Theory".

All you have described is an event occurring. That's not determinism. The occurrence of an event is not determinism. If proving determinism in spite of QM was as ridiculously easy as saying "some thing happened" and "something caused it" this it would have been done years ago.

In order to be determinism you have to identify the cause and show that the outcome is a unique consequence. Not just say "hey there was an event.

Surely you can see that you have not shown the outcome is a unique consequence as needed for determinism?

If our task was to identify a specific cause in the deterministic chain then yes, we would need to identify the cause and demonstrate that the oucome was uniquely caused by it. We don't need to identify the specific cause however - I thought we might be able to box it in, but we can approach it from the other side.

Determinism at its most fundamental level is simply cause and effect. Some change occurs which has a cause.

In the case of the experiment in question we have a clear and obvious effect, the change in colour of the plate. This is a macro, or classical level observation.

Now, under what circumstances could this change possibly occur? Either the plate changes colour spontaneously by itself or something causes it to change colour. In general, either changes occur spontaneously or they are caused. Again, bear in mind we are talking about classical level observations.

We have ruled out the plate spontaneously changing colour, so we are left with only one possibility, that the change was caused. If there was no cause, and the plate didn't change colour spontaneously then the plate would not change colour. But it did, so we are left with the conclusion that the change had a caused.

We might not be able to definitively identify what the cause of the change was, but we don't need to, in order to conclude that there must have been some cause i.e. something happened to cause it or some "thing" caused it.

It would seem that the smart money would be on the particle that we prepared specifically to fire at the plate, which we were expecting to hit the plate but we just didn't know where it would hit. Unfortunately, correlation does not imply causation so the particle gets away with it. Still, however, the change had to have a cause, hence determinism.

Again, this is at the classical level of observation.

Fourier wrote: »

So what is wrong with Tsirelson's bound?

I haven't said that there is anything wrong with it. I'm not familiar with it. I will take your word for it. The issue is with the notion of freedom of choice.

Fourier wrote: »

I'm not disputing or denying the work in psychology. It's simply that from reading the literature whether priming has any real consequences for Free Will in general is under debate.

I am moved by evidence. The point is only by evidence. You're coming to priming with a preconception of no free will arrived at from non-scientific considerations. However when I actually look at the priming literature some psychologists think it doesn't negate Free Will, some think it does, some think it mollifies it rather than negates it and others think it modifies it. That's from my reading of currently >30 scientific papers on the subject since this conversation began. The field of psychology does not seem to be presenting the current priming findings as "no free will" with even a slight majority.

Have you read and gone through the statistics in the major priming papers and then read analysis of them. I have. It's not "no Free Will" like you are portraying it. In fact I'm prone to think that you simply know some bits about the experiments, have cursorily read some paragraphs here and there out of context and have a preconceived conclusion. I think this because it seems to be what you do with physics and once again are presenting another field in a distorted fashion.

In psychology of the mind papers that reference Free Will most seem to think it has no insurmountable implications for Free Will, even the people who think there is no Free Will say priming holds nothing in particular against it.

I can be budged, but I don't think you've critically analyzed the field or read widely. Have you read a monograph on priming?

I have a broad understanding of the literature on the subject, but I'm sure you will highlight where I am wrong in my understanding.

We can start with a link to a paper that offers a definition and how they demonstrate that subjects have free will to begin with.

Does the literature suggest any of the following

the language we learn affects how we think?
the home environment we grow up in affects our decision making?
the community we grow up in affects our decision making?
traumatic events in our life affect our decision making?

What is the starting point for free will in these papers?
How do they propose to define or even test free will?
How do they demonstrate that subjects have this thing called free will which they suggest is being modifed, mollified, or negated?
Or do they start from the assumption that we all have free will?

Fourier wrote: »

There's only one embedding. We can either foliate and embed the 3D structure into the 4D one or form a fiber bundle and embed the 4D structure over the 3D one. The latter shows the 4D structure is isomorphic to the 3D one with moments of time.

A 4D block universe is isomorphic to a 3D universe with moments.

This isn't a "fact", it's a conclusion you have reached that nobody else seems to hold. You can't speak to it as a fact.

Regardless of how the embedding occurs. If we have a 4 dimensional structure where objects exist as worldlines or worldtubes embedded and frozen within that strucutre, then an account is needed for how these static, unchanging worldtubes, which themselves do not move, give rise to relative motion.

Fourier wrote: »

I think it's best to just stick to the determinism in QM issue as this is the simplest case above and the clearest that doesn't require bringing in other fields. I think I won't respond to the other points for now since the one about determinism in QM is the easiest to deal with.

Yep, no problem. I had planned on probing on the other point in the previosus thread in which we were discussing.

Fourier · 02-05-2020 12:03am

As mentioned I will concentrate only on this point.

If our task was to identify a specific cause in the deterministic chain then yes, we would need to identify the cause and demonstrate that the oucome was uniquely caused by it. We don't need to identify the specific cause however - I thought we might be able to box it in, but we can approach it from the other side.
...
It would seem that the smart money would be on the particle that we prepared specifically to fire at the plate, which we were expecting to hit the plate but we just didn't know where it would hit. Unfortunately, correlation does not imply causation so the particle gets away with it. Still, however, the change had to have a cause, hence determinism.

If you assume there was a place it was going to hit that we just didn't know then you can prove the correlations will satisfy Bell's inequality. Observations break Bell's inequality. There is no point the particle was "going to hit that we didn't know".

Determinism is not just cause and effect, but cause and unique effect, i.e. given the current situation things could only play out uniquely one given way. Assuming such a unique relation between cause and effect gives us Bell's inequality in contradiction to experiment.

You don't need to trace the cause, but you need to show whatever effect occurs is uniquely associated with that cause whatever it may be. Such an assumption gives correlation bounds that are violated in Real Life experiments.

roosh · 02-05-2020 12:23am

Fourier wrote: »

As mentioned I will concentrate only on this point.

Sure, we can return to the main topic of freedom of choice if we make progress on this point. We can probably start with the question of how experimenters establish that subjects have free will in the first place, in order for it to be modified, mollified, or negated.

We probably agree on some of what the studies say about how environmental factors affect decision making, even if we disagree on its import for the role of free will. Establishing that subjects have free will in the first place will precede that though.

Fourier wrote: »

If you assume there was a place it was going to hit that we just didn't know then you can prove the correlations will satisfy Bell's inequality. Observations break Bell's inequality. There is no point the particle was "going to hit that we didn't know".

Let's not assume that then. Lets just focus on the classical level observation of a change in colour at a specific location on the plate.

If this change of colour didn't happen spontaneously, then it must have been caused. If it wasn't caused and it didn't happen spontaneously then there would be no change in colour.

Fourier wrote: »

Determinism is not just cause and effect, but cause and unique effect, i.e. given the current situation things could only play out uniquely one given way. Assuming such a unique relation between cause and effect gives us Bell's inequality in contradiction to experiment.

We have our unique effect, the change in colour of the detector plate. We might not be able to identify the specific cause but we know that it must either have had a cause or it must have occurred spontaneously. Otherwise, there would be no observation of a change in colour.

Our predictions are still going to be the probabilistic predictions of QM.

Fourier wrote: »

You don't need to trace the cause, but you need to show whatever effect occurs is uniquely associated with that cause whatever it may be. Such an assumption gives correlation bounds that are violated in Real Life experiments.

"With that cause" implies the identification of a specific cause. We don't need to identify a specific cause. We have a clear and specific effect and we can establish that this effect must have a cause, if it didn't happen spontaneously.

If the plate doesn't change colour spontaneously or it wasn't caused, then the plate simply wouldn't change colour.

Fourier · 02-05-2020 12:29am

We have our unique effect

We have a clear and specific effect

After the fact.

For determinism you must show that prior to the fact that there was, at least in theory even if you practically cannot gather enough to data, only one effect that could possibly happen given the the current state of the world.

Determinism isn't that there was an effect, but that that effect was the only one that could occur given how things were.

roosh · 02-05-2020 12:38am

Fourier wrote: »

After the fact.

For determinism you must show that prior to the fact that there was, at least in theory even if you practically cannot gather enough to data, only one effect that could possibly happen given the the current state of the world.

Determinism isn't that there was an effect, but that that effect was the only one that could occur given how things were.

Determinism, at its most basic, is cause and effect.

What you are suggesting is identifying the causal chain linking specific causes to their unique effects. We don't need to do that.

We have a unique effect. It could have had multiple causes - if that is even a coherent idea; perhaps a number of things combine to give this unique effect although I suspect many causes combining would itself give rise to a different effect, which then acts as the cause for the effect in question.

Regardless, where there is an effect there must either be a cause or spontaneity. Without either, there is no effect. We seem to have ruled out spontaneity, so we are left with cause and effect i.e. determinism.

Fourier · 02-05-2020 12:49am

Roosh, I have to say this is getting pretty silly. This is just the basic definition of determinism that literally every book, paper and talk I have ever attended has used. Arguing this is hard to understand.

roosh wrote: »

Determinism, at its most basic, is cause and effect.

It's cause and unique effect. That is the definition used by everybody. Just an example from a course at the university of Oregon:

the philosophy that everything has a cause, and that a particular cause leads to a unique effect

roosh wrote: »

What you are suggesting is identifying the causal chain linking specific causes to their unique effects. We don't need to do that.

My god. That's not what I am talking about. You don't have to identify the chain.

We have a unique effect. It could have had multiple causes

It's not about multiple causes. It's about given the state of the world prior to the effect, i.e. given the cause in the most general sense regardless of how many there are or whether you can identify the link, that there was only one possible outcome. That it was the unique event that was going to occur before the fact of its occurrence, i.e. that it was determined in advance. Determined means fixed/selected out.

roosh · 02-05-2020 1:05am

Fourier wrote: »

Roosh, I have to say this is getting pretty silly. This is just the basic definition of determinism that literally every book, paper and talk I have ever attended has used. Arguing this is hard to understand.

It's cause and unique effect. That is the definition used by everybody. Just an example from a course at the university of Oregon:

We have a unique effect, the change in colour of the plate.

Our options with regard to this are:
[1]the unique effect happened spontaneously.
[2]the unique effect had a cause.
[3]there was no effect whatsoever

We can rule out #3 because clearly we have an effect. It's unique because it is the one that happened, and we have ruled out #1.

Therefore, this unique effect must have had a cause, otherwise, there would be no effect to speak of.

Fourier wrote: »

My god. That's not what I am talking about. You don't have to identify the chain.

That might not be what your intended point is, but that is the implication. To say that we have identify the cause and its unique effect is to attempt to establish a causal chain between a specific cause and its unique event. We don't need to do that because we have a unique event which implies that there was a cause.

Fourier wrote: »

It's not about multiple causes. It's about given the state of the world prior to the effect, i.e. given the cause in the most general sense regardless of how many there are or whether you can identify the link, that there was only one possible outcome. That it was the unique event that was going to occur before the fact of its occurrence, i.e. that it was determined in advance. Determined means fixed/selected out.

This is how determinism is used to make predictions. We're not looking to make a prediction or link a unique effect to its specific cause.

We have an effect in the detector plate changing colour. We can work backwards form here. We don't need to go far though, as we don't need to identify the particular cause, we simply need to establish that an effect does not happen without a cause.

Fourier · 02-05-2020 1:25am

We have a unique effect, the change in colour of the plate.

That might not be what your intended point is, but that is the implication

I don't know what to say. I've seen teenagers in an intro philosophy class grasp this. I genuinely just don't understand.

You don't need to identify the link.

It's that one should be able to show that the causal event has only one possible effect, i.e. that it --->determines<--- the outcome. Just having an event is not determinism.

roosh · 02-05-2020 1:41am

Fourier wrote: »

I don't what to say. I've seen teenagers in an intro philosophy class grasp this. I genuinely just don't understand.

I understand your point perfectly, I think it is you who is failing to grasp mine.

Nothing I have said contradicts the definition you are using. I am simply taking that definition and extrapolating an additional conclusion from it.

I didn't think the idea that every effect has a cause was a particularly novel one and I certainly can't claim any ownership over it.

Fourier wrote: »

You don't need to identify the link.

It's that one should be able to show that the causal event has only one possible effect, i.e. that it --->determines<--- the outcome. Just having an event is not determinism.

Here you are defining what a cause is. A cause is only a cause in relation to its unique event. So, to identify a cause, you need to point to its one possible effect. We are not looking to identify the cause.

There is an aysmmetry here though. Before we can classify something as a "cause" we have to identify its unique effect. Effects are everywhere though and self evident. You see a tree in the garden, that is an effect. You see the sun in the sky, that is an effect. You see a detector plate change colour in an experiment, that is an effect.

Now, here is the key:
Either the observations we make are (1) not of effects or (2) they are of effects.

If (1) is true i.e. the observations we make are not of effects, it means that they spontaneously appear out of nothing, without a cause. The question of how something can come from nothing has implications for this.

If (1) is not the case then (2) must be true, that the observations we make are of effects, meaning that they have a cause and are therefore part of a deterministic chain of cause and effect.

We don't need to identify the prior cause to establish the fact that an effect has a cause, we merely need to demonstrate the alternative.

Fourier · 02-05-2020 1:57am

We don't need to identify the prior cause to establish the fact that an effect has a cause, we merely need to demonstrate the alternative.

Here you are defining what a cause is

Dear god.

I am not saying you have to identify the prior cause. I am not defining a cause.

I am saying that determinism is not solely that an event has a cause. Determinism is that that event was the only possible effect that cause could have.

Take a Stern Gerlach experiment. The silver atoms are heated in an oven the exact same way every time. They come out of the oven through a magnetic field and hit one of two detection plates.

However which plate they hit is not determined. There is the same (type of) cause every time: the emission of a silver atom. However nothing determines which plate is struck. The cause does not lead to a unique effect.

A cause having a unique effect is what determinism means.

roosh · 02-05-2020 12:09pm

Fourier wrote: »

Dear god.

I am not saying you have to identify the prior cause. I am not defining a cause.

I am saying that determinism is not solely that an event has a cause. Determinism is that that event was the only possible effect that cause could have.

You are completely correct insofar as this is a valid and correct statement about determinism. It is however, only one of several valid statements we can make about determinism. These include:

(1) This/that cause gives rise to this/that unique effect.
(2) This/that effect was caused by this/that cause.
(3) All causes have unique effects.
(4) All effects have causes.

Statements (1) and (2) are specific statements which establish a deterministic causal chain, linking (1) specific causes to their unique effects or (2) unique effects to their specific causes.

We can think of statements of the type (1) in terms of predictions because "the cause" is the subject of the statement and it is looking forward along the chain of cause and effect, so to speak. We can think of type (2) statements in terms of explanations, where "the effect" is the subject of the sentence and we are talking about its specific cause. This, of course, isn't exclusively so, but it is possible to think of them in those terms.

Statements (3) and (4) are statements about a criterion that applies to all (3) causes and (4) effects. They do not establish a specific causal chain, linking specific causes to their effects, or vice versa. They are general statements which are true of all (3) causes and all (4) effects. These are equally valid and correct statements about determinism.

Your statement:

Fourier wrote: »

Determinism is that that event was the only possible effect that cause could have.

is a type (2) statement. It talks about linking that event to that cause i.e. establishing a specific causal chain.

It is a valid statement about determinism, but it is not the only valid statement.

Discard
We are not trying to link a specific cause to its unique effect, or vise versa, so we can discard statements of types (3) and (4).

If we wanted to establish that something is a cause, we would indeed need to be able to point to its unique effect, otherwise it would not meet the criterion above, that all causes must meet. As we are not trying to establish the causal nature of a supposed cause here, we can discard statements of type (3).

Establishing effects
That leaves us with statement (4): all effects have causes.
Again, this a perfectly valid statement about determinism.

The alternative statement: observed "effects" (or phenomena) have no cause is not a statement about determinism.

The consequence of this being, the "things" we observe spontaneously appear out of absolutely nothing, with no causal connection to anything whatsoever, in any sense. The question of how something can come from nothing is a separate philosophical issue. I believe we have already dismissed it.

Conclusion
So, either the observations we make spontaneously appear out of absolutely nothing or they are effects which have causes. If we rule out the former, we are left with determinism.

Fourier wrote: »

Take a Stern Gerlach experiment. The silver atoms are heated in an oven the exact same way every time. They come out of the oven through a magnetic field and hit one of two detection plates.

However which plate they hit is not determined. There is the same (type of) cause every time: the emission of a silver atom. However nothing determines which plate is struck. The cause does not lead to a unique effect.

A cause having a unique effect is what determinism means.

Here you are talking about a statement of type (1). It appears to be more a statement about our inability to predict which plate will be hit i.e. we are unable to determine a priori which plate will be hit.

We do, however, observe one of the plates being hit. This is our unique effect. The fact that we were not able to predict which plate would be hit i.e. identify a priori the unique event that follows from the cause does not mean that unique event didn't have a cause, it simply means that we were/are unable to predict.

The alternative is that the effect spontaneously appeared out of absolutely nothing.

FVP3 · 02-05-2020 12:21pm

My two cents on this is that Fourier is arguing scientific fact that he knows is true, and had empirical backup, and Roosh is arguing with words.

Anyway, one thing I was intrigued by was the debate on priming and its effects on free will.

To start with what is priming? According to wiki.

Priming is a phenomenon whereby exposure to one stimulus influences a response to a subsequent stimulus, without conscious guidance or intention. For example, the word NURSE is recognized more quickly following the word DOCTOR than following the word BREAD.

Psychologists think this can tell us something about free will. I disagree, it merely shows a mind hack.

A while back i was at a meal with a colleague, John. Both of us are engineers by background. He was having a hard time remembering the name of the city Houston in Texas which he had visited. This was frustrating for him. I knew the name. He didn't want any help to begin with, definitely not the first letter, but asked me for some help later. I said "Think of a Dublin train station". He immediately said Houston.

So what is going on there? Firstly it looks like name lookup is really difficult for humans. This isn't all that surprising as we have evolved to use memory systems common with primates and other animals, which is primarily visual. Specific name lookup is unique to humans. And John knew what the city looked like ( it was in his head) and where abouts the city was on the map or Texas, the name of which he remembered.

This is what makes "tip of the tongue" so frustrating for humans. For most animals recognising something visually is all they need. John had that but not the exact name. From an evolutionary non human point of view, he did remember the city.

And of course we use visual tricks - memory palaces etc - to help our own memory. It looks like, with regards to words, we are using some part of our memory system which isn't designed for its existing purpose.

Heuston was easier for him to remember. Why? Because he goes there every day so it is locally cached ( to borrow a computing term). When I mentioned a dublin train station, on some level he thinks of Heuston station, where he goes every day, and then immediately thinks of Houston, because he is primed with the H.

As I said this name lookup in the brain is some kind of hack pushed onto a brain thats not evolved for it, and to make it more efficient the search goes down certain paths, and only certain paths, when it tried to remember a specific name. If this path is wrong to begin with, you are stuck. Giving a hint, first name or similar name resets the system and allows it to narrow the search down ( look for a city beginning with H).

Nothing about free will.

Fourier · 02-05-2020 12:50pm

That leaves us with statement (4): all effects have causes.
Again, this a perfectly valid statement about determinism.

It's not the standard definition of determinism. Determinism is that a cause leads to a unique effect.

Here you are talking about a statement of type (1). It appears to be more a statement about our inability to predict which plate will be hit i.e. we are unable to determine a priori which plate will be hit.

Also it is not about our ability to predict whether the up or down plate will be hit. It's that due to Bell's theorem and extensions like the Renner-Ekert theorem you can show that nothing determines which plate will be struck. Not even some hidden fact we have no access to. Nothing. Since nothing determines which plate will be struck, then the selection of the plate is not determined hence determinism is not true.

The exposure of a Stern Gerlach plate has a cause. Namely the emission of a silver atom. But nothing in that emission or any facts in the world determine which plate would be struck. Thus although the emission event causes a "plate exposure" event, it does not determine which plate exposure. The causes in our world under determine the events. Thus according to language used by everybody determinism is false. As has been shown in Aspect experiments.

Fourier · 02-05-2020 12:54pm

FVP3 wrote: »

My two cents on this is that Fourier is arguing scientific fact that he knows is true, and had empirical backup, and Roosh is arguing with words.

Anyway, one thing I was intrigued by was the debate on priming and its effects on free will.

An even bigger issue is that roosh doesn't use words with their standard meaning and considers the non-standard usage of words and his personal insights from meditation to supersede scientific fact.

Regarding what you mentioned about priming that's exactly what seems to be the consensus in the psychology literature. That it's a mind hack without any real implication for Free Will. In fact when discussing Priming most psychologists don't really mention Free Will.

roosh · 02-05-2020 2:56pm

Fourier wrote: »

It's not the standard definition of determinism. Determinism is that a cause leads to a unique effect.

Nothing I have said contradicts this.

We can turn this sentence around and deduce another piece of information:
A unique effect follows from a cause.

This is the exact same piece of information. We are not adding anything new to the definition, or taking anything away. This is simply a logical necessity.

Now, if we were to simply leave it at that , saying that it must have a cause because by definition all effects have causes - that is, afterall what makes them effects - the accusation of semantics could rightly be levelled. We're not leaving it there however.

There are two possibilities, either:

the observed phenomenon is an effect and therefore has a cuase
or
the observed phenomenon is not an effect because it has no cause

These are our two options. If we say that the observed phenomenon has no cause, then it is not an effect - because all effects have causes, by definition.

However, if the observed phenomenon is not an effect by virtue of having no cause, it means that the observed phenomenon spontaneously occurred from absolutely nothing, without reason or cause, without causal connection to anything whatsoever, in any sense.

This conclusion has its own set of problems, most notably the question of how something can occur out of nothing.

Fourier wrote: »

Also it is not about our ability to predict whether the up or down plate will be hit. It's that due to Bell's theorem and extensions like the Renner-Ekert theorem you can show that nothing determines which plate will be struck. Not even some hidden fact we have no access to. Nothing. Since nothing determines which plate will be struck, then the selection of the plate is not determined hence determinism is not true.

The exposure of a Stern Gerlach plate has a cause. Namely the emission of a silver atom. But nothing in that emission or any facts in the world determine which plate would be struck. Thus although the emission event causes a "plate exposure" event, it does not determine which plate exposure. The causes in our world under determine the events. Thus according to language used by everybody determinism is false. As has been shown in Aspect experiments.

As you outline here. We have a cause - the emission of a silver atom. We also have a unique event - the exposure of the Stern Gerlach plate.

If the exposure of the Stern Gerlach plate was not the unique effect of the emission of the silver atom, then it must have been the unique effect of some other cause.

The alternative to this is, the exposure of the SG plate is not a unique effect of any cause i.e. it is not an effect at all. In this case, the exposure of the plate happens spontaneously, for no reason or cause, and is not causally connected to anything whatsoever, in any sense. This would mean that the exposure event is a pure coincidence and completely unrelated to the emission of the silver atom, other than through some spooky coincidence.

Bearing in mind, we are talking about macro-level observations.

Fourier · 02-05-2020 3:30pm

roosh wrote: »

As you outline here. We have a cause - the emission of a silver atom. We also have a unique event - the exposure of the Stern Gerlach plate.

But which plate, the upper or lower one? What determines that?

For the cause "emission of a silver atom" there are two possible effects. Look closely => "two", hence not unique.

One of two possible plates being hit is not unique, it's a set of two elements. This cause is not associated with a unique effect.

roosh · 02-05-2020 7:26pm

FVP3 wrote: »

My two cents on this is that Fourier is arguing scientific fact that he knows is true, and had empirical backup, and Roosh is arguing with words.

Hey FVP3, thank you for jumping in here. I was actually going to write a post asking if anyone had been reading and could possibly offer another perspective. I think it can only help.

I completely understand your perception. On the one hand Fourier is clearly referencing well established scientific theory and I appear to be engaged in semantics. That isn't the case however. I am using logic. Fourier is also using logic.

Nothing I have said goes against the definition of determinism that Fourier is using, in fact, I'm using the exact same definition but looked at the other way around.

His definition is:
Determinism is that a cause leads to a unique effect.

We can turn this sentence around and deduce another piece of information:
A unique effect follows from a cause.

This is the exact same piece of information. We are not adding anything new to the definition, or taking anything away. This is simply a logical necessity. A phenomenon is called an "effect" by virtue of it having a cause - in the physical world. If a phenomenon doesn't have a cause, then it isn't labelled with the term "effect". This is all dependent on physical interactions.

Now, if we were to simply leave it at that , saying that it must have a cause because by definition all effects have causes, the accusation of semantics could rightly be levelled. We're not leaving it there however.

There are two possibilities, either:
(1) the observed phenomenon is an effect
or
(2) the observed phenomenon isn't an effect

From there:
(1) if the observed phenomenon is an effect, it is so because it has a cause
or
(2) if the observed phenomenon is not an effect, that is because it has no cause.

These are our two options. If we say that the observed phenomenon has no cause, then it is not an effect - because all effects have causes, by definition. Again, this refers to the physical world, not simply semantics.

However, if the observed phenomenon is not an effect by virtue of having no cause, it means that the observed phenomenon spontaneously occurred from absolutely nothing, without reason or cause, without causal connection to anything whatsoever, in any sense.

This conclusion has its own set of problems, most notably the question of how something can occur out of nothing.

FVP3 wrote: »

Anyway, one thing I was intrigued by was the debate on priming and its effects on free will.

To start with what is priming? According to wiki.

Priming is a phenomenon whereby exposure to one stimulus influences a response to a subsequent stimulus, without conscious guidance or intention. For example, the word NURSE is recognized more quickly following the word DOCTOR than following the word BREAD.

Priming is an interesting phenomenon and it certainly has implications for the very notion of free will because it directly impacts (if not dictates) behaviour and decision making.
To quote Daniel Kahneman

Thinking, fast and Slow wrote:

Studies of priming effects have yielded discoveries that threaten our self-image as conscious and autonomous authors of our judgments and our choices.

The example you have cited here is one specific example of priming. I would definitely suggest Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, fast and slow for a thorough discussion on the subject.

Kahneman references the type of priming you mention, the same kind in the study that Fourier referenced:

Thinking, fast and Slow wrote:

In the 1980s, psychologists discovered that exposure to a word causes immediate and measurable changes in the ease with which many related words can be evoked. If you have recently seen or heard the word EAT, you are temporarily more likely to complete the word fragment SO_P as SOUP than as SOAP. The opposite would happen, of course, if you had just seen WASH. We call this a priming effect and say that the idea of EAT primes
the idea of SOUP, and that WASH primes SOAP

He goes on to say:

Thinking, fast and Slow wrote:

Another major advance in our understanding of memory was the discovery that priming is not restricted to concepts and words. You cannot know this from conscious experience, of course, but you must accept the alien idea that your actions and your emotions can be primed by events of which you are not even aware.

He goes onto mention some notable other examples of priming (he goes into each in much more detail in the book):

Thinking, fast and Slow wrote:

For instance:

A study of voting patterns in precincts of Arizona in 2000 showed that the support for propositions to increase the funding of schools was significantly greater when the polling station was in a school than when it was
in a nearby location.

A separate experiment showed that exposing people to images of
classrooms and school lockers also increased the tendency of participants to support a school initiative. The effect of the images was larger than the difference between parents and other voters!

The study of priming has come some way from the initial demonstrations that reminding people of old age makes them walk more slowly. We now
know that the effects of priming can reach into every corner of our lives. Reminders of money produce some troubling effects. Participants in one experiment were shown a list of five words from which they were required to construct a four-word phrase that had a money theme (“high a salary desk paying” became “a high-paying salary”). Other primes were much more subtle, including the presence of an irrelevant money-related object in the background, such as a stack of Monopoly money on a table, or a computer with a screen saver of dollar bills floating in water.

Money-primed people become more independent than they would be without the associative trigger.

They persevered almost twice as long in trying to solve a very difficult problem before they asked the experimenter for help, a crisp demonstration of increased self-reliance.

Money-primed people are also more selfish:
- they were much less willing to spend time helping another student who
pretended to be confused about an experimental task.
- When an experimenter clumsily dropped a bunch of pencils on the floor,
the participants with money (unconsciously) on their mind picked up
fewer pencils.

In another experiment in the series, participants were told that they would shortly have a get acquainted conversation with another person and were asked to set up two chairs while the experimenter left to retrieve that person.

- Participants primed by money chose to stay much farther apart than their
nonprimed peers (118 vs. 80 centimeters).

- Moneyprimed undergraduates also showed a greater preference for being
alone.

There are plenty of more in depth examples in the book.

FVP3 wrote: »

Psychologists think this can tell us something about free will. I disagree, it merely shows a mind hack.

You are right, it is a mind hack and one that corporations, politicians, marketers and hucksters the world over try to exploit to influence our decisions - cambridge analytica is a prime example.

What the studies unambiguously show is that priming affects our decision making. Free will is intimately bound up with decision making - they are arguably one and the same thing. So yes, priming can tell us something about our free will, or rather, lack thereof.

Bear in mind, any suggestion that argues for the idea that priming only influences our "free will", is starting from an assumption that free will exists. The burden of proof is on those who believe in free will to establish its presence and then demonstrate how priming only influences it as oppposed to completely negates it.

FVP3 wrote: »

A while back i was at a meal with a colleague, John. Both of us are engineers by background. He was having a hard time remembering the name of the city Houston in Texas which he had visited. This was frustrating for him. I knew the name. He didn't want any help to begin with, definitely not the first letter, but asked me for some help later. I said "Think of a Dublin train station". He immediately said Houston.

So what is going on there? Firstly it looks like name lookup is really difficult for humans. This isn't all that surprising as we have evolved to use memory systems common with primates and other animals, which is primarily visual. Specific name lookup is unique to humans. And John knew what the city looked like ( it was in his head) and where abouts the city was on the map or Texas, the name of which he remembered.

This is what makes "tip of the tongue" so frustrating for humans. For most animals recognising something visually is all they need. John had that but not the exact name. From an evolutionary non human point of view, he did remember the city.

And of course we use visual tricks - memory palaces etc - to help our own memory. It looks like, with regards to words, we are using some part of our memory system which isn't designed for its existing purpose.

Heuston was easier for him to remember. Why? Because he goes there every day so it is locally cached ( to borrow a computing term). When I mentioned a dublin train station, on some level he thinks of Heuston station, where he goes every day, and then immediately thinks of Houston, because he is primed with the H.

As I said this name lookup in the brain is some kind of hack pushed onto a brain thats not evolved for it, and to make it more efficient the search goes down certain paths, and only certain paths, when it tried to remember a specific name. If this path is wrong to begin with, you are stuck. Giving a hint, first name or similar name resets the system and allows it to narrow the search down ( look for a city beginning with H). Nothing about free will.

Indeed, there is no demonstration of fee will in this example. But let's look at it in more detail.

If we jump into the part where John is trying to remember the name of the city. He can picture the city because of a deterministic process - he visited the city, experienced its sights and sounds and these created a memory.

If we were to break down the steps that lead to your conversation, we could see that his trying to recall the name of the city followed from other deterministic causes - perhaps you asked him a question?

John can't think of the city and then you give him a clue - train station in Dublin. This is another deterministic cause which triggers Johns mind to think of Heuston Station. Given how the mind works, this triggered the assoication with Houston texas, the city John had visited.

There is no homonculus called "John's Free Will" in John's head sorting through a mental filing cabinet, trying to find the name of the city and when it can't it does a search for a cross reference between train stations in Dublin and cities in Texas. All of this happens subconsciously triggered by environmental stimuli.

roosh · 02-05-2020 7:31pm

Fourier wrote: »

An even bigger issue is that roosh doesn't use words with their standard meaning and considers the non-standard usage of words and his personal insights from meditation to supersede scientific fact.

Regarding what you mentioned about priming that's exactly what seems to be the consensus in the psychology literature. That it's a mind hack without any real implication for Free Will. In fact when discussing Priming most psychologists don't really mention Free Will.

It is a mind hack which affects (if not dictates) decision making. Therefore it has direct implications for free will.

Daniel Kahneman wrote:

Studies of priming effects have yielded discoveries that threaten our self-image as conscious and autonomous authors of our judgments and our choices.

Perhaps the reason they don't mention free will is because it is such an ill defined concept.

Also, you mentioned earlier that some researches say that it "mollifies" or "modifies" free will. The problem with this position is that it presupposes that there is free will in the first place. This of course is not possible without recourse to first-person subjective experience.

roosh · 02-05-2020 7:39pm

Fourier wrote: »

But which plate, the upper or lower one? What determines that?

We don't need to answer that in this context.

Fourier wrote: »

For the cause "emission of a silver atom" there are two possible effects. Look closely => "two", hence not unique.

One of two possible plates being hit is not unique, it's a set of two elements. This cause is not associated with a unique effect.

The set of plates that are actually hit is a set with only one element. This is a unique effect.

You're starting at the preparation stage and saying, there are two possible oucomes, therefore there is no unique outcome.

I'm starting at the detection stage where there has only been one single outcome and saying, there has only been one single outcome.

Note, I'm not saying that there was only ever one possible outcome, I'm saying there has been, in actuality, only one unique outcome.

That unique outcome is either an effect or it isn't. If it is an effect, that is because it had a cause, hence determinism.

If it didn't have a cause.....well, you know how that sentence finishes.

EDIT: simply ask yourself, how many plates actually get hit? Does one plate get hit, or do both plates get hit?
Not, how many plates could get hit prior to the experiment, but how many actually have been hit after each iteration?

Fourier · 02-05-2020 8:27pm

roosh wrote: »

We don't need to answer that in this context.

The set of plates that are actually hit is a set with only one element. This is a unique effect.

You're starting at the preparation stage and saying, there are two possible oucomes, therefore there is no unique outcome.

I'm starting at the detection stage where there has only been one single outcome and saying, there has only been one single outcome.

Roosh, if at the preparation stage there isn't one determined outcome, i.e. if it isn't the case that only one outcome can occur given the preparation then you don't have determinism. Determinism is that a cause has a unique outcome associated with it prior to that occurrence.

What you're doing is identifying determinism with the fact that one outcome occurs rather than multiple outcomes. Nobody ever has meant this by determinism.

Determinism is that given the world as it is now there is only one possible future. That is not the case in the Stern Gerlach experiment.

Fourier · 02-05-2020 8:28pm

We don't need to answer that in this context.

We do!!! That's the whole point.

What -->determines<-- which plate is hit?

Without something to determine it the world is not deterministic.

roosh · 02-05-2020 9:15pm

Fourier wrote: »

We do!!! That's the whole point.

What -->determines<-- which plate is hit?

Without something to determine it the world is not deterministic.

No, that is missing the point.

Asking what determines which plate is hit is asking for the specific cause of the unique event. Realise it or not, this seeks to establish a specific casual chain. This is a type (1) question, as mentioned before.

This is just one aspect of determinism. It is not the only aspect!

Fourier wrote: »

Roosh, if at the preparation stage there isn't one determined outcome, i.e. if it isn't the case that only one outcome can occur given the preparation then you don't have determinism.

At the preparation stage you make predictions. If you cannot predict the single outcome of an experiment, that doesn't mean that the experiment won't have a single, unique outcome, it means that you cannot predict it.

Fourier wrote: »

Determinism is that a cause has a unique outcome associated with it prior to that occurrence.

Doesn't chaos theory contradict this statement?

Fourier wrote: »

What you're doing is identifying determinism with the fact that one outcome occurs rather than multiple outcomes. Nobody ever has meant this by determinism.

Saying, "nobody ever has meant this by determinism" is simply appealing to antiquity and/or the masses.

But, do you genuinely believe that I have personally, during the course of this conversation, invented the statement, "all effects have causes". If you do believe I am the first person in history to use it, then I would suggest doing a google search for that very statement.

Determinism is a logical proposition and as such, it is open to probing and questioning. Even if I were the very first person in history to refer to that aspect of determinism, that all effects have causes, it wouldn't invalidate the inference.

And it is a clear and obvious inference of determinism, that all effects must have causes. It is a logical necessity.

Arthur Schopenhauer: On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and Other Writing wrote:

...the inevitability of an effect from a cause, this form of
the principle of sufficient reason deals with ‘logical necessity’, the necessity
of a true proposition following from a ground

The reason it is a logical necessity is because an effect is only an effect because it has a cause, and vice versa.

And remember, I'm not simply saying that the exposure of the SG plate must have a cause because it is an effect - that would be circular reasoning - I'm saying that if it doesn't have a cause, then it happened spontaneously, without cause or reason, with no causal connection to anything whatsoever, in any sense and it's occurrence is a spooky coincidence in no way related to the firing of the silver atom.

When we rule out the second possibility we are left only with the first i.e. it does have a cause and therefore is part of a deterministic chain of causality - even if we cannot say, definitively what that cause is (although all eyes are on the silver atom).

Hence, determinism.

Fourier wrote: »

Determinism is that given the world as it is now there is only one possible future. That is not the case in the Stern Gerlach experiment.

That is a common interpretation of determinism but not a necessary condition.

Determinism is simply the idea that every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause. As with all such philosophical ideas, people attempt to add their own baggage to it.

Fourier · 02-05-2020 9:45pm

Saying, "nobody ever has meant this by determinism" is simply appealing to antiquity and/or the masses.

Jesus roosh this is stupid. It's the definition of the word determinism. I also "appeal" to antiquity/the masses when I assume the meaning of the word "apple".

roosh wrote: »

Doesn't chaos theory contradict this statement?

No. In Chaos theory every cause has a unique outcome associated with it prior to that outcome's occurrence. Chaos just makes it difficult practically to learn enough about the cause to predict the effect.

The quote you give from Schopenhauer matches what I am saying. The effect follows from the cause as a ‘logical necessity’. In the Stern Gerlach case the effects are not a logical necessity, since the emission event could produce either. Neither is the logically implicated effect.

At the preparation stage you make predictions. If you cannot predict the single outcome of an experiment, that doesn't mean that the experiment won't have a single, unique outcome, it means that you cannot predict it.

I am not saying that a Stern Gerlach experiment won't have a single outcome. I've built and operated a Stern Gerlach device, I know what it will do.

I am saying that it's not just about us being unable to predict the outcome. It's that nothing determines the outcome.

Here is a clear question, if you answer it with wordy bollocks I am going to exit this conversation. Clear question, clear answer. Does something determine which plate will be struck in a Stern Gerlach run? I am not asking if a human being can predict which plate will be struck, I'm asking does something determine which plate will be struck.

Yes or No.

roosh · 02-05-2020 10:26pm

Fourier wrote: »

I am not saying that a Stern Gerlach experiment won't have a single outcome. I've built and operated a Stern Gerlach device, I know what it will do.

I am saying that it's not just about us being unable to predict the outcome. It's that nothing determines the outcome.

Here is a clear question, if you answer it with wordy bollocks I am going to exit this conversation. Clear question, clear answer. Does something determine which plate will be struck in a Stern Gerlach run? I am not asking if a human being can predict which plate will be struck, I'm asking does something determine which plate will be struck.

Yes or No.

I'll move this up here to address your question, without wordy bollocks, from the start.

To answer you question, I don't know.

Now, let me ask you a couple of questions:
1. Do you believe that I am the first person to refer to that aspect of determinism that can be summed up as, "all effects have causes"?

2. Does the Stern Gerlach end up with one single, unique outcome. I'm not asking if only one single outcome is possible at the start of the experiment, I'm asking if only one plate is struck at the end of the Stern Gerlach run.

If you choose, by your own "free will"

, to exit the conversation then, as ever, I will be appreciative of you having engaged thus far. With regard to my "wordy bollocks" I would say that my statements have been entirely based on reason and have been as concise as possible, given gap that exists in our consensus.

Forgive the tone of the post in places. I started off a little annoyed and then cooled down as I went. I moved this from the bottom, so the change in tone is actually in reverse.

Fourier wrote: »

Jesus roosh this is stupid. It's the definition of the word determinism. I also "appeal" to antiquity/the masses when I assume the meaning of the word "apple".

If I might make a suggestion, I would suggest that you choose to demonstrate why the statements I have made (about determinism) are false, instead of using fallacious reasoning, trying to reassert the same point. A point, I have addressed and agreed with.

Yes, it is a statement about determinism. It is not, however, the only, singular statement that we can make about determinism.

Saying, "no one has ever said that about determinism before" doesn't make the statements false!! It can both be true that no one has ever used such a definition of determinism before and that the statements are logical necessities of determinism.

This is why the posts are wordy, because I've had to repeat this basic point in countless different ways!

Fourier wrote: »

No. In Chaos theory every cause has a unique outcome associated with it prior to that outcome's occurrence. Chaos just makes it difficult practically to learn enough about the cause to predict the effect.

OK, so if we have a system under chaos theory, where there are only two possible outcomes can we associate the unique outcome with the cause, prior to the outcome?

Fourier wrote: »

The quote you give from Schopenhauer matches what I am saying. The effect follows from the cause as a ‘logical necessity’. In the Stern Gerlach case the effects are not a logical necessity, since the emission event could produce either. Neither is the logically implicated effect.

Of course it does! Nothing I have said contradicts what you are saying. I am making logical inferences form what you are saying - really from the definition. Instead of deciding to demonstrate why those inferences are invalid, you are trying to argue that "no one has ever said it like that before".

"...the inevitability of an effect from a cause..."

Notice, it doesn't say "that cause has only one unique effect associated with it prior to the outcome".

It is a basic statement of the logical necessity that an effect comes from a cause. This is precisely what I have been saying.

FVP3 · 02-05-2020 10:56pm

roosh wrote: »

Yes, it is a statement about determinism. It is not, however, the only, singular statement that we can make about determinism.

Surely there has to be a precise and agreed on terminology for anything to make sense. In any field whatsoever.

Saying, "no one has ever said that about determinism before" doesn't make the statements false!! It can both be true that no one has ever used such a definition of determinism before and that the statements are logical necessities of determinism..

I presume he is saying that "no experts have said this before". It might be true that that you are right and they are wrong, but you need extraordinary proof to refute expertise, and you certainly cant come up with your own definitions of things willy nilly.

As an outsider, albeit one scientifically trained, I can't know enough to know if Fourier is telling the truth but I can tell you are engaging in poppycock.

Fourier · 02-05-2020 11:01pm

As an outsider, albeit one scientifically trained, I can't know enough to know if Fourier is telling the truth

If there's any particular bit you're curious about no worries I could get a reference or give a clear answer. There's one very nice article containing the proof of how QM shows the world is not deterministic that's meant to accessible to scientifically trained people in general here:
https://kantin.sabanciuniv.edu/sites/kantin.sabanciuniv.edu/files/makale/mermin.pdf

Fourier · 02-05-2020 11:17pm

OK, so if we have a system under chaos theory, where there are only two possible outcomes can we associate the unique outcome with the cause, prior to the outcome?

In Chaos theory there is only one possible outcome. We might not be able to predict it given limits on data gathering, but there is only one possible outcome.

Notice, it doesn't say "that cause has only one unique effect associated with it prior to the outcome".

That the effect is unique is what "logical necessity" means. A specific effect follows necessarily from the cause. Anyway I don't want to help you read Schopenhauer, just read more of his work and you'll see when he discusses determinism like most philosophers of the time he is talking about it as defined by Laplace.

Do you believe that I am the first person to refer to that aspect of determinism that can be summed up as, "all effects have causes"?

Saying, "no one has ever said that about determinism before" doesn't make the statements false!!

I would suggest that you choose to demonstrate why the statements I have made (about determinism) are false

It's not about the statements being false and you don't have to repeat yourself. I get what you are saying.

The point is that it's not what determinism means in full. You are giving a necessary but not sufficient statement about determinism.

For example what you are doing is like saying the definition of an apple is "It is a fruit". That's not false, but it's not the full definition of an apple. Similarly that "all effects have causes" is part of determinism, but it isn't the full definition.

The full definition is in a form:
"That a cause has only one unique effect associated with it prior to the outcome"

That's what determinism means in scientific discourse. Nobody uses your statement to define determinism is what I mean, as not only determinism satisfies it but also Stochastic processes for example. In Stochastic processes all effects have a cause, but Stochastic processes are not deterministic.

By demonstrating that something obeys one aspect of determinism you have not shown it is actually deterministic. Similarly by showing a banana is a fruit I have not demonstrated it is an apple.

Dawkins vs Sartre/ existentialism vs biological determinism

Comments