Karpel Tunnel: No, I like hard copy books and get them from libraries. Perhaps I am missing a book I really would love, but generally, I haven’t been so happy with books I’ve come to via posters in discussion forums online. I come to this forum to discuss in the format online discussion forums are most suited for. Others may read your book, so I understand you put it up here. As far as your explanations of determinism, I doubt you have met the argument I presented.
- I think it makes much more sense to call determinism and idea or theory. Laws follow specific predictable and measurable patterns.
Peacegirl: That is what determinism does.
Do you understand why man’s will is not free, according to this author (which is not a hypothesis, BTW), or are you just giving your opinion?
Karpel Tunnel: I was talking about the use of language. I don’t think ‘law’ is the right term for it. I did not mention ‘hypothesis’, I did say theory, which is a much stronger term, in the sense of something that is considered to fit a large amount of the evidence. ‘are you just giving your opinion?’ was an odd thing to ask. Yes, I gave my opinion that calling determinism a law is confused. Laws of nature tend to be specific patterns of cause and effect or relations, often ones that can be represented mathematically. Determinism is more like an ontological theory. I presented an argument in favor of my suggestion around terminology. Not just an opinion. If you interacted with my post, in the manner of a respectful poster, you might have noticed that.
Peacegirl: Determinism (i.e. or man’s will not being free) is not a theory, ontologically or epistemologically.
Regardless of whether the world is determined or indetermined, I am only discussing man’s nature. I don’t need to discuss quantum physics or the universe’s attributes to prove that man can only go in one direction, which means he could not have done otherwise once a choice is made.
Karpel Tunnel: Once a choice is made he could not have done otherwise, simply means there is one timeline. But if the wording here was ambigious and you meant that in any given moment X, the next moment Y will inevitably follow from X and no other moment could have happened, that does not seem to be supported by QM. And yes, I am aware that indeterminism does not make for free will, but it does cause problems for determinism.
Peacegirl: Not in regard to the law of man’s nature. If I show you that one and one is two, you could just as well tell me somewhere in the universe it might not be. Empirical proof is obviously the ultimate test.
Let me repeat: It is not necessary to know whether indeterminism actually exists because that would not change man’s nature, which is to move in the direction of greater satisfaction (or the least dissatisfaction) when given a choice between the greater of two or more goods, the lesser of two or more evils, or a good over an evil, rendering only one possible choice at any given moment in time.
Karpel Tunnel: If it is not determined, and random or statistical factors take place - which qm seems to indicate with incredible amounts of evidence and research - then several futures are possible and were possible before that choice was made, and, in some cosmologies, ones held by a large percentage of physicists, several futures will all happen.
Peacegirl: You are appealing to authority which is a no no. If a timeline can only go in one direction, it could not go in another direction. Total contradiction. It is true that before a choice is made there is nothing external that says you must choose X, but once you decide to choose X because you find that choice the most preferable when comparing X and Y, by choosing X you could never have chosen Y. This is where there is confusion because people think determinism means you must choose X (it has been preordained) even if you prefer Y.
Karpel Tunnel: If you need clarification of my post, let me know. If you decide to actually interact with it, let me know. I am not sure why people think that restating their opinions is an actual response.
Peacegirl: It’s not an opinion that we are compelled to choose among meaningful differences what we find to be the most preferable based on our individual circumstances.
Karpel Tunnel: Well, it is to a lot of scientists.
Peacegirl: And number two, it’s tiring to explain why man’s will is not free.
Karpel Tunnel: Like most people you seem to be assuming that one either believes in free will or determinism, and further that there not being free will means that someone can know that determinism is the case or trust what they are calling a proof.
Karpel Tunnel: It’s not about trusting, it’s about understanding the proof.
Peacegirl: (which is a fact not an opinion) just because you felt like interjecting your opinion.
Karpel Tunnel: But I didn’t just interject an opinion. I presented an argument. One you still haven’t responded to.
Peacegirl: QM does not prove that man’s will is free or undetermined.
Peacegirl: If I am ever going to move forward you will need to accept the premise that man’s will is not free, even temporarily.
Karpel Tunnel: Your ability to move forward is dependent on my accepting that my will isn’t free? LOL
Peacegirl: Yes, you need to temporarily accept the premise that will is not free even if you’re not sure or I can’t move forward as to why this knowledge is significant.
Karpel Tunnel: And again, let me state…regardless of any problems one has justifying the existence of free will, there still can be epistemological problems with being sure one can demonstrate determinism is the case and universal.
Peacegirl: The law of greater satisfaction is why man’s will is not free. There are no exceptions because all life (at least on Earth) moves in this direction.
Peacegirl: but believe whatever you want! lol
Karpel Tunnel: If you are assuming I believe in free will, this is a mere assumption.
Peacegirl: You obviously don’t believe in determinism solely so you’re probably a compatibilist which is just a play on the word free. In the end they are creating a definition of what constitutes free will which is not free will at all. This is done so they can hold people blameworthy and punishable by law. Nothing changes.
Peacegirl: You said science isn’t sure if there is some free will.
Karpel Tunnel: I did not say that. I said there was controversy around determinism and indeterminism.
Peacegirl: That’s all well and good but when it comes to man’s will, it’s 100 percent not free.
Peacegirl: That means you don’t think these observations are scientific. It seems like you are then interjecting your opinion because my explanation in your eyes is not scientific, just another opinion. I am not sure what you consider science versus theory.
Karpel Tunnel: There are a number of things in this paragraph that make me think you don’t know much about scientific epistemology. Your use of ‘observations’ for one. But the last part about ‘science vs. theory’ really shows a lack of understanding of what theory is in science, what the word means. My sense is you have less understanding of science, scientific terminology, current scientific positions, than I do. Again, I did not interject an opinion. I interjected an argument. One you still keep avoiding even looking at. You just keep telling me you are right and showing you don’t know much about the philosophy of science. I see problems with belief in either determinism or free will. But further saying ‘believe whatever you want’ is an odd thing for a determinist to say’ and it is a bit ironic for you, as a specific kind of determinist you are, to add the lol.
I was just frustrated. Didn’t mean anything by it.
I am tired of having to defend what I know, beyond a shadow of doubt, is true and I don’t feel like debating.
Karpel Tunnel: Well, you picked a very odd place to communicate your ideas.
Peacegirl: I have found out the hard way that philosophy forums aren’t the right venue to introduce a genuine discovery. It’s hard for philosophers especially to be able to decipher between so many opposing theories. But this is not a theory yet it’s being treated with disregard.
Peacegirl: If you don’t see the proof that’s okay. I don’t understand what you meant that it’s ironic of me to say “believe whatever you want.” I am not, as a determinist, forced to say anything in particular. Your idea of determinism is obviously not mine.
Karpel Tunnel: Well, if you’d actually interact with my argument, we might find out. And I understand that you are not forced by external forces to say anything in particular.
Peacegirl: Well maybe that’s a starting point.
Karpel Tunnel: But anyway. You’re a rude person and a rather naive one, coming to a philosophy forum and expecting people to be swayed by restatements of your position, while you make no effort to understand the points I was making. And not wanting to debate. And then telling me that you will not be able to move forward unless I accept your ideas.
Peacegirl: I don’t expect you to accept my ideas unless you see why they are undeniable.
Karpel Tunnel: What a long post you made with not the slightest bit of an actual response to what I wrote, with no new substance on the issue…
No wonder you are tired. So much effort you made in not addressing my post and in reasserting that you are right and are so sure of it - which really distinguishes your position from other people’s. So few people are sure of their philosophical positions you must be correct if you are 100 percent sure. All this effort in this last post with no substance at all. The work that must go into posts where there is substance must be incredible.
While I will never read another thing you write again, I wish you good luck with your book. If your writing and attitude here is any indication of your skills, interpersonally and philosophically, finding a publisher for that book or even a solid online distribution, is going to be very hard.
In case I haven’t made myself clear, I won’t read any response you make to this post, so you can skip the tiring not responding you engage in and just move on to other posts. Save that energy.
Peacegirl: Sorry that you feel that way. There have been a lot of misunderstandings! Good luck in all your endeavors!