Determinists cannot answer these Questions

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No.

You'd asked me how I could consider the nonoccurrence of F as a real possibility? The simple answer is that I can't, really. I don't know how you derived your next question from anything I've said...

Ignoring for a moment the reality that any model I make of the world will contain uncertainties, if we observe that an event F did in fact occur, and we presume that the world is entirely deteministic, then we can't say that ~F was possible at all.

If we're going to try to take into account the limitations of perceiving and modeling, things become more complicated.

 

[The idea]

You'd asked me how I could consider the nonoccurrence of F as a real possibility? The simple answer is that I can't, really.

Then what would it mean to say "event F is the cause of event G"?

I don't know how you derived your next question from anything I've said...

It was assumed that event F was a caused event. We suppose that event E caused event F.

You said that "event F caused event G" is a matter of fact and not merely a figment of your imagination that arises when you imagine event F not happening.

If we know that event E occurred and that event E caused event F, then what do we mean when we say "event F is the cause of event G"?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Then what would it mean to say "event F is the cause of event G"?

If F had not happened, neither would G. Presumably. Of course something else might have happened that was capable of causing G, if the events are defined sufficiently broadly.

But that's an issue with our models of the world. What are you asking about - what our models tell us, or what the world is actually like? If it's the first, the answer changes. If the second, then you should be aware that you're asking about our model of the world, not the world. You can't know that.

 

[hammegk]

Wrath

Great obfuscation, the usual materialist/atheist ploy.

Care to take a shot at answering:

Would you have any problem with the proposition that Wrath could be replaced with a universal Turing machine and some sensors & servo-mechanisms? If so, why?

Or you could even go for an answer to:

I have faith I have free will and cannot be so replaced. Hubris? Who knows, or will ever know?

What is the difference between hope, and faith?

The atheist version of # of angels dancing on pins bs gets tiresome.

 

[The idea]

What would it mean to say "event F is the cause of event G"?

If F had not happened, neither would G.

Earlier you wrote this:

If we accept that E has happened, and that it causes F, then the F not happening is ruled out when we accept that E happened.

If F not happening is ruled out, then "if F had not happened" means what? You are considering the possibility that the impossible occurs?

Of course something else might have happened that was capable of causing G, if the events are defined sufficiently broadly.

We aren't considering the statement "event F is a cause of event G." We are considering the statement "event F is the cause of event G." Here's an example of the difference. Imagine a light with a timer, two switches, and a memory. If either switch is set to on at any time between 5PM and 6PM then, when the timer reaches 6PM, the light will go on. For example, if both switches are switched on at 5:30PM and then both are switched off at 5:35PM and kept off till 6:01PM, the light will still go on at 6PM.

Event F is "switch 1 is switched on between 5PM and 6PM." Event F2 is "switch 2 is switched on between 5PM and 6PM." Event G is "the light goes on at 6PM." If event F and event F2 both occur, then event F is a cause of event G, but event F is not the cause of event G. If event F occurs and event F2 doesn't occur, then event F is the cause of event G.

 

[The idea]

But that's an issue with our models of the world. What are you asking about - what our models tell us, or what the world is actually like? If it's the first, the answer changes. If the second, then you should be aware that you're asking about our model of the world, not the world. [...]

Earlier, I asked this question:

Is "event F caused event G" a matter of fact or is it purely a figment of your imagination that arises when you imagine event F not happening?

You said it's a matter of fact. So why are you suggesting that "event F caused event G" might be an actual fact or might be a figment of your imagination?

 

[evildave]

The religious version of "angels on pins" is tiresome to everyone as well. No definitions needed, only opinions, which, like @$$holes, everyone has unless replaced surgically with a special bag.

Define ANGEL, as a gemetric primitive enclosing ONE ANGEL. Define properties and rules of angel position relative to each other, possibly including needs for "personal space", and the amount of time they'll be spending on the pin, so accommodations can be made for their (definition required) needs. Then anyone can tell you with some precision how many angels can fit, comfortably or not. There's no point in arguing about how many angels you can *stack* until you have defined "ANGEL" to everyone's satisfaction.

I would tend to agree that you have 'free will'*, and can never be replaced**.

*Meaning that you are not pre-programmed to react to every possible contingency. You will behave intelligently (or at least semi-intelligently) to stimulus in ways that a simple hunk of rock, or trivial automaton will not. Unless you're totally paralyzed, or otherwise broken in some manner....

**Though you will stop living someday, and the universe will continue, anyway. (You are unique: just like everyone else.) You may as well fear the idea that today's children are tomorrow's adults, and you won't be here, but *they* will be.

The notion of artificial life or intelligent machines (or other scenarios where humans create entities that make intelligent decsions for themselves, and perform up to, and beyond human capacities) is not especially frightening to me. Making an "army" of self-motivated machines who are capable of dabbling in philosophy and politics just isn't practical compared to machines that are only smart enough to find their way around furniture, follow commands, and identify and manipulate things to do chores, while reliably not stepping on the cat***. This latter category is still decades beyond our current technology, let alone the "brilliant" AI that would be "replacing" people.

*** Or as about reliably as people are, not to step on the cat.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Earlier, I asked this question:

You said it's a matter of fact. So why are you suggesting that "event F caused event G" might be an actual fact or might be a figment of your imagination?

It's a matter of fact that if we've established that the world is truly deterministic, event F is certain, and event G comes after F, then event F causes G.

 

[hammegk]

.... usual babble deleted ....

About what I'd expect from someone who has been involved here for 2+ years but doesn't realize TLOP is "what-is", the Territory, not our feeble math-physics approximations we make maps of the Territory with.

 

[The idea]

It's a matter of fact that if we've established that the world is truly deterministic, event F is certain, and event G comes after F, then event F causes G.

Suppose Event F is my beating of a drum shortly before the sunrise and Event G is the sunrise.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Then if you had not beaten the drum in the exact, precise way you did, the sun would not have risen in the exact, precise way it did.

What would be different? Molecules in the air would have been positioned differently, your body would be positioned differently, the rotational velocity of the Earth might be slightly different... probably an event quite similar to G would have taken place, but not G itself.

 

[The idea]

Then if you had not beaten the drum in the exact, precise way you did, the sun would not have risen in the exact, precise way it did.

What would be different? Molecules in the air would have been positioned differently, your body would be positioned differently, the rotational velocity of the Earth might be slightly different... probably an event quite similar to G would have taken place, but not G itself.

If I get vaccinated and I also drink some homeopathic stuff and I later develop immunity, then the homeopathic stuff gets credit for my immunity on the grounds that the homeopathic stuff must have had some effect on the configuration of molecules in my body?

 

[The idea]

Then if you had not beaten the drum in the exact, precise way you did [...] probably an event quite similar to G would have taken place, but not G itself.

If you want to avoid confusion, you can speak as follows: "Event G occurs if sunrise occurs at time blah. Event G doesn't occur if sunrise doesn't occur at time blah."

Do you think that, by beating a drum, I can affect the time at which sunrise occurs?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Do you think that, by beating a drum, I can affect the time at which sunrise occurs?

The moment at which we can say the sun "rises" is not the only property of the event. You certainly can affect the properties of the world as the sun rises, can you not?

Not that any of this really has to do with your original post...

 

[The idea]

What would it mean to say "event F is the cause of event G"?

---------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
If F had not happened, neither would G.
----------------------------------------------------

Earlier you wrote this:

---------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
If we accept that E has happened, and that it causes F, then the F not happening is ruled out when we accept that E happened.
---------------------------------------------------

If F not happening is ruled out, then "if F had not happened" means what? You are considering the possibility that the impossible occurs?

Pardon the repetition, but I'm waiting for an answer.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

You are asking me to take for granted that the universe is perfectly deterministic. However, even in such a universe, no mind can encompass the entirety of the system it's in, so there is no way that mind can model the universe with perfect accuracy. Its models will always have elements of uncertainty and probability, even bound in a deterministic system.

That is why it's meaningful to talk about events possibly not happening. I can make models of alternate events and consider how they would evolve, even if their subjects could never actually exist in reality.

 

[The idea]

You are asking me to take for granted that the universe is perfectly deterministic. [...]

Where do you get that from? It was assumed that event F was a caused event. That's it! Event F wasn't a random event. It was caused and we suppose that event E was the cause of event F. Event E occurred. Now what does it mean to say that event F is the cause of event G?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Now what does it mean to say that event F is the cause of event G?

The properties of the world that were present during event F will continue their operation, eventually resulting in the configuration compatible with event G.

How many different ways would you like me to state this answer? I've used three, I believe, so far. Should I continue restating it for you?

 

[evildave]

About what I'd expect from someone who has been involved here for 2+ years but doesn't realize TLOP is "what-is", the Territory, not our feeble math-physics approximations we make maps of the Territory with.

You sounded just like Franko, only less "gifted".

Allow me to refer you back to my initial two posts in this topic, where I explain what you claim I don't understand.

Oh, wait. It's in plain English, on-topic, and not put in terms of one of your usual little "All of you atheists think ... " rants, so you wouldn't have understood it. Sorry if I can't dumb the concept down enough for you.

Other people appear to have understood it, anyway, so I can't blame my own faulty communication skills.

 

[wraith]

You sounded just like Franko, only less "gifted".

Allow me to refer you back to my initial two posts in this topic, where I explain what you claim I don't understand.

Oh, wait. It's in plain English, on-topic, and not put in terms of one of your usual little "All of you atheists think ... " rants, so you wouldn't have understood it. Sorry if I can't dumb the concept down enough for you.

Other people appear to have understood it, anyway, so I can't blame my own faulty communication skills.

No Dave no.
You obviously don't have the faintest idea on what's going on.