Determinists cannot answer these Questions

[wraith]

See Seayakin's post immediately above my penultimate one.

Are you talking about conditioning?

 

[Dancing David]

I don't buy the conditioning argument for morality, because conditioning for one carries thoughout life. Morality always has a percieved benefit for the person behaving morally.

There are plenty of people who are raised to be moral (in this case faithful to thier spouse) and are conditioned by thier parents and society to behave that way. Then they go and have emotional affairs with others and sexual affairs with others.

In the conditioning arena, it is important remember that the conditioning continues.

And back to causality:

What about the subcritical mass of uranium? Does the addition of a single atom cause it to go critical? Is that a causal event that we can say caused the explosion or is it a causal events in a chain of causal events. Causality is a loose and fast thing in aggregate because other events can lead to the same outcome.

 

[hammegk]

Hammy, could you rephrase what you just said, without using any ellipses, em dashes, parentheses, or semicolons?

~~ Paul

Or maybe you could ask an actual question on what I did post?

Are you ok on "usual definitions" of the words?

 

[The idea]

Hazard of asking questions using ordinary words

Assertion that says something about the meaning of the word "event":

The moment at which we can say the sun "rises" is not the only property of the event.[Posted by Wrath of the Swarm, 02-17-2004 02:40 AM]

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.

Reply that says something about the meaning of the word "event":

Then we must consider event F to be a universe-spanning event, as the entire configuration of the universe is involved in "causing" any event.[Posted by Wrath of the Swarm, 02-17-2004 02:23 PM]

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"?

Reply that says something about the meaning of the word "event":

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. [Posted by Wrath of the Swarm, 02-16-2004 11:39 PM]

Some things that a dictionary says about the word "event":

1(a): archaic: OUTCOME
2(a): something that happens: OCCURRENCE
5: a subset of the possible outcomes of an experiment

Question #1:
What is the basis for your assertions about the meaning of the word "event"?

Question #2:
Are you able to temporarily interpret the word "event" contrary to your assertions?

Question #3:
Suppose that I introduce a new word, stipulate a meaning for it and use it to formulate a question. Will you answer the question?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

1) General usage.

2) Yes. The question is whether I can do so and remain aware that I've done so. The answer to that question is 'yes' as well.

3) Go for it.

 

[The idea]

1) General usage.

Could you provide some evidence that this is general usage? For example, suppose a car is initially running well and then it begins to malfunction or suppose that a young person who was recently healthy is now dead. Typically, it is believed that at least one event occurred that caused the car to malfunction or that caused the death.

Maybe there was a single cause for the auto malfunction or a single cause of death. It would be unreasonable for an auto mechanic or coroner to investigate conditions on the surface of Mars as part of the auto repair process or as part of the investigation of the cause of death. People would assume that the auto mechanic or coroner is an astronomy buff who is introducing astronomical considerations where they don't belong. People would not accept a statement by the auto mechanic or coroner to the effect that "the entire configuration of the universe was involved in 'causing' the problem."

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

But it was.

In the general usage, those concepts are all categories. They don't refer to a particular configuration, but a set of configurations that share certain properties.

 

[seayakin]

I don't buy the conditioning argument for morality, because conditioning for one carries thoughout life. Morality always has a percieved benefit for the person behaving morally.

There are plenty of people who are raised to be moral (in this case faithful to thier spouse) and are conditioned by thier parents and society to behave that way. Then they go and have emotional affairs with others and sexual affairs with others.

In the conditioning arena, it is important remember that the conditioning continues.

And back to causality:

What about the subcritical mass of uranium? Does the addition of a single atom cause it to go critical? Is that a causal event that we can say caused the explosion or is it a causal events in a chain of causal events. Causality is a loose and fast thing in aggregate because other events can lead to the same outcome.

The hypothesis being that all events are caused by one or many preceding events. Furthermore, these preceding events will only cause one possible event or set of events. Therefore, randomness never truly existence. Events only appear randome because we don't understand their causes.

If the events your describe event have a truly random component, then this would, of course, refute the hypothisis of absolute causality. I know nothing of the subcritical mass of uranium so I cannot elaborate with your example. Therefore, I propose a two dimensional universe which I will call the billiard ball universe the only energy in this universe is pool stick energy. This universe has 4 boundaries. The walls of the universe reflect 100% of all energy applied to it perpendicular from the vector of its application. I apply pool stick energy to a ball in this universe at 1 unit in a vector that is at a 45 degree angle to one wall of the universe. There is only one ball in the universe so it will hit nothiing else. The ball hits the wall and will always reflect at a 45 degree angle. With the same energy applied to it.

In this example, absolute causality is easy to understand because there are only a few variables. Regarding human behavior and specifically ethics, if all human behavior is determined by genetics and experience, then this would support the hypothesis of absolute causality. However, if there is evidence that human behavior can be random because there is some behavior that is not determined by any cause, then free will is possible. The great difficulty in using human behavior there are many known variables that influence human behavior and there are many unknow variables. However, does the sum of known and unknown variables determine a subsequent event, e.g. human behavior?

 

[Dancing David]

The causality argument is dependant on complete knowledge.

i am saying simply that parental conditioning is not the sole cause of human morals, as was suggested.

Take another simple system, a pendulum and a mechanism that records the starting point of the pendulum and the wether the pendulum is rotating to the left or to the right after a given time period. the picture that is produced from multiple trials is totaly chaotic, it is determind, in that you will get the same result from each starting point. But a small change will produce a different result. Sensitive dependance upon initial conditions leads to causal events that appear random as well.

the human system is definitle chaotic and so may be random in a lot of ways. I operate under the illusion that it appears i have free will.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No, it's not.

The world does not require that someone know about its properties for it to have those properties. Our models of the universe we're in can never be "perfect", so we can't tell precisely what will happen - ever. But that doesn't mean that the world itself doesn't "know", in a manner of speaking.

 

[Dancing David]

That is very true, but it would appear that there is something very similar to randomness on the level of the quantum.

It could also be a 'whoops' factor as well.

But under determinism, a proton can never approach another proton and fusion would never occur, so the seeming random does exhibit itself. If it is random or indeterminant, is unknown.

 

[The idea]

[...] your questions read like a lot of word games, not physics.

Reformulate your questions with equations [...]

For example:

F=ma.

If a force is applied to a body, then it accelerates.

d = at^2 + vt

we can use this equation to determine the distance the accelerating object travels.

Thus, force causes the object to move some distance over time.

There is no term in these equations that depends on whether the application of the force is determined or truly random.

Thus, causation with or without determinism.

Suppose a new pharmaceutical is being tested and someone who is taking the pharmaceutical dies. The question arises: was the death caused by the pharmaceutical?

Can we replace that question with an equation?

 

[The idea]

quote:
-----------------------------
Originally posted by The idea
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?

I wanted to think of a response to this that is a question rather than a statement, but I never did think of an appropriate question. So I will simply make a statement.

Cause and effect are related concepts, just as "multiple of" and "divisor of" are related concepts. You cannot define "a is a divisor of b" by saying that it means "b is a multiple of a", unless you have already defined what it means to say "b is a multiple of a." Similarly, you cannot define "event F is the cause of event G" by saying that it means "event G is the result or effect of event F", unless you have already defined what it means to say that "event G is the result or effect of event F."

You can define "a is a divisor of b" by saying that it means "there is an integer q such that b = (q*a)." Similarly, if you want to define what it means for event F to be the cause of event G, you have to define it in terms of undefined notions (primitives) or already defined notions.