Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

[Terrapin Station]

Determinism doesn't hinge on whether you're a physicalist or not.

No: but all consistent Physicalists have to be Determinists.

Say that one is a physicalist.

Let's consider just a proton, A, say, moving with velocity x.

The proton strikes another proton, B.

As a physicalist, one thinks that both protons are physical existents, obviously, and one thinks that the motion is physical, and so on.

Now, on your view, as a physicalist, one HAS to believe (let's call this belief d) that when A strikes B, B can ONLY react with velocity y. No other velocity is possible.

Why do you think that physicalism entails that one believes d?

[Immanuel Can]

Say that one is a physicalist.

Let's consider just a proton, A, say, moving with velocity x.

To my knowledge, Physicalists don't have to say that the only reality is "protons."

They can, for example, believe in things like "energy" or "physical regularities" ("laws,"), and even in things like random physical events (and they'll still be Determinists, too, of course.) But they can't believe in volition as a causal factor. They have to believe that the real explanation behind all apparently volitional phenomena is one or more of those "physical" precauses.

For the Physicalisgt, volition cannot initiate. It can only be an "epiphenomenon supervening" on physical causes, not itself part -- and certainly not the start -- of a causal chain.

[Terrapin Station]

Say that one is a physicalist.

Let's consider just a proton, A, say, moving with velocity x.

To my knowledge, Physicalists don't have to say that the only reality is "protons."

They can, for example, believe in things like "energy" or "physical regularities" ("laws,"), and even in things like random physical events (and they'll still be Determinists, too, of course.) But they can't believe in volition as a causal factor. They have to believe that the real explanation behind all apparently volitional phenomena is one or more of those "physical" precauses.

For the Physicalisgt, volition cannot initiate. It can only be an "epiphenomenon supervening" on physical causes, not itself part -- and certainly not the start -- of a causal chain.

Aren't you capable of considering the scenario I presented and telling me why on your view a physicalist would have to believe d?

[Immanuel Can]

Aren't you capable of considering the scenario I presented and telling me why on your view a physicalist would have to believe d?

Yes...I'm pointing out that the scenario is flawed. It requires me to accept that Physicalism means just protons. It doesn't.

If you want to reword, I'm happy to go forward to the next step.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes...I'm pointing out that the scenario is flawed. It requires me to accept that Physicalism means just protons.

Why? Did I write anything like that? No. I wrote, "Let's consider just a proton, A, say, moving with velocity x." You're incapable of considering a proton moving with a particular velocity under a physicalist ontology?

[Immanuel Can]

You're incapable...

Now, now, RC...play nice.

I'm not "incapable". Just give me a question that doesn't contain a gotcha.

I'm quite sure you're capable of that.

[Terrapin Station]

You're incapable...

Now, now, RC...play nice.

I'm not "incapable". Just give me a question that doesn't contain a gotcha.

I'm quite sure you're capable of that.

I'm asking you a question (re "you're incapable"). And I'm asking because you should be capable of addressing the scenario I asked you about. So stop stalling/deflecting, etc. and address it so we can get somewhere. I'm asking you to explain a view you're forwarding. What is the "gotcha"? Explain under that scenario why, on your view, a physicalist must accept d.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm asking because you should be capable of addressing the scenario I asked you about.

I'm surprised you're not capable of framing your question coherently. The one you gave me is of the quality, "How many unicorns wear tennis shoes?"

The right answer, of course, is "None": but even in answering, I'd have conceded an errror I had no intention to assent to.

The correct response is, "Physicalists are not bound to believe in nothing but protons."

But hey, if that's your brand of Physicalism...

[Terrapin Station]

The correct response is, "Physicalists are not bound to believe in nothing but protons."

How are you reading "nothing but protons" into what I wrote?

[RCSaunders]

Everything is determined only means nothing happens serendipitously, without explanation or reason.

No, that's not what "Determined" means. That's what "caused" means. But the vexed question that remains is whether human volition or "free will" can be a legitimate, causal explanation for anything.

Good grief! There's not much point in addressing determinism if you think it has nothing to do with cause. If something can happen without a cause, without an explanation or reason, it is not determined.

[Immanuel Can]

...if you think it has nothing to do with cause.

Go back and read again. You're wrong. I can't tell you how wrong. You'd better discover it for yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

The correct response is, "Physicalists are not bound to believe in nothing but protons."

How are you reading "nothing but protons" into what I wrote?

Your analogy was all about protons...it didn't even mention the thing you believe in, which is apparently randomness and acausality.

So it was a total red herring.

[Terrapin Station]

The correct response is, "Physicalists are not bound to believe in nothing but protons."

How are you reading "nothing but protons" into what I wrote?

Your analogy was all about protons...it didn't even mention the thing you believe in, which is apparently randomness and acausality.

So it was a total red herring.

Analogy? It wasn't an analogy. And it simply said, "Consider a proton." If we were talking about clothing and one said, "Consider a pair of jeans," that wouldn't imply that one is saying that all clothing is jeans, would it? It simply says, "(Let's) think about a pair of jeans for a moment." Aren't you capable of doing that?

[Immanuel Can]

Aren't you capable of doing that?

Are you capable of posing a question using the truth about Physicalism?

If you are, I'm likely capable of answering it.

[Terrapin Station]

Aren't you capable of doing that?

Are you capable of posing a question using the truth about Physicalism?

I don't know, because I'm not even sure what you have in mind there. However, I'm not dropping that you're not addressing what I asked you. You need to address that and not just ignore it.