Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:33 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:00 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:47 pm Right, which is exactly why it's begging the question. There's nothing I could show you which could possibly make you think determinism might be compatible with it, because whatever I show you, you've already decided you're being shown it by a being that's incompatible with determinsm. You've put yourself into a situation where you can't even recognize anything to the contrary as anything other than self-contradictory, even if it isn't.

It feels like another conversation I had with someone recently who was insisting that, if you flip a coin 3 times in a row and they're all heads, the 4th flip is more likely to be tails. I was trying to tell him, no no no, if it's a fair coin, the 4th flip is still 50/50, and he had defined the scenario in such a way in his mind that me saying that was literally inherently contradictory to him. He couldn't see past his own nose.

You cannot possibly write a code that can decide when options are equally liked. You cannot resolve the halting problem when a chain of causality forks.

I already did write it

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:01 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:02 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:52 pm

What do you mean "proper"? If they are not exactly the same then you have something different upon which you make your choice.
If they appear identical then the simple fact that at time=x you are looking at one rather then the other means they are different in that way.

By proper I mean the road that takes you to your destination. Another road does not. You cannot know which road is the proper one yet you have to decide. Can't you decide?

I think you've lost the plot here.
And are not really paying attention to the thread

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:56 pm Why did you choose 0 instead of 1?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:00 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:56 pm Why did you choose 0 instead of 1?

It doesn't matter, that's beside the point.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:00 pm You've defined all the words surrounding your world view such that you can't come to any conclusion other than your world view - you've defined yourself into a corner, and you're trying to tell us to join you in your prison in the corner.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:00 pm No amount of definitions of words can prove that determinism is or isn't true in this universe. Words aren't the deciding factor. Their definitions aren't the deciding factor. The universe could be deterministic, or it could not be, but semantic arguments don't decide that.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:52 pmI already mentioned that a decision is either biased or not. Can't we agree on this simple fact?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:25 pm "The universe could be deterministic, or it could not be"

I stand by Harris, Sam and his claim that freewill is inconceivable in any possible universe.

https://youtu.be/iA6Qc8h8ulQ

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:56 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:52 pmI already mentioned that a decision is either biased or not. Can't we agree on this simple fact?

Of course we can.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:56 pm But you have the burden of showing why that's relevant, why only unbiased decisions count as "free",

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:56 pm and why a deterministic system couldn't produce those decisions.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 5:45 pm That is understandable given the definition of determinism. A deterministic system goes from one state of affairs to another one, let's call these two states X and Y. Y is uniquely determined given X. The problem arises when we are dealing with options. Let's say that there are two options that the system can evolve to, Y and Z, where Y and Z are equally liked. Considering the fact that Y and Z are equally liked, then the system cannot deterministically evolve to one of Y or Z. Therefore it halts. Why halts? Because Y or Z must be uniquely determined by X but there is no way that a determined system can choose one of them since there is no reason for that choice.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 5:53 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 5:45 pm That is understandable given the definition of determinism. A deterministic system goes from one state of affairs to another one, let's call these two states X and Y. Y is uniquely determined given X. The problem arises when we are dealing with options. Let's say that there are two options that the system can evolve to, Y and Z, where Y and Z are equally liked. Considering the fact that Y and Z are equally liked, then the system cannot deterministically evolve to one of Y or Z. Therefore it halts. Why halts? Because Y or Z must be uniquely determined by X but there is no way that a determined system can choose one of them since there is no reason for that choice.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 6:03 pmYes