Philosophy Now Forum

This too - "infinitely old" - is logical to (or possible for) you but my (or your) initiating causal chains is not.

You accept (what seems to me) impossible simply to avoid what is probable, that being: 'you' are responsible.


More tomorrow...homeward bound.

Causa sui is only a logical problem if you first assume the opposite. The theist apologists wrongly use ex nihilo, nihil fit in the same way but in most philosophical schools such logic doesn't wash. Under the principles of Occam economy an eternal universe must be preferred over its alternative for the simple reason that a universe with a beginning is self-defining as unknowable. If such were the case then we're all wasting our time here and we may as well pack up all our scientific and philosophical bullshit and go fishing.

Obvious Leo wrote:Causa sui is only a logical problem if you first assume the opposite. The theist apologists wrongly use ex nihilo, nihil fit in the same way but in most philosophical schools such logic doesn't wash. Under the principles of Occam economy an eternal universe must be preferred over its alternative for the simple reason that a universe with a beginning is self-defining as unknowable. If such were the case then we're all wasting our time here and we may as well pack up all our scientific and philosophical bullshit and go fishing.

how many times must i prove that you believe that the universe is both determinate and indeterminate (you use the phrase unpredictable even in principle, which i proved to mean exactly indeterminate. unpredictable in principle=indeterminate) at the same time. so i wouldn't talk if i were you (or hobbes). of course, you might be one of those hippie "scientists" or "philosophers" who consider the law of contradiction outdated.

You've proven nothing, alpha. All you've done is made an assertion that determinism and pre-determinism are synonymous constructs, even though countless counter-arguments have been presented to you which refute this assertion. We are in fact in agreement on a critical point, however, because we both agree with Laplace.

IF all of the information with respect to the state of a physical system is knowable in advance THEN it is always possible in principle to predict the future state of the said system to a 100% order of probability.

At no stage have I disputed that this is a logical conclusion because all logical syllogisms necessarily take this IF/THEN form. However you misapply the law of contradiction in this syllogism because the corollary is equally true.

IF all of the information with respect to the state of a physical system is NOT knowable in advance THEN it is always IMPOSSIBLE to predict the future state of the said system to a 100% order of probability.

I have tried several times to explain to you why it is utterly impossible to have complete information about the state of a physical system, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, and when I say this I am not merely expressing a personal opinion. This is a canonical orthodoxy in every science known to man.

Obvious Leo wrote:You've proven nothing, alpha. All you've done is made an assertion that determinism and pre-determinism are synonymous constructs, even though countless counter-arguments have been presented to you which refute this assertion. We are in fact in agreement on a critical point, however, because we both agree with Laplace.

IF all of the information with respect to the state of a physical system is knowable in advance THEN it is always possible in principle to predict the future state of the said system to a 100% order of probability.

At no stage have I disputed that this is a logical conclusion because all logical syllogisms necessarily take this IF/THEN form. However you misapply the law of contradiction in this syllogism because the corollary is equally true.

IF all of the information with respect to the state of a physical system is NOT knowable in advance THEN it is always IMPOSSIBLE to predict the future state of the said system to a 100% order of probability.

first, determinism is nothing more than secular predeterminism. so stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. second, it seems we have a different understanding of what "in principle" means. my understanding of what is possible in principle, is: what is logically possible;

the concept of logical possibility merely tells us whether a proposed task is inherently feasible, or possible in principle. it does not tell us what its inherent likelihood would be in the real world

https://books.google.com/books?id=3Wgfm ... le&f=false

your understanding, however, seems to be: what is possible in practice, which is redundant. i don't deny that if it was logically impossible to know all the variables, it would be impossible to absolutely predict something. the problem is the only way for something to be proven logically impossible is if it were to violate a logical principle. if you can demonstrate how knowing all the variables violates any logical principle, i'll concede, immediately. you cannot prove something to be logically impossible with empirical science.

Obvious Leo wrote:I have tried several times to explain to you why it is utterly impossible to have complete information about the state of a physical system, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, and when I say this I am not merely expressing a personal opinion. This is a canonical orthodoxy in every science known to man.

saying things like: "EVEN IN PRINCIPLE", and: "This is a canonical orthodoxy in every science known to man." in the same sentence (context), is inexplicably ridiculous. because as soon as one says in principle, it means logically, not scientifically. i doubt you, or hobbes, will ever be able to distinguish logic and science.

henry quirk wrote:This too - "infinitely old" - is logical to (or possible for) you but my (or your) initiating causal chains is not.

You accept (what seems to me) impossible simply to avoid what is probable, that being: 'you' are responsible.


More tomorrow...homeward bound.

if you wanna accept infinite regress instead of something infinitely old, that's fine. however, you can't deny both, or you'd violate the law of excluded middle, which would be even more absurd than true responsibility.

alpha wrote:if you can demonstrate how knowing all the variables violates any logical principle, i'll concede, immediately. you cannot prove something logically impossible with empirical science.

Then it's game, set and match to me. The speed of light is finite and therefore it is logically impossible to have complete information about ANY physical system. It is only ever possible to observe a physical system as it WAS and never as it IS. This is a fundamental truth of nature which means that if the thing-as-it-is is unknowable then the thing-as-it-will-be must also be unknowable. We can only ever make probabilistic statements about any future event and this has been LOGICALLY proven.

alpha wrote:if you can demonstrate how knowing all the variables violates any logical principle, i'll concede, immediately. you cannot prove something logically impossible with empirical science.

Obvious Leo wrote:Then it's game, set and match to me.

ooh! i'm in trouble then.

Obvious Leo wrote:The speed of light is finite and therefore it is logically impossible to have complete information about ANY physical system.

sorry, leo, but the speed of light doesn't determine what is or isn't logically possible. it might determine what is and isn't naturally/physically possible, but not logically. logic deals with concepts and abstracts. in logic, things like the speed of physical objects, such as light, are not necessarily relevant. it's more than logically possible for there to be something (even if outside our universe) much faster than light, or even infinitely fast.

Obvious Leo wrote:It is only ever possible to observe a physical system as it WAS and never as it IS. This is a fundamental truth of nature which means that if the thing-as-it-is is unknowable then the thing-as-it-will-be must also be unknowable. We can only ever make probabilistic statements about any future event and this has been LOGICALLY proven.

this has (supposedly) been scientifically proven, because "fundamental truths of nature", are not necessarily fundamental truths of logic. fundamental truths of logic, however, are necessarily fundamental truths of nature. i've already quoted that passage about logical possibility vs. natural possibility, more than once.

to summarize, i asked that you demonstrate what logical principle i was violating when i say "it's logically possible to know all the variables of the universe". the speed of light is not a logical principle, hence, even assuming that i violated "the speed of light" or the laws of nature, that has nothing to do with the laws of logic.

alpha wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:

alpha wrote:are you saying that we don't (or shouldn't) have any absolute logical principles?

I'm saying that thinking in terms of axiomatic principles ("randomness" or "determinism" in this case) is not logical.

Finding "absolute logical principles" was the aspiration of mathematicians, until Godel proved it was impossible. It was believed that particles could not exist in two places at the same time, but that was proved to be untrue. 'A' can be both 'A' and 'not-A' at the same time and same place in a different relation.

if 'a' can be both 'a' and not 'a' at the same time, then we can never ever know anything. making any discussion in history pointless, including this one.

You took that out of context to falsify what was said, but if that's the way you want to have it, fine. Even so, to be consistent you must reject all the excluded middle--though you might find it difficult because very little in life is either all black or all white.

Suggested reading: Holophany: The Loop of Creation.

alpha wrote:Finding "absolute logical principles" was the aspiration of mathematicians, until Godel proved it was impossible. It was believed that particles could not exist in two places at the same time, but that was proved to be untrue. 'A' can be both 'A' and 'not-A' at the same time and same place in a different relation.

alpha wrote:if 'a' can be both 'a' and not 'a' at the same time, then we can never ever know anything. making any discussion in history pointless, including this one.

The Inglorious One wrote:You took that out of context to falsify what was said, but if that's the way you want to have it, fine. Even so, to be consistent you must reject all the excluded middle--though you might find it difficult because very little in life is either all black or all white.

Suggested reading: Holophany: The Loop of Creation.

i'm not falsifying anything. i was simply pointing out that if such notions were true, then anything can be true, false, both, or neither, at the same time (the implications would be not only devastating, but also inconceivable.). if in fact "very little in life is either all black or all white" then the law of excluded middle wouldn't apply to most things, would it? i can only apply it to that which is applicable. i do reject all excluded middles (wherever they may "exist"); why wouldn't i?

The Inglorious One wrote:

alpha wrote:are you saying that we don't (or shouldn't) have any absolute logical principles?

I'm saying that thinking in terms of axiomatic principles ("randomness" or "determinism" in this case) is not logical.

Finding "absolute logical principles" was the aspiration of mathematicians, until Godel proved it was impossible. It was believed that particles could not exist in two places at the same time, but that was proved to be untrue. 'A' can be both 'A' and 'not-A' at the same time and same place in a different relation.

i just noticed the part about different relation. if you mean in a different respect, then that would not oppose my position, the least bit.

alpha wrote: i just noticed the part about different relation. if you mean in a different respect, then that would not oppose my position, the least bit.

Either way, your either/or dualism is falsified.

alpha wrote:i just noticed the part about different relation. if you mean in a different respect, then that would not oppose my position, the least bit.

The Inglorious One wrote:Either way, your either/or dualism is falsified.

i'm afraid not. my "either/or dualism" was always meant to work on what's applicable, not on unrelated things. if something isn't black, it could be white, or brown, or green, or... but it can't be neither black, nor not black, at the same time in the same respect.

Alpha. Are you suggesting that the "blackness" of an object is an intrinsic property of the object rather than simply a definition applied to the object by the observer of it?

alpha wrote:. Spontaneous generation does not break any law of contradiction. You don't get to have your law of contradiction make determinism for you. Aristotle was not a determinist and found no contradiction there.

Fucking moron. Laws are the result of INDUCTION, as I have been saying all along. The law only exists whilst it is obseverd never to be broken.
You really need to go back to school.

I wrote: Show me the logic.
Show me the logic.
Show me the logic.Show me the logic.
Show me the logic.

i'll try, but i have sufficient reason to believe that you still wouldn't get it.
1. the principle of sufficient reason says that everything must be caused, and nothing can be uncaused; ever.

"LOGIC" demands that you can PROVE that statement. You can't.

2. if a thing exists that's uncaused, that would either invalidate the principle of sufficient reason, or break the law of no contradiction (because the same thing is both caused and uncaused).

Irrelevant.

3. if a thing exists that's neither caused nor uncaused, that would invalidate the law of excluded middle.

using your brain might be very unfamiliar to you, but give it a try (disclaimer: i'm not responsible if you hurt yourself trying to think).[/quote]

You are a moron, Laws are human devices calculated from inductive observation and offered against further observed phenomena. They are only as good as the empirical work that formed them. And as with all indicative statements only as good as further observations allow. See Hume's Problem of Induction.

QED I'm right, as I have been since the beginning.
Determinism is founded on empiricism.