Philosophy Now Forum

Determinism cannot be watered down.
it is or it is not.
But it applies everywhere?
no

It applies where free will and choice does not. A default. [as it were]

I choose to type this post. Absolute determinists say that from big bang the position was set to result in me typing this right now. that this is set in stone and
my thoughts right now were determined 14 billion years ago.by disposition of mass 1 minute after bang.

sure newtonian. it is possible with a planet sized difference engine.

my destiny your fate
My fate, your destiny.

where consciousness is. determinism follows and supports


prill

Hjarloprillar wrote:Determinism cannot be watered down.
it is or it is not.
But it applies everywhere?
no

It applies where free will and choice does not. A default. [as it were]

I choose to type this post. Absolute determinists say that from big bang the position was set to result in me typing this right now. that this is set in stone and
my thoughts right now were determined 14 billion years ago.by disposition of mass 1 minute after bang.

sure newtonian. it is possible with a planet sized difference engine.

my destiny your fate
My fate, your destiny.

where consciousness is. determinism follows and supports


prill

This would be pretty much the hard determinist position. It also could be the fatalist position although there are some differences between fatalism and determinism.

Ginkgo wrote:

Hjarloprillar wrote:Determinism cannot be watered down.
it is or it is not.
But it applies everywhere?
no

It applies where free will and choice does not. A default. [as it were]

I choose to type this post. Absolute determinists say that from big bang the position was set to result in me typing this right now. that this is set in stone and
my thoughts right now were determined 14 billion years ago.by disposition of mass 1 minute after bang.

sure newtonian. it is possible with a planet sized difference engine.

my destiny your fate
My fate, your destiny.

where consciousness is. determinism follows and supports


prill

This would be pretty much the hard determinist position. It also could be the fatalist position although there are some differences between fatalism and determinism.

And it's pretty much BS, nothing is nailed down till an observer looks for it, and that happens 'now', not 14 billion years ago.

thedoc wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Hjarloprillar wrote:Determinism cannot be watered down.
it is or it is not.
But it applies everywhere?
no

It applies where free will and choice does not. A default. [as it were]

I choose to type this post. Absolute determinists say that from big bang the position was set to result in me typing this right now. that this is set in stone and
my thoughts right now were determined 14 billion years ago.by disposition of mass 1 minute after bang.

sure newtonian. it is possible with a planet sized difference engine.

my destiny your fate
My fate, your destiny.

where consciousness is. determinism follows and supports


prill

This would be pretty much the hard determinist position. It also could be the fatalist position although there are some differences between fatalism and determinism.

And it's pretty much BS, nothing is nailed down till an observer looks for it, and that happens 'now', not 14 billion years ago.

false even with primative computers we use now newtonian law allows near exact match in say orbit of bodies like earth venus mars. that is law processing.
law can be so deconstructed. free will changes our acts and thus ripples out to change reality .. but works within law,
we are software to realities hardware ,a bad analogy.
ya.

"till an observer looks for it" [observes it]is quantum mech

einstien said when such was proposed to him "god does not throw dice"
as much as i can identify with a mind that makes mine a pea.
i understand why he said that

indeterminacy is mind baking. i have seen good minds locked up and glassy eyed in conversations about it.
once i said hey pete. it is mind bending stuff, welcome to /determinancy coma 101/

Hjarloprillar wrote:

thedoc wrote: And it's pretty much BS, nothing is nailed down till an observer looks for it, and that happens 'now', not 14 billion years ago.

false even with primative computers we use now newtonian law allows near exact match in say orbit of bodies like earth venus mars. that is law processing.
law can be so deconstructed. free will changes our acts and thus ripples out to change reality .. but works within law,
we are software to realities hardware ,a bad analogy.
ya.

"till an observer looks for it" [observes it]is quantum mech

einstien said when such was proposed to him "god does not throw dice"
as much as i can identify with a mind that makes mine a pea.
i understand why he said that

indeterminacy is mind baking. i have seen good minds locked up and glassy eyed in conversations about it.
once i said hey pete. it is mind bending stuff, welcome to /determinancy coma 101/

Maybe? If god does not throw dice, why are we all different? Einstein himself will admit that he didn't understand everything he knew. And he was not always right about everything. I like indeterminacy, sanity is much over-rated.

thedoc wrote: I like indeterminacy, sanity is much over-rated.

You don't believe me? Drive somewhere with a 3 year old and have a conversation. Preferably in a pickup truck so they are right there next to you. If you can keep up your end of the conversation, you will know what I mean.

We got out of step.

i believe in indeterminancy. in choice
but admit gravity exct is determined by rules.
i had a flash epipany of you in truck with 3 yo.

granda he says.. what is a runt?
why you ask.
timmy called me a runt.
did he. well thats easy to fix..
practice this word with me.

ignoramus ig nor amus.

next time he calls you runt say ha . you ignoramus

thatshould have him chanting igoramus all the way to town. then . whats an ignoramus..?
timmies dad is one, timmy coppied his dad. his dad is also a buttwad.. but save that for later.
you will need it.

i played this game with daughter. it ended when she was 10 at
"just what i expected from an obsequious , pig ignorant twit like you"
after that she came up with own anti bully talk.


sniker

I'm going with choice myself too - although though your passion on this one might preclude it I'll admit the possibility of the other view through, though the probability of it is so miniscule, it's beyond the kind of decimal extension I can even remember the prefix for. Either way for me each answer to it is so much more a viewpoint to how they see reality around them, and yes, i'm with choice. It gives sentient beings purpose, meaning, and responsibility for their own existence, which is pretty much what defines that idea anyway. In fact the biggest problem I have with determinism is if it is true I doubt there would be sentience either, it would be irrelevant. And while I'll gladly debate the meaning and scope of awareness, consciousness, sentience and the like, as my own individual I refuse to believe I am not.

OP is utterly babble and nonsens.

If it was truly deterministic, then you can also predict the future how it will look billions of years from now.

Dear Hjar, maybe watching paint dry has more truth to it, than this.

HexHammer wrote:OP is utterly babble and nonsens.

If it was truly deterministic, then you can also predict the future how it will look billions of years from now.

Dear Hjar, maybe watching paint dry has more truth to it, than this.

Yes, I think the OP means it the other way round. Where there is hard determinism there is no free will. Assuming he means free will is associated with consciousness.

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:OP is utterly babble and nonsens.

If it was truly deterministic, then you can also predict the future how it will look billions of years from now.

Dear Hjar, maybe watching paint dry has more truth to it, than this.

Yes, I think the OP means it the other way round. Where there is hard determinism there is no free will. Assuming he means free will is associated with consciousness.

Yes and no, if we were determined 14 bill years ago, it means also we can predict the future billion years from now.

Think!

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:OP is utterly babble and nonsens.

If it was truly deterministic, then you can also predict the future how it will look billions of years from now.

Dear Hjar, maybe watching paint dry has more truth to it, than this.

Yes, I think the OP means it the other way round. Where there is hard determinism there is no free will. Assuming he means free will is associated with consciousness.

Yes and no, if we were determined 14 bill years ago, it means also we can predict the future billion years from now.

Think!

If hard determinism is correct ( probably isn't) then yes, we can predict the future.

I took the OP to be saying that our consciousness existed before we existed. That position would be difficult to defend.

Ginkgo wrote:I took the OP to be saying that our consciousness existed before we existed. That position would be difficult to defend.

Read cloesely ..always!!!! (something I also fail to do sometimes)

HexHammer wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:I took the OP to be saying that our consciousness existed before we existed. That position would be difficult to defend.

Read cloesely ..always!!!! (something I also fail to do sometimes)

Thanks, I'll give it another go.

Ginkgo wrote:

HexHammer wrote:OP is utterly babble and nonsens.

If it was truly deterministic, then you can also predict the future how it will look billions of years from now.

Dear Hjar, maybe watching paint dry has more truth to it, than this.

Yes, I think the OP means it the other way round. Where there is hard determinism there is no free will. Assuming he means free will is associated with consciousness.

Sorry my friends, i worded it poorly.
Let us say there is no consciousness.
A universe where all phenomena are driven solely by laws that govern. Cause and effect.
[for the moment lets leave out effects of Q Indeterminacy]
It becomes such as a five or six body problem. Prediction through sheer number punching. Newtonian.

Introduction of consciousness and choice falls outside this. As while say a human mind is atoms and position.
I believe 'the standing wave' effect of 'mind' cannot be predicted.
It , while working within limits governed by laws of this verse, is largely indeterminate.

That while most of verse is held to determinism as in Newtonian cause and effect. Mind and consciousness
'carve a path' of indeterminacy.

to quote 'Forrest'
"maybe its both at the same time"

Prill