![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Wolfhnd wrote: In any case Harris and Dennett are both
determinist with Harris being a incompatibilist and Dennett a iompatibilist.
Strict definitions are useful when trying to communicate clearly.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Since this seems unproven, indeed contradicted by -for example - radioactive decay, I choose not to accept it. Consequently I stopped reading at this point. Sorry about that.wolfhnd » Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:50 am wrote:Not everyone is a determinist but they should be. The arguments about the continued relevance of philosophy in a scientific age aside, it is only necessary to accept that every effect has a cause to be a determinist.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Eclogite » Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:52 pm wrote:Since this seems unproven, indeed contradicted by -for example - radioactive decay, I choose not to accept it. Consequently I stopped reading at this point. Sorry about that.wolfhnd » Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:50 am wrote:Not everyone is a determinist but they should be. The arguments about the continued relevance of philosophy in a scientific age aside, it is only necessary to accept that every effect has a cause to be a determinist.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Dave_Oblad » Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:07 pm wrote:Hi all,
My view (for what it's worth) is that we can't probe small enough, or fast enough, to measure the Quantum Realm. Therefore, we can only use Probability Math to predict outcomes. I fully expect the Quantum is absolutely Deterministic in nature.
Nature can't be choosy of when to be Random and when not to be Random.
Thus it must be one or the other.
If Nature was absolutely Random at the smallest scales, then that would manifest itself to all scales above it and the Universe would be pure Chaos and couldn't Exist with any Order.
The possibility that there can be an Effect without a Cause is Magic, not Math. Since tracking down a Cause can be Impossible, then I accept Pseudo-Randomness. Pseudo-Randomness is completely Deterministic.
Regards,
Dave :^)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Dave_Oblad » Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:10 am wrote:Hi wolfhnd,
Fortunately, public opinion doesn't carry any value. There is only one Truth and we don't get to vote on it.. lol.
As far as Randomness or Pseudo-Randomness is concerned, I hope someday the Academics will be proven wrong in adopting the concept of True Randomness as being Real. There is always a Cause for every Effect, no matter how obscure it turns out to be.
Regards,
Dave :^)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Dave_Oblad » March 5th, 2017, 12:07 am wrote:Nature can't be choosy of when to be Random and when not to be Random.
Thus it must be one or the other.
If Nature was absolutely Random at the smallest scales, then that would manifest itself to all scales above it and the Universe would be pure Chaos and couldn't Exist with any Order.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Dave_Oblad wrote:If I a shoot a bullet at a wall and bits of wall are scattered as a result, then I accept the scattering has an apparent Random element to it. We can't predict what will scatter where, so we can only use probability for predictions. But if you could rewind Time perfectly.. then the resulting test scatter will play out exactly the same way. That is not truly Random.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd wrote:It is tempting to just dismiss Dave's arguments as extreme determinism but it is not clear that even quantum randomness is truly random.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » March 5th, 2017, 10:54 pm wrote:It is tempting to just dismiss Dave's arguments as extreme determinism but it is not clear that even quantum randomness is truly random.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests