No, I like hard copy books and get them from libraries. Perhaps I am missing a book I really would love, but generally, I haven’t been so happy with books I’ve come to via posters in discussion forums online. I come to this forum to discuss in the format online discussion forums are most suited for. Others may read your book, so I understand you put it up here. As far as your explanations of determinism, I doubt you have met the argument I presented.
- I think it makes much more sense to call determinism and idea or theory. Laws follow specific predictable and measurable patterns.
Do you understand why man’s will is not free, according to this author (which is not a hypothesis, BTW), or are you just giving your opinion?
I was talking about the use of language. I don’t think ‘law’ is the right term for it. I did not mention ‘hypothesis’, I did say theory, which is a much stronger term, in the sense of something that is considered to fit a large amount of the evidence. ‘are you just giving your opinion?’ was an odd thing to ask. Yes, I gave my opinion that calling determinism a law is confused. Laws of nature tend to be specific patterns of cause and effect or relations, often ones that can be represented mathematically. Determinism is more like an ontological theory. I presented an argument in favor of my suggestion around terminology. Not just an opinion. If you interacted with my post, in the manner of a respectful poster, you might have noticed that.
Regardless of whether the world is determined or indetermined, I am only discussing man’s nature. I don’t need to discuss quantum physics or the universe’s attributes to prove that man can only go in one direction, which means he could not have done otherwise once a choice is made.
Once a choice is made he could not have done otherwise, simply means there is one timeline. But if the wording here was ambigious and you meant that in any given moment X, the next moment Y will inevitably follow from X and no other moment could have happened, that does not seem to be supported by QM. And yes, I am aware that indeterminism does not make for free will, but it does cause problems for determinism.
Let me repeat: It is not necessary to know whether indeterminism actually exists because that would not change man’s nature, which is to move in the direction of greater satisfaction (or the least dissatisfaction) when given a choice between the greater of two or more goods, the lesser of two or more evils, or a good over an evil, rendering only one possible choice at any given moment in time.
If it is not determined, and random or statistical factors take place - which qm seems to indicate with incredible amounts of evidence and research - then several futures are possible and were possible before that choice was made, and, in some cosmologies, ones held by a large percentage of physicists, several futures will all happen.
If you need clarification of my post, let me know. If you decide to actually interact with it, let me know. I am not sure why people think that restating their opinions is an actual response.
Because it’s not an opinion,number one.
Well, it is to a lot of scientists.
And number two, it’s tiring to explain why man’s will is not free
Like most people you seem to be assuming that one either believes in free will or determinism, and further that there not being free will means that someone can know that determinism is the case or trust what they are calling a proof.
(which is a fact not an opinion) just because you felt like interjecting your opinion.
But I didn’t just
interject an opinion. I presented an argument. One you still haven’t responded to.
If I am ever going to move forward you will need to accept the premise that man’s will is not free, even temporarily.
Your ability to move forward is dependent on my accepting that my will isn’t free? LOL
And again, let me state…regardless of any problems one has justifying the existence of free will, there still can be epistemological problems with being sure one can demonstrate determinism is the case and universal.
but believe whatever you want! lol
If you are assuming I believe in free will, this is a mere assumption
You said science isn’t sure if there is some free will.
I did not say that. I said there was controversy around determinism and indeterminism.
That means you don’t think these observations are scientific. It seems like you are then interjecting your opinion because my explanation in your eyes is not scientific, just another opinion. I am not sure what you consider science versus theory.
There are a number of things in this paragraph that make me think you don’t know much about scientific epistemology. Your use of ‘observations’ for one. But the last part about ‘science vs. theory’ really shows a lack of understanding of what theory is in science, what the word means. My sense is you have less understanding of science, scientific terminology, current scientific positions, than I do. Again, I did not interject an opinion. I interjected an argument. One you still keep avoiding even looking at. You just keep telling me you are right and showing you don’t know much about the philosophy of science.
I see problems with belief in either determinism or free will. But further saying ‘believe whatever you want’ is an odd thing for a determinist to say’ and it is a bit ironic for you, as a specific kind of determinist you are, to add the lol.
I am tired of having to defend what I know, beyond a shadow of doubt, is true and I don’t feel like debating.
Well, you picked a very odd place to communicate your ideas.
If you don’t see the proof that’s okay. I don’t understand what you meant that it’s ironic of me to say “believe whatever you want.” I am not, as a determinist, forced to say anything in particular. Your idea of determinism is obviously not mine.
Well, if you’d actually interact with my argument, we might find out. And I understand that you are not forced by external forces to say anything in particular.
But anyway. You’re a rude person and a rather naive one, coming to a philosophy forum and expecting people to be swayed by restatements of your position, while you make no effort to understand the points I was making. And not wanting to debate. And then telling me that you will not be able to move forward unless I accept your ideas.
What a long post you made with not the slightest bit of an actual response to what I wrote, with no new substance on the issue…
No wonder you are tired. So much effort you made in not addressing my post and in reasserting that you are right and are so sure of it - which really distinguishes your position from other people’s. So few people are sure of their philosophical positions you must be correct if you are 100 percent sure. All this effort in this last post with no substance at all. The work that must go into posts where there is substance must be incredible.
While I will never read another thing you write again, I wish you good luck with your book. If your writing and attitude here is any indication of your skills, interpersonally and philosophically, finding a publisher for that book or even a solid online distribution, is going to be very hard.
In case I haven’t made myself clear, I won’t read any response you make to this post, so you can skip the tiring not responding you engage in and just move on to other posts. Save that energy.