No one is disputing this, but the word “cause” is misleading. I’m not going to repeat myself.
Besides, try as I might, I still don’t really understand all the technical arguments he made in his arguments/theories regarding the “space-time continuum”.
But the thing about Einstein is that his arguments could be tested empirically. Experiments could be conducted, predictions could be made, results could be replicated.
The results of this knowledge can be replicated although its difficult due to the fact that we cannot easily isolate the variables in a free will environment. But it can be falsified. If, under the changed conditions (which involves much more than not blaming) people can move in the direction of striking a first blow, then it will be proven wrong.
And your author? Where on earth is the equivalent of this in his own work? How has he taken his world of words, intellectual contraption assumptions about free will, determinism and a “progressive” future and provided us with an assessment that can in fact be brought down to earth and shown to be applicable to the behaviors that we really do “choose”?
This author made no assumptions. None whatsoever iambiguous. He was correct about determinism and the book is exactly that: an assessment that can in fact be brought down to earth and shown to be applicable to the behaviors that we really do “choose”. You haven’t read it so you can’t respond to my comment intelligently.
The fact that you are so obsessed with “definitions” speaks volumes to me. In my view, you believe that words mean only what they must mean in order to sustain [psychologically] the comfort and security you derive from this meaning “in your head”.
Give it up! All he did was clarify a definition that is more exact. He was a stickler for clarity. His definition of determinism is correct because it reflects what is actually going on in reality. By saying nature made me answer this way, you are relinquishing the agent or “I” that made the choice. I’ve said this over and over. It’s all about clarification which is important in this important discussion. It’s more accurate to say I was compelled to make this choice, not nature made me which implies you weren’t a participant. We know that once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise but that doesn’t mean that before something is done the choice has already been pre-planned by an external force called nature. What if you don’t like the plan? You can change it, but that doesn’t mean your will is free. You keep abdicating your responsibility, as if nature is this thing that forces you to do what you can’t help but do. But you can help but do, if that is not the choice you want to make. Where is this a world of words iambiguous? You are accusing him of things he is not guilty of. The entire book is a practical application of how these principles work.