Rich, would you describe your idea of time as duration as analogous to a bubble passing through the time landscape whose path is unchartered and whose wake dissipates with distance?

My new metaphysics:
Of course everything is deterministic. But we can never prove it because existence is an expression of the Great Self Creating Fractal Imperative.

Ok Jake, enlighten me. What is the GSCFI?

Basically "everything is fractal" :)

Rich, would you describe your idea of time as duration as analogous to a bubble passing through the time landscape whose path is unchartered and whose wake dissipates with distance? — MikeL

I would describe duration (the time of life) as exactly as it seems, i.e. I constant flux of observation and memories. It is all that is. It is not expanding but rather changing and morphing into something new.

Of course everything is deterministic. But we can never prove it — Jake Tarragon

Not only can't it be proved, but there is zero experience or evidence of it. Determinism is literally a religion entirely based upon faith, which is fine but it should be worshipped in churches not public schools.

Is the path we walk fated? Do we have choice? Is the past written or is it just as unclear as the future? — MikeL

What does philosophy, or even science, have to say about causation?

In the simplest of terms, every event has an influence on what follows downstream in time. You light a fire. It illuminates and gives off light. The light attracts moths and the heat cooks a meal. The moths attract bats and the meal attracts people and so on. A very basic sequence of events; causation isn't this simple but you get the point.

In fact, our lives depend on causation and we (excluding myself) always ponder the consequences of our actions.

If so, it follows that our lives, at least the circumstances of our existence, are subject to causal principles. Also, we know that we're not in control of all events that occur or can occur. Isn't this fate?

Also, we know that we're not in control of all events that occur or can occur. Isn't this fate? — TheMadFool

Causal has nothing to do with fate or determinism. It is as if people are clueless about the choices they and everyone else is making. The world is exactly as it appears: causal, no control, probabilistic with novelty.

Determinism is literally a religion entirely based upon faith, — Rich

I have some faith in it, but not total faith. Because the very rationalism which leads me to espouse determinism, also recognizes that there is no proof of it. It's an emotional preference, and I recognise it as such, so I win/win. I can have my rationality and eat it. No churchgoer can say that.

The universe is either causal, or not. This is something you have to accept by, for instance, faith.

Once you decided the universe is causal, then it follows that it is deterministic.

Once you decide the universe is not causal, then you have no right to pretend that you recognize patterns or you can establish rules according to which the world operates.

Well you have a mixture of faith, rationalization, emotion, and a religion (spirituality), as do we all. Determinism is simply the religion of atheists and I firmly believe everyone needs some faith in their lives.

Once you decided the universe is causal, then it follows that it is deterministic. — szardosszemagad

The universe could , in principle, be a mixture of causal and non-causal. Proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation demonstrate quite a strong belief in that don't they?

The universe could , in principle, be a mixture of causal and non-causal. Proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation demonstrate quite a string belief in that don't they? — Jake Tarragon

No,even in principle that is not possible. ESPECIALLY not in principle.

Determinism is simply the religion of atheists and I firmly believe everyone needs some faith in their lives. — Rich

Determinism is not a religion. It is not, because it does not derive from some supernatural authority.

You are mixing up faith with religion. Big mistake.

ESPECIALLY not in principle. — szardosszemagad

We have the (possible) example of the Copenhagen interpretation, which demonstrates the principle.

Determinism is not a religion. It is not, because it does not derive from some supernatural authorit — szardosszemagad

Sure it derives from a supernatural authority called Natural Laws, which in themselves were originally derived from Christian religion. That is your historical chain of events. As an atheist, you believe in fate and supernatural forces guiding your faith, you just leave out the word God. There is literally no difference between your religion and Calvinism. You even have your priests like Dennett. It's all very interesting to observe.

Spheres aren't. Most human constructions aren't.

Can you choose what to have for breakfast? Yes. Does the same effect usually follow cause in controlled conditions? Yes. So some form of compatibilism is true.

Why can't we have a determined past and probabilistic future? We are the author writing the book.

Why can't one person in time be walking a novel path while another person at the end of time sees the path that he will make through his novel choices?

Why can't one person in time be walking a novel path while another person at the end of time sees the path that he will make through his novel choices? — MikeL

Better to actually talk about what you observe in life if you wish to understand life. These mind experiments are parlor games too pass the time and amuse.

Like all types of play though Rich, they are usually preparing you for something much larger in which the skills will be required. Creativity in thought is in line with your own beliefs, yes?

It depends, if one wishes to be a science fiction writer then creativity comes in very handy. If one wishes to be a philosopher, keen observation is more essential. A philosopher has to b find real patterns in life, not just make stuff up and then observe who can create a more fantastical tale. We already know how creative humans can be.

A philosopher has to b find real patterns in life, not just make stuff up — Rich

I think life is incredibly malleable in this regard. I find true insight comes from making up logical patterns and seeing how life fits. Observing the observable without running it against a pattern even a subconscious pattern I would think limiting in what it reveals. But I think its a case of tomarto, tomAto.

One observes and finds patterns, not the other way around. What in life c is predictable? It is just made up out of thin air. I have no problem with faith, but that is religion not philosophy. The two really should not be confused though everyone had both.

One observes and finds patterns, not the other way around. — Rich

Sure, I take your point. Sometimes though by applying one observed pattern to a different phenomenon insight can be revealed. It has nothing to do with faith - it is a tool I use to find a workable truth.

Yes one can apply patterns to all observations. That is the whole idea. Philosophy had nothing to do with logic. It is all about observations and patterns. This is what the Daoists and other ancients excelled at.

Yeah, I'll have to get into the Daoists. I like Eastern philosophy, and hope it will give me new ways to look at old things.

They had extremely keen observational skills as did other ancients. But it is much easier teaching parlor games like logic than it is to teach observational skills, hence logic finds its way into standard course curriculum.

Causal has nothing to do with fate or determinism. — Rich

How would we formulate determinism or fate without causation?

If I say determinism is true then I am presupposing causation of some kind. Of course, causation can be non-deterministic but, the point is, fate and determinism can't be explained without it.

I think determinism is self evident. Even pre-determinism is self-evident. I see no conflict between that and free choice. It's a temporal problem.

At the end of time, looking back I can see the path you walked. It is determined - unless we are invoking the multiple universes theory you did afterall only walk one path right?

You created the path as you made your own choices- it was free will, but you did create the path. Thus it is about tenses. It will be determined, it was determined, it is being determined. Same thing, different time position.