It may well be that given Anscombe's particular usage of the word deterministic, her argument is logical and her conclusion sound
However, the general reader who believes that they know the common usage of the word deterministic may find her argument unclear.
In such a case, where the author uses a word in a way that is different to common usage, then the author should explain what they mean by the word at the beginning of their article. — RussellA
It's questionable whether using a word in an unusual way produces a sound argument. — Metaphysician Undercover
So our beliefs are determined by evidence? If not, then what determines what you believe? If I asked you why you believe in something, wouldn't you provide me reasons for what you believe, and those reasons would determine what you believe, no? — Harry Hindu
OK, so the evidence as I see it, indicates that rocks are deterministic, and human beings are not. It appears to me that mosquitoes are not deterministic either. Nor do plants appear to be deterministic. So I think that inanimate things are deterministic, and living things are not. Do you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover
That leaves blow around in autumn is fairly predictable, their exact paths not so much, and similarly for mosquitoes. Findings like planetary orbits and quantumatics are better examples.Perfect predictability implies strict determinism, but lack of predictability does not necessarily imply lack of determinism. Limitations on predictability could be caused by factors such as a lack of information or excessive complexity.
Sure it does. It explains how observations impact the outcomes of the microphysical (ie collapsing the wave function).The so-called observer effect or problem in QM has nothing specifically to do with the idea that the microphysical is indeterministic, other than the fact that both ideas occur in QM. — Janus
Because we are talking about consciousness when talking about making observations and measurements.Why consciouness, of all things? — Olivier5
It may well be that given Anscombe's particular usage of the word deterministic, her argument is logical and her conclusion sound
However, the general reader who believes that they know the common usage of the word deterministic may find her argument unclear.
In such a case, where the author uses a word in a way that is different to common usage, then the author should explain what they mean by the word at the beginning of their article.
— RussellA
It's questionable whether using a word in an unusual way produces a sound argument. For the sake of a logical argument, one can define a word in any way the person wants. But a definition ought to be taken as a premise. And a false definition is a false premise. — Metaphysician Undercover
Sure it does. It explains how observations impact the outcomes of the microphysical (ie collapsing the wave function). — Harry Hindu
This doesn't mean consciousness has some magic pan-universe powers. It's only a tool we are using.Why consciouness, of all things?
— Olivier5
Because we are talking about consciousness when talking about making observations and measurements. — Harry Hindu
I didn't say or even imply that. Consciousness is a local interaction, not magical and not universal.This doesn't mean consciousness has some magic pan-universe powers. It's only a tool we are using. — Olivier5
I have another Anscombe article! Inevitability both a joy and a frustration. This one is Causality and Determination. — Banno
The notion that the universe is determined fails. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.