wonderful.

Ok. I'd go perhaps a step further and suggest that even the physical domain is not causally closed, in that some physical events do not have an explicit cause - that an individual electron moving through a double slit goes to the right and not the left, by way of an example.

But further, I'd treat acts of volition as a seperate conversation, after the approach of Mary Midgley. Saying that our acts of volition are determined is confusing seperate ways of talking - like fish and bicycles. — Banno

So, one reason why I agree with @T Clark that determinism is a metaphysical thesis is because its falsity, according to me, isn't contingent on such things as the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. My stance would have been the same if some hidden variable interpretation had turned out to be empirically vindicated, or QM had never been developed (and our view of the physical world would still be broadly classical). I think the fallacious move from the causal closure of the physical (also assuming no bifurcations in phase space) to unqualified determinism depends on physicalist theses that are metaphysical in nature (and misguided to boot).

Although my stance blocks some arguments against libertarianism in the philosophy of free will, it is much more general and relies on making sense, in a broadly naturalistic framework, of substance causation (which agent causation and rational causation merely are specific instances of) but that also is an ubiquitous principle in all the special sciences that concern themselves with functionally or teleologically organized systems such as digital computers or living organisms.

So, one reason why I agree with T Clark that determinism is a metaphysical thesis... — Pierre-Normand

Sure, but what I was objecting to was the suggestion that true metaphysical statements cannot be facts:

Whether or not the world is deterministic is a matter of metaphysics, not a matter of fact. — T Clark

I took this as implying that metaphysical statements are not factual, not issues of truth or falsehood. In contrast, I think it might be false that physics is deterministic.


I might have used a Galton Box in the place of the quantum example. I agree classical physics has the same issues.

Physics aside, this whole thread was determined. Determined thoughts about the topic and what needs to be expressed by the determined individuals within the topic. A need to try and bring science into even... out of a need to refute others... doubtful there are truly passionate scientists here. Just ones looking to talk about the concepts behind the science for other purposes than science. Science as objective dogma... Because the mind is a tyrant.

Conservation of energy is neither falsifiable nor provable, — Banno

This is not true - it had already been falsified in 1905 by Albert Einstein. E = mc^2. Energy and matter are equivalent. Conservation of energy has been superceded by conservation of matter and energy.

That you find such questions irritating is not a fault of mine, I'm just asking questions. No need to be rude. — Banno

You don't just ask questions. You take pleasure in disrupting discussions and annoying people, generally without adding anything substantive to the discussion.

I took this as implying that metaphysical statements are not factual, not issues of truth or falsehood. In contrast, I think it might be false that physics is deterministic. — Banno

Methodologically, scientists have had to assume, presuppose, that the world is deterministic - that things have causes - in order to do their work. Determinism isn't false, but it may be less useful than it was in the past in some instances.

So, one reason why I agree with T Clark that determinism is a metaphysical thesis is because its falsity, according to me, isn't contingent on such things as the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. My stance would have been the same if some hidden variable interpretation had turned out to be empirically vindicated, or QM had never been developed (and our view of the physical world would still be broadly classical). I think the fallacious move from the causal closure of the physical (also assuming no bifurcations in phase space) to unqualified determinism depends on physicalist theses that are metaphysical in nature (and misguided to boot). — Pierre-Normand

I agree with you it is wrongheaded to use science to try to demonstrate that the world is deterministic. As you note, this would have been the same back in 1904 before quantum mechanics was developed. A quibble - determinism isn't false, but it's not true either. It's metaphysics.

Ok. No one seems to have noticed this ground-breaking revelation. — Banno

Let's consider the obvious. it's an extremely useful principle. And, the truth or falsity of useful principles is generally not relevant to those who use them. Furthermore, we all know that it is obviously false, and that's why we know that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The totality of the energy involved in any activity is never conserved, there is always some lost and this is accounted for by the second law of thermodynamics. So it's not a ground-breaking revelation, that the law of conservation of energy is false, everyone already knows that this law is false. However, hardly anyone really cares about its falsity, because the principle is so useful.

Conservation of energy is neither falsifiable nor provable, and so not empirical, and yet still a part of physics. — Banno

This is blatant bull shit. Conservation of energy has been completely falsified. It has been experimentally demonstrated over and over again, to be impossible that all of the energy in any activity is conserved. Some energy is always lost, hence the second law of thermodynamics, and the concept of "entropy". The concept of entropy however is extremely deceptive, because it insinuates that "energy" (defined as the capacity to do work) could exist in a form in which it is incapable of doing work.

Therefore the inconsistency between observed reality, and the law of conservation is accounted for by that contradiction. It is assumed that there is some form of energy (the capacity to do work) which does not have the capacity to do work. And all that energy which is lost, contrary to the conservation law, is simply assumed to exist somehow in this contradictory form.

Furthermore, we all know that it is obviously false, and that's why we know that perpetual motion machines are impossible. T — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you think of a different reason why perpetual motion machines would be impossible?

Energy and matter are equivalent. — T Clark

Sure. True but irrelevant. Choose whatever conservation principle you want. The issue is that there are parts of science that are logically unfalsifiable - they embed one quantification in another so that accepting a basic statement does not show them to be false. And sure, as is so keen to have the AI point out, folk might be convinced that it's not true despite it not being logically falsifiable. Now I am claiming that determinism sits in much the same place logically, but is weaker than conservation laws in that it doesn't support and is not needed by physics. Whereas the conservation laws are metaphysical and true and helpful, determinism is metaphysical and potentially false and not helpful.

I disagree with your claim that determinism is methodologically necessary. Saying "things have cases" is not the same as saying that physics is deterministic. Anscombe's article addresses this from a philosophical perspective while the Flavio Del Santo and Nicolas Gisin article addresses the issue from a physical point of view. But if you have an argument for determinism being necessary to physical method, present it and we can consider it. Otherwise it just looks like the medieval prejudice that every event has a cause - a classic bit of bad metaphysics that is almost certainly wrong.

You take pleasure in disrupting discussions and annoying people, generally without adding anything substantive to the discussion. — T Clark

Better that you ignore my posts and don't respond, then; or even dob me in to the mods.

It'd be interesting to hear what others think of 's approach.

It'd be interesting to hear what others think of ↪Metaphysician Undercover's approach. — Banno

What I think might be useful is to attend to the fact that waste heat only is 'lost' (unable to do more work) relationally or contextually. When a cold reservoir has received some amount of waste heat from a warmer reservoir, through the operation of a Carnot engine, say, then this energy was 'lost' since it didn't perform work. But this 'lost' energy can be resurrected, as it were, by putting it to use for melting an ice cube, or running again the same Carnot engine through the provision of an even colder reservoir.

I discussed this with GPT 4.5 who, uncharacteristically, hallucinated a bit when it conflated some of its own ideas with my own. (It may have been triggered to hallucinate by my reference to an earlier discussion in my initial prompt.) It also made an implausible suggestion regarding MU's possible confusion of concepts as they may map to Aristotelian ones, but corrected itself when prompted. But it also clarified the concept of entelecheia in a way that is quite useful to me. (You can skip over the discussion about grammatical aspects of verbs, Kenny, Austin and Anscombe.)

Can you think of a different reason why perpetual motion machines would be impossible? — flannel jesus

No I can't. The only viable reason for the impossibility of perpetual motion is that in reality energy is not conserved as time passes. This fact is folded into the concept of entropy.

Whereas the conservation laws are metaphysical and true and helpful, determinism is metaphysical and potentially false and not helpful. — Banno

Conservation laws are very helpful in many applications. But if we do not respect the fact that they are ideals rather than truths, they are metaphysically misleading. As ideals, we can compare them to other ideals like "the circle". The irrational nature of pi (Happy Pi Day everybody!) is indicative of the fictitious nature of the perfect "ideal" circle.

Aristotle addressed eternal circular motion in his discussion of the assumed divine, eternal orbits of the heavenly bodies. He showed how this ideal, eternal circular motion is logically possible. If the moving thing adheres to a perfect circle, there can be no possible beginning or ending point to that motion. Therefore eternal circular motion is logical possible, as an assumed ideal. However, he claimed that the thing moving in the eternal circular motion must be composed of matter, and was therefore generated, and will corrupt. In this way he demonstrated that real material existence does not correspond with the ideal. The ideal is false.

From this, we can see that the application in which the ideal is the most useful is when we examine how the actual physical reality varies from the ideal. The discrepancies from the ideal, when studied, reveal the true nature of the thing modeled by the ideal.

No I can't. — Metaphysician Undercover

What about friction, heat loss, things like that? When a machine loses energy, it doesn't just lose it into the void, it gets transferred to other things in its immediate environment.

The concept of energy doesn't dictate that energy is really lost, if you want to relate entropy to energy, entropy is more about patterns of distribution of energy.

Okay all life is immortal... doesn't matter that other things kill you off... life would be immortal otherwise...

Literally the perspective of perpetual motion...

"Cause other things kill me off other than me, Life is never ending."

I can't quite see how this is a response to my post. How do you feel about ramen noodles?

Pretty simple...

"Motion is perpetual because only other things kill it off."

In that same vein of thinking... "life is immortal because only other things kill it off."

that doesn't seem simple to me. Seems like there's a huge gap in relating that to what I said.

Do you believe that perpetual motion machines are possible to build? Do you believe living organisms are perpetual motion machines?

Not a huge gap at all, just perhaps a lack of understanding on your behalf:

It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts. It breathes, it heats, it eats. It shits and fucks. What a mistake to have ever said the id. Everywhere it is machines—real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections. An organ-machine is plugged into an energy-source-machine: the one produces a flow that the other interrupts. — Deleuze, Anti-Oedipus, Pg 1

yes, a lack of understanding, that's why I'm asking you questions and trying to get you to clarify. Do you want to clarify, or would you prefer it if I didn't understand what you're talking about?

A little imagination would be all it took to understand vs obstinance. But, just my opinion.

More or less, it's kinda all too obvious to say "x is limitless were there nothing making it limited..."

How do you feel about ramen noodles? — flannel jesus

GPT 4.5:



Claude 3.7 Sonnet:

ok, you have no desire to impart understanding from you to me. I guess that's the end of that then.

ANY THING IS FUCKING LIMITLESS WHEN YOU REMOVE THEIR LIMITS.

what does that have to do with anything I said? I don't know why you're saying that. It seems completely out of context.

Trolling like fuck I see...

Can you think of a different reason why perpetual motion machines would be impossible — flannel jesus

IE "Can you think of any reason why limitless become limited"

The law of everything is that it's limitless without limits.

I can't think of any reason why you're saying this to me

Then perhaps leave these forums. Obviously your limits are many. Your understanding would be without limit if you weren't limited. Just as motion would be limitless without limitation. If you cannot see that, well, carry on. *waves a shooing hand*

I need to leave the forum because I'm asking for clarification? That doesn't seem reasonable

You asked like 5 times, every time I respond is quite clear and simple. If you're incapable of even understanding that, then perhaps this place isn't for you. Playing dumb is just a troll tactic. So you'll be trolled right back.