when it saves someone (or many) from a greater hurt. Even in that case it not always is, but sometimes violence is justified, unless you are a very strict Kantian perhaps. — Tobias

Is justifiable and ethical the same thing?

It's difficult to imagine it. Whatever the initial conditions, whatever the strength of gravity, if you have a partioned box with gas in one side and a vacuum in the other, and you remove the partition, there are many more configurations where the gas occupies the whole box than where it stays in its original side, and one would expect this equilibrium to be attained after a while. This would suggest that it is independent of first causes — Kenosha Kid

Huh.

It might be dependent on reference frame though. — Kenosha Kid

What's reference frame?

Determinism isn't an event though. Effects need prior causes. Determinism doesn't. — Kenosha Kid

OK, but the second law of thermodynamics, is a practical view of determinism. Would then, the second law of thermodynamics necessitate a first cause?

In this way, no prior cause is needed for determinism, as it's an emergent characteristic from another, more fundamental version of the principle of least action (sum over histories, essentially the integration of action over all possible paths). — Kenosha Kid

I agree with you that determinism or this deeper fundamental law does not need a first cause in and of itself. However, It was in my belief that determinism does not determine the free will, it was the determinative aspect of the second law of thermodynamics, which does (or at least I think it does) need a supposed first cause to realize/become real. Therefore, determinism in its applicative aspect, does in some way necessitate a first cause.

Is it right? You tell me. — Outlander

Mm. It's neat how some ethical reforms were built on the backs of violent revolutions, which isn't necessarily hypocritical in this case, but kind of anyways.

Determinism doesn't verify anything at all, it's not in assurance — Kenosha Kid

Ok better put, how can determinism exist without a first cause?

Here's maybe a better analogy of my thoughts:

1. determinism

2. determinism -(minus) non deterministic free will

Hence, according to occam's razor choice one is more likely to be correct.

Maybe pm one of the mods?

By definition, no. Determinism covers deterministic process only. — Kenosha Kid

How then can determinism verify itself? A deterministic view necessitates a first cause, does it not?

where is this principle situated, and how does it determine? Is there some mad Principle Puppeteer directing processes with strings? — Raymond

Well like kenosha kid said, it could involve the second law of thermodynamics. I don't really know though.

It says "go with the theory with the least free parameters". 2 is twice as many as 1. — Kenosha Kid

Could determinism not incorporate non-deterministic free will?

Just checking your arithmetic here. (2) consists of two things. (1) just one thing. To clarify, you're going on record that two things is simpler than one thing, yes? — Kenosha Kid

Yes, because in my belief non-deterministic free will is an organization of unknown material in a deterministic setting. In other words, it's not actually another thing, it's a subcategory of the first thing, a clarification of things, which would make it simpler.

So it'd be like saying, do you wanna hit the target or the bullseye? I'd say the bullseye.

Occam's razor chooses the simplest explanation for the whole. Which is simpler?
1. Determinism.
2. Determinism + non-deterministic free will. — Kenosha Kid

Well in terms of the predictability of humans and their choices, regarding the analysis of consciousness and thought I'd say 2. is simpler. Maybe consciousness and thought is predictable, but the amount of different variables one would need to make an accurate assessment is in my belief gigantic.

A process unfolding, with or without possible consequences on processes somewhere around it... The very notion of determinism is a subjective feature we project on processes. — Raymond

Sure, although wouldn't that mean that free will isn't free, to us?

No, it's funded by the second law of thermodynamics. You can choose to be ignorant about something (or do your own research in contemporary parlance), but it doesn't follow that all ignorance is voluntary. — Kenosha Kid

My partial ignorance could be funded by an enormous chain of deterministic causes, or I could just have free will. Occam's razor?

The will simply is. — Raymond

The will simply is what?

Does ethics make scientific/mathematical sense? — Agent Smith

Hm, well it could be said that ethical behaviour is cost effective in a social setting, which would make it more or less scientific.

As such, humans always make decisions in partial ignorance, leading (deterministically) to a high probability of suboptimal choices — Kenosha Kid

But wouldn't a human's partial ignorance be funded by his free will?

All I can say is human beings seem to violate some mathematical principle reducible to linearity (straigth lines). — Agent Smith

Well you could as well turn it the other way around, and say that all of humanity is on a linear trajectory, from life to death. I think my problem is linear comparative to where? It seems subjective, where we place the two dots.

So, what’s the answer? Does it make sense to hold people accountable for their actions given that there is no free will? — T Clark

I'd say yes.

Reminds me of the Epicurus paradox. Free will is worthy of worship, to us, due to its positive practicality.

You are ignorant in any highly detailed way, of your own way of being and survival. — schopenhauer1

Reminds me of the use of pesticides. We as the public know scarily little about the effects and use of pesticides, not only on us but the environment as well, and yet certain health organizations just keep giving the green light. I think if we knew more about what pesticides did in your body we'd be appalled.

@Isaac

Oh wait, I just remembered, Gödels' incompleteness theorem. Didn't he combine language and math to prove that math was finite or something like that?

Any deviation from linearity, in my humble opinion, can't be mathematical. — Agent Smith

I would say that if you wanted to, I'm sure you could describe linear deviation in a mathematical fashion. Even more so, we are subject to linearity, just not all the time. (e.g I'm really hungry and want a sandwich, I naturally take the shortest way there, to the kitchen.)

Humans, it appears, can defy mathematical laws/principles. If I choose to, I needn't travel along a straight line from point A to point B. — Agent Smith

Wouldn't that describe that math forced your choice? e.g I chose to not walk straight because of math.

It's somewhat vague to say that community has intrinsic value. Comparative to what else? — Shawn

Comparative to a solitary life, I'd say that community/society/relationships is good in and of itself.

Those who call FreeWill an illusion or delusion, were encouraged by the Libet experiment, showing that the brain is prepared to act before the mind is even aware of choosing to act. — Gnomon

Libet wha-

FreeWill is neither a "lie", nor a delusion, it's what makes humans unique among animals : the ability to change the future, and even to alter the course of evolutionary destiny with what we call Culture ; the result of collective free choices. :smile: — Gnomon

What's a choice?

Yes, but is that not what environmentalism might offer? — Tobias

I guess it could.

Well, what kind of positivity do you need? I think the ecological shift brings great possibilities and threats. One of the questions I am grappling with is the question whether ecological thinking can provide new ideals that can give us a unified sense of purpose. To me ecology is metaphysics, 'deus sive natura', but not thought from God as the main point of departure, but nature, natura sive deus. — Tobias

I'm more after a humanistic positivity, something that stems from ourselves, something we can relate to. Kind of like an atheist dream: to live efficiently and well, even if there is no purpose.

This type of environmentalism is modern day soteriology. — Tobias

I think people think that fear has a get-your-but-in-gear effect, but really for me it just makes me paralyzed. I need some positivity if i'm ever gonna do anything,

I'd say community has intrinsic value. That may in and of itself be subjective, but since most humans tend to agree that we need (not a need, but y'know) community to function at our best, I'd say it takes a more objective role when it's about us.

Could it be, that your wish is not to find love, but to turn to be a giver, provider and protector? — god must be atheist

Yes! Well, more precisely, you were correct on both terms. I wish I could learn how to love, so I could be all these things.

Reading:

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

How would we know unless we do the appropriate analysis? — Agent Smith

How could we do an appropriate analysis without thinking in a philosophical context?

And I hate to break it to you - there are multiple potential definitions for ignoramus. — Tom Storm

I suppose it would depend on how you look at it and where your looking from. Like always...

So I was merely playing on Agent's wording and making no proclamations about truth. — Tom Storm

Oh. My bad.

Ignoramus: Someone who pretends they know something but acts as if they don't. — Tom Storm

Nay good fisher, it is someone who simply does not care to know. He has no thirst of knowledge, he's got crops to grow.

In my opinion, free will isn't a popular delusion, its a useful lie. It just renders the world so much more tangible, way easier to work with.

Doesn't matter how many times you say "I don't have will." In your brain, eventually your going to stand up and make yourself a sandwich. That is to say, that not much changes whether we have free will or not.

I believe that people say what they mean. If Socrates said "I know nothing" he meant he knew nothing. — god must be atheist

I think Socrates was just bitter he couldn't know everything, so he chose the next best thing.

Ignoramus: I do not want to know that (what) I do not know; therefore, 'illusions of knowledge' suffice – I'm content. (re "satisfied swine)" — 180 Proof

Hey! I'm not a swine! I prefer "happy human", thank you very much.

I have a personal narrative. It certainly is consistent, although It didn't come from my desire of consistency. It's more so just a series of twists to satisfy my conflict of interest.

Now that I have love in my life, I think he stole the fire to keep his love in comfort -- no effort spared. — god must be atheist

If only I could learn to do the same... All in due time I guess. Or hope so, anyway.

I think this absence of wisdom is only temporary; after all technology grows exponentially, Can't really compare the two.

We have confused technology with science and now have technological smarts but not wisdom. — Athena

I suppose Prometheus gave man fire to watch the world burn, but prefer to think it was because he saw that man was cold.