You're trying to finish the race before starting it. Most people on this forum, once they realize the direction of inquiry, start to dance around the issue. Does a newborn baby have a direction of inquiry when trying to understand and make sense of what its senses are telling it? Don't worry about the direction of inquiry right now and just answer the questions as posed. If there is a problem with the question or you need some definitions for the words in the question, just say so. — Harry Hindu
Can you perform logic without causation or without determinism being the case? — Harry Hindu
Logic is about language, not about the world itself. — ChatteringMonkey
Since you disagreed with the person who disagreed with this thesis, I am assuming that you affirm the thesis. Please correct me if you do not affirm the thesis. — Leontiskos
Human logic is clearly not physical causality. However, logic isn't "about" anything but language? So:
[1] Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore Socrates is a mortal.
Is about the words "man" and "Socrates" and not ever about men and Socrates? Wouldn't this lead to a thoroughgoing anti-realism and an inability of language to signify anything but language, such that books on botany are about words and interpretations and never about plants (only "plants") — Count Timothy von Icarus
Actually, I'm not sure that it is even possible to a materialist to abandon the idea of intelligibility. — boundless
We were talking about intuitive appeal. The physics changed from becoming something a child could essentially grasp to something nobody, 100 years after QM, can understand or even agree on. — RogueAI
I am making the grossly imprecise observation that if materialism was correct, if someone followed this intuition, “my brother” could not refer to anything other than atoms, and similarly, any references to “history” and “personality” would be references to my own mental abuses of words, unspeakable and incommunicable, until translated back into atoms perhaps. — Fire Ologist
"Physicalism" is a very common contemporary view that is usually recognized to be a form of materialism. — Leontiskos
So apparently you find his characterization unattractive. Do you have some reason why you think it is unattractive? — Leontiskos
I brought this up too. Old school materialism has intuitive appeal, I guess. Post QM materialism is utterly bizarre and counterintuitive. — RogueAI
It is based on the assumption that there is an intelligible structure in material reality which is to be discovered. — boundless
the idea that 'everything is collocations of atoms, ensembles of balls of stuff,' or that 'things are what they are made of' — Count Timothy von Icarus
You missed the point of the whole text. — Jack2848
I meant to show how people use the same words with different meanings. If you'd say that knowledge is justified true belief. Then that's objectively not a descriptive correct statement in that case you're equally choosing a definition per your preference. As others would. — Jack2848
To be descriptive and claim to be more accurate. You'd have to look at instances of when people say they have knowledge. Now and across time. And you'll see that it's belief assumed to be justified and assumed to be true. — Jack2848
Knowledge (beliefs assumed to be justified and assumed to be true) have often be wrong. — Jack2848
it's only as much a performative contradiction as someone who is anti violence using violence to protect themselves from other violence, it seems to me. — flannel jesus
If a democracy votes to disband itself, then the last act of that democracy is the act of disbanding. The act of disbanding is a democratic act. There is no performative contradiction here; there is just a majority of people who decide to order their political arrangement differently. — Leontiskos
F=ma is a definition, not a description. There were no forces sitting around, waiting for Newton to describe them. Rather he defined force as the product of mass and acceleration, as the change in an objects motion. — Banno
Let us ask, “What is the meaning of the physical laws of Newton, which we write as F=ma? What is the meaning of force, mass, and acceleration?” Well, we can intuitively sense the meaning of mass, and we can define acceleration if we know the meaning of position and time. We shall not discuss those meanings, but shall concentrate on the new concept of force. The answer is equally simple: “If a body is accelerating, then there is a force on it.” That is what Newton’s laws say, so the most precise and beautiful definition of force imaginable might simply be to say that force is the mass of an object times the acceleration. — R. Feynman, Characteristics of Force (from The Feynman Lectures on Physics)
Going to have to disagree with you here as it appears to me that all motion, including inertial motion (by which I understand you to mean constant velocity) depends to some degree on another. In fact, all motion is relative motion and insofar as it is relative to another, all motion, including inertial motion, depends on another. But then all that means is that the metaphysical foundation of everything, God, cannot be in motion. — NotAristotle
For example, when a billiard ball moves and changes position, it does not do so of its own accord, but because another billiard ball has imparted motion to it. Similarly, and in accordance with Newton's (1st?) Law, the billiard ball will remain moving unless it strikes another ball or hits the boundary of the table, or encounters friction. And so, all change (of some thing) really depends on another to change it. — NotAristotle
Because I think change or alteration implies a kind of dependence on another. — NotAristotle
A (pure state) quantum system evolves without an external cause. It's in the intrinsic nature of the quantum system. — Relativist
That's a really good question. The only answer I can offer to support a claim that such demonstration has not only been impossible in the past, just as it is now, but that it inevitably will be so in the future, would be that when it comes to introspected intuitions we always will be working with the same data, that is the human mind, that we have always been working with.
In science we may be working with previously unknown data, newly discovered phenomena, and I think this has clearly happened in the history of science. But when it comes to the purely speculative metaphysical ideas, unless we admit science into the equation and don't rely solely on intuitions (which has certainly happened in some metaphysical quarters) there would seem to be no new data to work with. — Janus
How high must the described order be in order to be an explanation rather than just a description? — Quk
Why does the apple fall to the ground? Because of gravity. That explains it. — Quk
I think that most physical theories are phenomenological and very few fundamental.
Galileo and Newton only give descriptions of what actually happens without a fundamental explanation. It was also Leibniz's criticism that Newton could not explain how the interaction of gravity actually comes about.
I think there are but a few fundamental theories, for example:
- the general theory of relativity which indicates that the emergent phenomenon of gravity arises from the curvature of 4-dimensional space
- quantum mechanics which considers physical quantities at the atomic level as merely random results of measurements — Ypan1944
And the people in power are the ones who decide — T Clark
Others characterize libertarianism by what it means more generally, — SophistiCat
What does it mean more generally? — flannel jesus
Why do you think libertarianism isn't a subcategory of incompatibilism? — flannel jesus
Those who are convinced that there is a conflict between free will and determinism, for these and other reasons, are called incompatibilists about free will. They believe free will and determinism are incompatible. If incompatibilists also believe that an incompatibilist free will exists, so that determinism is false, they are called libertarians about free will. — Robert Kane
He does? I missed this. I don't think he said incompatibilism at all in his article. Libertarianism is a subcategory of incompatibilism, and that's what he's talking about. — flannel jesus
https://www.georgewrisley.com/blog/?p=47
This has been my issue with libertarian free will for maybe decades. I've worded it in various ways myself, but I think this guy puts it pretty well.
In short, if you maintain that if you were to set the entire world state back to what it was before a decision (including every aspect of your mental being, your will, your agency), and then something different might happen... well, maybe something different might happen, but you can't attribute that difference to your will. — flannel jesus
How is it empty if it justifies the second premise of the argument that you ignored? — Leontiskos
I think you just haven't understood the argument, and thus are engaged in a "lazy dismissal." You could disagree with the claim that humans are able to "set their own norms," but you wouldn't be on very solid ground. — Leontiskos
dismissive truisms — SophistiCat
What exactly is your complaint, here? That it is true? — Leontiskos
This doesn't help with the logical fallacy of equivocation, for "the essential and enduring structure" of humans and computers are very far apart, both actually and epistemologically. — Leontiskos
Computer programs don't transcend their code. — Leontiskos
That which is designed has a determinate end. It acts the way it was designed to act. — Leontiskos