Paraphrased, "It's raining" is hocus. "What's happening outside my window" is pocus. Hocus can't be pocus because I don't have "direct access" to pocus.It cannot. It attempts to talk about what's happening outside of your window, it intends to talk about what's happening outside of your window. It cannot actually do so directly because you do not have direct access to what's going on outside your window. — Isaac
"It's raining" is hocus. "The actual weather" is hocus. "It's raining" cannot be "the actual weather" because they're both hocus?I'm saying that the 'actual weather' you're referring to is inside your skull ie what you claim is the 'actual weather' in that sentence is, in fact, a belief about it inside your skull. — Isaac
What flower? ...and no. I never claimed literally or any analog to the expression being about the flower. You're putting words in my mouth. Now, it is true that it's about a flower, but it's true in a different sense than anything discussed (with me at least) so far.You claimed your expression was about the flower. I'm asking you what becomes of that claim? — Isaac
It's not about being happy; it's a requirement. Not all claims are about something we believe or things we know exist. "Hat" in "Isaac's hat is a lovely shade of green today" may or may not have a referent; I don't particularly have any beliefs about it. Nevertheless, it means something; I know what to do to figure out if "hat" has a referent and, if it does, whether the claim is indeed true or not. I can simply, with your consent, head on over to your location and take a gander at your noggin. If there's a hat upon it, the statement asserts that it's green, and of a lovely shade. So should I find such hat, I just verify that it's green and that its shade is lovely. If there's no hat, that means there's nothing to assert the color of.Right, so, like Janus, you're happy with the notion that you don't know what your expressions are about when you utter them? — Isaac
I have no clue; how does one "trick me with a powerful hallucinogen" to say "the flower is green"? Also there's a contradiction; T0 and T2 cannot both be true. I'm guessing you don't literally mean both; and I'm supposed to per T2 infer that you did not in fact show me a flower, but in that case, what does that leave T0 as even saying then?T0 - I show you a flower
T1 - you say "the flower is green"
T2 - I reveal that I had tricked you with a powerful hallucinogen and there was in fact no flower.
What was your statement at T1 about? — Isaac
Who said (2) is inside your skull? — Isaac
You've just said that you believe the actual weather you're referring to goes on outside of your skull. ==>I don't.<== — Isaac
Not without begging the question.We can just take that as a given. — Isaac
What model? You've given me nothing meeting the conditions I've outlined.If you believe in such a model and I do too, — Isaac
The flower that is not inside the box?The flower you originally claimed you were talking about. — Isaac
...not just any weather. The weather as it is currently occurring outside my window."it's raining">"the weather is raining" — Isaac
Yep.You want to claim that "the weather is raining" is about the actual weather outside your skull (object), — Isaac
Nothing. The flower in the box does not exist.So when you find out you were deceived and there was no flower, what do you do about your expression at T1? — Isaac
Don't have to. I was just wrong about it at T1.Do you go back in time and change what it was about? — Isaac
It's about what's in the box. That's why on finding the box empty at T2 I can say "I guess I was wrong. (because) There was no flower in the box." The lack of flowers in the box is why there is no referent to "the flower", which makes "The flower is green" false.Do you not know what your expressions are about (only guess)? — Isaac
Nope. I don't say confused things like "The flower I knew was in the box that was green blinked out of existence and now retroactively I change my past knowledge to past non-knowledge". I don't say confused things like "At T1 I knew there was a flower in a box, but I was wrong". I just say "I thought I knew the flower (in the box) was green, but there wasn't even any flower there (in the box)".Do the outside-skull objects of your expressions blink in and out of existence depending on what's later believed about them? — Isaac
That doesn't explain this:You've just said that you believe the actual weather you're referring to goes on outside of your skull. I don't. — Isaac
If "it's raining" describes what's inside my skull, and (2) is inside my skull, and atmospheric molecules are inside my skull, then (1), (2), (3), and "it's raining" are all inside my skull. But what does "my skull" refer to? Per the logic, it only refers to my belief in my skull, which is in my skull. So if (1), (2), (3), and "it's raining" are in my skull, and my skull is in my skull, we must have an infinitely regressing series of skulls, and the actual weather can't be outside any of them.It coveys (1) a belief about a weather condition, not (2) the actual weather condition (3) (which is composed of atmospheric molecules). — Isaac
It doesn't make any sense at all to me.I've gibven the argument that if it were the actual weather we were referring to we'd have to retrospectively change what we referred to if we found out we were being deceived so it makes more sense to say it's our belief about the weather that we refer to. — Isaac
What flower?So you're claiming that the expression "the flower is green" is not about the flower? — Isaac
I think you have the wrong room. This is philosophy. The argument clinic is down the hall....is an argument. — Isaac
...to which I replied that (1) goes on in my skull, (2) and "it's raining" four feet in front, and (3) is just a model we use to explain (2).It coveys (1)a belief about a weather condition, not (2)the actual weather condition (3)(which is composed of atmospheric molecules). — Isaac
You're very confused and I have no idea how to fix it. There's no green flower in my right shoe either, but a discovery of that fact at T2 wouldn't mean anything relevant. By contrast, the discovery that the box is empty does have relevance, as you implicitly acknowledge. The reason the latter is relevant whereas the former is irrelevant is because "The flower is green" is about the contents of the box, as opposed to having nothing to do with the contents of my right shoe. This isn't a new point; it's exactly the same point I was making with "it's raining" being about weather. But it has nothing to do with this confusion of what you imagined my claim was in your quote here.The point is that you only know that at T2 when you see the empty box. so at T1 you are making a statement whose proper referent you don't know. But your claim is that you do know the referent of "it's raining" - the rain, even at T1. — Isaac
There was no argument in that cartoon... just as there was no argument in the thing it responded to. The cartoon was just a way to respond to the smoke you were blowing (you certainly weren't commenting on the actual contents of what you quoted).Yeah, the 'it's just obvious to any right thinking person' argument. — Isaac
Nope; not if there is no actual flower. But it is about the contents of that box. In this case, the truth value of "the flower is green" is undefined, as that statement has no referent, but the reason it has no referent is because that box doesn't have a flower in it.Your claim is that your sentence is about an actual flower, — Isaac
I don't disagree that you can go on all day, but none of your suggestions are related to how normal people use the terms "means" and "ends". None of this is relevant anyway, as having hunger and remaining alive aren't beliefs.No, the end is to become satiated, the means is by eating your lunch. Or the ends is to remain alive ..., the means is by satiating your hunger... we could go on all day. — Isaac
FTFY.You said
"Most of the time, it's used togetinform the listenerto believethat it's raining (by which I meanhave a tendency to act as if it's rainingto convey information necessary for the listener to adapt to the rain - put a coat on to avoid getting wet, carry an umbrella to avoid getting wet, write a historically accurate poem about it...)." — InPitzotl
...in response — Isaac
If you say so, but I'm not beholden to what you expect of me.You gave this father saying "it's raining" by way of example, so I'm expecting an example proving that we're not communicating beliefs. — Isaac
Bell Inequalities are constraints on probabilities that you would expect given classical probability theory.I thought Bell's inequality was about spooky action at a distance and not randomness — Gregory
Why?A light year is a LOT longer distance to maintain underlying entanglement structure. — Enrique
I'm not committed to a QM interpretation, but there's no rule I know of that says that entangled particles can't be separated by a light year. There's no upper limit for classical entanglement; why would there be one for quantum entanglement?You think a pilot wave can conjoin only a couple electrons at the scale of light years? — Enrique
I think the distance just "sounds large" to you... that's part of the point. This drags the distances from something too small to imagine (in terms of the duration used for "light x") to something on human scales specifically so you can imagine it. I could give you an example story of, say, how a local interpretation of QM works with this Bob and Alice story.Kind of farfetched. — Enrique
That's fine, but I don't think you can have a theory explaining non-locality until you have your theory explain non-locality. It sounds to me like it's just a name so far, and some fuzzy ideas of what it might be like.And anyways, I chatted up the aether and that's just how aether rolls! (Perhaps someone will figure it out someday) — Enrique
This is my takeaway from the above paragraph:Already you're mixing up the mode of identity being used. "part 1 is something going on in my skull". No it isn't. part 1 is a statement, what's going on in your skull is firing neurons and neurotransmitters. What you mean to say is that part 1 is about what's going on in your skull. — Isaac
Your argument does nothing for me, because I disagree with the postulate that to talk about x, I must have "direct access" to x, whatever "direct access" means.It cannot. It attempts to talk about what's happening outside of your window, it intends to talk about what's happening outside of your window. It cannot actually do so directly because you do not have direct access to what's going on outside your window. — Isaac
I have no idea what the antecedent to the underlined "it" is supposed to be.It's of no consequence in normal conversation, but it's clearly what we actually do when we say "it's raining". — Isaac
What's an "end point"? The terms "means" and "ends" are used as pairs to refer to a main goal you're trying to achieve (the end) and a thing you're just using to get there (the means). In this case the end is obviously being able to eat my lunch. The attempt to induce false belief was a means.Beliefs still seem to be the end point, — Isaac
...which would make "getting her to believe it's raining" a means to the end of helping her prevent herself from getting wet by actual rain....by getting her to believe it's raining. — Isaac
By beliefs (see below), but also by attending, observing, modeling, reasoning, testing, reacting, and so on.How do we navigate the world? — Isaac
Wrong question... the accusation here was that you were tunnel visioned, not blind.How do you even put one foot in front of another without a belief that doing so is an appropriate next step for you? — Isaac
Ooookay. As for the delays, I'm a very patient little piggy. I'd prefer you take time to read what I write... it's not a speed contest for me."Let me know if you want a response to the rest. — InPitzotl"
It's what I'm here for, though I've hardly any time in the week at the moment, so responses may be few and far between. — Isaac
So regarding "true" and "know", you've named a criteria for the definition of "know" being proposed being wrong:I'm quite clear now on what it is you believe to be the case, repeating it isn't necessary. What I'm pursuing is why you believe it to be the case. — Isaac
...but your argument begs the question. You haven't actually met your criteria, or even used it; you just claimed you did, then used that non-established non-fact to make your non-point. But the criteria you're applying is a linguistic criteria; it's used by people who actually do the work of looking at language usage (lexicographers) to write dictionaries. So what do they say? Here's a sampling:It must be correct to use the word of something which you have strong justification to believe (particularly if that justification is the agreement of your epistemic peers) because that is how the language community uses the word, it would be perverse to saythey're all wrong. — Isaac
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/know1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/know#English1. (transitive) To perceive the truth or factuality of; to be certain of or that.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/know2 a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/true1. being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/true#English1. (of a statement) Conforming to the actual state of reality or fact; factually correct.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/true1 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs
Definition time again. Ascertain:"we can (aka "can ever") ascertain truth using justification. — InPitzotl"
Great. How? — Isaac
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ascertain1 : to find out or learn with certainty
// ascertain the truth
// trying to ascertain the cause of the fire
// information that can be easily ascertained on the Internet
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ascertain1. To find out definitely; to discover or establish.
...
"As soon as we ascertain what the situation is, we can plan how to proceed."
1905, Baroness Emmuska Orczy [see link for full ref]:
"There the cause of death was soon ascertained ;"
Not sure what football being part of a game has to do with an option both not being about anything and being about something.Option (2) isn't about anything. It's part of a whole expression-act which is about the language game of quizzes. — Isaac
"Isn't that a contradiction? — InPitzotl"
No. A football is part of a game, it's not itself a game. — Isaac
Your explanation in my mind is defaulting on the promises. The huge distance versus the time scale involved is simply an example of non-locality. You promised to explain non-local effects predicted by QM, and even explicitly paid heed to delayed choice as an example of non-local effects happening. If your aether blows itself apart for experiments with second scales over distances of a light year, how can it explain experiments on the nanosecond scale with distances of 10 feet?The Alice and Bob situation would probably be impossible — Enrique
...that is part 1.It coveys a belief about a weather condition, — Isaac
...that's part 2.not the actual weather condition — Isaac
...and that is part 3.(which is composed of atmospheric molecules). — Isaac
The focus is different, and what I said was distinct. A major difference is that what you said is consistent with manipulative behavior; I don't want you to eat my lunch so I say "that is a poisonous lab experiment". In this case, I'm not informing the listener; I'm attempting to manipulate the listener. Another difference is that I might inform the listener even if I have no reason to think the listener would believe me as a result (IOW, the answer to your question is "not really"). The point isn't so much that we don't tell people things to get them to believe it; but rather, that telling people things to get them to believe it isn't the point; beliefs aren't the ends you're making them out to be.You seem to have just repeated what I said. Does a listener, sucessfully informed that it's raining, not now believe that it's raining? — Isaac
By being about it? I honestly have no clue what you're trying to ask here.How can an expression convey a weather condition? — Isaac
Most of the time, it's used to inform the listener that it's raining (by which I mean to convey information necessary for the listener to adapt to the rain - put a coat on to avoid getting wet, carry an umbrella to avoid getting wet, write a historically accurate poem about it...).Most of the time, it's used to get the listener to believe it's raining (by which I mean have a tendency to act as if it's raining - put a coat on, carry an umbrella, write a poem about it...). — Isaac
We don't add the T. The T is a relationship between the meaning of the claim and the state of affairs. The claim's meaning implies some truth conditions. The claim is true if the described state of affairs meet the truth conditions. A claim can be true even if nobody has any justifications for it.We've gathered more justifications for believing it, but in JTB, we already have justifications and beliefs, the question is how to add the T. — Isaac
But "could be wrong" does not entail "being wrong". Assuming it's justified and believed, "being wrong" about its truth implies the claim is not true; that would make it a JFB. "Being right" implies the claim is true; that would make it a JTB.But we haven't ascertained its veracity, you admit yourself, we could still be wrong. — Isaac
More specifically I said that in response to this:You said
"I don't see what's stopping us from looking out windows. — InPitzotl"
in response to my reductio of "I know..." requiring the subject to be 'true'. — Isaac
...we can (aka "can ever") ascertain truth using justification.Either that or this ludicrous situation where a word refers to something we can't ever ascertain... — Isaac
You apparently mean to talk about certainty (in a mathematical sense; philosophical sense?) that a thing is true, not "finding out". It's either raining or it's not raining. I "find out" whether it's raining or not raining by looking out the window.We just gain more justification for our belief that it's raining. At no point do we find out that 'it's raining' is true, — Isaac
Isn't that a contradiction?Option (2) isn't about anything. It's part of a whole expression-act which is about the language game of quizzes. — Isaac
Your argument appears to contain the hidden and false premise that "it's raining" is used to convey to someone that the speaker believes that it's raining. The phrase "it's raining" does not require anyone to believe it beforehand to analyze its meaning or truth value. It may or may not be the case that someone believes it's raining; whether they do or don't is completely irrelevant to whether it is the case or not that it's raining (for this particular claim). What "it's raining" is used to convey is a weather condition.No, I'm arguing that what we can infer from a claim and what it means are intrinsically linked. The argument is to say that if they meant different things, then from where would a claim derive its 'meaning' if not from that which a language community can infer from its use? — Isaac
You're too focused on beliefs to analyze this properly; by which I mean you're being tunnel visioned. The fact that you've set up a scenario where the speaker believes it's raining simply reflects your bias to make the statement about beliefs. You didn't conclude that someone believes that it's raining from the statement "it's raining"; you concluded it from the fact that a person uttered that statement, and even then that is a fallible inference.Too focused for what? — Isaac
Which of the following is true at your location right now?
(1) It's snowing
(2) It's raining
(3) None of the above
It's about what you would see if you look outside — InPitzotl
Actually, yes. The problem appears to be that you're misinterpreting what I mean by saying that (A) is about what's going on outside. You appear to surmise that this means that (A) is true; but that's incorrect. What it suggests is that what's going on outside is the test of A's truth.How can it be? If (A) I say "It's raining" when (B) it isn't then (C) what you would see when you look outside is (D) {a lack of rain} so (E) the expression "it's raining" is about {a lack of rain}? — Isaac
It no more follows that (A) being about what's going on outside means that once we've looked outside it is definitely raining than it follows that a person uttering A means that they definitely believe A.So once we've looked out of the window it definitely is raining? — Isaac
Let me fix that for you: "Ascertained its veracity".Ascertained to be an independent fact. — Isaac
Then it's not raining. Unless it is. Regardless, the test of this would be to look outside. Again, it doesn't matter if this is your biased cherry picked scenario where the utterer of the statement believes it's raining, or if it is multiple choice option 2 on the quiz above. The statement is about the same thing either way.If, rather, it turns out to be someone with a hose standing on the roof, then what? — Isaac
You're confusing what you can infer from a claim with what a claim means. It does not entail that if you can infer y from a statement x that x means y. The statement "it's raining" is talking about what's happening outside. The statement "I believe it's raining" is talking about my belief. The addition/removal of "I believe" from these statements changes the meaning.An expression like "it's raining" can be used without the prefix " I think...", or "I believe", because it's part of the language game of making claims that it's taken as given — Isaac
You're way too focused on beliefs. The statement "it's raining" is talking about what's happening outside. The gold standard for whether or not it's raining is baked into the intentionality of the claim; since the claim is describing what's happening outside, you verify it by looking outside. By contrast, "Joe believes John is a bachelor" is talking about what Joe believes of John. The gold standard for whether or not Joe believes John is a bachelor is to ask Joe.In the past one can reflect on the comparison between what one believed at the time and what one believes now, so a need for some prefix is required to distinguish which it is one means to claim. — Isaac
I don't see what's stopping us from looking out windows.Either that or this ludicrous situation where a word refers to something we can't ever ascertain... — Isaac
At which point it's no longer true that your entire language community believes John is a bachelor. — Isaac
But there's a problem here. Imagine Joe is part of this community and is one of the persons that have been corrected; and he was corrected today. Yesterday, Joe may very well have said, "I know John is a bachelor". You're paying heed to the fact that today, John changes his mind; he will now say: "I know John is not a bachelor". But what you're missing is that today, Joe will not say: "I knew John was a bachelor yesterday, but I was wrong", because that statement is a contradiction. The reason that statement is a contradiction is because Joe recognizes that "to know x" requires x to actually be the case. If "to know x" only required x to be believed, there would be no problem with Joe saying "I knew John was a bachelor yesterday, but I was wrong."As I've said, quite a few times now, I'm not making any claims at all about what's actually the case, only about what claims that something is the case mean, claims such as "John knows x". — Isaac
It would be more accurate to simply say that they demonstrate Bell's Theorem to be true, and to interpret that to mean that there are no classical HVT's.True, Bell's experiments rule out classical locality, so nonlocality still appears to obtain. — Enrique
I cannot comment on that; I asked about this in the prior post, but didn't get a response. What is your aether idea exactly? How does it explain entanglement? I started a story about Alice and Bob and entangled electrons for you... can you use your aether to finish it?My aether idea ... — Enrique
I can't comment on your aether theory; you didn't explain how it worked. Bohmian mechanics as I understand is not local.My aether idea and Bohmian mechanics in a much more developed way suggest nonclassical locality to explain observations of nonlocality. Apparent nonlocality is basically a given that has to be accounted for with a nonclassical model, but I think some kind of unintuitive locality must be found to obtain beneath it all. — Enrique
Why do you surmise that entanglement holding implies something is going on beyond what relativity can model?It has been proven that entanglement still holds, so whatever goes on is beyond what relativity can model. — Enrique
How does the aether resolve this? What does your aether do to resolve it?I'm claiming relativity theory is its own reference frame, making the assumption that matter cannot interact faster than light speed, and the aether hypothesis is one way of subverting those assumptions. — Enrique
Not really. Fundamentally speaking, the experiments you're describing are those for which QM predicts outcomes that violate Bell inequalities. They rule out precisely the types of theories that suggest Bell inequalities should hold; that is, classical realist local theories. But that does not suffice to verify nonlocality.Essentially, the statistical results of Bell's experiment rule out local hidden variables, a property of the particles themselves determining probabilistic outcome, verifying nonlocality in quantum mechanics. — Enrique
Tossing this in:The delayed choice experiment which developed out of Einstein's EPR paradox paper seems to contradict nonlocal hidden variables of a kind consistent with relativity unless viewing the detectors as separate reference frames, and this doesn't explain anything beyond correcting some calculative imprecision between clocks etc., basically not a realist account. — Enrique
I'm not sure I understand how it does this. Bob has a clock. Alice has a clock. Alice takes a very long trip; once she is a light year away, she sets up a station. Bob generates two electrons whose spin are entangled; they spin in opposite directions. He sends one to Alice. By Bob's clock, he measures the spin of his electron at t=0. By Alice's clock, she measures the spin of her electron at t=0. Tell me the rest of the story.The aether proposal explains why quantum entanglement can appear to transcend the speed of light while general relativity and nonlocal quantum mechanics still hold, and does not entail the controversial issues of observer and measurement dependence that I think are a metaphysical illusion of logic and woo chasing its tail. — Enrique
Okay. You're the immigrant.The simpler the explanation, the better. — god must be atheist
Wrong... those are completely different... let's talk about the immigrant:your friend Potzli used it as a "partly uncaused", that is, partly not doing any causing. — god must be atheist
You were probably vaguely thinking of "I am interesting in buying this car" in which sentence used by many immigrants they mix up the past participle with the present participle. — god must be atheist
The "gmba's the immigrant" theory works much better than the "everyone's fault but gmba" theory here:Because what InPotzl said is nonsense. — god must be atheist
Partly uncaused is talking about Y's that have some aspect that cannot be explained by an X that makes them exist (cf the OP). That's what I said, that's what EricH said, and that's even what you said (at least, it's what you said when you were talking about cars interesting immigrants). So that explains why all three of us are correct. Your misphrasing of this as if it had to do with partly not causing had to do with your poor mastery of English; and there is exactly the -ing versus the -ed forms that you whined about regarding the immigrant showing up right there in your confusion.your friend Potzli used it as a "partly uncaused", that is, partly not doing any causing. — god must be atheist
...two posts later:I am yanking your chain, of course, I am only joking. But you need to clear up your text, please, I think, you are at best ambiguous at most times, and at others, incomprehensible. Not your fault, your thoughts are most likely clear, but it's a special skill to write philosophy. You can't lead your audience astray, because then they will turn on you and bite you. — god must be atheist
I don't know why people stoop so low on this site and resort to insult others here by pre-judging the others' abilities and ranking them low in a type of skill in which they certainly do not lack. — god must be atheist
I'll be granting this definition.The definition of free will I will be using here comes from Trick Slattery. Free will is the ability to choose between more than one viable option or action, in which the choice is “up to the chooser”. — Paul Michael
I think you're concluding this prematurely.However, it’s never possible for you to have more than one viable option to choose between for your next thought. — Paul Michael
Here you are introducing a hidden premise that the viable option being selected must be the content of the next thought. I don't think this is justified.To illustrate this, let’s say you want to freely will your next thought. You would have to think of the options yourself, as they couldn’t just present themselves to you externally or in any other way. But as soon as you think of the first option, you’ve already thought your next thought. — Paul Michael
It appears that the logic you're employing here is that if Y follows from X; and X is not a selection from a viable set of options, then Y is not a selection from a viable set of options. This does not seem to follow.Your thoughts initiate your deliberate actions, whether the thoughts be fully conscious or subconscious. If you can’t freely will any of your thoughts, how can you freely will any of your actions which are based on and initiated by your thoughts? — Paul Michael
This fails as a gotcha. I'm not denying I wrote that. What I'm denying is that it contains your unique brand of confusion about this:So do I. You can't deny you wrote this: — god must be atheist
You are the first person I have ever heard of to suggest that "uncaused" requires an "uncauser" that is "uncausing" the events. To the rest of us, all "uncaused" means is that there isn't an antecedent cause.2. It is partially caused by another event and partially uncaused by some other event still.
3. The other part of the causes of the event are other causes and other parts of the uncaused whole are other uncausing events. — god must be atheist
Wrong. I have used "uncaused" before the discussion between you and me, but I've never used "uncausing". I've searched all 15 pages of this thread, and the first usage of the term "uncausing" (by anyone) was in this post. This uncausing idea is unique to you.You have used "uncausing" and "uncaused" prolifically before the discussion between you and me. You now deny that it means anything. — god must be atheist
Apparently not. You're chasing windmills, Don Quixote.I will not bend or break. Only under the weight of reason do I bend or break. — god must be atheist
s/be uncaused/partially be uncaused/:So explain what you mean by that, with special emphasis on the "be uncaused". — god must be atheist
In the normal English speaking world, "uncaused" means "have no antecedent cause". A partial cause is something that brings about an effect, but is not sufficient to bring about an effect; that is, sometimes the effect occurs given the partial cause, and sometimes it doesn't. The insufficiency could be accounted for by other causes, such as in the car example. But it's not necessary that there be other causes; in the case that there are no other causes sufficient to explain the event (i.e., if given any set of causes, sometimes the event occurs, and sometimes it doesn't), then the event is partially uncaused (i.e., there's some aspect which cannot be explained by an antecedent cause).And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl
Nope. There's no such thing as uncausing; that thing you introduced in this post. What I explained there was what I meant by partially being uncaused; that thing I actually did talk about here:This above was supposed to explain your position on "uncausing". — god must be atheist
And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl
There has never been a change in my position. I have never discussed uncausing. I never mentioned an event uncausing another event.You now deny that it means anything. — god must be atheist
Building straw men and playing gotcha is not reasoning. If we were having a real meaningful discussion, you would address what I actually did talk about. Let's try that. Tell me why, in the picture, C isn't the correct answer; or why there has to be something that tells you whether A is going to happen in 20 seconds or B is going to happen in 20 seconds. If you can do that, you've addressed what I actually talked about. Barring that, you're just chasing windmills.That's another thing you can't do in normal discussion, let alone in a discussion where reason is trump. — god must be atheist
I cry foul.But you need to clear up your text, please, I think, you are at best ambiguous at most times, and at others, incomprehensible. Not your fault, your thoughts are most likely clear, but it's a special skill to write philosophy. — god must be atheist
"Uncaused" means "not caused"; as in an event happens, and there isn't a cause for it. There is no such thing as "uncausing"... the act of not causing an event.Even after several explanations I can't comprehend what you mean by uncausing. — god must be atheist
Okay, but it's okay to not understand something. I gave you an example of what I was talking about, and there's no "uncausing" happening there. There is no event "uncausing" another event there. There's just a part that has no cause; since it has no cause, we call it "uncaused". So don't pin your "uncausing" on me.I am a lost cause as far as uncausation is concerned, so please don't take it on your self to explain it yet a third time. — god must be atheist
I did no such thing. I mentioned a partially caused, partially uncaused event. I mentioned that causality isn't linear, but branches. But I didn't mention any "event uncausing another event" nonsense; that notion came entirely from you.I have no clue what an uncausing is in relation to causality. But you used it, and I thought YOU knew what you were saying. — god must be atheist
Yes. But let's break that conjunction apart. "Have a cause" is on the left; so there's an event that "has a cause"... that cause we could call an event, so this would be an event (the cause) causing an event (the effect). But on the right side of the conjunction, there's just "partially be uncaused". It's a "god must be atheist" invention that "be uncaused" means there's an event that is the uncauser, and that's kind of ridiculous. But that's the direction you took it.And that's where the possibilities diverge. We can have an event partially have a cause and partially be uncaused. So there's your other possibility. — InPitzotl
So let's go back to starting my car as an example. I put the key in the ignition and turn it, and the car starts up. Wonderful! But that's not the whole story. The car doesn't always start up when I turn the key. Turning the key is critical, but not sufficient. So we can say that turning the key causes it to start, but it's not the complete explanation. This is a partial cause. In this case, there are reasons why the car might not start if I turn the key... among those are: there's not enough gas to start, there isn't enough battery to crank it, and the spark plug is too gunked up to fire properly. For discussion purposes let's pretend this is complete. Then if we meet all of these prerequisites and the key is turned, the car will always start; collectively all of the causes are sufficient.I have no clue what an uncausing is in relation to causality. — god must be atheist
I don't know what "uncaused by some other event" means.It is partially caused by another event and partially uncaused by some other event still. — god must be atheist
2 and 3 refer to events that are... uncausing the event? An uncaused whole? Uncausing events?1. An event is caused.
2. It is partially caused by another event and partially uncaused by some other event still.
3. The other part of the causes of the event are other causes and other parts of the uncaused whole are other uncausing events. — god must be atheist
I can't reach this conclusion, because I cannot make sense of an event uncausing another event. It sounds like gibberish to me. What does it mean for an event to uncause another event? 1 makes sense. I have no idea what 2 and 3 are. Can you illustrate what you mean by an example?4. Therefore the event has been in its totality caused and uncaused (by distinct and discretely separate events or causes) and there is nothing in its post-caused behaviour therefore that is not caused and not uncaused. — god must be atheist
If there can be one, why can't there be more than one?Are you saying that there could be more than 1 first cause? Care to share why exactly? — TheMadFool
Must a first cause be a god?A team of gods? — TheMadFool
If you can handle one first cause, what's the problem with handling any arbitrary number? Is there some rule you're applying where you'll "allow" one first cause "but no more"? Why should the universe care about such a rule?It seems a bit too extravagant; it's more than some of us can handle. — TheMadFool
Confusing the concept with the thing? "What caused my car to start" my brains/minds depending on my philosophy?Unicorns are caused - they are by our brains/minds depending on your philosophy. — TheMadFool
Apparently not... it can't cause:As uncaused, nothing is a candidate for the title of a first cause with respect to being uncaused. — TheMadFool
Likewise, nothing can't cause for there's nothing to cause — InPitzotl
Yup! — TheMadFool
Presumably there's at least one, if it's a first cause.I don't understand the question. — TheMadFool
I'm just using your argument to derive the impossibility of a South Pole like you're using it to derive the impossibility of a first cause.The rest of your post doesn't make sense. — TheMadFool
I quoted you! You're also obviously reacting.Ignoratio elenchi! — TheMadFool
Nothing is uncaused like unicorns are uncaused. But unicorns being uncaused have nothing to do with anything; they're uncaused because they don't exist.If nothing is being reified and seeing that it's true that nothing is uncaused, — TheMadFool
It has nothing to do with "the first cause argument". Unicorns are uncaused therefore the first cause argument reifies nothing?the problem then lies in the first cause argument - it necessitates a reification of nothing. — TheMadFool
How many nothings are there?Plus, you seem to be implying nothing is just a concept. Are you sure? — TheMadFool
Likewise, nothing can't cause for there's nothing to cause.Nothing can't be caused for there's nothing to cause. — TheMadFool
So? Both the south pole and the color red don't have points south of them; the south pole because it's the southernmost point, the color red vacuously because it's nonsense to say something is south of it.Both the first cause and nothing are uncaused. — TheMadFool
No, they aren't identical. They're like the south pole and the color red here. I can make sense of the south pole having no points south of it. I can't make sense of the color red being south of the south pole; it's just nonsense.In terms of a prior cause, the first cause and anothing are identical — TheMadFool
Except there could be multiple first causes.Premise 1 can't be denied. — TheMadFool
I see a problem with it:Is this version of my argument more reasonable? — TheMadFool
"Nothing" is being reified here. Think of "south" as a prior on a globe. There are a lot of points on the globe, and they have points south of them, but there's a special place on the globe which has no points south of it: the South Pole. Yet that is itself a point. You are saying something silly, like there's a south to the South Pole that has no points on it. The way you phrase it is, nothing has no south to it. Either way, you're reifying. There's no such thing as a "nothing-place" that is south of the South Pole.2. Nothing has no cause — TheMadFool
...that would be a premise. The premise can be wrong; after all, you have a proof by contradiction and this is one of your premises.And, to top it all off the assumption was if it's something then it has a cause. — TheMadFool
...and that's just introducing a reification.To avoid this contradiction, a way out of this quagmire, is to say that the first cause = nothing (no infinite regress & no contradiction). — TheMadFool
What, this one?:Does it matter to my argument? — TheMadFool
No... that argument makes no sense anyway. It doesn't even allow for the uncaused possibility, much less the partially caused and uncaused. Furthermore, it kind of concludes the notion of a first cause it itself introduced (the one "only nothing" can be) does not make sense, making the entire argument a bit moot.1. The first cause has to be uncaused.
2. Only nothing has no cause.
Ergo,
3. The first cause is nothing.
4. Nothing can't cause anything
Ergo,
5. The notion of a first cause makes zero sense. — TheMadFool
A non sequitur is something that does not follow.Non sequitur! — TheMadFool
I have presented another possibility (partially caused, partially uncaused). It therefore does follow that you haven't exhausted all possibilities.Caused and uncaused exhausts all possibilities. — TheMadFool
Does it though?Caused and uncaused exhausts all possibilities. — TheMadFool
Hmmm...The premises of the OP are not logically necessary. — Philosophim
Hmmm...It is the conclusion that is logically necessary if the premises are true. — Philosophim
Nope.If we look at the conclusion of the OP, it fits logical necessity under your definition. — Philosophim
Not really.If I assume everything has a prior cause for its existence, I run into a contradiction. — Philosophim
The sequence S1={0.5, 0.25, 0.125, 0.0625, ...} is infinitely decreasing. But the entire sequence has a prior... 0. Also -1, -2, and so on. By contrast, the sequence S2={-1, -2, -3, -4, ...} is also infinitely decreasing. But this sequence has no prior. Both of these are logically possible. This might make your head asplode, but it's not something you can derive falsum from using logical operations.If infinite regress exists, what caused there to be infinite regressive causality in existence? — Philosophim
Actually, I can. Infinitely regressing sets can have priors; S1 does for example.You can't say, "Something else", because the question continues. — Philosophim
Also possible; see S2. Infinitely regressing sets can have no priors. In this case, your question is basically asking what's smaller than the smallest negative number, which is a question that has a problem since there is no such thing as the smallest negative number.It only ends with, "It must not have a prior cause for its existence." — Philosophim
BT isn't supposed to "contradict the conclusion". You're trying to argue that on every day, the ground is wet. BT is analogously a demonstration that maybe on some days the ground is dry. For your argument to hold, you basically have to show it can't possibly ever be dry. If I can see how it might possibly ever be dry, you haven't shown it can't possibly ever be dry.This is why I also keep saying BT does not contradict the conclusion. — Philosophim
Let's assume that the ground is dry one single day, maybe in the far future. Now let's run through your argument... did you rule out my assumption? Can your argument derive falsum from my assumption that one single day in the far future it's dry? If not, you haven't demonstrated this assumption is a contradiction. And if you haven't done that, you haven't shown your conclusion is logically necessary.What I'm saying is I don't see any evidence of it being something which has no prior explanation for its being. — Philosophim
Okay, then causes are not logically necessary.Yes, and a cause is an explanation for an effect. — Philosophim
I'm not quite sure I have to read it... it seems apparent to me.In the end, I think Bob Ross successfully countered the notion that the argument is logically necessary. I would read our discussion to see the results. — Philosophim
The question isn't about the number of alphas, it's about whether or not this particular thing is one.We don't know. Remember, I'm not claiming the existence of any one alpha. All I'm claiming is that it is necessary that there be at least one. — Philosophim
For the fourth time, you are (or at least were) claiming that it is logically necessary that there be at least one. That's vastly different than claiming that it is merely necessary. The former has a burden the latter lacks.All I'm claiming is that it is necessary that there be at least one. — Philosophim
But for re-emphasis, regarding the claim that it is logically necessary, BT demonstrates how it is logically possible that there cannot be any explanation for the results. If it's logically possible X is false, it cannot be logically necessary X is true.As I noted earlier, BT does not claim that there cannot be any explanation for its results. — Philosophim
You mean MWI? It's not just MWI being referred to; it's a local interpretation of MWI. But again for re-emphasis, your question is misguided. Local interpretations of MWI need not be proven to challenge logical necessity; it suffices that local interpretations of MWI are logically possible. If it is logically possible X is false, it cannot be logically necessary X is true. (Not that I understand how challenging local interpretations helps you).But is BT provable epistemically? — Philosophim
Why would you think that? I don't understand how you get from my asking you a question about whether a 217Bi atom (as a decay product of 217Pb) is or isn't an alpha to my confusing you as saying there's only one specific alpha. Apparently that's where you got the impression, but I cannot see how you drew that connection.So I think the confusion you have with the OP is you think its trying to posit a specific first cause. — Philosophim
That's not your stated premise. This is your stated premise:If my premises are all correct, I am meeting the burden of logical necessity. Either everything has a prior explanation, or there are things that do not have a prior explanation. — Philosophim
1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim
Sorry, you still don't get the question.If BT allows that there are things that have no prior explanation, then that is consistent with the OP, and its conclusions. — Philosophim
Excuse me? You just quoted me explaining why it doesn't. Incidentally, see also the edit.Yes it does. If you are not going to explain why it doesn't, — Philosophim
But you didn't understand it.I quoted a reference to Bell himself, because that is the theory you cited. — Philosophim
MWI admits a local explanation that does not violate BT; your source explains why. Note that I'm specifically invoking a local interpretation of MWI, and your source specifically has a section on that very thing.(Recall that in Section 6, in order to apply Bell's definition of locality to the type of experiment considered in Section 5, we assumed that the outcomes A1 and A2 were functions of the local beables in regions 1 and 2, respectively.)'
...
However, there exists one fairly popular interpretation of quantum theory that does deny that one has (after the experiments are concluded) a well-defined physically real ±1-valued outcome on each side: the many-worlds interpretation.
...
For the third time in a row, I'm reminding you that you are not meeting the burden of logical necessity. BT is logically consistent with the premise that there is no explanation.You are incorrect here. BT does not posit that there is no explanation. — Philosophim
No it doesn't.It replaces it with the idea of action at a distance, like gravity. — Philosophim
(Edited, after having enough time to quickly scan your source a bit more): There are local theories of MWI that do not violate BT. These theories would give up realism; they would e.g. in our card trick predict the probability as 1/4. Since there's at least one local theory consistent with BT, it cannot be said that BT replaces locality with action at a distance. It certainly doesn't in the BT-consistent local MWI, where no such replacement exists.Here are a few links to back my claims: — Philosophim
You still didn't answer the question I asked you.So again, BT is not claiming that cause and effect is destroyed — Philosophim
We've been over this Philosophim; it was in the previous post again. That's not what our interchanges are about. I'm asking you about your concept of cause and effect.But that doesn't negate cause and effect. — Philosophim
That's not the issue. The issue isn't whether BT is correct or not; the issue is what BT is. It is that your description of atomic decay conflated QM probability with classical probability games (you started to lecture me about what probability was about; remember?)I'm not here to argue whether BT is correct or not. — Philosophim
It's not meant to be, but buddy, we've just been over this. You are biting off of the apple of logical necessity. You don't seem to grasp what burden this demands of you. You're burden is "I'm necessarily not wrong", not "I'm not necessarily wrong". If I were trying to refute you, I need not demonstrate something correct; it suffices to simply demonstrate something is logically possible.Stating that hidden variables cannot exist as the cause of an effect is not a refutation of cause and effect. — Philosophim
Okay, but that still does not answer the question. Does the atomic decay in time span 2 as opposed to the lack of atomic decay in time span 1 have an explanation for its existence?A first cause has no prior explanation for its existence. If you posit that there are known entities that have no prior explanation for your existence, you're not countering the OP, you are affirming its logical necessity with its existence in reality. — Philosophim
That's kind of a narrative on Bell's Theorem. BT demonstrates that there can be no classical sufficient explanations of QM given certain "sane assumptions". Locality is simply a particular such sane assumption.First, Bell's Theorem does not violate causality. Bell's Theorem lent credence to a theory that the idea of locality did not apply to entangled electrons. — Philosophim
There's a prediction before the observation though. BT is based on the concept of Bell Inequalities, which are based on ordinary probability theory. Bell showed that QM makes predictions of probability that violate Bell Inequalities. That is the interesting thing here.The observation was that — Philosophim
Okay...First, Bell's Theorem does not violate causality. — Philosophim
...this is too restricted. Bell's Theorem is an argument against Hidden Variable Theories under certain assumptions (locality, realism, etc).Bell's Theorem lent credence to a theory that the idea of locality did not apply to entangled electrons. — Philosophim
I blatantly disagree. If you don't understand the math, you have no clue what I'm talking about. It's not that hard, so here it is again.We don't have to use any math to understand it. — Philosophim
Sure.There is an effect, and one cause was proposed. Assuming that locality was true, one proposal was to place an unknown variable within consideration. — Philosophim
But you do have to understand the problem; else you cannot comment on it.I'm no advanced physicist, but I don't have to understand the equation completely. — Philosophim
Okay, sure.I only have to understand one thing, this was an attempt to provide a cause for a consistent, and repeatable observed effect. — Philosophim
But you're arguing for logical necessity, so you cannot add assumptions. If therefore you are to propose something, to meet your burden, you must derive your proposition. So if you want to propose the underlined thing, you need to show it's logically necessary. Failing that, you failed to demonstrate your argument is logically necessary.So what causes the electrons to respond over large distances? The cause that is proposed is that it is a non-local influence. — Philosophim
Again, this is not meeting your burden. I can logically entertain local theories. Apply the same criteria as above.Action at a distance is not new in physics. Newton proposed that gravity violated locality as well. — Philosophim
No. You defaulted on your explanation. Specifically, I gave this example:Fair, I have no idea what I'm talking about then, and am not interested in getting further away from the OP at this point. To that end, do you have enough information now to understand how I view causality? — Philosophim
And I met this request:We have an atom that can, in a duration of time x, decay with 50% probability. Between times t0 and t1=t0+x, it did not decay. Between times t1 and t2=t1+x, it decayed. Let's call the time from t0 to t1 time span 1, and from t1 to t2 time span 2. Can we describe the cause of the decay in time span 2 as opposed to the lack of decay in time span 1? Can we say this cause in time span 2 is attributed to the properties contributing to 50% decay rate, and also that the cause of it not decaying in time span 1 is attributed to the properties contributing to 50% decay rate? — InPitzotl
...by giving you an example "card trick", which is a rephrasing of Bell's Theorem.If that did not explain what you were asking, please try to rephrase the question with a deck of cards example. — Philosophim
Quantum mechanics gives probabilistic predictions (such as, in the card trick example, that the probability of a match is 1/4) that cannot be accounted for with simple lack of information (classical probability theory mathematically constraints the probability to at least 1/3).Lets remember what odds are first however. Odds are a predictive model we use when we are limited in knowing particular information. — Philosophim
Because you keep asking about being an entity, but you're not accounting for the number here. But you keep saying that I haven't accounted for things.I don't understand why you are telling me that, as if it was a point against me. — Daemon
Because we can indeed tell by her behaviors. The subject talking to us is behaving as if her alien hand is a stranger. And you aren't diagnosing her alien hand by counting how many "experiences" there are. Her behavior is distinct from a normative case, but also distinct from someone who has half their body paralyzed after a stroke. There's still agency in there, just not integrated. Apparently you think that's a bad description; but it's kind of definitive of the condition.I don't understand why you are asking me that. — Daemon