Could you elaborate? — Shawn
What's posited here is that if two things are identical then they are necessarily identical. — Banno
It is not true that according to set theory all logically possible (consistent) collections exist. — TonesInDeepFreeze
For example, it is consistent with set theory that there is a set that has cardinality strictly between the cardinality of the naturals and the cardinality of the reals, but it is not a given that it is the consensus of set theorists and philosophers that such a set exists. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I imagine there's a lot less to do in a merely possible world, for one thing... — busycuttingcrap
And if something is logically possible, then we may also say that "there is a possible world" where that something is true or is the case. — busycuttingcrap
But what is outside of spacetime? Abstract objects like thoughts and numbers. — Art48
This does not address the question, wherein alternatives to choose among occur. — javra
For example, your intent is to learn about subject X; how does this intent of itself establish whether you choose a) to read a book about X or b) to see a documentary about X? — javra
Is he not his ingrained predispositions? — NOS4A2
What I’m suggesting is that there isn’t a strict logical dichotomy between “completely determined (hence no free will)” and “completely undetermined (hence no intentionality)”; that there logically can very well occur something in-between, a “partly determined and hence partly undetermined” state of being that (partly) defines us as agents; and that our free will - if real - would necessarily be of the latter state of affairs: e.g., always partly determined by intents (among other possible factors), but never completely determined. — javra
Its a variant of compatibilism, though I take it you're not much enamored with the prospect of compatibilism. — javra
Slipping, falling, colliding with the ground, and breaking one’s arm are not the “free acts” of the agent because those are the actions he is trying to avoid. — NOS4A2
Either way, be it something you’ve previously chosen for yourself of something ingrained that is beyond your choosing, it does not nullify the logical possibility of free will in the choices you do make at any given juncture. — javra
Nor would the occurrence of free will necessitate that causal determinacy does not take place in the world - it would only necessitate that the world is not one of (complete) causal determinism. — javra
No. Our actions would yet be "free" if we could choose otherwise in a selfsame situation - hence a situation wherein the same overarching intent (e.g., to increase one's own happiness) and the same alternative / conflicting wants (e.g., seeing a movie or reading a book) occur. — javra
In a sense, then, you chosen, determined, directed, regulated, willed your thought by having it. — NOS4A2
By choosing between alternative potential intentions - like the intent to read a book or the intent to see a movie. — javra
Then your mind seems oddly passive. I'm glad I'm not you, just watching your thoughts pop up, unable to decide between them. — Banno
. Intents are teleological processes, i.e. teloi, and not causal processes as the latter is understood in modernity via Hume's notion of causation and the notions of those who followed. — javra
But, as to the issue of determinacy, if we do hold free will then we are only partly determined by determinants (teloi and antecedent causes included) in the choices we make, and thereby remain partly free to choose what we see fit — javra
Nope. Free will pertains to living beings, in particular humans. — NOS4A2
litewave, It's far from clear what you response to the OP is. — Banno
Still, intents do not of themselves choose outcomes. We as agents so driven by our intents do. — javra
Thoughts don’t choose between thoughts. Agents - such as one’s own conscious being - choose between thoughts. — javra
. The slip itself is more of an act of physics, I suppose. — NOS4A2
Something I’ve been wondering about regarding the block universe is, does the block universe model depend on physicalism being true, or could it also work with ontologies such as monistic idealism? I’m hoping you could help me figure that one out. — Paul Michael
To rule out the possibility of free will one will have to show that thoughts, or any action for that matter, comes from somewhere or someone else. — NOS4A2
I have, however, edited what occurred to me. Was the editing an act of free will or was it the product of a fussy compulsion? — Bitter Crank
If this is correct, does this automatically rule out the possibility of free will? — Paul Michael
What does such a redundant modifer even mean? As compared to 'not really real' or 'unreally real'' :roll: — 180 Proof
But - as with a) the infinity of nothingness or b) the infinity of at least certain understandings of God (each being a different qualitative version of what would yet be definable as metaphysical infinity) - it is possible for certain humans to conceptualize its occurrence. — javra
Whereas metaphysical infinity would be infinite in length, in width, and in all other possible manners. — javra
Ontically occurring metaphysical infinity is devoid of any ontic identity for it has no boundaries via which such an ontic identity can be established. — javra
Ontic determinacy, or the condition of being ontically determined, specifies that which is determined to be limited or bounded in duration, extension, or some other respect(s) - this by some determining factor(s), i.e. by some determinant(s). — javra
Too theoretical and insubstantial. Please give examples. — Alkis Piskas
You claim to see collections existing as particulars all around you. Please explain to me how you think that you are seeing a collection as a particular when you haven't even said what a particular is. — Metaphysician Undercover
In reality, you have shown that you construct a representation of a particular, an object, from some preconceived universals, set theory, but then you've tried to claim that universals are derived from particulars. — Metaphysician Undercover
An "unordered set", a group of things which have no order, is really an incoherent fiction, an impossible situation, because things must have position. — Metaphysician Undercover