In other words there is nothing necessary in the universe necessarily because necessity is meaningless. Is that an accurate summary or am I missing something crucial? Also if you replace the word necessary with the word probability it doesn’t seem like a radical transformation. To use your example if you don’t eat you will die could also be replaced with the statement if you don’t eat you will probably die and the meaning is still basically similar.

I don't think anything about the universe is necessary. Necessity is just a condition. There is nothing necessary about life on planet earth. Just a chain of events. — Jackson

Your replies sometimes remind me of riddles. Admittedly I'm a bit confused. I won't pursue this dialogue any further if you're only going to respond with vague, ambiguous, or nebulous responses. Perhaps it's my fault though and if so I apologize. I just don't understand what you mean when you say that "Necessity is just a condition" and since necessity is so closely connected to what is necessary it follows necessarily that I can't understand what you mean when you say that "There is nothing necessary about life on earth".

Do you mean like necessary and sufficient conditions? I'm not asking for an exhaustive list but I would like to know what would be sufficient to make something necessary.

Would that mean also that something is necessary if there is an available reason for it's existence?

It did not always exist. Why did it not come into existence before or after it did? — Jackson

I fail to see the relevance of it’s nonexistence or of the timing that is associated with it’s development. Maybe you’re suggesting that there is no reason why it came into existence when and where it did. Maybe this is what you mean by random. In other words something is random if there is no available reason that explains it’s existence.

our galaxy was not inevitable. — Jackson

How can you make this assertion with such confidence?

There was nothing inevitable about our galaxy being formed, much less life on our planet. — Jackson

I was under the impression that inevitable just meant very likely to happen, or a tendency. How can we calculate the probability of a galaxy forming or of life developing and thus determine how likely these outcomes were. If there is no way of calculating these kinds of probabilities then there is no way of knowing whether or not these things were inevitable.

I'm not sure that I follow. Can you give me an example or elaborate a little more?

Interesting. it seems like there is some overlap with the notion of knowledge and ignorance or certainty and uncertainty. in other words the inevitable would be the predictable and the random would be the unpredictable. Is this a fair assessment of your ideas or am I failing to do them justice?

Some people think that life is the illness and death is the cure. But I want to ask you do you believe that every death is random? That would be consistent with the idea that everything is random. If everything we do and everything that happens to us or around us is random then it’s hard to recognize what the utility of randomness as a notion could possibly be. Maybe you mean something like what you said about inevitability. You said it represents a probability or a tendency. Would randomness just be the other side of that coin and therefore mean something like improbable?

in the future death may be overcome. — Jackson

That certainly would be wonderful.

Death is inevitable. So, I suppose I would agree with that. — Jackson

Would you also agree that inevitable and necessary are synonymous? I only ask because if that is the case then your view that everything is random and that nothing is necessary would seem difficult to defend.

That is my view. I think it the view of quantum mechanics. — Jackson

It seems like you use the word necessary as a synonym for ubiquitous. That strikes me as problematic because it does appear to be a radical departure from traditional usage. Either way I have one more question. Is there anything in the universe that is inevitable? Inevitability and necessity seem like siblings or even identical twins.

I don’t think that there is anything in the universe that is everywhere in the universe. If I’m correct wouldn’t that mean that everything is random and also that nothing is necessary?

By random I mean the absence of necessity. So the first state of the Big Bang is there, but we see no necessity for it being so. Nor is life necessary since it exists no where else in the universe. — Jackson

I’m not sure I follow but I’ll try to ask some probing questions that might enable me to discern your meaning. Wouldn’t it still be possible for life to be necessary but just under very unique and specific conditions? I’ve heard that the notion of necessity is almost as ancient as philosophy itself. It supposedly stretches back all the way to the pre-Socratics but I’ve never been able to completely understand it. The only thing I can claim to have some grasp on is the idea that a notion is necessarily false but that might be completely irrelevant and unrelated to the idea of necessity in science.

I brought it up — Jackson

I’ll assume that means you’re on board with some more discussion. My first question would be what constitutes randomness? What would need to be true or what would be necessary for something to be considered random?

Fair enough. I’d like to discuss the notion of randomness but if you’re not interested I completely understand.

Correct me if I’m wrong but determinism doesn’t show that either are true. Both are possible but in reality neither are true unless you actually replicate the scenario in real life. Also couldn’t both of these hypothetical outcomes be consistent with the theory of self determination?

Maybe I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed but I fail to see how either scenario supports determinism. I’m not trying to be difficult either. They just seem like possible outcomes to me. If what you mean is that both cases fit into a deterministic model of the universe then I agree.

Look at the other side. Everything is determined. What does it explain? Nothing really. Everyone's lives from birth to death are completely determined. — Jackson

Would you argue that the theory of self determination or free will somehow explains something?

Thank you for replying but I must confess I still don’t understand what you mean by proof. First of all I’m not a physicist so I can’t defend Newtonian mechanics. I don’t know what you mean by methodological consistency. I would ask for an example of something you consider to be proven and the proof used to demonstrate it’s truth but I don’t want to push my luck in this exchange because you’ve been very polite in my opinion.

I don’t know what you would consider a proof. I’m happy to try to provide one but it would help me if I knew what criterion you use to determine what you will accept as a proof.

Before I reply I just want to remind you about the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. Of course I don’t want either one of us to fall into the fallacy fallacy either. It occurs when we presume that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

Now onto the reply. Someone who defended deterministic fatalism might argue that something like genetics, neurological factors such as dopamine, cultural or psychological considerations, and or any of the things that influence these elements of behavior could account for your actions.

I decided to change my shirt. Therefore I have free will. — Jackson

If you mean that you had the ability to change your shirt then I understand what you mean by free will. I don’t think that the desire to do something and the coincidence of favorable circumstances that allow you to perform that particular action also being present is what we typically are referring to when we mention free will. Just because you are free to do something doesn’t mean that your life isn’t the product of forces that shape and mold your behavior in ways that you have no ability to oppose.

The evidence seems everywhere — Xtrix

What evidence are you referring to?

I think we can choose to create a government we want — Xtrix

I don't think that fatalism or determinism exclude the possibility of obtaining what we desire in certain situation. Instead it might argue that our desires are created by certain conditions instead of being purely the product of our particular wills. Also even if we can create governments that we desire it might still be the case that the universe provides us with the opportunity to do so. In other words favorable circumstances make it possible to do what we want and likewise unfavorable circumstances might make it impossible. This would mean that our particular wills are only part of the picture but fortunate and unfortunate events have some influence as well.

governments are created by people, and history is written by people. — Xtrix

I agree but the question I'm interested in answering is a bit different. I'm wondering whether or not we can make and unmake governments whenever we see fit. I'm asking can we make any form of government we desire whenever we desire or if our desires are somewhat irrelevant?

None of this is inevitable. — Xtrix

What reasoning lead you to this conclusion?

You seem contradictory — Angelo Cannata

I apologize If I come across as peddling contradictions. I can assure you that is not my intention. To be honest I didn't really understand your arguments. I did make an effort to read and reread your writing.

Would you mind defining freedom? Do you view it as synonymous with freewill? I Think of freedom as the absence of bondage.

I think the best way is to act as if freedom exists. — Angelo Cannata

Freedom clearly exists because slaves have escaped their bondage. The question I am interested in answering is not whether or not freedom exists but whether or not the conditions that give rise to liberty or slavery are in some way out of our control. Should mankind be praised for it's virtues and also at the same time receive condemnation for our vices? Should our vices and our virtues receive the credit and blame for our successes and failures or should we attribute these things to something like causality? Is life what we make it or are we the products of our experiences and therefore shaped and molded by life?

Thank you for sharing your insight on the subject. I clearly have a lot to learn about Hegel and Marx. Hopefully one day I will be able to discuss the subject with some degree of competence.

It's been a while since I've read the manifesto but chapter 1 seems more like a demonstration of historical materialism. Maybe it would help if you referred me to a specific section of the chapter.

Thank you for your advice! I've read the manifesto.

lol

I'm barely a philosopher!

I'm not a Socratic

lol

The argument you presented in unsound. — Tobias

The sentence you presented is nonsensical.

I definitely don't view myself as some sort of Socrates.

I am sorry but I wish you would do the mental jogging yourself. I am not a free philosophy teacher. Read up on it and try to understand what I write if you feel like it of course. I think you are just trolling actually. — Tobias

I can assure you that I'm not interested in trolling. It's interesting that you selected the figurative or metaphorical imagery of jogging because some people are crippled in the real world and not everyone is capable of the same cognitive feats. I wish I knew what mental gymnastics lead you to conclude that I was seeking a free philosophy teacher because I doubt that you have anything to teach me.