Perhaps you meant that it is meaningless in the sense that it is of no significance to us whether or not the Universe is deterministic, and I would agree with that. — Janus

Yes. This is exactly what I mean. As I noted in my response to @wonderer1, above:

It's a simple pragmatic judgment. If a claim has no meaningful consequences in the real world, it is 1) metaphysics or 2) meaningless. As a metaphysical position, I don't see it as useful either ontologically or morally. Ontologically, I think it's misleading because it underpins the idea of causation, which I think leads people to look in the wrong places for the genesis of phenomena. Morally, I think it's misleading because it is used to justify a willingness not to hold people responsible for their actions. — T Clark

I'd be interested in hearing more about what you see as misleading. — wonderer1

It's a simple pragmatic judgment. If a claim has no meaningful consequences in the real world, it is 1) metaphysics or 2) meaningless. As a metaphysical position, I don't see it as useful either ontologically or morally. Ontologically, I think it's misleading because it underpins the idea of causation, which I think leads people to look in the wrong places for the genesis of phenomena. Morally, I think it's misleading because it is used to justify a willingness not to hold people responsible for their actions.

I don't see the idea of causation as misleading. — wonderer1

We've had a few threads here on the forum where I've made the case that the idea of causality is unnecessary and misleading. Admittedly, most people have found my arguments unconvincing.

I would think a better objection might be that, in light of the predictive issues, a hypothesis of determinism might not be falsifiable. Does that maybe get more at your objection? — wonderer1

Left out my response to this.

I intended my objection to be stronger than what you've written. 1) Except for in the simplest situations, events are not predictable even in theory 2) Therefore the idea of determinism is not unfalsifiable, it's meaningless.

I suspect that what people typically mean these days when saying the accept determinism is that they accept it as a corollary of accepting physical causal closure. So I don't see it as a meaningless idea inasmuch as it conveys such a perspective at the very least. — wonderer1

To take a step back, I see the whole issue of determinism as a metaphysical one, not subject to empirical verification or falsification. It's a matter of point of view, not fact. I don't see it as a very useful way of thinking - it's misleading.

For that matter, I think the idea of causation can be misleading except in the simplest cases.

This is usually explained by pointing to psychological adaptation, which involves changes in tool use, agricultural and hunting practices, animal husbandry, etc.

If consciousness is strictly a bodily function, we'd have to explain how it is that the body doesn't adapt, but the mind does. — frank

It's not a psychological adaptation, it's a technological one. When it's cold I put on a jacket. When it's hot I sit around in my lounge chair naked. Here's a picture:

Determinism, in its most general formulation, does not commit to computability. This, I think, is similar to the point made by ↪T Clark — SophistiCat

Yes. And my claim is that the idea of determinism is meaningless if prediction is not possible, even in theory.

Err, I don't understand what you're responding to, but there is no functional difference between those things. — Judaka

I guess I've misunderstood. You seem to be against formal morality - you say it's coercive and unrealistic. As I noted, that kind of morality is just one manifestation of social control, what you call the social contract, about which you said:

I don't condemn society's ability to apply social standards to me, they are usually practical and beneficial for everyone. and I generally support these rules. — Judaka

@180 Proof

Are you familiar with Dao De Jing: A Philosophical Translation by Roger Ames & David Hall? If so, what do you think of it? I've found it a much more insightful reading (between the lines) than any other version of Laozi's text. I've been meaning to reread it for quite some time ...
— 180 Proof

Thanks for the reference. I hadn't heard of it. Went on Amazon. Bought it in Kindle. — T Clark

I've used this version of the Tao Te Ching some since you recommended it, but just the translated verses, which I've enjoyed, not the essays included. I just read the "Philosophical Introduction." It's so odd to read the Tao Te Ching interpreted in terms of western philosophy. I think I learned more about western philosophy than I did about Taoism. That's not a bad thing. Thanks again.

I agree morality is often overapplied. A completely amoral society would still have the social contract, it would still have laws, there would still be manners, things that were culturally unacceptable, expectations on your behaviour and so on.

I don't condemn society's ability to apply social standards to me, they are usually practical and beneficial for everyone. and I generally support these rules. — Judaka

I don't see a functional difference between a social standard that says I shouldn't throw garbage in my neighbor's yard and one that says I shouldn't engage in consensual homosexual acts in private. That doesn't mean I don't realize one is reasonable and one is not.

Do I really believe that? Let me think about it.

Additionally, a similar thread has been posted on this forum, I will include it here in case the reader would like to refer to it: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6478/determinism-vs-predictability/p1 — NotAristotle

Thank you for resurrecting this old thread. One of my favorites. My position on the subject hasn't changed from that original discussion. As I noted:

It feels intuitively to me that in some, many, most? cases unraveling cause is not possible even in theory. It's not just a case of being ignorant. Part of that feeling is a conviction that sufficiently complex systems, even those that are theoretically "caused," could not be unraveled with the fastest supercomputer operating for the life of the universe. There is a point, isn't there, where "completely outside the scope of human possibility" turns into "not possible even in theory." Seems to me there is. — T Clark

If something is completely unpredictable, does it still make sense to say it is caused. Isn't cause inextricably tied up with prediction? It may be possible to model and predict a coin flip or build a machine that can flip a coin with near perfect uniformity, but how about 1,000 flips using 1,000 random coins flipped by 1,000 random people? — T Clark

My conclusion - most events in the world are completely unpredictable by the standards discussed above. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to consider the world deterministic.

If determinism were true, the printout should accurately predict Ned’s actions; however, because it could potentially not predict accurately, determinism must be false. — NotAristotle

I don't think your thought experiment proves anything. Just because you failed to predict something doesn't mean it can't be predicted. A predicting device that didn't take into account the effects of it's prediction on the future would be a pretty crappy device.

It's very difficult to talk about morality without a group as a context because the group's motivations and values are critical. For example, what's fair and reasonable within the context of a competitive soccer team will be different from a casual kids' soccer team. Whereas the competitive team might think it's fair to let the best players have the most field time and ball possession because of everyone's desire to win, it might seem fair to allow all the kids an equal chance to play in the casual kids' team. — Judaka

I think there are two moralities—there are the standards I apply to myself, and those that groups apply to themselves and others. I think only the first of these deals with what is good and bad, right and wrong. The other deals with social control—standardizing behavior to make society run smoothly. Perhaps we should add a third type—laws and other formal standards of behavior. No, let's not.

I know right from wrong in a very personal way. It's easy to boil down—Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Actually, it's more than that. We are human. We are social. We (generally) like each other. When I am in a social situation, I usually know what is the right thing to do, not because of some rule, but because it is built into me by human nature backed up by learning. Behavior that shows respect and concern for other people is good. Behavior that doesn't is bad. I don't need anyone to tell me that. As I noted, these standards apply to myself, not to others.

I think the other kind of morality is the primary subject of this thread. The rules, formal or informal, of social control can be fair or unfair, kind or unkind, reasonable or unreasonable, useful or not useful, effective or ineffective. They are not really moral, although they are often dressed up in moral costumes, which can give them social and personal impact. There are always going to be standards of behavior, I guess the only issue is whether or not you agree with them. For me, the most important quality a good rule should have is fairness—it should apply to everyone equally.

I think moral conflict comes into play when one of the second, social kind of "moral" standards clashes with one of the first kind. My general attitude is to follow social rules unless there is a good reason not too. Often, I don't follow them because they are inconvenient, but that's because I am imperfect.

Do you condemn societies ability to apply social standards to you? I don't think there's anything you can do about it. It's human nature. It's sociology, anthropology.

@Jamal—I usually use hyphens for dashes but in this post—in your honor—I've used em dashes. What a pain in the ass they are.

Me too. Sadly you are still here :D — I like sushi

:chin: ….option 2. — DingoJones

Good choice.

What have you done with the real T Clark? — DingoJones

Two answers. Pick one.

Answer 1 - He is on vacation on Cape Cod, where the internet has not been installed yet. I'm just filling in.

Answer 2 - Buzz off fuzz nuts.

Banned Andrew4Handel — fdrake

Always sad to see an old-timer go.

No criticism of moderators intended.

Or if I buy a poster. The poster in itself doesn't bring value. The value comes from the idea of having a connection with the poster, that you are part of the culture it tries to depict. And the collection of these commercial objects creates the essence you present to the world as your delegation. — Levon Nurijanyan

What you are describing isn't true of me. I own a lot of things, most of which are useful or at least meant for use. Clothing, a house, a car, appliances, a computer, and on and on. I don't have strong feelings for most of these. There are a few things I really love generally because they are beautiful or have personal meaning - a rug, silverware, the orange pepper grinder my son gave me for Christmas.

I don't think I am so different from other people.

The Philosophy Forum is not a welcoming place or serious discussions of God. Really, only one question is allowable - yes or no. And only one answer is ultimately acceptable - no. If you try to take it farther than that, you will be met first by smug disrespect, followed by deleted posts and threads and finally, if you won't submit, by banning.

I wish it were not so.

Sadness is just sadness. Boredom is something else. We're not meant to get bored. It's a signal of something else going on. Something hidden. It's ok to just be sad, but with boredom you should pay attention.

Sadness is healthier, but boredom is more interesting.

However, physics is not suitable for describing living systems. — Wolfgang

Of course it is, although it's not enough by itself. As @apokrisis notes, the "other organizational principles than inanimate nature" you refer to have to do with the interactions of constraints from above and below. Life has to work thermodynamically or it doesn't work at all. Every discussion of abiogenesis I've read gets down to thermodynamics eventually.

[deleted]

I am referring to all law in my theoretical critique of law per se. — quintillus

Most law is not about motivation at all. It is about how things are to be done or who's going to pay for it, not whether or not they are done at all.

Not doing something is what is known as a negative act. — quintillus

As I noted, it may be true that law is not effective in motivating positive acts, that doesn't mean it can't be effective in motivating negative acts, i.e. preventing people from doing prohibited acts.

My proffer is that we first render everyone reflectively free. — quintillus

By which you mean:

...being in possession of reflective understanding of his or her existential ontological freedom... — quintillus

Easier said than done. Much, much, much easier said than done. Very easy to say. Perhaps impossible to do in groups larger than five people. It is not an achievable method of governance in our society.

[deleted]

Law is an existing written factual theoretical construct which, because it is a given state of affairs, cannot possibly be determinative of the acts of human beings, who act solely on the basis of not yet achieved absences. — quintillus

Some thoughts 1) You seem to be talking about criminal law, which is only a small part of the law. For better or worse, a capitalist society needs laws to regulate commerce, finance, and especially property ownership. 2) Criminal law is not primarily intended to get people to do things, it's to get them not to do things. Although I agree law is not generally effective in promoting motivated action, it often works to prevent unwanted actions, e.g. I don't always drive the speed limit, but I do drive more slowly than I would if there were none. 3) Criminal law is not only intended to act as a deterrent, it is also meant to figure out how to deal with the consequences of illegal acts, e.g. restricting future actions of people who violate the laws.

Definitely will try it again sometime in the future, but, I wasn't really feeling it at the moment, especially towards the last 100 or so pages of my reading. — Manuel

As you've seen here, you aren't the only one who had to come back later. My suggestion - get a good running start and read as fast as you can. Whenever you think of stopping, just say la, la, la over again with your fingers in your ears.

Or, like me, wait till you retire to finish reading it.

It is impossible that 100% of the time when a UFO crashes, the government gets to the scene first and cleans it perfectly outside the presence of any witness or video. — Hanover

Also, no one has mentioned how crappy the alien pilots must be to keep crashing all the time. I can only think of two possible reasons 1)After you get three DUIs on Koozebane, they sentence you to Earth 2) Earth is where all the college kids on Venus go for spring break.

Oh it's a disaster for panpsychism! — bert1

In a previous answer to one of my posts you wrote:

Not being a panpsychist, looking for consciousness in inanimate objects is not something I would normally do, but since you brought it up... It seems clear to me the idea of consciousness originated to refer to a human mental process.
— T Clark

Maybe, but even that sentence is theory-laden. It's stipulating it's a process. And I'm doubtful that earliest thinkers about consciousness did necessarily restrict it to human beings. If we're going to start somewhere, I suspect it's not processes in human beings - that's a way down the road. The starting point is my awareness. — bert1

As I replied to that comment, I think you were right. The only way you can sell panpsychism is to look at it from the starting point of your awareness. Reading your responses to other people's comments in subsequent posts, it seems like you haven't followed up on that insight. The comments you are responding to are "theory-laden," but you haven't really tried to sell the self-awareness aspect. Or did I miss something?

I'd like to hear you try to make a chain of inferences from your personal self-awareness to awareness in rocks.

As an afterthought - As I see it, panpsychism is a metaphysical concept. There is no way it can be tested empirically. It's more a way of thinking about things, a point of view, than it is a statement of fact. So... why would I do that? What value or insight do I get from thinking of consciousness the way you propose? This is a serious question, no irony intended.

T Clark emoji. :roll: — Noble Dust

Maybe, but even that sentence is theory-laden. It's stipulating it's a process. — bert1

True.

If we're going to start somewhere, I suspect it's not processes in human beings - that's a way down the road. The starting point is my awareness. — bert1

That makes sense. Now I guess you're going to show us how what we experience as awareness can be observed in rocks.

As a panpsychist I have been asked a few times for evidence of consciousness in rocks and other such objects. — bert1

Not being a panpsychist, looking for consciousness in inanimate objects is not something I would normally do, but since you brought it up... It seems clear to me the idea of consciousness originated to refer to a human mental process. There have been lots of attempts to observe similar mental processes in other animals, with some success. What success there has been has come from comparing animals behavior with human behavior and inferring similar mental processes. How would that work with non-living entities? I don't know. It seems to me your job would be to show how what we recognize as consciousness in humans is also observable in rocks.

I think that's what's required - start by defining consciousness in humans and then show how that criteria is applicable elsewhere. To make that work, seems to me you have to either 1) show that rocks have mental processes or 2) show that consciousness in humans is not a mental process at all. If you can't do that, you should just come up with a different name for the process you're describing.

*Thumbs up pic* — Noble Dust

I think I like your riff on my thumbs up tclemoji better than the tclemoji itself.

If anything I think the concept is actually kind of pretentious. — Noble Dust

I didn't think it was pretentious, but it was definitely a one joke routine. Perhaps a short story.

I enjoyed The City and the City so much that I feel I owe it to myself to give him at least one more shot after failing with Last Days Of New Paris. — Noble Dust

Yeah. I just gave up on "Last Days of New Paris." It had that Mieville tornado of words and I could tell it was well put together, but it just didn't draw me in. It was a neat idea - a battle between the Nazis and the surrealists in Paris. I think it would have been fun if I were more knowledgeable about surrealist artists.

Perhaps I will go back to it another day.

"X state of affairs could have happened in the future, but it did not take place" — schopenhauer1

I flip a coin and it comes up tails. If I said "It could have been heads," that would be a true statement. Is that what you mean?

how can you tell which one is more probable? — Skalidris

As I understand it, the big bang theory with inflation is the current consensus cosmological theory. I'm sure that will change over time as we learn more, but the current theory is plausible.

My point is, I genuinely don't understand why humans even try to answer these questions. Especially since they made the hypothesis that the universe is infinite, which makes our knowledge look ridiculous, so why try to speculate about the origin of everything? — Skalidris

It has not been established whether the universe if finite or infinite. Even if it is infinite, that doesn't mean we can't understand it, or at least the part of it we have access to.

Unlimited is still wrong, probabilistically. If you compare human's imagination with the power of creating combinations of elements, if the number of elements is finite, the number of combinations is as well, it is limited by the size of the sample. At least at a given time. You could say that it's unlimited because that sample of elements is constantly growing but it's different from my proposition. — Skalidris

I don't understand what you're trying to say. It seems like you're saying that humans are capable of understanding all the possible combinations of matter and energy, but I thought you said previously that is not possible.

If you assume they are with no evidence, it invalidates the analysis.
— T Clark

I didn't understand that. — Skalidris

You have claimed but not shown that all the possible configurations of the universe are equally likely. If they are not equally likely, analyzing their probability by the method you are using will not work.

I might not have detailed my justification enough for you to be able to make anything of it, but that's personal, the probability that someone can extract useful information out of my 400 word intro is much greater than extracting info from the sentence "I disagree" :p — Skalidris

There is no information in your original post, only unsubstantiated claims. You are guilty of the same intellectual crime you've accused me of. But I'm innocent. As I noted, I don't have to provide justifications for disagreeing with your unjustified claims. I don't have to show they're false, you have to show they're true.

We do currently have a plausible hypothesis.
— T Clark

Really? What would that be? — Skalidris

The currently accepted cosmology - big bang, inflation. It's plausible but incomplete.

We can certainly generate an infinite number of propositions about anything. That is one of the fundamental features of the kind of language we use.
— T Clark

...I'm not sure what your premises are for such assumptions. — Skalidris

Infinite wasn't right. The right word is "unlimited." Humans languages can generate an unlimited number of propositions.

It's clear that the possible combinations are not random.
— T Clark

I never said they were, I said if they were, it wouldn't change their accuracy. — Skalidris

The only way that a calculation of probability can be meaningful is if all the possible configurations of the system are equally probable. If you assume they are with no evidence, it invalidates the analysis.

you dismiss my theory based on an intuition you cannot explain. So you admit there is no explicit logic in your opinion (which is that you disagree with mine), but yet claim my answer lacks logic, — Skalidris

I'm not required to provide reasons for my disagreement with you if you didn't provide justifications for your statements in the first place.

My response to you didn't use logic. All I did was disagree with your assumptions.

no need to pull out AI! :) — Philosophim

I didn't see that as a comment on @Skalidris. I was just curious about how Chat GPT would handle a long post in logic format. All in all, it was less harsh than my own post.

Does it ever ask clarifying questions? — wonderer1

Not in my experience, but you can.

Keep in mind, in situations where it is possible to be wrong, current versions very often are.

Here's what Chat GPT says:

Your proposed logical proof presents several assumptions and arguments. Let's evaluate them step by step:

God is a being, comparable to the current notion of "life" we have, that is responsible for the creation of the universe.
This premise assumes the existence of a god-like being responsible for the creation of the universe. It is a theological assertion that may or may not be accepted depending on individual beliefs.

We're calculating the probability of god's existence based on the current knowledge.
This premise suggests that the probability of God's existence can be calculated based on our current knowledge. However, determining the probability of the existence of a metaphysical entity like God is highly subjective and not something that can be objectively measured or calculated.

It's impossible for humans to generate an infinite amount of theories based on a finite set of knowledge.
This premise is generally accepted. Humans have finite cognitive capacities, and our ability to generate theories and ideas is limited by our knowledge and creativity.

The finite set of knowledge includes all elements we've "observed", "witnessed".
This premise assumes that our finite set of knowledge includes all observed and witnessed elements. However, it is important to note that our knowledge is constantly expanding, and there may be elements or phenomena that we have not yet observed or discovered.

Life represents specific combinations of these elements. The number of "life combinations" is small compared to all the combinations of elements there are.
This premise suggests that the number of combinations resulting in life is small compared to the total number of possible combinations. While it is true that life, as we know it, is composed of specific combinations of elements, it is difficult to quantify the exact proportion of life combinations compared to all possible combinations without further evidence or assumptions.

We don't have enough knowledge to make a plausible hypothesis of the creation of the universe that would explain all that we know now.
This premise acknowledges our current lack of complete knowledge about the creation of the universe. It suggests that we don't have enough information to formulate a comprehensive and plausible hypothesis about the origin of the universe.

The only way to make a hypothesis about the creation of the universe is to invent structures, new combinations of elements. This leads to an incredibly high number of hypotheses possible.
This premise proposes that in the absence of complete knowledge, we are left to invent new structures and combinations of elements to form hypotheses about the creation of the universe. It implies that the number of possible hypotheses is vast.

We have no criteria for assessing whether an hypothesis is more plausible than another one. (since 6): none of them make sense anyway).
This premise suggests that due to the lack of complete knowledge and the inability to formulate a plausible hypothesis, we have no criteria for assessing the plausibility of different hypotheses. It assumes that none of the hypotheses make sense, but this is a subjective evaluation based on the limited information available.

If the combinations we create to form the hypothesis are random, their accuracy isn't affected since we can't estimate it. Therefore they will be considered random for the calculation of the probability.
This premise suggests that if the combinations used to form hypotheses are random, their accuracy cannot be estimated, and thus they are considered random for the calculation of probability. However, randomness does not necessarily imply equal probability for all outcomes, and the assumption that the hypotheses are random may not hold in reality.

Overall, your logical proof relies on a series of assumptions, subjective evaluations, and probabilities that are difficult to quantify. It is important to consider that the existence of God is a deeply philosophical and theological question that goes beyond the realm of empirical proofs and logical deductions. The probability of God's existence is a matter of personal belief and interpretation, rather than something that can be definitively proven or disproven — Chat GPT

Your original post and this thread have nothing to do with God and nothing to do with probability. You're just playing around with pseudo-logic. You could as easily prove that @Jamal, the forum's fearless leader, doesn't exist as whatever it is you claim to demonstrate. Ok...

1) God is a being, comparable to the current notion of “life” we have, that is responsible for the creation of the universe. — Skalidris

I don't know what this means. I suspect it doesn't mean anything.

3) It’s impossible for humans to generate an infinite amount of theories based on a finite set of knowledge. — Skalidris

I don't see any reason to believe this is true. We can certainly generate an infinite number of propositions about anything. That is one of the fundamental features of the kind of language we use.

4) The finite set of knowledge includes all elements we’ve “observed”, “witnessed”. — Skalidris

I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean that we only know the substances we've observed or witnessed? That's clearly not true. Or do you mean that we do positively know the substances we have witnessed or observed. That's not true either.

5) Life represents specific combinations of these elements. The number of “life combinations” is small compared to all the combinations of elements there are. — Skalidris

I suspect this is not true, at least in a certain sense. I think it's likely that a certain types of substance are very likely in a way that can be understood.

6) We don’t have enough knowledge to make a plausible hypothesis of the creation of the universe that would explain all that we know now. — Skalidris

We do currently have a plausible hypothesis.

7) The only way to make hypothesis about the creation of the universe is to invent structures, new combinations of elements. — Skalidris

I believe this is not true.

8) We have no criteria for assessing whether an hypothesis is more plausible than another one. (since 6): none of them make sense anyway). — Skalidris

This is clearly not true.

If the combinations we create to form the hypothesis are random, — Skalidris

It's clear that the possible combinations are not random.

Probability of god’s existence = hypothesis including a god/all hypothesis possible. — Skalidris

This is only true if the probabilities of all hypotheses are equal, which is clearly not the case.

Probability of god’s existence = hypothesis including a god/all hypothesis possible.
As said in 5), the hypothesis implying a life form are only a small proportion of all the combinations (hypothesis) possible. And since 8): we cannot tell which hypothesis are more plausible, we can’t state those containing the “life like forms” weight more.
=> Small number/huge number leads to a probability close to zero.

And it gets even more interesting as you start thinking about:

1) The part of the “universe” we know of is extremely small
2) Our imagination is limited to the elements we’ve “observed” (and by elements, I mean everything: dimensions, shapes, time,...).

=> The probability that the “true” theory can be made by our imagination, and therefore from knowledge from 1): that tiny part of the universe, is even more ridiculously small.

All together, ridiculously small x ridiculously small = too small to be even thought about. — Skalidris

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but I am sure it's wrong.

As I noted, this is not logic. It's not philosophy at all. I'm going to run this through Chat GPT and see what it says.

The transition from unconscious algorithmic to conscious thinking — Ypan1944

I think this is an oversimplification. Your "algorithmic" action we would probably call either instinct or habit, depending on whether it is inborn or learned. Those types of behaviors are often both. Example instinct - border collies have an instinct to herd. They'll herd children if you don't give them sheep. Example habit - it is common to drive our cars without paying conscious attention.

There is another level of action before what we normally call consciousness. People can act without reflection but with full intellectual and emotional involvement. I'm doing that right now. I don't think about what I am writing, it comes out from somewhere inside me. Writers sometimes say the words write themselves. That's certainly true of me. I don't know what I'm going to write till I can read it on the page. And then comes what is more commonly called consciousness - rational reflection, logic, reason. That's the kind of thinking I do when I go back and reread and edit what I've written.