Ultimately a path was walked, knowable or not, and that path was walked only once and was therefore determined. — MikeL

How do we know that though?

But yet path there was and it was only the single path.
— MikeL

So we do assume. — Janus

Even if we invoke a Multiple Worlds interpretation of paths. For each timeline, a single path was walked and can therefore be said to be determined.

Of course, according to our understanding a single path was traversed, but does that have any meaning beyond the context of our understanding? In a way this would seem to be a version of naïve realism.

I don't see how it could be naive realism. We agree that a single path was walked. Looking back, that path took a very specific route, whether we know what it was or not. Therefore the path was determined. I could not happen any other way for the timeline we are on.

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the path "took a very specific route" how does it follow from that that it must have been determined in an ontological as opposed to a merely epistemological sense?

That fact that it exists is proof of its determination. It was formed through choices, sure, but is was formed one specific way and the timeline has recorded that.

Can we agree that the past is determined?

The past is determined insofar as we tell our stories that determine it to be like this, and not that. I don't believe there is any timeline apart form our linear (and thus reductive) understanding of time.

I don't see how it could be naive realism. — MikeL

In just the same way as we naively imagine there must be objects independent of our experience, and yet just as we experience them; so it is with the idea that "a path was walked" independent of our experience and understanding. This cannot be anything more than a groundless assumption.

In just the same way as we naively imagine there must be objects independent of our experience, and yet just as we experience them; so it is with the idea that "a path was walked" independent of our experience and understanding. This cannot be anything more than a groundless assumption. — Janus

I quite enjoy your outlook Janus. Let's see though, would it be fair to extrapolate from what you've said that time does not exist in the linear sense? If it did we could track through it, creating a path.

Well anyone can call supernatural natural. — Rich

I disagree. I think the language sharply differentiates with different words between different concepts. If "natural" can be called "supernatural", as you suggest, then sonic could be called supersonic, imposed could be called superimposed, and so on. But these things are definitely different from each other. So is "natural" from "supernatural".

It is unnatural to call natural supernatural.

I'm enjoying this conversation too, Mike. To answer your question, I would say that time as succession (presuming that is what you mean by "linear time") unquestionably exists for us. Events occurring, some earlier and some later, is what makes our world as experienced intelligible at all.

So, the idea is that it is not a matter of us over here, observing the world over there, but of us being immersed in the dynamic temporal collaboration that is being-in-the-world. There is no world beyond that human being-in-the-world, I would say, following Heidegger.

I like the idea that we are a small cloud putting through a fog of unknown or dissipating past and future, but I can still insist on determinism even in that scenario, so I have to ask how you would define determinism.

But you can say anything you want. — Rich

It's a bit of a puzzle to me how you can ''say anything you want''. This hasn't been the case in my life and, I suppose, this is true for all people. There has to be good reasons for opening one's mouth or putting pen on paper.

What is this philosophy in which ''you can say anything you want''?

I can skip to the end of time and look at all the choices you made and the path you took. It's just you can't see it yet. Time is a curtain obscuring it. — MikeL

No you can't skip to the end of time, that's the point. Time is more than just a curtain. What hasn't yet occurred cannot be viewed, it is impossible because it hasn't occurred. The position you argue seems to be based on the false assumption that you can skip around in time. You can't. And if you really think that you can, you should demonstrate this ability.

We walk only one path. The fact you chose to go left instead of right tomorrow was written in history the day after tomorrow, but it was written- or from today's point of view, will be written. I can go to the day after tomorrow and see that you did it - and you had complete free will in doing so. — MikeL

Again, this is false. Things are not "written" until they are actually written.

So the future does not exist?

I disagree. I think the language sharply differentiates with different words between different concepts. If "natural" can be called "supernatural", as you suggest, then sonic could be called supersonic, imposed could be called superimposed, and so on. But these things are definitely different from each other. So is "natural" from "supernatural".

It is unnatural to call natural supernatural. — szardosszemagad

In magic, such a illusion is called sleight of hand.

Any Determinist should feel very comfortable in a Calvinist church as long as they substitute the phrase Natural Laws for the word God. I mean, we are all grown ups. No need to play games here. You have your faith in fate and you are entitled to it. Worshipping Natural Laws that are omnipotent, omnipresent, omnicient, and never changing is quite OK.

What is this philosophy in which ''you can say anything you want''? — TheMadFool

I don't know, but that is pretty much what is going on, so I accept it. Everyone is making up stories to fit their goal. What's your favorite story about determinism? That it exists? That you can bounce into the future and look back? That everything is fated? That we are all a bag of chemicals being guided by the all-knowing Natural Laws?

Any Determinist should feel very comfortable in a Calvinist church as long as they substitute the phrase Natural Laws for the word God. I mean, we are all grown ups. No need to play games here. You have your faith in fate and you are entitled to it. Worshipping Natural Laws that are omnipotent, omnipresent, omnicient, and never changing is quite OK. — Rich

Where do you get this cheap crap? that I need to worship anything? And that God = deterministic universe according to the Calvinist faith?

I get insulted just by the insinuation that all and every human being can't but must worship some god or other. That's nice if you do, and good for you, but leave me out of this cheap thrill.

Natural laws are not omnipotent, and certainly not omniscient. They may be omnipresent, but that is currently up for debate among cosmologists.

You have been imbibing religion, and you can't get your head above the water of seeing the world only as a relationship of sort to a god or gods.

"Beam me up, Scottie, there is life out there more than just religion."

Where do you get this cheap crap? that I need to worship anything? — szardosszemagad

I'm not sure you need to, but that is what you are doing.

And that God = deterministic universe according to the Calvinist faith? — szardosszemagad

Let's just say they prefer the word God, while the Determinatist pseudo-scientific preference is Natural Laws. It's a matter of taste.

Natural laws are not omnipotent, — szardosszemagad

Exactly where do they not apply? Where everything ceases to exist? God?

Natural laws are not all-powerful. The meaning of "omnipotent". You also said natural laws are omniscient. A law is not a sentient being that can know anything. Omniscient means "all-knowing".

Rich, you are locked in a mindset where you can't imagine a godless universe. Whereas the one we live in can exist very easily without god. Any god.

This is not my shortcoming that you are so closed-minded. If you can't get out of your prison, a prison of needing a god so badly that you believe everyone else needs one, too, then you are really a devout believer. A philosopher, however, in my opinion, you are not.

Is your assertion that the future does not exist? If it does then it must be determined. If it does not, then we open up a new direction in the discussion.

Natural laws are not all-powerful. The meaning of "omnipotent". You also said natural laws are omniscient. A law is not a sentient being that can know anything. Omniscient means "all-knowing". — szardosszemagad

They are the Laws that are everywhere, unchanging and eyeball, know everything that is happening, and guide everything. They are your God. An adjusted Calvinism so you can feel so very scientific. You do have Faith that they exist, correct?

They are your God. An adjusted Calvinism so you can feel so very scientific. You do have Faith that they exist, correct? — Rich

This is becoming abusive @Rich. I humbly suggest you stick to telling us what you think, and stop telling everyone else what they think. Nobody's asked you to psychoanalyze them.

Everyone is making up stories to fit their goal. — Rich

I think you're right on this one. First you have preferences and then you find the philosophy that fits them.

It could also be that there are too many competing philosophies, none more valid than the other, and you have to make a choice. This choice can only made based on preferences.

What's your favorite story about determinism? — Rich

I haven't dived to the right depth yet but causation seems so real to me. You push a stone, it moves. The temperature falls, we get ice. I insult you, you get hurt...and so on. Causation is built into our worldview - we plan our moves, we think before we speak, we weigh the options, etc. To deny causation is madness.

Then, it's obvious that we're part of this web of causation. Of course, I'm not denying free will but I am saying there are rules to the entire process (laws of nature, social interaction, etc) and so, even if there is free will, it's restricted for the most part.

I'm not denying free will but I am saying there are rules to the entire process (laws of nature, social interaction, etc) and so, even if there is free will, it's restricted for the most part. — TheMadFool

I agree, all types of free will are constrained. It's a relative term. I have the free will to fly, but not really.

This choice can only made based on preferences. — TheMadFool

We all have choices. I agree.

I agree, all types of free will are constrained. — MikeL

There is no such thing as free will. There are only choices in direction. Duration unfolds as all is resolved.

This is becoming abusive — Srap Tasmaner

Human nature shares faith.

They are the Laws that are everywhere, unchanging and eyeball, know everything that is happening, and guide everything. — Rich

Thanks for displaying a low IQ level. Now I know how you are able to cling to your false belief. I told you that laws know nothing, and yet you insist they do.

The cat eventually always comes out of the bag. Your incredible inability to grasp concepts and distinguish between two extant ones shines through. I don't think I need to keep on fighting this Quixotic battle against a Windmill, that you are, Rich; an entity that has no reasonable thought as you have so eloquently and multiply disclosed about yourself.

I am not mocking you or trying to insult you. I just simply observed that you are incapable of realizing that natural laws are not human beings, equipped with the faculty of knowledge. You stated that falsehood now twice; I am convinced you can't be convinced otherwise. Therefore I made the judgment call that you are incapable of real, proper intellectual discourse, as you lack basic elements of reasoning and comprehension, and also lack a sufficient amount of ability for complex thought and complex ideas.

Of course, I expect you now to come back and say that I am the one who lacks reason. That will not daunt me, as it will be a simple knee-jerk reaction by you. I won't even consider it seriously, as it will come from someone, you in particular, who has demonstrated that he or she is not worthy of participating on a philosophy website, by reason of intellectual deficiency.

that natural laws are not human beings, — szardosszemagad

I know all about God.

So the future does not exist? — MikeL

As something we can refer to, the future exists. But if "exists" is restricted to definite physical forms, through a physicalist premise, then the future does not exist, because there are no definite physical forms in the future.

Is your assertion that the future does not exist? If it does then it must be determined. If it does not, then we open up a new direction in the discussion. — MikeL

Do you recognize that time itself, what is referred to by this word, "time", is not a physical thing? Future and past, being parts of this immaterial thing, time, do not need to have material existence. So we can refer to "the future" without implying any particular material thing. And if we are not referring to any particular material thing, then there is no sense in using the term "determined". We refer to the future, and claim that the future exists, without implying that the future is determined because we are not referring to a particular material object which has determinate existence.