Super Sexy
New
Oh Awesome!! I hope Paul and Kai continue to argue over meaningless shit for the next ten pages. That's my favorite.
Well, I haven't mentioned that. But if the meaning is that person A could have made a different choice, then yes, I think they could have done, and the base of that is finally this same indeterminacy/agency in nature. I am not of course saying that they could have made any choice, as there are many conditionals.I don't see how you are going to get libertarian free will out of this.
~~ Paul
We can't have conspiracist bullshit all the time.Oh Awesome!! I hope Paul and Kai continue to argue over meaningless shit for the next ten pages. That's my favorite.
If the state of affairs is the same, then the only way I see a person making a different choice is by flipping a coin.Well, I haven't mentioned that. But if the meaning is that person A could have made a different choice, then yes, I think they could have done, and the base of that is finally this same indeterminacy/agency in nature. I am not of course saying that they could have made any choice, as there are many conditionals.
If the state of affairs is the same, then the only way I see a person making a different choice is by flipping a coin.
~~ Paul
Events such as beta decay appear to be random, so they have nothing to do with this issue.Well, that's an ideological stance. In my view, if the state of affairs is the same, then a pivot of open-ness exists in the universe, even with the heaviest action of conditionals, and they could have chosen differently. And this is also an ideological, or if you prefer, philosophical stance. I don't think there is anything about prior conditions that would *force* me to turn left as opposed to right, when leaving a chair, or anything that would *force* a radioactive nucleus to decompose at a given moment.
Events such as beta decay appear to be random, so they have nothing to do with this issue.
I have no idea what you mean by a "pivot of open-ness" and how it allows me to choose differently in a way that is not a coin flip.
~~ Paul
That's what we call random.I would say that decay events illustrate the irreducible aspect of open-ness. There is absolutely no way of predicting them. They are, if you will, the "bare" possibility of different paths. Does it decay now? Does it decay later?
It's random with some probability distribution that we can determine. Random is not tautological, because random means not deterministic. It is simply one half of the determined/not-determined dichotomy. You are suggesting that we don't have a dichotomy. It would be nice to hear a whiff of a hint about what the third possibility is.I can equally well say that I have no idea "how" what you are calling randomness causes a beta particle to decay at an unpredictable moment, other than to say "it's just random," which is tautological. I think that in both instances (how randomness behaves "randomly" and how agency behaves "agentically")...these are both phantom "hows"...neither refer to mechanisms that can actually exist) The point being, it reduces to a metaphysical primitive imo, which can be assigned a materialist notion or a nonmaterialist notion (as I do).
That's what we call random.
It's random with some probability distribution that we can determine. Random is not tautological, because random means not deterministic. It is simply one half of the determined/not-determined dichotomy. You are suggesting that we don't have a dichotomy. It would be nice to hear a whiff of a hint about what the third possibility is.
It is nondeterministic because the time at which a beta decay occurs is not determined by anything in the past. It occurs at an arbitrary point in time, within some probability distribution, with no priors having anything to do with the point in time. It goes about being "not deterministic" by virtue of not being determined by prior events. There is nothing more to say, because there are no preceding events to describe.Again, that's just nomenclature, because that doesn't tell me how, in practice, a radiocative nucleus goes about being "not deterministic." And, as I said, this is the same boat for how an agent goes about the business of irreducible agency.
It is nondeterministic because the time at which a beta decay occurs is not determined by anything in the past. It occurs at an arbitrary point in time, within some probability distribution, with no priors having anything to do with the point in time. It goes about being "not deterministic" by virtue of not being determined by prior events. There is nothing more to say, because there are no preceding events to describe.
We have events determined by priors. We have events not determined by priors. Some folks propose that we have a third kind of event. Can they give a hint of how something can be neither "determined by prior events" nor "not determined by prior events"?
There is no how for random events because there is no cause. On the other hand, you are presumably not suggesting that the agent makes free decisions with no cause, If there were no cause, then the decisions would have nothing to do with my state of affairs, my desires, or my needs. They would be arbitrary. There is only one way that something can come out if there is no cause: stochastically. That is of no consolation to the libertarian.Yes Paul, but "how" does it do that with no priors?..and that is exactly the same question you are asking of agency. And just as with agency it cannot be answered, so with randomness (on the materialist standpoint) it cannot be answered either. The above is a description only (and that is the very reason why there is "no more to say"). I can give an equally worthwhile description in terms of agency. But it is not explanation, again because I don't think there is one.
Then the agent is making arbitrary decisions.I don't see a need for a third category. The events not determined by priors are the action of agency.
There is no how for random events because there is no cause. On the other hand, you are presumably not suggesting that the agent makes free decisions with no cause, If there were no cause, then the decisions would have nothing to do with my state of affairs, my desires, or my needs. They would be arbitrary. There is only one way that something can come out if there is no cause: stochastically. That is of no consolation to the libertarian.
I agree that in some ways these two things are similar. However, no one is asking the stochastic event to have some relation to a personal agent that supposedly has free will. Once we require that relation, then the question of agency becomes more complex than that of randomness. And it certainly is not the same thing.
I'm also willing to believe that some processes we now think are stochastic will turn out to be deterministic. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Then the agent is making arbitrary decisions.
My claim is that determinism and randomness exhaust the logical possibilities. But, by all means, as I have said multiple times, discard the framework of the natural sciences. Now please explain how an agent can make a decision that won't sound as if it is predetermined or arbitrary, or whatever words you want to use to describe those logical possibilities.
.......