Is the future already written?

Started by GSOgymrat, September 10, 2018, 06:21:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on October 04, 2018, 09:32:25 AM
One possible future is no more forced by one god than two possible futures are forced by two gods.

Can there be 2 gods?  You are getting into the concept of 2 singularly supreme beings...  A certain contradiction in terms.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2018, 09:12:50 AM
Your argument borders on the absurd (I'm being polite).  Mere set theory demonstrates it.  Or don't they teach that these days.  All lizards are reptiles and all reptiles are animals, therefore all lizards are animals.

I have yet to meet a lizard that is not an animal.  ;)

I never said otherwise... in fact I said the EXACT OPPOSITE. It appears that you either didn't read or you completely misread my post.

Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on October 04, 2018, 09:33:22 AM
"Random or predetermined" is a false dichotomy.

"Determined or not determined" is the true dichotomy.

But you previously compared "determined" and "predetermined".  Don't go switching comparisons now.  We can't have THAT!
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2018, 09:20:58 AM
Look, you can argue until the cows come home that predeterminism doesn't require a deity to enforce it.  Its that you simply don't understand quantum fluctuations (nor do I) but the universe as it exists seems to require "randomness" at some level and you aren't allowing for that.  And, since your arguments don't allow for the universe as it is, they must be faulty.

I didn't say that what you refer to as predeterminism (which you are already defining as "religious predeterminism") doesn't require a deity to enforce it. I said that the fact is that philosophical determinism and religious predeterminism are not the same thing and that one possible future no more implies a deity any more than multiple possible futures imply multiple details.

It doesn't matter whether we understand quantum fluctuations or not because quantum mechanics are completely irrelevant here. Philosophical indeterminism is not the same thing as quantum indeterminacy. They refer to two completely different things.

You are equivocating at least twice by conflating philosophical determinism with religious predeterminism and conflating quantum indeterminancy with philosophical indeterminism.

My arguments have nothing to do with what science can or can't predict about the universe. Quantum randomness refers to the unpredictability of the universe and not to whether there's one or more than one possible future. What actually exists is separate from what we can know or predict to actually exist. This is why metaphysics and epistemology are not the same field and why you could certainly do with learning more philosophy rather than pooh-poohing philosophy if being this unphilosophical is only going to lead to you making multiple logical errors during a discussion.

Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on October 04, 2018, 09:34:52 AM
I never said otherwise... in fact I said the EXACT OPPOSITE. It appears that you either didn't read or you completely misread my post.

Were you setting up strawmen arguments merely to dismiss them?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2018, 09:24:07 AM
Something that is unfalsifiable is not scientific.

Yes, exactly my point: I'm talking about logic and philosophy rather than science and science is completely irrelevant here.

Quote
And what is this now about multiple futures?  I thought you argued against that previously.

I said that one possible future is more parsimonious than multiple and therefore more probable which is why I think philosophical determinism is more likely to be true than philosophical indeterminism.

My point was that even if there are multiple possible futures, that is not the same thing as quantum indeterminancy and philosophical determinism doesn't imply a single god any more than philosophical indeterminism implies multiple gods.

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2018, 09:28:52 AM
Are you giving up on the predictable one future determined by the events in the past (the present is oh so fleeting)?

I never said that I am giving up on the one actual future and in fact I've said the complete opposite. I never said that such a future was predictable. You appear to offer nothing but strawmen and irrelevant statements.

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2018, 09:42:51 AM
Were you setting up strawmen arguments merely to dismiss them?

When you completely misread my post and reply as if my post is saying the exact opposite to what it actually said it is not me who is the one making a strawman argument.

Cavebear

Quote from: luckswallowsall on October 04, 2018, 09:41:49 AM
I didn't say that what you refer to as predeterminism (which you are already defining as "religious predeterminism") doesn't require a deity to enforce it. I said that the fact is that philosophical determinism and religious predeterminism are not the same thing and that one possible future no more implies a deity any more than multiple possible futures imply multiple details.

It doesn't matter whether we understand quantum fluctuations or not because quantum mechanics are completely irrelevant here. Philosophical indeterminism is not the same thing as quantum indeterminacy. They refer to two completely different things.

You are equivocating at least twice by conflating philosophical determinism with religious predeterminism and conflating quantum indeterminancy with philosophical indeterminism.

My arguments have nothing to do with what science can or can't predict about the universe. Quantum randomness refers to the unpredictability of the universe and not to whether there's one or more than one possible future. What actually exists is separate from what we can know or predict to actually exist. This is why metaphysics and epistemology are not the same field and why you could certainly do with learning more philosophy rather than pooh-poohing philosophy if being this unphilosophical is only going to lead to you making multiple logical errors during a discussion.

OK, one more whack at the pinata...  You have been generally arguing that there is only a predetermined future, that it is determined by existing events, but are now saying that quantum fluctuations as random events are real and can change the future. 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2018, 09:34:44 AM
Can there be 2 gods?  You are getting into the concept of 2 singularly supreme beings...  A certain contradiction in terms.

Whether or not there can or can't be 2 gods (or whether or not that there can or can't be one god) is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. I never said that there could be two gods. I never even said that there could be one god. So you're just offering a strawman again.

I said that philosophical determinism doesn't imply the existence of one god any more than philosophical indeterminism would imply the existence of two gods. Whether or not one or two or any gods are actually possible or not is completely irrelevant to what I said. I said that your insistence that philosophical determinism implies religious predeterminism is just as much of a non-sequitur as saying that philosophical indeterminism implies religious indeterminism. It's just as absurd to insist that determinism implies a god as it is to suggest that indeterminism implies multiple gods. Whether or not the concept of more than one god is coherent or not is irrelevant because my point was that it's equally a non-sequitur on your part in both cases. It simply does not follow logically to say that because there is only one possible future then a creator of the universe therefore must have foresaw it.

luckswallowsall

#175
Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2018, 09:50:09 AM
OK, one more whack at the pinata...  You have been generally arguing that there is only a predetermined future, that it is determined by existing events, but are now saying that quantum fluctuations as random events are real and can change the future.

I never said that quantum fluctuations are random events (I actually said that they are unpredictable events and their unpredictability is irrelevant to philosophical indeterminism because quantum indeterminacy and philosophical indeterminism are not the same thing) nor did I say that they can change the future. It's like you are unable to even read what you quoted and bolded. It's yet another strawman on your part.

As for what the part you bolded actually said... it said that what actually exists is completely separate to what can be predicted to exist. That is what I have been consistently saying, and that is a distinction that you have been seemingly been completely failing to make, not me.

Cavebear

Well, a strawman argument on my part would presuppose (is "presuppose" allowed in your semantic existence) that I had initiated an argument in the first place.  Which I didn't.  I'm not here to "prove" anything.  I'm only here to hobnob with my fellow atheists while tolerating a few theists who insist on ruining my friendly discussion among equally smart atheists. 

I don't care a crab's green ass about Philosophy 001 semantics or theistic pronoucements like "predeterminism". 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

luckswallowsall

#177
Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2018, 09:57:27 AM
Well, a strawman argument on my part would presuppose (is "presuppose" allowed in your semantic existence) that I had initiated an argument in the first place.

I didn't say you were making a strawman argument I said that you were making a strawman of my position. That is colloquial for simply saying that you are misrepresenting my position and misrepresenting what I am saying. You said I said the exact opposite of what I actually said and then said I was making a strawman.

As for your part about whether "presuppose" would be allowed in my semantic existence... that doesn't even make any sense. You are the one who seems to fail to recognize when something presupposes or entails something else, not me.

QuoteWhich I didn't.  I'm not here to "prove" anything.

I never said you were.

QuoteI'm only here to hobnob with my fellow atheists while tolerating a few theists who insist on ruining my friendly discussion among equally smart atheists. 

I don't care a crab's green ass about Philosophy 001 semantics or theistic pronoucements like "predeterminism".

Again, perhaps you ought to read more philosophy if your unphilosophicalness is leading you to make terrible logical mistakes, insist that one possible future implies a god (when it simply doesn't, and it no more implies a god than multiple possible futures do) and insist that religious predeterminism and philosophical determinism are the same thing when they're simply not. Even Mr Obvious was explaining to you that just because the future is determined it in no way implies that a god did it and your abysmal reaction is to suggest that it does. Well, actually, that is simply a non-sequitur and you certainly need to do at least a little bit less ignorant of philosophy and logic if it is leading you to make all these terrible illogical mistakes, equivocations and misrepresentations.

You say that you don't care a crab's green ass about philosophy 001 (surely you meant 101?) or semantics and it shows. As for your view that "predeterminism" is a theistic pronouncement... once again, I never referred to religious predeterminism... I repeatedly referred to philosophical determinism... and your repeated failure to make the distinction between the two, and accept the fact that those are simply two different concepts, only makes you the illogical one and you the one denying the fact of the matter that they simply don't refer to the same concept.

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2018, 09:32:38 AM
That would seem to allow that 1+1 will not always equal 2 in normal counting.

But keep in mind I said 2 "identical" computers.  If you want to indulge in theory, you have to allow for truly identical computers.

What do you mean by your first sentence? PRNG don't really have anything to do with 1+1, I think.

And what exactly would the truly identical-ness of the computers add? I mean apart from making it a  metaphore that's not applicable to the real world seeing as true identicalness is also impossible.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

luckswallowsall

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 04, 2018, 10:10:03 AM
seeing as true identicalness is also impossible.

If two objects are truly completely identical then they're not two separate objects and they're in fact one and the same object. Is that what you're getting at?