Essentially just working with the idea that determinism requires every occurrence to have a cause.
If there are no differences between loop one and two, does that not mean loop 2 is determined by loop 1?
In what way does an event entail a time prior to it?
I acknowledged that my “explanation” only moves the problem back, but it does work for every existence that is not the first.
Can you further explain the initial state? Should you mean the laws of the universe i would argue that they are also occurrences as they exist, but regardless, what caused them?
This problem never seems to end!
I did not say i beleive any of this, I am simply just expolring a belief held by humans. It is a problem for the concept.
I feel i covered why time must have a beginning within this, as well as a first thing.
Time is a concept, it does not need to be experienced to exist. Similar to the number 2.
You cant experience me writing this response, does that mean it does not exist?
I really admire your ability to respond to an introduction with zero explanation and act as if you have read an unreasonable explanation.
What makes you think that the initial cause for eveything is occurring now? If you go drop a coin are you going to come back 10 years later and say that the present is why the coin fell?
Why does it? The only reasoning i can think of is that the fundamental thing described is not originally of this existence as in defined by a parent one or something.
A determinist would argue yes and that nothing is random. Though this obviously requires a comprehensive being of the situation of which we are not, at least not yet.
If determinism is true than yes, and your feelings towards this are normal.
I would argue there is not a difference
Oh. From the preceding words, above, it looked like that’s what they are saying. If all events are the result of preceding causes and natural laws, doesn’t that make all events predictable? It sort of looks like it could, or should?
What does MWI mean ??? Sorry i don’t actually read philosophy or anything I just have these in my notes.
The soft determinism you suppose relates to most religions ideas of their god’s abilities, but they also believe they were given free will as a test, what do you make of this?
All criticism is appreciated othwerwise how would we improve.
Also sorry if my response seems robotic i dont know how to get emojis on here…
I dont believe determinsim is necessary but worth exploring.What stuff would you argue is uncaused?
When wiriting i wanted to use occurence as just something that exists.
I didnt explicitly mean an object, i woudl actually agrue the first instance would be the laws of the universe but either way is fine.
It is only out of bounds in reference to this existsnce, hence i utiilise the idea of a parent existence and therefore greater time or as i believe i wrote “total time”. I would argue that th euniverse can be an object in time, andtime can be a part of this universe simultaneously, once again relying on the idea of parent realities.
I dont know if it was obvious but i am arguing agaisnt this looped time, but in doing so state what people may counter me with. I do disagree with you in that looped time does not mean looped events.
What do people actually even mean by looped time? The only intuitive response i have here is that they mean every occurence repeats itself in the same order with the sam espace in between.This is what i thought of when writing and in this case i stand by that looping would just repeat the same actions meanning the occurences of the none first loops are determined by the oriignal loop. Should you argue that time is not related to the occurences- as in loopung time would not loop occurences- then i have no idea but i will take time to think of this.
The computer example was only to help comprehension, i do not reason that our reality is like it.
How do simulation and creation actually differ?
I know it stilll lends itself to the problem, but it atlest explains all realities that are not the original.
Apologies for the riddled articulation
you may not have said you believe any of this, but do you? Why explore a belief that could not be true?
When you say, “It is a problem for the concept”, what do you mean, exactly?
‘Time’ only exists in concept. Concepts of ‘time’ began, but what some people consider ‘time’ to be, only exists always, eternally NOW.
Does this relate to anything I said and meant?
The Fact that the Universe is eternal. And, everything that is happening NOW causes what follows, for eternity.
Nonsensical.
Although all actions are predictable, what will be chosen is not.
But, to elaborate further, all choices are also determined by past events/experiences.
Which is how and why both ‘free will’ and the ‘pre-determined’ world exist, together.
1 Like
What do mean you do not believe it is necessary? What is the word ‘necessary’ in relation to, exactly?
The Universe itself, being eternal, was not caused, in the sense that it did not have a beginning and so was not caused from or by some one/thing else.
And yet the act of choosing, or the result of the enacted choice, are actions, yes? And actions are predictable (according to determinism), yes…?
Yet, there have been many random events taking place in the world from ancient times to even this very moment, for which there are no rational or reasonable answers to the causes.
Does it imply or even prove determinists have been talking nonsense?
No but ultimately it cant be disruled.
What i mean is that it seems to go against the premises made. For example if i say everyone in this world wears a red hat and i find someone wearing a blue hat, that a problem for the premise i made.Difference is this premise is completely disproven by my finding.
It also existed in the past no?
Yes it does. You seemed to think that something that cant be experinced must not be true.
So what caused the NOW? How can you prove the universe is eternal? Eternal in what way even ?
How can you deny the existence of the past, you are denying that what i am doing right now for me will ever exist in the future as i did not write it in the future NOW? If not then you accept the past.
Nonsensical is a great way to reason against a valid point!
What random events do you speak of? But most people would say that true randomness inhibits determinism yes.
An issue you may run into is that just because we do not find something rational or reasonable does not make it irrational or unreasonable- there have been plenty of concepts we didnt understand in the past that we do now.
I would argue that determinism being true would make every event accurately predictable yes.
Is the choosing not an action? If you can predict all actions how could you not predict which will be chosen, you must do so to predict the other actions that come after.
Unless you suppose that we can predict all possible routes but not which one will be taken, which still does not make sense as the choosing of the action is itself an action.
You are missing the point here. It is not about something rational or reasonable.
It is about determinists’ claim that everything is caused by causes. But there are many events in the world determinists cannot explain what the causes for the events are. In that case, what is the point of claiming everything is caused by causes? Isn’t it meaningless claim to make?
Yes to be honest i dont get this persons logic. If every action is predictable then so is the “choice” as it is in itself an action.
Furthermore if you can predict every action you would need to be able to know which one was picked to predict the nect action after that.
For example if you make someone pick between 1 and 2 twice, to accurately predict their overall decision you must know with absolute certainty which number they choose on the first round, and this logic just applies infinitely. So if the person were to choose 2 and then 1, to make my overall prediction of 2,1 i would have to know not to involve 1 as the first digit and instead to involve 2
1 Like