- #1
Imparcticle
- 573
- 4
Do all things occur according to logic? If so, then there is freewill. Or is freewill an illusion? How is this to be determined?
Imparcticle said:Nikola Tesla found that every reaction has a cause and effect. Everything we do is because something caused us to want to do it. He pointed out that a ball and only one ball in a finite space, is at rest unless something acts on it, say another ball. That is the apparent case with living things. of course, for us it a much more complex series of cause and effect. For example, I am a memeber of pfs because I enjoy discussing philosophy and physics because something in my past caused me to etc.
do you understand my summary?
Hume said that our concept of causation is a matter of inference, not of deductive logic. We say that the moving ball which strikes the inertial ball causes the inertial ball to move because it regularly does so. But we do not see the actual cause. We just see one event follow another.
Consider the somewhat trivial, but pointed, example of two balls colliding on a table. You may say that one causes the other two move. But, unbeknownest to you, I am pressing a lever under the table just as the two balls come into immediate proximity so that the second ball begins to move.
Of course, the point here is that in every case we can conceive there being an unknown mechanism which also influences the way things behave. We don't see the causation. We just experience the regularity of the way things behave. Important distinction.
Also, I think it is a confusion to say that "things occur according to logic". Logic is not a natural law, it is a model of reasoning. There may be natural laws which dictate how things occur, but this is not logic. Logic may be able to model these natural laws, but it is not identical to these natural laws.
Now, because the computer is perfectly random, can we really say that whatever happens tomorrow necessarily happens? It seems that perhaps the best we can say is that there is a finite set of possibilities for what occurs in the future.
I will read on those topics. they seem very interesting.You might want to read about modal logic, which involves the notions of necessity and possibility. The relevant part here are the interpretations of modal logic. Is every possible situation a real existent thing? Or is the only occurring situation of those possible situations a real existent thing?
Imparcticle said:Do all things occur according to logic? If so, then there is freewill. Or is freewill an illusion? How is this to be determined?
Imparcticle said:Who's Hume?
Yes, we only see the effect of the force. This applies to all things we observe and study. We can make equations of force vectors and the sort to deduce the presence of a force. Causation can be a matter of inference and deductive logic. We could create a situation where a ball does hit another ball mathematically. that is deductive logic.
Also, we don't need to see the cause; the cause may be deduced from the fact that there is an effect.
Whether or not we see the causation, we instinctively realize that there is something causing it to move. The is a very simple logical deduction. It can also be called an inference, because the observer (from past experience) would have noted a pattern, where when a force is applied to an object, it moves in the direction of the force. And the observer may deduce, from his accumelation of examples from past experience, that there is indeed such a pattern (as was aforementioned).
ah, but logic was an infered conception. The idea of logic must have been concieved from an observer who infered a certain pattern of behaviour. A ball will move in the direction of the force that was applied. This is a logical law which specifies the basic, natural order (of course, in the example, "ball" is a variable) of motion.
selfAdjoint said:But how do you show the premises are true? Either you have to have a transcendent source for them, like Kant's a priori, or else an infinite regress.
And I don't see the force of your "infinite cases" argument in the case of science. You can have a function with an uncountable number of cases (arguments and values), but completely determined by a finite set of parameters. Say a circle, determined by three points.
loseyourname said:The thing with the quantum computer example is exactly what particle said, that the event is not truly random. The computer spits out 1's and 0's according to laws of cause and effect, we just can't observe the cause or the effect. The result is only random in that we can't predict it. Perhaps an example as to what I'm talking about now.
Imparcticle said:We do not observe many things and yet we are aware of their existence. We do not directly observe force, but we are aware of its existence because of its effects. This I have quoted from a previous physics teacher.
The random numbers from a quantum computer are random from our perspective. If we minus the observer, and view the phenomena with multiple eyes (figurative comparison here), what will we then see? Will we see random numbers (which we have deemed random on some basis, according to our rules) or nonarbitrary numbers?
Stevo, you say science has sets of finite rules derived from a finite number of situations to describe an infinite set of situations. How do we know this apperently random procession of numbers is one of the infinite set of situations (which are possible) that do not coincide with the finite rules of science? Are not these rules subject to change? In essence, my inquiries embody the meaning of random events. Aren't they those occurances we believe to have no pattern, no dictating rules? Do rules neccesarily cause patterns to occur?
However, the verificationist position that we should not postulate the existence of unnecessary causal entities seems to be a psychological desire, not a logically necessary principle.
Shouldn't there be a cause for random effects to nascent?I don't really want to discuss my example anymore, it seems like a bad one. I just wanted to point out that we can conceive of events happening absolutely randomly, and so it seems that not all events must have a cause.
I think one of the things that will have some bearing on your comment is a good definition of randomness and a question of how it can actually exist.
ran·dom
adj.
Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.
Imparcticle said:So it is not neccesary to know precisely what the cause (say a force) is. Its effects let us know there is a force acting. Scientists (more specifically engineers) have obviously been able to accomplish many things without the knowledge of exactly what a force is in contrast to its effects. Therefore it is, as you say, uneccesary to know this. Is my understanding of this pragmatic?
Imparcticle said:Do all things occur according to logic?
I refer to what causes you to pick something over another. I am more likely to take a science class than a P.E. class (which I am being forced to do by my mother.hmph.) over the summer. Why? Because I enjoy studying science, because something in my past influenced the passion...So it is somewhat predictable; it is mostly a certain method of predicting the probablity of a choice. The probablity is based on a logical assessement of neural chemical behavior (sorry, I am afraid I am inexperienced in the field of neurology, so correct me if I have made an error) under certain conditons, and of course this coolates to psychology.2) If I make decisions logically, am I depriving myself of freewill?
this is an example of a social role based decision. Logic does not make decisions. It is a set of laws, that are applied to certain situations. In this case, the logical thing to do in western society is most likely attempt to ace your exam tomorrow in the hope that you will feel good about yourself, and earn a good grade for the class, which in the end will make you feel good about yourself.If you want to achieve some goal, logic can help you figure out how to achieve that goal. And, in this sense, logic makes your decisions for you; as when you say, "I can't go out, I have to study because I want to ace my exam tomorrow."
Imparcticle said:I refer to what causes you to pick something over another. I am more likely to take a science class than a P.E. class (which I am being forced to do by my mother.hmph.) over the summer. Why? Because I enjoy studying science, because something in my past influenced the passion...So it is somewhat predictable; it is mostly a certain method of predicting the probablity of a choice. The probablity is based on a logical assessement of neural chemical behavior (sorry, I am afraid I am inexperienced in the field of neurology, so correct me if I have made an error) under certain conditons, and of course this coolates to psychology.
Imparcticle said:this is an example of a social role based decision. Logic does not make decisions. It is a set of laws, that are applied to certain situations. In this case, the logical thing to do in western society is most likely attempt to ace your exam tomorrow in the hope that you will feel good about yourself, and earn a good grade for the class, which in the end will make you feel good about yourself.
It is still somewhat predictable. Because I'm not choosing to take that evil class, but I am doing it anyway because my mom says so (and there is no arguing with her). So I am not choosing to take the class. I am not. I am instead choosing to to obey my mom and take it. It is not by my own freewill. I choose to obey my mom, not take the evil class. But if I choose to obey, then I must take the class. It is a must, not a freewill. (If freewill has nothing to do with our discussion, I apologize. I just posted a few posts in the freedom thread down in metaphysics.)If someone assumes the above is true, then your choice is not "somewhat predictable", it is completely predictable.
You will choose to take the science class. Logic will dictate your choice, and it is in this sense that I mean logic makes your choice for you.
Physical sciences do not enter into the picture.
Ah, logical decision. A logical decision is what?(<-rhetorical) A decision made by applying the laws of logic. Therefore, logic does not make the decision for you. You use it when you wish (not all decisions are neccesarily logical)."I can't go out, I have to study because I want to ace my exam tomorrow.", is an example of a personal, logical decision.
The reason why is supremely relavant. Let's go step by step:Why they want to ace their exam is irrelevant. They reasoned that they must study in order to ace their exam, and they can't both study and go out. Since they want to ace their exam, or at least think they want to- another question, they must study and not go out.
Niether I.I am certainly no expert,
Imparcticle said:It is still somewhat predictable. Because I'm not choosing to take that evil class, but I am doing it anyway because my mom says so (and there is no arguing with her). So I am not choosing to take the class. I am not. I am instead choosing to to obey my mom and take it. It is not by my own freewill. I choose to obey my mom, not take the evil class. But if I choose to obey, then I must take the class. It is a must, not a freewill. (If freewill has nothing to do with our discussion, I apologize. I just posted a few posts in the freedom thread down in metaphysics.)
Yes, I see my error. It was a product of hastiness, and my stubborness to admit there was an error. Thank you for correcting me.honestrosewater said:“So I am not choosing to take the class. I am not. I am instead choosing to obey my mom and take it.”
You have contradicted yourself.
“I am not choosing to take the class... I am instead choosing to... take it[the class].”
See? Resolving this will take some work as there are many things that need to be clarified. If you do not think so, I hope the following will convince and motivate you.
True.1) I do not want to take the PE class.
All of the above are true.2) My mom has told me to take the PE class.
3) I want to obey my mom.
4) I always want to obey my mom.
5) I will not enjoy taking the PE class.
That is not 100% true, but it is 99.99% true. There is always the chance that I will not.6) I will be alive tomorrow.
True to all.7) I think I will not enjoy taking the PE class.
8) If I think I will not enjoy taking a class, then I will not want to take it.
9) If I do what my mom has told me to do, then I have obeyed her.
10) If I intend to do what my mom has told me to do, then I have obeyed her.
According to that deduction, the mathematical sentence "7+7=14" are words. Unless, my usage of "mathematical" makes an exception?11) Every sentence contains words.
12) The previous sentence contains contains.
honestrosewater said:1) I do not want to take the PE class.
is 1) true? Are each of the following true?
2) My mom has told me to take the PE class.
3) I want to obey my mom.
4) I always want to obey my mom.
5) I will not enjoy taking the PE class.
6) I will be alive tomorrow.
7) I think I will not enjoy taking the PE class.
8) If I think I will not enjoy taking a class, then I will not want to take it.
9) If I do what my mom has told me to do, then I have obeyed her.
10) If I intend to do what my mom has told me to do, then I have obeyed her.
11) Every sentence contains words.
12) The previous sentence contains contains.
13) 1+1=10.
Logic is a system of reasoning that allows us to make sense of the world around us. It is the process of using evidence and principles to come to a conclusion or make a decision. In terms of all things, logic is the foundation of understanding cause and effect, and how the world operates.
While logic is a powerful tool for understanding the world, it is not capable of explaining everything. There are some things that may occur that are beyond our current understanding or that cannot be explained through logical reasoning alone.
The laws of logic are considered to be universal and apply to all things. However, there may be instances where our understanding of these laws is limited or where they appear to be violated. This could be due to a lack of information or a misinterpretation of the situation.
Logic is an essential part of the scientific process. Scientists use logical reasoning to form hypotheses, design experiments, and analyze data. The scientific method is based on logical principles and relies on evidence and reasoning to make conclusions about the natural world.
While we cannot always be certain that all things occur according to logic, it is a fundamental principle that has been proven to be reliable in understanding the world. As scientists, we continually strive to improve our understanding and application of logic in order to better explain and predict the events and phenomena around us.