Do all things occur according to logic? If so, then there is freewill. Or is freewill an illusion? How is this to be determined?
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.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?
Who's Hume?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.
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).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.
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.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.
Whatever happens tomorrow [to us individually] is random then? There is no cause and effect sequence in our brains that induce us to feel a certain way so that we do or say something which then causes to do someting else...? But, of course, such cause and effect sequences in the brain would occur at a microscopic level, which would indicate the prominent presence of quantum effects, which would make the whole ordeal even more random, for the observer calculating the approximate cause/effect sequences.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 existant thing? Or is the only occuring situation of those possible situations a real existant thing?
when i see the word determination, i think of human or animal will. something drives us to desire certain things (not limited to our instinct of food, sex, sleep, etc). some of us are determined to win, some of us are determined to express creativity and so forth. why do we have these desires? is the need to be creative hardwired into our biology? why are some determined to be their best, but others are content sitting on the couch? when i think of these questions, i wonder how there can be any sort of rhyme and reason to how humans think and behave, thus leading me to believe we ultimately do have free will, just many of us don't know how to use it.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?
Scottish philosopher of the 18th century.Imparcticle said:Who's Hume?
This is true, but you are talking mathematics, not empirical science. Empirical science is a matter of inductive inference not of deductive logic.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.
The exact cause may be only inductively inferred. We can never be certain, beyond any doubt at all, that what we believe to be the cause actually is the cause.Also, we don't need to see the cause; the cause may be deduced from the fact that there is an effect.
Again, the claim that there must necessarily be a cause is contentious.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).
Logic is a model of reasoning, not of natural science.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.
Firstly, we don't need to have a transcendent source for logic to be a valid formal system. In other words, we need only have a theory of propositional forms. Transcendent sources enter the picture if we want to talk about the relationship between propositions and reality, but this is not strictly necessary for a useful logic system.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.
How do you know that the computer spits out a number according to cause and effect? If we observe the result to be entirely random, then we are observing no cause. So why do you assume that a cause exists?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.
I'm pointing out that because we don't observe causality there remains the possibility that we are incorrect in what we postulate to be the cause. Consider my above example of the two balls colliding. So, in the case of force, because we don't observe the cause, only the effects, we may be incorrect in the way we "think of" force.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.
Quantum theory is dependent on a classical-observer, so I don't think we can sensibly comment on a non-observed quantum system.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?
I think you raise a very good point here... I don't really have any worthwhile comment at this stage, but I'll have to think about it. 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.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?
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?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.
Here are the definitons I have obtained from dictionary.com: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.
And here is an example of a random number generator, called "Araneus". This page specifies a brief discription of how it works.ran·dom
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.