RoR: Forum

Post 60

Monday, December 8, 2003 - 12:43pm

Link

Edit

"'causal determinism' (inevitability), is in fact COMPLETELY A-causal, in that it effectively isolates events from their inter-relation to OTHER events."

Could you clarify how something causal can be acausal. This seems contradictory to me. Or are you implying that what is usually called "causal determinism" is not really causal ?

Post 61

Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:15am

Link

Edit

I was reffering to the notion of "inevitability". That idea basically states that a given "fated" outcome will occur, irrespective of the "causes" which would NECCESITATE that outcome.
Contradictory? Exactly my point. The notion that a given outcome is "destined" to occur (and thus, that no alternatives are possible), denies causality in the most basic sense.

The idea that (for instance), due to economic conditions you are "fated" to be poor is simply untrue. Causality NECCESITATES alternatives.

I think I'm just confusing myself, at this point! (grin)

That guy Steve is somebody we could NOT deal with, even in coalition!

Post 62

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 4:48am

Link

Edit

I'm still not sure if I understand. Your example about economic conditions seem to indicate that you're talking about the absurdity of psychological (epistemic) determinism. If that is the case, then I agree completely. It has nothing to do with anything scientific.

Post 63

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 11:21am

Link

Edit

which is exactly what I was saying! Leave it alone, Francois -- it's just one of those semantic things again! (grin!0

Post 64

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 12:50pm

Link

Edit

Oh, ok. But you do agree with the determinism of natural law, right ?

Post 65

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 3:30pm

Link

Edit

Well, yeah, but that's not what the original discussion was about, is it? (I'm confused).

Post 66

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 4:07pm

Link

Edit

Oh, no. I'm just making sure there is no acausal nonsense talk of any kind going on.

All right, carry on. (^______^)

Post 67

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:23pm

Link

Edit

Francois: would I actually engage in "nonsense talk?" I mean, sure, I hate trolls and spammers and all such people, but I'm actually a pretty clearheaded person.

Post 68

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 3:49pm

Link

Edit

I wasn't accusing anyone. I'm just the policeman of the board. After all, if America can just declare itself policeman of the world de facto and ignore anyone who disagrees, why can't I ?

Step 2 is declaring war on someone under false accusations and ignoring anyone who asks for evidence. (^_________^)

Post 69

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 7:13pm

Link

Edit

Heh! :) Hey, I gotta ask: what was that "pro-war" thing that made you leave the board? You mentioned it in another thread.
I'm curious. Did you get into a dispute over the Iraq thing?

Post 70

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 7:27pm

Link

Edit

Yea, I did. I was tired of being bashed by fucking war-mongers on this board. But you, Henry Emrich, prodded me into coming back.

Now they know who to blame... s|^D

Post 71

Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 11:18am

Link

Edit

***grin!*** Prodded you into coming back, eh? Hmm....I'm glad I can be an inspiration! :)

Post 72

Monday, December 15, 2003 - 3:28pm

Link

Edit

It is my esteemed opinion that this thread was a grand waste of time; simply a product of bored intellectuals having too much free time. Do you disagree?

Post 73

Monday, December 15, 2003 - 3:31pm

Link

Edit

How many posts were actually in response to the article? Five, maybe?

Post 74

Friday, January 4 - 2:26am

Link

Edit

Reality is not a friend. Reality is not an enemy. Reality is.

The cosmos is mostly non-sentient and not alive. It is, in a manner of speaking, as non-sentient and dumb as a sack full of anvils. Reality is not a person so it can not have intentions.

Bob Kolker

Post 75

Friday, January 4 - 12:27pm

Link

Edit

Steve writes in post #40 the following:

Modus Ponens
p -> q
q -> r
therefore p -> r

I respond:

This is not modus ponens. Modus ponens is an inference rule and it is stated thus:

from p and p->q infer q. Or p, p->q yields q

One can use M.P. twice to show from p, p->q and q->r one can infer r. The by using the Deduction Theorem of propositional calculus once can show p->q, q->r yields p->r

Bob Kolker