But assuming indeterminism it might swerve for no reason or turn into a feather.
That is radical indeterminism… Are there physical laws in such a world about bricks and feathers?
I was just kidding.
But you haven’t answered all my questions, and you have changed my example. I’ll suppose there are no physical problems for you in ducking. So?
Well in that case the future event (the stone hitting my head) is evitable either way, which is the opposite of what you are saying, as you are saying it’s inevitable either way.
My earlier comments focused on Occam’s use of inevitable, the big bang was inevitable given we are here, meaning there had to be a big bang because if there had not been we would not be here.
Well, I think this is misuse of the word ‘inevitable’.
Please, you can argue about the meaning of the word, but don’t give me the (dis)credit for it.
Quoting Write4U:
IMO, certain things happen “inevitably”. IOW, the big bang was an inevitable event.
My earlier comments focused on Occam’s use of inevitable, the big bang was inevitable given we are here, meaning there had to be a big bang because if there had not been we would not be here.
Well, I think this is misuse of the word ‘inevitable’.
Please, you can argue about the meaning of the word, but don’t give me the (dis)credit for it.
Quoting Write4U:
IMO, certain things happen “inevitably”. IOW, the big bang was an inevitable event.
Lois is a new member, and the little gimmicks like figuring out where the {quote}s and {/quotes} go take a while to get used to. By going back and reading GdB’s prior post it was easy to see what she was trying to say so I added the symbols as necessary.
LL are her initials so I beleive she was indicating that the following was her comment.
And an aside to Lois: Don’t worry, I frequently don’t understand what GdB is trying to say.
Occam
Hmmphh… I don’t remember you helping me when i was having those probs… (fortunately somebody did, though i still mess up sometimes)
Lois is a new member, and the little gimmicks like figuring out where the {quote}s and {/quotes} go take a while to get used to. By going back and reading GdB’s prior post it was easy to see what she was trying to say so I added the symbols as necessary.
LL are her initials so I beleive she was indicating that the following was her comment.
And an aside to Lois: Don’t worry, I frequently don’t understand what GdB is trying to say.
Occam
Hmmphh… I don’t remember you helping me when i was having those probs… (fortunately somebody did, though i still mess up sometimes)
I appreciate any help I can get. I often use LL before my comments so readers know that it is my comment, in case there is some confusion as to where my comment begins. I’ve found it to be helpful on other groups but I can drop it here if it’s causing confusion.
I appreciate any help I can get. I often use LL before my comments so readers know that it is my comment, in case there is some confusion as to where my comment begins. I’ve found it to be helpful on other groups but I can drop it here if it’s causing confusion.
.....
No, no, that’s OK. Only be sure you answer outside the ‘quoted’ area. And I was confused by the ‘LL’. I think I now fully understand: tell me, how is Clark Kent doing?
But you haven’t answered all my questions, and you have changed my example. I’ll suppose there are no physical problems for you in ducking. So?
Well in that case the future event (the stone hitting my head) is evitable either way, which is the opposite of what you are saying, as you are saying it’s inevitable either way.
I haven’t said anything about it, yet.
So here is my answer: given the fact that the brick will hit me, it is inevitable, that it will hit me. I defined it that way. I said ‘the brick will hit you in the future’.
But slightly change the question: given the fact that the brick will be thrown at you, is it inevitable that it will hit your head? And then the answer is “no”: you can duck, and the brick will not hit you.
And now (you forgot to answer) the quantum die. Tomorrow, it will show 6. But as we know, this ‘6’ is not determined, it depends on a quantum process. So there is nothing I can do to make it something else than 6. So whatever the quantum die will show tomorrow, its outcome is inevitable.
So here we are: in a deterministic world events can be ‘evitable’, in an indeterministic world they are inevitable.
It is thanks to determinism I can avoid the brick hitting my head: it will no spontaneously accelerate, or keep track on my head. It is precisely because of its determined trajectory that I can avoid it. When I try to cross a field during a thunderstorm, and I am hit by lightning, this was inevitable. Why: because it is so at random that I cannot predict it, it is impossible for me to avoid lightning.
But you haven’t answered all my questions, and you have changed my example. I’ll suppose there are no physical problems for you in ducking. So?
Well in that case the future event (the stone hitting my head) is evitable either way, which is the opposite of what you are saying, as you are saying it’s inevitable either way.
I haven’t said anything about it, yet.
So here is my answer: given the fact that the brick will hit me, it is inevitable, that it will hit me. I defined it that way. I said ‘the brick will hit you in the future’.
But slightly change the question: given the fact that the brick will be thrown at you, is it inevitable that it will hit your head? And then the answer is “no”: you can duck, and the brick will not hit you.
I’m surprised at this. My understanding is this is a common error. Both are inevitable because in both cases you can duck. It’s just in my example you don’t.
And now (you forgot to answer) the quantum die. Tomorrow, it will show 6. But as we know, this ‘6’ is not determined, it depends on a quantum process. So there is nothing I can do to make it something else than 6. So whatever the quantum die will show tomorrow, its outcome is inevitable.
Yes I agree, it’s all about how we define inevitable and “nothing we can do about it” is good.
I’m surprised at this. My understanding is this is a common error. Both are inevitable because in both cases you can duck. It’s just in my example you don’t.
You cannot avoid the brick anymore when it actually hits you. It all depends on the description I give of what the future will be. I can say “the brick hits your head”, or I can say “the brick flies in the direction of your head”. In the first case the event is inevitable, in the second it isn’t. And as you see, determinism has nothing to do with it, quite the opposite, under determinism events get ‘evitable’ for us.
All this ‘free will opposed to determinism’ is one big confusion of concepts. There simply is no contradiction between free will and determinism.
I’m surprised at this. My understanding is this is a common error. Both are inevitable because in both cases you can duck. It’s just in my example you don’t.
You cannot avoid the brick anymore when it actually hits you.
No but it is what we call an avoidable/evitable event. And it is so because you could have ducked.
I think this is the more usual way of interpreting this.
It all depends on the description I give of what the future will be. I can say “the brick hits your head”, or I can say “the brick flies in the direction of your head”. In the first case the event is inevitable, in the second it isn’t.
So you can only avoid the brick hitting you if it’s not going to hit you.
You’ll have your work cut out making sense of this because the only things that are evitable/avoidable are those things that you will avoid.
