167 of 168
167
The greatest proof of free will…
Posted: 05 November 2012 08:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2491 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6124
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 05 November 2012 08:20 AM

- If somebody will throw a stone to my head, it is inevitable that it will hit me. (Or can I duck, i.e. the hitting my head is evitable?)

You can duck so it’s evitable.

So let’s say the stone is going to hit your head.

That’s the future and it is evitable because you can duck.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 09:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2492 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4520
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 05 November 2012 08:54 AM

You can duck so it’s evitable.

So let’s say the stone is going to hit your head.

That’s the future and it is evitable because you can duck.

OK. Now, if my ducking or not is determined or indetermined, is the stone hitting my head inevitable?

And how with the quantum die (which is surely undetermined): let’s say the outcome is going to be 6. Is this inevitable or not?

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2493 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6124
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 05 November 2012 09:12 AM
StephenLawrence - 05 November 2012 08:54 AM

You can duck so it’s evitable.

So let’s say the stone is going to hit your head.

That’s the future and it is evitable because you can duck.

OK. Now, if my ducking or not is determined or indetermined, is the stone hitting my head inevitable?

Well, let’s say that you’re in the stocks and the stone is thrown at your head.

Now you can’t duck so assuming determinism the stone hitting your head is inevitable.

But assuming indeterminism it might swerve for no reason or turn into a feather. grin

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 09:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2494 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4520
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 05 November 2012 09:35 AM

But assuming indeterminism it might swerve for no reason or turn into a feather. grin

That is radical indeterminism… Are there physical laws in such a world about bricks and feathers?

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?

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 09:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2495 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6124
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 05 November 2012 09:47 AM
StephenLawrence - 05 November 2012 09:35 AM

But assuming indeterminism it might swerve for no reason or turn into a feather. grin

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.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2496 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16
GdB - 04 November 2012 11:25 PM
StephenLawrence - 04 November 2012 02:15 PM

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.

Quoting Occam:

Nah, the big bang was certainly evitable.

  color added

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2497 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6124
Joined  2006-12-20
Occam. - 05 November 2012 11:39 AM
GdB - 04 November 2012 11:25 PM
StephenLawrence - 04 November 2012 02:15 PM

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.

Quoting Occam:

Nah, the big bang was certainly evitable.

  color added

Occam

Oops, my mistake.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 07:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2498 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
Occam. - 04 November 2012 02:00 PM

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.  LOL

Occam

Hmmphh… I don’t remember you helping me when i was having those probs… (fortunately somebody did, though i still mess up sometimes)

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 08:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2499 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
TimB - 05 November 2012 07:23 PM
Occam. - 04 November 2012 02:00 PM

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.  LOL

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. 

.....

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2012 11:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2500 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4520
Joined  2007-08-31
Lois - 05 November 2012 08:13 PM

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?

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2012 12:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2501 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4520
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 05 November 2012 09:54 AM

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.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2012 12:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2502 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6124
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 06 November 2012 12:05 AM
StephenLawrence - 05 November 2012 09:54 AM

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.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2012 12:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2503 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6124
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 06 November 2012 12:05 AM

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.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2012 12:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2504 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4520
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 06 November 2012 12:26 AM

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.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2012 12:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2505 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6124
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 06 November 2012 12:39 AM
StephenLawrence - 06 November 2012 12:26 AM

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.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
   
167 of 168
167