Is the future already written?

[luckswallowsall]

There are few true opposites .. in fact one would have to prove that up front, rather than assuming it.  0/1 aka binary .. those two values are not opposites.  And in the messy world of philosophy (even philosophy of maths) ... it all does come down to semantics.  And what about Kripke Semantics then?

Again, merely asserting that there are "few true opposites" won't change the fact that some dichotomies are true and others are false.

For you to even argue the case that the logical absolutes do not apply you already have to presuppose them... which makes your counterarguments self-defeating as soon as they begin. Of course, you haven't even offered an argument, nor can you. X is X and X is not not X. Not X is the true opposite to X.

Again, the four options I presented are logically exhaustive. Either free will exists but only in an indeterministic universe, either free will exists in both a deterministic and indeterministic universe, either free will exists in neither a deterministic nor indeterministic universe or free will exists only in a deterministic universe. Again, those options are logically exhaustive.

Again, you can't argue against logic itself without presupposing logic which makes any argument against it self-defeating.

[luckswallowsall]

Not if you are a reductionist.  Only if you allow only partially overlapping magisteria ... aka the measurement problem.  Your skepticism is black/white ... as are your assertions.  You will never understand fuzzy logic.  It actually used in engineering of Tokyo subways.

You are saying a lot of things that are irrelevant. Whether someone is or isn't a reductionist doesn't change what quantum indeterminancy actually refers to nor does it change what philosophical indeterminism actually refers to.

Again, if you're going to just say that what I'm saying is "binary thinking" or that my assertions are "black and white"... that's not actually an argument. My assertions are indeed either right or wrong. But considering that I've referred to options that are logically exhaustive then, logically, I can't be wrong about them. And the stuff you are saying, on the other hand, is either wrong or irrelevant. In some cases you are criticizing logic itself, which, again, is self-defeating, and in other cases you are making statements about quantum indeterminancy, reductionism and non-overlapping  magisteria which have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about... and you keep insisting that philosophical determinism is the same thing as religious predestinationism (when it simply isn't, those terms refer to different concepts), again, all without an actual argument.

And again, the irony is that philosophical determinism, also known as mechanism, is often seen more as atheistic than theistic, if anything. The whole clockwork universe thing... and it is indeed reductionist, materialist, mechanical. But to criticize my view as reductionist on the one hand and yet also say it's theological makes absolutely zero sense if you're not even going to provide an argument for how that supposedly makes sense.

But I'm hardly going to expect you to be logically consistent if you've already pooh-poohed logic itself whilst failing to recognize that to even do such a thing is self-defeating. You can't make a logical argument against logic itself and if you're not going to actually make a logic argument and you're just going to assert that I'm engaging in "binary" or "black and white" thinking, again, that's not actually an argument. I'm quite happy to engage in the kind of thinking that involves something either being X or not X or correct or incorrect... as that is indeed the most logical approach to take.

[Mr.Obvious]

You are saying a lot of things that are irrelevant.

That's Baruch. Get used to that, or ignore him. Those seem to be your options. :p

[Baruch]

Again, the options I suggested are logically exhaustive. So it's more than just an opinion. Either (a), (b), (c), or (d) is true for reasons given.

You are unaware that the law of excluded middle isn't always true.  In any given circumstance, it can't be assumed, it needs to be demonstrated first as being reasonable under the circumstances.

For example in Mahayana Buddhist logic/polemic .. you have 4 state logic, not 2 state, and they did tis 1700 years before George Boole.

[Baruch]

What I am saying has absolutely nothing to do with history. I am referring to the fact that the term "philosophical determinism" refers to something completely different to religious predestinationism.

To repeat, religious predestinationism refers to the idea that God has already written the future.

Philosophical determinism on the other hand simply refers to the notion that there's only one physically possible future. It is also known as "mechanism" in philosophy and if anything it's more subscribed to by atheists than theists... so to keep insisting I'm referring to something teleological is quite absurd.

And I don't understand your question when you ask if I avoid beans . . . you appear to only be interested in making strawmen out of my arguments.

Without having knowledge of the history of thought (synchrony) we can't fully grasp the real.  You have to also look at it sequentially (diachrony).

[Baruch]

That's Baruch. Get used to that, or ignore him. Those seem to be your options. :p

You ignore me at your peril ;-)  I am attempting to engage a new person who is coming with a university education.  And I am trying to engage him at that level.  Others here are artists and other such folk ... I have to engage them where they are at.

If you are interested in logic, try the 100 Days of Logic on Youtube channel ... Carneades.  Get back to us when you have finished it?  But there won't be many who are interested, I know, I have tried.  They proclaim their rationality, while being ignorant of actual logic.

In my case logic is irrelevant, but don't let that stop you.  You need to be you.  I don't see reality as being rational in general, and the humanistic aspect in particular.

[Cavebear]

Again, merely asserting that there are "few true opposites" won't change the fact that some dichotomies are true and others are false.

For you to even argue the case that the logical absolutes do not apply you already have to presuppose them... which makes your counterarguments self-defeating as soon as they begin. Of course, you haven't even offered an argument, nor can you. X is X and X is not not X. Not X is the true opposite to X.

Again, the four options I presented are logically exhaustive. Either free will exists but only in an indeterministic universe, either free will exists in both a deterministic and indeterministic universe, either free will exists in neither a deterministic nor indeterministic universe or free will exists only in a deterministic universe. Again, those options are logically exhaustive.

Again, you can't argue against logic itself without presupposing logic which makes any argument against it self-defeating.

I accept that YOU are convinced that your constructed 4 arguments these are all that are.  To you.  Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about your arguments because they aren't in MY terms.

You might as well get used to the idea that most people don't view arguments in your personal terms and that some of them even find them meaningless. 

For example, I consider determinism and pre-determinism meaningless.    Don't even bother to try to convince me otherwise, I don't care.   When I was your age, I might have, but I'm beyond that now.

Try discussing actual facts.  That might actually help you get more real.

[trdsf]

Well you've already contradicted yourself right there... if the future is definitely indefinite but 'the' refers to what's definite then 'the future' definitely refers to the definite future. You can't both say that 'the' always refers to the definite but also say that 'the future' refers to the indefinite.

This is exactly my whole point: regardless of the fact that there is a set of events that will come to pass, we don't know that set of events ahead of time in detail, so in fact only "a" future exists from our perspective.  There are also many sets of equally probable events, and quite possibly there are even sets of events that are more probable than what eventually comes to pass.

So I am explicitly not using 'the future' to refer to an indefinite future, because I'm trying not to use 'the future' at all.

If it helps any, I'm also the sort of pedant who's (still) trying to train himself to say 'horizonfall' and 'horizonrise' rather than 'sunrise' and 'sunset'.  :D

[Cavebear]

This is exactly my whole point: regardless of the fact that there is a set of events that will come to pass, we don't know that set of events ahead of time in detail, so in fact only "a" future exists from our perspective.  There are also many sets of equally probable events, and quite possibly there are even sets of events that are more probable than what eventually comes to pass.

So I am explicitly not using 'the future' to refer to an indefinite future, because I'm trying not to use 'the future' at all.

If it helps any, I'm also the sort of pedant who's (still) trying to train himself to say 'horizonfall' and 'horizonrise' rather than 'sunrise' and 'sunset'.  :D

I've tried to say 'horizonfall' and 'horizonrise' rather than 'sunrise' and 'sunset' myself at times, but it is like trying to push a rope.  Society fights it, language fights it, and (in spite of what I know to be true), logic fights it.  Sometimes you just have to communicate in accepted terms.  Not that I don't try in writing...

[Cavebear]

Also, I DO use future to be uncertain.  Mostly because we don't actually know what current events make any difference.  But also, thinking of the "butterfly effect" it is still too much a coin flip.  I wish that made more sense, but I can't accept that the future is fixed in any way.  Maybe it is depending on what we all do today, but it changes depending on what we do 2 minutes from now.

What REALLY annoys me is that I'm usually good at talking in "time", but not in this particular way.

[Unbeliever]

Reminds me of that old song from the Doris Day show, Please Don't Eat the Daisies - Que Sera Sera:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcWbZUgymkw

[Cavebear]

Reminds me of that old song from the Doris Day show, Please Don't Eat the Daisies - Que Sera Sera:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcWbZUgymkw

Oh damn, that is one of my earworm songs!  Thanks a LOT!  LOL!  Well, maybe it will push the Doublemint Twins out for a day.

[Unbeliever]

Well, sorry about that, but somebody had to do it! ;-)

And besides, as earworms go, that one's not too bad.

[SGOS]

Reminds me of that old song from the Doris Day show, Please Don't Eat the Daisies - Que Sera Sera:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcWbZUgymkw

How old are you? 

[Unbeliever]

Too old to rock and roll, too young to die.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwn0R1PFUwU