måndagen den 28:e december 2009

The metaphysics of contingency (was: Science applied to Ahura Mazda and Asha) Part 2

But then you have changed the concept of "free will" from its historical meaning to a brand new one. Which in any case we would probably have to do since a soul that wills separate from a body that follows orders apparently does not exist anyway. But how do you define determinism when physics says that apratcle can take many different routes and end up in many different places even when the laws of physics and the position at the outset are identical? Have you changed the meaning of "determinism" too???

2009/12/28 Tomash

Well I'm a determinist. I'm also a compatibilist. I think free will and causality are not incompatible. Either free will is the manifestation of causality or causality the manifestation of free will. Or both are true or none: they exist parallely. Concept of fate or destiny is another matter, of how we perceive and attempt to explain certain events.


--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
> Charles Peirce was absolutely and most of logically right: If the world
> would have been DETERMINISTIC (and if it is, it has to be 100%
> deterministic, there can be no such thing as 99% determinism, in which case
> it is no longer determinism at all), then there would have been NO WORLD AT
> ALL. Indeterminism is the very requirement for difference to exist, and
> difference is essential to existence (such as the fundamental difference
> between that which exists and that which does not exist). Zarathushtra
> realised this too, as his starting point was NOT some prophecies transmitted
> by angels, but rather his VERY OWN AWE towards existence. Werner Heisenberg
> then draw the logical conclusions for physics in the 1920s when he
> identified and proved "the uncertainty principle". Any Abrahamic or
> post-Abrahamic idea of determinism is thereby dead. The future is open and
> not pre-programmed, even the so called laws of the universe are not
> necessarily set in stone anymore. Rather, existence is full of contingencies
> and emergences as a consequence of its indeterministic nature.
> Ushta
> Alexander
> 2009/12/28 ardeshir farhmand

> > I agree with DINO here 100%, well written. i will post an article later
> > confirming what u said in a more poetic gathic style.
> >
> > Ardeshir
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Special Kain wrote:

> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Daniel and Alexander
> >>
> >> It probably was Zarathushtra who introduced contingency and therefore the
> >> basic principle behind existential philosophy 3700 years ago: We could have
> >> chosen other thoughts, words and deeds than the thoughts we actually think,
> >> the words we actually speak and the things we actually do.
> >>
> >> The American logician and scientist Charles Sanders Peirce was the first
> >> to propose tychism as the doctrine of absolute chance (and as opposed to
> >> necessarism as the doctrine of necessity) in the 19th century and at a time
> >> when the whole universe seemed to be a well-oiled Newtonian automaton.
> >> Little deviations in measurements don't reveal errors in measurement
> >> techniques only, but they also something about reality's own nature -
> >> remember that Peirce was a realist!
> >>
> >> «The only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature and for
> >> uniformity in general is to suppose them results of evolution. This supposes
> >> them not to be absolute, not to be obeyed precisely. It makes an element of
> >> indeterminacy, spontaneity, or absolute chance in nature. Just as, when we
> >> attempt to verify any physical law, we find our observations cannot be
> >> precisely satisfied by it, and rightly attribute the discrepancy to errors
> >> of observation, so we must suppose far more minute discrepancies to exist
> >> owing to the imperfect cogency of the law itself, to a certain swerving of
> >> the facts from any definite formula.»
> >>
> >> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce
> >>
> >> My two cents,
> >> Dino

Inga kommentarer: