Fate, Random chance, or Synchronicity?

[Whaleboy]

No, any logic used to back up either position, in that case, for and against, falls into the camp of either side, becomes as subjective as that side, and merely aggregates the logic used to back up that own position, and carries no baring over that other side, remember the court analogy? If an objective is placed above either position, with wildcards of its own, it can choose one position, but only because of those wildcards that are alien out of context, in which case. each position has the capacity to be backed up by equal amounts of logic, in this case, one is merely filling that capacity, but indeed, it is the capacity not the degree to which it is filled that matters out of context, or in a neutral context, whereas, if you add wildcards, in this case, a debate attempting to determine whether the shroud is real or not, then that debate will choose a certain side, either because of its own preference or because, as is often the case in debates, the "sports" like nature of the thing "who can use the most logic", which is alien to the validity of the argument out of context and unapplied, which is what I'm talking about, in this context, with Sloww.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Azazel

No, but I don't believe we have free will.

Free will is a bull**** expression anyway. WTF is free will?

I think you just expressed it

[Whaleboy]

WTF is free will?

Its the ability to take advantage of ones liberty to do something (to make a choice), purely independently, as in, not influenced by deterministic external factors.

Determinism means that if one accounts for those externel factors, as in all of them, then you can predict the choice one person will make.

My argument is that different people have different views, so the relativist argument applies in the sense that it is a matter for ones own subjective perception. However, my own view is that ones own decisions are influenced entirely by internel and external factors, but in our 4-d universe, our ability to calculate them accurately decreases exponentially as the time from the source or end event increases, due to heisenbergs theory and schrodingers thesis.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
each position has the capacity to be backed up by equal amounts of logic

How? I'd like to see that proved, or even shown. If something is true for that context, then it can be backed up with more logic than somethign that is false for that context.

Originally posted by elijah
Determinism means that if one accounts for those externel factors, as in all of them, then you can predict the choice one person will make.

Not quite. Determinism is when something is predictable, in that with perfect knowledge of that person, you would know what they would do. It means either that they have no choice, or that their choice is determined by something beyond their control. It is still not necessarily that any person can predict it, as perfect knowledge is impossible.

Originally posted by elijah
My argument is that different people have different views, so the relativist argument applies in the sense that it is a matter for ones own subjective perception.

The relativist argument is also a subjective though. Many people do not believe in relativism, so it does not mean it is a matter for everyones subjective perception, it means you believe that it is. Moreover, since either our actions are predetermined or not, there is a right and a wrong answer. Nobody knows which it is, and so we cannot be sure, but not all views are equally valid.

[Whaleboy]

The relativist argument is also a subjective though

Only in the context of relativism vs others, in which case I am free to advocate relativism but accept that I am subjective along with that. Out of context, it is equally valid, in the context of subjective vs subjective, it is objective.

How? I'd like to see that proved

-1,0,1. I'll email you my article on it when its completed, I cant be bothered paraphrasing a massive argument when I'm out of coffee.

Not quite. Determinism is when something is predictable

So, like I said predictable to a degree. Look at the weather forecast thing. You have most of the information, accuracy degrades quickly. You have all the information, accuracy still degrades due to uncertainty, but not in the model of total info, total knowledge for all intents and purposes within that context.

If something is true for that context, then it can be backed up with more logic than somethign that is false for that context

The key is, "for that context". Out of context, where the question of validity of subjectives arises, the wildcards of true or false by definition do not apply. Whether you cognetively or in reality apply a context to a subjective, or rather, apply a wildcard(s) to a subjective, you are taking it out out of context, and placing it in a tainted context, which is slanting the playing field.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
Out of context, it is equally valid

Only if you assume relativism. If you assume absolutism, then it is never equally valid. You cannot argue that relativism is equally valid unless you use relativism to argue it. Assuming non relativism, you cannot show that relativism is equally valid.

Originally posted by elijah
in the context of subjective vs subjective, it is objective.

If I don't believe in relativism, then whether objective or not, I believe it is wrong. Objective does not mean right or best, as I gave with the example of the Euro earlier.

Originally posted by elijah
So, like I said predictable to a degree.

IMHO not. I believe it is completely unpredictable, or more exactly, chaotic. Hence with perfect knowledge, it is perfectly predictable. Without perfect knowledge, it is unpredictable and chaotic.

Originally posted by elijah
The key is, "for that context".

Everything is in some context, when it is applied. Hence when you apply it, it cannot be backed up with exactly the same amount of logic. If something is true for that context, presuming that is the context of the argument, then it can be backed up with more logic than something that is false, for the context of that argument.

[Tiamat]

My theory short and sweet. What goes around comes around in this universe. Nothing is left up to chance and everything happens for a reason.

[Solly]

Just keep leaving in your own little world Tiamat. Enjoying the company of Glenn Hoddle?

’You and I have physically been given two hands and two legs and half-decent brains. Some people have not been born like that for a reason. The karma is working from another lifetime. I have nothing to hide about that. It is not only people with disabilities. What you sow, you have to reap'’

[Japher]

Everything happens for a reason; cause and causation.

Fate is dogmatic approach to luck. Luck is really just causes that have unforseen causation.

Nothing is Random. If something is said to be random it means that it is just too confusing to determine the causations.

I have no idea what you mean by synchronicity.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Japher
Everything happens for a reason; cause and causation...

Nothing is Random. If something is said to be random it means that it is just too confusing to determine the causations.

Or that the effects of the causations are chaotic. I agree, very little, if anything is random. Although I don't think things happen for a reason. I think things just happen, as they have done for millions of years.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Zero
Physicists may laugh at what Im saying but I think the universe can be understood and predicted thru science.

None of this quantum physics, I think uncertainty comes only from our limitations, thats all.

HA-HA!


Incidentally, the current theories of physics have no room for free-will. If they are correct then every decision you ever 'make' is not really 'you' but a consequence of physical laws. You are nothing - just a puppet.

So, for those of you who don't believe in free-will, how would you reconcile determinism with your morality? For example, should criminals be sent to prison? After all, it was determinism that made them do it.

[Solly]

And it is determinism that makes us punish them.

[Drogue]

Bodd's has a point.

It is a tough thing to reconcile. On the one hand, I have the desire not to punish people for something that they had no control over (ie. their genes and experience - who they are). On the other hand I have the benefit to society of having laws, and on removing from society those that break them. There has to be a balance between the two, therefore punishments not as strict because the person had no control over it, but also punishments that are enough to try to disuade others from offending. I favour rehabilitation wherever possible, and the removal from society until rehabilitation can have taken effect, by use of some form of prison or other locked perimeter. If rehabilitation will never be possible, then there is a choice between life (meanign actual life) in prisonment, or the death penalty. It is hard to reconcile, but without punishments, there is the problem of innocents being harmed. If someone is harming others, whether they have control over it or not, they must be stopped. Laws should be set to make the least amount of harm possible, whether for victims or for perpitrators IMHO.

[Solly]

If rehabilitation will never be possible, then there is a choice..

If we assume determinism, there are no choices.

[Drogue]

Taken in context, I meant a choice for society. It has been predetermined, but I meant that some people would want one, and some would want another, thus we do not know what we would choose. If I said there would be the death penalty, people would say that they don't want that, and likewise with life inprisonment being wasteful. It is a choice for society. The fact that what everyone thinks has been predetermined does not mean that we know the answer, and thus I do not know which one it would be.