Do they? Are you sure? I'm not. And, that certainly hasn't been proven....(not that I think it could be..)
It is the rational assumption to take... given that nothing has yet been shown to be both uncaused and non-random.
Agreed. However, unlike yourself (just assuming based upon your comments herein..), I do not equate causality with determinism.
If by determinism you mean strict determinism, nor do I. As previously stated, I assume everything is either caused or (as in the case of radiocative decay, for example) random. If something is caused then the effect follows a probability function rather than a strict output.
Agreed.
Note however, that this says absolutely nothing about election.
If by election you imply choice as opposed to a mere random output among the possibilities then it does say something about election - it negates the possibility of election.
I don't think we can move to conclude this.
Perhaps, at best, we could stretch things to admit that yes, within the realm of 'dumb matter', strict deterministic causality is the force majeur. Beyond this realm, I don't think so...
I'm NOT talking about "strict" determinism. I haven't done and I won't. It is not a position I adhere to.
Strict determinism (as I understand it) is "same cause = same effect".
I am predominantly coming from a far
softer view of determinism where "same cause = same probability function of effects", and the actual effect is random, as well as taking note of random non-caused events such as radioactive decay.
All events, under this view, are either caused or random. And if caused then the resultant effect is random within the probability function.
Therefore for there to be choice/free-will then an effect has to be both uncaused and non-random.
Ah, but as we all know via scientific method generally, and logic specifically, it only takes one case to disprove....
Indeed - but we're not discussing the general principle of applicability but of the specific case. You merely threw up a logical fallacy by cherry-picking.
Applicable? Yes. 'Enforced' (i.e. necessary)? No.
Then provide an example of where it is not necessary... where there is "choice" without cause?
Right, but not evenly so. That is to say, not only can we not follow the pattern of causality regressively (to its 'starting point, so to speak) (which is why 'causality' is still, at best, a metaphysical notion..), but we can't even directly observe it (at any scale whatsoever..). As Hume said, all we can ever observe is patterns of constant conjunction. Never causality.
Now you're just stirring up the mud to hide behind.
Are you saying that there are effects that are both uncaused and non-random? Care to name but a single one?
There are many here who would be shocked to see such an accusation made of me.
Nonetheless, yes, I can see how you might think that.
Again, this is me focusing on the specific human element to the equation. I do think that our cognitive perspective can, and does have a great influence on our environment...
I know it's not something you would do - which is why I was suprised to see your comments phrased in such language.
Ah, but it does definitively alter the chain. The observer 'collapses' the eigenstate right? In the absence of an observer, things would have taken a different path.
Which is why the observer is an important cause, but it is still just a cause - and it leads to a random effect (within the probability function / waveform) - there is no certainly no choice in the outcome.
Further, the observer doesn't "alter" the chain - it merely acts as a cause within the chain - a cause that crystallises the effect of a previous cause.
Your argument would equally apply to ANY of the links within the cause/effect chain... remove any one cause and the overall chain takes a different path.
I think your last sentence is a non sequitur.
Just because one can affect change, it doesn't follow that the affector in question was somehow uncaused. You're still mixing up causality with determinism.
No - I'm not.
Each cause leads to an effect that is not strictly determined - but is random within the probability function.
The only other alternative are uncaused things, such as radioactive decay. Which again is random.
Surely for there to be "choice" the output/effect can not be random?
Moreover, you seem to be assuming that there's some Aristotelian teleological 'causality line' for the entirety of reality. It can be the case that both an event and an agent have each their own deterministic line. In this case, the two lines converge at a point, where the agent has an affect on the other (and, one assumes, vice versa..).
I am certainly not assuming that chains are discrete. If I talk of "cause" and "effect" as being singular it is masking the complexity of the influences that make up a "cause" and an "effect".
The "cause" would be everything with influence on the "effect".
Ultimately this would be expanded to everything at one moment being the cause for everything at the next moment (being the effect).
But there is nothing teleological about what I am saying.
Post hoc, yes. But not in any teleological sense.
Again - nothing teleological here.
As for being
post hoc... are you implying the
post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy??
I'm assuming not - so I'm not sure why it should be an issue?
It sure seems that you are. At least, if we cannot interfere with the (grand) causality chain, then it must be the case that everything that happens, must happen (in that precise way). Thus: no free will, no choice = strict determinism.
Misconception of strict determinism on your part, I think - or perhaps mine.
Strict determinism is (as I understand it, correct me if you think differently) "same input = same output", and does not allow for randomness.
I am arguing from mere causality and non-caused randomness: same input = same probability function (i.e. random output within the probability function), but with things being non-caused but random (e.g. radioactive decay).
This is not strict determinism but also does not allow for free-will or choice.
Oh I'm cool keeping it all here.
It really depends on how much, and to what extent, we get into the specific human element.
Since (in this thread) I see no difference between the "human" element and any other, I have no desire to explore it specifically here.
