What facts?
You keep referring to these supposed facts....yet your description of determinism is something that isn't only impossible to prove....but impossible to disprove.
In the world of facts, this sort of claim is called "not even wrong".
The logic arguments that have been said/presented here over and over and over again (and that I'm getting quite tired of) for one. And then everything that we are made up of being deterministic for another, that cannot produce non-determinism, or a non-deterministic result.
Would you agree then that no evidence exists for determinism?
I would agree that a lot more evidence exists for determinism than free will.
Since we cannot ever do this "proof".
It's a simple logic argument, and a logic argument that makes perfect sense, if someone is being honest, etc.
In your two door experiment, if you never change anything, or never introduce anything new, and the person is also the same exact person each time, then the person will always, always make the same exact choice each and every single time, or 100% of the time, etc. And what door they will choose, will have already been determined by their previous past experiences elsewhere, or what kind of person they were before that or up to that point.
Well I wanted to know what "cause" you imagine exists that results in this hypothetical outcome that repeats under the impossible circumstances required for the unachievable proof necessary for determinism to be true?
Since the cause for opening either door is "desire to leave the room" and both doors fulfill the effect of the cause....what possible "cause" forces, for example, a left or right choice every time?
Desire to leave the room will never be the only cause influencing their choice or decision ever, etc, but who they were/are up to the point of being put in there each time, will also have a major, major influence, and I would argue "total influence", on what door they will choose each and every single time, etc. And without anything ever being any different, or ever changing, then they would make the exact same choice the exact same 100% of the time, or each and every single time, etc.
The logic is inductive....and frankly I don't have to disprove it. A guy named Hume already pointed out long ago that there's absolutely nothing logical about induction long ago. If you feel one of the few attempts to disprove his claim (I think 4 or 5 of the 7 serious attempts to counter his claim basically start with the concession he's correct, so you'll want to pick one of the other 2 or 3) is well founded....let's hear it.
There you go....you'll like this part as it's relevant.
3) There are also causal generalizations. Hume says that we can’t determine the hidden causal powers of particular things (p. 195 - e.g., the coldness of ice, or the nourishing power of bread) simply by scrutinizing them carefully. Instead, we infer these capacities from our experience with those kinds of things.
As much as I dislike being one of those guys who references some long dead genius who graduated university before puberty....he's got a point that seems rather relevant. That point is....
There's absolutely nothing logical about your position here. It's essentially a faith based belief.
Well, that's a laugh, since the only thing I am using right now is logic and reason, etc.
Let's try this then... Can you keep all conditions the exact same, and I do mean "all conditions the exact same", and then "run it" or start it that way each and every single time, etc, and ever, ever get different results any of the time? if all conditions were always kept the "exact exact same", and I do mean "exact exact same", each and every single time?
Yes or No?
No need to....I only did it in response to you doing the same earlier to these other fellows.
Yeah, whatever.
Now that we agree intellectual snobbery and ad hominem attacks aren't good arguments....perhaps address the points above.
I'm sure you can understand Hume here...I mean, he did basically have to rewrite his initial book in a dumbed-down sort of way for anyone to understand what he was saying but it's been well trod since then. You'll get it first try.
I'm not here to argue Philosophy.
Again, this impossible experiment without any evidence for doesn't somehow create any facts about the issue.....you understand that, right?
It's a thought argument/exercise.
And anyone who is being honest, would be on this side of it, etc.
Because I can just as reasonably say that if we were to run such an experiment....I believe you'd see different outcomes at some point.
I think it's completely illogical to say you can keep everything the exact same, but get different results at different times.
Because that is what is not logical here, and what is being denied here, etc.
You may be able to flip a coin and get tails a certain number of times....but heads will come up eventually.
And if you knew all of the factors involved in a simple coin toss, you could also predict that or those each and every single time, etc.
God Bless.
