But then again maybe those aren't the things that society should be looking for in the first place.It also isn't justice, and it isn't a replacement for retributive justice
@FrumiousBandersnatch@FrumiousBandersnatch
I'm still wondering if you will just maybe come out and maybe just plainly answer/say that the entire universe (or this physical reality, etc) is all deterministic, etc...? And could perhaps maybe also explain why you maybe think that maybe, etc...?
You mentioned the laws of physics for example... So what about the laws of physics leads you to think, (or else otherwise believe/suspect, etc), that the universe is deterministic, etc...?
Do you think everything above the level of the atom (right now) can be mathematically known/predicted right now, etc...? Or at least maybe could be at least potentially maybe, etc...?
And then also again, what also makes you maybe think that maybe, etc...?
God Bless!
Do you think everything above the level of the atom (right now) can be mathematically known/predicted right now, etc...? Or at least maybe could be at least potentially maybe, etc...?
I said "right now" because we don't yet have the correct math for the subatomic levels right now, because I think that even when we do, we will discover that it is deterministic as well, and dictates the behavior of atoms, which we already know behave deterministically right now as well, etc, and we have the math for that, math that will also work for everything above it, it's just incredibly complex, and there is a lot to calculate, and a lot of information to figure out/give/provide, etc...I can't speak for Bandersnatch, but I don't see how that's possible. It suggests that there is some boundary which prevents subatomic phenomena from affecting things in the macro world. Brownian motion is, I believe, an example which contradicts that idea.
If everything above the level of the atom can be determined mathematically (even just in principle), then the subatomic can not have any influence at all on the macro scale. And we know that isn't the case.
@KylieI said "right now" because we don't yet have the correct math for the subatomic levels right now, because I think that even when we do, we will discover that it is deterministic as well, and dictates the behavior of atoms, which we already know behave deterministically right now as well, etc, and we have the math for that, math that will also work for everything above it, it's just incredibly complex, and there is a lot to calculate, and a lot of information to figure out/give/provide, etc...
Do atoms dicate molecules, and do molecules dicate cells, and do cells, which I have heard is the first and lowest level of consciousness, dicate us and our actions and decisions and choices, etc...?
Can a cell "choose", etc...? Or has that behavior already been decided by the molecules and atoms it is made up of already, etc...? And then, do we really "choose", etc...? Or has that already been decided for us by what we are made up and what is going on with all of it/that already, etc...?
God Bless!
But then again maybe those aren't the things that society should be looking for in the first place.
In fact maybe they're the problem.
@Kylie
Right now, we are trying to figure out the subatomic world with the math that we currently right now have, but it's not working very well, and we are learning that we need a whole new and entirely different math for it, which we don't currently have right now, but are still in the process of figuring out and/or discovering and/or finding/figuring out right now, which is why I have chosen to leave that level of it alone for right now, and go with what we currently already know, which is enough to be sufficient for determining determinism in my view, etc...
God Bless!
I don't see how one level, or all other levels, could be deterministic, and not what makes them up not be also deterministic in some fashion as well, etc...?Do you have any actual evidence to support your position that subatomic events are deterministic? Or is it just supposition?
See my post to you just now.If we don't know if subatomic events are deterministic, but we accept that they can affect macro events, then I don't see how you can reach the conclusion that everything is deterministic. To be intellectually honest, you should at least hold the position, "I don't have enough information to say one way or the other."
Let's take the life of one cell for a moment, which is supposed to be the first level of consciousness, etc, and try to determine if it chooses, or can choose, or if it is really conscious or not, etc...?I said "right now" because we don't yet have the correct math for the subatomic levels right now, because I think that even when we do, we will discover that it is deterministic as well, and dictates the behavior of atoms, which we already know behave deterministically right now as well, etc, and we have the math for that, math that will also work for everything above it, it's just incredibly complex, and there is a lot to calculate, and a lot of information to figure out/give/provide, etc...
Do atoms dicate molecules, and do molecules dicate cells, and do cells, which I have heard is the first and lowest level of consciousness, dicate us and our actions and decisions and choices, etc...?
Can a cell "choose", etc...? Or has that behavior already been decided by the molecules and atoms it is made up of already, etc...? And then, do we really "choose", etc...? Or has that already been decided for us by what we are made up and what is going on with all of it/that already, etc...?
God Bless!
I sometimes think that we focus too much on justice and retribution because it's easier than focusing on compassion. We're moral and just when others have failed us, but we seem to take little or no responsibility when we have failed them. When we fail the poor, or the oppressed, or the exploited, or the addicted, or the mentality ill. I think that if we focused more on what we should do out of compassion, then we'd be far less concerned about we need to do out of justice.This is a more honest approach than dressing up rehabilitation in the disguise of justice, but I think it is also flawed a la Lewis' article referenced in post #422.
I would be very, very shocked if we ever eventually found out otherwise, or that it was not, etc...If we don't know if subatomic events are deterministic, but we accept that they can affect macro events, then I don't see how you can reach the conclusion that everything is deterministic. To be intellectually honest, you should at least hold the position, "I don't have enough information to say one way or the other."
I don't see how one level, or all other levels, could be deterministic, and not what makes them up not be also deterministic in some fashion as well, etc...?
I find your argument illogical...Allow me to provide an analogy.
It's like saying that you can't see how some process can be ordered, but what makes up those processes could not also be deterministic.
However, I can give an example of a process which delivers a highly ordered result, yet part of the process is very random.
Ever notice how the bottom of the chip (crisps in some parts of the world) packet, or cereal box, or popcorn tub, it ALWAYS has the little scraggly bits? And all the big pieces are near the top? That's because of random movement.
As the chip packet (or cereal box, etc) moves, the pieces inside jostle about, and gaps open up between them. Of course, smaller gaps are more likely to open up, since all large gaps must start out as small gaps, but not all small gaps will form larger gaps. Thus, smaller pieces are more likely to fall through the gaps, and we'll end up seeing the pieces sorted by size, with larger pieces on top and smaller pieces at the bottom.
This is a highly ordered result, even though a very important part of the process was random.
Likewise, it's entirely possible that on the scale of subatomic particles, there are forces which have a large influence, yet these forces are not strong enough to move things on the macroscopic level.
A single atom, after all, can be moved by Brownian motion, yet Brownian motion has no effect on my position.
@Kylie
I didn't deny that future discoveries on the subatomic level could possibly disprove my current theory, or theories, etc, I just don't think it's very likely, etc...
You would have to have proof of a multiverse, or many different universes/realities, that we either crossed over into, or interacted with, or that we crossed over into, or went between, and that went between ours, etc, etc, etc, at this point, etc, to disprove what I am saying to you right now, etc...
But I guess it's possible future discoveries on the subatomic or quantum level might be able to prove something like that maybe, etc...?
"Maybe", etc...
But I also thought most of you guys liked to only work with only what we currently have right now, or can only currently know for currently sure right now also, etc...?
And in my opinion, right now anyway, that all points directly to determinism right now, etc...
Anyway, going to bed...
Have a good night...
God Bless!
As I said, what is considered to be justice in this regime is giving the opportunity to voluntarily change their circumstances for the better; conversely, it would be considered unjust not to do so.The bettering of oneself is not justice. The bettering of another is also not justice, unless of course your unjust acts were the result of their worsened state, in which case it would be an instance of restorative justice.
I don't think so. The regime I have in mind involves no punishment, and no coercion or compulsion to take rehabilitation.If there is no retributive punishment then you fall precisely into the category that Lewis warns us about.
OK, call it an alternative to retributive justice.It also isn't justice, and it isn't a replacement for retributive justice, as you claimed it was...
The point is that the system would be aimed towards a beneficial outcome for society and offender through positive rather than negative reinforcement. Those unable or unwilling to meet acceptable standards would live isolated from wider society, under appropriate supervision if necessary, with the open option of assistance to reintegrate if they wish.I'm sorry, but this is another word game. Therapy or rehabilitation is not a judicial category, and the restorative justice noted above is distinct from retributive justice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?