Is this a final proof of free will?

[The happy Objectivist]

Its a pity the so-called 'law of causality there, isn't any law of Physics, (I might add) ..

Why is that a pity. I don't understand. It is a law of nature. Do you deny causality?

 

[SelfSim]

Why is that a pity. I don't understand. It is a law of nature. Do you deny causality?

What do you mean by 'a law of nature'?

The concept that a cause is fundamentally different from an effect, pretty much doesn't exist in Physics. It's not in any equation, it's not used in any formal sense .. so it certainly isn't a law of Physics. I suppose one could argue that a Physical notion of cause and effect generally involves information and prediction, which stands well distinct from philosophical notions of it.

Philosophers have had great fun with causality, but it has largely eluded them. Hume, for eg, basically said that no one can really say what connects an effect to a cause, yet even small children use the notion effortlessly. You could say it's a bit like the notion of good and evil, which philosophers have also never really figured out, yet gets used all the time.

A supposed 'law of Causality' points to not much more than how adept we are at manipulating ideas that we really cannot describe at all.
Its certainly not a concept that take us very far in a science forum .. that's for sure.

 

[Bradskii]

A supposed 'law of Causality' points to not much more than how adept we are at manipulating ideas that we really cannot describe at all.
Its certainly not a concept that take us very far in a science forum .. that's for sure.

What? It's the very basis of science. If you do X then it causes Y.

 

[SelfSim]

What? It's the very basis of science. If you do X then it causes Y.

Nope .. Science requires no philosophical pre-assumptions .. (Ie: I see none cited in the scientific method).

 

[Bradskii]

Nope .. Science requires no philosophical pre-assumptions .. (Ie: I see none cited in the scientific method).

Science observes cause and effect, experiments to link the two and assumes that repeating the experiment will give the same result. Do X and it will cause Y. There's no need for a philosophical discussion.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

What do you mean by 'a law of nature'?

The concept that a cause is fundamentally different from an effect, pretty much doesn't exist in Physics. It's not in any equation, it's not used in any formal sense .. so it certainly isn't a law of Physics. I suppose one could argue that a Physical notion of cause and effect generally involves information and prediction, which stands well distinct from philosophical notions of it.

Philosophers have had great fun with causality, but it has largely eluded them. Hume, for eg, basically said that no one can really say what connects an effect to a cause, yet even small children use the notion effortlessly. You could say it's a bit like the notion of good and evil, which philosophers have also never really figured out, yet gets used all the time.

A supposed 'law of Causality' points to not much more than how adept we are at manipulating ideas that we really cannot describe at all.
Its certainly not a concept that take us very far in a science forum .. that's for sure.

With every word that you state, with every claim you make, with every math equation that you solve, you make use of the law of identity. What I mean by a law of nature is a universally general principle that identifies the way nature is, as a whole. The law of identity is often stated as A is A or A=A. It states that everything that exists has a specific nature or identity and is that thing and only that thing. If A exists then it must be A. The law of causality is a corollary to the law of identity. It is the law of identity applied to actions. It says that if A acts it must act as A and not something other than A. It states that the nature of an action is determined by the nature of the thing which acts. The law of identity is the fundamental law of Logic. The law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle are corollary laws to the law of identity. If you use concepts, if you use math, if you use logic then you use and accept the law of identity whether you know it or not. You say that causality is not a concept that can take us very far in a science forum but we could not have a forum or argue or communicate or do anything at all if the law of identity and the law of causality is not true.

As for Hume, he's hopeless. He made many errors which led him inevitably to his skeptical conclusion. One of his biggest errors was thinking that the necessary connection was between events instead of a relationship between an entity and its actions. I suggest you chew on this idea of causality being the identity of actions and integrate it with physics. I think many things will become clearer if you do.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Nope .. Science requires no philosophical pre-assumptions .. (Ie: I see none cited in the scientific method).

Science assumes all kinds of philosophical principles. Science is the systematic application of reason and logic to understand nature. Nature is identity. Therefore science assumes the axiom of identity. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material brought in by the senses. Reason presupposes that there is something to know and a consciousness capable of knowing it. Therefore science presupposes the axiom of existence, that existence exists, and the axiom of consciousness, consciousness is consciousness of something, it is the faculty that perceives that which exists. And since reason and logic both involve some consciousness understanding some object then another philosophical principle known as the issue of metaphysical primacy is presupposed by science. This principle identifies the orientation of the subject to its objects. Since science is interested in understanding the cause of things then the law of causality, the law of identity applied to action, is also front and center. So there are many philosophical principles implicit in science. It is because of the ignorance of these fundamental principles that people, including scientists, entertain questions such as where did the universe come from? or why is there something rather than nothing? It's because people hold a classical or Humean view of causality as a relationship between events instead of the relationship of an entity to its actions that the issue of free will is so confusing to people. Since all knowledge is hierarchical, these issues are inescapable.

It's like building a house. Make an error on the foundation and that error is carried through to the roof and is magnified. An eighth of an inch off at the foundation becomes two inches at the roof. Then your walls aren't plumb or square, your rafters don't fit and your windows and doors are much harder to hang.

 

[SelfSim]

Science observes cause and effect, experiments to link the two and assumes that repeating the experiment will give the same result. Do X and it will cause Y. There's no need for a philosophical discussion.

Science never assumes that doing X will cause Y .. it never tests 'actual causes', it tests its models and there will always be uncertainties produced in results of the tests of those models. The logic that says: 'If we find the model we call 'causation' is useful in many contexts, it implies that everything that happens, must either be caused, or be a first cause', is just plain, old flawed logic.

What if event A actually causes both X and Y, and X and Y are only actually connected via event A? That would be a scenario where there would be no clear-cut physical notion that X could be the cause of Y.
There are many other possibilities, you can have A cause both X and Y, but as X always comes first, it gives the appearance that X causes Y. You can have the occurrence of Y necessitating that A must have come before it, but not associate A as having also caused the appearance of X, and conclude that X caused Y.
Basing physics on the notion of causality, is a slippery slope.

And you can have situations like, let's say I hold a gun to your head and I decide not to pull the trigger. Have I demonstrably 'caused' you to not die? Is the rest of your life an effect of my decision not to shoot you? Can I cause an outcome via an action I didn't even take? One person might say 'yes', another 'no'. What test could decide who was right there?

 

[SelfSim]

With every word that you state, with every claim you make, with every math equation that you solve, you make use of the law of identity. What I mean by a law of nature is a universally general principle that identifies the way nature is, as a whole. The law of identity is often stated as A is A or A=A. It states that everything that exists has a specific nature or identity and is that thing and only that thing. If A exists then it must be A. The law of causality is a corollary to the law of identity. It is the law of identity applied to actions. It says that if A acts it must act as A and not something other than A. It states that the nature of an action is determined by the nature of the thing which acts. The law of identity is the fundamental law of Logic. The law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle are corollary laws to the law of identity. If you use concepts, if you use math, if you use logic then you use and accept the law of identity whether you know it or not. You say that causality is not a concept that can take us very far in a science forum but we could not have a forum or argue or communicate or do anything at all if the law of identity and the law of causality is not true.

You are talking about the so-called philosophical 'laws of thought'. I agree that reasoning logic has its roots in these so-called philosophical 'laws', however there is no 'truth assumed as existing' in Physics. Science tests everything it can .. and never needs to 'assume the existence of some truth'.
Logic applied to a well tested physical theory, law or fact, often produces a different set testable predictions .. so science grabs logic (or math) there, to make useful predictions. There's nothing about assumed truths in that (unlike your so-called philosophical 'laws of thought' .. which depend on untestable truisms).
Logic (or math) in science models, is used to track dependencies with high consistency.

As for Hume, he's hopeless. He made many errors which led him inevitably to his skeptical conclusion. One of his biggest errors was thinking that the necessary connection was between events instead of a relationship between an entity and its actions. I suggest you chew on this idea of causality being the identity of actions and integrate it with physics. I think many things will become clearer if you do.

Well thank goodness I don't need to do any of that!
I'lll stick with testing testable models thank you very much .. because that's what science does!
No assumptions (or preconditions) are necessary, nor are they stated as being needed in the well published, widely taught and recognised scientific method, that I'm aware of.

 

[SelfSim]

.. science presupposes the axiom of existence, that existence exists,

What a load of circular gobbledygook!
'Existence' is our human word .. it has a human assigned meaning, (otherwise, how could we ever communicate anything?) .. We assign that meaning via two distinct methods, ie: by the scientific method, or by way of beliefs. This is objectively demonstrable and is not my opinion, nor is it based on completely useless truisms like: 'existence exists', or 'whatever is, is' (with the latter being the so-called 'law of Identity' nonsense definition).

and the axiom of consciousness, consciousness is consciousness of something, it is the faculty that perceives that which exists.

Everything we perceive, once described using language, becomes a model. There are two types of models: testable and untestable. Untestable models, are ignored by science and are handled with neutrality before moving on with its testing. Science labels them as: beliefs. Untestable beliefs serve no useful purpose in science.
Once some testable model has been tested extensively, and the results are consistent with the model, the model becomes part of science's 'Objective Reality'. Science's conclusions in those cases are then contextual and provisional.
All this is completely distinct from the other way we decide on what is 'real' (ie: by way of beliefs). Philosophy seeks to discover 'true' things .. such as meanings. That process is indistinguishable from a miracle, as far as science is concerned. Science undertakes the hard, observable process work which produces the meaning (and its context) when it claims something 'exists'.

And since reason and logic both involve some consciousness understanding some object then another philosophical principle known as the issue of metaphysical primacy is presupposed by science. This principle identifies the orientation of the subject to its objects. Since science is interested in understanding the cause of things then the law of causality, the law of identity applied to action, is also front and center. So there are many philosophical principles implicit in science.

Nonsense .. my friend. Doesn't work when the purpose is to be practically useful.

The distinction between 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' was always an arbitrary one and never one of 'objective things exist independently from, (or outside of), our minds/our consciousness', (unless one believes in miracles, that is!)

It is because of the ignorance of these fundamental principles that people, including scientists, entertain questions such as where did the universe come from? or why is there something rather than nothing? It's because people hold a classical or Humean view of causality as a relationship between events instead of the relationship of an entity to its actions that the issue of free will is so confusing to people. Since all knowledge is hierarchical, these issues are inescapable.

I can see that's what you believe .. that's it.

It's like building a house. Make an error on the foundation and that error is carried through to the roof and is magnified. An eighth of an inch off at the foundation becomes two inches at the roof. Then your walls aren't plumb or square, your rafters don't fit and your windows and doors are much harder to hang.

Perhaps you could take your objection there to a Philosophy forum, then?

 

[Bradskii]

Science never assumes that doing X will cause Y .. it never tests 'actual causes', it tests its models and there will always be uncertainties produced in results of the tests of those models. The logic that says: 'If we find the model we call 'causation' is useful in many contexts, it implies that everything that happens, must either be caused, or be a first cause', is just plain, old flawed logic.

What if event A actually causes both X and Y, and X and Y are only actually connected via event A? That would be a scenario where there would be no clear-cut physical notion that X could be the cause of Y.
There are many other possibilities, you can have A cause both X and Y, but as X always comes first, it gives the appearance that X causes Y. You can have the occurrence of Y necessitating that A must have come before it, but not associate A as having also caused the appearance of X, and conclude that X caused Y.
Basing physics on the notion of causality, is a slippery slope.

And you can have situations like, let's say I hold a gun to your head and I decide not to pull the trigger. Have I demonstrably 'caused' you to not die? Is the rest of your life an effect of my decision not to shoot you? Can I cause an outcome via an action I didn't even take? One person might say 'yes', another 'no'. What test could decide who was right there?

I think you're vastly over complicating something that is remarkably simple. If I poke you in the eye then that causes you pain. You can X, Y and Z it until the cows come home. But if I do it again tomorrow then my finger poking your eye is still the cause of the pain. Try it yourself...

 

[SelfSim]

I think you're vastly over complicating something that is remarkably simple. If I poke you in the eye then that causes you pain. You can X, Y and Z it until the cows come home. But if I do it again tomorrow then my finger poking your eye is still the cause of the pain. Try it yourself...

Yes .. I can see that's what you mean by 'pain' there .. and also how you might also see your notion of causality as being useful for relieving it, in that particular context.

I see no evidence from your example however for some generalised physical law of causality though(?)

 

[Bradskii]

Yes .. I can see that's what you mean by 'pain' there .. and also how you might also see your notion of causality as being useful for relieving it, in that particular context.

I see no evidence from your example however for some generalised physical law of causality though(?)

There is no law. It's an assumption, as I said. It serves us well. What else could we use to conduct science?

 

[SelfSim]

There is no law. It's an assumption, as I said. It serves us well. What else could we use to conduct science?

This sub conversation with you, was complicated by your reference to @The happy Objectivist's reference to some supposed 'law of Causality', which you then claimed was the very basis of science in post#83.
You haven't demonstrated that science uses this supposed base assumption, in any way whatsoever.
It therefore, remains justifiably ignorable.

 

[Bradskii]

This sub conversation with you, was complicated by your reference to @The happy Objectivist's reference to some supposed 'law of Causality', which you then claimed was the very basis of science in post#83.
You haven't demonstrated that science uses this supposed base assumption, in any way whatsoever.
It therefore, remains justifiably ignorable.

You can freely ignore any 'Law of Causality'. But you can't ignore causality.

 

[SelfSim]

But you can't ignore causality.

Yes .. everything moves slower than the speed of light .. (or, all physical influences travel inside of light cones). End of story.