Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Does Eternalism Entail Determinism?

Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 12:27:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In what follows I will speak of a deterministic universe as 'A' and an indeterministic universe as 'B'.

Recently it was proposed to me that eternalism entails determinism. Until then I was of that opinion, too, but then I started to rethink this stance.
I adopt Daniel Dennett's understanding of determinism as a doctrine about sufficiency:

"If S0 is a sentence that specifies in complete detail the state description of the universe at t0 and S1 similarly specifies the state description of the universe at a later time t1, then determinism dictates that S0 is sufficient for S1 in all physically possible worlds"

If A is eternalist, then all states of this universe exist and from each state description you can tell what the universe will be like at some later time.
If B is eternalist, then, similarly, all states of this universe exist, but with the difference that from any one state description you cannot tell what this universe will be like at some later time.

It seems like this shows the compatibility of eternalism and indeterminism. However, the proposal was made in the context of free will. So it might be objected that true (libertarian) free will is still not possible as it requires the future to be uncertain.
Well, in both A and B the future is certain in that something is guaranteed to happen and in neither A nor B will you be able to tell exactly what that is.
Instead it might be objected that "true" free will require the future to not exist. But now the contention is not that free will requires indeterminism, rather it is that free will requires presentism/ growing block theory.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 3:36:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 12:27:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
In what follows I will speak of a deterministic universe as 'A' and an indeterministic universe as 'B'.

Recently it was proposed to me that eternalism entails determinism. Until then I was of that opinion, too, but then I started to rethink this stance.
I adopt Daniel Dennett's understanding of determinism as a doctrine about sufficiency:

"If S0 is a sentence that specifies in complete detail the state description of the universe at t0 and S1 similarly specifies the state description of the universe at a later time t1, then determinism dictates that S0 is sufficient for S1 in all physically possible worlds"

If A is eternalist, then all states of this universe exist and from each state description you can tell what the universe will be like at some later time.
If B is eternalist, then, similarly, all states of this universe exist, but with the difference that from any one state description you cannot tell what this universe will be like at some later time.

It seems like this shows the compatibility of eternalism and indeterminism. However, the proposal was made in the context of free will. So it might be objected that true (libertarian) free will is still not possible as it requires the future to be uncertain.
Well, in both A and B the future is certain in that something is guaranteed to happen and in neither A nor B will you be able to tell exactly what that is.
Instead it might be objected that "true" free will require the future to not exist. But now the contention is not that free will requires indeterminism, rather it is that free will requires presentism/ growing block theory. : :

You were better off when you weren't thinking about these matters. Do you know how confusing life gets when you ask questions that no one can answer except the one who tells you to listen to him and obey his commandments?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 7:47:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 3:36:52 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:27:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
In what follows I will speak of a deterministic universe as 'A' and an indeterministic universe as 'B'.

Recently it was proposed to me that eternalism entails determinism. Until then I was of that opinion, too, but then I started to rethink this stance.
I adopt Daniel Dennett's understanding of determinism as a doctrine about sufficiency:

"If S0 is a sentence that specifies in complete detail the state description of the universe at t0 and S1 similarly specifies the state description of the universe at a later time t1, then determinism dictates that S0 is sufficient for S1 in all physically possible worlds"

If A is eternalist, then all states of this universe exist and from each state description you can tell what the universe will be like at some later time.
If B is eternalist, then, similarly, all states of this universe exist, but with the difference that from any one state description you cannot tell what this universe will be like at some later time.

It seems like this shows the compatibility of eternalism and indeterminism. However, the proposal was made in the context of free will. So it might be objected that true (libertarian) free will is still not possible as it requires the future to be uncertain.
Well, in both A and B the future is certain in that something is guaranteed to happen and in neither A nor B will you be able to tell exactly what that is.
Instead it might be objected that "true" free will require the future to not exist. But now the contention is not that free will requires indeterminism, rather it is that free will requires presentism/ growing block theory. : :

You were better off when you weren't thinking about these matters. Do you know how confusing life gets when you ask questions that no one can answer except the one who tells you to listen to him and obey his commandments?

Here's another question: Why do you go to the philosophy forum to tell people they should not ask questions?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 7:51:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 7:47:56 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:36:52 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:27:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
In what follows I will speak of a deterministic universe as 'A' and an indeterministic universe as 'B'.

Recently it was proposed to me that eternalism entails determinism. Until then I was of that opinion, too, but then I started to rethink this stance.
I adopt Daniel Dennett's understanding of determinism as a doctrine about sufficiency:

"If S0 is a sentence that specifies in complete detail the state description of the universe at t0 and S1 similarly specifies the state description of the universe at a later time t1, then determinism dictates that S0 is sufficient for S1 in all physically possible worlds"

If A is eternalist, then all states of this universe exist and from each state description you can tell what the universe will be like at some later time.
If B is eternalist, then, similarly, all states of this universe exist, but with the difference that from any one state description you cannot tell what this universe will be like at some later time.

It seems like this shows the compatibility of eternalism and indeterminism. However, the proposal was made in the context of free will. So it might be objected that true (libertarian) free will is still not possible as it requires the future to be uncertain.
Well, in both A and B the future is certain in that something is guaranteed to happen and in neither A nor B will you be able to tell exactly what that is.
Instead it might be objected that "true" free will require the future to not exist. But now the contention is not that free will requires indeterminism, rather it is that free will requires presentism/ growing block theory. : :

You were better off when you weren't thinking about these matters. Do you know how confusing life gets when you ask questions that no one can answer except the one who tells you to listen to him and obey his commandments?

Here's another question: Why do you go to the philosophy forum to tell people they should not ask questions? : :

I tell people they should listen to the one who has the answers but most people won't listen to him.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 12:09:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I guess it is how you define determinism and free will.
I think that eternalism implies determinism because an outcome is already objectively true. I do not think that the ability to predict the future is necessary for determinism, only that the future is fixed. If the future is fixed, I think that determinism must be true. Now, how one defines free will will answer the question of if it exiats, but I would have to ask, what difference would be displayed between some with and someone without free will under eternalism? If there wouldn't be a difference, then what exactly is free will?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 12:11:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 12:27:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
In what follows I will speak of a deterministic universe as 'A' and an indeterministic universe as 'B'.

Recently it was proposed to me that eternalism entails determinism. Until then I was of that opinion, too, but then I started to rethink this stance.
I adopt Daniel Dennett's understanding of determinism as a doctrine about sufficiency:

"If S0 is a sentence that specifies in complete detail the state description of the universe at t0 and S1 similarly specifies the state description of the universe at a later time t1, then determinism dictates that S0 is sufficient for S1 in all physically possible worlds"

If A is eternalist, then all states of this universe exist and from each state description you can tell what the universe will be like at some later time.
If B is eternalist, then, similarly, all states of this universe exist, but with the difference that from any one state description you cannot tell what this universe will be like at some later time.

It seems like this shows the compatibility of eternalism and indeterminism. However, the proposal was made in the context of free will. So it might be objected that true (libertarian) free will is still not possible as it requires the future to be uncertain.
Well, in both A and B the future is certain in that something is guaranteed to happen and in neither A nor B will you be able to tell exactly what that is.
Instead it might be objected that "true" free will require the future to not exist. But now the contention is not that free will requires indeterminism, rather it is that free will requires presentism/ growing block theory.

Dennett's definition doesn't seem to take into account adequate determinism.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 12:29:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 12:09:20 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I guess it is how you define determinism and free will.
I think that eternalism implies determinism because an outcome is already objectively true. I do not think that the ability to predict the future is necessary for determinism, only that the future is fixed. If the future is fixed, I think that determinism must be true. Now, how one defines free will will answer the question of if it exiats, but I would have to ask, what difference would be displayed between some with and someone without free will under eternalism? If there wouldn't be a difference, then what exactly is free will?
if you put free will into the concept of a god then it applies to 2 different things. The will of your soul and the will of your "body and soul" while in physical existence.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 3:58:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 12:11:51 AM, n7 wrote:
At 9/14/2015 12:27:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
In what follows I will speak of a deterministic universe as 'A' and an indeterministic universe as 'B'.

Recently it was proposed to me that eternalism entails determinism. Until then I was of that opinion, too, but then I started to rethink this stance.
I adopt Daniel Dennett's understanding of determinism as a doctrine about sufficiency:

"If S0 is a sentence that specifies in complete detail the state description of the universe at t0 and S1 similarly specifies the state description of the universe at a later time t1, then determinism dictates that S0 is sufficient for S1 in all physically possible worlds"

If A is eternalist, then all states of this universe exist and from each state description you can tell what the universe will be like at some later time.
If B is eternalist, then, similarly, all states of this universe exist, but with the difference that from any one state description you cannot tell what this universe will be like at some later time.

It seems like this shows the compatibility of eternalism and indeterminism. However, the proposal was made in the context of free will. So it might be objected that true (libertarian) free will is still not possible as it requires the future to be uncertain.
Well, in both A and B the future is certain in that something is guaranteed to happen and in neither A nor B will you be able to tell exactly what that is.
Instead it might be objected that "true" free will require the future to not exist. But now the contention is not that free will requires indeterminism, rather it is that free will requires presentism/ growing block theory.

Dennett's definition doesn't seem to take into account adequate determinism.

I guess he would have called it that then instead.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 8:05:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 12:27:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
In what follows I will speak of a deterministic universe as 'A' and an indeterministic universe as 'B'.

Recently it was proposed to me that eternalism entails determinism. Until then I was of that opinion, too, but then I started to rethink this stance.
I adopt Daniel Dennett's understanding of determinism as a doctrine about sufficiency:

"If S0 is a sentence that specifies in complete detail the state description of the universe at t0 and S1 similarly specifies the state description of the universe at a later time t1, then determinism dictates that S0 is sufficient for S1 in all physically possible worlds"

If A is eternalist, then all states of this universe exist and from each state description you can tell what the universe will be like at some later time.
If B is eternalist, then, similarly, all states of this universe exist, but with the difference that from any one state description you cannot tell what this universe will be like at some later time.

It seems like this shows the compatibility of eternalism and indeterminism. However, the proposal was made in the context of free will. So it might be objected that true (libertarian) free will is still not possible as it requires the future to be uncertain.
Well, in both A and B the future is certain in that something is guaranteed to happen and in neither A nor B will you be able to tell exactly what that is.
Instead it might be objected that "true" free will require the future to not exist. But now the contention is not that free will requires indeterminism, rather it is that free will requires presentism/ growing block theory.

- I don't think "true" Free Will is coherent in any Universe, whether presentist or eternalist.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...