Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Nature of Time: A-Theory vs. B-Theory

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    Yeah, I don't think compatibilism makes much sense. That's why I'm an INcompatibilist. They define 'freedom' as 'lack of constraints.' As long as no one and nothing is externally coercing me against my will and desires, then I am 'free,' even though my will and desires are ultimately necessitated by the past and the laws of nature. For an incompatibilist, even though I could not have done otherwise than to choose vanilla, as long as choosing vanilla arose from 'inside me,' ie from my own will and desires, then it is my own 'free' decision and I am morally responsible for it. I don't think it makes that much sense.

    As far as determinism and the B-Series, imagine for a moment that God knows timelessly every moment and every event in space-time. He timelessly knows everything that you will ever do. So God exists in the B-Series, because "Now" holds no special priority for Him. All moments are tenselessly equal. But the mere fact that He knows all events doesn't mean that He necessitates all events. He could very well have known for all eternity that I would freely choose vanilla. It's like if you watch a video of a news event. In a crude sense, you are in the B-Series relative to the recorded events; there's no absolute 'now' for you within those events. But the mere fact that you are in that position relative to those events doesn't mean that there is any necessitation within those events. There may be, but that's logically another question.

    If the past necessitates the present/future, that seems to assume that the past has priority over the future, that it is exerting causal necessity over it, which is a tensed understanding. But tenselessness would have to remain agnostic, it seems, on what happens within the series. Within time, there may be freedom, indeterminacy, or hard determinacy, but that may be a different question.
    But I think the B-theory of time necessitates that all of time has always been real, so that time, from the day you were born to the day you die has always existed, even though you experience time as flowing from moment to moment, the actual moments pre-exist your experience of them. It's the BLOCK UNIVERSE, it's all there, other than our experience of it, the future is closed. The experience then, of time and change, is just an illusion. I don't see how free will can fit into that picture.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      They're saying that the past plus the laws of nature necessitate the future, but even so, we are still "free" to act on our wills and desires. So they are metaphysical determinists.
      No, not necessarily free to act on your wills and desires without constraints. Does not fit the metaphysical by definition. I do not think Daniel Dennett would admit appealing to the metaphysical to justify his conclusions concerning compatibilism. I do not totally agree with Dennett who only allows 'wiggle room' in the decision making process and not truly free will. I do not know many, but maybe there are a few Compatibilists, in general that consider the decisions people make to be knowledgeable of the degree of their free will prior to when they make decisions including those involving our 'wills? and desires.'

      My form of compatibilism allows for the 'potential of free will decisions.'
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        No, not necessarily free to act on your wills and desires without constraints. Does not fit the metaphysical by definition. I do not think Daniel Dennett would admit appealing to the metaphysical to justify his conclusions concerning compatibilism. I do not totally agree with Dennett who only allows 'wiggle room' in the decision making process and not truly free will. I do not know many, but maybe there are a few Compatibilists, in general that consider the decisions people make to be knowledgeable of the degree of their free will prior to when they make decisions including those involving our 'wills? and desires.'

        My form of compatibilism allows for the 'potential of free will decisions.'
        This potential you speak of only speaks of a "range of available choices", not of the will to freely choose one.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by JimL View Post
          No, it's just that a variety of options tells us nothing about whether the option chosen is freely chosen or not.
          Your arguing a hypothetical conclusion to justify hard determinism. The fact that there are a variety of options in the decision making process and a degree of unpredictability in the outcomes of the decisions does lead to the possibility and does not preclude the possibility of limited free will.

          Why call it limited then, what's the limiting factor? I don't see how the variability of decisions/choices available says anything about whether the decsion/choice made is a free one. But the B-theory doesn't allow for any decision/choices because the future is fixed, it's as real as the past and not open to change. How do you fit free will of any sort into a closed future.
          Our will is obviously limited by many factors, most apparent is NAtural Law, Cultural and peer conditioning, evolutionary safe guards for our safety and the preservation of the species. the chain of cause and effect events that lead to the decision in question. None of this precludes a degree of free will in our decision making process.

          And how do you get around the physics?
          I do not get around physics at all. We are no longer in a science world of Newtonian mechanistic clock work hard deterministic physics.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-17-2020, 07:42 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            Compatibilism actually is a form of metaphysical determinism. Compatibilists believe that all of our actions are determined by the past but that we have circumstantial freedom, ie we are free to act on our wills and desires. They believe we have the kind of freedom that makes us fit subjects for moral responsibility, but they don't think we are really free, that we could have done otherwise. So it could be a clockwork universe as BP is saying and one could still be a compatibilist.
            Again not so by definition and by those who propose compatibilism.


            Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.[1]


            Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism


            "Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.[2] They say causal determinism does not exclude the truth of possible future outcomes.[3]

            Similarly, political liberty is a non-metaphysical concept.[4] Statements of political liberty, such as the United States Bill of Rights, assume moral liberty: the ability to choose to do otherwise than one does.[5]"

            © Copyright Original Source

            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Your arguing a hypothetical conclusion to justify hard determinism.
              I'm not trying to justify anything shunya, I'm trying to make sense of the arguments.

              The fact that there are a variety of options in the decision making process and a degree of unpredictability in the outcomes of the decisions does lead to the possibility and does not preclude the possibility of limited free will.
              Explain how a variety of options has anything to do with the ability to will any but one of those option. And simply stating that there is a degree of unpredictability of outcomes doesn't explain how the outcome was the result of a free choice.


              Our will is obviously limited by many factors, most apparent is NAtural Law, Cultural and peer conditioning, evolutionary safe guards for our safety and the preservation of the species. the chain of cause and effect events that lead to the decision in question. None of this precludes a degree of free will in our decision making process.
              You're simply making assertions, shunya. You're not supporting them.
              I do not get around physics at all. We are no longer in a science world of Newtonian mechanistic clock work hard deterministic physics.
              But you are still not supporting your assertions.
              Last edited by JimL; 05-17-2020, 08:43 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                I'm not trying to justify anything shunya, I'm trying to make sense of the arguments.


                Explain how a variety of options has anything to do with the ability to will any but one of those option. And simply stating that there is a degree of unpredictability of outcomes doesn't explain how the outcome was the result of a free choice.
                It is evidence of the possibility of a limited free will.


                You're simply making assertions, shunya. You're not supporting them.

                But you are still not supporting your assertions.
                Yes I am. Remember I am only supporting the possibility of limited free will. It is you taking a hard line. You have absolutely no evidence for hard determinism and no free will.

                You need to read those that support variations of Compatabilism like Danial Dennett, and the published material in the reference I cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  It is evidence of the possibility of a limited free will.
                  So, I ask you to explain how your evidence is actual evidence of free will, or the possibility of free will, and your answer is simply another assertion that it is evidence?


                  Yes I am. Remember I am only supporting the possibility of limited free will. It is you taking a hard line. You have absolutely no evidence for hard determinism and no free will.
                  I understand you support the possibility of limited free will, I support the possibility of free will as well, but I don't see how your argument is actually defending that support.
                  You need to read those that support variations of Compatabilism like Danial Dennett, and the published material in the reference I cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
                  Well, that's why I'm asking you. Being that you've already studied it, it shouldn't be that difficult to give a concise explanation of how free will fits into the big picture.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    So, I ask you to explain how your evidence is actual evidence of free will, or the possibility of free will, and your answer is simply another assertion that it is evidence?

                    I understand you support the possibility of limited free will, I support the possibility of free will as well, but I don't see how your argument is actually defending that support.

                    Well, that's why I'm asking you. Being that you've already studied it, it shouldn't be that difficult to give a concise explanation of how free will fits into the big picture.
                    No it is not only an assertion. I gave you the reference that inclus=des a list of references concerning the subject and apparently you refuse to read them.

                    Your literate read the references. Do your own homework. I do not spoon feed.

                    You have still failed to provide references that support your case, and you have failed to provide them. Actually this thread is a perpetual groundhog thread, and all this has been covered many times before.

                    Happy Ground Hog Day!!!!!
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-17-2020, 09:33 PM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I subscribe to the process thought of Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, etc., so that makes me an A-theorist by default. My position is wholly philosophical; I'll leave the scientific arguments to those more knowledgeable than me.
                      "When the Western world accepted Christianity, Caesar conquered; and the received text of Western theology was edited by his lawyers…. The brief Galilean vision of humility flickered throughout the ages, uncertainly…. But the deeper idolatry, of the fashioning of God in the image of the Egyptian, Persian, and Roman imperial rulers, was retained. The Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar."

                      — Alfred North Whitehead

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                        Except i would so clearly choose chocolate. (Ben and Jerry's chocolate fudge brownie, to be specific).
                        In that case vanilla would never have been a possible choice for you so God couldn't have actualized it. I also believe that God would actualize the universe with the greatest good for you and for his plans.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          sigh. Shuny and JimL have joined the thread with their same old nonsense. This thread has been destroyed. I see Seer started a new thread on the B-Theory so I guess I will head over there. JimL and Shuny, please leave that one alone. Please.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            sigh. Shuny and JimL have joined the thread with their same old nonsense. This thread has been destroyed. I see Seer started a new thread on the B-Theory so I guess I will head over there. JimL and Shuny, please leave that one alone. Please.
                            It is not your thread. It is up to seer. I am sure if you poke him a couple times he will go along with your demands for a one-sided argument. You know the sound of one hand clapping.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              No, not necessarily free to act on your wills and desires without constraints. Does not fit the metaphysical by definition. I do not think Daniel Dennett would admit appealing to the metaphysical to justify his conclusions concerning compatibilism. I do not totally agree with Dennett who only allows 'wiggle room' in the decision making process and not truly free will. I do not know many, but maybe there are a few Compatibilists, in general that consider the decisions people make to be knowledgeable of the degree of their free will prior to when they make decisions including those involving our 'wills? and desires.'

                              My form of compatibilism allows for the 'potential of free will decisions.'
                              That's not the way compatibilism is generally understood. It doesn't allow for "wiggle room" or a "little bit of free will." Those things would make you a libertarian! Compatibilists generally believe that the past plus the laws necessitate the future. Where would this "wiggle room" come from? How would they justify it? You either have to justify metaphysical free will ( ie the past and the laws in some cases DO NOT necessitate the future) or not. it's like being a little bit pregnant. it doesn't admit of degrees.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Again not so by definition and by those who propose compatibilism.


                                Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.[1]


                                Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism


                                "Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.[2] They say causal determinism does not exclude the truth of possible future outcomes.[3]

                                Similarly, political liberty is a non-metaphysical concept.[4] Statements of political liberty, such as the United States Bill of Rights, assume moral liberty: the ability to choose to do otherwise than one does.[5]"

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. The Compatibilist version of FREEDOM has nothing to do with metaphysics. They do not believe in METAPHYSICAL FREE WILL. Only libertarians do. Compatibilists believe in determinism.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X