Natural Law or, Ethics for the Atheist

[cynic]

If we keep in mind 2 + 2 must always = 4; then
Every cause has a consistent effect.

So in my example we have at least 2 identified causes of effects which would be to eat:
(a) hunger; and
(b) self-preservation.

There will undoubtably be others.

All of these causes can occur at the same point in time. They line up like a rank of taxis. Our individual then, at this point in time has a number of choices.

This is [I believe] the crux of the matter.

In your theory, one of those causes is pre-ordained and must happen, leading to its known effect.

In my theory, the individual can choose, based on the freedom of the mind to reason and understand that a specific choice [cause] will lead to a specific effect [outcome].

Neither argument [theory] is conclusive, as we simply don't know and cannot prove either. However, on the balance of probabilities I would argue that free will pertains.

I would argue this on the principle of 'Occam's razor'.

From wikipedia:

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic guide in the development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.

jog on
duc

Oh dear! What demon possessed you into believing that a Franciscan Friar, namely, William of Ockham, had anything helpful to contribute towards your argument?

Perhaps consideration of Francis Crick's criticism/s of the "tool"'s applicability, and/or relevance, may be in order:

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1241163

 

[ducati916]

Oh dear! What demon possessed you into believing that a Franciscan Friar, namely, William of Ockham, had anything helpful to contribute towards your argument?

Perhaps consideration of Francis Crick's criticism/s of the "tool"'s applicability, and/or relevance, may be in order:

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1241163

Simple: your definition of 'determinism' is predictive as evidenced from your initial definition:

"...to it nothing would be uncertain, the future as well as the past would be present to its eyes."

The mathematician Michael Berry calculated the future positions of billiard balls on a table. There are three balls in billiards.

If the basic parameters are known with regard to a ball at rest, the resistance of the table and one can gauge the strength of the impact, then early predictions are [relatively] easy and accurate. However to correctly calculate the ninth impact, then the gravitational force of an individual standing next to the table needs to be included.

To compute the fifty-sixth impact, every single elementary particle of the universe needs to be present in the calculations. An electron, at the edge of the universe, separated by 10 million light years distance, needs to be accounted for.

In the alternative, if the determinism is simply 'explanatory', that is to say, outcome 'X' was caused by 'Y' [in hindsight] or a posteriori, then that [to a certain historical point] is much easier.

The explanatory type of causation/effect would allow, without any issues, free will to exist.

My argument with regard to 'Occam's razor' therefore is that the simple explanation of determinism being 'explanatory' and thereby allowing for free will is far less complex than determinism being predictive. The simple explanation is far more convincing than the complex.

With increased complexity, comes an increasing risk of error.

The example was with 3 billiard balls. The population of this world is now 7.5 billion humans, all of whom must be accounted for, never mind 'everything else' in the universe that must also be accounted for.

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

Thankyou for your billiards allegory. Can you see, how that same allegory, demonstrates what I have been saying (i.e. how an otherwise predictable event can seem unpredictable, for naught more reason than, the cognitive capacity of the observer, being overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of the system)?
In truth, the allegory seems to be more supportive of the argument I am making.
So, thankyou again, for making my task so much easier.

...
My argument with regard to 'Occam's razor' therefore is that the simple explanation of determinism being 'explanatory' and thereby allowing for free will is far less complex than determinism being predictive. The simple explanation is far more convincing than the complex.
...

To my understanding that is an incorrect usage of the "razor".

Even if your usage was somehow justifiable, an opponent to your philosophy, could even more easily argue, that there exists a metaphysical component within conscious living organisms, which allows operation beyond the bounds of physical laws (i.e. the exercising of choices which impact the physical universe).

Basically, as soon as one grants oneself certain interpretational liberties, they cannot rightly disallow the exercise of those same liberties by their opponents.
http://livebyquotes.com/2012/if-science-gets-one-free-miracle-terence-mckenna/
Anyhow, those seeking support in Ockham's works, ideally need to ensure that they understand its scope, and attendant limitations, before employing such philosophical tools: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1522510

Edit: adding another quote:
http://www.azquotes.com/quote/667105

 

[ducati916]

Thankyou for your billiards allegory. Can you see, how that same allegory, demonstrates what I have been saying (i.e. how an otherwise predictable event can seem unpredictable, for naught more reason than, the cognitive capacity of the observer, being overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of the system)?
In truth, the allegory seems to be more supportive of the argument I am making.
So, thankyou again, for making my task so much easier.

It is not an allegory. An 'allegory' is:

"a metaphor in which a character, place or event is used to deliver a broader message about real-world issues and occurrences."

The billiard balls experiment was an exercise in mathematical calculation and its limits.

One valid conclusion that can be drawn from the experiment is the one that you have drawn, which is:

"(i.e. how an otherwise predictable event can seem unpredictable, for naught more reason than, the cognitive capacity of the observer, being overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of the system)?"

The other equally valid conclusion is:

That the complexity is so great as to simply be impossible.

I used 'Occam's razor' as an argument supportive of the more probable conclusion.

Your assertion: "To my understanding that is an incorrect usage of the "razor" is supported by 3 further references and the following argument:

The first, is simply irrelevant to the argument.
The second simply underlines the original idea, viz. that simple explanations are more probable.
The third, same as the second.

Your specific assertion:

Even if your usage was somehow justifiable, an opponent to your philosophy, could even more easily argue, that there exists a metaphysical component within conscious living organisms, which allows operation beyond the bounds of physical laws (i.e. the exercising of choices which impact the physical universe).

Before I attempt an answer, it requires clarification as to what you mean, possibly by way of an example. As it stands, I'm not really sure what you are arguing for.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Further,

If you were to take an effect, as in the example, where the individual eats [an apple], there are any number of causes:

(a) the individual was hungry; or
(b) the apple was recommended by his doctor/friend/magazine/etc; or
(c) as an experiment; or
(d) part of a diet.

I can go on for a while, but I'm sure you see the point.

So for determinism to be predictive, the sheer volume of information that cannot have a single error or fluctuation, must pertain. A single deviance, anywhere, anytime, will falsify the theory.

The theory of free will existing and the theory of cause and effect being purely explanatory is so much more practicable and based in our day-to-day experience.

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

Thankyou for your billiards allegory. Can you see, how that same allegory, demonstrates what I have been saying (i.e. how an otherwise predictable event can seem unpredictable, for naught more reason than, the cognitive capacity of the observer, being overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of the system)?
In truth, the allegory seems to be more supportive of the argument I am making.
So, thankyou again, for making my task so much easier.

It is not an allegory. An 'allegory' is:

"a metaphor in which a character, place or event is used to deliver a broader message about real-world issues and occurrences."

The billiard balls experiment was an exercise in mathematical calculation and its limits.

If your recount of this "exercise" wasn't for allegorical purposes, then I fail to understand its relevance!
Are you saying that you weren't seeking to "deliver a broader message" than the recounted event itself ?!

One valid conclusion that can be drawn from the experiment is the one that you have drawn, which is:

"(i.e. how an otherwise predictable event can seem unpredictable, for naught more reason than, the cognitive capacity of the observer, being overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of the system)?"

The other equally valid conclusion is:

That the complexity is so great as to simply be impossible.

Is this a typographical error?
If not, then I cannot agree with the conclusion. It seems to be claiming some form of correlation between complexity and impossibility.
Was that your intention? If so, in the spirit of science, how is that conclusion falsifiable?

I used 'Occam's razor' as an argument supportive of the more probable conclusion.

That's not what Occam's razor was designed for! (For those interested,in recent days, I have linked to the "Science thread", an article, wherein applications of the razor are critically appraised.)

Not only has the razor been misapplied, the error has been compounded by the disfavouring of the outcome, which the razor would truly deliver from such misapplication!

"Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity"

In view of your fondness for the razor, how is it, that you haven't discarded your claim, to the existence of that conglomerate of unproven assumptions (caĺled "free will"), in favour of a logical explanation requiring fewer assumptions?

Your assertion: "To my understanding that is an incorrect usage of the "razor" is supported by 3 further references and the following argument:

The first, is simply irrelevant to the argument.

Failure to recognise the presence of relevance, does not equate to the absence of relevance!

The second simply underlines the original idea, viz. that simple explanations are more probable.
The third, same as the second.

Your specific assertion:

Even if your usage was somehow justifiable, an opponent to your philosophy, could even more easily argue, that there exists a metaphysical component within conscious living organisms, which allows operation beyond the bounds of physical laws (i.e. the exercising of choices which impact the physical universe).

Before I attempt an answer, it requires clarification as to what you mean, possibly by way of an example. As it stands, I'm not really sure what you are arguing for.

jog on
duc

What I am driving at here, is that when liberally applied, heuristic devices such as the "razor" invite arguments, supporting the case for existence of all manner of physical and metaphysical entities and/or realities.

 

[cynic]

Further,

If you were to take an effect, as in the example, where the individual eats [an apple], there are any number of causes:

(a) the individual was hungry; or
(b) the apple was recommended by his doctor/friend/magazine/etc; or
(c) as an experiment; or
(d) part of a diet.

I can go on for a while, but I'm sure you see the point.

Actually, I am not certain that I do!
Let me reply for the moment by countering what you might be saying with the following:

for values of w and v in the domain of positive integers, the formula w-v=4 has an infinite number of causes e.g. 4-0,5-1,6-2,7-3...infinity-(infinity-4) just to name a few.

But then what of another formula, such as p+q-r = 4 which also has an infinite number of causes, and yet at the same time can be mathematically demonstrated to always have a greater number of causes than, the former, even though both solution sets are infinitely large?

So does the complexity of a formula somehow confound logic? Is the impossibility of the existence of more complex systems somehow demanded? Has logic become falsified by increased complexity?

So for determinism to be predictive, the sheer volume of information that cannot have a single error or fluctuation, must pertain. A single deviance, anywhere, anytime, will falsify the theory.

Determinism, by its very definition is predictive. For the theory to be false, would logically require an event in violation of physical laws, i.e. a metaphysical event!

The theory of free will existing and the theory of cause and effect being purely explanatory is so much more practicable and based in our day-to-day experience.

jog on
duc

Practicability is not synonymous with reality!

 

[ducati916]

We are agreed that the definition of determinism requires it to be predictive. I have already provided a very simple example of an experiment, the billiard balls, and just how complex prediction, based on cause and effect actually is.

Pursuant to determinism, the entire course of our future is already predetermined. It is locked in.

Therefore an individual, who reaches various points in his life does not exercise a choice, he proceeds down a predetermined path.

This conclusion is predicated on an assumption, based on the complexity, that humans cannot predict this line of cause and effect, which I agree we cannot.

However...a thought experiment.

If we could...what would the consequences for the theory be?

If we could calculate our future, even on a limited [ability] and see the path that we must take, would we be compelled to take it? Or could we choose differently?

So seeing the path that we must take, we can also see options of [futures] that lie at the juncture point. What could compel us to take the predetermined path?

The only compulsion available is that we do not control our own minds. Which returns us to my original assertion on page 1: therefore

[1] The starting point is objective in that it is necessary for human life to exist. Each individual must have property rights in (a) self-ownership and [at least] (b) the space that they occupy on the planet.

With regard to [1](a): self-ownership is proven through the ability of argumentation. There are 3 possible scenarios:

(i) I own [control] myself; or
(ii) someone else owns [controls] me; or
(iii) we share ownership [control] of me.

Only (i) is both true and compatible with life. The proof is in the ability to agree/disagree/argue/etc, or free will.

Therefore, if confronted with the necessary choice to fulfil the prediction of determinism and a more palatable individual choice, could we choose the path that we preferred?

The answer is yes, we could. In which case determinism is falsified.

Moving away from the thought experiment: we have through history improved our ability to forecast or predict future events to a very limited extent, weather prediction being an example.

Another area that is particularly relevant to this site, is predicting movements of markets.

The difference in the two areas is obvious: one deals with the natural world where physical laws pertain and the other deals with human activity and choice.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

In the spirit of prediction:

• The 2018 FIFA World Cup is set to start in Russia on Thursday.
• Goldman Sachs used machine learning to run 200,000 models and simulate 1 million variations of the tournament to pick a winner.

The Argentine superstar Lionel Messi once said: "In football ... talent and elegance mean nothing without rigor and precision."

It's a sentiment Goldman Sachs seems to have taken to heart when compiling its forecast for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, which is set to kick off Thursday.

The firm used machine learning to run 200,000 models, mining data on team and individual player attributes, to help forecast specific match scores. Goldman then simulated 1 million variations of the tournament to calculate the probability of advancement for each squad.

The tournament bracket below shows how Goldman sees the World Cup unfolding. Note that the numbers next to each nation — which dictate whether it advances over its opponent — represent the predicted, unrounded number of goals scored in each possible iteration of the tournament, based on machine-learning results applied to countless scenarios.

Goldman Sachs
"We are drawn to machine learning models because they can sift through a large number of possible explanatory variables to produce more accurate forecasts than conventional alternatives," a group of strategists from Goldman's international research team wrote in a client note.


Here are the key takeaways from Goldman's data:

• Brazil is expected to win its sixth World Cup title, defeating Germany in the final by an unrounded score of 1.70 to 1.41
• While France has better overall odds of lifting the trophy than Germany, its expected meeting with Brazil in the semifinals has it falling short of the title match
• England is expected to make it to the quarterfinal stage, where Goldman says it will lose to Germany
• Spain and Argentina are forecast to underperform, both losing in the quarterfinals
• Russia isn't expected to make it out of the group stage, despite its role as tournament host
• Saudi Arabia is deemed the surprise team that advances out of the group stage, ahead of Russia

With all of that established, football (soccer) remains a highly unpredictable sport, with many more variables in play than even Goldman could assess. That is why the authors of the report offer this disclaimer at the end:

"We capture the stochastic nature of the tournament carefully using state-of-the-art statistical methods and we consider a lot of information in doing so," they said. "But the forecasts remain highly uncertain, even with the fanciest statistical techniques, simply because football is quite an unpredictable game. This is, of course, precisely why the World Cup will be so exciting to watch."

jog on
duc