Natural Law or, Ethics for the Atheist

[cynic]

[1](a) Are you certain that there aren't more than 3 ownership scenarios?
(b) To which of the 3 scenarios, do siamese twins belong?
(c) Is it possible that there exists a non-ownership scenario (e.g. all are owned by a nonhuman agent)?

[1](a) Am I certain? Yes because (ii) covers anyone/anything.
(b) Each twin is an individual, so all three tests apply
(c) "non-ownership" or an automaton? A non-human is covered by (ii).

Thankyou for alerting me to the widened scope of your specialised definition for "someone".( I shall add it to the list of words to be mindful of as this thread progresses.)

So in the case of shared vital organs, how are the siamese (conjoined) twins individualised?

Do both twins have inalienable, self-identified, property rights, to the same organs and occupied space?

[2] The dictionary definition of the word "faith" alone, demands neither the presence nor absence of supportive evidence.

[2] My dictionary defines faith as: (i) complete trust or confidence, (ii) strong belief in a religion, (iii) a system of religious belief.

So what part of your dictionary definition warranted your exclusion of the possibility of evidence based trust ,and/or confidence, from your specialised definition of "faith"?

If we are talking about the Christian religion, then 'strong belief in a religion' with what evidence? If there is no evidence, and you still believe, then impliedly, we come to my definition of: belief in the absence of evidence.

This is compatible with both the dictionary definition, and your specialised definition.

Of course, if there is evidence, then that disproves the assertion or definition.

The presence of evidence, excludes the usage of your specialised definition. The dictionary definition remains accommodative.

In other words it is 'falsifiable'. There are no black swans, until of course one is evidenced.

For example, "A tradesman has faith in the efficacy of tools. Is there evidence warranting faith in the efficacy of tools?"

The word is used incorrectly.

On the contrary. The word usage was correct and in accordance with the dictionary definition!

"A clergyman has faith in the power of prayer. Is there evidence warranting faith in the power of prayer?"

Is there evidence that supports prayer as being causative of the thing prayed for? If so, it is no longer faith, it is now a fact.

Hmmm...

"A clergyman has a fact in the power of prayer. Is there evidence warranting a fact in the power of prayer?"

Doesn't seem quite right now, does it?!

Whilst I am aware of some dictionary definitions, supportive of the conflation of evidence with proof, I am disconcerted by the ramifications of their usage within rationalisation/s, so it might be helpful to know which of the available definitions for the words "evidence" and "fact" you have chosen to employ. That way, I can be mindful of their usage within this thread.
(Also, would I be correct in presuming consistency of application throughout this thread?)

[3] Do the physical (as opposed to metaphysical) laws, governing the material (as opposed to immaterial) universe, [not] conform to rigid logic at all times?

[3] I am guessing that the [not] above is in error and what you mean is that physical laws always conform to logic.

If that is correct, then the answer is: yes, physical laws always conform to [logic] physics, chemistry, maths, etc.

The "not" was intentionally inserted to facilitate alignment, between the anticipated responses to this, and the "2 + 2" question.

Can 2+2, ever equal anything other than 4?

No.

If so, then how can the deductive outcomes from application of logic be reliable?

Your objection is rendered moot.

That question was placed, solely, as a precaution against the possibility of an unanticipated response in the affirmative.

[4] If that's the case, then how can one justify the exclusion of "causal determinism" considerations from the Natural Law philosophy?

This is looking one heck of a lot like evidence, that could be offered in support of the "causal determinism" concept.

How can you rightly claim to have successfully proven the existence of "free will" without first disproving "causal determinism"?

(Surely any material observation, even the apparence of seemingly autonomous beings, operating in competition and/or collaboration, could be entirely explicable, via logical physical laws, and as such consistent with a causally determined universe?)

[4] Before I address this, it may behoove the discussion if you provide your definition or understanding of 'causal determination'.

With the exception of the last sentence, and the absence of the words "set of formulae", in place of the word "formula", the following quote, is a very, very, accurate, reflection of my understanding of the "causal determinism" concept:

“We ought to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its antecedent state and as the cause of the state that is to follow. An intelligence knowing all the forces acting in nature at a given instant, as well as the momentary positions of all things in the universe, would be able to comprehend in one single formula the motions of the largest bodies as well as the lightest atoms in the world, provided that its intellect were sufficiently powerful to subject all data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain, the future as well as the past would be present to its eyes. The perfection that the human mind has been able to give to astronomy affords but a feeble outline of such an intelligence.”
― Pierre-Simon Laplace

[5] I have encountered some of his concepts via an article, courtesy of a much more recent member of academia. If that article was fair in its representation of Kant's key arguments/concepts and/or principles, then I am unimpressed by the apparent dependence upon logically conflicting concepts (e.g. "causal determinism" and "free will").

[5] Your opposition to Kant is because you understand Kant to rely on both concepts? Is that correct?

According to my understanding of the article I was reading-Yes!
Apparently, Kant recognised a conflict between the two concepts, and attempted its resolution via postulation of some "convenient" distinctions (e.g. insertion of a division into "phenomena" to synthetically create "noumena"), and then, well...
...I presume you are familiar with that game called "wack a mole"!

[6] Before commenting too much further on this, it might be helpful to first have an awareness of your understanding of the definitions of the words "life", "human", "proof", "objective", "subjective" and "evidence", because, based upon my current understanding of common dictionary definitions, your presented premises and/or arguments appear to be more subjective and/or presumptive than objective and/or empirical.

[6] For the words: (i) life, (ii) human, (iii) proof; a dictionary definition is all that I am really using.

For the words (i) objective and (ii) subjective I am not employing the legal usage. I am using the more scientific usage: (i) objective is measurable, quantifiable, consistently reproducible and (ii) subjective is not measurable, not quantifiable, and inconsistent in application or appreciation.

jog on
duc

Thanks for those.

Due to the variety of available dictionary definitions, I may require further clarification as this thread progresses.

The word "proof" for example, has some very liberal dictionary definitions, the application of which, could, quite easily, "validate" mutually exclusive theses!!!

Consider what happens when:

(i) using a liberal definition of "proof", a theorist "proves" one, from a pair, of, easily "provable", but, mutually exclusive, theses

and,

(ii) uses the "proven" thesis, to logically deduce, that its antithesis, is therefore "disproven" (i.e. the antithesis cannot coexist with the thesis)

and,

(iii) overlooking the opposite possibility (i.e. antithesis easily "proven", therefore thesis is logically "disproven"),

(iv) declares the "proven" thesis to be the true position

and,

(iv) incorporates that "true position" into the foundations upon which a philosophy of ethics is subsequently built!

Does this sound at all familiar?

Anyhow, some questions that are starting to really bug me, are:

Is thinking necessary for the exercise of free will?

If so, where do thoughts reside?

and, are thoughts measurable?

and, what are the requisite material, and/or immaterial, conditions for manifestation of thoughts?

 

[ducati916]

I will address all of your points, but to prevent the thread becoming too complicated, I'll break them up a little bit.


So in the case of shared vital organs, how are the siamese (conjoined) twins individualised?
Do both twins have inalienable, self-identified, property rights, to the same organs and occupied space?

They are individualised in their minds.
Yes they do. Obviously in this extreme example, they will have to come to some agreement over this shared ownership. Let us call this agreement a contract.


So what part of your dictionary definition warranted your exclusion of the possibility of evidence based trust ,and/or confidence, from your specialised definition of "faith"?

The context of this discussion. We are employing the word 'faith' in a discussion about an ethical system that does not require a 'God'.


"A clergyman has a fact in the power of prayer. Is there evidence warranting a fact in the power of prayer?"

Doesn't seem quite right now, does it?!

Whilst I am aware of some dictionary definitions, supportive of the conflation of evidence with proof, I am disconcerted by the ramifications of their usage within rationalisation/s, so it might be helpful to know which of the available definitions for the words "evidence" and "fact" you have chosen to employ. That way, I can be mindful of their usage within this thread.
(Also, would I be correct in presuming consistency of application throughout this thread?)

I'm not sure I follow your line of thought here, so I may not quite answer your question/challenge.

I'm using proof in the manner of a logical proof, the 2 + 2 = 4. So a 'proof' would consist of a series of facts that when combined create [another new] fact.

Evidence is not a proof, but combined with temporality and proximity and [eventually] consistency, it infers a proof, which can be accepted, until falsified, as a fact.

I will try to be consistent.

I'm now going to read your post on 'causal determinism' and will respond to that later.

jog on
duc

 

[Value Collector]

 

[ducati916]

Yesterday I left this challenge unanswered:

“We ought to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its antecedent state and as the cause of the state that is to follow. An intelligence knowing all the forces acting in nature at a given instant, as well as the momentary positions of all things in the universe, would be able to comprehend in one single formula the motions of the largest bodies as well as the lightest atoms in the world, provided that its intellect were sufficiently powerful to subject all data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain, the future as well as the past would be present to its eyes. The perfection that the human mind has been able to give to astronomy affords but a feeble outline of such an intelligence.”
― Pierre-Simon Laplace

Essentially I accept this.

I however will also qualify it by distinguishing "Behaviourism" from it.

Behaviourism may be defined as the view that man is so constituted that the whole of his behaviour is the inevitable consequence of his antecedent causes. Which is simply determinism as applied to man.

This I reject for free will theory.

Which is defined as the view that man is so constituted that he is in some measure the cause of his own actions.

The reason that I [can] distinguish the two forms of determinism is due to the ability of man to reason and make choices.

A stone, or molecule of water will react to certain conditions in predictable ways. This will be true [causal determination] of any non-rational 'thing'.

Man however can reason and make choices. Two men [or women] can make different choices [outcomes] on the same antecedent causes.

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

I will address all of your points, but to prevent the thread becoming too complicated, I'll break them up a little bit.

I am really glad that you have decided this. When composing my responses I was beginning to have a similar presentiment in respect to my challenges to the component assertions. This philosophical model seems to be of sufficient intricacy to warrant the individual examination of each of its component assertions.

 

[cynic]

So in the case of shared vital organs, how are the siamese (conjoined) twins individualised?
Do both twins have inalienable, self-identified, property rights, to the same organs and occupied space?

They are individualised in their minds.
Yes they do. Obviously in this extreme example, they will have to come to some agreement over this shared ownership. Let us call this agreement a contract.

What is your chosen definition of "mind"?

Where does the mind reside?

Is mind measurable? If so, how so?

What is the material and/or immaterial composition of the mind?

What are the material and/or immaterial requirements for the existence of mind?

Are thoughts a feature of mind?

If so, the same questions are asked in relation to thought, i.e. definition, residence, composition, measurability, and requisites to existence.

Is "free will" operable in the absence of mind and/or thoughts?

 

[Knobby22]

Name these two famous atheists. I think the song that suits for natural law is "Anything Goes" by Cole Porter.

A vegetarian he wanted society to go back to its roots and be agrarian so all city dwellers were sent to farms. He also had an intense dislike of anyone with the semblance of being intelligent, such as those who wore glasses or who spoke another language. Wearing glasses could get you killed. His regime ended up killing around 2 million people. A sizeable percentage of the small nations population.


His government promoted atheism with mass propaganda in school, and held a terror campaign against the religious. He crushed the local religion, levelling thousands of churches and shooting more than 100,000 priests, monks and nuns within a couple of years.

 

[cynic]

So what part of your dictionary definition warranted your exclusion of the possibility of evidence based trust ,and/or confidence, from your specialised definition of "faith"?

The context of this discussion. We are employing the word 'faith' in a discussion about an ethical system that does not require a 'God'.

That doesn't really answer my question, but, at the very least, it has conferred some insight into the cause of our conflicting understandings of the meaning of the word "faith". A number of my counterarguments, to your implied perspectives on "God", and evidence (or absence thereof) for the existence of same, have been given in that thread you referenced in your first post. My preference is not to pollute this discussion with another atheist versus antitheist debate, hence my reluctance to reiterate my counter arguments here.

Anyhow, this appears to be an opportune moment, for me to state one of my reasons, for being absolutely thrilled that you chose to start this particular thread.

The topic seemed to invite deeper investigation into the claims that an integral secular moral system, or ethical philosophy, could be logically and/or scientifically defined from a purely secular perspective.

I had sincerely hoped that this could be explored in isolation to any needless assertions and/or debates about the merits (or absence thereof) of the case for the existence of divinity.

At this juncture, I need to ask, were my hopes out of accordance with your intentions?

 

[cynic]

Yesterday I left this challenge unanswered:

“We ought to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its antecedent state and as the cause of the state that is to follow. An intelligence knowing all the forces acting in nature at a given instant, as well as the momentary positions of all things in the universe, would be able to comprehend in one single formula the motions of the largest bodies as well as the lightest atoms in the world, provided that its intellect were sufficiently powerful to subject all data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain, the future as well as the past would be present to its eyes. The perfection that the human mind has been able to give to astronomy affords but a feeble outline of such an intelligence.”
― Pierre-Simon Laplace

Essentially I accept this.

I however will also qualify it by distinguishing "Behaviourism" from it.

Behaviourism may be defined as the view that man is so constituted that the whole of his behaviour is the inevitable consequence of his antecedent causes. Which is simply determinism as applied to man.

This I reject for free will theory.

Which is defined as the view that man is so constituted that he is in some measure the cause of his own actions.

The reason that I [can] distinguish the two forms of determinism is due to the ability of man to reason and make choices.

This sounds to me, suspiciously like, you are trying to grant humanity some sort of specialised exemption from a portion, or perhaps portions, of the "determinism" concept.

Which leads me to wonder, could it be that you are arguing the case for the existence of a supernatural or metaphysical aspect to human existence?

Anyhow, the justification provided, appears to be reliant upon the supposition of the existence of "the ability of man to reason and make choices" coupled with a rejection of the challenge posed by the "determinism" concept, and the rejection of said challenge seems to be based solely upon a commitment to belief in the original supposition, leading to a somewhat circular argument).

Consider the following statements:
Hypothesis A is known to be correct because the antithetical hypothesis B is known to be incorrect.
Hypothesis B is known to be incorrect because the antithetical hypothesis A is known to be correct.
Conclusion: Hypothesis A is always correct therefore antithetical hypothesis B is always incorrect.

And now consider for the same (A and B) hypotheses:
Hypothesis B is known to be correct because the antithetical hypothesis A is known to be incorrect.
Hypothesis A is known to be incorrect because the antithetical hypothesis B is known to be correct.
Conclusion: Hypothesis B is always correct therefore hypothesis A is always incorrect.

Note how, interchanging the ordering of consideration for these hypotheses (i.e. swapping A with B), subsequently applying the identical "logical" process, creates inverse conclusions,thereby highlighting the presence of fallacious logic.

I have as yet, been unable to espy, anything in your postings, that could justify the logical exclusion of human behaviour, from the realm of determinism.

A stone, or molecule of water will react to certain conditions in predictable ways. This will be true [causal determination] of any non-rational 'thing'.

Man however can reason and make choices. Two men [or women] can make different choices [outcomes] on the same antecedent causes.

jog on
duc

If man A is the culmination of the exact same antecedent causes as man B, then man A is indistinguishable from man B!
And man A is man B!!
They are not two men, they are the same man occupying the same space and point in time!!!
If two men are distinguishable, there must surely exist some variation in their antecedent causes giving rise to their differentiation!!!!


Consider an independent observer of a complex system, composed of myriads of intricate relationships between dynamic components of physical matter/energy.
If less than ideal (i.e. unable to fully comprehend the workings of some components and/or dynamics within that system), the observer could not be reasonably expected to accurately predict the future behaviour of the system.

But what if the independent observer was fully ideal(i.e. full comprehension of the workings of all components and dynamics within that system)?

Wouldn't all complex systems, within the physical universe, be rendered predictable in the presence of such a sufficiently competent observer?

If not, why not?

Limitations to the predictive capabilities experienced by man, can very easily be attributed to, or accounted by, the cognitive limitations of man.

In the "2+2=" equation, a man with sufficient mathematical cognition is able to accurately predict that "4" will be the outcome. To the man with insufficient mathematical cognition, the outcome would seem unpredictable!

So the "2+2=" outcome could in a subjective, sense, be said to be unpredictable.

However, the adept mathemetician, is able to logically argue,from within the contextual premise of mathematical understanding, that the outcome is objectively predictable and will always be "4" irrespective of the cognitive abilities of the observer.

So is "2+2=4" an objective, predictable truth, or does "2+2=" have the freedom to choose an outcome different from "4"?
Well it now seems that it depends upon whom one asks?
One secularist insists that free will and determinism, can somehow logically coexist, within their understanding of the universe. Another secularist has a contrary perception.
Which leads me to wonder, is this ethical model, objectively true for all secularists throughout all cultures and times?

 

[luutzu]

Seriously, do yourself a favour and not waste your time listening to Harris.

The dude is a third rate intellect but a first rate sycophantic azzhole.

Listening to him preaching about science or morality is like listening to Trump about family value or brotherhood of man.

And yes, I did listen to that TED talk of his. Managed to go to 15 minutes.

What a racist prick he is....

There is no "culture" where the first thing a father thinks of when he found out his daughter was raped is to murder her in case she shamed the family.

Harris just pulled that shiet out of his azz.

Does that mean there no crazy fathers who wouldn't do that. No. But it's not a "cultural" norm in (Islam, as he was referring to).

A person of science and intellect, one whose words and judgement are worth listening to... those people do not think like Harris. Better to read and listen to Chomsky or Bertrand Russell.

 

[Tink]

Knobby, the same stalinist Greens that sang the praises of Castro.

 

[ducati916]

That doesn't really answer my question, but, at the very least, it has conferred some insight into the cause of our conflicting understandings of the meaning of the word "faith". A number of my counterarguments, to your implied perspectives on "God", and evidence (or absence thereof) for the existence of same, have been given in that thread you referenced in your first post. My preference is not to pollute this discussion with another atheist versus antitheist debate, hence my reluctance to reiterate my counter arguments here.

Anyhow, this appears to be an opportune moment, for me to state one of my reasons, for being absolutely thrilled that you chose to start this particular thread.

The topic seemed to invite deeper investigation into the claims that an integral secular moral system, or ethical philosophy, could be logically and/or scientifically defined from a purely secular perspective.

I had sincerely hoped that this could be explored in isolation to any needless assertions and/or debates about the merits (or absence thereof) of the case for the existence of divinity.

At this juncture, I need to ask, were my hopes out of accordance with your intentions?

The short answer is yes.

As the thread title states, the intention is to demonstrate that an ethical system can be created from reason and first principles without any intervention/guidance from a supernatural power.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

That doesn't really answer my question, but, at the very least, it has conferred some insight into the cause of our conflicting understandings of the meaning of the word "faith". A number of my counterarguments, to your implied perspectives on "God", and evidence (or absence thereof) for the existence of same, have been given in that thread you referenced in your first post. My preference is not to pollute this discussion with another atheist versus antitheist debate, hence my reluctance to reiterate my counter arguments here.

Putting aside the individual word 'faith' and rather focussing the discussion on 'language' instead, there is a line of philosophical thought that places great emphasis on the meaning of language is gleaned from context.

Frege, in demonstrating that logic is objective; and
Russell with analytic philosophy; and
Wittgenstein, both early and late; and
AJ Ayer.

AJ Ayer, who while not as well known as Wittgenstein, contributed a particularly fruitful idea to philosophy: the 'speech-act'.

Which simply is: every time we say something, we are doing something.

This provides the context, from which another person can understand the language used, from the plethora of possible meanings a 'word' may have.

So when I say that the word 'faith' was used incorrectly, what I mean is that in the context of the discussion that we were engaging in, viz. discussing belief in the context of a supernatural agency called 'God', the example of 'faith a workman has in his tools' is simply wrong.

Of course, while philosophy can be [and often is] rather abstract, Ayers' idea has translated into the common law of England, NZ and Australia, with regard to the meaning of language, particularly in contractual language, but also in the [correct] interpretation of statutory language. In NZ, this is the Interpretation Act 1999, s5, which also accepted the principles enunciated in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 (HL).

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

So I'll need to break this post into smaller chunks.

Starting with the least contentious:

In the "2+2=" equation, a man with sufficient mathematical cognition is able to accurately predict that "4" will be the outcome. To the man with insufficient mathematical cognition, the outcome would seem unpredictable!

So the "2+2=" outcome could in a subjective, sense, be said to be unpredictable.

However, the adept mathemetician, is able to logically argue,from within the contextual premise of mathematical understanding, that the outcome is objectively predictable and will always be "4" irrespective of the cognitive abilities of the observer.

So is "2+2=4" an objective, predictable truth, or does "2+2=" have the freedom to choose an outcome different from "4"?
Well it now seems that it depends upon whom one asks?
One secularist insists that free will and determinism, can somehow logically coexist, within their understanding of the universe. Another secularist has a contrary perception.
Which leads me to wonder, is this ethical model, objectively true for all secularists throughout all cultures and times?

Mathematics is objective [as demonstrated by Frege and Russell].

Therefore 2 + 2 will always = 4. This is an objective fact. This fact is not altered whether the calculation is attempted by a genius or a moron.

Therefore an ethical model that is rational or logical [based on true factual propositions] can be [and is] objectively true universally.

This leads back to your challenges with regard to 'minds'.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

What is your chosen definition of "mind"?

1. Where does the mind reside?
2. Is mind measurable? If so, how so?
3. What is the material and/or immaterial composition of the mind?
4. What are the material and/or immaterial requirements for the existence of mind?
5. Are thoughts a feature of mind?
6. If so, the same questions are asked in relation to thought, i.e. definition, residence, composition, measurability, and requisites to existence.
7. Is "free will" operable in the absence of mind and/or thoughts?

Locke's famous dictum states: "nothing is in the intellect that has not previously been in the senses."

Except, the intellect itself.

1. It resides within the individual. Current best knowledge would attribute the mind to be located within the individuals central nervous system. Many would localise that further to the cerebral cortex and grey pyramidal cells.

2. For my answer, I will ask a question: is it measurable objectively, subjectively, or both? We measure it subjectively all of the time, exams etc. I do not believe that it is currently measurable objectively.

3. The material is cellular.

4. I would imagine, the same as answer [3]. My knowledge of neurophysiology and biochemistry while more than a layperson, does not extend far enough to provide a better answer.

5. Yes.

6. Thoughts reside in the intellect. For me, mind connotes both conscious and sub-conscious. The intellect is composed of cerebral cortex grey pyramidal cells that communicate through axons and dendrites which convey chemical, electrical and hormonal information linking discrete areas of the cortex. There could well be factors to be discovered that should be included.

7. No.

Before progressing, I'll wait on your thoughts, otherwise this could become hopelessly confused.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Obviously there are other arguments put forward. I will address them all [eventually].

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

Locke's famous dictum states: "nothing is in the intellect that has not previously been in the senses."

Except, the intellect itself.

Do educated people still seriously believe this?! How does one reconcile this "dictum" with the accomplishments of Helen Keller?!!

1. It resides within the individual. Current best knowledge would attribute the mind to be located within the individuals central nervous system. Many would localise that further to the cerebral cortex and grey pyramidal cells.

2. For my answer, I will ask a question: is it measurable objectively, subjectively, or both? We measure it subjectively all of the time, exams etc. I do not believe that it is currently measurable objectively.

Could these subjective measurements, perchance, be objective measurements of the effects of intellectual activity?

3. The material is cellular.

4. I would imagine, the same as answer [3]. My knowledge of neurophysiology and biochemistry while more than a layperson, does not extend far enough to provide a better answer.

5. Yes.

6. Thoughts reside in the intellect. For me, mind connotes both conscious and sub-conscious. The intellect is composed of cerebral cortex grey pyramidal cells that communicate through axons and dendrites which convey chemical, electrical and hormonal information linking discrete areas of the cortex. There could well be factors to be discovered that should be included.

Are there changes to the material (as opposed to immaterial) state of the intellect, concurrent to the manifestation of thoughts?
If so, is there a causal relationship between thought manifestation and the corresponding material state of the intellect?
If so, did the thought effect the change, or did the change effect the thought?

7. No.

Before progressing, I'll wait on your thoughts, otherwise this could become hopelessly confused.

jog on
duc

(Could become?! I suspect that ship has already sailed.)

 

[cynic]

Mathematics is objective [as demonstrated by Frege and Russell].

Again, this depends upon whom one asks!

Therefore 2 + 2 will always = 4. This is an objective fact. This fact is not altered whether the calculation is attempted by a genius or a moron.

The result may be an objective fact, but the predictability of that fact, is not objectively true for all men throughout time. What is demonstrated here, is the ease with which a man of limited cognitive faculties, could misinterpret the apparence of unpredictability, with one or more departures from the realm of causal determinism.

Therefore an ethical model that is rational or logical [based on true factual propositions] can be [and is] objectively true universally.

At present, I feel unable to fully share your confidence in that claim.

 

[ducati916]

Determinism [in the physical universe] must be correct as if we do not take account of determinism, or regularity, there is no reason whatever to infer from anything that happened in the past what will happen in the future. If we dispense with the category of regularity [determinism] all scientific effort is rendered useless and the search for knowledge is meaningless.

If we substitute 'perfect knowledge' for determinism, as per the original definition, I agree then that prediction of the future is possible.

As we [humans] do not possess perfect knowledge, we cannot predict the [infinite] future. We can however predict small increments of the future.

Based on our knowledge of [to date] cause/effect, we can select/make decisions [in our will/mind] to substitute the current state of affairs, for another, through actions, physical or mental.

Our will/mind, allows us to control, within the bounds of knowledge and limited resources, our current/present state.

The only question that remains is whether our 'will' is free.

So I return to my original assertion:

[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 I control my will and I can use that will to manipulate cause and effect [the deterministic universe] so as to substitute one state of affairs for another, based on an ordinal value system peculiar to myself, I would then submit that the will is free.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

The result may be an objective fact, but the predictability of that fact, is not objectively true for all men throughout time. What is demonstrated here, is the ease with which a man of limited cognitive faculties, could misinterpret the apparence of unpredictability, with one or more departures from the realm of causal determinism.

If a fact is objectively true, it must be predictable. It cannot be true today and false tomorrow.

That an individual makes a mistake about an objective fact does not alter the objective fact and negative it. It simply means that the individual made a mistake.

Another way of describing 'causal determinism' is perfect knowledge, which was contained in your definition. I accept that we do not hold/have perfect knowledge, therefore we can be mistaken. This in no way impacts perfect knowledge.

jog on
duc