Natural Law or, Ethics for the Atheist

[cynic]

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.

(I think we are on the same page, thus far, however, some inaccuracies in incremental predictions may be anticipated due to imperfect knowledge.)

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.

I consider this to be just one of several crucial questions that will ultimately need to be answered before accepting the validity of this secular morality concept. However, a negative answer to the ("free will") question, could, potentially, render all other questions irrelevant.

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

So, in other words, true (as opposed to illusory) free will, is tantamount to possession of metaphysical/supernatural capability!

If there is no free will, then there cannot be anything greater than an illusion of choice, because causal determinism would hold complete governance over all human behaviour within the physical universe(inclusive of illusory perceptions of freedom).

 

[cynic]

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

No argument from myself about what you are saying here.

My choice of wording, in this post, was regrettably amiss. What I was trying to highlight, was the fact of variations in the capability of man, throughout time, to predict objectively predictable phenomena.

 

[ducati916]

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.


Therefore if we accept the deterministic universe being objective, there is an argument that the substitution of one state of affairs for another, on an ordinal value scale is subjective.

If it is subjective, it is not objective.
If it is not objective, it is not deterministic.
If it is not deterministic, it can be free will.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

So, in other words, true (as opposed to illusory) free will, is tantamount to possession of metaphysical/supernatural capability!

If we could elevate our intellect to perfect knowledge, then yes.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

If there is no free will, then there cannot be anything greater than an illusion of choice, because causal determinism would hold complete governance over all human behaviour within the physical universe(inclusive of illusory perceptions of freedom).


Essentially, yes.

jog on
duc

 

[cynic]

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.


Therefore if we accept the deterministic universe being objective, there is an argument that the substitution of one state of affairs for another, on an ordinal value scale is subjective.

If it is subjective, it is not objective.
If it is not objective, it is not deterministic.
If it is not deterministic, it can be free will.

jog on
duc

Your last three statements are logically sound.

But, how is/are the substitution/s of the state of affairs able to performend?
Is true(as opposed to illusory) free will, required for this to occur?

If so, then this is really just another version of the "free will" cannot coexist with determinism argument.

 

[cynic]

So, in other words, true (as opposed to illusory) free will, is tantamount to possession of metaphysical/supernatural capability!

If we could elevate our intellect to perfect knowledge, then yes.

jog on
duc

I am not sure that I understand you correctly here.

If a person was "all knowing", that person might be expected to know whether or not true (as opposed to illusory) free will exists.

As far as I can see, empirical science offers strong supportive evidence for the causal determinism concept, a concept which, barring allowance for metaphysical claims, can not entertain the existence of true free will. The illusion of free will, may be readily accounted by the cognitive limitations of its observers.

So it seems that the argument remains circular.
Is free will true and determinism/empirical science deficient?
Is free will false, and empirical science with its attendant logical processes sacrosanct?

If free will is true, a metaphysical claim is being made!

If free will is false, then morality is meaningless!

A moral system implies the existence of free will, which in turn implies metaphysical reality!

Knowing the above, from whence is a "secular morality" concept to derive its value?

 

[Gringotts Bank]

You can use logic to explain the illusion of free will.

The Big Bang happens - was it your personal will or choice? No, it just happened.

Zillions of fragments fly out in all directions. Was it your personal will or choice? No.

Each of the zillions of fragments has a unique trajectory, spin, momentum. Was it your personal will or choice? No.

One of these fragments turns into the Milky Way. We had no coice in the matter.

One of the Milky Way's fragments turns into planet earth. Do we have some control yet? Are we directing the show? No.

Only because of the original spin/momentum/trajectory of the fragments does a fish move out of water and start to walk.

Only because of the original spin/momentum/trajectory of the fragments does the walking fish evolve into an ape.

Only because of the original spin/momentum/trajectory of the fragments does the ape evole into a human.

Every action the human makes is thus dependent on the original explosion. At some point, the human develops the sense of individuality, ie. the belief that he is separate to the rest of the world and is doing all this stuff himself! It's obviously an illusion. There's only one thing happening - we just think we're doing it. Maya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

 

[cynic]

You can use logic to explain the illusion of free will.

The Big Bang happens - was it your personal will or choice? No, it just happened.

Zillions of fragments fly out in all directions. Was it your personal will or choice? No.

Each of the zillions of fragments has a unique trajectory, spin, momentum. Was it your personal will or choice? No.

One of these fragments turns into the Milky Way. We had no coice in the matter.

One of the Milky Way's fragments turns into planet earth. Do we have some control yet? Are we directing the show? No.

Only because of the original spin/momentum/trajectory of the fragments does a fish move out of water and start to walk.

Only because of the original spin/momentum/trajectory of the fragments does the walking fish evolve into an ape.

Only because of the original spin/momentum/trajectory of the fragments does the ape evole into a human.

Every action the human makes is thus dependent on the original explosion. At some point, the human develops the sense of individuality, ie. the belief that he is separate to the rest of the world and is doing all this stuff himself! It's obviously an illusion. There's only one thing happening - we just think we're doing it. Maya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

Whenever I hear a Big Bang!, I take solace in this observation:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/98/a5/f5/98a5f57c75670d2bc5eb926f6aae3d0b.png

 

[Gringotts Bank]

Whenever I hear a Big Bang!, I take solace in this observation:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/98/a5/f5/98a5f57c75670d2bc5eb926f6aae3d0b.png

What's that mean? I don't get it.

 

[cynic]

https://www.art.com/products/p15063...be-more-explicit-here-in-step-two-cartoon.htm

What's that mean? I don't get it.

Here, in the author's own words, is the fuller context, and explanation, of the relationship to the stupendous outburst:

Whilst I do not entirely agree with everything Terence says, I have noticed that many theorised concepts are founded upon one or more significant assumptions.

 

[grah33]

You can use logic to explain the illusion of free will.

The Big Bang happens - was it your personal will or choice? No, it just happened.

Zillions of fragments fly out in all directions. Was it your personal will or choice? No.

Each of the zillions of fragments has a unique trajectory, spin, momentum. Was it your personal will or choice? No.

One of these fragments turns into the Milky Way. We had no coice in the matter.

One of the Milky Way's fragments turns into planet earth. Do we have some control yet? Are we directing the show? No.

Only because of the original spin/momentum/trajectory of the fragments does a fish move out of water and start to walk.

Only because of the original spin/momentum/trajectory of the fragments does the walking fish evolve into an ape.

Only because of the original spin/momentum/trajectory of the fragments does the ape evole into a human.

Every action the human makes is thus dependent on the original explosion. At some point, the human develops the sense of individuality, ie. the belief that he is separate to the rest of the world and is doing all this stuff himself! It's obviously an illusion. There's only one thing happening - we just think we're doing it. Maya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

I don't think rocks and galaxies have much to do with consciousness and making decisions.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

I don't think rocks and galaxies have much to do with consciousness and making decisions.

Maybe you missed my point.

 

[bellenuit]

You can use logic to explain the illusion of free will.

The Big Bang happens - was it your personal will or choice? No, it just happened.

Zillions of fragments fly out in all directions. Was it your personal will or choice? No.

Each of the zillions of fragments has a unique trajectory, spin, momentum. Was it your personal will or choice? No.

One of these fragments turns into the Milky Way. We had no coice in the matter.

One of the Milky Way's fragments turns into planet earth. Do we have some control yet? Are we directing the show? No.

Only because of the original spin/momentum/trajectory of the fragments does a fish move out of water and start to walk.

Only because of the original spin/momentum/trajectory of the fragments does the walking fish evolve into an ape.

Only because of the original spin/momentum/trajectory of the fragments does the ape evole into a human.

Every action the human makes is thus dependent on the original explosion. At some point, the human develops the sense of individuality, ie. the belief that he is separate to the rest of the world and is doing all this stuff himself! It's obviously an illusion. There's only one thing happening - we just think we're doing it. Maya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

When it comes to Free Will, I find it difficult to decide whether it is actual or an illusion.

It would seem obvious that at any particular moment one can make choices that are independent of every thing that has come before to make us what we are at that particular moment. For instance, do I smile at that person sitting across from me at the cafe that I have just made unintentional eye contact with, or do I just look away? It would seem the choice is completely up to me.

Then I look at things over a longer term. Take a group of people that you met when you first started work. A group that is reasonably independent financially (are not tied to their job due to huge financial debt) and have no obvious addictions or dependencies or mental inadequacies. Every day those in that group are confronted with thousands of choices. Do I go into work? Do I quit my job and travel for a year or maybe get another job? Do I drive or cycle into work?

If their choices at any particular moment are independent of every thing that has gone before to make them what they are at that particular moment one would expect them to have radically different lifestyles, say 10 years later. Yet most will be in the same job and the few who aren't are because of external factors (made redundant etc.). The one or two who cycle to work will likely be the same one or two who did it 10 years before. What is causing this complete lack of divergence from what they did before for each of these people?

Look back at your childhood and you will see many people are just aged versions of who they were when they were young. The violent neighbourhood kid is probably still violent in his 40s and is the more likely to end up in jail. The kid who showed leadership skills in the football team is likely to be a boss or manager at work. The timid introvert that was too shy to look people in the eye probably works in some mundane job that requires little social interaction.

Of course there will always be exceptions, but it would seem that every decision at any moment in time is heavily influenced by the baggage being carried. Is it being completely influenced to the extent that free will is an illusion? That I don't know.

So do I smile at that stranger? Probably not. But if I had read this poem by Spike Milligan earlier that day and it was fresh in my mind, I probably would have. So was my choice free will?

 

[Gringotts Bank]

So was my choice free will?
View attachment 87282

If you throw a tennis ball, it will follow a parabolic path. The ball has no ability to stop mid way, think 'this doesn't feel right' then decide to turn left. The original trajectory is provided by the thrower and controlled by gravity. Maybe along the way a wind blows and it moves slightly off course, but the ball would be mistaken if it thought it was in control.

In this analogy, you are the tennis ball and the Big Bang is the thrower of the ball (or God, Nature, Life...call it what you want). The wind that moves it off course is karma and habit. Karma is based in the erroneous illusion of separateness. The stronger the illusion, the more fear.

 

[ducati916]

If a person was "all knowing", that person might be expected to know whether or not true (as opposed to illusory) free will exists.

If humanity reached the ideal, as first postulated in the definition, then yes, the truth of the matter would probably be resolved.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

As far as I can see, empirical science offers strong supportive evidence for the causal determinism concept, a concept which, barring allowance for metaphysical claims, can not entertain the existence of true free will. The illusion of free will, may be readily accounted by the cognitive limitations of its observers.


Empirical evidence, most definitely, that is the very definition of causality and what we have [largely] relied upon [scientific method] to advance ourselves to our current point of history.

However we also have the deductive method of the a priori.

It is the validity of the a priori 'synthetic' statement that supports the assertion that the will of man is free.

The a priori allows for the subjectivity of choice based on an ordinal as opposed to cardinal value system. The importance of the ordinal is that it allows for the non-logical, silly, impetuous action which sunders the logical causation chain.

We see this in law as well as the 'novus actus' which sunders the chain of causation in law.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

So it seems that the argument remains circular.
Is free will true and determinism/empirical science deficient?
Is free will false, and empirical science with its attendant logical processes sacrosanct?


I submit that the a priori allows for 'free will'.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

If free will is false, then morality is meaningless!
A moral system implies the existence of free will, which in turn implies metaphysical reality!
Knowing the above, from whence is a "secular morality" concept to derive its value?


As asserted, free will is not only possible, it is a reality.

Therefore a moral system can be asserted, as humans are subject to a moral code based on free will and the incumbent accountability for their moral actions.

As initially stated, an ethical system can be deduced without any reference to the supernatural.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

But, how is/are the substitution/s of the state of affairs able to performend?
Is true(as opposed to illusory) free will, required for this to occur?

Through actions.

Man acts to substitute his current state for a state [he subjectively feels] will improve [or worsen] his current state.

He will use his ability to reason which 'means' to employ to achieve his [desired] 'end'. Going back to our discussion about the intelligence [and other attributes] of individuals, there is no requirement that his reasoning is successful etc. There is no requirement that his desired end is logical or consistent with a chain of causation. This I submit would/could be considered circumstantial evidence in the argument.

jog on
duc