Oh dear! What demon possessed you into believing that a Franciscan Friar, namely, William of Ockham, had anything helpful to contribute towards your argument?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
To my understanding that is an incorrect usage of the "razor"....
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.
...
If your recount of this "exercise" wasn't for allegorical purposes, then I fail to understand its relevance!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.
Is this a typographical error?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.
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.)I used 'Occam's razor' as an argument supportive of the more probable conclusion.
Failure to recognise the presence of relevance, does not equate to the absence of relevance!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.
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.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
Actually, I am not certain that I do!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.
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!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.
Practicability is not synonymous with reality!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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?