On Nov 14, 11:04 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2010, at 19:39, 1Z wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 12:54 am, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 4, 4:40 am, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> If an entity exists in a universe that is subject to unchanging
> >>>> causal
> >>>> laws, how can it have justified true beliefs (a.k.a. knowledge)
> >>>> either?
> >>>> If the entity's beliefs are the result of some more fundamental
> >>>> underlying process, then those beliefs aren't held for reasons of
> >>>> logic or rationality.
> >>> That doesn't follow.
> >> It follows by definition.
> >> 1.  IF a universe governed by causal laws -
> >> 2.  THEN everything that occurs within that universe is a result of
> >> those laws acting on the universe's state.  Every change of state
> >> happens according to some law.
> >> 3.  The entity's holding of some belief occurs within that universe.
> >> 4.  Therefore the entity's holding of some belief (whether rational
> >> *or* irrational) is a result of causal laws acting on the entity's
> >> state, and nothing else.
> >> What else could account for the entity's holding of some particular
> >> belief?
> >> "Logical" and "rational" are adjectives.  You're confusing
> >> descriptive
> >> labels with causal forces.
> > Your argument still doesn't work. You re tacitly assuming that
> > being the result of causal laws is exclusive of being the result
> > of logic/.reason. But that is , to say the least,  not obvioius.
> > OTOH, it *is* obvious that being the result of causal
> > laws is exclusive of being freely chosen.
> ? Are you saying that it is obvious that compatibilism is false?

It is obvious that if there is strict causal determinism, the will is
free from strict causal determinism.

> Either you throw the notion of person, or you ask for a 'magical'
> notion of person.

Or there is not strict causal determinism

> Free will is the free choice between 2+2=4,and 2+2=5.

A FW that could choose anything that is not logically impossible
would be physically miraculous.

A FW that was constrained always to be strictly logical would not
be all that free.

> Yes. It might even be statistically justified, but if it applies to
> reality, double checking is not enough to convince of truth, there is
> a need of an infinite-checking which can be justified for first person
> only. But science, reason, public demonstrations don't need that
> infinite checking, and your answer goes through (if I get it correctly).

I think I followed that...no amount of checking
suffices for certainty, but any finite amount is unmiraculous

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to