Re: Probability, Necessity, and Infinity

```
On Nov 16, 5:50 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 15 Nov 2010, at 20:24, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
> > not
> > free from strict causal determinism.
>
> It is not obvious for me (and the many compatibilists).```
```
as stated, it's tautologous

> Some people can premeditate crime, and this independently of the fact
> that some genius in psychology, or God, could have predict their act.

If there choices are predicable because of determinism, they
are not free from determinism.

> >> Either you throw the notion of person, or you ask for a 'magical'
> >> notion of person.
>
> > Or there is not strict causal determinism
>
> I don't see how low level indeterminacy (of any sort) could help in
> bringing free-will.

I can

>On the contrary free-will is a form of partial
> (from the point of view of the actor) self-determination.

and if the self is atomic, and if its self-determination is  tertium
datur that
is neither determinism nor indetermism, it is impossilbe

if the self is complex, its self-determination could be a regulated
form of low-level indeterminism

> >> 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.
>
> This depends on the level of description.
> The consistency of Peano Arithmetic with lies (Bf) is already a
> theorem of Peano Arithmetic, and there are infinities of modal logics
> given different sense to logical, so "strictly logical" has not so
> much meaning to me. Logic is classical logic + an infinities of non
> classical logics. Classical logic + arithmetic entails the existence
> of many illogical things, even weird dreams if you assume mechanism.
> Free will is the high level cognitive facility which makes possible
> for a person to choose a way to satisfy herself in the knowledge/
> belief of many alternative ways. It usually asks for (more) freedom.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 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
> > .
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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