Bruno et al:
I think *"definiteness"* is always counterfactual since it *MUST* deny the
potential influences from unknown factors (domains, a/effects, even some
definitely counterfactual influences we do not recognize as such at all).
It is a consequence of our agnostic view (as I recall: we agreed
On 16 Apr 2016, at 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 16/04/2016 12:20 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Apr 2016, at 14:31, Bruce Kellett wrote:
It is interesting that you have not answered my question about
what exactly you mean by 'counterfactual definiteness' so that we
know what you mean wh
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
>
> > Physical determinism is the idea that the
> > future is genrated form the persent by rigid physical
> > laws. As opposed to the idea that the future is fixed
> > becasue it is already "there", like the end of a movie
> > which is already in t
Le 31-août-06, à 12:59, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> But is there any sense in which we as humans are any more "free" than
> billiard
> balls or dice beyond the fact that we *feel* we are free? I have a
> strong feeling
> that my free will is not randomness and not determinism: is there
>
Peter Jones writes:
> > But is there any sense in which we as humans are any more "free" than
> > billiard
> > balls or dice beyond the fact that we *feel* we are free?
>
> There may be. For instance, freedom might be a combination of
> indeterminism and rational self-control.
>
> > I have a st
Peter Jones writes:
> Physical determinism is the idea that the
> future is genrated form the persent by rigid physical
> laws. As opposed to the idea that the future is fixed
> becasue it is already "there", like the end of a movie
> which is already in the can , and need not bear any logical
>
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
>
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > John Mikes writes:
> > >
> > > > Peter:
> > > > "... A counterfactual is a COUNTERfactual - -it is
> > > > something that could have happenned but didn't. There is no
> > > > reason why we should be conscious
Peter Jones writes:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > John Mikes writes:
> >
> > > Peter:
> > > "... A counterfactual is a COUNTERfactual - -it is
> > > something that could have happenned but didn't. There is no
> > > reason why we should be conscious of in things
> > > we coudl have done but di
John M wrote:
> Peter:
> There is a clash of concepts - as I feel.
> I do not 'read' what "physical" has to do in the fact
> of 'determinism': if determinism is not (deemed) as
> 'physical', it does not determin?
Physical determinism is the idea that the
future is genrated form the persent by ri
Peter:
There is a clash of concepts - as I feel.
I do not 'read' what "physical" has to do in the fact
of 'determinism': if determinism is not (deemed) as
'physical', it does not determin?
Laws (physical?) do not determin anything. Explain:
yes or oppose to. The deductions of the majority of
the
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> John Mikes writes:
>
> > Peter:
> > "... A counterfactual is a COUNTERfactual - -it is
> > something that could have happenned but didn't. There is no
> > reason why we should be conscious of in things
> > we coudl have done but didn't. ..."
> >
> > JM:
> > It could
John Mikes writes:
> Peter:
> "... A counterfactual is a COUNTERfactual - -it is
> something that could have happenned but didn't. There is no
> reason why we should be conscious of in things
> we coudl have done but didn't. ..."
>
> JM:
> It could not have happened in another way if it did hap
12 matches
Mail list logo
