Perfection

[sevens]

Analog,

Yeah, technically, A=A is a 'limitation' on a thing.

(But, not really.)

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

DQ: Exactly right. Analog is creating this limitation in his own imagination and projecting it onto the world. He's creating his own mental prison. Next he'll be saying that existing is a limitation because one is not free, in that moment, to not exist.

Analog: The law of identity is a binding constraint in that " a thing is itself and only itself" Simple. That is using YOUR reasoning DQ.

We need to distinguish two different issues here - the metaphysical issue of what it means to exist and psychological issue of what it means to be free.

As Dave Toast pointed out, the law of identity is a descriptive law, not a prescriptive one. It describes the basic quality of existence. A thing can only exist by having an identity; there is no other way that a thing can exist. If it doesn't have an identity, then it cannot exist.

It's wrong to call this descriptive law a "binding constraint", as there is no possibility of anything ever violating it. There is no binding or constraining taking place. There is no prison, no escape route, and nothing to escape into. These concepts have no meaning here.

What you're doing is artificially injecting the psychological issue of freedom into this metaphysical context, where it doesn't belong. The issue of freedom and the law of identity are completely seperate and have no relevance to one another. This is because regardless of whether a person is free or not, he still possesses an identity.

Even a perfect Buddha who has transcended life and death still has an identity. His freedom is not the result of abandoning the law of identity. Yes, he has abandoned certain kinds of identity, such as the identity of an ignorant man. But he hasn't abandoned the law of identity altogether. That is impossible.

-

[analog57]

What you're doing is artificially injecting the psychological issue of freedom into this metaphysical context, where it doesn't belong. The issue of freedom and the law of identity are completely seperate and have no relevance to one another. This is because regardless of whether a person is free or not, he still possesses an identity.

This appears to be a strawman fallacy by David quinn. In general "metaphysical" terms, freedom is the complement OF constraint irregardless of any "psychological" anthropomorphic labels.

Yet we can still use DQ's ad-hoc psychological parameterization, to show how "freedom/constraint" is built into the very fabric of existence.

In terms of logic, free will is primary to even causality. It is impossible to deduce, derive, or explain it in terms of anything else. Constraint corresponds to necessity and also to deterministic natural laws. A concept becomes necessary and deterministic due to the fact that it cannot be arbitrarily changed at will. Hence A=A is a deterministic constraint.

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

This appears to be a strawman fallacy by David quinn. In general "metaphysical" terms, freedom is the complement OF constraint irregardless of any "psychological" anthropomorphic labels.

Yet we can still use DQ's ad-hoc psychological parameterization, to show how "freedom/constraint" is built into
the very fabric of existence.

What's your aim in life, Analog? Do you have philosophic or spiritual goals?

In terms of logic, free will is primary to even causality. It is impossible to deduce, derive, or explain it in terms of anything else.

I don't know what you mean by this. I find it very easy to break free-will down into its causal components.

-

[analog57]

I find it very easy to break free-will down into its causal components.

Please proceed.

[Leyla Shen]

A thing does not have the freedom to be anything else. It can only be itself. The law of identity is therefore a limitation on a thing.

Now that would have to be the hallmark of insanity. The law of identity is only a limitation on a thing that wishes to be something other than it is already identified to be.

Why would a thing, having so been identified, consider the notion of not being some other thing a constraint of free will? Who or what is it that identifies?

The phrase "know thyself" comes to mind.

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

DQ: I find it very easy to break free-will down into its causal components.

A: Please proceed.

I've gone into this issue in great detail in my ebook, Wisdom of the Infinite, particularly in the chapter entitled "The Concept of Free Will".

-

[analog57]

Analog wrote:

DQ: I find it very easy to break free-will down into its causal components.

A: Please proceed.

I've gone into this issue in great detail in my ebook, Wisdom of the Infinite, particularly in the chapter entitled "The Concept of Free Will".

-

Your writings DQ, inevitably stipulate that reality is 100% deterministic and free will does not exist. Reality is some gigantic machine running in precise clockwork fasion from an initial "first" event. We are, according to your writings, products of a universal clockwork determinism.

Yet there can be no 100% determinism, because the "physical causality" that you speak of, is itself governed by Heisenberg indeterminism at the sub-microscopic scale of existence. A fact.

This indeterminism is itself a fundamental property OF existence. It is more than merely missing information/variables.

[Kevin Solway]

This indeterminism is itself a fundamental property OF existence.

Indeterminism (in physics) doesn't say anything about whether things are caused or not. It is concerned with predictability.

Things are caused without being predictable.

No physical event is really predictable (ie, with certainty), so it's not that different to the quantum world.

When you throw a dice, you don't know whether the dice will even exist once you have thrown it, let alone what number will come up. You might predict that the dice will exist after you have thrown it, and you can be 100% wrong in your prediction.

[Kevin Solway]

Have a read of the "Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics" post half way down the following page:

viewtopic.php?t=568

[analog57]

This indeterminism is itself a fundamental property OF existence.

Indeterminism (in physics) doesn't say anything about whether things are caused or not. It is concerned with predictability.

Your point is tangental and misleading.

Indeterminism, in the universe, is at the crux of the question of free will.

If free will does not exist in reality, as DQ asserts, then reality is completely deterministic, and in principle, completely predictable.

Causality itself is expressed by the logic statement "If A then B"

"If cause then effect".

Indeterminism is an incontrovertible fact of our universe. Obviously you have not read the earnest philosophical discussions by Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, et al.

[analog57]

http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08c.htm

Heisenberg took this one step further: he challenged the notion of simple causality in nature, that every determinate cause in nature is followed by the resulting effect. Translated into "classical physics," this had meant that the future motion of a particle could be exactly predicted, or "determined," from a knowledge of its present position and momentum and all of the forces acting upon it. The uncertainty principle denies this, Heisenberg declared, because one cannot know the precise position and momentum of a particle at a given instant, so its future cannot be determined. One cannot calculate the precise future motion of a particle, but only a range of possibilities for the future motion of the particle. (However, the probabilities of each motion, and the distribution of many particles following these motions, could be calculated exactly from Schrödinger's wave equation.)

[Kevin Solway]

If free will does not exist in reality, as DQ asserts, then reality is completely deterministic, and in principle, completely predictable.

Determinism is about things being caused. It doesn't say that we can predict things.

Even simple things like the weather, or the throwing of a dice can't be predicted with certainty.

"If cause then effect".

Yes, but you can't always say what the effect of any cause might be, and you can't always say what the cause is of any effect.

Indeterminism is an incontrovertible fact of our universe. Obviously you have not read the earnest philosophical discussions by Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, et al.

Einstein himself was a determinist ("God does not play dice with the Universe"). As for the others, they have nothing to say about causation.

[analog57]

If free will does not exist in reality, as DQ asserts, then reality is completely deterministic, and in principle, completely predictable.

Determinism is about things being caused. It doesn't say that we can predict things.

Determinism holds that all events are necessitated by prior events. That basically means IF all information about event A is known, then, all information about event B can be predicted[known before it occurs].

Indeterminism holds that there is an intrinsic uncertainty built into reality itself. Indeterminant gaps[quantum jumps] form fundamental units of perceptual freedom.

Causality consequently becomes a very reliable probability, not an absolute certainty.

[Leyla Shen]

Actually, David, I reckon Analog ought to read chapter five, The Infinite. I think he has an excellent grasp of duality. Why keep him stopped half way?

I'd like to see him carve that up.

[Kevin Solway]

Determinism holds that all events are necessitated by prior events. That basically means IF all information about event A is known, then, all information about event B can be predicted[known before it occurs].

Certainly. But it is not possible to know all information about any event.

Indeterminism holds that there is an intrinsic uncertainty built into reality itself.

There is intrinsic uncertainty in the throwing of a dice, or in the weather. But this is not incompatible with determinism (ie, causation).

Causality consequently becomes a very reliable probability, not an absolute certainty.

It is an absolute certainty that all things have causes. Guessing the outcome of a throw of a dice is a matter of probability. While Nature fully determines/causes all events, we cannot know what is fully determined ahead of time.

[Philosophaster]

I don't think that the determinism / indeterminism issue really matters (in regard to free will) at all. Neither one makes the concept of "free will" any more coherent or possible.

[Kevin Solway]

I don't think that the determinism / indeterminism issue really matters (in regard to free will) at all. Neither one makes the concept of "free will" any more coherent or possible.

Yes, since if our will is caused, it is not free, and if our will is uncaused, it is random, and thus no will at all.

[sevens]

Our will is determined by a multitude of seen and unseen causes; taking into account conscious and unconsious thought processing. What truly guides our enlightened actions is the same mind that guides our dreams - our 'Self' - infinitely superior to our waking intelligence. Enlightenment (one conception of it) is Reality viewed through this Self. By merging with the determinism of Nature, you acheive the highest freedom.

[David Quinn]

Kevin Solway wrote:

Philosophaster: I don't think that the determinism / indeterminism issue really matters (in regard to free will) at all. Neither one makes the concept of "free will" any more coherent or possible.

Kevin: Yes, since if our will is caused, it is not free, and if our will is uncaused, it is random, and thus no will at all.

Such an obvious point.

-

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

Your writings DQ, inevitably stipulate that reality is 100% deterministic and free will does not exist.

Free-will certainly exists on a practical level. For all intents and purposes, we do make decisions and choices in our lives. But nonetheless, underlying it all is causality.

It's always hard for the ego to accept that it is a composite creature, that it has no primary existence. But how can it be otherwise?

Reality is some gigantic machine running in precise clockwork fasion from an initial "first" event. We are, according to your writings, products of a universal clockwork determinism.

As I explained in my book, which I presume you read with close attention, I do not picture Reality in that way. Causality cannot be reduced into any kind of simplistic analogy, such as a cog-like machine. Causality can manifest in countless different ways, as we can see all around us in our daily lives.

Yet there can be no 100% determinism, because the "physical causality" that you speak of, is itself governed by Heisenberg indeterminism at the sub-microscopic scale of existence. A fact.

This indeterminism is itself a fundamental property OF existence. It is more than merely missing information/variables.

You've been misled. Check out the link that Kevin provided.

-

[David Quinn]

Leyla wrote:

Actually, David, I reckon Analog ought to read chapter five, The Infinite. I think he has an excellent grasp of duality. Why keep him stopped half way?

I'd like to see him carve that up.

I'm not sure that Analog is interested in understanding anything on a fundamental level. He evidently wants to stay within the crowd and think the same things that the crowd thinks. His ability to quote other people in the crowd is most impressive.

-

[analog57]

Causality cannot be reduced into any kind of simplistic analogy, such as a cog-like machine. Causality can manifest in countless different ways, as we can see all around us in our daily lives.

Now, DQ posits that causality is a mysterious[unknown] yet absolute[known] property of reality?

DQ's famous X = not-X

Goodbye law of identity?

[Kevin Solway]

Analog wrote:

DQ posits that causality is a mysterious[unknown] yet absolute[known] property of reality?

It is an absolute that there is currently weather happening where you are at the moment, but I do not know exactly what kind of weather that is. It is the same with causality: we can know things are caused, but cannot know with certainty all the things that caused them (other than in very broad categories).

[analog57]

Analog wrote:

DQ posits that causality is a mysterious[unknown] yet absolute[known] property of reality?

It is an absolute that there is currently weather happening where you are at the moment, but I do not know exactly what kind of weather that is. It is the same with causality: we can know things are caused, but cannot know with certainty all the things that caused them (other than in very broad categories).

That means even one causal event cannot be precisely defined. Therefore causality itself cannot be defined? How can a thing be caused, if the process of causality itself cannot be explained?

When causality cannot be precisely defined, for example, a person throws a rock and a window breaks:

According to your definition of causality, the reason the window was broken, is due to a multitude of many ultimately unspecifiable, yet completely deterministic factors resulting in a person tossing a stone ...AND the person is NOT ultimately responsible for their actions in a philosophical sense, because free will does NOT exist.


According to my "free will" hypothesis, the person reached a crucial point, where a choice needed to be made:

yes or no.

The factors in that decision were weighed by the mind of the individual.