Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Causality vs the New Order
Message-ID: <529@spar.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 06:26:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.529
Posted: Thu Sep 19 06:26:39 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 05:15:24 EDT
References: <1495@pyuxd.UUCP> <2197@pucc-h> <1510@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 96

>> Laura [Welcome back!!] 	> Rich 

>> Rich, if I follow your argument, I seem to get this.
>> 1.	All actions are caused.
>> ...
>> Therefore: all things are determined. the thesis of free will is invalid.
>
>Pretty much.

   A clarification on the word `cause' -- I assume we are using this word in
   the sense of Hume's temporal and spatial conjunction between causes and
   effects, or Einstein's locality principle which requires that effects be
   transmitted continously through spacetime.

>> You postulate that all those who believe in free will believe that some
>> outside agent (their soul) is responsible for some of the actions in 3 or 4
>> or 5.  Therfore you think that all those who believe in free will also
>> believe in souls.
>
>All those who believe in free will must of necessity and implication believe
>in souls.  There is of course nothing to stop a person from holding two
>contradictory beliefs...

    Horsefeathers! You have only shown that YOUR definition of free will
    (spontaneous behavior) is not consistent with the decrepit a priori
    assertion:

       All actions are totally determined by antecedent causes

    In Hobbes' day, this was a daring assumption, and it, in fact, proved
    so scientifically useful that people stopped questioning it.

    By 1930, scientific explanations (QM) of such diverse phenomena as the
    periodic table of elements, the wave/particle nature of light, Brownian
    motion, the structure of atoms, the color of heated metals and many
    others had thrown serious doubts on the explanatory power of causality.

>...It's just a sign that they haven't thought things through.

    As a libertarian (=freewiller), I take that as an insult!

    Do you understand your own mind well enough to distinguish between your
    own subjective delusions and objective scientific fact?
    
    Can you distinguish a priori assertion from empirical evidence?
    
    When was the last time you read a text containing modern philosophical
    or scientific ideas differing from your own?
  
>> This is not the only objection that has been made to the thesis of strict
>> determinism. A good many people do not buy postulate 1 -- they think that
>> some actions are definitely caused, but others are either uncaused or
>> self-causing.  For [them], a non-belief in determinism does not imply a
>> belief in souls.
>
>Do they believe this (obviously an assertion without evidence behind it)
>for a solid logical reason, or because choosing that precept allows them to
>reach a conclusion they want, e.g., god or free will?

    Do you prefer to believe a 17th century assumption (provably, an assertion
    discredited by hard scientific evidence) for a solid logical reason,
    or because choosing that precept allows you to complacently hang on to
    outmoded beliefs, e.g. strict behaviorism?

    From several past comments, I infer your stance is:
    
      1. QM entails mere randomness, explainable as:
         a. lack of complete knowledge of antecedent causes, or..
         b. human interference due to experimental error.
      2. If we mentally subtract the error, or find the missing causes,
         then QM along with its indeterminacy is an illusion explainable
	 by proper causal mechanisms.
      3. Consequently, quantum indeterministic explanations are no
         more valid than causal ones -- neither one can currently
	 able to `know' what really `caused' the randomness.

    Am I correct about your beliefs? If so, you are badly mistaken.

    Regardless of the validity of QM, your assertion that antecedent causes
    determine present state is demolished by Bell's interconnectedness
    theorem, which asserts, according to Bohm (whose efforts in the 50's led
    to its ultimate experimental verification):

        Two entities, such as electrons, which initially combine to
	form a molecule and then separate, show a peculiar nonlocal
	relationship, which can best be described as a noncausal
	connection of elements that are far apart. -- David Bohm

    That is, actions are partially determined by the simultaneous state of
    remote events at the present moment. Anyway, Bell's theorem is empirical
    fact, having been derived directly from experimental data without any
    assumptions from QM.

    SMASH CAUSALITY!!!

-michael


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com