Debate 6 Discussion: Whether Truth Exists in a Deterministic Universe: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 6 Discussion: Whether Truth Exists in a Deterministic Universe » Debate 6 Discussion: Whether Truth Exists in a Deterministic Universe

Debate 6 Discussion: Whether Truth Exists in a Deterministic Universe

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Debate 6 Discussion: Whether Truth Exists in a Deterministic Universe

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 12/06/04 - 05:55 PM:	#1
Discuss our sixth debate here. Read the exchange here, in the Debate Forum. This is a fantastic topic. Enjoy, everyone.

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA

Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3329

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 12/07/04 - 12:00 AM:	#2
The following seems to be Mariner's argument (am I allowed to analyze it here?): 1) Truth is a proposition that corresponds to reality. 2) If there are no propositions, there are no truths (by 1). 3) Beliefs, by definition, cannot be forced. 4) Everything is forced in a deterministic universe. 5) There are no beliefs in a deterministic universe (by 3 and 4). 6) Propositions require belief. 7) In a determinstic universe, there are no propositions (5 and 6). 8) In a deterministic universe, there are no truths (2 and 7). (6) seems to be the critical flaw. Not only do I see this to be blatantly false (propositions have little to do with beliefs, if you don't believe this, consider the proposition: 2 + 3 = 89, but it should be plain to see even without the preceeding counter-example) but Mariner seems to provide little justification for it. He seems to subtly assume (6): In other words – when people state propositions as if they were true, they are believing in it. But a forced belief is no belief. There are no beliefs in the deterministic universe, and therefore in a very critical sense there are no propositions (or to be more precise, there are no statements that can express propositions). It seems he goes subtly from talking about the existence of propositions, to talking about how people believe propositions when they state them as if they were true, and then saying that "in a very critical sense," there are no propositions if no one believes in them. Although it's not an explicit assumption, I see to be an assumption, an unjustified one that is, moreover, unjustifiable.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12173

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 12/07/04 - 05:49 AM:	#3
Perhaps they should be discussing whether truth exists in a fatalistic universe, if #4 is to be presumed. Otherwise it would seem they have to repeat debate number 4 to establish that there's no freedom of choice/belief under determinism.

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 12/07/04 - 04:59 PM:	#4
Just to be annoyingly anal. Socrastein said "the average human has two legs". If you take a different approach to average, then the average human has slightly less than 2 legs . Robert Guy who is being overly annoying today. Something to do with my year 9 maths class!

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA

Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3329

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 12/07/04 - 05:10 PM:	#5
Mariner appears to continue to twist the words. Personally, if I had to defend his position, I would have to twist the words as well. This can be mainly seen where he goes from saying that a proposition is something that affirms or denies something, to saying that if a computer produces a statement, then the computer must affirm or deny that thing, and that a computer cannot affirm or deny anything. Whether or not a computer can affirm or deny anything has no bearing on whether or not a proposition output by a computer affirms or denies something. Also (but less importantly), he seems to argue that since a computer cannot be pressed on an issue for justification, it can't be said that he's affirming or denying anything. Why this is, I cannot understand, but again, more importantly, it isn't relevant to whether the proposition affirms or denies anything. By the way, if any of the above or below is saying too much, feel free to clean it up. I think that Mariner has a difficult position to defend, and I don't know if we're doing the voting-for-winners thing, but when we did, we based our choices on who we thought debated the best, not on whose opinion we agreed with. I would like to see both debators be more concise. I would give my vote to the one who could drive the point home in the most clear and concise manner.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks

Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2181

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 12/08/04 - 02:51 AM:	#6
Actually roobarb, humans have an average of less than 2 legs, but the average human does have 2 legs - the difference is subtle, but distinct enough to bring your anal criticisms crashing down! Mwu ha ha. (I'm assuming its okay that I posted in this thread, seeing as how my comments have absolutely zero bearing on the debate itself)
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

dreamweaver
Web we Weave

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 29, 2003
Location: London, UK

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2039

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 12/08/04 - 03:58 PM:	#7
AKG wrote: (6) seems to be the critical flaw. I would agree, but I'm quite sure Mariner would (I guess he can clarify after the debate) that this isn't any vital point of the argument. Though, that is an interesting point. Would you, AKG, agree that beliefs cannot, by definition, be forced? If so, it still follows that any argument for determinism is self-defeating. Surely, if someone analyses the world, and sees that there is evidence or whatever to suggest that the world is deterministic, and they have enough so to convince themselves, they then hold the belief that the world is deterministic. Note, that this defeats itself if a belief cannot be forced. They actually have no belief. This doesn't estabish that there can be no truth in a deterministic Universe, but it would establish that it would be contradictory for someone to believe that the Universe was deterministic. Will have to think more about the relationship of propositions to beliefs; I think that beliefs have a lot to do with propositions. Surely, all beliefs are propositions, even if this isn't true visa versa.
Dos moi pou sto kai kino taen gaen. ~ Archimedes

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA

Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3329

Posted 12/08/04 - 04:43 PM:	#8
dreamweaver wrote: I would agree, but I'm quite sure Mariner would (I guess he can clarify after the debate) that this isn't any vital point of the argument. Though, that is an interesting point. Would you, AKG, agree that beliefs cannot, by definition, be forced? No, not by definition. I think belief, in general, is something profoundly fundamental. Belief is something hard to define, it a fundamental part of language. Belief is key to knowledge, and so is fundamental to epistemology. Belief, we can be sure, is real, it is something to which we have direct access and be sure of, and it is fundamental to metaphysics and ontology. As such, it is something difficult to speak of objectively. For one, we believe certain things in a "way" we may assume to be characteristic to ourselves. What would it mean for an alien to believe? What would the criteria for detecting belief even be? I know, perhaps better than anything, what a belief is, but I am at a loss to express what it is. Whether beliefs can be forced is a good question. It is something I would be willing to deny for the sake of debate, i.e. if it weren't the key issue, but I'm not sure. I can't see any reason why it can't be forced. In fact, I have a hard time believing that all beliefs are chosen. And, of course, Mariner mentioned that a forced belief denies a very important aspect of belief. I would have to wonder what aspect that is. Perhaps he means that we should only consider a certain kind of belief, and beliefs based on brainwashing don't count as beliefs. I can see that beliefs based on brainwashing are different from other types of beliefs, but do we really say that they aren't beliefs? If so, it still follows that any argument for determinism is self-defeating. Surely, if someone analyses the world, and sees that there is evidence or whatever to suggest that the world is deterministic, and they have enough so to convince themselves, they then hold the belief that the world is deterministic. Note, that this defeats itself if a belief cannot be forced. They actually have no belief. That doesn't defeat the argument for determinism. That might suggest that it is impossible to "believe" in determinism, but that doesn't mean that the evidence supporting it doesn't exist, or that the inferences made were not reasonable.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA

Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3329

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 12/08/04 - 09:29 PM:	#9
Up until now, I would have said it was a draw. Socrastein's concluding post, however, really hit the spot. He neatly summarized the flaws in Mariner's position that were pointed out earlier, but didn't continue to harp on them. He addressed what I saw to be Mariner's strongest remaining point, that being the one related to meaning, and did it with an elegant and instructive example, one that will be hard to deny. He managed to get away from the tone both were starting to pick up, that "the debate is already over, I win." There was a clarity and consistency in the post that made the post very easy to follow and understand. I hope Mariner will follow suit.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 12/09/04 - 12:54 AM:	#10
Socrastein wrote: Actually roobarb, humans have an average of less than 2 legs, but the average human does have 2 legs - the difference is subtle, but distinct enough to bring your anal criticisms crashing down! Mwu ha ha. I know I was being anal. I just found it amusing to look at it from a different perspective. Robert Guy who does in fact have 2 legs. 1.. 2.. Yep still there

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.