Re: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: British progressive sees determinism as a...
- In a message dated 01/10/2007 04:03:01 GMT Standard Time, ldg994@... writes:Otis,
The spontaneous appearance of order and complexity is a feature of
chaotic systems. Only in the past 20 years or so have scientists and
mathematicians known how chaotic systems behave. Their discoveries
have overturned the conventional view of a deterministic universe
where everything can be traced backwards to a cause.
Is the info I've googled here incorrect?
In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under specific conditions exhibit dynamics that are sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random, because of an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions. This happens even though these systems are deterministic in the sense that their future dynamics are well defined by their initial conditions, and with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
- In a message dated 08/10/2007 23:02:02 GMT Standard Time, ldg994@... writes:
>> The strict causality takes away any trust I could
>> have in my own reason. How can I know that what I think is
>> reasonable and logical and is not just internal or external
>> reactions that are causing me to think that way?
> Depending on how you look at it, one answer is of course you can't
I think you are getting the point. If the Causality Argument were
true, then we would have no way of determining the truth. All that we
think would just be the result of obscure causes.Otis I simply discribed the reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is people believe all sorts of stuff and trust their reason. Many of them must be wrong.You cannot use what is merely a matter of fact about the nature of the universe, which doesn't contradict naturalism, as an argument against naturalism.Now I went on to say we have tools to help us. If you can show that any of the tools we use, couldn't be fully caused, you have a case.If not then we simply agree on the position we find ourselves in, which is fully compatible with everything being fully caused.How do we know which tools work? Well they are like any other tools, we use them and see.You have no argument against determinism here, if anything it's the other way around, you are showing the situation we find ourselves in is compatible with determinism being true!As always there is an element of absurdity with all this, as if deterministic chaos or quantum randomness could give us better ways of knowing some how.Stephen