Causality and locality are overrated?

[Bahman]

I am truly sorry, but I consider the above a complicated restatement of the original post. It provides no understandable path from A (locality) to B (epiphenomalism).

Here is another version. I hope it help and let me know if you have any question.

The locality in time means that the future state of affair is defined only in term of current state of affair.

To elaborate lets define a set of states that define a system in past as S={S(-n), S(-n+1), …,S(0)} where n is the initial moment and S(j) is state of the system at moment j. Now lets define operator L such that S(1)=L(S) so called law of the system. Operator L is local in time if and only if L(S(j))=0 except for j=0. Lets define S(j)=[P(j), M(j)] where P(j) is physical state and M(j) is mind state which is the result of observation of physical state P(j), simply memory of this state. We require that P(1)=Lp(P(0))+Lm*(M(0)) and M(0)=Lm(P(0)) where Lp is operator that gives the evolution of the physical state namely law of physics, Lm* gives the contribution of mind state in evolution of physical state namely Psichic law and Lm is the observation operator which gives the memory of this physical state. Lm*(M(0)) has to be zero since the memory of physical state is equivalent to physical state hence Lp(P(0)) gives the proper evolution of physical state.

Under this regime the current physical state completely define the physical state in future hence we have epiphenomalism.

 

[Rhubarb]

I realize you’re trying to answer questions from a lot of people on various points of your argument, but let me try to boil your opening post down to it’s core idea.

Your post seems to show that (1) either epiphenomenalism is true and mental states cannot affect the physical world (therefore our will, memory, etc. cannot steer us through the causal chain), or that (2) it is not true and our mental states do in fact affect the physical world therefore leaving free will and etc. as possible.

Is that about right? If so then you’ve just outlined a basic tension in epiphenomenalism that’s already recognized - plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/#MenProDisCauPow

 

[Bahman]

I realize you’re trying to answer questions from a lot of people on various points of your argument, but let me try to boil your opening post down to it’s core idea.

Your post seems to show that (1) either epiphenomenalism is true and mental states cannot affect the physical world (therefore our will, memory, etc. cannot steer us through the causal chain), or that (2) it is not true and our mental states do in fact affect the physical world therefore leaving free will and etc. as possible.

Is that about right? If so then you’ve just outlined a basic tension in epiphenomenalism that’s already recognized - plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/#MenProDisCauPow

You got half of the argument. First, you could be in regime that hypophenomenalism is correct and you don’t have free will which means that laws of nature are not local in time but causal. This means that you have to sacrifice locality in time in order to have hypophenomenalism. To have free will you have to sacrifice causality since causality simply defines the state of system uniquely which we know it by our daily experience which is not correct if we could really make a real choice which is subject of discussion.

 

[Rhubarb]

Okay, wait. I take it by hypophenomenalism you mean the opposite of epiphenomenalism?

Also I don’t see how a “law of nature” can be “local in time” OR “causal”, why not both? I’m sorry if you’ve already explained this, but as davidv has pointed out we seem to have problems parsing ideas from your prose.

I also can’t really tell if you’re aiming to show a tension between a number of things, or making an argument and advocating for one solution.

 

[Bahman]

Okay, wait. I take it by hypophenomenalism you mean the opposite of epiphenomenalism?

That is correct.

Also I don’t see how a “law of nature” can be “local in time” OR “causal”, why not both? I’m sorry if you’ve already explained this, but as davidv has pointed out we seem to have problems parsing ideas from your prose.

I also can’t really tell if you’re aiming to show a tension between a number of things, or making an argument and advocating for one solution.

Here is a table that summarize everything

//////////////////////// | L&C | NL&C | L&NC | NL&NC​

epiphenomalism | Yes | No | Yes | No​

Free will////////// | No | No | Yes | Yes

Where L, C, NL and NC stands for local, causal, non-local and non-causal respectively.

There is clear distinction between free will and hypophenomenalism.

 

[oldcelt]

1. I don’t know what pseudo-scientific logic means. Can you define that?
2. As far as I’m aware, there are plenty of areas in philosophy that are beyond the scope of “scientific” inquiry. Like “what is science?” but let’s not step into that quagmire.
3. I think I’m being misunderstood. I actually do not support Bahman’s argument in this thread. (which is why I asked for clarification in my first post, to try and make sense of the argument) And in truth (and I mean no offense by this, Bahman) I disagree with most of his conceptual analyses and most of his premises from his many other threads too. What I do support, though, is someone trying to have a philosophical conversation. I read a LOT of philosophers that I disagree with. But they still deserve an honest discourse. Find flaws in the argument, that’s all well and good. Philosophers are consummate nitpickers of their colleagues. But even the worst philosopher’s ideas deserve more than a “no you’re wrong, end of story.” Maybe it is nonsense, but a nonsense argument is more robust than a flat, unsupported contrary statement.

4. A little off topic, but I don’t know what me being an agnostic has to do with causality, freedom of action or will, or anything at all. Maybe I should drop that from my info? I get attacked a lot over it.

Only from some here. Most of the others try to offer reasonable arguments for their beliefs.

 

[empther]

From Bahman’s post 15

And when did I say that there is no free will. You could find free will in my post if you read it throughly hence that means that you even didn’t read my post or didn’t comprehend it.

Oh, really?

From Bahman’s post 21

The locality in time means that the future state of affair is defined only in term of current state of affair.

That denies free will.

 

[ynotzap]

Caus

Causality means that the state of subject matter is changing and it is related to state of subject matter in earlier moment.

Lets define S as state of matter at current moment and S’ as state of matter at latter moment. One can define S’=L(S) where L is the operator in which it maps S to S’ in a unique way so called law of nature. This is a local operator since states that S’ only depends on S and that is general feature of memoryless system.

One has to generalize this picture in order to accommodate memory which means that we have to define S_old={S(-n), S(-n+1), S(-n+2),…,S(0)} where S(0) is the current state of matter and S(j) is the state of matter in jth step, which refers to past if j is negative and to future if j is positive. One can define S(1)=L(S_old) where L is a nonlocal operator now. This means that state of matter in a given moment depends on state of matter in all former moment which is a correct interpretation of system with memory by sacrificing locality. This however uniquely define the future by which it states we live in epiphenomena world.

This however bring the truth out. Either epiphenomena is correct or not. It is correct if one can guarantee that L exist meaning that causality is correct otherwise L does not exist hence causality is false which grant freedom of action.

Your thoughts.

Causality= cause and effect: it is a true, de facto scientific, objective phenomenon
Change= Potency to Act
Potency is a real capacity to become, Act becoming
Potency =S operator =L Act =S’
Your equation= S’= L(S)

Interpretation: Act=Mover(operator)X Potency
becoming= uncaused cause X capacity to become= non-sequiter
Explanation: Our wills can make choices, but the power of the will to make choices belongs to the mover(operator) Matter and our soul with its faculties can not move themselves. If I could cause my own motion, I could sustain my heart .beat for ever.
If I could cause my own motion, I could keep on making choices even when my body ceases to function, on the other hand my body would not cease to function and I wouldn’t die.
Act=S’= (un-moved mover or uncaused cause, operator, infinity, God) L X Potency (finiteness) does not = becoming It = Pure Act and this is impossible because Potency and Act is the condition of our reality which is finite, not infinite, and we don’t ultimately move our selves

 

[Bahman]

Caus

Causality= cause and effect: it is a true, de facto scientific, objective phenomenon
Change= Potency to Act
Potency is a real capacity to become, Act becoming
Potency =S operator =L Act =S’
Your equation= S’= L(S)

Interpretation: Act=Mover(operator)X Potency
becoming= uncaused cause X capacity to become= non-sequiter
Explanation: Our wills can make choices, but the power of the will to make choices belongs to the mover(operator) Matter and our soul with its faculties can not move themselves. If I could cause my own motion, I could sustain my heart .beat for ever.
If I could cause my own motion, I could keep on making choices even when my body ceases to function, on the other hand my body would not cease to function and I wouldn’t die.
Act=S’= (un-moved mover or uncaused cause, operator, infinity, God) L X Potency (finiteness) does not = becoming It = Pure Act and this is impossible because Potency and Act is the condition of our reality which is finite, not infinite, and we don’t ultimately move our selves

I have a few question from you:

1. Is soul subject to change? If not how possibly they can affect reality in a proper way?
2. Can these changes be described by a set of laws? If not how we can depend on them? If yes how we can be free?
3. How soul can affect and be affected being a completely immaterial entity?

To me the concept of soul is something that we assign all our ignorance to it and we could not understand its nature unless we properly question its functioning.

 

[Bahman]

From Bahman’s post 15

Oh, really?

From Bahman’s post 21

That denies free will.

And what is the current state of affair?

 

[empther]

And what is the current state of affair?

From the way you talk,
the current state of affair is that half a row of dominoes has fallen and the rest of the dominoes will inevitably fall,
or something like that.

In the natural world of rocks, planets and galaxies, that is true,
but when we talk about living things, the rules of inevitability start changing.

When we get to man, what an individual will do tomorrow is unpredictable because he has free will.
Everybody knows I’m right because everybody can observe their own free will.

You’re trying to push a straw man philosophy, Bahman, and it’s on fire.

 

[Bahman]

From the way you talk,
the current state of affair is that half a row of dominoes has fallen and the rest of the dominoes will inevitably fall,
or something like that.

In the natural world of rocks, planets and galaxies, that is true,
but when we talk about living things, the rules of inevitability start changing.

When we get to man, what an individual will do tomorrow is unpredictable because he has free will.
Everybody knows I’m right because everybody can observe their own free will.

You’re trying to push a straw man philosophy, Bahman, and it’s on fire.

But state of affair include mind as well so it is up to mind to do or not to do. So everything depends on definability of operator L as it was discussed. If operator L is definable then there is no free will otherwise there is.

 

[ynotzap]

I have a few question from you:

1. Is soul subject to change? If not how possibly they can affect reality in a proper way?
2. Can these changes be described by a set of laws? If not how we can depend on them? If yes how we can be free?
3. How soul can affect and be affected being a completely immaterial entity?

To me the concept of soul is something that we assign all our ignorance to it and we could not understand its nature unless we properly question its functioning.

The soul in its nature is not subject to change, it is a spiritual entity and will remain so.
But the faculties of the soul are subject to change.
The intelligence of the soul seeks to acquire knowledge, as it does it advances in truth.
The will, the power to choose, seeks the good, or happiness and it can acquire the good in degrees
The soul is the source of all immanent activity of the body and mind, it is the principle of activity, and it does not move itself. Reality can affect the soul in a proper way. The soul united to the body can affect human conduct of self and others

The laws that bind the soul because they are spiritual laws, moral laws do affect the soul through it faculties. The faculty of intelligence is the power to reason, thus we are rational, intelligent creatures. The faculty of volition or will follows what the intelligence of man presents as good, or happiness, or well-being.
As we follow ethical, moral laws made known to us by the use of our intelligence, the mind acquires what it was created for, its appetite, which is truth, and truth is the good, the will accepts the truth(the good) If the intelligence is ignorant, and hasn’t acquired the truth it can not lead the will to the good.
True freedom comes when we act according to our nature which is an intelligent, rational nature, when we do things that are against our rational nature, we furthering ourselves from our true happiness, or good.
If a bird tries to fly by flapping its feet, he won’t make it, but if it does what it was designed to do, flap its wings it will fly. There is no difference with humans, if they do the proper rational thing by following the rule of reason, the moral laws he will achieve what he desires, the good, the true, Happiness and this is God.
The way the soul affects the world around us, even though it is a spiritual entity is through its faculties, intelligence and will. Man can choose to act one way or another, and his conduct can affect the conduct of others, eg, He can act with hatred and cause wars, or he can act with love and cause unity, all of this is done by the power of the soul, it’s faculties.

 

[empther]

Bahman argues by just saying the opposite of anything true…

Post 32…

But state of affair include mind as well so it is up to mind to do or not to do.

It is up to the intellect and will to do or not to do. That is, it’s up to the soul.

So everything depends on definability of operator L as it was discussed.

Who says so? You?
What operator or any other thing has control of the intellect and will other than the intellect and will themselves? Nothing, or we are nothing more than cattle.

If operator L is definable then there is no free will otherwise there is.

Your “science” again. :bigyikes:

It doesn’t matter whether or not operator L if it exists or any other thing is defined or not.
The soul and and it’s intellect and will are spiritual and are moved by God in an undeterministic way leaving the soul initiative and free will,
and no entity real or otherwise in the natural or “scientific” world or any mathematical or logical relationship with no real existence can change what God and man are doing cooperatively.

You have made no progress at all in proving the validity of the string of words and capitalized letters you strung together in post 1 ( which looks like it was copied from some atheists’ forum or mathematical website),
and you never will make any progress.
because the intellect and will can only be controlled by themselves, not science.

 

[ynotzap]

Statement made by Bahman:

If the operator L is definable, then there is no free will otherwise there is.

definition of "Definable: root meaning to set a limit to ,1) having to determine or set boundaries, to describe exactly

L the operator can only be God that moves Potency to Act, the unmoved mover, the cause
We do not ultimately cause our own motion.

We can not set any limits to God who is Infinite, we are limited is all respects.

The final logical conclusion by Bahman is “There is free will”

Note: God sustains our wills, and empowers our will, but He does not control our choices, and He will concur, go along with what we choose, but not necessarily agree with our choices. We can choose evil, and He will enforce our choice. Such is the dangers of a malicious will. Peace to men of good will.

 

[empther]

ynotzap,

thanks for your excellent post.

 

[Bahman]

Statement made by Bahman:

If the operator L is definable, then there is no free will otherwise there is.

definition of "Definable: root meaning to set a limit to ,1) having to determine or set boundaries, to describe exactly

L the operator can only be God that moves Potency to Act, the unmoved mover, the cause
We do not ultimately cause our own motion.

We can not set any limits to God who is Infinite, we are limited is all respects.

The final logical conclusion by Bahman is “There is free will”

Note: God sustains our wills, and empowers our will, but He does not control our choices, and He will concur, go along with what we choose, but not necessarily agree with our choices. We can choose evil, and He will enforce our choice. Such is the dangers of a malicious will. Peace to men of good will.

Why there is any need for law then if God is moving everything?

Why there is any need for all complexity in human body if God is moving everything?

How you could be free if there is a set of laws controlling everything?

 

[Bahman]

Bahman argues by just saying the opposite of anything true…

Post 32…

It is up to the intellect and will to do or not to do. That is, it’s up to the soul.

Who says so? You?
What operator or any other thing has control of the intellect and will other than the intellect and will themselves? Nothing, or we are nothing more than cattle.

Your “science” again. :bigyikes:

It doesn’t matter whether or not operator L if it exists or any other thing is defined or not.
The soul and and it’s intellect and will are spiritual and are moved by God in an undeterministic way leaving the soul initiative and free will,
and no entity real or otherwise in the natural or “scientific” world or any mathematical or logical relationship with no real existence can change what God and man are doing cooperatively.

You have made no progress at all in proving the validity of the string of words and capitalized letters you strung together in post 1 ( which looks like it was copied from some atheists’ forum or mathematical website),
and you never will make any progress.
because the intellect and will can only be controlled by themselves, not science.

Don’t you need your own will to make your decision? How you could make a decision if God move your will?

 

[ynotzap]

Because you can not move your will yourself, God is the source of all motion, you have the prerogative to steer your will in one direction or another, make one choice or another, even if it’s against God’s moral laws. If it is against God’s moral laws, then God could not will that disobedience, He can not contradict Himself The will is free to go against God’s moral laws.
Amen.

 

[Bahman]

Because you can not move your will yourself, God is the source of all motion, you have the prerogative to steer your will in one direction or another, make one choice or another, even if it’s against God’s moral laws. If it is against God’s moral laws, then God could not will that disobedience, He can not contradict Himself The will is free to go against God’s moral laws.
Amen.

You didn’t answer all my questions but that is alright. Do you need a will to steer? The ability to steer is either self caused or it caused with something else?