Posted: Aug 03, 2019 1:56 pm
ughaibu wrote:What is going on? This argument is very simple.zoon wrote:Since, if determinism is the case, there's no possibility of alternative events at times 1 or 2, determinism would not decouple the recorder’s behaviour from prior events in the way you suggest.
If the laws of chemistry/physics mathematically entail some behaviour by some researcher at time three, then at time three that researcher will behave in the way entailed, won't they?
And if the conduct of science entails that the researcher must behave at some way at time three, then either that researcher can behave as entailed or there is no science, is there?
So, if we construct a situation in which science commits us to the conclusion that the researcher cannot behave both as is entailed by the requirements of science and as entailed by laws of chemistry/physics, then we will have demonstrated an inconsistency between science and the stance that laws of chemistry/physics entail all human behaviour, won't we?
Well that is what the argument demonstrates, and I just can't see how you two could still not have got your heads round it. Instead of replying, think about it.
You write:
If the laws of chemistry/physics mathematically entail some behaviour by some researcher at time three, then at time three that researcher will behave in the way entailed, won't they?
OK, I will go along with this for the thought experiment of a fully deterministic universe.
In a fully deterministic universe, the laws of chemistry/physics also mathematically entail the behaviour of a flipped coin at time two. It follows that at time two, the coin will land in one way, and no other. There is only one possibility for the coin’s landing, there is only one possibility for the researcher’s behaviour, and you have not shown that science is impossible.
Suppose there are 2 deterministic universes, A and B. In universe A, the coin lands heads at time two. In universe B, the coin lands tails at time two. There is no way the coin can land tails at time two in universe A, or heads in universe B. The researcher’s behaviour at time three is fully determined in universe A, and the researcher’s behaviour at time three is also fully determined in universe B, but there’s no requirement for the researcher to behave in the same way in the two different universes. Your argument does not disprove the possibility of science in either of the deterministic universes.