Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Belindi »

Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: December 30th, 2020, 12:47 am As an Epiphenomenalist I assert that so called "properties" do not exist - they are no-thing made up FROM/ABOUT some-thing and they are merely mat(r)erial-ized via an assertion OF the property.

I assert that, for two examples, the property called "freewilledness" and the property called "determinedness" of some-thing / of somebody do not exist.
All that DOES exist on this occasion, is the assertion OF freewilledness and-, or versus-, the assertion OF determinedness.

Now, the thing is, there might, on some occasions, the assertion of freewilledness be- (DEEMED to be that is!) quite useful = true, while on some other occasion the assertion of determinedness is (ie is DEEMED to be!) useful = true.

This assertion is (DEEMED by me!) to resolve the assertion of a non-reconciliable dichotomy

I assert that by FAR more often than not, the symbol "truth" simply symbolizes "usefulness"

Truth and usefulness as such, they are imaginary. We all know well the assertion "truth is in the eye of the beholder" which symbolizes to me "is individually fabricated, is neither provable nor refutable, is a property = the imaginary, can only be asserted"
Kind regards from GERMANY!
You might as well claim the patterned patches that make up a hand made patchwork quilt do not exist. But they do exist and the patches can be deconstructed and used again in a new quilt; and the individual patches can be cut up into smaller and smaller patches too.

Just as material space/time things and events exist so do the attributes that compose them exist and can be recycled. Analysis and synthesis are useful to both men and tigers. However men, we presume, are more adept than tigers at synthesising and analysing memorised concepts. Unlike tiger language, human language is largely symbolic.
User avatar
Hans-Werner Hammen
Posts: 145
Joined: December 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Hans-Werner Hammen »

Belindi wrote: December 30th, 2020, 5:59 am You might as well claim the patterned patches that make up a hand made patchwork quilt do not exist. But they do exist and the patches can be deconstructed and used again in a new quilt; and the individual patches can be cut up into smaller and smaller patches too.

Just as material space/time things and events exist so do the attributes that compose them exist and can be recycled. Analysis and synthesis are useful to both men and tigers. However men, we presume, are more adept than tigers at synthesising and analysing memorised concepts. Unlike tiger language, human language is largely symbolic.
I respectfully disagree!

I assert, that properties OF something -
for an example the patterns OF some-thing

they are no-thing FROM/ABOUT some-thing

Some-thing causes (elicits = has the brain fabricate) a property,
the property for an example the property symbolized = ASSERTED "pattern" is imaginary-non-causal = mere-effect = epiphenomenon
User avatar
Hans-Werner Hammen
Posts: 145
Joined: December 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Hans-Werner Hammen »

Sure is...

if you use they symbols "patches" and "patterns" both symbolizing objects -
only THEN is your "pattern" causal: The bigger object is com-posed of smaller objects called "patterns".

Unfortunately our language rei-fies object-IZES our awarenesses (properties) so we have to define in the first place whether the symbol "pattern" symbolizes some-thing or a property OF some-thing = awareness fabricated FROM/ABOUT some-thing!
User avatar
Hans-Werner Hammen
Posts: 145
Joined: December 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Hans-Werner Hammen »

Time and space do not exist, this was already akknowledged by Sire I.Kant.
They are no-thing "intuitively'" being fabricated FROM/ABOUT some-thing being observed.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Terrapin Station »

Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: December 30th, 2020, 12:47 am As an Epiphenomenalist I assert that so called "properties" do not exist - they are no-thing made up FROM/ABOUT some-thing and they are merely mat(r)erial-ized via an assertion OF the property.
So, for example, you'd say that electrons do not have an electrical charge, and you'd say that this has something to do with epiphenomenalism?
User avatar
Hans-Werner Hammen
Posts: 145
Joined: December 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Hans-Werner Hammen »

Terrapin Station wrote: December 30th, 2020, 9:22 am So, for example, you'd say that electrons do not have an electrical charge, and you'd say that this has something to do with epiphenomenalism?
The electron exists, in that you can measure a mass and a charge from/about it.
Units of mass and of charge are proclaimed through the comparison of a detection response with the detection response of a so called standard-object.
If the charge is measured/proclaimed "1" this indicates that the object is the standard object as regards charge. Iow it is the proton. "Charge" means that for an proton (charge = +1) and electron (charge = -1) taken together (for an example in the hydrogen atom) produce the measurement "no charge", -1 +1 = 0 (sure is be aware to replace "object" through "subatomic particle")
Mass and charge, both are are exactly as imaginary as is, for another example, the length that you are measuring from/about a (visible) object.
User avatar
Hans-Werner Hammen
Posts: 145
Joined: December 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Hans-Werner Hammen »

The symbol "charge" actually symbolizes certain forces: Particles with positive charge will repel another, particles with negative charge will repel each other, but particles with positive charge will exert an attraction on particles with negative charge.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Terrapin Station »

Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: December 30th, 2020, 10:26 am
Terrapin Station wrote: December 30th, 2020, 9:22 am So, for example, you'd say that electrons do not have an electrical charge, and you'd say that this has something to do with epiphenomenalism?
The electron exists, in that you can measure a mass and a charge from/about it.
Units of mass and of charge are proclaimed through the comparison of a detection response with the detection response of a so called standard-object.
If the charge is measured/proclaimed "1" this indicates that the object is the standard object as regards charge. Iow it is the proton. "Charge" means that for an proton (charge = +1) and electron (charge = -1) taken together (for an example in the hydrogen atom) produce the measurement "no charge", -1 +1 = 0 (sure is be aware to replace "object" through "subatomic particle")
Mass and charge, both are are exactly as imaginary as is, for another example, the length that you are measuring from/about a (visible) object.
Whatever is producing the measurement is a property.
User avatar
Hans-Werner Hammen
Posts: 145
Joined: December 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Hans-Werner Hammen »

Terrapin Station wrote: December 30th, 2020, 11:55 am Whatever is producing the measurement is a property.
Sure is: producing = causing
Any measurement is an operation with some-thing, also called material.
I assure you, the property (no-thing) is not being detected let alone being observed.
Let us, for the sake of argument, assume, a property at the measurement BE detected, id est be causal at is detection.
This would then beg the question, the research, the measurement, of the properties of the property.
For an example, what is the masss of a mass and if so what is the mass of a mass of a mass and so forth.
You DO know that there is no mass being measured from/about charge, don't you?!
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Terrapin Station »

Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: December 30th, 2020, 5:29 pm This would then beg the question, the research, the measurement, of the properties of the property. For an example, what is the masss of a mass and if so what is the mass of a mass of a mass and so forth.
That's like asking "What's the blue of blue?" Or "What's the spherical of spherical?" Do you think those questions make any sense?
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Papus79 »

We really need a bong-rip emoji. It would definitely come in handy around here.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
User avatar
psycho
Posts: 132
Joined: January 23rd, 2021, 5:33 pm

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by psycho »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: September 25th, 2020, 10:51 pm The Problem

The hard determinist tells us that anyone who says "I could have done otherwise" is deluding themselves and suffering from an illusion of free will. Assuming a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, is he right? No, he is mistaken. The hard determinist is confusing what we "can do" with what we "will do".

The fact is that whenever choosing occurs, “I could have done otherwise“ will always be true.

The Single Possibility Paradox

It is impossible to choose between a single possibility.
Waiter (a hard determinist): “What will you have for dinner tonight, sir?”
Customer (hungry): “I don’t know. What are my possibilities?”
Waiter: “In a deterministic universe, there is only one possibility.”
Customer (disappointed): “Oh. Okay then, what is my one possibility?”
Waiter: “How should I know? I can’t read your mind!”

Choosing requires two things to be true before it can begin:
1. There must be at least two real possibilities to choose from (for example, A and B).
2. The chooser must be able to choose either one (for example, “I can choose A” is true and “I can choose B” is also true, even if I cannot choose both).

Unless these two conditions are satisfied, choosing cannot happen. Choosing always requires multiple possibilities.

So, Does Choosing Happen?

Choosing happens. We objectively observe choosing when we watch people enter a restaurant, browse the menu, and place an order. We also observe that a person is held responsible for their deliberate choice when the waiter brings them the bill.

Choosing is an operation. It inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice. Each of us performs this operation many times every day. But it is not just a subjective experience. A person making a complex decision, like which automobile to buy, may write down a list of “pros and cons” to help evaluate their options more objectively. And choosing is not just a personal operation. We also witness groups of people making choices together, perhaps brainstorming to generate options, then prioritizing to decide what they want to tackle first. Clubs, parent-teacher associations, legislatures, and other groups make decisions all the time.

Choosing is important. It is routinely performed by all intelligent species. The ability to imagine different ways of solving a problem, to estimate the likely outcome of each option, and then to decide what we will do, enables us to deal more successfully with various environmental challenges and contributes to the survival of our species.

Because choosing is so important, the determinist should take care not to break it. Insisting upon only having a single possibility breaks the choosing operation.

Possibilities and Uncertainty

The notion of a “possibility” allows us to deal with uncertainty. When we do not know what “will” happen, we imagine what “can” happen to better prepare for what does happen. If we drive down a road and see a green traffic light, we know that it “can” turn red, so we are alert for that possibility.

Things that “can” happen exist within the imagination. We cannot drive a car across the “possibility” of a bridge. We can only drive across an actual bridge. However, to build an actual bridge, we must first imagine a possible bridge, and produce a plan for its construction. The plan is still only the possibility of a bridge until construction is completed.

A possibility is considered “real” if we can successfully make it happen if we choose to. Our bridge was a real possibility because we had the skills and materials to successfully build it. But what if we later decide that we will not build the bridge? Does this mean that our bridge was “impossible”? No. The possibility remains real, even if we never get around to building it.

The bridge itself never became a reality, but the possibility was real from the point where it was first imagined. And when we say that something “could have” happened, we are always speaking of something that did not happen. The bridge was never built, but it “could have” been built if we chose to build it.

So, when the hard determinist claims that there was only one thing that “could have” happened, he is confusing the notion of what “can” happen with the notion of what “does” happen and what “will” happen. Even though the bridge “will not” happen, it remains true that it “could have” happened if we chose to make it happen.

Choosing and Uncertainty

All choosing operations begin with a state of uncertainty. We have two or more options that we “can” choose, but we do not know yet which one we “will” choose.

For example, I wake up hungry and wonder what I should fix for breakfast. Three familiar options come to mind: scrambled eggs, pancakes, and french toast. I go to the kitchen to see whether I have the ingredients. I have eggs, so I can fix scrambled eggs. I have bread, so I can also fix french toast. But I have no pancake mix. So, I cannot to fix pancakes this morning.

But both the scrambled eggs and the french toast are real possibilities. As I evaluate each option, I recall that I had eggs yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that. Suddenly, scrambled eggs do not sound as appetizing as they did earlier. I decide that I will fix french toast this morning.

Could I have fixed something other than french toast? Yes. I could have fixed eggs again. And if I were out of bread, then I would have fixed eggs. The fact that I did not fix eggs does not contradict the fact that I could have fixed eggs if I wanted or needed to.

The Rule

Within a universe of perfectly reliable cause and effect, whenever choosing happens, “I could have done otherwise” will always be true.

Why? Because whenever we perform a choosing operation there will always be at least two “can do’s”. In my breakfast example, “I can fix scrambled eggs” was true and “I can fix french toast” was also true. Had either of those been false then choosing could not have happened. Why? Because it is impossible to choose between a single possibility.

Each “can do” at the beginning of a choosing operation becomes a “could have done” at the end.
So, when the hard determinist claims that “could have done otherwise” is impossible, he is mistaken.

“Could Have” versus “Would Have”

But “would” I have made a different choice under the same circumstances? No, I would not. The same reasons that led me to fix french toast the first time would still be good reasons. So, I would always choose french toast over a fourth day of scrambled eggs. And if we were to roll back the clock and replay this decision process we would always get the same result. So, in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect the notion that “I would have done otherwise” will always be false.

So, given a deterministic universe, “I could have done otherwise” will always be true, but “I would have done otherwise” will always be false.

If the determinist limits his claim to “I would have done otherwise” is always false, then he would be correct. But that is not the hard determinist’s claim. He insists that I “could have done otherwise” is “delusional”.

How Did He Get It Wrong?

We humans often speak and think “figuratively” rather than “literally”. We use metaphors and similes to express ideas. For example, the determinist looks at a causally necessary choice, and, since the outcome was inevitable, he imagines that it is “like choosing never happened” or it is “as if the choice was already made in advance” or he may say “choosing scrambled eggs was never really possible”. But he will leave out the words that flag metaphorical language, because he is taking his figurative statements literally.

Figurative statements have a one serious flaw. Every figurative statement is literally false. By “literally false” I mean that they are empirically, objectively, and in actual reality false.

To confirm this, all we need do is look at the facts:
(1) When the hard determinist claims that “choosing never happened”, is that a fact? No. Choosing really happened. It was an empirical event that took place in objective reality. So, the determinist’s claim is false.

(2) What about the hard determinist’s claim that “the choice was already made in advance”? Well, no, that is not true either. The choice was made through the choosing operation, and the choosing operation did not happen until I performed it. The Big Bang did not choose to fix french toast for breakfast, I did.

(3) And finally, what about the hard determinist’s claim that choosing scrambled eggs was never “really” possible? That too is false. Whenever someone makes a choice, two things must be true by logical necessity, (1) there must be at least two real possibilities to choose from and (2) we must be able to choose either one. I could have fixed the scrambled eggs if I chose to. The fact that I decided to fix french toast does not logically imply that fixing scrambled eggs was ever impossible. The fact that it did not happen does not contradict the fact that it could have happened.

So, all three of the hard determinist’s claims are false.

About “Can” and “Will”

What “can” happen constrains what “will” happen. Something that cannot happen will not happen.

What “will” happen does not constrain what “can” happen.

Possibilities are only constrained by two things: our imagination and our ability to “make our dreams come true”. If we have the imagination, the skills, and the resources to actualize a possibility, then that possibility is real. And it remains a real possibility even if we never actualize it.

About Causation

Causation itself never causes anything. The notion of causation is used to describe the interaction of objects and forces as they bring about events. We use the cue stick to hit the cue ball at a given angle that causes the ball to roll and hit the 8 ball in such a way that causes it to roll into the corner pocket. Causation did not do that. We, the cue stick, the cue ball, and the 8 ball are the objects. And the force we applied to the cue stick is the force that was passed from object to object. That force and those objects are the causes of the “into the corner pocket” event. The objects and forces caused the event.

The notion of causation is only used to describe the interaction of the objects and forces. The notion of causation itself is neither an object nor a force. Causation never causes anything.

About Determinism

Determinism itself never determines anything. Determinism asserts that the behavior of the objects and forces that make up the physical universe is reliable. Because it is reliable, every event will be the reliable result of prior events through some specific combination of physical, biological, or rational causal mechanisms.

We need this reliability to predict the outcome of our own actions.

Objects behave differently according to how they are internally organized.
(1) Inanimate objects behave passively in response to physical forces. A bowling ball on a slope will always roll downhill.

(2) Living organisms behave purposefully due to biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. A squirrel on a slope may go uphill, downhill, or any other direction where he hopes to find an acorn or a mate. He is not governed by gravity unless you drop him.

(3) Intelligent species have evolved a neurological infrastructure that enables them to imagine, evaluate, and choose. They can behave deliberately, choosing when, where, and how to eat, sleep, and procreate. They are free to choose what they will do.

Determinism never determines anything because, like the notion of causation, determinism is a concept used to describe the behavior of objects and forces. It is not itself an object or a force. It is not an entity with a brain that can perform the choosing operation, so it never “decides” anything.
Only intelligent species can decide for themselves what they will do.

About Free Will

There are two distinct notions about what the word “free” means in the term “free will”.

Operationally, free will is when someone decides for themselves what they will do while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence. An “undue influence” would be any external force or internal condition that effectively cripples their ability to decide for themselves what they will do. An external force would be a person holding a gun to their head or any other threat that forces them to submit their will to the will of another. Other influences that compromise self-control include mental illnesses that disable the ability to reason, or causes hallucinations and delusions, or create an irresistible impulse. Any of these or other extraordinary influences can affect how we assess that person’s moral or legal responsibility for their actions.

Operational free will is not a subjective experience. It is an empirical distinction between a choice we make for ourselves versus a choice imposed upon us by someone or something else. Whether a person acted of their own free will, or whether they were coerced or otherwise unduly influenced, is a matter of objective evidence.

Philosophically, free will is irrationally defined as a choice someone makes that is free of reliable cause and effect. The philosophical notion assumes that, in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, every event is causally necessary from any prior point in time, and inevitably must happen. Philosophers have suggested that this constitutes a meaningful constraint that we must be free of, to be “truly” free.

But is this a meaningful constraint? I think not. No one experiences reliable cause and effect as a constraint. In fact, we depend upon reliable causation to exercise every freedom that we enjoy. If gravity were not reliable we could not crawl , stand, or walk. Reliable biological mechanisms keep our hearts pumping and our brains thinking. Our occasionally reliable reasoning helps keep our lives ordered.

Most important, reliable causation is the source of our control over significant events that affect our lives. Knowing that a virus causes polio and that the body’s immune system can be primed to fight that virus through vaccination, has given us control over that disease and many others.

The philosopher’s notion that reliable causation is a boogeyman that robs us of any control over our own lives and choices is only a Halloween story. It is the hard determinist’s delusion.

About the Single Inevitable Future

We know that there will be only one actual future. How do we know? Because we only have a single past in which to put it. So, the key question is how will this single future come about?

Within the domain of human influence (things we can make happen if we choose to do so), the causal mechanism by which the single actual future comes about usually involves imagining several possible futures, and then choosing the one that we will actualize.

We cannot build an actual bridge without first imagining a possible bridge. So, on our way to the single actual future, we typically consider many possible futures. For example, we may evaluate several different bridge designs before choosing what type of bridge we will build.

In a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, there will be a single “actual” future, but there will also be many “possible” futures. The single actual future will exist in the real world. The multiple possible futures will exist within our imagination, that is where possibilities are born, that is where everything new is invented.

I agree with you that causality is the relationship between entities that interact and where mutual modifications occur.

That idea kills free will.

One way to rescue it is idealism. Where another plane of a different nature to reality is assumed and where one interprets that there is an external agent that is inserted in the causal chain.

Your example of billiard balls correctly summarizes the impossibility of free will.

Once one ball interacts with another, each ball can only proceed one way. It has no choice.

The elements of reality interact with each other and from that result the modifications that we distinguish (of which we are part).

As a result of the interactions between the elements of reality, each of them can only proceed as dictated by the interaction. It is unwise to suppose that elements of reality capriciously disregard physical laws.

How do you justify a different reaction to its factors? (within reality).

Determinism is the assumption that given the same natural laws and the same entities, if one repeats a certain state of reality, its development will always be the same.

In the modern conception of physics this is not possible.

At different points in each development, random variations will occur since the interactions are probabilistic.

A million repetitions would give a trend but one cannot guarantee a certain development.

This does not save free will.

The fact that there are random factors that determine an action does not mean that there was the possibility of choosing a particular factor.

Imagining is the result of interactions between elements of reality.

Free will is the idea that the human will does not need to respond to the factors that form it. That the human will is not conditioned.


About futures. It's hard for me to imagine you considering the multiple possible futures every time you perform an action.

When our actions result from our considerations, we are not fully aware of what the determining factors were.

Choosing is an absurd action from one point of view. When I choose something, at the same time I have the possibility to choose if I want to make that choice. But that possibility of choosing if I want to choose also leads to the possibility of having to decide if I want to choose to make that choice. Ad infinitum.

Regards
User avatar
intrTek_Alan
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: March 12th, 2021, 12:33 pm

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by intrTek_Alan »

I don’t think we necessarily try, or want, to foresee the best choice in each given moment or we would be better at doing so. Whether it’s the best laid long term plans, or an online purchase, we cannot hope to calculate, or effectively evaluate, the dynamics of each choice no matter how important. At least, not yet. Dong so would require being consciously aware of each prospective future, which might also spoil the overall experience.

For now, I think we’re wired more for survival than for free will. Perhaps a sort of mathematical instinct tells us a straight line will usually get you in the least amount of trouble. Is there often a better, longer, more intricate path? Sure, but a bad choice can open up good, even better, choices than would have existed otherwise. As it’s said, I guess it’s all about the journey.

Maybe our lives are predetermined... by ourselves. We simply then live out, experience, our personal combination of choices on this spacetime stage. Although in a somewhat simulated environment, could that experience be the point; good or bad, why we’re here.

If we can have lifetime “do-overs”, it might be a good way to pass the eons.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by Sculptor1 »

psycho wrote: January 24th, 2021, 1:07 am
I agree with you that causality is the relationship between entities that interact and where mutual modifications occur.

That idea kills free will.

One way to rescue it is idealism. Where another plane of a different nature to reality is assumed and where one interprets that there is an external agent that is inserted in the causal chain.

Your example of billiard balls correctly summarizes the impossibility of free will.

Once one ball interacts with another, each ball can only proceed one way. It has no choice.

The elements of reality interact with each other and from that result the modifications that we distinguish (of which we are part).

As a result of the interactions between the elements of reality, each of them can only proceed as dictated by the interaction. It is unwise to suppose that elements of reality capriciously disregard physical laws.

How do you justify a different reaction to its factors? (within reality).

Determinism is the assumption that given the same natural laws and the same entities, if one repeats a certain state of reality, its development will always be the same.

In the modern conception of physics this is not possible.

At different points in each development, random variations will occur since the interactions are probabilistic.

A million repetitions would give a trend but one cannot guarantee a certain development.

This does not save free will.

The fact that there are random factors that determine an action does not mean that there was the possibility of choosing a particular factor.
Consider:
There are two identical universes, that cannot interact.
In each, the same man throws the same dice at the same moment, the dice fly through the air to land with one face upside..
In the two universes, with everything else being equal, are the two dice showing the same number of a different number when they come to stop?

The question would be, are there any truly random events, or are all such events simple very difficult to predict.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Yes, I Could Have Done Otherwise

Post by NickGaspar »

Hans-Werner Hammen wrote: December 30th, 2020, 8:02 am Time and space do not exist, this was already akknowledged by Sire I.Kant.
They are no-thing "intuitively'" being fabricated FROM/ABOUT some-thing being observed.
Kant was wrong about many things. Time and space are labels we use for quantifiable physical phenomena(processes). Those processes exist.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021