Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 31st, 2020, 10:16 am
What you had said, which is what I'm challenging in the context of the rest of your comments is this: "Each event is causally necessary from any prior point in eternity." So I'm challenging you to say how the option at hand is
causally necessary from prior points.
The way philosophy got to determinism was by (1) observing the reliable behavior of objects, such as falling objects and their consistent acceleration over time as they dropped to the surface and (2) observing the history of events and how one event inevitably leads to the next. This resulted in the notion that every event is reliably caused by prior events. And that led to the notion that, given those prior events, the current event was causally necessary and inevitably must happened.
You can take any current event and, at least in theory, trace at least a limited history of prior events that made it necessary. For example, I'm writing this comment at this moment because I paused Die Hard 2 to check the laundry, moved the laundry from the washer to the dryer, and then since the TV was already paused, figured I would check for any new messages before finishing the movie. And, here I am, one event leading reliably to the next until we get to my fingers pressing the keys to respond to your remarks. Now there are a ton of other causes involved, such as my long history with the topic of determinism and free will. I can't itemize that list for you, but I know that those events also led to my current typing.
If we assume a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, then it logically follows that every event that ever happens is the reliable result of a network of prior causes. Thus, every event is causally necessary from any prior point in eternity and inevitably must happen. That's the reasoning behind the assertion.
Marvin wrote:
I presume that all of the causes will fall into three classes of causal mechanisms: physical, biological, and rational.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 31st, 2020, 10:16 am
How would we assert necessary
rational causes, exactly? What would that amount to?
An example of rational causation is choosing. We encounter a problem or issue. We imagine alternative solutions. We comparatively evaluate what is likely to happen with each course of action. We select the best action. The action is an "I
will x", where x is the action we chose. That "I will" sets our intent, which motivates and directs our subsequent actions, thus exercising our control over what happens next.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 31st, 2020, 10:16 am
It sure seems like a lot of things are chance-oriented and that we don't have control over everything, doesn't it?
That's right. However, what appears to be random chance is also reliably caused. A coin flip, for example, is a matter of the location of the thumb on the coin, the force applied, the effects of air resistance, the angle of the bounce, etc. In theory, knowing all of those details (or controlling them under experimental conditions) we could always predict whether it will land heads up or tails.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 31st, 2020, 10:16 am
First, if you believe there aren't free ontological events, then you'd have no grounds for claiming the possibility of making choices or decisions. You'd have to say that those choices or decisions are really illusions--causally determined illusions, of course.
I disagree. Choosing is a deterministic process, therefore, a choice we make of our own free will is a deterministic event. That's actually the solution to the riddle. There is no contradiction between the choice being reliably caused and its being reliably caused by us.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 31st, 2020, 10:16 am
But sure, I believe that there are free ontological events. Certainly many things, if not most, exhibit regularities, but that's not the same thing as determinism or causal necessity for everything.
Just as the definition of free will must be modified to match its operational meaning (a choice "free of coercion and undue influence" rather than a choice "free of causation"), the definition of determinism must be trimmed of all the erroneous implications that have been attached to it. Determinism asserts that every event is the reliable product of prior events. Given the same past events all current events are causally necessary and inevitably must happen. What does this imply in practical terms? Absolutely nothing. All of the imaginary implications are false.
For example:
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 31st, 2020, 10:16 am
First, if you believe there aren't free ontological events, then you'd have no grounds for claiming the possibility of making choices or decisions. You'd have to say that those choices or decisions are really illusions--causally determined illusions, of course.
We objectively observe people making choices all the time, so determinism may not suggest that this is an illusion. What it can assert is that each event within the decision making process was causally necessary and inevitably would happen. In fact, determinism would assert that the choosing process itself was inevitable, rather than impossible. Do you see?