Two personal beliefs and their consequences

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Laplace's Demon knows all the facts about the past and present and all the natural laws that govern our world, and uses this knowledge to foresee the future, down to every detail.

LaPlace's Demon never lies.

LaPlace's Demon says to you, "I know you are going to eat this bowl of ice cream".

[/ QUOTE ] If you are not going to eat the ice cream, at least one of these three premises has to be false. It could just as well be the second or third as the first. All you have done is set up a scenario with premises that contradict each other. Doesn't prove anything.

(Does the demon have the ability to shut up?)

[ QUOTE ]
All you have done is set up a scenario with premises that contradict each other. Doesn't prove anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's more of a paradox than a contradiction. But not even a very good paradox -- the demon can accurately predict your action by not letting you know what it is. Then, after you act, he can show you he was right.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's more of a paradox than a contradiction. But not even a very good paradox -- the demon can accurately predict your action by not letting you know what it is. Then, after you act, he can show you he was right.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes he can. That would mean premise 3 is false. All four premises cannot logically be true at once:

He can predict the future 100% accurately.
He doesn't lie.
He tells you what you are going to do.
You act differently.

You say he can refrain from telling you what you're going to do, and the contradiction is gone. You are correct. Remove premise nr. 3, or any other one of the four premises above, and the scenario is no longer impossible and does no longer claim to tell us anything about fatalism.

edit:

(If you remove nr. 3, you will also remove nr. 4, because there will be no statement to differ from. In case that confused someone.)

(And English is not my first language. You might very well be correct that contradiction is not a good word in this context.)

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes he can. That would mean premise 3 is false. All four premises cannot logically be true at once:


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously one of the premises has to be false. I'm saying premise 1 is false because fatalism is false.

If my fate was set at the big bang, why should it matter that the demon tells me what I am going to do. Fatalism holds that I must do what I am fated to do. It only matters if the demon cannot accurately predict the future. However fatalism(or determinism for that matter) says the demon must be able to predict the future. The reason fatalism falls down here is becuase of free will.

You people need to watch the Matrix trilogy again.

Stu

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]

Obviously one of the premises has to be false. I'm saying premise 1 is false because fatalism is false.

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, but your statement boils down to "fatalism is false". There is no reason why the premise that he doesn't lie can't be the false one. Or the premise that he tells you anything at all.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously one of the premises has to be false. I'm saying premise 1 is false because fatalism is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had no idea you seriously thought this thought experiment disproved determinism/fatalism. Here, I have one for you:

1) I create a computer program that prompts you to choose either "0" or "1" to predict what # the computer will next print on the screen.
2) If you predict correctly (by entering the # into the computer), you win $1million.
3) The computer will print the inverse of whatever you enter ("1" if you enter "0", and "0" if you enter "1") [and you know this].
4) You are unable to enter the predition of the # the computer is next printing on the screen.

Conclusion: the computer has free will, because you can't enter the prediction of what # it will pick, even though you know the exact rule it is using to pick the #.

[wtfsvi]

Yes, yes. Good one.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion: the computer has free will, because you can't enter the prediction of what # it will pick, even though you know the exact rule it is using to pick the #.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know I would not even bother to play such a game against the computer becuase it would be a complete waste of time. However against Bill Gates I might play a few rounds.

The difference between a man and robot is that a man can let the demon be right.

According to Wikipedia

Determinism in the West is often associated with Newtonian physics, which depicts the physical matter of the universe as operating according to a set of fixed, knowable laws. The "billiard ball" hypothesis, a product of Newtonian physics, argues that once the initial conditions of the universe have been established the rest of the history of the universe follows inevitably. If it were actually possible to have complete knowledge of physical matter and all of the laws governing that matter at any one time, then it would be theoretically possible to compute the time and place of every event that will ever occur (Laplace's demon). In this sense, the basic particles of the universe operate in the same fashion as the rolling balls on a billiard table, moving and striking each other in predictable ways to produce predictable results.

I believe all actions follow to a degree deterministic laws, but I wholeheartly reject this view of determinism. If this veiw was correct nothing could prevent the demon from making an accurate prediction(including the stringent constraints of the thought experiment).

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
If this veiw was correct nothing could prevent the demon from making an accurate prediction(including the stringent constraints of the thought experiment).

[/ QUOTE ]

What prevents you from accurately predicting the # the computer will print on the screen? Free will?

The fact is, the demon CAN predict what you will do -- it's just that by telling you in advance of your action, he is adding another cause into the equation. Just like entering a # into my computer program adds a cause in determining what # is printed on the screen.

I don't believe in fatalism, by the way. I think QM makes it impossible to accurately predict outcomes, but you can still accurately predict probabilities, as well as know exactly which variables would tip the scales even more in favor of whatever outcome you wanted.

[atrifix]

[quoteObviously one of the premises has to be false. I'm saying premise 1 is false because fatalism is false.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to claim that this is a refutation of fatalism, then your argument is viciously (badly) circular. It reduces to "Fatalism is false because fatalism is false."