Skip to main content

2+2=4 is not an event

Here is an excerpt from an email I sent to David B., arguing that "event" determinism is opposed to rationality.

Hello David:

I will argue against your conclusion with a math argument requiring knowledge of only basic arithmetic. I argue that to deny that we have free will on the basis of physical determinism is to imply that we are not rational, i.e., that we are not capable of knowing universal and necessary truths as such. But such an implication undermines the very math and science David uses to establish the thesis that we are predetermined. Hence David, your argument, when brought to its conclusion, is self-defeating.

Why? because if every event, including everything that we think is determined by a previous event, then it seems that our thinking that we really know that 2+2=4 is predetermined by previous event(s) as well. But if we are forced into thinking that the above equation (which is a stand-in for all claims to universal knowledge) is true, then it is also conceivable that we could be forced into thinking that 2+2=5: all this would require is that the right antecedent event occur to make us think we know that 2+2=5 is a mathematical truth.

There is nothing extraordinary about this last claim: it would be something akin to an hallucination.

So, given the determinist hypothesis, we can, under the right circumstances, be forced into thinking that we see the truth of a claim that, as a matter of fact, presently seems absurd to us. Furthermore, given the determinist hypothesis, the two cases (i.e., that of thinking we know that 2+2=4 and that of thinking that we know that 2+2=5) have no discernable differences, at least as far as our experience of grasping what is supposedly self-evident. In other words, given the determinist hypothesis, we can't we really know anything--including the basic claims of arithmetic, without which science cannot even begin. Because we can be FORCED into THINKING that we SEE the truth of claims that might not in fact true. Math loses its status as the source of necessary truths. Science becomes relativized, no longer a privileged form of rationality. In fact, rationality goes down the tube. So if the conclusion of David's argument is premised upon math and science, then his conclusion attacks his premises--surely a house built on sand.

Addendum: I propose that the reason why we should reject determinsm--at least "physical event" determinism, is because we CAN in fact see that the truth that 2+2=4 is necessarily true. But in such case, knowing this truth is not predtermined by a prior event. In fact, 2+2=4 is not itself an event at all!

How then do we know this necessary truth? I submit that in knowing that this and other truths are necessary ones, we are connecting to a source that transcends the flux (and necessity) pertaining to physcial events. Furthermore, I propose that our ability to know truths that transcend immediate physical limitations is the source of our freedom.

As Jesus said, the truth will set you free.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more