>>Determinism is more than a belief system like any religion. It can be tested. Any test I've seen or can imagine does not falsify it.
Rubbish, Maurice. There is no test that can be applied to your silly little belief system. It's just your preferred religion: Deus Determinus, The Mechanical Dog. If you think that there IS a truth test that can be done for determinism, describe it. (But don't waste your time: there is no test that can be constructed to test for it.)
>>Determinism is not a distortion of reality, it is the best match I've come up with.
Too bad for you. The rest of us know that we make choices, weighing between doing "A" or not doing "A". Determinism claims that all such "choices" are illusions, since every act is determined by the previous motions of matter, and so no "choices" are ever made. In fact, your universe has no reason or need for consciousness at all, since the only thing happening is matter bouncing off of itself. No, your system distorts reality by making consciousness into a bizarre pointless excess that exercises no will, no choice, but exists under the illusion that it does choose.
>>Determinism doesn't preclude choice - it is simply not random choice.
Oh. I get it. In Determinism everything is determined, except when it isn't. Of course determinism precludes choice: that's why it is CALLED determinism, and not "the system of limited choice". You just don't like the logical outcome of a determinist system, and I don't blame you: I wouldn't choose to believe it either.
>>Test causal any way you like. Wins every time. I test it evey second of the day. Test religion,
All you have done is to have invented a little religionist story starring the Dog Causality. You should try reading David Hume on cause and effect before you think that you have "proved" causality. There are far more problems with inductive and deductive logic than you appear to recognize. Moreover, Goedel's Theoem has demonstrated that there can be no self-contained rational systems, all systems import beliefs from the outside, all systems begin with "irrational" assumptions, your system included. If you think that you have conquered this problem then you best publish it, as you will have achieved something that eluded Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, Stephen Hawking, and others. All you have here is a little dog-less religious system, that misguidedly believes it has overcome the problems of inductive and deductive logic and causality, but a little reading in epistemology and philosophy should quickly disabuse you of that idea. |
