tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8205770646308462428..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Betting on a closed futureRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19379244274607166462009-06-10T11:12:19.574-04:002009-06-10T11:12:19.574-04:00I'd also add, even if you press every detail o...I'd also add, even if you press every detail of the analogy, that the fixed variable of which card is the next card will affect the free variable of drawing or not drawing another card. Depending on which card you think is the next card, you will proceed accordingly. Yet the order of the deck is determinate.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2526296870337084552009-06-10T11:09:21.498-04:002009-06-10T11:09:21.498-04:00JUGULUM SAID:
"Two live possibilities exist:...JUGULUM SAID:<br /><br />"Two live possibilities exist: Draw a card, or don't draw a card."<br /><br />You're discussing a different outcome than I am. Every analogy has it's limitations. It's a question of what the analogy is being used to illustrate.<br /><br />Yes, there's the outcome which turns on whether or not to draw a card.<br /><br />But I'm commenting on a different outcome: which card is the next card. That outcome is not open-ended. Yet gamblers make choices in light of that outcome–which is equivalent to a closed future. <br /><br />They guess which abstract possibility (the next card) is a live possibility. <br /><br />This is in response to the Arminian contention that you can only make "real" choices if the future is open.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12641294729739631502009-06-08T15:48:59.737-04:002009-06-08T15:48:59.737-04:00JUGULUM SAID:
"Two live possibilities exist:...JUGULUM SAID:<br /><br />"Two live possibilities exist: Draw a card, or don't draw a card."<br /><br />i) That's not the element I'm isolating for illustrative purposes. <br /><br />ii) Moreover, I an Arminian player (or any player) could control which card was the next card, then he would draw as many cards as he need to have a winning hand. <br /><br />So your example is camouflaging the deeper issue.<br /><br />"What is determined is what the next card is."<br /><br />That's the point I'm isolating from illustrative purposes. <br /><br />You need to keep in mind that libertarian freedom doesn't merely involve to do X or not do to X, but a certain freedom of opportunity: to either do X or Y or Z. <br /><br />It's easy to say someone is free to choose after you've rigged the choices which are available to him, viz. "You can either drink poison water or you can die of thirst!" "You can either die under torture or you can confess your damnable heresies and be executed!" <br /><br />Well, that's a choice, but it's also a forced option between two equally unsatisfactory choices. These are not the choices a libertarian would choose from if he had a choice in the matter.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89899060999726403822009-06-08T15:20:13.570-04:002009-06-08T15:20:13.570-04:00"Yet playing a game of poker involves human a..."<i>Yet playing a game of poker involves human agents deliberating over the next course of action to take–even though, at a fundamental level, only one abstract possibility is a live possibility vis-a-vis the next card in the deck, or which cards each player already has.</i>"<br /><br />Two live possibilities exist: Draw a card, or don't draw a card.<br /><br />What is determined is what the next card is.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8144490091775972632009-06-08T15:00:36.476-04:002009-06-08T15:00:36.476-04:00"The indeterminist is thinking, 'The next..."The indeterminist is thinking, 'The next card is completely determined. It's possible it was determined as X, Y, or Z--which is more likely?' And isn't it perfectly consistent for an indeterminist to talk about some things being determined?"<br /><br />It's not consistent with the Arminian definition of "choice." If you define "choice" (or "choosing") the way Dan does (to take the current example), then a card player can't make "real" choices. <br /><br />True, an indeterminist isn't committed to the proposition that all things are indeterminate. He is, however, committed to the proposition that human choices are indeterminate.<br /><br />Yet playing a game of poker involves human agents deliberating over the next course of action to take–even though, at a fundamental level, only one abstract possibility is a live possibility vis-a-vis the next card in the deck, or which cards each player already has. <br /><br />Hypothetically speaking, the next card might be one of several possible cards-but realistically speaking, it can only be one in particular. Hypothetically speaking, his opponents might have one of several possible hands–but realistically speaking, they only have one particular hand.<br /><br />So I'm using this as a limiting case. If libertarians can allow for this in a game of cards, what about other human deliberations, decisions, and resultant actions?<br /><br />Perhaps a libertarian could bite the bullet and say that poker players don't make "real" choices. But Dan is appealing to the "common man" notion of choice (assuming there is such a thing). Surely a game of cards, like poker (or some analogous game) is a popular expression of human decision-making.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6154130072318994402009-06-08T13:17:42.067-04:002009-06-08T13:17:42.067-04:00Hmm... If that's your point, then it seems to ...Hmm... If that's your point, then it seems to translate to, "Indeterminism is inherently incoherent, in any universe where any situation can be determined. If anything is undetermined, everything must be undetermined." (Because in a hypothetical universe in which human decisions are not determined, the card-playing situation would be the same. Your analysis would still apply. And it would seem to apply anywhere an agent is examining & reacting to an unknown-but-determined situation.)<br /><br />Doesn't the indeterminist view speak only to the possibilities of making and (maybe) executing the decision? In this case, to drawing a card or not drawing a card--the decision isn't "get the card I want", it's "draw a card". The indeterminist is thinking, "The next card is completely determined. It's possible it was determined as X, Y, or Z--which is more likely?"<br /><br />That definitely points to a distinction between senses of "possible". But saying "they gamble like determinists" seems to mean, "They gamble in response to a determined situation". And isn't it perfectly consistent for an indeterminist to talk about <i>some</i> things being determined?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77288435167207591002009-06-08T12:42:48.883-04:002009-06-08T12:42:48.883-04:00Let's go with your interpretation. It's st...Let's go with your interpretation. It's still the case that when libertarians play cards, they gamble like determinists. For they have no control over what the next card will be. They can only play the odds and size up their opponent.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90240939369648751472009-06-08T12:16:56.599-04:002009-06-08T12:16:56.599-04:00"i) Since Dan has insisted on a very expansiv..."<i>i) Since Dan has insisted on a very expansive definition of choice, which includes the outcome, Dan’s objection is inconsistent with his own definition: “I generally think of choices at three levels: 1) contemplation, 2) choice and 3) execution of choice.”<br /><br />What does (3) correspond to if not the outcome of (1)-(2)?</i>"<br /><br />Maybe "execution of choice" has to do with "actually drawing a new card", while outcome has to do with "what the card is"?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.com