It was confusing that I used the word “determined” in the analogy. The meaning is clearer if I say it has “already happened” at the later time and not the previous time.
That’s clearly true, but it’s harder to see the connection to determinism.
You claim this metaphysics is wrong.
I claim it’s insufficently supported. You have a version of the claim that applies to spatio-temporal objects, but determinism isn’t a spatio temporal object, it’s a putative property of the universe as a whole.
Your argument was that the third-person view overrides the first-person view.
I point out that that is what this audience believes, so the burden is on you to argue otherwise.
Now you’re saying I need a “specific reason” for asserting that determinism is relative.
Relativity does not say that determinism is relative, so you need another argument.
But I’ve refuted your argument, which is that the third-person view in-general overrides the first-person view.
Disagreement is not refutation. If you had an argument that proved relativism to be true of everyhthing whatsoever, then that would be a refutation—but all the arguments you are resting apply only to specific categories.
You have not located a contradiction in it.
Non contradiction is not a sufficient criterion of truth.
This doesn’t prove it to be true but I have never claimed to have such a proof.
So you agree that your theory is insufficiently supported?
It’s relatively clear if you think physically (how could any observer even potentially imagine accessing a view that isn’t from a place
Look at google Earth. This is a solved problem.
Its entirely true that some kinds of objective, mathematical science require things to be indexed to an observer. But,so long as you are dealing with quantifiable physical properties ,it is still possible to predict exactly how things will appear to an observer other than yourself. That kind of thing is much more objective than subjective
On the other hand , there is another set of arguments,such as Nagel’s “what is it like to be a bat” ,which tend to the conclusion that subjective experience cannot be captured mathematically at all. You might be able to capture the XYZ coordinates of a bat ,and it’s velocity and so on, but that tells you very little about its inner world,its subjective, sensations and feelings.
Qualiaphilic arguments go much further in the direction of “view from nowhere” than physics or maths based arguments. Relativity goes a little further than classsical physics,because it holds a larger set of properties to be observed dependent … energy velocity and momentum in addition to location. But that still falls very far short of
full subjectivism.
But it’s still not clear how Chalmers or Nagel style arguments, that deal with consciousness and subjectivity would relate to determinism.
That’s clearly true, but it’s harder to see the connection to determinism.
I claim it’s insufficently supported. You have a version of the claim that applies to spatio-temporal objects, but determinism isn’t a spatio temporal object, it’s a putative property of the universe as a whole.
I point out that that is what this audience believes, so the burden is on you to argue otherwise.
Relativity does not say that determinism is relative, so you need another argument.
Disagreement is not refutation. If you had an argument that proved relativism to be true of everyhthing whatsoever, then that would be a refutation—but all the arguments you are resting apply only to specific categories.
Non contradiction is not a sufficient criterion of truth.
So you agree that your theory is insufficiently supported?
Look at google Earth. This is a solved problem.
Its entirely true that some kinds of objective, mathematical science require things to be indexed to an observer. But,so long as you are dealing with quantifiable physical properties ,it is still possible to predict exactly how things will appear to an observer other than yourself. That kind of thing is much more objective than subjective
On the other hand , there is another set of arguments,such as Nagel’s “what is it like to be a bat” ,which tend to the conclusion that subjective experience cannot be captured mathematically at all. You might be able to capture the XYZ coordinates of a bat ,and it’s velocity and so on, but that tells you very little about its inner world,its subjective, sensations and feelings.
Qualiaphilic arguments go much further in the direction of “view from nowhere” than physics or maths based arguments. Relativity goes a little further than classsical physics,because it holds a larger set of properties to be observed dependent … energy velocity and momentum in addition to location. But that still falls very far short of
full subjectivism.
But it’s still not clear how Chalmers or Nagel style arguments, that deal with consciousness and subjectivity would relate to determinism.