Yes, stochastic processes would have a probability distribution. The question is how that connects to the issues of free will and nihilism.
Like if we implemented a 1% chance of spawning a particle every minute; that particle spawned because there was a 1% chance of spawning a particle; rather than “for no reason”.
So there is a reason in that particular sense.
Causal determinism is a form of causality, clearly enough. But not all causality is deterministic , since indeterministic causality can be coherently defined. For instance: “An indeterministic cause raises the probability of its effect, but doesn’t raise it to certainty”. Far from being novel, or exotic, this is a familiar way of looking at causality. We all know that smoking causes cancer, and we all know that you can smoke without getting cancer...so the “causes” in “smoking causes cancer” must mean “increased the risk of”.
Something cannot occur without a necessary cause or precondition. Something cannot fail to occur if it has a sufficient cause. An example of a necessary cause is oxygen in relation to fires: no fire can occur without oxygen, but oxygen can occur without a fire. It would strange to describe a fire as starting because of oxygen—necessary causes aren’t the default concept of causality. The determinism versus free will debate is much more about sufficient causes, because a sufficient cause has to bring about its effect, making it inevitable.
But why would a libertarian worry about the lack of a cause that isnt a sufficient cause?Libertarians dont have to object to necessary causes, or probablistic causes, because neither removes their “elbow room”, or ability to have done otherwise.
Yes, stochastic processes would have a probability distribution. The question is how that connects to the issues of free will and nihilism.
So there is a reason in that particular sense.
Causal determinism is a form of causality, clearly enough. But not all causality is deterministic , since indeterministic causality can be coherently defined. For instance: “An indeterministic cause raises the probability of its effect, but doesn’t raise it to certainty”. Far from being novel, or exotic, this is a familiar way of looking at causality. We all know that smoking causes cancer, and we all know that you can smoke without getting cancer...so the “causes” in “smoking causes cancer” must mean “increased the risk of”.
Something cannot occur without a necessary cause or precondition. Something cannot fail to occur if it has a sufficient cause. An example of a necessary cause is oxygen in relation to fires: no fire can occur without oxygen, but oxygen can occur without a fire. It would strange to describe a fire as starting because of oxygen—necessary causes aren’t the default concept of causality. The determinism versus free will debate is much more about sufficient causes, because a sufficient cause has to bring about its effect, making it inevitable.
But why would a libertarian worry about the lack of a cause that isnt a sufficient cause?Libertarians dont have to object to necessary causes, or probablistic causes, because neither removes their “elbow room”, or ability to have done otherwise.