your reference to madness. I never stated they were mad... I indicated that they were just believers in pre-determinism. Disingenuous posting appears to be a part of your predetermined path to your own end times apocalypse. So does bare faced lying...
If the zero point doesn't exist then it can never be determined. I suppose you are going to claim that a nonexistent point can be measured and found? Then again given the caliber of your posting this would not be surprising.
Baldeee Actually your particular brand of dis-ingenuity has helped highlight a strong connection between "beliefs in pre-determinism" and serious mental health issues. In particular paranoia based conditions. Paranoia or fear based speculations about the future, are not just the province of those diagnosed with severe mental health conditions. ( conditions that generate significant societal dysfunction for the sufferer) It is a condition that all humans suffer from to various degrees. Indeed as you have suggested in your attempt to defame me, belief in predetermination and, to use your word "mad" (madness), could be successfully argued as being directly related. Am I implying that you are "mad"? No, because I never use the word "Mad" to describe my opinion about the mental health of a sufferer. Am I implying that you are a mental health sufferer? No , but your paranoia may make you believe I am....
And every entity that takes those steps. Such as a human being, choosing from alternatives according to criteria. And since that is obviously false - such distinctions are routine, as simply recognizing the significance of their names reveals - your "explanation" needs reconsidering in the light of physical reality. And so we have another synonym for "supernatural": "fundamental". It joins "genuine" and "actual" and a couple of others in its role as concealer of physical event. That assumption - that freedom must be supernatural by definition - is crippling. They aren't "imagined". They are observed - by outsiders, often, as well as the decisionmaker. They are measured and counted and recorded, sometimes by machine. And that means they are not "subjective", either. No, I'm not. I'm observing the process of determination. Whether or not the whole of reality has freedom of will is of no interest here. - - - - Yes, you do. Several of you are denying even the existence of alternatives.
Further... It is a common trait for those who fear the message to discredit the competency of the messenger and not the actual message. Other wise referred to as "denial". So if you find yourself attempting to destroy the credibility of a poster but not what has been posted you can most likely consider yourself to be in denial.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Post #143: Post #148: in direct response to Cluelusshusband. Post #149: You then quoted my response to him and proceeded to provide 3 names. Now, QQ, either you can continue to claim foul in me asking how the people you offered up are mad through thinking that they have no free will, or you can correct your mistake. I have not been disingenuous to you. I have not lied. Your response, in both content and tone, is thus unwarranted.
If something doesn't exist, QQ, then it can also not be selected, can it? Thus you are trying to claim that the people select a location and a time that, according to your subsequent argument, doesn't actually exist. Thus you are being contradictory. If a time and a place are selected, they must exist. The universe being deterministic takes care of the predetermined nature of the selection, as previously explained. No, I'm not going to claim that. I am claiming, however, that if the point can be selected (i.e. physically indicated as in your thought experiment) then it must exist. So can you explain how a nonexistent point can be so chosen and thus exist? Your judgement of the caliber of posting is already demonstrably flawed, given my previous post.
I have no paranoia, QQ. I have not attempted to defame you, but provided argument and examples in support of what I have said. I didn't use the word "mad", Cluelusshusband used it first, to which I simply asked him for examples to support his assertion. He couldn't. You did. You may not have thought that that was what you were responding to, but that was your error, not mine, as explained in a post above. Your attempt to move this dialogue into issues of mental health is cumbersome at best. Further, even though you are not explicit with regard me, and even if you refuse to acknowledge it, you are certainly looking to posion the well of those who argue that determinism to lead to predetermination. Further, you frame your questions and answers in a manner that contradicts your answer. To wit: you ask if you are implying that I am "mad", and your answer is no, but qualified to suggest it is only no "because" you don't use the word "mad" to describe your view of a mental health sufferer. The clear implication is that you do think I am a mental health sufferer. You then ask if you are implying that I am a mental health sufferer (which is clearly "yes" from your previous question and answer), and you say no, but then explain that it is my paranoia (a mental health disorder) that would make me believe I am. Thus your implication is that you don't think I am a mental health sufferer, but because (you think) I am mental health sufferer I might believe you think I am. So again contradictory. And that is before even looking at how that second question looks to deflect such accusations (of you claiming I am a mental health sufferer) through framing them as the result of paranoia is the trifecta of dishonest, disrespectful, and insulting.
I am not trying to discredit you, QQ. I am happy for you to do that through the content and tone of your own posts. Nor do I fear what you have to say, because it is rather easy to identify the fallacies in what you say. But it is interesting that you post this about denial, about trying to discredit the person rather than the message.... Which is clearly nothing like you trying to assert a "strong connection" between belief that the universe is predetermined and serious mental health issues? (A claim that you have not actually supported in any way.) Nothing like you trying to assert that I have mental health issues (despite you trying to frame the assertion in a self-denying form)? In summary, Quantum Quack, I find your responses and your tone of the last few of your posts to have been an utter train-wreck of contradiction, hypocrisy, and a significant level of insult and disrespect to those who do actually suffer from serious mental health issues.
oh I see... by implication of my posting of the images you have inferred I agreed to the use of the word "mad"... fair enough, my apologies... oh ... how so? as I stated not at all... I didn't state that your paranoia would make you think so, I stated that it "may" make you think so.... Changing the word used from "may" to "would" is in itself indicative. and as such my point stands. perhaps it would have been better if I included the words "degree of paranoia" instead of assuming that you would know that all humans have degrees of paranoia. dare I say more? but that is in part the issue here... it is not about me .... it is about the topic. So far you have not refuted or even contributed to the topic except to state that in a strictly determined universe everything is predetermined. I and others are waiting to see how that is possible....not from a premise of "if A = B then B = A" but in reality... The logic is sound but the reality of such is missing. You state that if the starting conditions can be determined then..... I state that it is impossible and all we get is a long dialogue of repetition. again you fail to understand that nearly all you posts have been about the messenger and not the message.... perhaps one day you might actually seek to deal with the actual topic. That being "What is free will?" You have stated that free will is an illusion, I have shown why that is not necessarily correct and all you can do is continue to state that it is an illusion. Because starting conditions are impossible to determine, absolute predetermination is an illusion that feeds the belief systems of many people, some of which are dangerously obsessed with end-times prophecy and the like. I use the word impossible deliberately, for reasons previously explained.
The moment in question is the reference, and the universal evolutionary history represents the sum total of determined elements. Assuming that reality regresses infinitely, complete knowledge of history would likewise have to be infinite. With sufficient knowledge of that history, the determined process could be revealed. No human could. If reality itself is an infinitely existing intelligently accessible entity, then possibly it may have such a capacity. The fact that your action’s evolutionary history can’t be completely documented does not negate its state of universal determination. Complete knowledge yields precise determination. A reduction of that knowledge results in a less accurate statement of determination. The behavioral resolution necessary to determine the specific action of a given human being may not require anywhere near complete knowledge to be practical. The main point is that the more that is known of the evolutionary history of an environment and it’s contents, the more precisely the determined behavior can be understood and predicted. Keep in mind that your action was determined by the evolutionary history of the whole of reality and expressed through you at the time and place it occurred. You're an actor playing a role from a script being read by your brain, and being interpreted consciously as something it isn't. Correct, every entity going through its determined paces. And yes, even human beings imagining alternatives. Remember, we’re referring to the determination of these entities, not distinctions in their organizational characteristics. They are all the same in regards to being subject to universal determination. Fundamental in regards to determinism implies that it underlies all of the behavior of an entity, regardless of its characteristics. Freedom isn’t supernatural, it’s simply imaginary. Freedom can’t exist when all outcomes of an event are subject to a determined stet of guiding elements. The quantity of imagined alternatives is determined universally, as is the resultant selection of any. How do you observe an alternative that never manifests? Only the action that occurs is the one that's observed, not the ones that might have occurred. Imagine that you have a hundred choices, and then you pick one, what does that act say about the other ninety nine? It says that they weren’t actually alternatives given the state of universal evolution at that time. The whole of reality is what determines interest of any kind. Universal determination by definition does not allow actual freedom, only the imagined sense of it.
I disagree on a number of points... It is impossible to reduce to zero. having infinite knowledge doesn't change the fact that it is impossible to reduce to zero. Zero or a zero point has no finite existence so can never be precisely discovered. Therefore the assumed start point, if there ever was one to begin with, is impossible to determine. The big bang theory has enormous weakness when it comes to that so called starting point. Logically it is almost as challenging as the ex-nihilo paradox. You would have to discredit Heisenberg to show other wise... IMO
Yes, if you respond to a request for examples by giving what you think are examples, you are implying that you think they are examples of what was requested. Mental health is not a subject to treat lightly, or with the casual abandon that you throw it around in your post. You don't know the medical history of the person you are posting to. You are not qualified to know whether one is paranoid or not. You are not qualified to know whether one is mad or not. You try to play games with the subject with your self-denying accusations. It shows a lack of respect, and a lack of decency. The phrase "bull in a china shop" springs to mind. And that is giving you every benefit of the doubt. So if I say "I don't mean to be rude..." and am then rude, that somehow excuses the rudeness? Self-denying accusations don't negate the accusation. Even in this most recent post to me you can't help but accuse me of mental health issues. See how you're again accusing me of having mental health issues? It's not indicative of anything. The key thing was that you were claiming that it is my paranoia - i.e. you are accusing me of paranoia - a medical health issue. Whether this "may" or "would" do something is irrelevant to that point. More dishonesty, Quantum Quack. That entire post of yours was loaded about mental health issues. You used the term "paranoia" knowing full well that it is a mental health issue. Your excuse here is pitiful. I would suggest not if it's only going to continue in the same vein of dishonesty, disrespectfulness, insult. But that's ultimately up to you. I haven't made it about you. I have gone out of my way to respond to the questions and points you have made. Sure, I may have commented about the tone of your posts, and picked you up when you've tried to deflect and denigrate explanations and responses. But that is on you. The logic is sufficient for that. If the premise is accepted, the conclusion follows. If the logic is sound then you are saying that both the argument is valid, and the assumptions true. So why do you need anything further? There is little repetition if I can help it, unless it is clear you have overlooked the previous explanation. You have claimed it is impossible, but you have not adequately explained why you think that. Your assertion of "reduction to zero" doesn't cut it because you haven't explained why something infinitely small can not be known. It doesn't need to be you know it, or me, or any individual. If something with infinite knowledge can know it then it can be known. So why do you think such is impossible to know? So you insult me. You accuse me of mental health issues. And when I try to tell you that your post is insulting and disrespectful, you further accuse me of posting about the messenger and not the message???? I have explained quite clearly what I find wrong with your posts. I have dealt with your comments, taking them in turn. But more than the content of your posts I have issue, adequately explained, with the tone of them. I do not argue a point by criticising you... at worst I would argue the point on its merit and then voice my displeasure at the way you conduct yourself. You have shown nothing, Quantum Quack. What you have stated has been dealt and its rejection explained. So you keep repeating. You have previously accepted that in a deterministic universe everything is predetermined. And your argument for the impossibility of determining appears to lie with a zero point that you claim doesn't even exist. If all you are going to do is provide argument involving that which you claim does not exist, you're not actually arguing about anything at all. Appeals to consquence don't cut it. Try debating the content of the argument, not where you think (rightly or wrongly) it might lead. Yet you haven't actually explained why it is impossible. Oh, is it because it is impossible for something that doesn't exist to be determined?
It's a trick question. "Will," is never free, it's always determined. If something, "will" then that is determined by definition. "This will/that will." It's determined. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
By puttin myself in others shoes over the last few weeks an tryin to understand both sides... ive finaly got it.!!! By startin wit the notion of a deterministic universe… its agreed that ther woud be no free will in that universe… however ther is evidence that ponts to the universe not bein deterministic dew to random events… but free will does not come from random events… so as it stands as far as evidence goes... the free will we feel that we have is just an illusion of free will.!!! My God… it realy is that simple... folks.!!!
Yes, decision-making entails a managed complex of interacting operations. An autonomous decision-making system is thus compatible with determinism. It reduces two or more options to one selection. Something which rocks floating in space -- inanimate apart from momentum and manipulation by gravity -- cannot do. The problem revolves around the canard of incompatibilism construing it to be the opposite. The adjective "free" refers to being unconstrained by external agencies in the course of a choice-producing process. Not free of one's own biological, psychological, and personal past factors, which are necessary to be specifically who and what one is (identity) and to be capable of evaluating, reacting, outputting conclusions, etc to begin with according to one's overall character and current state. Expecting "stuff" which lacks any regulating organization, functional properties, and prior states or differences (i.e., that level or kind of free) to exhibit will would be nonsensical. Yet that seems to be the very standard advanced by incompatibilism. It does not matter whether such ludicrousness is proposed by theistic incompatilists or secular incompatibilists, for either disparaging determinism afterwards or burning down that absurd view of freewill afterwards (strawman). The source does not make the view any less incoherent. That degree of freedom (or that meaning of "free") would simply be a synonym for disordered stuff (not existing as an autonomous system or a being with volition to begin with). ###
Or freewill choosing that there is no freewill (applicable to some of us), since that posits we at least had the options available for avoiding a false conclusion. The other way around of a "we have no freewill" declaration would undermine itself, via forever leaving itself vulnerable to doubt that it could be the correct conclusion. Anton Zeilinger: This is the assumption of free will. [...] This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature. --Dance of the Photons ###
There is no sum total of events that have not happened yet, whether they are determined by evolutionary history or not. But it does point directly at its current role in that determination: it has produced entities capable of choosing among alternatives according to criteria. That's how it determines stuff. Also, choosing from among existing alternatives, according to criteria and new information - whether imagined or not. Not in your usage. In your case it means "supernatural", at least half the time. The nonsupernatural you label "trivial". By replicating with different new information for the decisionmaker to use in choosing, so it displays its ability to choose differently - that's one common way. Scientists use that one a lot. Again you use "actual" for "supernatural" - these question-begging synonyms for "supernatural" are screwing you up. Just use "supernatural", and you will suffer less from confusion. We are all agreed (except for those mired in "random" miracles) that universal determination excludes supernatural freedom, defiance of physical law, etc. That is something you never need to repeat again, let alone the fifty more times you undoubtedly will.
I said "so as it stands as far as evidence goes... the free will we feel that we have is just an illusion of free will.!!!"... ie... im open to evidence which shows that we do have free will... i just havent seen it yet.!!! How does a brain behave diferently than it was determined to by its genes an invironment.???
good question... why do we? Example: "If a pig has wings then a pig may fly" while logically sound says very little about the reality of pigs. Kant has something rather interesting to say about dialectics: "To the Ancients, "it was nothing but the logic of illusion. It was a sophistic art of giving to one's ignorance, indeed even to one's intentional tricks, the outward appearance of truth, by imitating the thorough, accurate method which logic always requires, and by using its topic as a cloak for every empty assertion." ~wiki Logic is not truth. It only offers an illusion of truth
