“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[pood]

Managed to knock off a quick, decent drawing of the Thinker from that.

 

[peacegirl]

peacegirl

The standard calculus classes like the ones I took go through basic proofs. Mean Value Theorem, the derivative, the Fundamental Theorem.

Proving 1 + 1 = 2 uniquely comes under number theory I believe, and involves Peano's Arut6hetc. There is a mathematician on the forum and it was touched on in the past. I don't claim to be a mathematician, nor a philosopher either.

Peano axioms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Counting, natural numbers, and induction was back around 4th grade. For every positive integer x there is an x + 1.

What's your point?

I asked you to answer the question based on your philosophy and are unable to do so.

The demand that I answer your question doesn't even relate. It has nothing to do with his proof of determinism. I asked you to explain his discovery and you are unable to do so.

I spent most of my adult life applying math and science for a living. I know what deterministic actually means in actual physical reality. It is not a philosophical abstraction.

In light of quantum mechanics deterministic is a special case of quantum. Don't feel bad, it caused quite a philosophical and scientific stir 100 years ago.

Quantum mechanics doesn't disprove human decision-making, which is not free, nor is any movement from here to there. Quantum mechanics is a red herring. We are talking about human will, not

The concept of solid matter as it was in the 19th century was no longer valid.

I am not questioning your dad's ideas, I am asking you to answer the question as to your posts being predetermined in terms of your philosophy.

I answered this by saying that where we all are at this point in time developed from previous points in time going all the way back to the beginning of time. As the author stated, the word cause is misleading because the past is gone. Everything occurs in the present. He tried to correct the use of this term in philosophy by saying that we make choices in the present based on what our brain is using (i.e., the antecedents) to decide which options are favorable. This is an important distinction as it leads to the two-sided equation. I can't move forward if no one is interested. Damn, I can't even get past Chapter One. And FYI, the author was not eccentric. He was an autodidact and thought outside of the box. If you call him names again, I will not engage with you.

Others have articulated views quite well on the thread.

Steve, if someone gives you an apple and you add an apple to it, how many apples do you have? If you say three, and we are using the same units of measure, you are wrong. If you want to add one drop of water to another drop of water, you don't get two drops of water. It all depends on what you're adding something to. Observation is part of epistemology, and it was through reading literature and philosophy, as well as astute observation that allowed Lessans to make these findings. Stop trying to disprove what you don't understand. Why is man's will not free? What is the two-sided equation? You are bringing everything into this but the kitchen sink (all unrelated to his presentation) without knowing what you're even refuting.

Take this crap back to your own thread.

Watch your temper Pood!

 

[pood]

Thinking his own thoughts, hot those of the big bang.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, off topic and not for discussion here.

A great little book How To Read And Do Proofs. Read it in the 90s to improve my following proofs in texts.

If you want to see how you can formally prove your ideas....

https://www.mymathscloud.com/api/download/modules/University/Textbooks/proofs/2)How%20To%20Read%20and%20Do%20Proofs%20Solow.pdf?id=25326848

I found the backwards-forward method useful in my work.

Thank you but he proved man’s will is not free. He didn’t need any other proof than what he gave. You still haven’t asked one question about anything he wrote, even to show any interest. I’ll ask you again: What is his proof of no free will and what is his discovery?

 

[peacegirl]

Thinking his own thoughts, hot those of the big bang.

View attachment 49302

OMG, who is taking this away from you?!!!

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl said previously we are predestined to go in a certain direction. Kind of fuzzy and ill defined. Call it sociology and psychology and not determinism, yes.

We are conditioned by what we are born to. Nothing profound. There are software statistical tools that given your address as a kid gives the probability of taking certain paths including crime.

We see it in pro sports. NFL quarterbacks Peyton and Eli Manning's father was an NFL payer Archie Manning, a well know sports story. Kids raised from birth to play football. Or Ken Gr iffy Jr and his father in baseball.

Seems Peacegirl and or her father co opted the term determinism. She does not seem to be able to articulate what she means in other than general fuzzy terms.

Peacegirl is an A #1 example of being 'predestined to go in a certain way'. Conditioned by her father. She may not have ever had a choice of an alternate path.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl said previously we are predestined to go in a certain direction. Kind of fuzzy and ill defined. Call it sociology and psychology and not determinism, yes.

That's not what he wrote. Did you read anything at all? This is why you're all mixed up.

We are conditioned by what we are born to. Nothing profound. There are software statistical tools that given your address as a kid gives the probability of taking certain paths including crime.

We can predict what an individual may do to a certain degree, yes. This ability to predict someone's actions supports his proof that man's will is not free but to predict 100% correctly is not possible because people change and are not completely predictable. Again, no one is interested in what a person will eat for breakfast. What is important in this debate is all about moral responsibility for an action.

We see it in pro sports. NFL quarterbacks Peyton and Eli Manning's father was an NFL payer Archie Manning, a well know sports story. Kids raised from birth to play football. Or Ken Gr iffy Jr and his father in baseball.

We are a mixture of environment and genetics. You're not adding anything new.

Seems Peacegirl and or her father co opted the term determinism. She does not seem to be able to articulate what she means in other than general fuzzy terms.

Peacegirl is an A #1 example of being 'predestined to go in a certain way'. Conditioned by her father. She may not have ever had a choice of an alternate path.

OMG, you're all out in left field. He explained why man's will is not free clearly in the first chapter. Stop saying I'm conditioned as if I don't know what I'm talking about. You don't even know what you are refuting. I'll ask you again: Explain why man's will is not free, according to this author. And what is his discovery?

 

[peacegirl]

Chess players and jazz composers do these things, and they do so freely.

Well, as freely as they may. When the composer is told "you will compose a song with these chords in this order or I murder your dog", they are not doing so freely; they are doing so under constraint and duress.

No one is denying that some choices are harder than others. This does nothing whatsoever to support free will.

 

[peacegirl]

Huge implications? Indeed. Ok, you should be able to answer my question. are your posts predetermined from before you were born?

Obviously it makes zero difference. Things that are unknowable and still pose a problem for people's brains, result in some of the stupidest statements anyone has ever made.
E.g.:

Whether or not we have free will is under the microscope because we are either morally responsible or not. This has huge implications for understanding human behavior.

That is so vacuous that simply copying it for reference threatens to suck all the air out of the room I'm in.
I just don't get why some people need an external crutch to make everyday determinations of right and wrong.

But that's how society works Elixir. If someone hurts another, they have to pay for what they did, if caught. If the courts deem they were not responsible, they are let go. If the courts deem they were responsible, they have to face the consequences based on the severity of what they did. What external crutch are you talking about?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, off topic and not for discussion here.

A great little book How To Read And Do Proofs. Read it in the 90s to improve my following proofs in texts.

If you want to see how you can formally prove your ideas....

https://www.mymathscloud.com/api/download/modules/University/Textbooks/proofs/2)How%20To%20Read%20and%20Do%20Proofs%20Solow.pdf?id=25326848

I found the backwards-forward method useful in my work.

He actually did work a problem backwards. Interesting.

The first step is realizing that the solution requires that we work our problem backwards, which means that every step of the way will be a forced move, which will become a loose end, and only when all these ends are drawn together will the blueprint be complete. It is only by extending our slide rule, Thou Shall Not Blame, which is the key, that we are given the means to unlock the solution. As an example of working a problem backwards, follow this: If you were told that a woman with a pocketbook full of money went on a spending spree to ten stores, paid a dollar to get in every one, a dollar to get out, spent half of what she had in each, and came out of the last place absolutely broke, it would be very easy to determine the amount of money she had to start because the dollar she paid to get out of the last store that broke her must represent one-half of the money spent there. Consequently, she had two dollars left after paying a dollar to get in, giving her three just before entering. Since she paid a dollar to get out of the penultimate store; this added to the three gives her four which represents one-half of the money spent there. Continuing this process eight more times, it is absolutely undeniable that she must have begun her spending spree with $3,069.

As we can see from this example, when a key fact is available from which to reason, it is then possible to solve a problem, but when it is not, we must form conjectures and express opinions with the aid of logic. At first glance, it appears impossible not to blame an individual for murder, or any heinous crime, but when we extend this key fact, it can be seen that these acts of evil are not condoned with the understanding that man’s will is not free but prevented. Regardless of someone’s opinion as to the rightness or wrongness of the answer to the problem I just gave, an opinion that would have to be based upon a logical conclusion, as is that of our experts when considering the impossibility of removing all evil from our lives, we know the answer is correct because the reasoning that follows from this key fact is scientifically sound.

By a similar process of working our problem backwards, we can officially launch the Golden Age, which necessitates the removal of all forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do. Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide rule, which God has given us as a guide. By now, I hope you understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil, using the word God only as a symbol for the former. Actually, no one gave me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the direction of satisfaction, and for me to be satisfied after reading Will Durant’s analysis of free will, it was necessary to disagree with what obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

I ask what you think and you post your father's book. Most of us here have enough science to have debunked thoroughly your father's ideas.

You are not providing any substance or details. You do not seem to understand what you are talking about.

There are low cost hosting services, have you considered starting a web site to promote your father's ideas? Who knows, you may become an international phenomena.

Playyiur fater as a martyr to the 'system' on Tic Tok and you will certainly get a following.

More generally in logic backwards forwards is going between deductive and inductive reasoning. The general to the specific and the specific to the general.


Sherlock Holmes was never entirely deductive.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

I ask what you think and you post your father's book. Most of us here have enough science to have debunked thoroughly your father's ideas.

You are not providing any substance or details. You do not seem to understand what you are talking about.

There are low cost hosting services, have you considered starTing a web site to promote your father's ideas?

Speak for yourself Steve. Who are you to tell me I have nothing to offer when you don’t even know what I’m offering? I don’t want to talk to you anymore. Peace out!

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, off topic and not for discussion here.

A great little book How To Read And Do Proofs. Read it in the 90s to improve my following proofs in texts.

If you want to see how you can formally prove your ideas....

https://www.mymathscloud.com/api/download/modules/University/Textbooks/proofs/2)How%20To%20Read%20and%20Do%20Proofs%20Solow.pdf?id=25326848

I found the backwards-forward method useful in my work.

Thank you but he proved man’s will is not free. He didn’t need any other proof than what he gave. You still haven’t asked one question about anything he wrote, even to show any interest. I’ll ask you again: What is his proof of no free will and what is his discovery?

Why don’t YOU tell us what it is, in your own words? You have never been able to do that in some 25 years on practically every message board that has ever existed.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

I ask what you think and you post your father's book. Most of us here have enough science to have debunked thoroughly your father's ideas.

You are not providing any substance or details. You do not seem to understand what you are talking about.

There are low cost hosting services, have you considered starTing a web site to promote your father's ideas?

Speak for yourself Steve. Who are you to tell me I have nothing to offer when you don’t even know what I’m offering? I don’t want to talk to you anymore. Peace out!

In he words of the great American philosopher Pop Eye Sailor, 'I ams what I ams'.

I did not say you categorically have nothing to offer, I said on this thread you are not saying anything, you post your book and declare a fiat. That does not work on this forum.

Tic Tok is and X are known for being wide open for eccentric ideas. I am sure you will find support on those platforms. You may even rise to influencer status and make money.


Feel free to put me or anyone else on ignore.

Consider pood's request to not carry your other thread over here.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, off topic and not for discussion here.

A great little book How To Read And Do Proofs. Read it in the 90s to improve my following proofs in texts.

If you want to see how you can formally prove your ideas....

https://www.mymathscloud.com/api/download/modules/University/Textbooks/proofs/2)How%20To%20Read%20and%20Do%20Proofs%20Solow.pdf?id=25326848

I found the backwards-forward method useful in my work.

Thank you but he proved man’s will is not free. He didn’t need any other proof than what he gave. You still haven’t asked one question about anything he wrote, even to show any interest. I’ll ask you again: What is his proof of no free will and what is his discovery?

Why don’t YOU tell us what it is, in your own words? You have never been able to do that in some 25 years on practically every message board that has ever existed.

Pood, I hope you're joking. You tell me, and I'll tell you if you're correct. I have given my all and it's tiring. Now it's your turn. If you don't want me posting in your thread, move this post to my thread. I don't want to be here if I'm not wanted.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, off topic and not for discussion here.

A great little book How To Read And Do Proofs. Read it in the 90s to improve my following proofs in texts.

If you want to see how you can formally prove your ideas....

https://www.mymathscloud.com/api/download/modules/University/Textbooks/proofs/2)How%20To%20Read%20and%20Do%20Proofs%20Solow.pdf?id=25326848

I found the backwards-forward method useful in my work.

Thank you but he proved man’s will is not free. He didn’t need any other proof than what he gave. You still haven’t asked one question about anything he wrote, even to show any interest. I’ll ask you again: What is his proof of no free will and what is his discovery?

Why don’t YOU tell us what it is, in your own words? You have never been able to do that in some 25 years on practically every message board that has ever existed.

Pood, I hope you're joking. You tell me, and I'll tell you if you're correct. I have given my all and it's tiring. Now it's your turn. If you don't want me posting in your thread, move this post to my thread. I don't want to be here if I'm not wanted.

You ask others to summarize your author’s work. But you can’t do it yourself. Whenever pressed to do so, you say, it would do the work an injustice to summarize it. Then you post up acres of copy pasta and demand that everyone read it. You can’t be serious. You actually demand that others do what you cannot do yourself? How pathetic is that?

 

[DBT]

What are you even talking about? Your question isn't necessary for proof of determinism. You off on a tangent!

This is the same question asked of DBT, who has never specifically answered: Does he, or does he not, agree with fellow hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz composer’s piece was determined in advance of him composing it?

I have answered the question many times. Think about how determinism is defined. Consider your endorsement of constant conjunction, where event A must inevitably lead to events B, C, etc.

Your wording is loaded.

Music cannot composed before the composer is born and learns music and composes a score. And given your terms, what the composer writes inevitably follows from their life experience and proclivities and ability.

Think about the implications of constant conjunction.

 

[Jarhyn]

Chess players and jazz composers do these things, and they do so freely.

Well, as freely as they may. When the composer is told "you will compose a song with these chords in this order or I murder your dog", they are not doing so freely; they are doing so under constraint and duress.

Well, sure, but that is stipulated as part of compatibilism.

Well, given the context, I think it's important to be explicit about stipulating, since for some reason people get it into their minds to frame it as a false binary with absolute presence or absence.

What are you even talking about? Your question isn't necessary for proof of determinism. You off on a tangent!

This is the same question asked of DBT, who has never specifically answered: Does he, or does he not, agree with fellow hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz composer’s piece was determined in advance of him composing it?

I have answered the question many times. Think about how determinism is defined. Consider your endorsement of constant conjunction, where event A must inevitably lead to events B, C, etc.

Your wording is loaded.

Music cannot composed before the composer is born and learns music and composes a score. And given your terms, what the composer writes inevitably follows from their life experience and proclivities and ability.

Think about the implications of constant conjunction.

The problem you have is in treating like that creates a zero sum problem. It does not.

It just means that the responsibility is continuous and conjunctive, rather than absent and only present at some specific initial moment.

 

[DBT]

Chess players and jazz composers do these things, and they do so freely.

Well, as freely as they may. When the composer is told "you will compose a song with these chords in this order or I murder your dog", they are not doing so freely; they are doing so under constraint and duress.

Well, sure, but that is stipulated as part of compatibilism.

Well, given the context, I think it's important to be explicit about stipulating, since for some reason people get it into their minds to frame it as a false binary with absolute presence or absence.

What are you even talking about? Your question isn't necessary for proof of determinism. You off on a tangent!

This is the same question asked of DBT, who has never specifically answered: Does he, or does he not, agree with fellow hard determinist Jerry Coyne that the jazz composer’s piece was determined in advance of him composing it?

I have answered the question many times. Think about how determinism is defined. Consider your endorsement of constant conjunction, where event A must inevitably lead to events B, C, etc.

Your wording is loaded.

Music cannot composed before the composer is born and learns music and composes a score. And given your terms, what the composer writes inevitably follows from their life experience and proclivities and ability.

Think about the implications of constant conjunction.

The problem you have is in treating like that creates a zero sum problem. It does not.

It just means that the responsibility is continuous and conjunctive, rather than absent and only present at some specific initial moment.

Nah, nothing of the sort.

As it happens that compatibilists give a definition of determinism, the terms and conditions of that definition have to be accounted for, and cannot be contradicted.

You can't be a compatibilist, while at the same time assert that alternate actions are possible and can happen, because that would make you not a compatibilist but a Libertarian.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, off topic and not for discussion here.

A great little book How To Read And Do Proofs. Read it in the 90s to improve my following proofs in texts.

If you want to see how you can formally prove your ideas....

https://www.mymathscloud.com/api/download/modules/University/Textbooks/proofs/2)How%20To%20Read%20and%20Do%20Proofs%20Solow.pdf?id=25326848

I found the backwards-forward method useful in my work.

Thank you but he proved man’s will is not free. He didn’t need any other proof than what he gave. You still haven’t asked one question about anything he wrote, even to show any interest. I’ll ask you again: What is his proof of no free will and what is his discovery?

Why don’t YOU tell us what it is, in your own words? You have never been able to do that in some 25 years on practically every message board that has ever existed.

Pood, I hope you're joking. You tell me, and I'll tell you if you're correct. I have given my all and it's tiring. Now it's your turn. If you don't want me posting in your thread, move this post to my thread. I don't want to be here if I'm not wanted.

You ask others to summarize your author’s work. But you can’t do it yourself. Whenever pressed to do so, you say, it would do the work an injustice to summarize it. Then you post up acres of copy pasta and demand that everyone read it. You can’t be serious. You actually demand that others do what you cannot do yourself? How pathetic is that?

Why would you even care that I explain it in my own words if you were so sure he was wrong? It wouldn’t matter to you. His proof would have been squashed and thrown out, not only here but everywhere, but that has not happened..