“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[DBT]

I'd say let it go, it's done.

Why would you say that DBT? Are you angry because of his claim regarding the eyes? That's the only thing I can think of. Not knowing what bothers you makes it so difficult. It's like being given the cold shoulder without knowing why. How can this be an interactive discussion when I don't know what the questions are in relation to what was posted? I think I should post the excerpt again as to why man's will is not free, according to this author. Once it is understood, I believe it will remove some of the backlash coming from compatibilists. But if you want to let it go, then by all means do what you need to do. What can I say?

I am an incompatibilist. That's not the issue. The problem is the absurd notion of instant vision, which completely goes against physics and biology, and no link between that notion and a revolution in human consciousness.

DBT, please put this aside for now. Rejecting his other two discoveries because you reject his claim regarding the eyes is not giving him the benefit of the doubt. I hope you will reconsider.

But you haven't described the means or mechanisms by which any of his so called discoveries are supposed to actually revolutionize human nature, consciousness or behaviour.

I have asked for an explanation time and again, but you just slide away by saying ''you should read the book.''

DBT, I cannot put it all down at once. I even gave everyone the first three chapters. Nobody read it, so now I have to cut and paste in the hope that going through each passage will answer any questions that people may have. This is a 600-page book (my compilation). How do you expect me to answer you in a few sentences? This would cause you to throw out the rest of his work because it wouldn't make sense. This debate has been going on for centuries. There is a reason for this. It is a very perplexing problem to solve, and to many it appears unsolvable. I hope this knowledge gains traction sooner rather than later because this is a discovery that will change our world for the better. When this occurs is anybody's guess. It all depends on when this knowledge is confirmed by science to be sound.

You are doing it again. Sliding away from giving even a basic description of how his discoveries work to revolutionize human consciousness for the better.

A summary in your own words shouldn't be difficult, and it would go a long way in helping people understand his point of view.

I’m sorry you don’t like how I’m presenting his work. A summary will not do it justice and oversimplifying could cause more confusion. You already have some idea of what this is about. Why can’t you be patient just a little longer? Or read the link I gave you. Start with Chapter One and let me know if you have any questions. Then we can move on to Chapter Two, the Two-Sided Equation. If you want one sentence that explains what it’s about, here it is: I must excuse what you can no longer justify.

It's not about what I like or don't like, but what would be helpful.

It doesn’t do the author justice if his work is not understood, so giving a summary to explain what he was getting at would go a long way in helping readers understand.

I have read some of it, but can't see that tranformative link.

Various articles and papers often begin with a summary or outline of their findings or premises, so why not in this case?

Is it for commercial reasons?

 

[peacegirl]

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc., therefore, it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Suppose a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and, for various reasons, doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc. What is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option which was good. In this case, almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him, so does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer...”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress, he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.

Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives, A, which we shall designate as something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of your regular routine; could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled, by their very nature, to prefer A? And how can they be free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man were free, he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction of his life and make him prefer the impossible.

To give you a more familiar example, if it were possible that B could be selected even though A was the desirable choice, it would permit a woman to spend on a dress she doesn’t prefer when a dress she does prefer is available, or to pick from a selection of dresses the one she finds the least desirable. Let us imagine for a moment that this woman is late for a business meeting and must quickly choose between one of two dresses. If both are undesirable, she is compelled to select the dress that is the least undesirable of the two; consequently, her choice in this comparison is the preferable alternative. Obviously, she has other options; she could leave both dresses and wear something from home, continue to shop and call in late, etc. This is a hypothetical example for the purpose of demonstrating that once she decides to buy a dress as a solution to her problem — regardless of the factors that contribute to her final decision — she is compelled to prefer the dress that gives every indication of being the best possible choice under the circumstances. If cost is an important consideration, she may desire to buy the less expensive dress because it fits within her price range, and though she would find great satisfaction seeing herself in the more expensive dress, she finds greater satisfaction choosing the dress that appeals to her the least. Therefore, regardless of what she chooses, she is basing that choice on which option has come closest to fulfilling her needs at that moment. This is where there may be some misunderstanding. Moving toward greater satisfaction does not mean we are always satisfied; it only means that we are compelled to prefer what we believe to be the best possible choice of the options that are available to us. [Note: It does not always mean we have considered all possible options; only those options that have come to mind or have been brought to our attention. Nor does it mean that our choices are unlimited, for the availability of choices depends on a myriad of cultural, economic, and social factors]. After coming home, she may have a change of heart and wish she had splurged on the more expensive dress. She may decide to go back to the store to make an exchange or she may decide to just keep the dress because returning it involves too much time and effort, making this the least favorable option. Each moment offers a new set of options but always in the direction of greater satisfaction.

 

[peacegirl]

I'd say let it go, it's done.

Why would you say that DBT? Are you angry because of his claim regarding the eyes? That's the only thing I can think of. Not knowing what bothers you makes it so difficult. It's like being given the cold shoulder without knowing why. How can this be an interactive discussion when I don't know what the questions are in relation to what was posted? I think I should post the excerpt again as to why man's will is not free, according to this author. Once it is understood, I believe it will remove some of the backlash coming from compatibilists. But if you want to let it go, then by all means do what you need to do. What can I say?

I am an incompatibilist. That's not the issue. The problem is the absurd notion of instant vision, which completely goes against physics and biology, and no link between that notion and a revolution in human consciousness.

DBT, please put this aside for now. Rejecting his other two discoveries because you reject his claim regarding the eyes is not giving him the benefit of the doubt. I hope you will reconsider.

But you haven't described the means or mechanisms by which any of his so called discoveries are supposed to actually revolutionize human nature, consciousness or behaviour.

I have asked for an explanation time and again, but you just slide away by saying ''you should read the book.''

DBT, I cannot put it all down at once. I even gave everyone the first three chapters. Nobody read it, so now I have to cut and paste in the hope that going through each passage will answer any questions that people may have. This is a 600-page book (my compilation). How do you expect me to answer you in a few sentences? This would cause you to throw out the rest of his work because it wouldn't make sense. This debate has been going on for centuries. There is a reason for this. It is a very perplexing problem to solve, and to many it appears unsolvable. I hope this knowledge gains traction sooner rather than later because this is a discovery that will change our world for the better. When this occurs is anybody's guess. It all depends on when this knowledge is confirmed by science to be sound.

You are doing it again. Sliding away from giving even a basic description of how his discoveries work to revolutionize human consciousness for the better.

A summary in your own words shouldn't be difficult, and it would go a long way in helping people understand his point of view.

I’m sorry you don’t like how I’m presenting his work. A summary will not do it justice and oversimplifying could cause more confusion. You already have some idea of what this is about. Why can’t you be patient just a little longer? Or read the link I gave you. Start with Chapter One and let me know if you have any questions. Then we can move on to Chapter Two, the Two-Sided Equation. If you want one sentence that explains what it’s about, here it is: I must excuse what you can no longer justify.

It's not about what I like or don't like, but what would be helpful.

It doesn’t do the author justice if his work is not understood, so giving a summary to explain what he was getting at would go a long way in helping readers understand.

I have read some of it, but can't see that tranformative link.

Because we are not at that part yet. Give him a chance.

Various articles and papers often begin with a summary or outline of their findings or premises, so why not in this case?

Is it for commercial reasons?

What do you mean by "is this for commercial reasons?" I actually gave you a one-sentence summary of what this is about. Here it is again: I must excuse what you can no longer justify. I wish you were more patient. I'm posting Chapter 1, which leads to Chapter 2.

 

[WAB]

Is the entire book going to be up here eventually? I'd have thought there would be some kind of administrative objection to this.

?

 

[Jarhyn]

Is the entire book going to be up here eventually? I'd have thought there would be some kind of administrative objection to this.

?

Well, I don't think any of the posters here are reporting the thread?

 

[peacegirl]

This is really sad. This discovery is being treated so lightly as to dismiss it because of so many other theories out there that seem contradictory only because they don’t gell with one’s worldview. This is a big problem because no one wants to feel they may be wrong. .I don’t know the word for it but it is clear that one’s position will trump any opposition to the contrary as a defense mechanism. You can have a thousand arguments and will be immediately thrown out as a competing argument if it doesn’t gell with what one has taken for granted is true, regardless of where it originates. That said, the truth remains solid when it is further examined under a microscope. Unfortunately, unless this discovery is confirmed sound by science, it will be laughed at like so many other discoverers that came before.

For starters, the opposite of determinism is not indeterminism. It’s free will which indicates we could have chosen otherwise. This is a glaring contradiction that compatibilists try in every which way to make compatible using definitions that do not reflect anything close to reality.

 

[steve_bank]

Back in the 70s I read Science And Sanity by Korzybski, General Semantics and non Aristotelian logic. Some of it was pseudo science but I took away some useful perspectives and ideas.

GS coined the term ‘the map is not the countryside’.


The late senator Hayakawa said he used GS to de escalate campus riots. His old videos on GS are online.

I looked at Scientology, totally a pseudo science scam, yet some swear by it.

I looked at your book and saw nothing of value or great import, certainly nothing revolutionary.

A question for you, have you ever known anyone who agrees with you and your book?

 

[steve_bank]

Back in the 70s I read Science And Sanity by Korzybski, General Semantics and non Aristotelian logic. Some of it was pseudo science but I took away some useful perspectives and ideas.

GS coined the term ‘the map is not the countryside’.


The late senator Hayakawa said he used GS to de escalate campus riots. His old videos on GS are online.

I looked at Scientology, totally a pseudo science scam, yet some swear by it.

I looked at your book and saw nothing of value or great import, certainly nothing revolutionary.

A question for you, have you ever known anyone who agrees with you and your book?

??? Peacegirl

 

[steve_bank]

In keeping with pood's request to keep it out of his thread

I read your book enough to conclude it was nonsense. I would mot spend time reading it in detail any more than I would read a Christian book on the bible. I know what to expect.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

I’ve explained this so many times. Where have you been Michael?

And I have shown problems with you latest manner of expression.

I know you have tried, but you haven't succeeded. Going forward in time is a phrase that presupposes time is a 4th dimension. That's already a problem. If you want to continue the conversation, could you go to my thread and we can talk? I am uncomfortable being in this thread. Thanks for your understanding.

I do not see a presupposition of time as a fourth dimension. At the same time, I do not see an incompatibility with assuming time as a fourth dimension. I can come up with any number of alternative expressions for the notion of the unidirectionality of time with the direction of time described as proceeding from the past to the present to the future. For instance, there is that which occurs and which is not accessible; there is that which occurs, which is not accessible, and which is not actual(ized). Included in the not actual(ized) is that which is not yet actual(ized). There is also that which occurs and is irretrievable. For convenience, the irretrievable actuality describes an aspect of the past. That which occurs but is not accessible for being not yet actual(ized) describes an aspect of the future. It is a convenient matter of convention to describe the irretrievable->not yet actual(ized)->irretrievable->not yet actual(ized)->, etc., process as moving forward from the past through the present to the future. This is all a way of describing time as experienced. Please identify the alleged problem, particularly in terms of the determinism discussion in the other thread.

 

[peacegirl]

I’ve explained this so many times. Where have you been Michael?

And I have shown problems with you latest manner of expression.

I know you have tried, but you haven't succeeded. Going forward in time is a phrase that presupposes time is a 4th dimension. That's already a problem. If you want to continue the conversation, could you go to my thread and we can talk? I am uncomfortable being in this thread. Thanks for your understanding.

I do not see a presupposition of time as a fourth dimension. At the same time, I do not see an incompatibility with assuming time as a fourth dimension.

Well right there, there is going to be a disagreement. At least for the time being, you will need to accept the author's premises, one being that the present is where we live. The past is gone, and the future is not yet here. If the author was wrong, then his entire proof collapses. His proof is either sound or it's not. I believe it's sound.

I can come up with any number of alternative expressions for the notion of the unidirectionality of time with the direction of time described as proceeding from the past to the present to the future.

Again, according to the author, there is no arrow of time. This is why the conventional definition of determinism is creating problems because it is defined as the past causing the present. I can only offer snippets that are out of order (which he urged against) in the hope that you will be able to put together some kind of semblance that resembles what he was trying to convey.

It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

For instance, there is that which occurs and which is not accessible; there is that which occurs, which is not accessible, and which is not actual(ized). Included in the not actual(ized) is that which is not yet actual(ized). There is also that which occurs and is irretrievable. For convenience, the irretrievable actuality describes an aspect of the past. That which occurs but is not accessible for being not yet actual(ized) describes an aspect of the future. It is a convenient matter of convention to describe the irretrievable->not yet actual(ized)->irretrievable->not yet actual(ized)->, etc., process as moving forward from the past through the present to the future. This is all a way of describing time as experienced. Please identify the alleged problem, particularly in terms of the determinism discussion in the other thread.

As far as his discovery is concerned, that which has been chosen is the only thing that could have been chosen. That which was not actualized could not have been actualized, according to each individual's circumstances. Referring to the future is similar to referring to the past, both concepts being thoughts about what has happened or what could happen, but not actually where we exist which is in the here and now. This is why his definition of determinism is more on point and due to this slight change which more accurately reflects reality, he was able to reconcile "doing of one's own accord" with "not of one's own free will." I am being charged with posting large swathes of material which was only meant to clarify what was misunderstood. Unfortunately, it backfired. I asked the moderators to please delete those posts. I hope they will. Now I can only give you small excerpts that are out of order which will bring up more questions that could have been answered had the chapters been read in the correct sequence. But this is what I am left with.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

At least for the time being, you will need to accept the author's premises ...

I want you to understand something from this beginning: 1) I am discussing with you, and 2) I regard your promulgating of the author's thoughts to be a work/an act of love on your part, and I will be respecting that regardless of what I might think about any or all of the author's thoughts. Well, unless you post a passage which is gut-wrenchingly repulsive after all possible charitable re-conceptions/re-expressions (and I really do not expect there to be any such passages). So, quote him as you wish, but I am interested in your commentary.

The past is gone, and the future is not yet here.

That is utterly in line with what I have said. But, it is also to be noted that the gone-ness of the past does not render the past as utterly irrelevant.

there is no arrow of time.

There are some who like to associate time with entropy such that time has directionality according to changes in terms of path functions leading to maximal entropy (equilibrium). Even with such a correlation, that does not speak to the idea of time. Were there utter equilibrium, would there be time? Is there time without any directionality? Is time ultimately separable from directionality or directionalities? As interesting as such considerations might be, it turns out that there is an arrow of time included whenever a distinction between past, present, and future is made. You have made such a distinction; therefore, you utilize the notion of time directionality.

the conventional definition of determinism is creating problems because it is defined as the past causing the present.

Determinism does not have to refer to causes. Determinism can simply assert that, given a context sufficiently defined by an apparently unremitting regularity (usually referred to as laws of nature or laws of physics), any past or present is sufficient for having fixed/set/determined the future. This means that in accord with the assumption of determinism, the past is relevant to the present and to the future, and that means that reference to the past is not necessarily deceptive.

This is why his definition of determinism is more on point and due to this slight change which more accurately reflects reality

What is that definition? How does it differ from the one I above presented?

 

[peacegirl]

At least for the time being, you will need to accept the author's premises ...

I want you to understand something from this beginning: 1) I am discussing with you, and 2) I regard your promulgating of the author's thoughts to be a work/an act of love on your part, and I will be respecting that regardless of what I might think about any or all of the author's thoughts. Well, unless you post a passage which is gut-wrenchingly repulsive after all possible charitable re-conceptions/re-expressions (and I really do not expect there to be any such passages). So, quote him as you wish, but I am interested in your commentary.

That's fine. You are probably interested in my commentary to see whether I understand his proof. Pood has put me on trial so many times for this reason that I've lost count. I have always added my commentary, but nothing can take the place of the author's own words.

The past is gone, and the future is not yet here.

That is utterly in line with what I have said. But, it is also to be noted that the gone-ness of the past does not render the past as utterly irrelevant.

I never said the past wasn't relevant. Even though what happened a day ago or an hour ago is gone, our thoughts in terms of how we evaluate and make decisions are based on what we have experienced and how we have interpreted those experiences. These past events are recorded in our memory banks which we then draw upon to make present decisions.

there is no arrow of time.

There are some who like to associate time with entropy such that time has directionality according to changes in terms of path functions leading to maximal entropy (equilibrium). Even with such a correlation, that does not speak to the idea of time. Were there utter equilibrium, would there be time? Is there time without any directionality? Is time ultimately separable from directionality or directionalities? As interesting as such considerations might be, it turns out that there is an arrow of time included whenever a distinction between past, present, and future is made. You have made such a distinction; therefore, you utilize the notion of time directionality.

We can use the phrase "an arrow of time" colloquially because everyone understands the concept of moving from the past to the present to the future, but in reality, these points are present moments in time. In his chapter on Our Posterity, the way he proves we are born again and again begins with the fact that the present is all that exists. I hope you can tentatively accept his premise that we are born, grow up, and die in the present, so we can move forward.

Now to solve this apparently unsolvable problem, it is first necessary to establish certain undeniable facts. Therefore, let me begin by asking you if there is such a reality as the past? Does this word symbolize something that is a part of the real world?

“Of course … yesterday is the past, today is the present, and tomorrow is the future. And this is a mathematical relation.”

“It is true that yesterday was Thursday and the day before was Wednesday, and there isn’t any person alive who will disagree. But this does not prove whether the word past is an accurate symbol. Can you take it, like you can the words apple and pear, and hang it up on something so I can look through it at the real McCoy? When does the present become the past? I want you to demonstrate how the present slips into the past. That cannot be done by God Himself. The reason man cannot do what I asked is because there is no such thing as the past. The past is simply the perception of a relation between two points. As I move from here to there, the past is what I leave behind while in motion; it is my ability to remember something that happened. In actual reality you are not moving between two points, a beginning and an end, you are in motion in the present. I know that we were talking yesterday, and that I was talking a fraction of a second ago, and that I am still talking.

The word ‘past’ is obviously the perception of a relation that appears undeniable because it has reference to the revolution of the earth on its axis in relation to the sun. You are conscious that it takes a certain length of time to do something and because you are also conscious of space, you perceive that as you traverse a point from here to there what is left behind as you travel is called the past and your destination is the future. Here lies a great fallacy that was never completely understood, for how is it humanly possible for there to be such a thing as the past and future when in reality all we ever have is the present? Yet we have a word to describe something that has no existence in the real world. Socrates never lived in the past — he lived in the present, although our recollection of him allows us to think back to this time period. The reason we say that Socrates lived in the past is because this particular individual is no longer here. But is it possible for you to say that God existed in the past? Does anyone ever sleep in the past; does the sun ever shine in the past; is it possible for you to do anything in the past? If you were sitting up on a high cloud these last ten thousand years, never asleep, you would have watched Socrates in the present, just as you are watching me write this book in the present. In order for me to prove what seems impossible, it is absolutely necessary that I deconfuse the mind of man so we can communicate.

the conventional definition of determinism is creating problems because it is defined as the past causing the present.

Determinism does not have to refer to causes. Determinism can simply assert that, given a context sufficiently defined by an apparently unremitting regularity (usually referred to as laws of nature or laws of physics), any past or present is sufficient for having fixed/set/determined the future. This means that in accord with the assumption of determinism, the past is relevant to the present and to the future, and that means that reference to the past is not necessarily deceptive.

This is why his definition of determinism is more on point and due to this slight change which more accurately reflects reality

What is that definition? How does it differ from the one I above presented?

I guess you weren't here earlier because I have given his definition many times. His words have been ignored or disregarded probably because people have concluded he couldn't possibly have something of real value. I will need to post his reasoning as to why man's will is not free. Then I can share the other side to this observation --- which is key --- as it leads to his discovery. No one here has asked one relevant question that would show even a tad of curiosity. Unfortunately, their minds were already made up so no matter what I said to correct them, it fell on deaf ears. Please understand that in order for you to truly get the concept (which was the author's fervent wish), we have to go in a step-by-step fashion.

If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man Does Not Stand Alone, as Morrison understood from his scientific observations, and that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage that will literally change the entire world. We are not interested in opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively, not of our own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that free will is false.” So, without further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better, or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc., therefore, it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Suppose a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and, for various reasons, doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc. What is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option which was good. In this case, almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him, so does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer...”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress, he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.

 

[pood]

Time is the fourth dimension in general relativity. There is nothing mysterious about this. It simply denotes a direction. Space has three dimensions, or directions — length, width, and height. Time has one dimension, and for humans that always points forward, whereas in space we can freely move up and down, from side to side, and forward and back.

In GR and everything that happens — every spacetime event, as they are called — are given by four coordinates, three of space and one of time. So time is obviously a dimension, and the implication of relative simultaneity is that the past, present and future all exist. Of course from the human perspective “now” is all we have, because whenever we are is called NOW, just as wherever we are is called HERE.

Several years before Einstein introduced special relativity, the author H.G. Wells had already conceived the dimensionality of time (though not relativity) in his novel The Time Machine. The narrator points out that cubes must have four dimensions, not just the ordinary three spatial dimensions, because there can be no such thing as an instantaneous cube. Hence a cube is extended in time as well as space. People and everything else do not only have spatial parts. They also have temporal parts. The whole of me is not located in the present. It is spread out in four dimensions as a so-called world tube, with its boundary conditions birth and death.

 

[pood]

At least for the time being, you will need to accept the author's premises ...

I want you to understand something from this beginning: 1) I am discussing with you, and 2) I regard your promulgating of the author's thoughts to be a work/an act of love on your part, and I will be respecting that regardless of what I might think about any or all of the author's thoughts. Well, unless you post a passage which is gut-wrenchingly repulsive after all possible charitable re-conceptions/re-expressions (and I really do not expect there to be any such passages). So, quote him as you wish, but I am interested in your commentary.

That's fine. You are probably interested in my commentary to see whether I understand his proof. Pood has put me on trial so many times for this reason that I've lost count.

I have not put YOU on trial. I have put your author’s IDEAS on trial. All ideas must stand trial based on evidence. His ideas fail.

I know you don’t understand this, because you think truth is decided by authority, and for you, you writer is the ultimate authority. The rest of his know that truth is never decided by any authority, including, for example, Einstein.

 

[pood]

Again, according to the author, there is no arrow of time. This is why the conventional definition of determinism is creating problems because it is defined as the past causing the present.

Right, that is what DBT thinks. So why are you defending his hard determinism? As I pointed out early in this thread, your author’s definition of “no free will” is DIFFERENT FROM that of hard determinism.

. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’

Right. That’s compatibilism.

 

[peacegirl]

Time is the fourth dimension in general relativity. There is nothing mysterious about this. It simply denotes a direction. Space has three dimensions, or directions — length, width, and height. Time has one dimension, and for humans that always points forward, whereas in space we can freely move up and down, from side to side, and forward and back.

In GR and everything that happens — every spacetime event, as they are called — are given by four coordinates, three of space and one of time. So time is obviously a dimension, and the implication of relative simultaneity is that the past, present and future all exist. Of course from the human perspective “now” is all we have, because whenever we are is called NOW, just as wherever we are is called HERE.

Several years before Einstein introduced special relativity, the author H.G. Wells had already conceived the dimensionality of time (though not relativity) in his novel The Time Machine. The narrator points out that cubes must have four dimensions, not just the ordinary three spatial dimensions, because there can be no such thing as an instantaneous cube. Hence a cube is extended in time as well as space.

This was a novel Pood, not a scientific exploration. Time (i.e., the movement from point A to point B) does not mean objects are created instantaneously. Time is change and these moments of change may feel different to different people based on their individual perceptions. Why do we have so many sayings regarding time? Because it's elusive and is partly a function of emotion. An older person views time differently (it seems to speed up) than his younger counterparts, but time does not exist in block form where we can go back in time to visit people there or go forward and visit people there. Hilarious! The reality remains that time is just a measurement. Your NOW is the same as my NOW, even though there are different time zones which is how clocks are synchronized. Based on a person's frame of reference, time may appear to slow down or speed up, but this doesn't change the nature of time itself. You can agree to disagree, but please let me talk to Michael before you interject your worn-out ideas. I left your thread because I felt bad that I was not on topic. Are you trying to get back at me?

People and everything else do not only have spatial parts. They also have temporal parts. The whole of me is not located in the present. It is spread out in four dimensions as a so-called world tube, with its boundary conditions birth and death.

I know you have a different take on this. According to this author's observations, time is change, not a location. You may believe in block time, where you are spread out in many NOWs and HEREs. Your logic has been acknowledged. Now would you please let me discuss the author's observations without the background noise?

 

[peacegirl]

Again, according to the author, there is no arrow of time. This is why the conventional definition of determinism is creating problems because it is defined as the past causing the present.

Right, that is what DBT thinks. So why are you defending his hard determinism? As I pointed out early in this thread, your author’s definition of “no free will” is DIFFERENT FROM that of hard determinism.

DBT and me both know that man's will is not free. The way this author explains it is more accurate because determinism the way it's defined says the past causes the present. This is incorrect. The past doesn't cause the present. The author tries to explain this by saying: Two plus two doesn't cause four; it is that already. We use our memories to evaluate the past to make decisions in the present. This has important implications because it shows that the past cannot force anything on us without our consent, but that doesn't mean we have the free will to have chosen otherwise. It also means that decision making is not linear in that conscious and unconscious factors cannot be easily identified. There are many factors that come into play when making decisions, which is why we cannot always predict accurately what a person will do.

. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’

Right. That’s compatibilism.

No Pood. You still don't get it because you have refused to listen.

 

[bilby]

Time is the fourth dimension in general relativity. There is nothing mysterious about this. It simply denotes a direction.

[nitpick]Well, no, not quite. Spatial dimensions denote direction. Time dimensions denote duration.

Time dimensions are not like space dimensions. Velocity (actually the square of the velocity) in four dimensional spacetime is found by adding the (square of the) change in each of the spatial directions together, and then dividing by the (square of the) change in the time dimension.

Time (and "timelike") dimensions are the denominators in these Swarzchild Equations, while Space (and "spacelike") dimensions are the enumerators.

It is this that leads to some of the weirder predictions of Relativity, such as that inside a Black Hole, bodies always move towards the central singularity, but are free to move however they like in the other two spatial dimensions and in the time dimension (in contrast to the 'normal' situation, whereby we can move freely in any spatial dimension, but are constrained to move only 'forwards' in time).[/nitpick]

 

[peacegirl]

Time is the fourth dimension in general relativity. There is nothing mysterious about this. It simply denotes a direction.

[nitpick]Well, no, not quite. Spatial dimensions denote direction. Time dimensions denote duration.

Time dimensions are not like space dimensions. Velocity (actually the square of the velocity) in four dimensional spacetime is found by adding the (square of the) change in each of the spatial directions together, and then dividing by the (square of the) change in the time dimension.

Time (and "timelike") dimensions are the denominators in these Swarzchild Equations, while Space (and "spacelike") dimensions are the enumerators.

It is this that leads to some of the weirder predictions of Relativity, such as that inside a Black Hole, bodies always move towards the central singularity, but are free to move however they like in the other two spatial dimensions and in the time dimension (in contrast to the 'normal' situation, whereby we can move freely in any spatial dimension, but are constrained to move only 'forwards' in time).[/nitpick]

I realize you were responding to Pood but this thread is vulnerable to being derailed. Why not take this to Pood’s thread so he can respond appropriately? I am asking people to tentatively accept the author’s premise that the present is all that exists because the past is gone, therefore the past cannot cause anything; it just presents certain antecedents to us that drive us or compel us to move in a particular direction, the only direction we can make given meaningful differences that are under consideration. This more accurate definition of determinism is necessary in order to understand the two-sided equation, which leads to amazing changes in our environment.