According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[peacegirl]

Universal peace and harmony?

We have genetic predispositions. We study chimps because we are genetically close. Non human seces can exhibit deception and theft..greed.

In the wild predator and prey live in a dynamic balance.

Pet dogs and cats gone fersl return to theirr natural behaviors. Females form groups for protection against makes. Males kill kittens to bring a female into heat.

Philosophy, religion, and culture are a thinn veneer over our instincts. When the vener cracks we see social breakdown. Riots and looting. right here in the USA.. I saw it here in Settle during the riots.

Our founders came up with a balance of power in government copied by the states.

As we are seeing today it is failing. Republicans in congress are afraid of crossing Trump. The MAGA crowd following the alpha male. Tribal.

When confronted by a perceived threat heart rate goes up. More oxygen. As it progresses adrenaline and other stress hormones enter the blood. Then comes the flight or fight decision.

It is automatic. The immune system revs up. Hormones over ride the logic and reason centers.

When facing death or serious harm you go into full rage. No logic or reason, kill or be killed.

That is us humans. It happens in every day life especially work. You perceive a personal threat or attack and stress hormones flow. Long term job stress leads to heart and other damage. The stress hormones like adrenaline are harsh.

It takes effort to deescalate.

All species have instincts to self-preserve. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. No one is arguing with that. However, humans possess an intelligence that can extend far beyond instinct and self-preservation, enabling us to create a world where the idea of "kill or be killed" is no longer something we have to contend with. Why should we accept the world as it is when it could be something better? You are concluding that this is how it has to be, which is nothing more than a rehashing of what exists now. It doesn't tell us what could be. We may be close to chimps in some ways, but we are not chimps, so to compare us to them by concluding that we are no different is not accurate.

 

[BSilvEsq]

An open question to all posters on this thread with whom I have locked horns from time-to-time:

Is it even conceivable to you that something might persuade you that the beliefs about which you have been writing are wrong and/or that the contrary beliefs about which I (and some others) have been writing are correct?​

If the answer is "No" then what is the point in continuing the discussion?

For myself, I state without hesitation that it not only is conceivable to me that something might persuade me that the beliefs about which I have been writing are wrong and/or that the contrary beliefs about which others have been writing are correct, but I sincerely hope to see that occur.

I hope so, too, but you being a lawyer will make it harder to swallow that we have no free will at all. I am not saying that you, as a lawyer, should not hold people responsible for behavior that is clearly their responsibility and has hurt others due to that behavior. I just want to make that very clear. I have a son who is an injury lawyer, so you know I'm not attacking the necessary profession as it now stands.

I have no issue at all with the proposition that Free Will does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist. Where we come apart is on the question of how humans can volitionally do anything directed at accomplishing world peace if they lack the Free Will to do so much as make a free decision to take the first step toward that goal.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

That we have 'intelligence' and others do not is a human centric view. It ignores all the observational evidence of other species.

Intelligence? What does that mean? We are screeching feces flinging chimps with nuclear weapons.

Look at your own behavior on the forum. At times hostile and testy. Defensive for sure.

We are not metaphysical abstractions of pure thought. Our thoughts and feelings are based in brain chemicals.

 

[peacegirl]

An open question to all posters on this thread with whom I have locked horns from time-to-time:

Is it even conceivable to you that something might persuade you that the beliefs about which you have been writing are wrong and/or that the contrary beliefs about which I (and some others) have been writing are correct?​

If the answer is "No" then what is the point in continuing the discussion?

For myself, I state without hesitation that it not only is conceivable to me that something might persuade me that the beliefs about which I have been writing are wrong and/or that the contrary beliefs about which others have been writing are correct, but I sincerely hope to see that occur.

I hope so, too, but you being a lawyer will make it harder to swallow that we have no free will at all. I am not saying that you, as a lawyer, should not hold people responsible for behavior that is clearly their responsibility and has hurt others due to that behavior. I just want to make that very clear. I have a son who is an injury lawyer, so you know I'm not attacking the necessary profession as it now stands.

I have no issue at all with the proposition that Free Will does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist. Where we come apart is on the question of how humans can volitionally do anything directed at accomplishing world peace if they lack the Free Will to do so much as make a free decision to take the first step toward that goal.

I have stated again and again that not having free will does not mean we are dominoes in the way it is defined by this author. We still have volition, and we can choose "of our own accord," but that doesn't make our will free. I think people fear determinism for whatever reason, but nothing is being taken away other than one's pride that whatever they accomplished was of their own free will. I am not telling you or anyone that they have to agree with these principles. I hope that they will agree because he proves his case. I'm sharing this excerpt again because it is important to understand that the proof of its veracity is contained within the knowledge itself, not with his opinion, speculation, or bias.

It is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity.

 

[steve_bank]

Intelligence Peacegirl?

Pushing your father's book for decades.

Lower head, run into wall, back up, repeat.

 

[BSilvEsq]

It is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity.

This is yet another example of a conclusory and boastful paragraph that provides little, if anything, by way of information about the substance of the thesis.

Taking out the assertions of the conclusion that will be reached, how great it will be, and how obvious and certain it is once the book is read, the paragraph offers one, and only one, glimpse into the substance of the book -- namely, the assertion that there are "laws of the universe." Even then, however, the paragraph does not even begin to describe or summarize the laws of the universe that are claimed to exist. The paragraph does, however, imply that the laws of the universe that will be discussed in the book are sufficiently weak that they can be disobeyed -- otherwise there would be no reason to implore the reader to learn of the rules and follow them.

Just about every paragraph that has been quoted from the book on this board (and others) is of the same nature -- flowery descriptions of the importance of the "discovery" that is claimed to be revealed in the book without any hint of its substance. The absence of any substance in pages and pages of excerpts creates the impression that there is no substance, and the assertion that it is too complicated to summarize is a cop out.

 

[BSilvEsq]

We are screeching feces flinging chimps with nuclear weapons.

Great imagery

 

[bilby]

I have knowledge that will prove

Knowledge isn't the kind of thing that proves anything. You repeatedly demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of how to think clearly and rationally, and then you are surprised when people don't take your resulting absurdities seriously.

Learn some basic epistemology. You don't know what "know" means, nor what "prove" means; You are bandying the words around not because they support your position, but because you have learned that people who are listened to and taken seriously use those words.

You have a cargo-cult philosophy; You imagine that by aping real philosophy, you will achieve results, and you have exactly the same chance of attaining that goal as the guys who built radar dishes from palm fronds had of attracting real aircraft laden with goods.

 

[peacegirl]

It is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity.

This is yet another example of a conclusory and boastful paragraph that provides little, if anything, by way of information about the substance of the thesis.

He is not being boastful at all when he says that one cannot use his own beliefs as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. IOW, a belief is just that, and it can't be used in an effort to negate a proof. Can you argue that one plus one equals two because YOUR BELIEF tells you it's three?

Taking out the assertions of the conclusion that will be reached, how great it will be, and how obvious and certain it is once the book is read, the paragraph offers one, and only one, glimpse into the substance of the book -- namely, the assertion that there are "laws of the universe." Even then, however, the paragraph does not even begin to describe or summarize the laws of the universe that are claimed to exist. The paragraph does, however, imply that the laws of the universe that will be discussed in the book are sufficiently weak that they can be disobeyed -- otherwise there would be no reason to implore the reader to learn of the rules and follow them.

That is not true. The fact that we have no free will, never had free will, and never will have free will does not mean that we cannot harness this knowledge to better our world. That is why he wrote:

Introduction (page 1)

Who… in his right mind or with knowledge of history, would believe it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime, and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in the 20th century (1918-1991). Though we are well into the 21st century, this discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by our world’s leading scientists.] When first hearing this prophecy, shortly after Hitler had slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years (8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the mind compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest analysis, and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took me two years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all mankind and three additional years to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend. It is the purpose of this book to reveal this finding — a scientific discovery about the nature of man whose life, as a direct consequence of this mathematical revelation, will be completely revolutionized in every way for his benefit, bringing about a transition so utterly amazing that if I were to tell you of all the changes soon to unfold, without demonstrating the cause as to why these must come about, your skepticism would be aroused sufficiently to consider this a work of science fiction, for who would believe it possible that all evil (every bit of hurt that exists in human relations) must decline and fall the very moment this discovery is thoroughly understood. This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well-concealed law and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of human relations is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible.

Just about every paragraph that has been quoted from the book on this board (and others) is of the same nature -- flowery descriptions of the importance of the "discovery" that is claimed to be revealed in the book without any hint of its substance. The absence of any substance in pages and pages of excerpts creates the impression that there is no substance, and the assertion that it is too complicated to summarize is a cop out.

You haven't even given me a chance. This is not my first rodeo. Anything I do to summarize this knowledge will just be a presentation of what is to come, which you don't want. You want more, so you'll have to stick with me and let me do it my way. I haven't even gotten through the first part of Chapter One, which brings together two important principles, the first being a demonstration as to why man's will is not free, and the second principle, which is just as important because it leads to the actual discovery. Why are you being so impatient? It seems like your skepticism (which is normal to a degree) is in overdrive.

 

[BSilvEsq]

It is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity.

This is yet another example of a conclusory and boastful paragraph that provides little, if anything, by way of information about the substance of the thesis.

He is not being boastful at all when he says that one cannot use his own beliefs as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. IOW, a belief is just that, and it can't be used in an effort to negate a proof. Can you argue that one plus one equals two because YOUR BELIEF tells you it's three?

Taking out the assertions of the conclusion that will be reached, how great it will be, and how obvious and certain it is once the book is read, the paragraph offers one, and only one, glimpse into the substance of the book -- namely, the assertion that there are "laws of the universe." Even then, however, the paragraph does not even begin to describe or summarize the laws of the universe that are claimed to exist. The paragraph does, however, imply that the laws of the universe that will be discussed in the book are sufficiently weak that they can be disobeyed -- otherwise there would be no reason to implore the reader to learn of the rules and follow them.

That is not true. The fact that we have no free will, never had free will, and never will have free will does not mean that we cannot harness this knowledge to better our world. That is why he wrote:

Introduction (page 1)

Who… in his right mind or with knowledge of history, would believe it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime, and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in the 20th century (1918-1991). Though we are well into the 21st century, this discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by our world’s leading scientists.] When first hearing this prophecy, shortly after Hitler had slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years (8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the mind compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest analysis, and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took me two years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all mankind and three additional years to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend. It is the purpose of this book to reveal this finding — a scientific discovery about the nature of man whose life, as a direct consequence of this mathematical revelation, will be completely revolutionized in every way for his benefit, bringing about a transition so utterly amazing that if I were to tell you of all the changes soon to unfold, without demonstrating the cause as to why these must come about, your skepticism would be aroused sufficiently to consider this a work of science fiction, for who would believe it possible that all evil (every bit of hurt that exists in human relations) must decline and fall the very moment this discovery is thoroughly understood. This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well-concealed law and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of human relations is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible.

Just about every paragraph that has been quoted from the book on this board (and others) is of the same nature -- flowery descriptions of the importance of the "discovery" that is claimed to be revealed in the book without any hint of its substance. The absence of any substance in pages and pages of excerpts creates the impression that there is no substance, and the assertion that it is too complicated to summarize is a cop out.

You haven't even given me a chance. This is not my first rodeo. Anything I do to summarize this knowledge will just be a presentation of what is to come, which you don't want. You want more, so you'll have to stick with me and let me do it my way. I haven't even gotten through the first part of Chapter One, which brings together two important principles, the first being a demonstration as to why man's will is not free, and the second principle, which is just as important because it leads to the actual discovery. Why are you being so impatient? It seems like your skepticism (which is normal to a degree) is in overdrive.

I am patient and have been patient, but the multiple quotes that do nothing more than assert that a lot of work has gone into the book, that the book reveals startling and important information, etc., without ever providing any substance reminds me of the Anne Elk's Theory of the Brontosaurus, which can be viewed at the bottom of this post.

Perhaps there are others who see glimmer of substance in the quoted passages that I am missing, but I doubt that to be the case. Or, possibly, there is some other person who has read the book from beginning to end and can offer a summary of what they learned -- without simply saying something like the following:

I learned an incredibly important and earth-shattering lesson about mankind. A lesson that has eluded the best of minds in the past, and which provides the secret to peace on earth and goodwill to all. It is incredible how well this lesson is presented. Without reading the entire book, I never would have been able to come close to understanding the lesson. But, now, I understand it so well, because I put in the effort to read the book. It is an incredibly important lesson that nobody else, not the smartest and most educated Nobel Laureate or Rhodes Scholar, has ever understood, much less been able to teach so clearly and persuasively. The logic is impeccable and painstakingly presented in a methodical and compelling manner. The lesson, as explained, in the book, is that man has no free will and it is exactly that fact that provides the basis for world peace that is there for the taking when the lessons of the book are grasped and followed. To do so, however, requires abandoning all that the world's greatest minds have previously believed. But, it is real and provable, to a mathematical certainty. It is just necessary to read the book to grasp this.

I do not mean to denigrate the lesson of the book -- whatever that might be. I am not in a position to form any opinion about the supposed lesson, because I have yet to be provided with the slightest glimpse of what that lesson is. What I am criticizing is the excerpts that have been presented in support of the book -- not one of which provides the slightest hint of the substance of the lesson said to be set forth in the book. Even Anne Elk finally shared her theory, which was hers. The theory was self-evident and unremarkable, but Ms. Elk did finally spit it out at the end of the interview. If Monty Python had followed the example of the book being promoted, however, they might have ended the skit with Ms. Elk continuing to say nothing more than the fact that she has a theory that is her theory that is a theory of here that is her theory -- and if you want to learn the theory of hers that is her theory, you need to buy and read her book that she wrote about the theory that is hers.

 

[peacegirl]

It is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity.

This is yet another example of a conclusory and boastful paragraph that provides little, if anything, by way of information about the substance of the thesis.

He is not being boastful at all when he says that one cannot use his own beliefs as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. IOW, a belief is just that, and it can't be used in an effort to negate a proof. Can you argue that one plus one equals two because YOUR BELIEF tells you it's three?

Taking out the assertions of the conclusion that will be reached, how great it will be, and how obvious and certain it is once the book is read, the paragraph offers one, and only one, glimpse into the substance of the book -- namely, the assertion that there are "laws of the universe." Even then, however, the paragraph does not even begin to describe or summarize the laws of the universe that are claimed to exist. The paragraph does, however, imply that the laws of the universe that will be discussed in the book are sufficiently weak that they can be disobeyed -- otherwise there would be no reason to implore the reader to learn of the rules and follow them.

That is not true. The fact that we have no free will, never had free will, and never will have free will does not mean that we cannot harness this knowledge to better our world. That is why he wrote:

Introduction (page 1)

Who… in his right mind or with knowledge of history, would believe it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime, and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in the 20th century (1918-1991). Though we are well into the 21st century, this discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by our world’s leading scientists.] When first hearing this prophecy, shortly after Hitler had slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years (8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the mind compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest analysis, and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took me two years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all mankind and three additional years to put it into the kind of language others could comprehend. It is the purpose of this book to reveal this finding — a scientific discovery about the nature of man whose life, as a direct consequence of this mathematical revelation, will be completely revolutionized in every way for his benefit, bringing about a transition so utterly amazing that if I were to tell you of all the changes soon to unfold, without demonstrating the cause as to why these must come about, your skepticism would be aroused sufficiently to consider this a work of science fiction, for who would believe it possible that all evil (every bit of hurt that exists in human relations) must decline and fall the very moment this discovery is thoroughly understood. This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well-concealed law and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of human relations is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible.

Just about every paragraph that has been quoted from the book on this board (and others) is of the same nature -- flowery descriptions of the importance of the "discovery" that is claimed to be revealed in the book without any hint of its substance. The absence of any substance in pages and pages of excerpts creates the impression that there is no substance, and the assertion that it is too complicated to summarize is a cop out.

You haven't even given me a chance. This is not my first rodeo. Anything I do to summarize this knowledge will just be a presentation of what is to come, which you don't want. You want more, so you'll have to stick with me and let me do it my way. I haven't even gotten through the first part of Chapter One, which brings together two important principles, the first being a demonstration as to why man's will is not free, and the second principle, which is just as important because it leads to the actual discovery. Why are you being so impatient? It seems like your skepticism (which is normal to a degree) is in overdrive.

I am patient and have been patient, but the multiple quotes that do nothing more than assert that a lot of work has gone into the book, that the book reveals startling and important information, etc., without ever providing any substance reminds me of the Anne Elk's Theory of the Brontosaurus, which can be viewed at .

Perhaps there are others who see glimmer of substance in the quoted passages that I am missing, but I doubt that to be the case. Or, possibly, there is some other person who has read the book from beginning to end and can offer a summary of what they learned -- without simply saying something like the following:

I learned an incredibly important and earth-shattering lesson about mankind. A lesson that has eluded the best of minds in the past, and which provides the secret to peace on earth and goodwill to all. It is incredible how well this lesson is presented. Without reading the entire book, I never would have been able to come close to understanding the lesson. But, now, I understand it so well, because I put in the effort to read the book. It is an incredibly important lesson that nobody else, not the smartest and most educated Nobel Laureate or Rhodes Scholar, has ever understood, much less been able to teach so clearly and persuasively. The logic is impeccable and painstakingly presented in a methodical and compelling manner. The lesson, as explained, in the book, is that man has no free will and it is exactly that fact that provides the basis for world peace that is there for the taking when the lessons of the book are grasped and followed. To do so, however, requires abandoning all that the world's greatest minds have previously believed. But, it is real and provable, to a mathematical certainty. It is just necessary to read the book to grasp this.

I do not mean to denigrate the lesson of the book -- whatever that might be. I am not in a position to form any opinion about the supposed lesson, because I have yet to be provided with the slightest glimpse of what that lesson is. What I am criticizing is the excerpts that have been presented in support of the book -- not one of which provides the slightest hint of the substance of the lesson said to be set forth in the book. Even Anne Elk finally shared her theory, which we hers. The theory was self-evident and unremarkable, but Ms. Elk did finally spit it out at the end of the interview. If Monty Python had followed the example of the book being promoted, however, they might have ended the skit with Ms. Elk continuing to say nothing more than the fact that she has a theory that is her theory that is a theory of here that is her theory -- and if you want to learn the theory of hers that is her theory, you need to buy and read her book that she wrote about the theory that is hers.

I can't stop laughing. This skit really gave me a chuckle. In my defense, that's not what I'm doing. It is not MY THEORY or HIS THEORY, for that matter. How long have we actually shared posts? I can count them on one hand. Give me a little grace, okay? You won't be disappointed (I hope). I was going to explain why man's will is not free, according to this author, but I decided to first explain why free will will always remain a theory. I hope no one gripes about me posting excerpts because this is the only way to get across his points in a manner that will increase the chances of a better understanding than in my own words. If people don't like that I am using excerpts, they don't have to read them.

In the beginning of creation, when man was in the early stages of development, he could have destroyed himself were there no forces to control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by helping explain the reason for such evil in the world. It gave those who had faith a sense of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on living. In spite of everything, it was a bright light in the story of civilization. However, to reach this stage of development so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by performing this deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get man to believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason man was able to develop. The belief in free will was compelled to come about as a corollary of evil, for not only was it impossible to hold God responsible for man’s deliberate crimes, but primarily because it was impossible for man to solve his problems without blame and punishment, which required the justification of this belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was assumed that man did not have to do what he did because he was endowed with a special faculty that allowed him to choose between good and evil. In other words, if you were called upon to pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way, you would have to believe that he was free to choose another alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that he was not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was given no choice but to think this way, and that is why our civilization developed the principle of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ and why my discovery was never found. No one could ever get beyond this point because if man’s will is not free, it becomes absolutely impossible to hold him responsible for anything he does. Well, is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies beyond this point? How is it possible not to blame people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his nature? Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired badly enough, he will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel? What is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking what they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will is not free strikes at the very heart of our present civilization. Right at this point lies the crux of a problem so difficult of solution that it has kept free will in power since time immemorial. Although it has had a very long reign in the history of civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and for all, by first demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true. A friend shared a story with me to illustrate the difficulty of breaking through this established dogma.

“The other day when I was in temple, a rabbi, during the course of his sermon, made it very clear that man has free will. Professors, doctors, lawyers, and just about everybody I know agree that man’s will is free. If this is a theory, you would never know it by talking to them. Well, is it a theory, or is this established knowledge?”

“Of course it is a theory;” I answered, “otherwise there would be no believers in determinism. Is it possible for a person to believe that the Earth is flat now that we have mathematical proof of its circular shape? The only reason we still have opinions on both sides of this subject is because we don’t know for a mathematical fact whether the will of man is or is not free.”

“But these theologians don’t agree with you; they say that man’s will is definitely free. Look here comes a rabbi; ask him if man’s will is free, just for the heck of it, and you will see for yourself how dogmatic he responds.”

“Rabbi, we have been discussing a subject and would appreciate your opinion. Is it true, false, or just a theory that man’s will is free?”

“It is absolutely true that man’s will is free because nothing compels an individual to choose evil instead of good; he prefers this only because he wants to partake of this evil, not because something is forcing him.”

“Do you mean, Rabbi, that every person has two or more alternatives when making a choice?”

“Absolutely! That bank robber last week didn’t have to rob the bank; he wanted to do it.”

“But assuming that what you say is true, how is it possible to prove that which cannot be proven? Let me illustrate what I mean.”

“Is it possible for you not to do what has already been done?”

“No, it is not possible for me not to do what has already been done, because I have already done it.”

“This is a mathematical or undeniable relation and is equivalent to asking, is it possible for anyone not to understand four as an answer to two plus two? Now, if what has been done was the choosing of B instead of A, is it possible not to choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“It is impossible, naturally.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible (this is the reasoning of mathematics, not logic, which gives rise to opinions) not to choose B instead of A once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A in this comparison of possibilities when in order to make this choice you must not choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“Again, I must admit it is something impossible to do.”

“Yet in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has already been done, and then show that A — with the conditions being exactly the same — could have been chosen instead of B. Since it is utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is absolutely necessary for mathematical proof, free will must always remain a theory. The most you can say is that you believe the bank robber had a choice, but there is absolutely no way this can be proven.”

“I may be unable to prove that he was not compelled to rob that bank and kill the teller, but it is my opinion that he didn’t have to do what he did.”

“I’m not in the mood to argue that point, but at least we have arrived at a bit of knowledge that is absolutely undeniable, for we have just learned that it is mathematically impossible for any person to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the will of man is free, yet a moment ago you made the dogmatic statement that man’s will is definitely free.”

“My apology, dear Sir; what I meant to say was that it is the consensus of opinion that the will of man is free.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following: If it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something false?”

“Yes, it is possible.”

“No, Rabbi, it is not possible.”

“That, my friend, is your opinion, not mine.”

“Let me show you that it is not an opinion. If you could prove that determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the opposite of determinism, true? And didn’t we just prove that it is mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means that it is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false?”

“I see what you mean, and again, I apologize for thinking this was a matter of opinion.”

“This means that we have arrived at another bit of mathematical knowledge, and that is, although we can never prove free will true or determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving determinism true or free will false. Now tell me, Rabbi, supposing your belief in free will absolutely prevents the discovery of knowledge that, when released, can remove the very things you would like to rid the world of, things you preach against such as war, crime, sin, hate, discrimination, etc., what would you say then?”

“If this is true and you can prove it, all I can say is that God’s ways are mysterious and surpass my understanding. I enjoyed talking with you, son, and perhaps I shall live to see the day when all evil will be driven from our lives.”

“Even if you don’t live to see it, please rest assured the day is not far away and that it must come about the very moment certain facts pertaining to the nature of man are brought to light, because it is God’s will.”

“I must leave now, but thank you for sharing your insights with me.”

After the rabbi left, our conversation continued . . .

“Boy, that was really something to see; you almost sound like old Socrates himself. Just imagine, you actually got the rabbi to admit that free will is nothing other than an opinion. But you weren’t serious about getting rid of all the evil in the world, were you?”

“I have never been more serious in my entire life.”

“Why do you predict war to end sooner than crime?”

“To end any particular evil (and you are in for so many surprises) requires that the people involved understand the principles that will be explained. When they do, they will be given no choice but to stop the evil, whatever it may be that they are engaged in. But whereas it is only necessary to get the leaders of the world to understand the principles to end all war, it takes all mankind to understand them to put a permanent end to crime.”

“But how is it possible for you, just with your reasoning, nothing else, to put an end to all war, crime, sin, hate, etc.? If I must say, this sounds completely contrary to reason.”

“Are you asking if it is possible or telling me that you know it is impossible?”

“After what you just demonstrated to the rabbi, I certainly would never tell you it is impossible when I don’t know if it is, but it seems so incredible to hear someone say he is going to remove all evil from the entire earth that I cannot help but be in disbelief. Well, what is your first step? How do you go about making a start?”

“The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will of man is not free.”

“But if you plan to use the knowledge that man’s will is not free as a point from which to start your chain of reasoning, couldn’t you get the same results without demonstrating that man’s will is not free, simply by showing what must follow as a consequence?”

“Yes, I could, and that was a very sharp question, but my purpose in proving that man’s will is not free is not so much to have a sound basis from which to reason but to show exactly why the will of man is not free.”

 

[steve_bank]

Peaceable
You haven't even given me a chance. This is not my first rodeo. Anything I do to summarize this knowledge will just be a presentation of what is to come

So, based on obscure book nobody has ever heard of the world will play out according to his ideas?

Talk about a messiah complex.

You have competition from No Robots on the forum. Acceding to the obscure book of his author nobody has ever heard of the world is becoming Jewish and Marxist,.

I'd like to see a No Robots vs Peacegirl debate over the fate of the world. Winner takes all.

 

[bilby]

Is it possible for a person to believe that the Earth is flat now that we have mathematical proof of its circular shape?

YES!

Not only is it possible, it's quite common. People are really, really good at believing shit that has been proven false.

Believing shit that ain't so is practically our defining feature as a species.

The only reason we still have opinions on both sides of this subject is because we don’t know for a mathematical fact whether the will of man is or is not free.

This here is the central failing of your entire position. This is NOT the ONLY reason (and even the most cursory study of reality would tell anyone who cares to know that that is the case).

Your dad had a woefully inadequate understanding of humanity if he could write that shit in all apparent seriousness.

And from such foundations, only a woefully inadequate set of ideas can arise.

 

[peacegirl]

Peaceable
You haven't even given me a chance. This is not my first rodeo. Anything I do to summarize this knowledge will just be a presentation of what is to come

So, based on obscure book nobody has ever heard of the world will play out according to his ideas?

Just because his book was never brought to light during his lifetime doesn't make his knowledge false.

Talk about a messiah complex.

He did not have a Messiah complex. This was written in one of his earlier books.

A New Earth took five years to complete. It was the author’s 3rd attempt to reveal a scientific discovery capable of preventing war, crime, discrimination, and many other evils plaguing mankind. This knowledge reveals that the long-awaited Messiah (the solution to all our problems) is nothing other than a psychological law of man’s nature which has remained undiscovered, like atomic energy, until now. By discovering this well-concealed law and demonstrating its power, a catalyst is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling. Very few people, upon first reading the Preface that follows, will believe these changes possible. However, mathematical proof is undeniably established as the text is read and understood.

You have competition from No Robots on the forum. Acceding to the obscure book of his author nobody has ever heard of the world is becoming Jewish and Marxist,.

This book is not about religion. In fact, religion will die off when our prayers for deliverance from evil are answered. I'm not interested in competing with anyone. This knowledge stands on its own, and nothing can match it. This book has nothing to do with Marxism. He wrote:

Communism and the dream of socialism came into existence out of mathematical necessity as a reaction to injustice, but once the injustice is removed, communism and the dream of socialism have no further value. It was assumed that Marx had all the answers, but in this new world, nobody will tell anybody what to do, although each person will be mathematically prevented from desiring to hurt others.

I'd like to see a No Robots vs Peacegirl debate over the fate of the world. Winner takes all.

Not happening.

 

[peacegirl]

Is it possible for a person to believe that the Earth is flat now that we have mathematical proof of its circular shape?

YES!

Not only is it possible, it's quite common. People are really, really good at believing shit that has been proven false.

This has nothing to do with his discovery. He didn't have to be exact to get across his point. He also said that 98% of mankind believes man's will is free. Are you going to pick on him because he said 98%, which you may disagree with? This is what is going to delay this knowledge from being brought to light if people respond like you, only to start an argument so they can be right.

Believing shit that ain't so is practically our defining feature as a species.

You are not exempt from believing shit bilby.

The only reason we still have opinions on both sides of this subject is because we don’t know for a mathematical fact whether the will of man is or is not free.

This here is the central failing of your entire position. This is NOT the ONLY reason (and even the most cursory study of reality would tell anyone who cares to know that that is the case).

Your dad had a woefully inadequate understanding of humanity if he could write that shit in all apparent seriousness.

And from such foundations, only a woefully inadequate set of ideas can arise.

All you are doing is making trivial points as if they matter in terms of his proof. It appears you have no desire to read or understand the important point he was making because you didn't even address it or have any relevant questions. GO FIGURE!!! This truth may cause people to squirm if they believe man has free will. Sorry about that but I refuse to back down because of people like bilby who have pegged me as someone not to take seriously.

 

[steve_bank]

Send a copy with your commentary to each representative at the United Nations and each member of the US congress.

See what the responses are.

Create a web site with videos. Promote the web site on social media like X.

Arguing with us here and on other sites is not gong to get you anywhere.

You would have to come out of your shell and expose yourself.

As I suggested before there is George Noory and Coast To Coast AM. You could possibly become a phone guest regular.

There are opportunities for you.

 

[peacegirl]

Send a copy with your commentary to each representative at the United Nations and each member of the US congress.

See what the responses are.

No way. This knowledge is so far removed from their ideas, it would have to confirmed by the scientific community before they would listen. Actually, the author did try that strategy but it failed unsurprisingly. I know you’re trying to make fun of me but won’t work Steve.

Create a web site with videos. Promote the web site on social media like X.

I’m trying. You can hear him on my website (which needs improvement) discussing Chapter One on one of his later books.

Arguing with us here and on other sites is not gong to get you anywhere.

Probably not but it’s all I can do at this point.

You would have to come out of your shell and expose yourself.

Believe me, if I could contact someone with more influence, it would be a game changer.

As I suggested before there is George Noory and Coast To Coast AM. You could possibly become a phone guest regular.

There are opportunities for you.

I wish I could but I have a health condition that forces me to conserve energy. It’s already beginning to be too much having to listen to the trolls who are trying to wear me down.

 

[bilby]

Is it possible for a person to believe that the Earth is flat now that we have mathematical proof of its circular shape?

YES!

Not only is it possible, it's quite common. People are really, really good at believing shit that has been proven false.

This has nothing to do with his discovery.

Then why was he wasting our time with it?

He didn't have to be exact to get across his point.

Maybe not. It wouldn't hurt though.

He also said that 98% of mankind believes man's will is free. Are you going to pick on him because he said 98%, which you may disagree with?

That depends; Was it a part of his thesis, or just more pointless timewasting?

This is what is going to delay this knowledge from being brought to light if people respond like you,

Yup. Getting people to believe nonsense often founders on peoples reluctance to accept nonsense, or timewasting.

only to start an argument so they can be right.

You have that bass-ackwards; I am starting an argument because he is wrong.

Demonstrably wrong.

Believing shit that ain't so is practically our defining feature as a species.

You are not exempt from believing shit bilby.

I never for a minute suggested that I was.

The only reason we still have opinions on both sides of this subject is because we don’t know for a mathematical fact whether the will of man is or is not free.

This here is the central failing of your entire position. This is NOT the ONLY reason (and even the most cursory study of reality would tell anyone who cares to know that that is the case).

Your dad had a woefully inadequate understanding of humanity if he could write that shit in all apparent seriousness.

And from such foundations, only a woefully inadequate set of ideas can arise.

All you are doing is making trivial points as if they matter in terms of his proof.

No, I am pointing out the fundamental flaws you don't want to admit to.

It appears you have no desire to read or understand the important point he was making because you didn't even address it or have any relevant questions.

I directly adressed what he said. If that wasn't important, that's on him, wasting our time with trivia.

GO FIGURE!!! This truth may cause people to squirm if they believe man has free will.

The truth isn't something you would recognize if it bit you on the ass.

Sorry about that but I refuse to back down because of people like bilby who have pegged me as someone not to take seriously.

You have ably demonstrated that you are someone not to take seriously. All I have done is point it out.

I note that you have not even attempted to refute my criticism; You probably should do so, if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[peacegirl]

Is it possible for a person to believe that the Earth is flat now that we have mathematical proof of its circular shape?

YES!

Not only is it possible, it's quite common. People are really, really good at believing shit that has been proven false.

This has nothing to do with his discovery.

Then why was he wasting our time with it?

He didn't have to be exact to get across his point.

Maybe not. It wouldn't hurt though.

He also said that 98% of mankind believes man's will is free. Are you going to pick on him because he said 98%, which you may disagree with?

That depends; Was it a part of his thesis, or just more pointless timewasting?

Your tone is hard to stomach. I’m passing on this one.

This is what is going to delay this knowledge from being brought to light if people respond like you,

Yup. Getting people to believe nonsense often founders on peoples reluctance to accept nonsense, or timewasting.

Again, you are refuting something you have no understanding of. WTF!

only to start an argument so they can be right.

You have that bass-ackwards; I am starting an argument because he is wrong.

Demonstrably wrong.

Nope. he was not wrong. We can never prove free will true for the reasons given. If you don’t like it, lump it!

Believing shit that ain't so is practically our defining feature as a species.

You are not exempt from believing shit bilby.

I never for a minute suggested that I was.

That’s not how you come off.

The only reason we still have opinions on both sides of this subject is because we don’t know for a mathematical fact whether the will of man is or is not free.

This here is the central failing of your entire position. This is NOT the ONLY reason (and even the most cursory study of reality would tell anyone who cares to know that that is the case).

What cursory study of reality are you talking about? All you are doing is accepting the status quo. You are not inquisitive enough to even open your mind to the possibility that he may have something of true significance.

Your dad had a woefully inadequate understanding of humanity if he could write that shit in all apparent seriousness.

And from such foundations, only a woefully inadequate set of ideas can arise.

All you are doing is making trivial points as if they matter in terms of his proof.

No, I am pointing out the fundamental flaws you don't want to admit to.

You haven’t understood anything or read anything, so how can you point out fundamental flaws?

It appears you have no desire to read or understand the important point he was making because you didn't even address it or have any relevant questions.

I directly adressed what he said. If that wasn't important, that's on him, wasting our time with trivia.

Focusing on a triviality is a distraction, nothing more. Even if there are people who believe the earth is flat, this has nothing to do with his demonstration as to why man’s will is not free and how this knowledge can benefit our world! If you want to use this comment against him, go ahead.

GO FIGURE!!! This truth may cause people to squirm if they believe man has free will.

The truth isn't something you would recognize if it bit you on the ass.

Your snarky responses will get you nowhere. I give people enough credit to see through you.

Sorry about that but I refuse to back down because of people like bilby who have pegged me as someone not to take seriously.

You have ably demonstrated that you are someone not to take seriously. All I have done is point it out.

I note that you have not even attempted to refute my criticism; You probably should do so, if you want to be taken seriously.

Your criticism isn’t worth refuting because there is nothing to refute. If you conclude from that one statement that his discovery must be flawed, then this book is not for you.

 

[BSilvEsq]

This responds to Peacegirl's Post No. 1991 (https://iidb.org/threads/according-...ll-does-not-exist.27739/page-100#post-1326318), which provides an excerpt from her father's book, which is said to present a map of the path to achieving world peace. As stated in the excerpts:

"The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will of man is not free.”​

The excerpt in Peacegirl's post consists largely of a fictional colloquy between the author and a rabbi. Aside from the author dubbing himself to be as wise and skillful as Socrates (using the devise of having a third party offer that observation), the colloquy is offered as a proof that it is possible to prove that Free Will does not exist, which the excerpt states to be the first step of the path to world peace.

Among other problems, the author uses the terms Free Will and Determinism without defining the terms or explaining what the author means by the use of the terms. We all know that different people assign different meanings to these terms, so it is necessary to explain the meanings of the terms in the context of the discussion.

Of even greater significance, and separate and apart from the foregoing, the quoted colloquy, if taken at face value, proves that the "first step" of the path to world peace claimed to be shown by the book is impossible to take.

AUTHOR'S CONTENTION NO. 1​

Without plainly or clearly stating it as a syllogism, the author sets forth the building blocks for the following syllogism:

1. If it is impossible to prove the existence of Free Will is true, it is equally impossible to prove the existence of Free Will is false.

2. It is Impossible to prove the existence of Free Will is true.

Therefore

3. It is Impossible to prove the existence of Free Will is false.

This syllogism is logically sound based on the stated premises.

AUTHOR'S CONTENTION NO. 2​

"[A]lthough we can never prove free will true or determinism false, there still exists a possibility of proving determinism true or free will false."

The assertion in Contention No. 2 that is is possible to prove the existence of Free Will is false (putatively by proving that Determinism is true) is a direct contradiction to the conclusion of the syllogism developed in Contention No. 1 that "It is Impossible to prove the existence of Free Will is false."

Contention No. 2 also is the result of the fallacy of confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient condition, as explained below with respect to Contention No. 3.

AUTHOR'S CONTENTION NO. 3​

The author offers the following two statements:

“If you could prove that determinism is false, wouldn’t this prove free will, which is the opposite of determinism, true? And didn’t we just prove that it is mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means that it is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false?”

and

"it is mathematically impossible to prove free will true, which means that it is absolutely impossible to prove determinism false"

Through the foregoing two statements, the author (i) equates the falsification of Determinism with the proof of the truth/existence of Free Will, and (ii) equates the falsification of Free Will with proof of the truth/existence of Determinism. As explained below, the foregoing are both false equivalences -- (i) even within Incompatibilism, which posits the impossibility of the concurrent truth/existence of Determinism and Free Will, and (ii) certainly within Compatibilism, which accepts the possibility of the concurrent truth/existence of Determinism and Free Will.

The author bases his false equivalences on the assertion that Free Will "is the opposite" of Determinism. In fact, Free Will and Determinism are not "the opposite" of one another -- not even in Incompatibilism. In logic, A and Not A are the opposite of one another. By the same token, the opposite of Free Will is Not Free Will, and the opposite of Determinism is Not Determinism. But, Free Will is not the opposite of Not Determinism and Determinism is not the opposite of Not Free Will.

Within Incompatibilism, the incompatibility of Determinism and Free Will arises from the fact that the falsity/absence of either is a necessary condition to the truth/existence of the other. But Incompatibilism does not posit that the falsity/absence of Determinism or Free Will is a sufficient condition to the truth/existence of the other. The author's mistake is to equate a necessary condition with a sufficient condition, which is a fallacy that is taught in Logic 101. See, e.g., the discussion at https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/confusion-of-necessary.html and https://www.kaptest.com/study/lsat/...roW87IpgcYFTC8OfNpk5SuzF9FLoq03oQ9l6BnpbbTW8n. As explained in the Kaplan LSAT website:

Understanding Necessary and Sufficient Conditions​

Before delving into the specific characteristics and examples of necessary and sufficient conditions, let’s define and differentiate between the two:

1. Necessary Condition: A necessary condition is a condition that must be present in order for a particular outcome to occur. In other words, it is a requirement that must be met to achieve the desired result. Without this condition, the desired outcome is impossible.

2. Sufficient Condition: A sufficient condition is a condition that guarantees, by its presence alone, the desired outcome. It is sufficient to bring about the desired result, regardless of any other factors.

AUTHOR'S CONTENTION NO. 4​

The author asserts that the path to world peace begins with proof that Free Will does not exist (or is a false construct). Specifically, the author asserts:

"The first step is to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of doubt, and regardless of any opinions to the contrary, that the will of man is not free."​

But, the author has already claimed to provide a mathematical proof that it is impossible to prove the existence of Free Will and has also asserted as an axiom that it is mathematically impossible to disprove something that is incapable of being proved.

Thus, whether or not proof of the falsity of Free Will is a necessary condition to achieving world peace (as the author asserts), the author has stated both (i) that such proof is impossible, and (ii) that such proof is possible -- thereby setting his entire thesis upon a foundation that he, himself, has built, which is internally inconsistent and logically incoherent.