Search results for query: *

You’re obviously extremely angry. It’s why you post your nonsense with insult-laden vitriol. And yet you just got through saying atheists should ignore your nonsense, yet here you are promoting it.

Says the guy who is obviously furious that we don’t take his idiotic nonsense seriously. As you said, you do you, we’ll do us. So why are you still posting?

Indeed. Surprised this thread hasn’t gotten traction

And yet you came in here guns blazing, attacking all of as idiots, and starting numerous threads about your Holy Babble and your imaginary Jehovah. You stared a thread demanding evidence for evolution, and when it was supplied to you in abundance, you covered your ears and cried, Nyah, Nyah...

As you define it — hard determinism. I define it as soft determinism.

:rolleyes: Modal logic does not try to prove that determinism is false, nor could it, because .,. … compatibilism IS determinism! :rolleyes: And yes, once you made the choice it could have been otherwise because no contingent truth never becomes a necessary truth and vice versa. :rolleyes...

Saw Bohemian Rhapsody last night. :) Full of factual errors no doubt done for dramatic purposes but great acting and gawd the music.

So one can follow the modal logic based on the above extract. If I have a choice between Pepsi and Coke, it is plainly possible that I pick one or the other, but surely neither pick is necessary — one can imagine a possible world in which I pick either drink without brining about a logical...

The above accords exactly with what I have been saying all along,

Careful, now. :grumpy:

Sigh. The word “contingent” has different meanings, including depending on, or able to be otherwise. The second sense which I am using is the modal logical sense. Since it is obvious that it is logically possible to choose from any number of alternatives, our choices are never necessary truths...

The bit you quoted from Stanford begins, “on the one hand…” without supplying the other hand. Everything I’m about to say I have said many times before. If someone new wants to join the convo, great. If not, there’s no I reason to go round the block for the 101st time when we, the usual...

Hey, I resemble that remark! My name IRL is Dave and I often explain shit to people in the pub, so … For example, once I tried to explain to a friend about the fabled two-slit experiment in a pub, but he didn’t give a shit, so there’s that.

I didn’t say it was OK to use it, only that the repl was OK insofar as it went, which wasn’t very far. But human summaries are usually superficial, too,

Is this AI slop, or just your own usual slop? Yes, contingent truths are, by definition, not necessary truths, Sorry to disappoint you,

As I have pointed out before, DBT is mixing up determinism with predeterminism. But the latter is not supported and for that matter, neither is the former, since the world is fundamentally not deterministic, but quantum indeterministic. Quantum indeterminism by itself does not support...

So every truth is a necessary truth? But that is obviously wrong. The antecedents of every act were also contingent.

Don’t know how the majority of decent people in this nauseating thread can bear participating in it. Rote disclaimer: any resemblance in the following work to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Hurrah, Huzzah, Gaza! The revolution will not be televised, It will be downloaded...

It is in the sense that there must be contingent truths about the world. Otherwise we get what is called modal collapse, the idea that all truths are necessary truths. But this is obviously false. The AI overview is OK as far as it goes but there is much more to it than that, including a...

On the off chance that anyone is reading this besides us usual suspects who have participated in this long conversation about determinism and free will, let me point out a few things. “Possible worlds” is not sci-fi. :rolleyes: It’s just shorthand for “possible states of affairs in the actual...