“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[pood]

It’s just too hard to convince people that they could not have done otherwise due to their genetics, predispositions, and environment and that they can only move in one direction.

It is generally hard to convince people of things that aren’t true, excepting of course gullible MAGAts.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your influence in the world is determined by how events progress

Specifically, the events in your head, which are 'you'.

If the world is deterministic, what you think and do is shaped

No, *was* shaped. It is no longer *being* shaped by those things, and is instead now *has* that shape, and *as a thing with that shape*, takes the actions things with that shape takes, and is thus responsible as what it is for what it does, since responsibility is not zero sum.

Round and round we go, weeeee!

 

[pood]

Peacegirl

Are your posts a series of deterministic causal links predetermine before you were born and before the planet formed?

I tried to explain the best way I can as to why man’s will is not free. This entire universe is controlled by mathematical laws over which we have absolutely no control

Mathematical “laws” do not “control” anything. They are descriptions.

I guess it depends how you want to define "law." In my dialectic, natural laws do control what we can and cannot do. I cannot do what I prefer less. I do not prefer to kill someone, so the alternative is not free. I am subject to this law just as you are. You still don't get it.

There is nothing to get. Science uses mathematics to describe regular natural processes. Mathematics prescribes nothing. Also, your “man’s will is not free” has nothing to do with maths anyway.

. Our destiny is predetermined by these laws which means that even though our destiny has not yet unfolded, we can only go in one direction.

No laws “determine” anything.

You're playing with words Pood. Our will is not free and we cannot change that no matter how you try to use modal logic to disprove what is. Call it a law or not, it doesn't change a thing. Unfortunately, the longer the belief in compatibilist or libertarian free will continues, the longer it will take for world peace to prevail.

PREFACE: Any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for recognition and development.

There are no maths or “mathematical manner” in your author’s claims.

Determinism does not force on us what we ourselves don’t permit.

Right. That’s a compatibilist point of view.

No it is not. It just shows me that you carelessly glossed over his explanation as to why "doing something of one's own free will" only means "doing something of one's own desire", but that desire is not a free one. This has nothing to do with compatibilism.

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.”

Determinism is not the opposite of free will. Indeterminism is.

 

[Jarhyn]

Also, your “man’s will is not free” has nothing to do with maths anyway.

Well arguably if "freedoms" are the differences of behavior associated with the properties of the shape seen by varying the context about the shape, and wills are the freedoms laid out in terms of a state machine of some sort into its behavior, then it's more a pure math problem, or perhaps the description of all math problems.

In fact recalling the language about the basis of representation theory, I think there's a parallel or even isomorphism there... And representation theory is seen as the Grand Unifying Theory of math.

 

[Jarhyn]

@pood In my mind it's kind of like trying to figure out the "SUBLEQ"/NAND (or their inverses) of whatever machine family our physics classifies as an instance of.

In some ways, I think that our universe is probably, quite specifically, a "complete" manner of machine with no halting condition.

If that is the case, then there's some kind of single-argument instruction that has a single piece of non-local data associated with it whose execution at every location would explain the action of every moment, if it's an extension of "Turing Machines" into the complex space.

This is what people seek in the Grand Unifying Theory of Physics: an equation where the source of all numbers is "knowable" given a reference frame, no matter which reference frame you select.

This may not be possible, insofar as Minecraft Steve has no basis for parsing the Minecraft server loader moment, since while it operates under the same GUT of function, the vacuum state (the higher level rules) is "false", and the apparent physics are built on an architecture capable of radically different function (a C program's rules and flow and behavior, while reified with assembly, only account for a tiny subset of assembly sequences). There's just no context for understanding what built those series of facts just-so, because that part of its function doesn't happen observably during normal play.

This is one of the reasons I use computer science and math to understand theological questions: because they are just really weird math questions.

I find it ironic. I share a lot in common with the common Internet crank. Maybe one of the only thing that separates me is that I will regularly say that, and have self awareness, not just tangential such that I miss it but that I look right at it and point and loudly bring attention to it in an explicit and long-winded way.

But if there is any other thing that separates, it is that I approach religion as if it must fit into math rather than approaching math from the perspective of someone besotted with religion.

 

[peacegirl]

It’s just too hard to convince people that they could not have done otherwise due to their genetics, predispositions, and environment and that they can only move in one direction.

It is generally hard to convince people of things that aren’t true, excepting of course gullible MAGAts.

Ad hom. What a hypocrite!

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

Are your posts a series of deterministic causal links predetermine before you were born and before the planet formed?

I tried to explain the best way I can as to why man’s will is not free. This entire universe is controlled by mathematical laws over which we have absolutely no control

Mathematical “laws” do not “control” anything. They are descriptions.

I guess it depends how you want to define "law." In my dialectic, natural laws do control what we can and cannot do. I cannot do what I prefer less. I do not prefer to kill someone, so the alternative is not free. I am subject to this law just as you are. You still don't get it.

There is nothing to get. Science uses mathematics to describe regular natural processes. Mathematics prescribes nothing. Also, your “man’s will is not free” has nothing to do with maths anyway.

He clarified what he meant by mathematical in the context he used it.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification please note that the words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’ and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific. Consequently, 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.

I am not going to hand the proof to you on a silver platter when you never took his work seriously starting back at ff. The fact that you keep telling me that the expression "compelled, of his own free will" is contradictory when "of his own free will" only means "of his own desire" and is not contradictory when the term "compelled" is used along with it. Once again, the phrase, "I did it of my own free will" only means "I did it because I wanted to" and is a colloquial expression that we all use from time to time, but by no means does it indicate we actually have freedom of the will or the ability to do otherwise after a decision has been made and acted upon. The fact that you believe this expression is synonymous with compatibilism is a clear indication that you just glossed over Chapter One, or you read nothing at all.

. Our destiny is predetermined by these laws which means that even though our destiny has not yet unfolded, we can only go in one direction.

No laws “determine” anything.

You're playing with words Pood. Our will is not free and we cannot change that no matter how you try to use modal logic to disprove what is. Call it a law or not, it doesn't change a thing. Unfortunately, the longer the belief in compatibilist or libertarian free will continues, the longer it will take for world peace to prevail.

PREFACE: Any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for recognition and development.

There are no maths or “mathematical manner” in your author’s claims.

Scroll up.

Determinism does not force on us what we ourselves don’t permit.

Right. That’s a compatibilist point of view.

No it is not. It just shows me that you carelessly glossed over his explanation as to why "doing something of one's own free will" only means "doing something of one's own desire", but that desire is not a free one. This has nothing to do with compatibilism.

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.”

Determinism is not the opposite of free will. Indeterminism is.

Insofar as this debate goes, determinism and free will are opposites, not indeterminism. Indeterminism just means something is not yet determined as to the cause. Someone comes to a doctor and has unexplained symptoms, but the cause has not yet been determined. That doesn't mean there isn't a cause. It just means it hasn't been identified yet. Free will, by definition, means that we could have chosen another option than the one that was in fact chosen. Talking about other worlds doesn't even relate because we are talking about the individual that made the choice at a particular moment in time --- in this world --- the only world where we are able to apply our observations to reality. Bring your modal logic down to reality, will you?

 

[steve_bank]

How can the universe be anything but complete? It is what it is no more no less,.

We try to fit the universe into terms we create in the tiny infinitesimally small volume of our brains.

 

[pood]

It’s just too hard to convince people that they could not have done otherwise due to their genetics, predispositions, and environment and that they can only move in one direction.

It is generally hard to convince people of things that aren’t true, excepting of course gullible MAGAts.

Ad hom. What a hypocrite!

You still don’t know what ad hom means.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl

Are your posts a series of deterministic causal links predetermine before you were born and before the planet formed?

I tried to explain the best way I can as to why man’s will is not free. This entire universe is controlled by mathematical laws over which we have absolutely no control

Mathematical “laws” do not “control” anything. They are descriptions.

I guess it depends how you want to define "law." In my dialectic, natural laws do control what we can and cannot do. I cannot do what I prefer less. I do not prefer to kill someone, so the alternative is not free. I am subject to this law just as you are. You still don't get it.

There is nothing to get. Science uses mathematics to describe regular natural processes. Mathematics prescribes nothing. Also, your “man’s will is not free” has nothing to do with maths anyway.

He clarified what he meant by mathematical in the context he used it.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification please note that the words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’ and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific. Consequently, 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.

Neither. “scientific” nor “mathematical” are synonyms for “undeniable.”

I am not going to hand the proof to you on a silver platter when you never took his work seriously starting back at ff. The fact that you keep telling me that the expression "compelled, of his own free will" is contradictory when "of his own free will" only means "of his own desire" and is not contradictory when the term "compelled" is used along with it. Once again, the phrase, "I did it of my own free will" only means "I did it because I wanted to" and is a colloquial expression that we all use from time to time, but by no means does it indicate we actually have freedom of the will or the ability to do otherwise after a decision has been made and acted upon.

Doing what I want to do, free of external compulsion or impediment, is compatibilism. Obviously we can’t do otherwise AFTER a decision has been made, but that is not the issue. The issue is that we COULD HAVE DONE, other than what we in fact did. You have not demonstrated otherwise.

The fact that you believe this expression is synonymous with compatibilism is a clear indication that you just glossed over Chapter One, or you read nothing at all.

See above about compatibilism.

. Our destiny is predetermined by these laws which means that even though our destiny has not yet unfolded, we can only go in one direction.

No laws “determine” anything.

You're playing with words Pood. Our will is not free and we cannot change that no matter how you try to use modal logic to disprove what is. Call it a law or not, it doesn't change a thing. Unfortunately, the longer the belief in compatibilist or libertarian free will continues, the longer it will take for world peace to prevail.

PREFACE: Any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for recognition and development.

There are no maths or “mathematical manner” in your author’s claims.

Scroll up.

Determinism does not force on us what we ourselves don’t permit.

Right. That’s a compatibilist point of view.

No it is not. It just shows me that you carelessly glossed over his explanation as to why "doing something of one's own free will" only means "doing something of one's own desire", but that desire is not a free one. This has nothing to do with compatibilism.

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.”

Determinism is not the opposite of free will. Indeterminism is.

Insofar as this debate goes, determinism and free will are opposites, not indeterminism. Indeterminism just means something is not yet determined as to the cause.

Wrong. Quantum indeterminism has no causes.

Someone comes to a doctor and has unexplained symptoms, but the cause has not yet been determined. That doesn't mean there isn't a cause. It just means it hasn't been identified yet. Free will, by definition, means that we could have chosen another option than the one that was in fact chosen. Talking about other worlds doesn't even relate because we are talking about the individual that made the choice at a particular moment in time --- in this world --- the only world where we are able to apply our observations to reality. Bring your modal logic down to reality, will you?

Bring your meager knowledge of basic logic up to snuff, will you?

 

[Jarhyn]

How can the universe be anything but complete? It is what it is no more no less,.

We try to fit the universe into terms we create in the tiny infinitesimally small volume of our brains.

In the same way as a Turing machines is incomplete in the analog space: it takes an infinite number of operations in digital space to achieve a perfect analogy operation.

What may take thousands of gates and clock cycles to approximate here takes only perhaps one iteration to get the result much more "on the nose".

It can be complete in one manner, but not complete in a larger scale, with respect to numbers inaccessible to us, for example.

 

[peacegirl]

How can the universe be anything but complete? It is what it is no more no less,.

We try to fit the universe into terms we create in the tiny infinitesimally small volume of our brains.

No, we're not fitting the universe into terms we create. Human beings are, by nature, observers and that is where new discoveries and inventions are made. Whether or not we have free will is under the microscope because we are either morally responsible or not. This has huge implications for understanding human behavior.

 

[peacegirl]

It’s just too hard to convince people that they could not have done otherwise due to their genetics, predispositions, and environment and that they can only move in one direction.

It is generally hard to convince people of things that aren’t true, excepting of course gullible MAGAts.

Ad hom. What a hypocrite!

You still don’t know what ad hom means.

Calling me gullible indirectly is an attack and a way of trying to redirect the discussion to your advantage. You know what you're doing.

There’s nothing worse than when you’re debating someone who has no idea what they’re talking about, is obviously a fool, and to make it worse, smells like dirty socks.

Ugh. It’s just the worst. And they need to know just how uninformed they are (and that they smell like dirty socks).

Actually, they don’t. When your argument strays from the issue at hand to criticisms of the person you’re arguing with, you’re no longer communicating logically. Instead, you’re making an ad hominem attack.

What Is the Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy?

There’s nothing worse than when you’re debating someone who has no idea what they’re talking about, is obviously a fool, and to make…

www.grammarly.com

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

Are your posts a series of deterministic causal links predetermine before you were born and before the planet formed?

I tried to explain the best way I can as to why man’s will is not free. This entire universe is controlled by mathematical laws over which we have absolutely no control

Mathematical “laws” do not “control” anything. They are descriptions.

These laws DON'T control what you choose, but they DO control the route that must be taken in order to determine which option to act upon.

I guess it depends how you want to define "law." In my dialectic, natural laws do control what we can and cannot do. I cannot do what I prefer less. I do not prefer to kill someone, so the alternative is not free. I am subject to this law just as you are. You still don't get it.

There is nothing to get. Science uses mathematics to describe regular natural processes. Mathematics prescribes nothing. Also, your “man’s will is not free” has nothing to do with maths anyway.

He clarified what he meant by mathematical in the context he used it.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification please note that the words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’ and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific. Consequently, 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.

Neither. “scientific” nor “mathematical” are synonyms for “undeniable.”

He clarified what he meant by these words in the context he was using them, and that was enough.

I am not going to hand the proof to you on a silver platter when you never took his work seriously starting back at ff. The fact that you keep telling me that the expression "compelled, of his own free will" is contradictory when "of his own free will" only means "of his own desire" and is not contradictory when the term "compelled" is used along with it. Once again, the phrase, "I did it of my own free will" only means "I did it because I wanted to" and is a colloquial expression that we all use from time to time, but by no means does it indicate we actually have freedom of the will or the ability to do otherwise after a decision has been made and acted upon.

Doing what I want to do, free of external compulsion or impediment, is compatibilism. Obviously we can’t do otherwise AFTER a decision has been made, but that is not the issue. The issue is that we COULD HAVE DONE, other than what we in fact did. You have not demonstrated otherwise.

The fact that you believe this expression is synonymous with compatibilism is a clear indication that you just glossed over Chapter One, or you read nothing at all.

See above about compatibilism.

I have said this before, but it goes over your head. No one can do otherwise and not do otherwise simultaneously. Freedom of the will (correctly defined in regard to this debate, not your free will that is arbitrarily defined) is impossible given our brain states each moment and what we are contemplating. Any movement we make is away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position and this leads us in one direction only. Life does not move in the direction of dissatisfaction when something offering greater satisfaction is available. If this were possible, we could then say our will is free to do either/or even when there are meaningful differences to choose from. But this is an impossibility. This is the correct definition of determinism, not your indeterminism. Logic can make something look perfectly valid but still be unsound. Remember Occam's Razor. The hoops people are jumping through to try to prove free will true with its many worlds and dimensions is quite imaginative, but it's wrong nevertheless. Now let's deal with the truth and discuss what really matters; moral responsibility.

. Our destiny is predetermined by these laws which means that even though our destiny has not yet unfolded, we can only go in one direction.

No laws “determine” anything.

It does not determine what we will choose, but it does determine the way in which our decisions are made.

You're playing with words Pood. Our will is not free and we cannot change that no matter how you try to use modal logic to disprove what is. Call it a law or not, it doesn't change a thing. Unfortunately, the longer the belief in compatibilist or libertarian free will continues, the longer it will take for world peace to prevail.

PREFACE: Any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for recognition and development.

There are no maths or “mathematical manner” in your author’s claims.

Scroll up.

Determinism does not force on us what we ourselves don’t permit.

Right. That’s a compatibilist point of view.

No it is not. It just shows me that you carelessly glossed over his explanation as to why "doing something of one's own free will" only means "doing something of one's own desire", but that desire is not a free one. This has nothing to do with compatibilism.

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.”

Determinism is not the opposite of free will. Indeterminism is.

Insofar as this debate goes, determinism and free will are opposites, not indeterminism. Indeterminism just means something is not yet determined as to the cause.

Wrong. Quantum indeterminism has no causes.

Quantum indeterminism has nothing to do with human decision making. Get with the program Pood and stop stepping out of bounds.

Someone comes to a doctor and has unexplained symptoms, but the cause has not yet been determined. That doesn't mean there isn't a cause. It just means it hasn't been identified yet. Free will, by definition, means that we could have chosen another option than the one that was in fact chosen. Talking about other worlds doesn't even relate because we are talking about the individual that made the choice at a particular moment in time --- in this world --- the only world where we are able to apply our observations to reality. Bring your modal logic down to reality, will you?

Bring your meager knowledge of basic logic up to snuff, will you?

No comparison. You are bringing a theory into the discussion which really doesn't relate on the macro level of human decision-making. It is a LAW OF OUR NATURE that we move away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction every single moment of our lives. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS! Your saying laws don't work that way means nothing whether you use the word "law" or not. This also does not mean our brains don't learn from previous experiences and apply those new antecedents to make better future choices. Determinism isn't fixed like that.

 

[pood]

I have said this before, but it goes over your head.

Talk about the pot, kettle, etc., as follows:

No one can do otherwise and not do otherwise simultaneously.

And since no one ever said that they could, this just shows how the entire discussion has gone whooshing over your head.

 

[pood]

It’s just too hard to convince people that they could not have done otherwise due to their genetics, predispositions, and environment and that they can only move in one direction.

It is generally hard to convince people of things that aren’t true, excepting of course gullible MAGAts.

Ad hom. What a hypocrite!

You still don’t know what ad hom means.

Calling me gullible indirectly is an attack and a way of trying to redirect the discussion to your advantage. You know what you're doing.

I wasn’t referring to you personally, but then again, since you voted for Trump, shoe, fit, and all that.

 

[Elixir]

If a person does not wish their gullibility to be identified as such, they should not flaunt it. If a person voted for Trump to “own the libs” regardless of any possible cost to themself, that person may not be gullible.

But if they voted for Trump due to a sincere belief that voting for The Felon would benefit them personally, and they have not donated millions to his campaign, that person is gullible.

 

[peacegirl]

I have said this before, but it goes over your head.

Talk about the pot, kettle, etc., as follows:

No one can do otherwise and not do otherwise simultaneously.

This IS the definition of free will (being able to choose this or that without compulsion or necessity), not your compatibilist definition which leaves out internal necessity entirely. How can you leave out the most important aspect of how decisions are made?

And since no one ever said that they could, this just shows how the entire discussion gone whooshing over your head.

Nothing has gone whooshing over my head.

pood said:

Someone comes to a doctor and has unexplained symptoms, but the cause has not yet been determined. That doesn't mean there isn't a cause. It just means it hasn't been identified yet. Free will, by definition, means that we could have chosen another option than the one that was in fact chosen. Talking about other worlds doesn't even relate because we are talking about the individual that made the choice at a particular moment in time --- in this world --- the only world where we are able to apply our observations to reality. Bring your modal logic down to reality, will you?

Bring your meager knowledge of basic logic up to snuff, will you?

Your modal logic is full of cobwebs. Compatibilist free will is a manmade construct by using an arbitrary definition of what constitutes this type of free will. Not being unduly influenced by outside forces or not having OCD does not grant anyone free will to do other than what they, in fact, did. You have no proof that this person could have done otherwise, and if you are saying that in a different context, this person could have done otherwise, you're moving the goalposts. Don't you see this? And, btw, why would the belief that someone could have done otherwise even matter other than to assign moral responsibility and punishment for his bad choices? But if it is true that we can only move in one direction, the direction of what offers us greater satisfaction --- unless you can prove that we can move in the direction of dissatisfaction to greater dissatisfaction --- then this correct definition stands. How then can we hold this person culpable for doing what he couldn't help but to do? This is the conundrum, the elephant in the room that has been central to this debate and has caused philosophers to give up due to the implications of this position. This author took the knowledge of no free will and extended it to see where it leads (Chapter Two), but no seems to care. They just want to be right about their theories and conjectures at all costs.

 

[pood]

\

Nothing has gone whooshing over my head.

Of course it has, because I never said that anyone can do otherwise and not do otherwise at the same time!

From that alone it is plain you have no idea what this discussion is actually about.

 

[steve_bank]

How can the universe be anything but complete? It is what it is no more no less,.

We try to fit the universe into terms we create in the tiny infinitesimally small volume of our brains.

No, we're not fitting the universe into terms we create. Human beings are, by nature, observers and that is where new discoveries and inventions are made. Whether or not we have free will is under the microscope because we are either morally responsible or not. This has huge implications for understanding human behavior.

Cosmology tries to fit the universe into a mathematical model. Symbols imagined in our tiny squishy brains.

You try to fit reality into the eccentric ideas of your father.

Look up at the night sky and imagine that immense volume to that of your skull. To the OP in a p-philisophical sense reality is more than physics,it exists as you create it in that tiny volume of your skull.

Determinism and free will are human constructs we try to fit reality to.


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

My pragmatic answer it is not knowable and we have to make decisions regardless.

Time to put your theory to the test, are you bound by your theories?