Obviously it makes zero difference. Things that are unknowable and still pose a problem for people's brains, result in some of the stupidest statements anyone has ever made.
That is so vacuous that simply copying it for reference threatens to suck all the air out of the room I'm in.
That is exactly what this discussion is about. You can't have free will and not have free will at the same time unless you change the definition of "free will" to try to make these two opposite positions appear compatible. It's really as simple as that.
Enough Steve. You don't have a clue what this discovery is even about. You're making a fool of yourself.
No, compatibilist is a human construct, not determinism. Compatibilism fails on every front.
What are you even talking about? Your question isn't necessary for proof of determinism. You off on a tangent!
Time for you to stop discussing this topic with me. You have no understanding of his claims, so butt out.
That is exactly what this discussion is about. You can't have free will and not have free will at the same time unless you change the definition of "free will" to try to make these two opposite positions appear compatible. It's really as simple as that.
Lol.
Bullshit! You do not hold a candle in your effort to try to discredit his observations. It’s like saying one plus one is not two because you didn’t prove calculus.
Well, as freely as they may. When the composer is told "you will compose a song with these chords in this order or I murder your dog", they are not doing so freely; they are doing so under constraint and duress.
Determinism does not say the Big Bang plays chess or composes improv pieces. Chess players and jazz composers do these things because their talents lean in this direction. Predetermined only means that if we were able to go back to the beginning of time, we would see the steps that led up to the jazz musician composing his music and the chess player playing chess in the present moment. It also does not prescribe that the chess player must play chess or that the jazz musician must compose music. It is just that the historical preconditions played a part in leading up to this moment in time. When you say, "they do this freely" (i.e., without undue influence or physical constraint), you are using the term colloquially, not technically. In a free will/determinism debate, this needs to be qualified because the "free" you are using has nothing to do with the freedom of will that allows us to have been able to do other than what we did, IN ACTUALITY, not in theory. This been explained to you many times. Why do you keep conflating terms?
Vacuous response. Is this telling?
What's your point?peacegirl
The standard calculus classes like the ones I took go through basic proofs. Mean Value Theorem, the derivative, the Fundamental Theorem.
Proving 1 + 1 = 2 uniquely comes under number theory I believe, and involves Peano's Arut6hetc. There is a mathematician on the forum and it was touched on in the past. I don't claim to be a mathematician, nor a philosopher either.
Peano axioms - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Counting, natural numbers, and induction was back around 4th grade. For every positive integer x there is an x + 1.
I asked you to explain his discovery and you are unable to do so. Predeterminism only means that if determinism is true (which it is), then everything from the beginning of time must follow deterministic laws. This law of greater satisfaction (which is the author's proof that we can only go in one direction) does not prescribe anything, but it does show that we are part of the laws that make us who we are, and we cannot extract ourselves from it.
Quantum mechanics doesn't disprove human decision-making, which is not free, nor is any movement from here to there. Quantum mechanics is a red herring. We are talking about human will, not the behavior of nature at and below the scale of atoms.
I answered this by saying that where we all are at this point in time developed from previous points in time going all the way back to the beginning of time. As the author stated, the word cause is misleading because the past is gone. Everything occurs in the present. He tried to correct the use of this term in philosophy by saying that we make choices in the present based on what our brain is using (i.e., the antecedents) to decide which options are favorable. This is an important distinction as it leads to the two-sided equation. I can't move forward if no one is interested. Damn, I can't even get past Chapter One. And FYI, the author was not eccentric. He was an autodidact and thought outside of the box. If you call him names again, I will not engage with you.
Steve, if someone gives you an apple and you add an apple to it, how many apples do you have? If you say three, and we are using the same units of measure, you are wrong. If you want to add one drop of water to another drop of water, you don't get two drops of water. It all depends on what you're adding something to. Observation is part of epistemology, and it was through reading literature and philosophy, as well as astute observation that allowed Lessans to make these findings. Stop trying to disprove what you don't understand. Why is man's will not free? What is the two-sided equation? You are bringing everything into this but the kitchen sink (all unrelated to his presentation) without knowing what you're even refuting.
Look in a mirror for vacuity.Vacuous response. Is this telling?
What's your point?peacegirl
The standard calculus classes like the ones I took go through basic proofs. Mean Value Theorem, the derivative, the Fundamental Theorem.
Proving 1 + 1 = 2 uniquely comes under number theory I believe, and involves Peano's Arut6hetc. There is a mathematician on the forum and it was touched on in the past. I don't claim to be a mathematician, nor a philosopher either.
Peano axioms - Wikipedia
Counting, natural numbers, and induction was back around 4th grade. For every positive integer x there is an x + 1.
The demand that I answer your question doesn't even relate. It has nothing to do with his proof of determinism. I asked you to explain his discovery and you are unable to do so.
Quantum mechanics doesn't disprove human decision-making, which is not free, nor is any movement from here to there. Quantum mechanics is a red herring. We are talking about human will, not
I answered this by saying that where we all are at this point in time developed from previous points in time going all the way back to the beginning of time. As the author stated, the word cause is misleading because the past is gone. Everything occurs in the present. He tried to correct the use of this term in philosophy by saying that we make choices in the present based on what our brain is using (i.e., the antecedents) to decide which options are favorable. This is an important distinction as it leads to the two-sided equation. I can't move forward if no one is interested. Damn, I can't even get past Chapter One. And FYI, the author was not eccentric. He was an autodidact and thought outside of the box. If you call him names again, I will not engage with you.
Steve, if someone gives you an apple and you add an apple to it, how many apples do you have? If you say three, and we are using the same units of measure, you are wrong. If you want to add one drop of water to another drop of water, you don't get two drops of water. It all depends on what you're adding something to. Observation is part of epistemology, and it was through reading literature and philosophy, as well as astute observation that allowed Lessans to make these findings. Stop trying to disprove what you don't understand. Why is man's will not free? What is the two-sided equation? You are bringing everything into this but the kitchen sink (all unrelated to his presentation) without knowing what you're even refuting.
