Proof of nonexistence of free will

There are actual and possible truths, and all truth must be possible to be actual. However, a possible truth must be possibly false, and an actual truth that is possibly false is rather an actual falsehood, since it is no longer an actual truth. Hence, an actual truth is possibly -- not necessarily -- an actual falsehood -- or just possibly false -- which makes it doubtful.

1 - Truth never ceases to be True therefore Truth is ACTUAL !

2 - A possible Truth is not a TRUTH !!! Possible concerns my knowing, not Truth !

.3 - ...if you paid a bit more attention to your own writing, given you seam to be fairly intelligent, you might get to something interesting...the potential is there !

1 - Concerning Newtonian Physics what I meant was more like, mechanics at work...

2 - Doubt itself imply´s the notion of Truth thus concerning the problem of Knowledge in the first place...

3 - Truth which is the object of Knowledge might or might not be known, therefore even through a negative you must refer to knowledge as concept...mind that !

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

1 - Truth never ceases to be True therefore Truth is ACTUAL !

So a possible truth is already an actuality?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

2 - A possible Truth is not a TRUTH !!! Possible concerns my knowing, not Truth !

So an impossible truth is also an actual truth?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

.3 - ...if you paid a bit more attention to your own writing, given you seam to be fairly intelligent, you might get to something interesting...the potential is there !

I don't regard your conclusions as something interesting, although they once were so: to me, your conception of truth is just outdated -- it is just the old "Penelope truth" waiting for us to rescue her (have I already said you are a romantic?).

As I said, truth can either be actual or possible. Your going for a walk in the park tomorrow is a possibility, or a possible actuality. After tomorrow, if you have gone for that walk, then it will be a past actuality, but even then you can doubt you have gone for that same walk, in which case it becomes again just a possibility. As you say, truth is very actual, but it is also very possible, and it must be possible in order to be actual: its being impossible destroys its actuality. But a possible truth must be also a possible falsehood:

guigus wrote:

There are actual and possible truths, and all truth must be possible to be actual. However, a possible truth must be possibly false, and an actual truth that is possibly false is rather an actual falsehood, since it is no longer an actual truth. Hence, an actual truth is possibly -- not necessarily -- an actual falsehood -- or just possibly false -- which makes it doubtful.

So we are back to what I said in my previous post: you are confusing actuality with truth.

guigus wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

1 - Truth never ceases to be True therefore Truth is ACTUAL !

So a possible truth is already an actuality?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

2 - A possible Truth is not a TRUTH !!! Possible concerns my knowing, not Truth !

So an impossible truth is also an actual truth?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

.3 - ...if you paid a bit more attention to your own writing, given you seam to be fairly intelligent, you might get to something interesting...the potential is there !

I don't regard your conclusions as something interesting, although they once were so: to me, your conception of truth is just outdated -- it is just the old "Penelope truth" waiting for us to rescue her (have I already said you are a romantic?).

"So a possible truth is already an actuality?"

1 - A possible Truth is not a Truth because possible does n´t mean it has/must occur, at least not in this Universe (maybe in a parallel Universe) but it just simply means it can eventually occur...

1.1 - Now, a TRUTH that was once regarded as a possibility given we did not know (problem of KNOWING) still is True even if we do not know its True...

1.2 - If it WILL happen, then its already True....
...if it is POSSIBLE that it will happen, then it must not necessarily be true !
Get it ?

"...your conception of truth is just outdated..."

1 - There is no other conception of Truth anywhere !
Or there is A TRUTH, or THERE IS NOT ! Again you are mistaken.
No such thing as "kind of" a truth...you must do some reading urgently !

"So an impossible truth is also an actual truth?"

A Truth mus always be possible otherwise how would it be True ?
Redundant to say that it is possible...it is ACTUAL !!!

So you are saying that being possible is the same as being actual? If so, then there are no actual truths, as according to you:

1) "A Truth mus always be possible otherwise how would it be True ?"
2) "A possible Truth is not a TRUTH !!!"

Congratulations again: you just did away with actual truths as well.

Quote:

So you are saying that being possible is the same as being actual? If so, then there are no actual truths, as according to you:

1) "A Truth mus always be possible otherwise how would it be True ?"
2) "A possible Truth is not a TRUTH !!!"

Congratulations again: you just did away with actual truths as well.

Oh man...you are incredible !!!

POSSIBLE means it CAN not that it IS !!!

A TRUTH means that it IS !!!

TRUTH must be possible, but possible must not be TRUE...(It may/can at best be true)

STOP to THINK if it is possible...I am honestly starting to doubt it...

Have you noticed that you start concerned about my conception of knowledge being incapable of being objectively tested only to later assert precisely that "we only know what is in our minds"? So you are concerned about your own conception of knowledge.

If the difference between knowledge and belief is personal choice then how can we ever agree on what knowledge is, where do you draw the line? If knowledge must be found to be proved in accord with objective reality how could you possibly do this? Since our only means of observing objective reality is through our perceptions of it, we can never know objects outside us. We only know what is in our minds. We can deduce that objects exist outside us but we can only experience that understanding subjectively.

Again, you are confusing knowledge with its object: although knowledge happens within our minds, it can only happen by referring to something outside our minds, even if that something is our minds taken as objects. There is no knowledge without an object of knowledge. Regarding actualities, the fact that you can take any actuality as a possibility does not mean you can invent it: knowledge refers to actualities, it cannot create them.

If all you have is your subjectivity, you will never be able to compare your knowledge with anything objective. Objective reality for you is nothing more than a supposition. One step further and you will say that the objective world does not exist and you are the only reality.

Quote:

Have you noticed that you start concerned about my conception of knowledge being incapable of being objectively tested only to later assert precisely that "we only know what is in our minds"? So you are concerned about your own conception of knowledge.

No I am not concerned here with my definition. I was stating the problem with your definition and giving a reason why I thought it was a problem and it just happens that it is also a good reason to use my definition. Here is what I said:

Quote:

If the difference between knowledge and belief is personal choice then how can we ever agree on what knowledge is, where do you draw the line? If knowledge must be found to be proved in accord with objective reality how could you possibly do this? Since our only means of observing objective reality is through our perceptions of it, we can never know objects outside us. We only know what is in our minds. We can deduce that objects exist outside us but we can only experience that understanding subjectively.

Because I could not be certain what you meant by "...depending on whether you take its object as an actuality (knowledge) or as a possibility (belief). " Especially the word "take". I was uncertain if it is up to you to "take" the object to be actual, as in a personal choice. Or if there was a higher standard or proof needed for knowledge's object to be "taken" as an actuality and so for it to really be knowledge and not a belief. If it was proof that is required what kind of proof is it if not a subjective one. For we can only know what's in our minds for that is all we can experience.

Quote:

Again, you are confusing knowledge with its object: although knowledge happens within our minds, it can only happen by referring to something outside our minds, even if that something is our minds taken as objects. There is no knowledge without an object of knowledge. Regarding actualities, the fact that you can take any actuality as a possibility does not mean you can invent it: knowledge refers to actualities, it cannot create them.

No, I never confuse knowledge with its object. You keep saying that knowledge "refers" to something outside our minds. Knowledge can only refer to things already in the mind. It cannot refer to something outside it. The world you know is only in your mind. You can think the knowledge you have refers to things outside yourself but that knowledge can only have connections to other things in your mind. Maybe you are thinking of the object in your mind and you visualize yourself next to it or something like that. But that is the only way you will ever know an object "outside" yourself. Objective reality is constantly triggering sensations or perceptions in us. When we see light, we do not see something outside our mind we see something built into it. The brain generates the color. Because of this we can never percieve beyond the barrior of the mind.

You say, "There is no knowledge without an object of knowledge." and this may be true. If by object you mean something to trigger knowledge. Whatever that trigger is, whether it creates a consistent stimulus or not (hallucination-like), it is not required to be apart of the definition of the knowledge it has helped, along with the brain, to create. So that I do not have to say I know something because I was stimulated by something I cannot know because it exists outside the boundary of the mind.

Quote:

If all you have is your subjectivity, you will never be able to compare your knowledge with anything objective. Objective reality for you is nothing more than a supposition. One step further and you will say that the objective world does not exist and you are the only reality.

I can never have objective knowledge. You say that for me I can only suppose there is a world outside me. Can you do better than suppose. Where do you get this deeper knowledge that can prove the existence of something outside us that we can only percieve in our minds. Is your perception of the world better than someone elses, what about people with different perceptions than yours. People without certain senses or people with synesthesia who see sounds and hear colors. Is what they experience not knowledge since it differs so drastically from your experience of knowledge? These objects you think of and refer to are never external to your mind they are concepts in your mind. You cannot be an unbiased judge of stimuli no matter how hard you try.

@ Possibility

I have a problem whenever the concept of possibility is exhaulted to a status equal with reality. Possibilities are just groups of certain conditions that seem likely to occur because of a consistency in our detection of the world we conclude that a pattern may follow. But whenever the term is used as something that speaks to alternative realities completely apart from the world we are in it loses its meaning.

This Universe is the master creater of all possibilities. It gives us all the information that we have. If we want to think of a new possible universe, say one that is totally random, we are given that possibility through this universe and that possibility is like a lesser incomplete version of the total reality.

So in this sense possibility is made up of particular percieved aspects of this universe combined to make a concept of a place not nearly concieved with the complexity that the real universe is composed of. Possibility is just a simulation of aspects of the world combined as a thought or imagining. Then there is reality which is only one possibility, the ultimate one.

Interesting post tomr...that ultimate Truth resides only to one true possibility is also my belief.

You are creating a problem where there is none: there is no need to "prove" there is an objective reality. Why? Because the concept of knowledge is unconceivable without it (which is the reason you felt compelled to agree with my assertion that "there is no knowledge without an object of knowledge"). The very concept of knowledge presupposes an object of knowledge -- it must be knowledge of something -- which is inherently objective. It is useless to say that our "contact" with the object (if there is such a thing) is mediated by sensations, representations, or whatever. This is not the point. The point is that, no matter how, by the very definition of knowledge:

1. It is knowledge of something.
2. That something is inherently objective -- passive rather than active.

If you say, like you are saying, that we only know what is inside our minds, you just move objects into your mind, hence objectifying it -- what a mess, as our minds are the place of subjectivity, not objectivity. However, I understand your insistence: we are in scientific times, so it is just natural that you see your mind as an external object.