Proof of nonexistence of free will

@guigus,

The only thing false is your definition of unicorn.

@guigus,

This all seems to be a long way from a discussion of free will, but I freely choose to make this comment:

Falsehoods do not refer to nothing. If I say, "George Washington was a small brown dog," it's clearly a falsehood, but George Washington is (was?) something, and a small brown dog also is something. The statement is false because it refers to something but states a predicate of that something that does not in fact belong to it.

Actually, I'm fairly sure it's impossible to refer to nothing. A reference to nothing would be a non-reference.

3 Replies

@Amphiclea,

I fully agree with you.

The relevance it has to free will is my claim that "free will" is an idea, and as such it exists. To say anything else would be what you call a non-reference.
So the question of existence isn't actually meaningful in relation to free will, despite the very common phrase "free will exists/doesn't exist".

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I did show you a flaw in your reasoning.

I asked you to give an example of an idea that does not exist.

This is not showing a flaw in my reasoning, which does not deal with "examples." My reasoning shows the meaning of a falsehood to be nothing by noticing that:

1. Falsehoods are only their meaning.

2. All that falsehoods mean is whatever they refer to.

3. Falsehoods must refer to nothing.

It is in this reasoning that you must find a flaw.

Cyracuz wrote:

You gave the example "a unicorn", saying that it "doesn't exist because it is just an idea..."

Since a unicorn does not exist, its idea is just an idea, since it corresponds to nothing, don't you agree?

Cyracuz wrote:

So what you are saying is that "The idea doesnt exist because it is just an idea".

The only way you can conceive of an idea as existing as an idea is by conceiving it as an object, which it is not.

Cyracuz wrote:

So... what? Sand doesn't exist because it is just sand?

See? You just made the idea of sand into sand.

Cyracuz wrote:

Like I said, I don't think you are making a distinction between an idea as a conceptual construct (all ideas are conceptual construct), and a unicorn (an example of such a constuct).

Whatever "conceptual construct" a unicorn is, it has no actual example, so it corresponds to nothing, refers to nothing, and means nothing. And since all this "conceptual construct" boils down to whatever it means, which is really nothing, it boils down to nothing, as all falsehoods do.

Cyracuz wrote:

Heres a possible definition of a unicorn:

Unicorn: A mythical creature that resembles a horse with a single horn in it's forehead, pointing straight forward at an upward angle. We have no indications that such a creature has ever existed anywhere but in human imagination.

That's a pretty good definition, although I would say "with a single horn in its forehead" instead.

Cyracuz wrote:

Pretty good explanation of unicorn, wouldn't you say? A hell of a lot more meaningful than:

Unicorn: a nonexistent.

You can define a unicorn in a full page of text, which does not mean you are being "more meaningful."

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

The only thing false is your definition of unicorn.

Equating the idea of a unicorn to nothing is by no means a tentative definition of a unicorn: it is you that are worried about "defining" a unicorn.

0 Replies

@Amphiclea,

Amphiclea wrote:

This all seems to be a long way from a discussion of free will, but I freely choose to make this comment:

Falsehoods do not refer to nothing. If I say, "George Washington was a small brown dog," it's clearly a falsehood, but George Washington is (was?) something, and a small brown dog also is something. The statement is false because it refers to something but states a predicate of that something that does not in fact belong to it.

That is, it referred to a nonexistent predicate. And since all it is is what it predicates, it is nothing.

Amphiclea wrote:

Actually, I'm fairly sure it's impossible to refer to nothing. A reference to nothing would be a non-reference.

Then you just did the impossible. And yes, this is in some way a "non-reference," but unfortunately that's what any falsehood is -- in some way. Of course it is also a reference, precisely, to nothing.

0 Replies

@Amphiclea,

Amphiclea wrote:

Falsehoods do not refer to nothing. If I say, "George Washington was a small brown dog," it's clearly a falsehood, but George Washington is (was?) something, and a small brown dog also is something. The statement is false because it refers to something but states a predicate of that something that does not in fact belong to it.

You see, George Washington existed, but not as a small brown dog, so this one George Washington did not exist. Some small brown dog certainly existed, but none was George Washington, so this one small brown dog did not exist. As thus the nonexistence of the predication turns everything involved, hence its whole meaning, into nothing: there is nothing left, so the predication itself predicates nothing of nothing, which turns it also into nothing.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus

You were the one who said that "an idea doens't exist because it is just an idea".

Then you proceed to understand my questions to you as statements of fact that you can attack. You are simply not paying attention to what words mean. Instead you are trying to redefine everything so that it fits with some claim you have made and therefore have to defend.
You can just admit you are wrong. No one (except yourself apparently) will think less of you for it. On the contrary.

Quote:

Since a unicorn does not exist, its idea is just an idea, since it corresponds to nothing, don't you agree?

No. The idea unicorn exists. It doesn't correspond to nothing. It corresponds to an imaginary creature. But as an imaginary creature a unicorn exists, within the minds of everyone who has knowledge of the concept.
The statement that "a unicorn exists in the physical universe" is false. But no one is agruing against that.
You are including it into the meaning of the concept unicorn, which is just another example of flawed reasoning.

Quote:

1. Falsehoods are only their meaning.

2. All that falsehoods mean is whatever they refer to.

3. Falsehoods must refer to nothing.

It is in this reasoning that you must find a flaw.

Well, the first premise is false. A falsehood is an idea. Regardless of what it refers to, it is still an idea, and as such it exists.
And if one premise is false, so is the entire argument. But it still exists, since I can percieve it and show that it's nonsense.

Like I said: meaningless or false is not the same as non-existent.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Sorry, that doesn't work. The statement is false precisely because it does refer to something, the properties of which are determinable: We know George Washington was not a small brown dog because we know what he really was. Because "nothing" has no properties, the truth or falsity of any statement about it is indeterminable.

Would you be willing to entertain a distinction between "not existent" and "not real"? I think this may be what Cyracuz has been pointing toward with the unicorn example.

2 Replies

@Amphiclea,

Perhaps both the terms "non existent" and "not real" are only meaningful in relation to physical existence. The distinction invariably refers to ideas and concepts that do not have physical representation, yet are known to us.

That is guigus' "logic" in saying a unicorn doesn't exist. He makes no distinction between the idea "unicorn" and the concept of physical existence.

It seems to be a position of extreme naive-realism coupled with a materialism that seeks to prove anything that doesn't have physical existense as non-existent.

So, the only times it is meaningful to say that a unicorn does not exist, is if someone goes out to look for unicorns in the physical world.
But physical existence is an attribute assigned to unicorn by guigus in this particular thread.
He understands the idea to include physical existence, and based on this he says the idea does not exist. Never mind that physical existence was never claimed in relation to unicorns.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I did mean for the "not real" to be a way of saying "not physically real," but I see now that this wouldn't be adequate. A number may have no physical existence but will still be real. It may be necessary to resort to a Platonic distinction between "sensible" and "intelligible" existence; as a proud pre-modern, I don't object to that, but a materialist probably would.

The relevance of this whole line of discussion to free will, by the way, seems to me to involve the necessity of determining whether the choices we seem to have in any particular situation are real. A post-modernist might argue that the "I" that chooses, as well as the "options" available for selection, are all historical-cultural constructions with no objective existence. In my opinion, a construction requires a constructor, which exercises - if nothing else - some degree of choice in selecting what to include in the construction.

0 Replies

@Amphiclea,

Amphiclea wrote:

Sorry, that doesn't work.

Doesn't work? It is not a matter of working: it is a matter of being correct.

Amphiclea wrote:

The statement is false precisely because it does refer to something, the properties of which are determinable: We know George Washington was not a small brown dog because we know what he really was. Because "nothing" has no properties, the truth or falsity of any statement about it is indeterminable.

You are confusing a reference to George Washington himself, which would be true, with an assertion that he was a small brown dog, which is false. A reference to George Washington himself would be true, which is not the case with the assertion that he was a small brown dog. But you are correct when you say that this is a false predicate just because there was a George Washington and he was not a small brown dog, which does not change the fact that his being a small brown dog is false only because George Washington as a small brown dog is nothing.

Amphiclea wrote:

Would you be willing to entertain a distinction between "not existent" and "not real"? I think this may be what Cyracuz has been pointing toward with the unicorn example.

No, such a distinction is meaningless regarding our discussion.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

guigus

You were the one who said that "an idea doens't exist because it is just an idea".

Yes, and so?

Cyracuz wrote:

Then you proceed to understand my questions to you as statements of fact that you can attack. You are simply not paying attention to what words mean. Instead you are trying to redefine everything so that it fits with some claim you have made and therefore have to defend.
You can just admit you are wrong. No one (except yourself apparently) will think less of you for it. On the contrary.

My thought is original, indeed.

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Since a unicorn does not exist, its idea is just an idea, since it corresponds to nothing, don't you agree?

No. The idea unicorn exists. It doesn't correspond to nothing. It corresponds to an imaginary creature. But as an imaginary creature a unicorn exists, within the minds of everyone who has knowledge of the concept.

You cannot go on this line forever: at some point you will have to ask yourself why is a unicorn a falsehood. Then, you will have to face the fact that the only possible reason is because a unicorn does not actually exist, so its idea refers to nothing, which makes it itself nothing, since it is just whatever it refers to.

Cyracuz wrote:

The statement that "a unicorn exists in the physical universe" is false. But no one is agruing against that.
You are including it into the meaning of the concept unicorn, which is just another example of flawed reasoning.

When you imagine a unicorn, if you do not imagine it as a physical entity, then how do you imagine it? As an image? How do you imagine an image?

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
1. Falsehoods are only their meaning.

2. All that falsehoods mean is whatever they refer to.

3. Falsehoods must refer to nothing.

It is in this reasoning that you must find a flaw.

Well, the first premise is false. A falsehood is an idea. Regardless of what it refers to, it is still an idea, and as such it exists.

Likewise, I could say that a unicorn exists as an idea, "and as such it exists." The problem is that an idea in itself is, precisely, nothing. An idea is whatever it refers to, represents, or means, from which it cannot be separated without becoming, precisely, nothing -- which is just another way of saying it is in itself nothing. You should, as you said yourself, pay attention to the meaning of words: an idea is not an object -- it is the idea of an object.

Cyracuz wrote:

And if one premise is false, so is the entire argument.

Just like if George Washington is not a small brown dog, then George Washington as a small brown dog is false as a whole.

Cyracuz wrote:

But it still exists, since I can percieve it and show that it's nonsense.

You can perceive the letters, the light of your monitor, but not the premise: it is an idea, and ideas are not physical entities: separated from whatever they mean, they are nothing. You keep always confusing ideas and objects.

Cyracuz wrote:

Like I said: meaningless or false is not the same as non-existent.

Meaningless and false are not the same, to begin with.

1 Reply

Amphiclea wrote:

The statement is false precisely because it does refer to something, the properties of which are determinable: We know George Washington was not a small brown dog because we know what he really was. Because "nothing" has no properties, the truth or falsity of any statement about it is indeterminable.

Here is the whole picture: a falsehood is true as a falsehood (every statement implicitly asserts its own truth). As a true falsehood, that is, as the circumstance of something being false -- which is true -- a falsehood exists (it is that circumstance, which is true). That is why you can say that a falsehood refers to George Washington and a small brown dog, despite relating them in an false way. However, as the falsity of George Washington as being a small brown dog, it is nothing, since it is the idea of George Washington as a small brown dog, an idea that, as just false, is nothing else than that nonexistent physical entity.

By confusing the truth of a true falsehood with that falsehood itself, you miss the falsehood that makes that truth possible. And that falsehood itself is nothing.

0 Replies

The central point is this: if the idea of something false were not identical to that something -- which does not actually exist -- by hence being nothing, it could never mean it. Even though it must be different from it so as to be the idea of its falsity, or a true falsehood. However, this does not mean that such an idea can exist alone, as if it were an object next to another object: in itself, an idea is nothing, like any other false idea.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Perhaps both the terms "non existent" and "not real" are only meaningful in relation to physical existence. The distinction invariably refers to ideas and concepts that do not have physical representation, yet are known to us.

Physical existence is not all existence, and concepts do not have any physical "representation," simply because it is concepts that represent physical reality, and not the other way around.

Cyracuz wrote:

That is guigus' "logic" in saying a unicorn doesn't exist. He makes no distinction between the idea "unicorn" and the concept of physical existence.

The idea of a unicorn is the idea of its physical existence: there is no other possible idea of a unicorn, to which being a physical entity is the only way of being actually nonexistent.

Cyracuz wrote:

It seems to be a position of extreme naive-realism coupled with a materialism that seeks to prove anything that doesn't have physical existense as non-existent.

That's precisely your position: it was never mine.

Cyracuz wrote:

So, the only times it is meaningful to say that a unicorn does not exist, is if someone goes out to look for unicorns in the physical world.

And where else would you go looking for them?

Cyracuz wrote:

But physical existence is an attribute assigned to unicorn by guigus in this particular thread.

It's amazing how communication can go bad...

Cyracuz wrote:

He understands the idea to include physical existence, [...]

No, that's you: to me an idea is nothing without whatever it refers to, which is a very different point.

Cyracuz wrote:

[...] and based on this he says the idea does not exist.

If I thought that an idea had a physical existence, then I could never conclude it is nothing, don't you agree? You are not thinking in what you are saying.

Cyracuz wrote:

Never mind that physical existence was never claimed in relation to unicorns.

Yes it was, in medieval times.

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus

These are things that are already adressed several posts ago. I can't be asked to repeat the same point forever. Reread please, if you are truly interested in the progress of this thread.
Otherwise we have nothing more to discuss.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

guigus

These are things that are already adressed several posts ago. I can't be asked to repeat the same point forever. Reread please, if you are truly interested in the progress of this thread.
Otherwise we have nothing more to discuss.

If all you can do is repeat the same point forever, they thank you for leaving the discussion.

1 Reply

Talking of unicorns as possibilities...

http://www.jawaexpress.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=291:mythical-unicorn-found&catid=41:destination-updates&Itemid=11

0 Replies

@guigus,

I have shown you a flaw in your argument. I even showed you a flaw in the particular argument you said I had to find a flaw in.

But you are not discussing that. You are trying to drown it in more of your bs.

0 Replies

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know