82
   

Proof of nonexistence of free will

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 07:42 pm
@guigus,
Be my guest...
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 04:27 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Be my guest...


Are you really sure you will eventually agree with me? Because I am not, since I know possibilities and actualities are different beasts...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 04:29 am
@guigus,
You can say that, again!
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 08:19 am
@guigus,
If it is the case that I will ever agree with you then I will agree with you...what else ?
Knowledge and possibility are not the same...
And where in the hell did you see the possibility of my agreeing with you, given current information ?
Or do you think that changing the set of variables is of no importance ?...
...I can see straight away why "you people" will never understand a thing upon Hard Determinism...
(you lack structural coherence to fully simulate my opposition to your standing point)
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 03:28 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

If it is the case that I will ever agree with you then I will agree with you...what else ?
Knowledge and possibility are not the same...
And where in the hell did you see the possibility of my agreeing with you, given current information ?
Or do you think that changing the set of variables is of no importance ?...
...I can see straight away why "you people" will never understand a thing upon Hard Determinism...
(you lack structural coherence to fully simulate my opposition to your standing point)


what is this " hard determinism " ..... then

explain

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 03:39 pm
@north,
Good q; there are so many discussions on a2k that rely on personal opinion without any evidence for claims that "hard determinism" can only be an ideal. If you think like I do, you might be able to understand my position. Sure.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 03:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Good q; there are so many discussions on a2k that rely on personal opinion without any evidence for claims that "hard determinism" can only be an ideal. If you think like I do, you might be able to understand my position. Sure.


lets just get to the " hard determinism " , definition first , by Fil
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 03:56 pm
@north,
Precise causes leading to precise effects...and no, I don´t agree with QM interpretation upon randomness...no "magic fluctuations" in my book...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 04:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
YOU DON´T NEED TO THINK LIKE I DO, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I THINK IN ORDER TO COUNTER IT...

Randomness is pure pure magic...no logic or possible explanation for the pseudo-concept it implies...no need to go further then that, really !
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 04:01 pm
@north,
It just sounded like justification for personal opinion; I don't know how else it can be read.

FA, That's a very simple thing to know; how everybody thinks. Drunk Drunk Drunk
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 04:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Lol, you must be a psychic then... Wink
Can you read the difference between guessing and understanding what it is been said to you ??'
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 04:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...but I really would very much like to know how do you explain the precise mechanics of random cause, that would be awesome !...maybe you care to give me a lecture...
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 04:09 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Precise causes leading to precise effects...and no, I don´t agree with QM interpretation upon randomness...no "magic fluctuations" in my book...


the way I look at quantum of things , is this , quantum gives the mixing of things at the quantum level , the micro of things , thats what QM does



Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 04:10 pm
@north,
If that was the case then no randomness would be implied...but that´s not what they say...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 04:22 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
You don't understand snide when you read it. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 04:22 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

If that was the case then no randomness would be implied...


randomness is definitely implied , by quantum dynamics , it is the Nature of quantum


Quote:
but that´s not what they say...


they then don't understand the Nature of quantum



cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 04:44 pm
@north,
It also tells me in addition to randomness, it's always in flux.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 04:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It also tells me in addition to randomness, it's always in flux.


same dynamics
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 05:16 pm
@north,
see? I got something right. LOL
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2011 05:19 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Randomness is pure pure magic...no logic or possible explanation for the pseudo-concept it implies...no need to go further then that, really !


I disagree. If you think everything has a cause then surely even causes need causes and so on ad infinitum.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 11:30:54