Proof of nonexistence of free will

You see, then again you miss the point...the point was not my student days or how well I did at the time...I could n´t care less...the point was your comment without any basis about what I knew on them Guigus...again I could n´t care less if you believe it or not, you are a stranger to me...besides doing well on high school does n´t present much of challenge to brag about...
I could go on just to show you how wrong your assumptions are...I am not right winged, in fact last time I vote I did so in the Socialist party here in Portugal (they are centrer moderates and not truly socialist) but how does that has anything to do with order or anarchy ? Your classic connotations just immediately show your lack of ability to reason independently and out of the usual cliché...seriously, you would do well if you kept your mouth shut most of the time.

All there is is "thin air", contradiction, and paradox.

You've deluded your 'self' into thinking otherwise so you can can hide behind your semblance of a predictable, controllable existence through your brand of 'intelligence'. Basically, you are the definition of a coward hiding behind intelligence/arrogance, using it as your shield of authority, and manipulating pieces on a chessboard.

You need to wake your 'self' up.

Its not about liking or not liking I simply don´t by any means so far in my entire life understood what in the hell means " degrees of freedom"...
...either things relate or they don´t...if they don´t then they are transcendent to each other and there´s nothing to talk about being freed off from...

As for authority...well, authority is not my own, but in Being in its wholeness, in the rules of Nature, and the world at large !...

Martin Heidegger was one of the fathers of Existentialism, a current which for instance in literature happens to be my favourite given the bits of wisdom it often reveals through its authors...

but then while I think there´s some interesting stuff with Heidegger´s almost mystical perspective, I also have the impression that he goes a bridge to far and is often confusing and confused...and then again, I must agree that knowledge is essentially deeply personnel and highly dependent on the form one flows with the world...that in fact reminds me of Taoism who professes the wise dictum in which the WAY is what really matters and not the beginning where you started or the end where you will finish...my partial conflict with this only arises because I don´t see in any of it the need for dismissing the assertiveness of Being with the "being there" on the basis off an epistemic problem...every form is true and complete with the whole is my envision on how we should go about it...Function provides Meaning !
...BE-ING THERE is BEING TRUE !

You and guigus have something in common. You both don't have any ears to hear with.

I guess your strategy in life is to attempt to 'wear down the opposition' and when you can't blame them as a strategy to get them to listen. You're hopelessly entangled and refuse to see a possible opportunity. You also have another thing in common with guigus ~ I've clicked the ignore button on both of you.

Go play with your little friend.

Oh you see but I love Quantum Mechanics...

The problem is the thing is half way through and with lousy Philosophical interpretations and assumptions for support...

See for instance the implication that a Multiverse brings about...

where is the randomness if all possibles are actuals...in fact several people in the field believe an hard determined classical conception is reconcilable with it...

There is this idea that the quantum aberrations one observes may well be due to fuzziness effect between several Universes possibility´s at Plank scale...remember Schroedinger´s cat ?

In Hugh Everett's interpretation, all possibles are actuals only for an absolute consciousness of all worlds, which would belong to all worlds at once, hence violating their absolute independence and so making such an interpretation inconsistent.

Quote:

In Hugh Everett's interpretation, all possibles are actuals only for an absolute consciousness of all worlds, which would belong to all worlds at once, hence violating their absolute independence and so making such an interpretation inconsistent.

1 - What ??? what does conscience or not conscience has to do with the status of Multiverse ??? Besides I never said anyone would experience all possibles at once, less alone an absolute conscience...conscience by definition cannot be absolute once always restrained to a particular perspective...if all was to be known you would n´t need to be conscious at all...from there what would you need to look for ? Sleep ?

2 - oh, now you come and try to isolate Everett´s little toy...it happens M Theory which is largely accepted this days also posits Multiverse which was borrowed from Everett´s idea...

as for randomness, nobody can so far justify it in a sufficient manner Philosophically, basically it is a fast short-cut translation for a we don´t know sentence...eventually it will fall as it does n´t make any sense...

You may all you want disagree with me, but at least try to play fair and be accurate if it is not much to ask...

Oh Guigus...that does it for me, I am out of this one...
Conscientiousness unifying Universes ?
What in the hell am I suppose to answer to that ???
Look up in the dictionary for the meaning of conscientiousness might help...

See you around !

There is no rule in life that says you have to participate in another person's nonsense.

Its almost ironic given your comments above upon consciousness that while I miss what is external in the word you miss the most important in it, its internal substance...my mistake given I am not a natural English speaker is quite understandable while yours its a rational mistake implying a severe hole in your capacity to make any sense in your learning process...case to say rather a spelling salad then a word conceptual salad...anyway´s as I said I was out of this one, so don´t even bother to reply...

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Its almost ironic given your comments above upon consciousness that while I miss what is external in the word you miss the most important in it, its internal substance...my mistake given I am not a natural English speaker is quite understandable while yours its a rational mistake implying a severe hole in your capacity to make any sense in your learning process...case to say rather a spelling salad then a word conceptual salad...anyway´s as I said I was out of this one, so don´t even bother to reply...

Don't you get tired of telling people what to do? Anyway, I don't bother. What is really ironic is that you keep saying "good bye" and always coming back. By the way, you are mixing things up: the "internal" is not objectivity, but subjectivity, while the "external" is not subjectivity, but objectivity. Is that you were referring to as a "salad"?

As for any "severe hole," I think that it would be the absolute lack of argumentation of your part. Plenty of orders and insults, but no single argument.