Proof of nonexistence of free will

'Numbers' are a thought, they are not any sort of 'entity'. They are a combination of characteristics and when used in their agreed upon form allow humans Be-ing to either agree/disagree upon a particular subject. Do you honestly believe that these 'numbers' somehow exist outside of you? Where the hell are they and how come we can't find them?

Why is it that you would like to defend the existence of these 'numbers' and their apparent contribution to yourself and the rest of society? Are you getting royalties from The Numbers Association of America?

so if there's no free will, is everything predetermined?

if so, what am i going to post next

If my posts are so 'ridiculous', then why to you feel the need to respond/correct them? Have you no self control?

I do not 'have' these numbers and neither do you, you're just afraid to 'dive into' this thought because you don't think anyone will follow after you.

There are no 'numbers', period end of story. They are imaginary.

Either way, I don't think posting on a forum is going to change anything. - LOL

Then you're assuming free will is an action without reason.

Your interpreting the world you live along side of as if it was who you are.

Stop 'echoing' the reflection of your projection and posting the 'findings' of your misinterpretations.

'Numbers' are a system of symbols 'we' use to get along with each other by finding security in our 'seeing the same world'.

Objective -noun

1. Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
2. Intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
3. Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
4. Of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.


1. Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Is there any statement you can make that you can honestly say wasn't influenced by 'personal feelings'? Are you not Be-ing the 'person' that you are? Who doesn't have 'personal feelings'? Everyone, and I mean everyone is prejudice. It's just most of them are good at hiding behind words like 'objective', or hiding behind Be-ing 'prejudice' as some'thing' negative. Based on facts? Unbiased? So the same person who is claiming to be 'objective' is the same one who claims his statements are unbiased? That seems a little biased to me. An 'objective' opinion can only be 'achieved' through agreement. If you lived all alone, not only would you not even care about being 'objective', you wouldn't even know what the hell it was.

2. Intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

This one's really stupid. 'External to the mind', really? THE mind? Who's mind? Is there some sort of great 'mind' in the sky that we should all regard as THE mind? How the flyin' hell do you 'deal' with anything without using 'thoughts or feelings'? Are you supposed to become a robot, all for the sake of being 'objective'? Oh really, a 'person' is 'external' to the mind? Does that 'person' not have a mind/thoughts/feelings? Was that book not written by someone with a mind/thoughts/feelings?

3. Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).

What isn't the objective of thoughts/perception? Isn't there always some sort of 'objective' of a thought/perception. Otherwise, what the hell are you thinking/perceiving about?? 'Subjects' do not think, YOU are thinking the subject.

4. Of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

What is there that cannot be known? If it 'cannot be known' then how the hell did you mention it in the first place? How the hell are you going to see what exists independent of thought, when you would have to use it to see what would be there without it? Has anyone ever seen anything without looking at it?

Seems to me that Be-ing 'objective' is merely an excuse to put Be-ing who you are on hold so you can pretend to 'Be' someone else in order to find temporary security.

There was another word in there that I'd also like you to take a closer look at.

Fact - noun

1. An event or thing known to have happened or existed
2. A truth verifiable from experience or observation
3. A piece of information: get me all the facts of this case
4. Philosophy - a proposition that may be either true or false, as contrasted with an evaluative statement

Now let's take a closer look, shall we?

1. An event or thing known to have happened or existed

Are there any 'events or things' that are NOT known to have 'happened or existed? If so, how would you even be able to reference it then? If ALL 'events and things' have both 'happened and existed', then why is it necessary to put it down in the dictionary?

2.A truth verifiable from experience or observation

Who is verifying what here? Also, who is labeling it 'truth'? The same person who observed it is the same one who labels it 'truth'? Doesn't that seem a little biased to you?

3.A piece of information: get me all the facts of this case

Couldn't any sort of 'information' be given the label a 'piece of information'? What makes it a 'fact'? Who makes it a 'fact'? The same person who originally labeled it so? Wouldn't it take some sort of agreement to make it a 'fact'?

4.Philosophy - a proposition that may be either true or false, as contrasted with an evaluative statement


Who is making this 'proposition' either true or false? The above statement already presupposes that 'everyone' is already coming from the standpoint of wanting what is 'true' instead of what is 'false'. However, there is no one that can accurately assure anyone of what is 'true' without an agreement being made of some sort. So if an agreement is necessary to achieve what is 'true'(fact), then couldn't we have technically agreed upon anything? So long as all we need is agreement here, why not?

Also, what statements are NOT evaluative? What is there in this universe that cannot be contrasted?

A 'fact' is a place that you refuse to think past. Either because it scares you or because you're afraid that if you 'go there', no one will want to 'come with you' and you'll be all alone.

Now I know you're just aching to dive onto that keyboard and bark at your computer screen about how it's 'wrong', but why do you feel the need to do so?

Why to you feel the need to correct text?

No I don't believe that, everything has to be either totally random or determined, we can't have this contradiction.

Some randomness and some determination wouldn't make sense.

Even if there were a little bit of each it would all still be determined because we would think we're not aiming at something but we really are.

Take a paper ball and close your eyes and throw it at random.

Well it was still determined because you pointed a certain way, held your hand up a certain way, and threw it in a specific direction(though your eyes were closed).

Even if you spun around it would still be aimed because you know the room you're in or if you didn't know, you know it will land on something.

Therefore it wasn't random it had aim. The action itself is not random because as you were thinking to yourself before you threw the ball, you try to predict were it might land(there you go aiming it).

Who was the one who witnessed this 'happening'?

Also, who was 'reporting' on it and why?

Who is this 'objective difference' being described to?

You're merely commenting on your own conceptualization of a 'possible happening' and hoping it will 'stick' as a 'fact' because it's 'plausible'.

Again, why do you feel the need to defend the existence of these 'numbers'? What are you getting out of it?

If you lived your whole life all alone would you ever know of 'numbers'? No. So then where else could they have come from if not other people?(Being as they are not in the physical world)