70
   

Proof of nonexistence of free will

 
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Jul, 2018 12:12 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
When the distinction between the remark and the point is not self-evident!
By the way do you know what the point was about paradoxes?
Could it be self evident that there always something.
Quote:
Genesis 1 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was [a]formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was [c]moving over the [d]surface of the waters.


Just one big huge quark. A singularity waiting to be divided up into quarks and higgs bosons by a Spirit Capable of turning it into matter by its Trinitarian character of Idea(God the Father) turned into words (Jesus the Living Word) which were stored as information in matter. (the universe)

I think the information in the universe "self evidently" reveals the author. (Just like your post reveals something about you) Patterns are information that mean something.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Jul, 2018 12:13 pm
@cicerone imposter,
What about space, or time? We can conceive of them, but how are they material?
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Jul, 2018 02:42 pm
@Olivier5,
They are material in the fact that they are described. https://www.quora.com/What-is-space-time-made-up-of-What-is-the-fabric-of-space-time
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Jul, 2018 05:05 pm
@Olivier5,
Space time is made up of Higgs bozons that vibrate at a certain frequency. Before the Higgs field existed there was no time. There has to be some basic order to the universe or particles must vibrate of certain frequencies for us to have something to measure relative time with. The frequency of the first Higgs Bosons established the first "clocks" in the universe.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2018 03:17 am
@brianjakub,
That's theory though. Is theory material?

I conclude the term "matter" is ambiguous. It means different things to different people.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2018 08:21 am
@Olivier5,
But only one is logical and complete. It must include entropic gravity and matter and the Higgs Field really existing. The universe is not a figment of man’s imagination. Matter is ambiguous if you use only one of the many interpretations of physics. They are all correct. They are just from different points of view. Combine them all with entropic gravity and matter and the Higgs field become real. The problem is they also become more complex.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Jul, 2018 01:41 pm
@brianjakub,
It's just a vague concept, like so many others. In fact all concepts have vague boundaries, as per Saussure.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2018 05:43 am
@Olivier5,
Could you explain your statement?
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2018 07:11 am
@brianjakub,
Contrary to computer languages and concepts, human languages and concepts are always ambiguous. The fancy term is "polysemic". It's both a strength and a weakness. It includes the idea that human language concepts are fuzy sets: their boundaries are vague. E.g. the boundary between a "house" and a "mansion" or between a "mansion" and a "castlle" are not neatly defined.
brianjakub
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2018 08:39 am
@Olivier5,
That is not true of physics. The equations and the measurements they predict are not very fuzzy.

I can picture a house, a mansion and a zebra. I can also picture the higgs field and the interior of an atom in the same way I can picture the interior of the transmission and rear end on a sixty three Buick.

You and I would agree the Buick drive train is easy to picture and explain mathematically. No fuzziness. The gears in the rear end and the transmission can be deduced from the mathematical ratios of the tachometer and transmission. The same can be done with the higgs field and matter.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2018 09:51 am
@brianjakub,
Quantum physics is all about fuzyness though.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2018 10:09 am
@Olivier5,
Is that true about laws?
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2018 10:59 am
@cicerone imposter,
I think so. There's the spirit of the law, the letter of the law, and various interpretations of both.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2018 11:45 am
@Olivier5,
When I studied Business Law over 50 years ago, I remember something called "stare decisis." It's about precedence. “I think it’s disastrous for any liberal aspirations in terms of how the court will deal with issues of reproductive rights (or) affirmative action, going forward,” said University of Ottawa law professor and U.S. constitutional law expert Carissima Mathen. That means any justice selected by Trump will overturn past decisions on abortion and civil rights. Trump is a lose-lose president. He's a moron, a bigot, and a total ignoramus. His tariffs, wall, and selection of judges will affect our republic for a very long time in negative ways.
Trump just praised Putin. What more needs to be known about Trump's stupidity?
wolflarsen88
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Mar, 2019 12:57 am
Hello. I was taking part in a similar event sometime. That's was really beautiful times.
The first true love, a couple of great friends. Sweet memories... Thanks for you post

essay writing solutions
0 Replies
 
AnonimusFS
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 29 Mar, 2019 11:02 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I often come across the challenge of writing an essay. This service
<a href=" https://essaywritingsolutions.co.uk/">essay writing solutions</a> helped me.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Mar, 2019 10:26 am
Looks like we have a troll on this forum. They don't have anything better than to spend their time thumbing down posts. What a jerk!
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Mar, 2019 12:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
When I studied Business Law over 50 years ago, I remember something called "stare decisis." It's about precedence. “I think it’s disastrous for any liberal aspirations in terms of how the court will deal with issues of reproductive rights (or) affirmative action, going forward,” said University of Ottawa law professor and U.S. constitutional law expert Carissima Mathen.


The reason she made that statement is, there was no precedence for the decision in Roe V Wade. It was decided by making up a new meaning to the constitution by changing the meaning of the constitution from what the founders wanted to the meaning these judges wanted it to say (and probably assumed that the framers would have wanted the constitution to mean if they were alive today and experiencing the world in modern times.) The problem is they don't have the authority to move the hands of time. There judge is to interpret the constitution the way it was written and not the way they think it would be written today. That is the job of the legislative branch or the job of a constitutional amendment. Roe v wade does not have precedence and opened the door for future judges appointed by future presidents (like Trump) to do the same thing. That is the dangerous precedence set by Roe as pointed out in the following wiki article.

WIKI:
Quote:
Legal
Justice Blackmun, who authored the Roe decision, stood by the analytical framework he established in Roe throughout his career.[81] Despite his initial reluctance, he became the decision's chief champion and protector during his later years on the Court.[82] Liberal and feminist legal scholars have had various reactions to Roe, not always giving the decision unqualified support. One argument is that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way.[83] Another is that the end achieved by Roe does not justify its means of judicial fiat.[84]

Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the decision, has suggested that it should have been more narrowly focused on the issue of privacy. According to Stevens, if the decision had avoided the trimester framework and simply stated that the right to privacy included a right to choose abortion, "it might have been much more acceptable" from a legal standpoint.[85] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had, before joining the Court, criticized the decision for ending a nascent movement to liberalize abortion law through legislation.[86] Ginsburg has also faulted the Court's approach for being "about a doctor's freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best.... It wasn't woman-centered. It was physician-centered."[87] Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote: "[Roe's] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations.... Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution."[88]

In a highly cited 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal,[10] Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision that "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."[89] Ely added: "What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure." Professor Laurence Tribe had similar thoughts: "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."[90] Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz,[91] Cass Sunstein,[92] and Kermit Roosevelt[93] have also expressed disappointment with Roe.

Jeffrey Rosen[94] and Michael Kinsley[95] echo Ginsburg, arguing that a legislative movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. William Saletan wrote, "Blackmun's [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference."[96] Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe "disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply."[97] And Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who "loved Roe's author like a grandfather," wrote: "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.... Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."[98]

The assertion that the Supreme Court was making a legislative decision is often repeated by opponents of the ruling.[99] The "viability" criterion is still in effect, although the point of viability has changed as medical science has found ways to help premature babies survive.[100]


Quote:
That means any justice selected by Trump will overturn past decisions on abortion and civil rights. Trump is a lose-lose president. He's a moron, a bigot, and a total ignoramus. His tariffs, wall, and selection of judges will affect our republic for a very long time in negative ways.
Trump just praised Putin. What more needs to be known about Trump's stupidity?


Whether Trump is a bigot, moron, or total ignoramus is irrelevant to supreme court decisions. There are not any supreme court justices with those characteristics (even when you consider whether they are pro life or pro choice).

As for tariffs, everybody wants high union wages which are not competitive with the low wages in other countries in our global economy. Plus we cannot compete with their low pollution standards in their manufacturing sector. To protect our higher wages and pollution standards and all around standard of living you must have both unions and tariffs.

And about Trump praising Putin; a wise person keeps his friends close and his enemies closer.

See this video to see how even SNL caught on to this.

https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/on-snl-russia-is-bummed-about-the-mueller-report-too.html
AmandaOrleander
 
  0  
Reply Mon 8 Apr, 2019 07:52 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
https://samedayessays.net/assignment-help/
To help you to remember your science processes, create your own diagrams. For instance, for a biology class, draw your own cell and label the components or make your own Krebs cycle diagram. These pictures will typically be in your textbooks, so examine the picture you're given and then create your own diagram without looking at the textbook. See how much you've been able to accurately recreate and then do it again until it's perfect.

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Apr, 2019 09:53 am
@brianjakub,
Your last sentence makes no sense. That’s the reason why the UN is an important organization. We control Russia and China through our allies; we cannot do it alone. Bj, it’s not about Roe vs Wade. It’s about precedence concerning all laws.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
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
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/20/2019 at 07:11:45