My vote isn’t supposed to count, but seeing as I’ve just read everything here, agree with many of the previous critics, and know that you’ve accepted a low-post-count vote already, I’ll say my part:
I had trouble seeing where you two disagreed! The arguments were on two different scales. The first half of each of your main examples I took as cases for the others’ point of view. Since you couldn’t come to a disagreement, I’ll refrain from coming to an agreement
Tab wins for clarity of argument, ease of reading. It was fun to read, but he also made his point clearly enough that I have trouble believing there’s anything more he could ever say. Pav, as others have said, kept going 'round his points like he wanted to say more, but couldn’t figure out how to do it.
Pav wins for getting me to believe his stance is more complete. The few times he said meaningful things, they incorporated and advanced Tab’s arguments. Or maybe that’s just the conclusion I reached in trying to translate his thoughts. Tab’s points were just too simple, and relied on the enormity of scale to impress.
The arguments were all about prediction. This is different from my (likely out of date) knowledge of the fate vs. free will debate (which I settled myself here, ). Tab was able to show that, on large scales, important events can be predicted quite accurately. Unfortunately for him, if scale doesn’t impress me, I could use the same argument to say that the final position of a thrown baseball can be predicted with similar, if not better accuracy.
Neither discussed the difference between physics-like systems and (perceived) free-will systems. Neither discussed predictability within a complex environment. Both of these were mentioned by Pav and ignored by Tab.
Thanks to Tents for reading through all the bumf, particularly my bumf, again, and for his commentry. In hindsight I should have pushed a couple of things further, the situational-programming bit for example, but opted to cut them short - particularly in the story, because they’d have made it [even more] ridiculously long. Another day, another thread.
Hey Kygron, thanks for the review. Story of my life - too many laughs, too little substance .
Anyway, since you gave a very positive win-win vote, I think we’ll accept it.
Score stands now at:
3-3.
I don’t know about you, but my nails are down to the quick.
I would like to state that I do not vote for Tab because he is right. Both Pav and Tab are wrong, however, Pav has failed in motivating his argument properly because he misunderstands he argument of Chaos theory, which is one AGAINST cause and effect. The reality of this problem is that causality exists in our minds and we cannot prove that it exists outside of our minds as well. Since this is the case we must separate between the noumenon and the phenomenon, which is what Tab is pointing towards: one thinking he chooses x, might be simply a computer program deluded into thinking it actually can choose or something. However, Tab does not make the proper jump towards the inapplicability of quantum indeterminacy to reality since it is a model and therefore applies the causal workings of our mind, as opposed to the reciprocity of reality.
Voting has concluded, and (only including votes that picked a favorite one way or another), Tab is the winner by a margin of 3-2.
I’d like to extend my congratulations to Tab as well as my gratitude for taking the time to participate in this Debate with me. I would also like to extend my gratitude to all who took the time to Judge this Debate as well as everyone who took the time to read it (even if they chose not to Judge).
I would also like to say that I consider it an honor to have this Debate come down to only one vote, going into this thing I thought that I was going to get crushed.
I’ll probably have more to say about this Debate in the next day or two, unfortunately, I’m kind of pressed for time at the moment.
I appreciate the sentiment, especially given the nature of Unsuper’s vote because he admitted to not actually reading the Debate, but the fact that you are the winner has been decided.
I thought about accepting that proposition due to Unsuper’s vote, but you didn’t have to let TheBerto’s vote count either and you did, so, you are undisputedly the winner of this Debate!
In the words of the Terminator, though, “I’ll be back!”
). Tab was able to show that, on large scales, important events can be predicted quite accurately. Unfortunately for him, if scale doesn’t impress me, I could use the same argument to say that the final position of a thrown baseball can be predicted with similar, if not better accuracy.
.
If they were any slower they’d be going backwards. Let’s face it, even google image search is running out of ideas to bump this thread.
