Debunk Free Will

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Calrid » Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:44 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote:No, it is up to you it doesn't. Your claim was that quantum physics disproves determinism. It's up to you to prove it. I have, to my disadvantage, naively played along with your games this whole conversation, allowing you to get away with not backing up your claims. You don't know what you're talking about. You have 0 evidence that deterministic interpretations are invalid. You've got nothing. You're just saying it over and over again like a mantra. What you linked to doesn't even explicitly state that. There's no evidence for your claim. Back it up.


That wasn't my claim, my claim was that classical quantum physics has no evidence, nor has it ever had any utility.

I have backed up my claims, with experiments that show no local hidden variable theory can show quantum phenomena, which are only explained by random probability ie Bell's-Aspect Experiment. And with the fact that the two slit is only explicable in probabilistic terms, also an experiment that you can verify with evidence.

Games, you're the one not producing any evidence to the contrary.

Lack of evidence means you have to refute the assertion, not that I have to back it up. You aren't very good at science are you. This isn't philosophy where you can just arm wave some logical situation and claim it's true, you need evidence to contest me.
Last edited by Calrid on Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby phyllo » Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:45 pm

Lol, true, no scientist would use that word. Truth is a philosophical word not a scientific one. Incidentally when did SH say that MWI is obviously true, whatever that means with no evidence whatsoever? Do you have a link that isn't just couched in opinion?

Probably here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
According to Martin Gardner, the "other" worlds of MWI have two different interpretations: real or unreal, and claims that Stephen Hawking and Steve Weinberg both favour the unreal interpretation.[87] Gardner also claims that the nonreal interpretation is favoured by the majority of physicists, whereas the "realist" view is only supported by MWI experts such as David Deutsch and Bryce DeWitt. Hawking has said that "according to Feynman's idea", all the other histories are as "equally real" as our own,[88] and Martin Gardner reports Hawking saying that MWI is "trivially true", which is an academic way of saying "obviously true".[89] In a 1983 interview Hawking also said he regarded the MWI as "self-evidently correct" but was dismissive towards questions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, saying "when I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my gun". In the same interview he also said, "But, look: All that one does, really, is to calculate conditional probabilities—in other words, the probability of A happening, given B. I think that that's all the many worlds interpretation is. Some people overlay it with a lot of mysticism about the wave function splitting into different parts. But all that you're calculating is conditional probabilities."[90] Elsewhere Hawking contrasted his attitude towards the "reality" of physical theories with that of his colleague Roger Penrose, saying "He's a Platonist and I'm a positivist. He's worried that Schrödinger's cat is in a quantum state, where it is half alive and half dead. He feels that can't correspond to reality. But that doesn't bother me. I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements. Quantum theory does this very successfully."[91] For his own part, Penrose agrees with Hawking that QM applied to the universe implies MW, although he considers the current lack of a successful theory of quantum gravity negates the claimed universality of conventional QM.[64]
A very great part of the mischiefs that vex the world arises from words. - Edmund Burke
User avatar
phyllo
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3351
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Calrid » Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:48 pm

phyllo wrote:
Lol, true, no scientist would use that word. Truth is a philosophical word not a scientific one. Incidentally when did SH say that MWI is obviously true, whatever that means with no evidence whatsoever? Do you have a link that isn't just couched in opinion?

Probably here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
According to Martin Gardner, the "other" worlds of MWI have two different interpretations: real or unreal, and claims that Stephen Hawking and Steve Weinberg both favour the unreal interpretation.[87] Gardner also claims that the nonreal interpretation is favoured by the majority of physicists, whereas the "realist" view is only supported by MWI experts such as David Deutsch and Bryce DeWitt. Hawking has said that "according to Feynman's idea", all the other histories are as "equally real" as our own,[88] and Martin Gardner reports Hawking saying that MWI is "trivially true", which is an academic way of saying "obviously true".[89] In a 1983 interview Hawking also said he regarded the MWI as "self-evidently correct" but was dismissive towards questions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, saying "when I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my gun". In the same interview he also said, "But, look: All that one does, really, is to calculate conditional probabilities—in other words, the probability of A happening, given B. I think that that's all the many worlds interpretation is. Some people overlay it with a lot of mysticism about the wave function splitting into different parts. But all that you're calculating is conditional probabilities."[90] Elsewhere Hawking contrasted his attitude towards the "reality" of physical theories with that of his colleague Roger Penrose, saying "He's a Platonist and I'm a positivist. He's worried that Schrödinger's cat is in a quantum state, where it is half alive and half dead. He feels that can't correspond to reality. But that doesn't bother me. I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements. Quantum theory does this very successfully."[91] For his own part, Penrose agrees with Hawking that QM applied to the universe implies MW, although he considers the current lack of a successful theory of quantum gravity negates the claimed universality of conventional QM.[64]


A philosophical opinion not a scientific one.

I agree all that one does is consider probabilities, but those that have no experimental basis are not theoretical.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Flannel Jesus » Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:54 pm

Calrid wrote:I have backed up my claims, with experiments that show no local hidden variable theory can show quantum phenomena,

No, you linked me to a page which explains the most basic aspects of a non-deterministic interpretation. Showing me a non-deterministic interpretation is not anywhere close to proof that no deterministic interpretation exists. Nobody's talking about "classical quantum physics," manyworlds is actually newer than copenhagen so I don't really think it qualifies as "classical" in any sense of the word. No, you have yet to show any evidence that a deterministic interpretation is impossible. Good luck.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 4480
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby d63 » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:27 pm

Chaotics disproves it:

It really doesn't matter whether the relationship between cause A and effect B is fixed.

You also have to prove that relationship between cause A and effect A2ZTV is fixed.


All the determinists are doing is claiming a general explanation of the universe based on isolated incidences of scientists extracting predictible systems out of a generally unpredictible universe.

It goes beyond the very criteria (the scientific method) the determinists claim to be verified by.
Last edited by d63 on Sun Dec 25, 2011 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.
User avatar
d63
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3799
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Calrid » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:30 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote:
Calrid wrote:I have backed up my claims, with experiments that show no local hidden variable theory can show quantum phenomena,

No, you linked me to a page which explains the most basic aspects of a non-deterministic interpretation. Showing me a non-deterministic interpretation is not anywhere close to proof that no deterministic interpretation exists. Nobody's talking about "classical quantum physics," manyworlds is actually newer than copenhagen so I don't really think it qualifies as "classical" in any sense of the word. No, you have yet to show any evidence that a deterministic interpretation is impossible. Good luck.


Seriously read up on Bell's-Aspect experiment:

Here:

http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_The ... y_Math.htm

Actually read something and show me you understand it by contending with it...

Newer equals better? :lol:

Many worlds is classical. You have no idea what you are talking about? Why is MWI classical do you know? Or are you just reaching as usual?

Yeah prove that something cannot exist, again, prove that it does. Good luck. Evidence is what science does.

You're stalling show me the money or STFU. ;)
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Flannel Jesus » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:38 pm

many worlds doesn't depend on local hidden variables. the bell's theorem link doesn't disprove deterministic interpretations. Caldrid, show me the money or STFU.

You also don't seem to know what classical means in physics. "Classical Quantum" is an oxymoron.
Last edited by Flannel Jesus on Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 4480
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Calrid » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:40 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote:many worlds doesn't depend on hidden variables. the bell's theorem link doesn't disprove deterministic interpretations. Caldrid, show me the money or STFU.

You also don't seem to know what classical means in physics. "Classical Quantum" is an oxymoron.


No many worlds does depend on hidden variables they are just non local, again you show your ignorance.

Actually no, MWI is classically quantum, do you know why?

EDIT:

Seriously do you actually know what hidden variables means? Local and non local? you don't do you, show me you at least understand the basic concepts. Please do that.

EDIT 2: no you don't you're all at sea here.
Last edited by Calrid on Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Flannel Jesus » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:42 pm

your case is really on thin ice here. first you provide a link that disproves local hidden variables in an attempt to disprove many worlds, but then you admit that many worlds doesn't depend on local hidden variables. interesting development...and again, you show your ignorance.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 4480
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Calrid » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:43 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote:your case is really on thin ice here. first you provide a link that disproves local hidden variables in an attempt to disprove many worlds, but then you admit that many worlds doesn't depend on local hidden variables. interesting development...and again, you show your ignorance.


:lol:

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I said non local it's true but then you couldn't even tell me what non local means because you have no idea.

Actually no, MWI is classically quantum, do you know why?

No you don't. Stop talking nonsense and start showing me something that means that you have half an idea what you are talking about, if not STFU.
Last edited by Calrid on Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Flannel Jesus » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:45 pm

At this point you seem to be ceding the point that your link doesn't disprove many worlds, so i'll accept the implicit surrender.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 4480
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Calrid » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:46 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote:At this point you seem to be ceding the point that your link doesn't disprove many worlds, so i'll accept the implicit surrender.


:lol:

You don't answer questions do you.

:lol:

Do you have the first idea what you are talking about? Show me by defining the concepts.

You could google the damn concepts, but as yet you have read nothing and understood less than that.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Flannel Jesus » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:48 pm

you don't defend your case with any consistency, do you?

local hidden variables has been disproven. i don't disagree with that. many worlds doesn't either. why should I STFU? am I threatening to you? is your ego hurt?
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 4480
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Flannel Jesus » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:58 pm

anyway, i don't know why i'm still bothering. you started this conversation with a shitload of intellectual baggage, assumptions, etc. straw men after straw men stacked on top of each other. you had so much baggage you were actually scared to read what i linked you. jesus christ. you can't have an honest conversation. even your posts in this page so far prove as much.

i'm going to bar myself from responding in this thread for the next 24 hours at least, my rationality tells me that it's pointless to talk to someone who's deaf but i keep getting tempted anyway. hopefully by the time 24 hours is up, the topic will have moved on from the clearly irrelevant topic of quantum randomness. free will doesn't hing on that. i think i've made it pretty clear to anybody reading that you don't actually have a case for determinism being disproven by quantum physics. i think even you know at your gut level by now that this is true. with that, i bid you adieu.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 4480
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Calrid » Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:48 am

Flannel Jesus wrote:anyway, i don't know why i'm still bothering. you started this conversation with a shitload of intellectual baggage, assumptions, etc. straw men after straw men stacked on top of each other. you had so much baggage you were actually scared to read what i linked you. jesus christ. you can't have an honest conversation. even your posts in this page so far prove as much.

i'm going to bar myself from responding in this thread for the next 24 hours at least, my rationality tells me that it's pointless to talk to someone who's deaf but i keep getting tempted anyway. hopefully by the time 24 hours is up, the topic will have moved on from the clearly irrelevant topic of quantum randomness. free will doesn't hing on that. i think i've made it pretty clear to anybody reading that you don't actually have a case for determinism being disproven by quantum physics. i think even you know at your gut level by now that this is true. with that, i bid you adieu.


:lol:

Oh I read it, it has nothing based on experiment. Said this before, words are words, but evidence matters.

Strawmen it's all you got.

Step up to the big boy world where evidence is king.

I think you've made it pretty clear you have absolutely no idea about quantum mechanics. Well done.
Last edited by Calrid on Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Calrid » Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:51 am

Flannel Jesus wrote:you don't defend your case with any consistency, do you?

local hidden variables has been disproven. i don't disagree with that. many worlds doesn't either. why should I STFU? am I threatening to you? is your ego hurt?


Can you explain what the terms mean or not? No go away for 24 hours learn what I was talking about and come back when you know what the hell you are talking about. At the moment you're just ducking and diving around my questions, now this may well get you hard, but it doesn't explain anything, it does nothing to advance your case, or convince me you know the first thing about science.

Simple question here and you can avoid it again: do you know what local, non local and hidden variables mean? Perhaps in 24 hours you might have the time to google it but I doubt it...
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:51 am

Calrid wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
No determinism means no God.


No it doesn't it means the universe is subject to the random at the fundamental level, God may of made it that way to give us free will. ;)

And I am an agnostic atheist with atheist tendencies, but there you go.

"Random" means that given a large number of events, the combination will reveal no pattern. It does not mean that each event had no cause, but that the cause was evenly distributing the events. And of course God determines that it be that way. By definition "God" is whatever causes that randomness to be random.

Randomness is a statistical result, not a force or causal agent. It is due to not being able to see which event will occur in which direction next. God, the Cause, is not visible to the physical world. The Cause of the universe doing what it does is not physically visible and thus upon close repetitive measures, events are random and undeterminable by direct physical observation, yet each event is itself determined such as to leave the group without pattern. Any pattern that can be observed is then named and removed for the experiment so as to search until no pattern can be found. The non-visible fundamental Cause is what is left when nothing else can be found to be any nameable cause. But at no time has Science ever claimed that just because they cannot see a pattern in events, that they each were not caused.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Those who too ardently seek to be seen as correct, see only correctness in themselves.
The Social Paradox - to be well grounded and soundly harmonious, one must rise above the dirt and noise.
The One God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11138
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:30 am

"Random" means that given a large number of events, the combination will reveal no pattern. It does not mean that each event had no cause, but that the cause was evenly distributing the events. And of course God determines that it be that way. By definition "God" is whatever causes that randomness to be random.
How does determinism and/or randomness work in the case of radioactive decay?
Radioactive decay has a pattern over a large number of events, but appears random for single atoms. What causes an individual atom to decay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e., random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a given atom will decay.[1] However, the chance that a given atom will decay is constant over time. For a large number of identical atoms (of the same nuclide), the decay rate for the collection is predictable to the extent allowed by the law of large numbers, and is easily calculated from the measured decay constant of the nuclide (or equivalently from the half-life).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
Stochastic (from the Greek στόχος for aim or guess) refers to systems whose behaviour is intrinsically non-deterministic. A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic, in that a system's subsequent state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element. However, according to M. Kac[1] and E. Nelson,[2] any kind of time development (be it deterministic or essentially probabilistic) which is analyzable in terms of probability deserves the name of stochastic process.
A very great part of the mischiefs that vex the world arises from words. - Edmund Burke
User avatar
phyllo
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3351
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:46 am

phyllo wrote:
"Random" means that given a large number of events, the combination will reveal no pattern. It does not mean that each event had no cause, but that the cause was evenly distributing the events. And of course God determines that it be that way. By definition "God" is whatever causes that randomness to be random.
How does determinism and/or randomness work in the case of radioactive decay?
Radioactive decay has a pattern over a large number of events, but appears random for single atoms. What causes an individual atom to decay?

Ah.. well..

The amount of decay is not what is random over time. What is random is which of the particulates will break away from which atom, which direction, and in which order.

The reason that they break away is because of unseen and unobservable turbulence that is constantly adding to and taking away from the energy bonding them all together. That turbulence approaches from all angles and disseminates at all angles depending on other turbulence occurring at the moment. In "normal space" (and really in any space) there is constant energy turbulence on what some people call the "subspace" level or merely beneath the level of detectable EM waves. A radioactive atom is just barely within the limits of the required bonding and thus it doesn't take much turbulence to cause dissemination. Non-radioactive atoms are further within the required limits and thus are more resistant to decay.

Statistically, a peak in turbulence can be expected to occur within a specific amount of time. That duration is what specifies the radioactivity level of the substance. It is much like predicting that on average, on any given day, an ocean wave will reach a certain level on the beach. Each individual wave need not be known, but rather by merely observing how often the waves reach the mark each day, a calendar can be made indicating typically how many waves will reach the mark on that day, assuming it isn't an unusual day. The turbulence of space has less variance than ocean waves, so more predictable results can be achieved by close monitoring. The same type of substance, being the same size, will yield the same results even though individually one cannot see or measure how much turbulence is going to strike at any one moment.

Determinism comes into the picture in that something is causing the turbulence, "random chaos", to be at that level. Each tiny spec of turbulence is being caused to do what it does at that moment and thus as long as that cause is in effect, the turbulence will always be at that level, always still be unpredictable on an individual level, yet always be predictable over a large sample of waves or time.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Those who too ardently seek to be seen as correct, see only correctness in themselves.
The Social Paradox - to be well grounded and soundly harmonious, one must rise above the dirt and noise.
The One God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11138
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby volchok » Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:46 pm

Calrid wrote:
We've already had that discussion, I see no point in saying a combination of randomness and determinism again so you can claim it's nonsense, nor providing any links to models that only succeed in showing the brains activity if they are random..


Explain to me how free will can exist in a ramdom world or in a deterministic AND ramdom world.
If you think that is logically possible, go ahead.
Last edited by volchok on Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
volchok
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:42 pm
Location: Portugal.

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby volchok » Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:50 pm

HEY!
Hey guys, I have an idea.
Fucking forget about the determinism vs randomness debate and let's get back on topic.
And that is free will.

I dare anyone who thinks sub atomic particles behave in a random way to try and explain how that can produce free will.
User avatar
volchok
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:42 pm
Location: Portugal.

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Calrid » Sun Dec 25, 2011 8:54 pm

volchok wrote:
Calrid wrote:
We've already had that discussion, I see no point in saying a combination of randomness and determinism again so you can claim it's nonsense, nor providing any links to models that only succeed in showing the brains activity if they are random..


Explain to me how free will can exist in a ramdom world or in a deterministic AND ramdom world.
If you think that is logically possible, go ahead.


I already did you claimed it was nonsense, I am not going to repeat myself or the link again.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby volchok » Sun Dec 25, 2011 9:52 pm

Calrid wrote:
I already did you claimed it was nonsense, I am not going to repeat myself or the link again.


Bullshit.
Just end this by saying you have no solid evidence. :-k
I'm tired of seeing you cover your ears and going "la la la I'm right, you are wrong, I'm smart, you are dumb".

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If you think randomness can produce free will, it's on you to demonstrate how that can be so.
If you can't back up your claim, just give up on this discussion, and let others talk.
User avatar
volchok
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3709
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:42 pm
Location: Portugal.

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Calrid » Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:25 pm

volchok wrote:
Calrid wrote:
I already did you claimed it was nonsense, I am not going to repeat myself or the link again.


Bullshit.
Just end this by saying you have no solid evidence. :-k
I'm tired of seeing you cover your ears and going "la la la I'm right, you are wrong, I'm smart, you are dumb".

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If you think randomness can produce free will, it's on you to demonstrate how that can be so.
If you can't back up your claim, just give up on this discussion, and let others talk.


:lol:

What is extraordinary is only that you are right about everything. Have you ever considered the fact that you might be wrong because you don't know enough. I mean ever? Dude I made these arguments a while ago, you not remembering them is not my problem, go skip over some old threads, maybe your bias wont interfere this time. There's always a first time.

To be brutally frank this thread is full of people who know free will doesn't exist because they never learnt to question what they were taught, it's dead and buried because they are sure. I don't see much point in suggesting anything at all to such people, they are their own gods.

Fanatics are always sure. People who are real philosophers question everything even themselves. I guess philosophy is basically dying because it's all about a cult now, all about something that doesn't require thinking, just following.

I don't believe in either free will or the lack of it, the reason being I learnt a long time ago that arguing about things we don't have enough information to know, are fun, but they aren't sure.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Debunk Free Will

Postby Moreno » Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:22 am

Calrid wrote:I don't believe in either free will or the lack of it, the reason being I learnt a long time ago that arguing about things we don't have enough information to know, are fun, but they aren't sure.
I'm always amazed by how much people think they can deduce. That they can deduce there is no free will because either things are random or determined, for example, and neither seems to support free will.

What this means, to generalize, is something like...

here's how I can conceive the options: option A & option B.
Neither supports X or more strongly both contradict X.
There is no X.


Of course we know, even in the epistemologically conservative history of science itself, how people - even consensus - made assumptions about the limits on options and must be implications and how they were later proven wrong.

But this is no longer possible, for some - not needing to be mentioned - reason.
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]