I’m not seeing a definition… I gave you one last chance and you blew it.
Internal to what? An example: a balloon. There is air inside the balloon: internal, and air outside the balloon: external. Another example: a box. There is a space bounded by the sides of the box, its top and its bottom: some volume of matter may be within these bounds: internal, and some outside: external. If 100% of space was outside the box, there would be no box, here I’m talking about a box, internal or external to a box. How are you defining internal/external here, Ecmandu? Well, Silhouette, I mean internal/external to a box. Thank you, Ecmandu for answering my simple question. No problem, Silhouette.
But the closest we get is implied by this:
Major premise 1: Absolute Determinism ⇔ ∀external
Major premise 2: ∀external ⇔ ¬(∀internal)
Minor premise: ¬(∀internal) → ¬(sentience)
Conclusion: Absolute Determinism → ¬(sentience)
Modus Tollens: sentience → ¬(Absolute Determinism)
So are you saying “internal” and “external” are mutually exclusive, relatively bounded by the limits of sentience? This kind of thing was what I was ready to assume back in my first post, but wanted confirmation, since if this is how you’re using internal and external, especially if said sentience is “of a being”, then we find ourselves directly in the realm of identity, which was the whole reason I went off on issues with identity, because it directly affects the soundness of your minor premise. The validity of the argument as I just syllogised it still doesn’t make the argument true if it is unsound.
Your response is to say it means squat that identity cannot be found upon closer examination, and that’s true of everything:
Your example of a tree is a poor one. Reason being that a tree can be consistently defined over a wide range of points of perception - and zooming in only enables us to define a tree in even more detail.
Identity however can only be defined loosely from a very narrow range of points of perception, and outside of that not at all. Unlike the tree, zooming in causes it to fall apart.
Your conflation doesn’t absolve identity. I’d ask you to try again, but I fear having to deal with the frustration of the consequences.
Please stop reiterating your argument by the way, I know I asked for your proofs earlier, but I didn’t mean the same one several times. After the first time you gave it, I was trying to get to the specific semantics of it, another overview was the opposite of what I was asking for.
And stop making it longer, cut it down to its simplest form as I just did with my syllogism.
And please stop equating chaos with free will, chaos is free but it is not will - how can chaos have a will? A rhetorical question, I don’t want to encourage any further waffling: precise brevity only, if anything at all.