-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Perhaps they are destined to attempt to disprove it?
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Story Time
"If Free Will does not exist, why are so many so interested in dis-proving it?"
???:smallconfused:???
I just like talking about it cause I get to hear everyone's opinions, which is cool. It really doesn't matter if there's free will or not, there is no difference to you. You still FEEL like you're making choices. So why care much? Just enjoy life. Not much other point to it.
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Story Time
"If Free Will does not exist, why are so many so interested in dis-proving it?"
Free will does exists. Arguments against it are based on Newton mechanics, which have been proven wrong. Quantum mechanics states there are limits on our knowledge of the past, thus there are limits on our abilities to predict the future. And no, not even a super-divine entity can know the entire past and cannot predict the entire future.
-
Re: Questions of A Weird Mind
...I do not want to offend, but I read that commentary and automatically think of the malicious little off-spring of a reprobate physicist and a self-motivated fitness instructor.
I'm...sorry if my attempt at levity and humor fails...
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shawnhcorey
Free will does exists. Arguments against it are based on Newton mechanics, which have been proven wrong. Quantum mechanics states there are limits on our knowledge of the past, thus there are limits on our abilities to predict the future.
Yeah... no.
See, whether or not anyone can be able to completely predict the future doesn't mean the the future can be altered. There is no inherent inconsistency in claiming that the universe is strongly deterministic but it is basically impossible for humans to be aware of all the data required for completely accurate predictions. We can't observe anything that might be on the surface of planets in the more distant galaxies (or even if they have planets) either, but we can't justifiably claim there's nothing there because of that.
Quote:
And no, not even a super-divine entity can know the entire past and cannot predict the entire future.
Because...?
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr.Silver
Y See, whether or not anyone can be able to completely predict the future doesn't mean the the future can be altered. There is no inherent inconsistency in claiming that the universe is strongly deterministic but it is basically impossible for humans to be aware of all the data required for completely accurate predictions. We can't observe anything that might be on the surface of planets in the more distant galaxies (or even if they have planets) either, but we can't justifiably claim there's nothing there because of that.
Because...?
Quantum mechanics states that anything, not just people, can not know the entire past. It simply isn't deterministic. There is always some fuzziness in knowing the past. And because of that, there is always some fuzziness in knowing the future.
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shawnhcorey
Quantum mechanics states that anything, not just people, can know the entire past. It simply isn't deterministic. There is always some fuzziness in knowing the past. And because of that, there is always some fuzziness in knowing the future.
Even if we were to grant that our model of quantum mechanics is 100% correct in this regard and somehow rule out the possibility that a super-divine entity could work around this, that still only amounts to a pragmatic reason that the future cannot be predicted with complete accuracy. As I said before, that's not enough to to refute the strong determinist view because it is entirely possible for the universe to be deterministic even if it is impossible for anyone to have enough information to make completely accurate predictions.
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr.Silver
Even if we were to grant that our model of quantum mechanics is 100% correct in this regard and somehow rule out the possibility that a super-divine entity could work around this, that still only amounts to a pragmatic reason that the future cannot be predicted with complete accuracy. As I said before, that's not enough to to refute the strong determinist view because it is entirely possible for the universe to be deterministic even if it is impossible for anyone to have enough information to make completely accurate predictions.
But is not just about anyone, it's anything. One quantum cannot predict where another was. One particle cannot predict where another was. Whether it's conscience or not, sentient or not, the past in not 100% knowable. Nothing can know the entire past, not even the entire universe itself.
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shawnhcorey
But is not just about anyone, it's anything. One quantum cannot predict where another was. One particle cannot predict where another was. Whether it's conscience or not, sentient or not, the past in not 100% knowable. Nothing can know the entire past, not even the entire universe itself.
I should point at that in a predeterministic universe, the past is irrelevant. In a predeterministic universe, you just need to know where you're going. You just need a goal.
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Story Time
"If Free Will does not exist, why are so many so interested in dis-proving it?"
???:smallconfused:???
How can you be certain it does or does not exist?
-
Re: Questions of A Weird Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Story Time
"If Free Will does not exist, why are so many so interested in dis-proving it?"
???:smallconfused:???
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wadledo
How can you be certain it does or does not exist?
Hm. Pragmatically speaking? Just being silly? I figure that because people can ask the question means it's possible.
For example, nobody argues against elephant-alligators with pterodactyl wings. Why? Because they're not real. They don't exist ( except maybe in Avatar, but that's a cartoon show... ). Because they don't exist, no-one questions their existence. But lots of people question Free Will. :smallbiggrin:
-
Re: Questions of A Weird Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Story Time
Hm. Pragmatically speaking? Just being silly? I figure that because people can ask the question means it's possible.
For example, nobody argues against elephant-alligators with pterodactyl wings. Why? Because they're not real. They don't exist ( except maybe in Avatar, but that's a cartoon show... ). Because they don't exist, no-one questions their existence. But lots of people question Free Will. :smallbiggrin:
..........I don't know what you're talking about, but as far as I'm concerned Elephant-Alligators with pterodactyl wings exist as much as anything else.
Edit: Also, I was always under the assumption (never a good thing, I will admit) that the argument of free will was more if we have it or not, not if it existed or not.
Angels were (depending on your scripture) given free will. This is why we have the mythology of the Fall.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Eh, if free will does not exist, I question what you mean by free will.
-
Re: Questions of A Weird Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Story Time
For example, nobody argues against elephant-alligators with pterodactyl wings. Why? Because they're not real. They don't exist ( except maybe in Avatar, but that's a cartoon show... ). Because they don't exist, no-one questions their existence. But lots of people question Free Will. :smallbiggrin:
Oh, you can be sure that They are working on it. :smalltongue:
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scotchland
I should point at that in a predeterministic universe, the past is irrelevant. In a predeterministic universe, you just need to know where you're going. You just need a goal.
Yes, the whole universe runs on magic. How could I possibly think otherwise?
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shawnhcorey
Yes, the whole universe runs on magic. How could I possibly think otherwise?
The term "predeterminism" implies the existence of a higher being.
So yeah, kinda. Some like to call that magic metaphysics, however.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Kk, now we're getting into territory this forum does not allow, so yeah, FYI.
I don't want this thread locked; I like it, and it would be a most ignominious end for some grand discourse.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ravens_cry
Kk, now we're getting into territory this forum does not allow, so yeah, FYI.
I don't want this thread locked; I like it, and it would be a most ignominious end for some grand discourse.
The forum rules do not allow for religion, not general theology.
Now, whether Roland recognizes this or not is another matter entirely.... :smallsigh:
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scotchland
The forum rules do not allow for religion, not general theology.
Now, whether Roland recognizes this or not is another matter entirely.... :smallsigh:
Let's not risk it, old chum.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Why is it unacceptable to write certain words, but it becomes okay to write them if you replace two letters with **, which doesn't make the word any less readable? There are not that many words that are s**t or f***, that would be considered inappropriate. So why bother at all? Everyone knows what the letters are, they are just written in a different font if you obscure them.
Though I have to say we don't do this in my country. Either we write it as it is, or we just don't quote that sentence.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
I think the theory is that it protects those in society who are still completely innocent.
It still makes no sense though.
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shawnhcorey
Quantum mechanics states that anything, not just people, can not know the entire past. It simply isn't deterministic. There is always some fuzziness in knowing the past. And because of that, there is always some fuzziness in knowing the future.
Irrelevant to the discussion. It's still not you that's making the decisions, it's the random collapse of wavefunctions. Not an improvement.
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Asta Kask
Irrelevant to the discussion. It's still not you that's making the decisions, it's the random collapse of wavefunctions. Not an improvement.
The main argument that you don't have free will is that the universe is fully deterministic.Quantum mechanics states that it is not. And you are correct; it does not prove that free will exists, just that it can.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yora
Why is it unacceptable to write certain words, but it becomes okay to write them if you replace two letters with **, which doesn't make the word any less readable? There are not that many words that are s**t or f***, that would be considered inappropriate.
It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form. :smallfrown:
But...some people force themselves to think other-wise.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Story Time
It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form. :smallfrown:
But...some people force themselves to think other-wise.
I think it's supposed to be a poor imitation of certain television shows.
Personally, when I find the need the say that something is completely and utterly worthless and needs to be disposed in the most timely manner possible.
I say so without reverting to one syllable.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
A good rule of thumb is, and this applies equally as well to Godwin's Law, anyone who immediately resorts to swearing/comparing to nazis generally didn't have anything interesting to say in the first place.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
The sad thing is that some things are worth comparing to Nazi's, National Socialist party members for example, but the overuse of it, and fascist, as an accusative have severally weakened its power as an actual, useful word.:smallsigh:
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PrometheusMFD
A good rule of thumb is, and this applies equally as well to Godwin's Law, anyone who immediately resorts to swearing/comparing to nazis generally didn't have anything interesting to say in the first place.
Now see, I used to think like that.
Then I realized that if you think like that, practically anything can go into the swearing words category. I mean, dialects use words that equate to swears in other dialects without using negative connotations.
Basically, it's all words.
100 years ago grumption was a pretty serious swear word, but now it's archaic and somewhat cute (See Grumpy).
-
Re: Questions of A Wierd Mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yora
Why is it unacceptable to write certain words, but it becomes okay to write them if you replace two letters with **, which doesn't make the word any less readable? There are not that many words that are s**t or f***, that would be considered inappropriate.
No idea. It seems to be a relatively new development, from what I've seen although why it started I don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Story Time
It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form. :smallfrown:
But...some people force themselves to think other-wise.
Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as just deliberately making themselves hold 'wrong' opinions is apparently all well and good, however :smallsigh:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Elemental
I think it's supposed to be a poor imitation of certain television shows.
Personally, when I find the need the say that something is completely and utterly worthless and needs to be disposed in the most timely manner possible.
I say so without reverting to one syllable.
Personally, I find 'bad language' to be far less unpleasant than people who use not swearing as an excuse to put on airs of superiority.
-
Re: Questions of a weird mind
It's not if they swear, it's if they do nothing but.
I probably could have worded it better, but I couldn't figure out how to do it and fit Godwin's law in as well.