Questions of a weird mind

[inexorabletruth]

Perhaps they are destined to attempt to disprove it?

[Scuzzball]

"If Free Will does not exist, why are so many so interested in dis-proving it?"

??????

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.

[shawnhcorey]

"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.

[Story Time]

...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...

[Mx.Silver]

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.

And no, not even a super-divine entity can know the entire past and cannot predict the entire future.

Because...?

[shawnhcorey]

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.

[Mx.Silver]

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.

[shawnhcorey]

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.

[Grinner]

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.

[wadledo]

"If Free Will does not exist, why are so many so interested in dis-proving it?"

??????

How can you be certain it does or does not exist?

[Story Time]

"If Free Will does not exist, why are so many so interested in dis-proving it?"

??????

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.

[wadledo]

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.

..........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.

[Ravens_cry]

Eh, if free will does not exist, I question what you mean by free will.

[Grinner]

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.

Oh, you can be sure that They are working on it.

[shawnhcorey]

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?

[Grinner]

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.

[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.

[Grinner]

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....

[Ravens_cry]

The forum rules do not allow for religion, not general theology.

Now, whether Roland recognizes this or not is another matter entirely....

Let's not risk it, old chum.

[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. 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.

[Elemental]

I think the theory is that it protects those in society who are still completely innocent.
It still makes no sense though.

[Asta Kask]

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.

[shawnhcorey]

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.

[Story Time]

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.

But...some people force themselves to think other-wise.

[Elemental]

It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form.

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.

[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.

[Ravens_cry]

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.

[Mx.Silver]

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.

It is never acceptable to use, or encrypt, foul language in any form.

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

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.

[wadledo]

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).

[PrometheusMFD]

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.