1. no, but i think i agree to disagree.

2. Then I have no idea what your previous post meant and you're still in the wrong.
Let's try again.
Person A knows what the choice will be.
To know means that what Person A says is/ will be TRUE and FACTUAL.
IF Person B does something different then Person A did not know.
Therefore, for A to KNOW, whatever he says MUST be the FACT (even before the "choice" is made).
IF it is a FACT before the choice then there CANNOT be any other "choice" - what was said MUST be the ONLY POSSIBLE outcome.
If there can be only that one ("predicted") outcome then, despite appearances, there was no choice whatsoever - what was chosen was inevitable and unavoidable.

3. no, ok the whole scenario is akwards anyways. discussing god is a dumb topic ...

4. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by RAJ_K
India declared Independence on 15August 1947 according to modern calender
Are these tricky words not real ?
You seem to be confusing two different things: the real world and logic.

The statement "India declared Independence on 15 August 1947" is true (I assume) and will always be true. (But note that it wasn't always true in the past! )

The statement "Today is Independence Day" is not always true.

I have seen people struggle in a similar way with the idea of a logically valid argument. For example, the following is a logically valid argument:

All animals live on Mars.
All humans are animals.
Therefore, all humans live on Mars.

Even though the conclusion is false!
If India declared independence on 15 Aug 1947, On that day It was true -Today India declared Independence
Next day it would be wrong -Today is independence
Next day this does not make events of 15 August unreal and fictitious
Events of 15 August passed as new events take place
But this does not mean "Reasons " behind what happened on 15 August were fictitious as "Today is Independence day " statement is right today

5. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Then I have no idea what your previous post meant and you're still in the wrong.
Let's try again.
Person A knows what the choice will be.
To know means that what Person A says is/ will be TRUE and FACTUAL.
IF Person B does something different then Person A did not know.
Therefore, for A to KNOW, whatever he says MUST be the FACT (even before the "choice" is made).
IF it is a FACT before the choice then there CANNOT be any other "choice" - what was said MUST be the ONLY POSSIBLE outcome.
If there can be only that one ("predicted") outcome then, despite appearances, there was no choice whatsoever - what was chosen was inevitable and unavoidable.

************Illogical *********************************

6. Where is the fault?
Or are we supposed to just take your word for it?
Please show where and how it is illogical.

@Curious Mind: no, ok the whole scenario is akwards anyways. discussing god is a dumb topic ...
Um, the point is that ANYONE knowing negates free will.

7. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
If India declared independence on 15 Aug 1947, On that day It was true -Today India declared Independence
Next day it would be wrong -Today is independence
Next day this does not make events of 15 August unreal and fictitious
Events of 15 August passed as new events take place
But this does not mean "Reasons " behind what happened on 15 August were fictitious as "Today is Independence day " statement is right today
I can't work out if you are deliberately misunderstanding or you really don't get the difference.

Next day this does not make events of 15 August unreal and fictitious
Of course not. That is not what I said. I was talking about the truth value of a statement (not whether history/reality has changed or not).

8. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
************Illogical *********************************
************ wrong *********************************

9. no, he simply knows, it doesn't negate anything. knowing = knowing, it doesn't = doing.

10. I don't really want to get dragged into a discussion f free will as I think it is a meaningless concept but ...

Originally Posted by curious mind
no, he simply knows, it doesn't negate anything. knowing = knowing, it doesn't = doing.
This is not a logical argument. If someone knows what is going to happen (and therefore what is going to happen cannot change) then what is going to happen is determined, fixed, immutable and inevitable. If this event involves you, then whatever choices you make, it will end up happening and therefore (the argument goes) you do not have free will.

11. Originally Posted by curious mind
no, he simply knows, it doesn't negate anything. knowing = knowing, it doesn't = doing.
You don't read very well do you?
I have stated numerous times that there is no coercion or action required.
The knowledge itself means there is no choice.
If there were choice then there could not be knowledge.

You simply making claims without any supporting logic goes nowhere near a refutation.

12. if you had the knowledge then you wouldn't need to choose. but if someone else has the knowledge, then it's still you choosing but the other person knowing your choice. and the other person could alter your decission/choice, by letting you know the result of your original choice.
and to me, that altering of choice = altering free will, for w/e reason.

13. Originally Posted by curious mind
if you had the knowledge then you wouldn't need to choose.
Irrelevant.

but if someone else has the knowledge, then it's still you choosing but the other person knowing your choice.
Wrong again.
If the other person knows then you cannot choose anything other than what they know you will choose.

and the other person could alter your decission/choice, by letting you know the result of your original choice.
and to me, that altering of choice = altering free will, for w/e reason.
Again, wrong.
Either they know or they do not know.
It doesn't matter whether they tell you or not.
If they know then you pick what what they say.
If you could pick otherwise then they didn't know in the first place.
If they know they are infallibly correct.
If they are not correct then they don't know.
How hard is this to understand?

14. Originally Posted by curious mind
but if someone else has the knowledge, then it's still you choosing but the other person knowing your choice.
And, if they know what you will choose, that means you do not have a free choice. Your choice is already known in advance and therefore fixed, immutable, unchangeable and in conclusion: not free.

and the other person could alter your decission/choice, by letting you know the result of your original choice.
and to me, that altering of choice = altering free will, for w/e reason.
It has nothing to do with altering the choice.

15. i agree to disagree. i should have stopped posting, when i said i don't wanna post here any more.

16. Originally Posted by curious mind
i agree to disagree.
It would be better if you admitted you were wrong.

17. i don't see how i'm wrong. i disagree with dwy and he disagrees with me.

18. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by RAJ_K
If India declared independence on 15 Aug 1947, On that day It was true -Today India declared Independence
Next day it would be wrong -Today is independence
Next day this does not make events of 15 August unreal and fictitious
Events of 15 August passed as new events take place
But this does not mean "Reasons " behind what happened on 15 August were fictitious as "Today is Independence day " statement is right today
I can't work out if you are deliberately misunderstanding or you really don't get the difference.

Next day this does not make events of 15 August unreal and fictitious
Of course not. That is not what I said. I was talking about the truth value of a statement (not whether history/reality has changed or not).
Yes you not
But Dywyddr and singdv are doing in this sense
By using Past and Present tense they are showing "Reasons "behind every cause are unreal and just tricky words

19. Originally Posted by curious mind
i don't see how i'm wrong. i disagree with dwy and he disagrees with me.
He has produced a logically consistent argument with no room for argument. You have said "no".

In other words, he is right and you are wrong.

20. no because the choice was made by free will, he wasn't manipulated/forced into it. he had a chance to choose freely between several options, all leading to a different result.
and someone knowing the result of a chosen option doesn't take away the fact that he made that choice himself.

21. Originally Posted by curious mind
and someone knowing the result of a chosen option doesn't take away the fact that he made that choice himself.
But he could only make that choice.
He couldn't make another choice.
He was not free to make any choice.
He was constrained to make a single choice.

Do you begin to see the point?

If the choice is known in advance then there cannot be any freedom to make another choice.

Just saying "no" is not a rational refutation.

22. he could have made another choice i.e. picking purple instead of brown, then the other person would know that. he will know what you choose, but he's not making the choice for you.

23. Originally Posted by curious mind
he could have made another choice i.e. picking purple instead of brown, then the other person would know that. he will know what you choose, but he's not making the choice for you.
:

Lets say that in 20 years time someone is going to ask Mr Jones which colour hat he wants. Mr Jones has never worn a hat and so has no reason to think he will ever be asked such a question.

Mr Smith (being omniscient, and never wrong) knows that when the question is asked Mr Jones will say "brown".

Is Mr Jones still free to say "purple"? - think about it: Smith knows what he is going to say. What does "know" mean? Can Jones really choose if the answer is known in advance? Is that choice "free"?

(By the way, this is why I think the idea of "free will" is completely meaningless. But I don't care about that. I am just trying to get you to see the logic of the argument.)

24. you all are examples of free will (within the constraints of your own minds and this language, and communication device)

you have chosen to dispute logic

even "mr. Smith" didn't see this one coming

25. Originally Posted by sculptor
you have chosen to dispute logic
Have we? Or was it predetermined?

even "mr. Smith" didn't see this one coming
Are you sure? (But really, that is where the whole argument falls apart. I wouldn't mind if curious mind had actually identified the gaping hole in the argument rather than using fallacious logic).

26. smith will know what jones will choose, because of what jones chooses. the hat could be any color, but jones picked brown (freely).

27. Originally Posted by curious mind
smith will know what jones will choose, because of what jones chooses. the hat could be any color, but jones picked brown (freely).
He can only choose brown because that is what he is going to choose. How can it be a free choice if he could not make any other choice? Can he change his mind? No. So he is not free to choose.

What is your definition of "free"?

28. smith's knowledge is based on jones's choice. it was jones choice to pick brown and that's what smith knows.

29. Originally Posted by curious mind
smith's knowledge is based on jones's choice. it was jones choice to pick brown and that's what smith knows.
Can jones change his mind? Can jones choose purple?

I give up. You are utterly impervious to logic.

30. if jones chooses purple, then smith answer 20 years ago would have been purple and not brown.

31. Originally Posted by curious mind
if jones chooses purple, then smith answer 20 years ago would have been purple and not brown.
That sounds like Jones' decision (magically) goes back 20 years in time and changes what Smith knew.
And if Smith's 20 year old knowledge has to be changed, then he didn't know the correct answer in the first place.

32. Originally Posted by curious mind
if jones chooses purple, then smith answer 20 years ago would have been purple and not brown.
Yes.
Exactly.
Smith knows what Jones will choose.
Therefore Jones cannot pick anything other than what he will choose.
Therefore there is no choice.

@Raj_K
But Dywyddr and singdv are doing in this sense
By using Past and Present tense they are showing "Reasons "behind every cause are unreal and just tricky words
Rather than just make unsubstantiated (and erroneous) accusations why don't you show me where I'm wrong?

33. Originally Posted by curious mind
if jones chooses purple, then smith answer 20 years ago would have been purple and not brown.
Yes, but it wasn't. It was brown.

34. because jones choosed brown out of all the availables colors, by his choice.

35. Originally Posted by curious mind
because jones choosed brown out of all the availables colors, by his choice.
So you're still lacking a reasoned argument then?

36. Originally Posted by curious mind
because jones choosed brown out of all the availables colors, by his choice.
So you subscribe the the Henry Ford view of free will: he can make any choice he likes, as long as it is the one that was predetermined.

37. Originally Posted by Ascended
Hey I just wonder why do people always talk about 'free will' anyway, I mean what kind of 'will' isn't free? If it's not your choice then it's not your will, the free part seems a bit redundant.
What is needed is a good model of mind.
Then we can check our words against the model.
And understand each others statements.
Lacking that, we could be careful and state our assumptions.
And check our arguments... Ha ha haa!

38. what is needed is a good model of mind.
Exactly. And most arguments revolving around "freewill" use a damn poor one, that implies there's a difference between our minds and our brain.

39. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
what is needed is a good model of mind.
Exactly. And most arguments revolving around "freewill" use a damn poor one, that implies there's a difference between our minds and our brain.
many a book and article has been written about the "Mind / Brain dichotomy'.

brain houses mind and neither is the other

brain has it's physical/electro-chemical limitations
and mind has it's psychological blinders/limitations

brain controls mind and mind influences brain(nothing is static)
...............
(but then again, i could be wrong)

40. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
what is needed is a good model of mind.
Exactly. And most arguments revolving around "freewill" use a damn poor one, that implies there's a difference between our minds and our brain.
I agree with you. (Doomsday must be near!)
I will not give you mine,but I see it this way:
Mind is some translation
from the language of nerve impulses
to the language of impressions.

41. Well I would say it's alot easier to prove that freewill can't be disproved than actually proving freewill exists in the first place.

42. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by curious mind
if jones chooses purple, then smith answer 20 years ago would have been purple and not brown.
Yes.
Exactly.
Smith knows what Jones will choose.
Therefore Jones cannot pick anything other than what he will choose.
Therefore there is no choice.

@Raj_K
But Dywyddr and singdv are doing in this sense
By using Past and Present tense they are showing "Reasons "behind every cause are unreal and just tricky words
Rather than just make unsubstantiated (and erroneous) accusations why don't you show me where I'm wrong?
I am showing you are wrong and you are taking double side
Does not showing your side clear :

1. Today in 2nd period I taught some students a computer lesson.(21-3-13 )

2. There are reasons behind this event say R1,R2,R3

3. Assume its one day before I taught this lesson -20-3-13

Its day of 20/3/13

Now give answer : Would on next day it is possible for me not to teach same lesson

Ok if it is possible I would not teach same lesson to same students

then why did not this happen?
Who will change reasons R1,R2,R3
Would there is not need of reasons for changing R1,R2,R3

43. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
I am showing you are wrong and you are taking double side
Does not showing your side clear :

1. Today in 2nd period I taught some students a computer lesson.(21-3-13 )

2. There are reasons behind this event say R1,R2,R3

3. Assume its one day before I taught this lesson -20-3-13

Its day of 20/3/13

Now give answer : Would on next day it is possible for me not to teach same lesson

Ok if it is possible I would not teach same lesson to same students

then why did not this happen?
Who will change reasons R1,R2,R3
Would there is not need of reasons for changing R1,R2,R3
I have NO idea what that is supposed to show, but (once again) it doesn't use logic.
It's yet another appeal to... whatever it is you use in place of it.
WTF does repeating a lesson have to do with prediction and free will?
(Plus, again, you're assuming that there's a "reason" for everything - just like your dismissal of HUP in the other thread).

IF you can see flaws in the logic then point them out logically.

44. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
I am showing you are wrong and you are taking double side
Does not showing your side clear :

1. Today in 2nd period I taught some students a computer lesson.(21-3-13 )

2. There are reasons behind this event say R1,R2,R3

3. Assume its one day before I taught this lesson -20-3-13

Its day of 20/3/13

Now give answer : Would on next day it is possible for me not to teach same lesson

Ok if it is possible I would not teach same lesson to same students

then why did not this happen?
Who will change reasons R1,R2,R3
Would there is not need of reasons for changing R1,R2,R3
You are not understanding...

It's not about whether it is known... it is that if it is known, truly and really known, then it must happen. It must happen because if it is known, then it is not a guess or a speculation - it is a certainty.

To use your example; you plan to teach a certain lesson. But it is not known whether or not you will. There could be many unaccounted for interruptions, such as a building fire requiring evacuation.
A plan is not a prediction nor is it any kind of a certainty.

45. Originally Posted by Neverfly
Originally Posted by RAJ_K
I am showing you are wrong and you are taking double side
Does not showing your side clear :

1. Today in 2nd period I taught some students a computer lesson.(21-3-13 )

2. There are reasons behind this event say R1,R2,R3

3. Assume its one day before I taught this lesson -20-3-13

Its day of 20/3/13

Now give answer : Would on next day it is possible for me not to teach same lesson

Ok if it is possible I would not teach same lesson to same students

then why did not this happen?
Who will change reasons R1,R2,R3
Would there is not need of reasons for changing R1,R2,R3
You are not understanding...

It's not about whether it is known... it is that if it is known, truly and really known, then it must happen. It must happen because if it is known, then it is not a guess or a speculation - it is a certainty.

To use your example; you plan to teach a certain lesson. But it is not known whether or not you will. There could be many unaccounted for interruptions, such as a building fire requiring evacuation.
A plan is not a prediction nor is it any kind of a certainty.

There is 10:00am as Indian Standard Time

One hour before about 9:00am -9:05am , I drank a cup of tea

I suppose you are agree there are reasons behind this event say reason 1, reason 2, reason 3 etc

Now we assume time is 8:00 AM

Whould it possible for me to not drink tea at 9:00am?

If it is possible is there need to make change in reason 1,reason 2 etc

How these reasons would change
If these can change why did these not change ?

46. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
Whould it possible for me to not drink tea at 9:00am?
Absolutely possible. But if it was predicted from a deterministic calculation that you would drink the tea, then you would drink the tea and nothing would change that.
Originally Posted by RAJ_K
How these reasons would change
If these can change why did these not change ?
Because you're not thinking of it in a deterministic fashion. Let's lose your examples.

Try billiards- a pool table.

If we are playing billiards and I line up a shot, then there are certain factors that will determine the course of the cue ball.
Microscopic perturbations in the felt on the table, air moving around, the microscopic dimples on the ball- as well as the macroscopic effects such as my aim, the force I apply and so on. Included in your aim on the ball are the microscopic chemical and electrical interactions within your own brain, which are subject to the physics of the Universe and also, like the billiards table, must adhere to physics.
If ALL these factors, from the microscopic to the macroscopic were known and used to determine the course of the ball, then that determined prediction would come to pass- but it would only come to pass if ALL the factors that can influence that ball were accounted for.

Your examples account for very, very little.

Now let's disrupt my example and say that the determination is made and the outcome announced and you decide to exert free will and change your shot.
You would line up your shot and- the shot would meet the prediction. Why? Because the calculation included the influence of your own brain and every influence within it.

47. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
There is 10:00am as Indian Standard Time

One hour before about 9:00am -9:05am , I drank a cup of tea

I suppose you are agree there are reasons behind this event say reason 1, reason 2, reason 3 etc

Now we assume time is 8:00 AM

Whould it possible for me to not drink tea at 9:00am?

If it is possible is there need to make change in reason 1,reason 2 etc

How these reasons would change
If these can change why did these not change ?
Once again: this has nothing whatsoever to do with what is under discussion.
(In fact it doesn't even address what is under discussion, let alone contribute to it).

48. Originally Posted by Neverfly
Originally Posted by RAJ_K
Whould it possible for me to not drink tea at 9:00am?
Absolutely possible. But if it was predicted from a deterministic calculation that you would drink the tea, then you would drink the tea and nothing would change that.
Originally Posted by RAJ_K
How these reasons would change
If these can change why did these not change ?
Because you're not thinking of it in a deterministic fashion. Let's lose your examples.

Try billiards- a pool table.

If we are playing billiards and I line up a shot, then there are certain factors that will determine the course of the cue ball.
Microscopic perturbations in the felt on the table, air moving around, the microscopic dimples on the ball- as well as the macroscopic effects such as my aim, the force I apply and so on. Included in your aim on the ball are the microscopic chemical and electrical interactions within your own brain, which are subject to the physics of the Universe and also, like the billiards table, must adhere to physics.
If ALL these factors, from the microscopic to the macroscopic were known and used to determine the course of the ball, then that determined prediction would come to pass- but it would only come to pass if ALL the factors that can influence that ball were accounted for.

Your examples account for very, very little.

Now let's disrupt my example and say that the determination is made and the outcome announced and you decide to exert free will and change your shot.
You would line up your shot and- the shot would meet the prediction. Why? Because the calculation included the influence of your own brain and every influence within it.

It can not possible to avoid drinking tea

Secondly predication may depend on determination but Determination does not depend on prediction.

49. "if ALL these factors, from the microscopic to the macroscopic were known and used to determine the course of the ball, then that determined prediction would come to pass- but it would only come to pass if ALL the factors that can influence that ball were accounted for.

Your examples account for very, very little."

When I said it is not

50. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
It can not possible to avoid drinking tea

Secondly predication may depend on determination but Determination does not depend on prediction.
I do not understand what you said.

51. Originally Posted by Neverfly
Originally Posted by RAJ_K
It can not possible to avoid drinking tea

Secondly predication may depend on determination but Determination does not depend on prediction.
I do not understand what you said.
What do you want to say ? Explain in a one simple line

If I took tea at 9:00Am
Are you saying it was possible I would not take that tea as reasons behind taking tea say R1,R2 may change ?

52. What is difference between your statement and mine ?
Are you making difference between predictability and determined working
Are you saying determined working is only possible if we should able to predict real output if we know all information ?
Are you saying if we are not able to predict accurate output than it is not determined action ?

53. Originally Posted by Ascended
Well I would say it's alot easier to prove that freewill can't be disproved
than actually proving freewill exists in the first place.
Hi! Are you having fun examining this "demonstration of good will and understanding"?
It was never my intention.

John Galt indirectly asked for an explanation of what to him seemed
nonsense and I began the explanation...then Strange things happened.
It seems quiet now though. (And no counter arguments as usual.)

The general style in here is: "Hey thats ridiculous!.
No it isnt,its you who are ridiculous!
You dont know what you are talking about!"... and so on.

To prove something.
You must agree.
On something else.

54. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Originally Posted by RAJ_K
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Not at all . How it is possible to find Free Will when all of our behavior is controlled by functions of Brain ?
Second, is it possible a thing can happen without a reason?
Third, even suppose there are souls or another thing extra from physical brain that effects on our behavior, that soul did not have nay behavior or property ?

Not at all.
1 We have free will. We are the brain. So the brain has free will.
2 Not as far as I know. Show me such a thing if you can.
3 If it effects on our behavior then it has the property of effecting our behaviour.
You have accepted second fact that nothing can happen without a reason .
Is our behavior not determined by reasons?
In this sense a free will can never exist
Why?
We ARE the reasons of our behaviour!
One of the reasons we are IS our free will
For example you take decision to drink water at 7:00AM and driks it with your " FREE WILL"
What is reason behind your will of drinking water not milk at that time ?
Why would the question, "Do I drink a glass of water, or a glass of milk," even come up if you did not have, at the very least, a partial free will?

55. Originally Posted by sigurdV
Originally Posted by Ascended
Well I would say it's alot easier to prove that freewill can't be disproved
than actually proving freewill exists in the first place.
Hi! Are you having fun examining this "demonstration of good will and understanding"?
It was never my intention.

John Galt indirectly asked for an explanation of what to him seemed
nonsense and I began the explanation...then Strange things happened.
It seems quiet now though. (And no counter arguments as usual.)

The general style in here is: "Hey thats ridiculous!.
No it isnt,its you who are ridiculous!
You dont know what you are talking about!"... and so on.

To prove something.
You must agree.
On something else.
I think sometimes sigurd it's a little hard for others to really understand the point of the post which doesn't always bode well for the best possible responses.

56. Originally Posted by stander-j
Originally Posted by RAJ_K
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Originally Posted by RAJ_K
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Originally Posted by RAJ_K

Not at all . How it is possible to find Free Will when all of our behavior is controlled by functions of Brain ?
Second, is it possible a thing can happen without a reason?
Third, even suppose there are souls or another thing extra from physical brain that effects on our behavior, that soul did not have nay behavior or property ?

Not at all.
1 We have free will. We are the brain. So the brain has free will.
2 Not as far as I know. Show me such a thing if you can.
3 If it effects on our behavior then it has the property of effecting our behaviour.
You have accepted second fact that nothing can happen without a reason .
Is our behavior not determined by reasons?
In this sense a free will can never exist
Why?
We ARE the reasons of our behaviour!
One of the reasons we are IS our free will
For example you take decision to drink water at 7:00AM and driks it with your " FREE WILL"
What is reason behind your will of drinking water not milk at that time ?
Why would the question, "Do I drink a glass of water, or a glass of milk," even come up if you did not have, at the very least, a partial free will?

Today I took a glass of juice but left bred toasts in morning as I have less time and have to go on work
Now we can say Today two things did not happen
1)I did not eat Toasts even they were offered by my wife with juice
2)Today I did not go to America

Both are are equal impossible for me to do
There no chance for both as there is no free will

There are reasons behind first
There are reason behind second

Reasons of both are equally strong and both are equal impossible
Really determined Space

57. Originally Posted by Ascended
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Originally Posted by Ascended
Well I would say it's alot easier to prove that freewill can't be disproved
than actually proving freewill exists in the first place.
Hi! Are you having fun examining this "demonstration of good will and understanding"?
It was never my intention.

John Galt indirectly asked for an explanation of what to him seemed
nonsense and I began the explanation...then Strange things happened.
It seems quiet now though. (And no counter arguments as usual.)

The general style in here is: "Hey thats ridiculous!.
No it isnt,its you who are ridiculous!
You dont know what you are talking about!"... and so on.

To prove something.
You must agree.
On something else.
I think sometimes sigurd it's a little hard for others to really understand the point of the post which doesn't always bode well for the best possible responses.
Im not responsible for the understandings of other people.
Nor can I predict their response:
If they cant add, abstract, produce a good argument
or ask a a good question... so be it then.

But I do appreciate your concern, thank you!
To clear things up: What post are you referring to?

If you refer to whats immediate above then
maybe the following can be agreed upon:

Successful communication presupposes
A shared media
a shared logic
and a shared manner

My opinion of the discussion in here is
that unless the participants have agreed
not to communicate successfully,then
communication in here is unsuccessful.

58. Originally Posted by sigurdV

Im not responsible for the understandings of other people.
No that's fair enough and it wasn't a dig, I was just trying to illuminate the fact that sometimes it's a bit hard to respond to something if I havn't a scooby what you on about,
where as if you make things a bit clearer and your meaning easier to understand then it gives people more of a chance to actually give you a half decent response.

Originally Posted by sigurdV
Nor can I predict their response:
No but fair does you can influence responses by formatting things in a way that is easy to follow, if you post what looks like an equation but with words instead of symbols, what are people supposed to do with that, they can't explain anything because you already know and they can't give an opinion because there is nothing to give an opinion on.

Originally Posted by sigurdV
If they cant add, abstract, produce a good argument or ask a a good question... so be it then.
But again here is the problem, I don't know what the argument is about nevermind ask a question and neither does anyone else so where does that leave us or get us to. I mean if there was at least some clear purpose then that would be a start, if you are presenting a problem for analysation or search for a solution then define the problem explain what it is you want us to examine or solve, clarity and understanding are what is lacking here.

Actually that was probarbly unfair of me, just because I don't understand something doesn't mean you've haven't explained it properly.

59. Originally Posted by Ascended
Originally Posted by sigurdV

Im not responsible for the understandings of other people.
No that's fair enough and it wasn't a dig, I was just trying to illuminate the fact that sometimes it's a bit hard to respond to something if I havn't a scooby what you on about,
where as if you make things a bit clearer and your meaning easier to understand then it gives people more of a chance to actually give you a half decent response.

Originally Posted by sigurdV
Nor can I predict their response:
No but fair does you can influence responses by formatting things in a way that is easy to follow, if you post what looks like an equation but with words instead of symbols, what are people supposed to do with that, they can't explain anything because you already know and they can't give an opinion because there is nothing to give an opinion on.

Originally Posted by sigurdV
If they cant add, abstract, produce a good argument or ask a a good question... so be it then.
But again here is the problem, I don't know what the argument is about nevermind ask a question and neither does anyone else so where does that leave us or get us to. I mean if there was at least some clear purpose then that would be a start, if you are presenting a problem for analysation or search for a solution then define the problem explain what it is you want us to examine or solve, clarity and understanding are what is lacking here.
Hi again only friend of mine
Im gonna hate myself for days now
but I cant help agreeing with you.

In a sense I start from nowhere
and you wanna know where I come from!?
I try repeatedly to say something
you recognize and understand.

And ...well what is fundamental?
Lets pretend it is what is whatever it is!
1 x=x
This is a slight variation of your " Law Of Identity"
I see it as the condition for existence.

I use not a thing...like the letter "a"
normally put in the place of...well...
the letter between "v" and "y",
spoken of.

Next I realize I do exist and it IS
ME who recognize myself!!
To do that I MUST somehow be
at two places at once. SO:
2 x="x"
I see it as the condition for continuity...BUT:

Exactly HOW to interpretate
what Im saying
is not
decided yet...sorry!
"x" could be almost everything.

And the Symbol """...
I mean the one in the middle
must be understood or
DEFINED...Sigh.

It has an ordinary meaning
an intersubjective meaning.
(Whatever that might be.)
Use it until you understand how I see it!

Suppose I say that the sign together
with its similar on the other side
of the thing spoken of

means that the whole thing#"x"#
between the two new signs "#"
means the sucessor of x

Than this is the series of ordinals
beginning with x
it is also a picture of time
it pictures almost anything
What then IS IT!?

exact spot where I lost you!
so I can repair the road!

I think people see things like:
space and time, themselves, whatever
as definable using ONLY one of the TWO
fundamental truths I think I see
(believing one is the result of the other)

So they are arguing what
formula tells it all
And fighting it out.
I believe in both formulas

So wherever I stand
and wherever I turn
there is an enemy.

60. Ok so you lost me when you jumped from x being singular to recognising yourself and there being 2 of you, but anyway I ignored this and moved on with x=x but also 2x=x, yeah so we're ok again at this point, next was the part about x being anything which again yeah following this logic. The next bit threw me somewhat as I wasn't sure if it was here that we assigning the need to define x at this point or something else denoted by a quotation mark.

61. Originally Posted by Ascended
Actually that was probarbly unfair of me, just because I don't understand something doesn't mean you've haven't explained it properly.
Its late and i must sleep.
But one thing remains to tell
You are fair!
And Im clear...

But perhaps not clear enough!
So Ill be patient
and happy
knowing that you care...CYA!

And I will very tentatively
extend this mood
indefinitely
including all of you
until ... BAH!

How can I tell?

62. Originally Posted by Ascended
Ok so you lost me when you jumped from x being singular to recognising yourself and there being 2 of you, but anyway I ignored this and moved on with x=x but also 2x=x, yeah so we're ok again at this point, next was the part about x being anything which again yeah following this logic. The next bit threw me somewhat as I wasn't sure if it was here that we assigning the need to define x at this point or something else denoted by a quotation mark.
EDIT
Cool! You were stuck right in front of your goal. Lacking seeing last step!

Originally Posted by Ascended
Perhaps you might want to try and explain this next bit to me, but pleaseeeee in a really simplistic way I can understand

Let the expression #x# be understood as the action ( ok so here I understand #x# is a command to tell x where to go/what to do in the sentence, ok so what is the command?)?
The command really is directed to you not to x.
Originally Posted by Ascended
to put the object represented by x ( here I understand x to be 'the sun')
into the space in the sentence that the expression #x# occupies. ( don't understand what this means)
The problem stays unsolved...
Originally Posted by Ascended
( here I get the # and # around 'the sun' thus '#the sun#' are a command but still don't understand what it is/does?
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Now we can do what we could not do before!

1 The sun contains hydrogen.
2 the sun = #the sun#
3 #the sun# contains hydrogen.
Let me do it for you! Here is the result:
Originally Posted by sigurdV
1 The sun contains hydrogen.
2 the sun = #the sun#
3 contains hydrogen.
Now the sun begins sentence 3! (We pretend!)
We need no longer leave the sentence to check if the sun contains hydrogen or not. Another way to do it is:
First take the sentence to the sun, then let the sentence begin with it.
Seems also easier to do! If the sun doesnt come to the sentence then ...
On the other hand... we are leaving the argument containing the now missing sentence in the computer.

Looking at the original sentence 3: (3 #the sun# contains hydrogen.) one can say:
It is NOT a sentence...What nonsens is there in its beginning?
I dont understand it so its not a sentence or if it is then it cant be examined for truth.
But maybe you see the light now

So... the two sentences three ARE rather different!
The original begins with an instruction to create a copy of it beginning with the sun.
The copy begins with the sun. Destroy the original and put the copy in its place.

Dont you think this approximately is what is #the story of any "moment" of time#?
When there are no more important things left for a pregnant moment to do it gives birth to the next moment? After all what are moments really for!?

The sentence can get closer to the reality:
3# contains hydrogen#. Now the predicates itself checks if the subject contains hydrogen and the sentence "shouts" its truth to you...were it not a dumb sentence after all...

Well who knows what "artificial" sentences will be able to do eventually?
Will there be a #Sentence understanding itself.#? What do you say:
Can sentences never existing before be created with the sign "#"?

The combination: "#x#" is an identity element. It results in x "naked" as it is.
"#" and #"# are each others inverses and. "#x#"= x. Right?

And (ha ha) "= 1/# Aint #that# a weird semantical truth!?
Heres the first Formal Semantic Equation ever: x= 1/"

This "Semantic calculus" looks like #Magic# wouldnt you say?
John Galt will implode into a statue Ill call #Nonsense# in understanding this?

Tsk tsk... If you now understand the #theory# , have fun in trying to explain it
To what use could it be put? Can it be used in Metaphysics and Ontology?
Is it a dangerous theory? Are there #Mental# Atom bombs?

Waiting for analysis and construction?
Shouldnt we let it stay my secret?

Can I interest you in another simpler, more childish innovation?
Also somewhat enriching language? Yours: sigurdV

63. Seriously: seek help.

64. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Seriously: seek help.
Why cure wisdom?

65. [QUOTE=sigurdV;405193]
Originally Posted by Ascended
Ok so you lost me when you jumped from x being singular to recognising yourself and there being 2 of you, but anyway I ignored this and moved on with x=x but also 2x=x, yeah so we're ok again at this point, next was the part about x being anything which again yeah following this logic. The next bit threw me somewhat as I wasn't sure if it was here that we assigning the need to define x at this point or something else denoted by a quotation mark.
EDIT
Cool! You were stuck right in front of your goal. Lacking seeing last step!

Originally Posted by Ascended
Perhaps you might want to try and explain this next bit to me, but pleaseeeee in a really simplistic way I can understand

Let the expression #x# be understood as the action ( ok so here I understand #x# is a command to tell x where to go/what to do in the sentence, ok so what is the command?)?
The command really is directed to you not to x.
Originally Posted by Ascended
to put the object represented by x ( here I understand x to be 'the sun')
into the space in the sentence that the expression #x# occupies. ( don't understand what this means)
The problem stays unsolved...
Originally Posted by Ascended
( here I get the # and # around 'the sun' thus '#the sun#' are a command but still don't understand what it is/does?
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Now we can do what we could not do before!

1 The sun contains hydrogen.
2 the sun = #the sun#
3 #the sun# contains hydrogen.
Let me do it for you! Here is the result:
Originally Posted by sigurdV
1 The sun contains hydrogen.
2 the sun = #the sun#
3 contains hydrogen.
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Now the sun begins sentence 3! (We pretend!)
We need no longer leave the sentence to check if the sun contains hydrogen or not. Another way to do it is:
First take the sentence to the sun, then let the sentence begin with it.
Seems also easier to do! If the sun doesnt come to the sentence then ...
On the other hand... we are leaving the argument containing the now missing sentence in the computer.

Looking at the original sentence 3: (3 #the sun# contains hydrogen.) one can say:
It is NOT a sentence...What nonsens is there in its beginning?
I dont understand it so its not a sentence or if it is then it cant be examined for truth.
But maybe you see the light now

So... the two sentences three ARE rather different!
The original begins with an instruction to create a copy of it beginning with the sun.
The copy begins with the sun. Destroy the original and put the copy in its place.

Dont you think this approximately is what is #the story of any "moment" of time#?
When there are no more important things left for a pregnant moment to do it gives birth to the next moment? After all what are moments really for!?

The sentence can get closer to the reality:
3# contains hydrogen#. Now the predicates itself checks if the subject contains hydrogen and the sentence "shouts" its truth to you...were it not a dumb sentence after all...

Well who knows what "artificial" sentences will be able to do eventually?
Will there be a #Sentence understanding itself.#? What do you say:
Can sentences never existing before be created with the sign "#"?

The combination: "#x#" is an identity element. It results in x "naked" as it is.
"#" and #"# are each others inverses and. "#x#"= x. Right?

And (ha ha) "= 1/# Aint #that# a weird semantical truth!?
Heres the first Formal Semantic Equation ever: x= 1/"

This "Semantic calculus" looks like #Magic# wouldnt you say?
John Galt will implode into a statue Ill call #Nonsense# in understanding this?

Tsk tsk... If you now understand the #theory# , have fun in trying to explain it
To what use could it be put? Can it be used in Metaphysics and Ontology?
Is it a dangerous theory? Are there #Mental# Atom bombs?

Waiting for analysis and construction?
Shouldnt we let it stay my secret?
Ok I'm still struggling here with most elements, so perhaps it might be more useful to go right back to basics, lets start by making a key to define all the symbols and functions to be used, this I can then use as reference, next lets make a linear progression of all the steps in the most simplified form again for refence and an overview (we can go into further detail at each step). Ok lets define what the purpose of the overall exercise, then lets repeat this for each step and then summerise what the result has been for each step so as we know where we are at and what has been achieved. I think in this way I will be able to follow the progression and understand what is aim of each step and all the fuctions being used.

Originally Posted by sigurdV
Can I interest you in another simpler, more childish innovation?
Also somewhat enriching language? Yours: sigurdV
I'm always willing to learn, you've got to make it simple enough for me to understand.

66. Originally Posted by sigurdV
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Seriously: seek help.
Why cure wisdom?
It is not wisdom that you is afflicting you.

If you are so confident of your 'wisdom', then ask a friend for their opinion of your posts.

67. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Seriously: seek help.
Why cure wisdom?
It is not wisdom that you is afflicting you.

If you are so confident of your 'wisdom', then ask a friend for their opinion of your posts.
Come on let's drop the trading of insults, it's distracting and I'm trying to actually learn what it is sigurd is actually doing, which is difficult enough!

68. Originally Posted by Ascended
Come on let's drop the trading of insults, it's distracting and I'm trying to actually learn what it is sigurd is actually doing, which is difficult enough!
It was not actually meant as an insult.
But...as you wish.

69. I still haven't figured out if SigurdV has something intelligent to say but his command of English is so poor that it is just very unclear what he is trying to say or .... well, the other thing.

70. Originally Posted by Ascended
Ok I'm still struggling with most elements,
so perhaps it might be more useful to go right back to basics,
lets start by making a key to define all the symbols and functions to be used,
this I can then use as reference,

next lets make a linear progression of all the steps in the most simplified form again
for refence and an overview (we can go into further detail at each step).
Ok lets define what the purpose of the overall exercise,
then lets repeat this for each step and then summerise what the result has been for each step
so as we know where we are at and what has been achieved.

I think in this way I will be able to follow the progression
and understand what is aim of each step and all the functions being used.
Excuse me my one, and only, friend: Your words are pure wisdom!

You are willing to learn, I've got to make it simple enough for you to understand.

I will try to do just that by starting from the original problem
instead of explaining "the amusement park# you are now lost in
• In simple words:
1 This is not so.
2 What is not so, is: that this is not so.
3 Then it is so that this is in fact not so.
The riddle IS so confusing that we must be more precise:
1 Sentence 1 is not true.
2 Sentence 1 = "Sentence 1 is not true."
3 "Sentence 1 is not true."is not true.
This is impossible! ...taking away what is not necessary:
1 x is not true.
2 x = "x is not true."
3 "x is not true." is not true.
Still impossible ...taking away what is not necessary:
1 x is Z
2 x = "x is Z"
3 "x is Z" is Z
The sun shines on us now! Let x be Z and let "is" be "=":
1 x = x
2 x = "x=x"
3 "x=x"=x
Here we are at the top of Nowhere
We will enjoy the scenery later.
You check the road we travelled,
and i will enjoy the sun

71. Ok so this is where I got to with that:

"Z is Z" is Z

"Sentence 1 Is not true = Sentence 1 is not true" = is not true.

72. Originally Posted by Strange
I still haven't figured out if SigurdV has something intelligent to say but his command of English is so poor that it is just very unclear what he is trying to say or .... well, the other thing.
The explanation of my poor command of English is that I have read it since childhhod but I never used it as a tool of communication since I had nobody to speak it with. I assure you I do understand it sharply, but there are nuances beyond my grasp since their understading is by a process of CommunicatioN.

Peace be with you Strange chaP. I try all the time to communicate what is clear to me...
But I consistently fail in doing so! Im sort of a tough guy though, I dont give up easily

BTW its "sigurdV",or sV, not SigurdV when you direct your words at me.
(I think...IT never happened) "SigurdV" is an intersubjective reference.

The convention behind it I never told. (I prefered it being hidden and the zystem used unobTrusively...sURELY iTS oNLY tYPOGRAPHICAL whimzy or miZZtakes by SigurdV?) ...It stayz ... hmmm...hiddeN iF useD sparinglY. It markS mY wordS! Your Words Look Like This!
CommoN WordS LikE ThiS. (Using it all the time destroys readabilitY: JusT ExplaininG...(N)(O) BiG DeaL.)

73. Originally Posted by Ascended
Ok so this is where I got to with that:

"Z is Z" is Z

"Sentence 1 Is not true = Sentence 1 is not true" = is not true.
Never saw That beforE! Your doing Second order predicate calculus or what? Where Did you get it? From the top? Going down is exemplificatioN upwards is abstractioN. and their relation is: 1/A=E. Its nice not understanding much! Small letters for objects big for predicates. Please keep things simple so I... GivE! all Necessary Details I can be very stupid sometimez. In short: ? (Did you read the CommuncatioN between Emile Zola and his publisher? EZ was wondering how his new book sold and wrote a letter with only the following"text": ? The publisher answered:!)

AhA! Yes! The outside is denial ofself identity for the liar sentence: A good resulT! Since its semanticaL truth is obviouS meaning that there IS no defined sentence 1... ppl say sometimes i only tell what already is known that sentence 1 ( the "liar sentence") is meaningless...#I sigh#, #AnD saY# NO! therE IS NO SENTENCE ONE reporting its own falshood! Again: the subject of (the "so called") sentence 1 is not defined by sentence 2 since sentence 2 is false!

So I like your finding: Prove its not a Cheat (Mis-quotatioN Forgery etc).

trutH: Now when my theory is for the first time (in english) checked by a PeeR I get worried.
This is a nervous situation:
DiD i reallY thinK of everythinG in advancE? Where is the damned mistake i did not spot myself? Grrrr

74. Originally Posted by sigurdV
Originally Posted by Ascended
Ok I'm still struggling with most elements,
so perhaps it might be more useful to go right back to basics,
lets start by making a key to define all the symbols and functions to be used,
this I can then use as reference,

next lets make a linear progression of all the steps in the most simplified form again
for refence and an overview (we can go into further detail at each step).
Ok lets define what the purpose of the overall exercise,
then lets repeat this for each step and then summerise what the result has been for each step
so as we know where we are at and what has been achieved.

I think in this way I will be able to follow the progression
and understand what is aim of each step and all the functions being used.
Excuse me my one, and only, friend: Your words are pure wisdom!

You are willing to learn, I've got to make it simple enough for you to understand.

I will try to do just that by starting from the original problem
instead of explaining "the amusement park# you are now lost in
• In simple words:
1 This is not so.
2 What is not so, is: that this is not so.
3 Then it is so that this is in fact not so.
The riddle IS so confusing that we must be more precise:
1 Sentence 1 is not true.
2 Sentence 1 = "Sentence 1 is not true."
3 "Sentence 1 is not true."is not true.
This is impossible! ...taking away what is not necessary:
1 x is not true.
2 x = "x is not true."
3 "x is not true." is not true.
Still impossible ...taking away what is not necessary:
1 x is Z
2 x = "x is Z"
3 "x is Z" is Z
The sun shines on us now! Let x be Z and let "is" be "=":
1 x = x
2 x = "x=x"
3 "x=x"=x
Here we are at the top of Nowhere
We will enjoy the scenery later.
You check the road we travelled,
and i will enjoy the sun

is that a formula to prove or disprove free will? i don't understand where you're going with your post, or what the point of it is, regarding the thread title?

75. If you want a fun and informal introduction to the sort of logic Sigurd might be struggling to explain, I can highly recommend Godel, Escher and Bach by Douglas Hofstadter.

76. Originally Posted by Strange
If you want a fun and informal introduction to the sort of logic Sigurd might be struggling to explain, I can highly recommend Godel, Escher and Bach by Douglas Hofstadter.
Anyone wanting thorough general work should select from either Smullyan, Aczel or both.
I have not read anything by those superior Masters of Logic since I prefere my own guidance.

77. Originally Posted by curious mind

is that a formula to prove or disprove free will? i don't understand where you're going with your post, or what the point of it is, regarding the thread title?
Perceptive of you.
Henri Bergson&Herakleitos and Parmenides&Einstein...

Roughly I claim that:
1 x=x (parmenides & einstein) = (Static view of Time)
2 x="x" (bergson & herakleitos) = (Dynamic view of Time)
3 (x=x)&(x="x")!? (sigurdV on timE)

78. still don't see how it adresses free will, but yeah einstein said time isn't static; so sentence 1 is not true = right ... or not?
i have no clue what dynamic time means.

79. The view on top of nowhere is no concern of mine...
Its a spot that should have no reality in it since it is the highest abstraction...

Full stoP... It isnt...according to Cantor you wont ever get there!
But Here We Are!? -Its noT the toP!
Oh I See! Well then lets move towards it.

Sv:Here we are...satisfied?:
1 x (object)=(element)
2 x (quality)=(set)
3 x (condition)=(restriction/domain)
sV: Not really, but I guess it will have to do for now...

Sv: Dont pay attention to hiM he is beyond cure I Think.
sV: Ahem... Lets move! Down it is:

1 xZ (general ..."old"... form of statements)
2 x = xZ (def:selfreferential statements)
3 x=xZ implies that (xZ = xZZ) (condition for self reference)

There is many a road from top downwards, each one outlines a concepT.
Sv:If I understand you sig then concepts exist in some Coordinate system,
not very similar to Platonian or Aristotelian ideas? (). Means yes huh!?

sV: Lets c how the condition restricts the set: let x be a statement and Z be "is not true".
1 S1 is not true (assumption)
2 S1 = "S1 is not true"(definition)
3 (S1="S1 is not true") implies that ( "S1 is not true" = ""S1 is not true"is not true")

Sv: Splendid! If the right side of the implication is false then its left side is also false
meaning that xZ cannot be allowed to be a self referent sentence!
But how do I know that the right side is false?

sV: Dont you realize that the sides in the right equality
are each other negations?
It transforms into: S1 is not true =S1 is true

Sv: And it took you 30 years to see that?
Arent you somewhat slow my friend?
sV )(...

80. so using your previous post, einstein is right. still can't see the connection to free will.

81. Originally Posted by curious mind
still don't see how it adresses free will, but yeah einstein said time isn't static; so sentence 1 is not true = right ... or not?
i have no clue what dynamic time means.
Henri Bergson is a famous French philosopher on time. A leading proponent of dynamic time.
Herakleitos once said that you cant step twice in the same river, Bergson is taking a walk and notices its different each time. Parmenides (and his pupil Zenon) denies change...meaning that ALL points of time are "there at once" you can map reality from beginning to end it will never change...This is static time, also refered by anglo saxons as "Block Time". The problem with this is to fit Mind and its Free will into it. And in particular tell what is meant bý the "innocent" term #The Present Moment#.

Where in the Static Model of Reality IS the present moment?

You can point to a certain point but soon you will have to move your pointing finger because the point pointed at now is in the past! The present moment is not within the static picture of Reality.
That "moment" wont stay put wherever you try to put it.

We experience time as changing (Bob Dylan.) It is "flowing"...
This and our moving finger demonstrates Dynamic Time.
Note that we dont experience static time...we construct it on a paper!
Bergson compares Dynamic time with a Melody!
Unless you relate the single notes to each other the melody doesnt exist.

Objections?

82. how does einstein fit into this?

83. Originally Posted by curious mind
how does einstein fit into this?
He is the leading Philosopher of time...only by comparing each philosopher to his contemporary environment will other philosophers come near him. Still he is seeing spacetime as a finished thing.
You dont understand the difference between the Static and Dynamic view yet do you?

Can you describe it in your own words? Is there any difference between a melody and a parabola?

Are they not both durations in Blocktime?
Can a physic formula explain how we recognise that the last note of a melody
really is the end of the melody even if the orchestra plays on?

Perhaps your trouble reveals a disability to distinguish Reality from its models?

You think Reality is a model? There is a model constructed by us that is the REAL model of Reality?
Which one is it? Quantum or Relativity Theory? They need to somehow be united!
And likewise does the models of Dynamic and Static time, but no unification has been successful this far!

84. static view = you stand in the same water the whole time, dynamic view = you don't. isn't that what einstein said? time is relative, but you have to capture a/the moment of time, and circumstances, to get a result; because the next moment would give a diferent result?

85. Originally Posted by curious mind
static view = you stand in the same water the whole time, dynamic view = you don't. isn't that what einstein said? time is relative, but you have to capture a/the moment of time, and circumstances, to get a result; because the next moment would give a diferent result?
You did think on your own (I think I will see what tomorrow)
...Now I will tell you something.

I accept both dynamic and static time!Two basic axioms in my view are:

1 x=x (Static existense)
2 x="x" (Dynamic existense)

Concepts tend to separate humans into conflicting groups;
in this case into defenders of static time and defenders of dynamic time.
The first group is in hard science in the absolute majority for obvious reasons,
and in behavioral sciences...i think that blocktime still wins but is not an enourmous majority.

I belong to neither group!

Dont count me in! Im a snob like Groucho Marx who refuses to join a club that accepts him as a menber!
Definition: To be in the Shakesperian sense you exist both dynamically and statically
Death is to become only a static thing.
(Roughly:To be static is to be (part of) a deck of cards to be dynamic is to be a game of cards.)

86. so you make free will depending on a person? some have/some haven't?

87. Originally Posted by curious mind
so you make free will depending on a person? some have/some haven't?
Im not sure what you mean... Back to Dynamics:

Bergson says that NEW things are created.
He must mean that any moment does not fully determine the next moment.
And the opponents (as well as Henri) declares that Dynamism implies InDeterminism.

And that Determinism ( the negation of indeterminism)
implies that there is nothing "new" that the supposed "free" "will" can put in Reality!

Is this the answer you want from me?
Persons cannot be real since they introduce unforeseen "new" objects into some moment of the timeline.

Decisions made by persons change their future so the future becomes a NEW future and the earlier model of the whole timeline was imaginary...

This problem is a Pseudoproblem for Determinists.
They have no persons in their model of Reality. Their equations deals with REAL things like "Photons", with parabolas not melodies...

And the Indeterminist couldnt care less about photons and parabolas, he wants a model showing himself looking at the model finding himself in the model...

If the TWO opponents dont find common ground, they will stay in conflict forever... and their models!
Can YOU find any such "common ground"? Do you sigh and say: In our dreams?

88. Ok so lets see here if I've actually managed to learn anything:

Lets start with x=x Here we have a completion, something that has finished, over and done with been and gone. This is now fixed in it's time and space, there to remain forever more, terminal and fixed, anchored in it's own reality.

So now we come to x="x" Now this is different this is changing , this is moving, evolving, transient but alive, a focus of consciousness that must move or alternate capable of establishing interconnections with everything and transitioning them all into a single potential focus of one.

So here we now have a problem of how to make x=x = x="x".

89. Originally Posted by RAJ_K
Why would the question, "Do I drink a glass of water, or a glass of milk," even come up if you did not have, at the very least, a partial free will?

Today I took a glass of juice but left bred toasts in morning as I have less time and have to go on work
Now we can say Today two things did not happen
1)I did not eat Toasts even they were offered by my wife with juice
2)Today I did not go to America

Both are are equal impossible for me to do
There no chance for both as there is no free will

There are reasons behind first
There are reason behind second

Reasons of both are equally strong and both are equal impossible
Really determined Space
I just had to. Really. Sorry Raj, you are probably too exhausted trying to insert logic into some "free" mind that have yet to demonstrate any ability to process even a few amount of it.
But then it is already burred here minus +- 30 irrelevant thread of free noise. Free because I did not paid for them, ... well not really. I have paid by major pain to my "good will" brain center, partly compensated by the tinkling of my humorous bulbous.
Thus now having acquired enough degree of liberty toward my pity center, I would like to remind to the "free will" fetishist that Raj has make some simple arguments that should have put his thread out of its misery.

Have this thread have the will to die in good grace , or the freedom to bug us to no end ?

90. Originally Posted by sigurdV
I have not read anything by those superior Masters of Logic since I prefere my own guidance.
That explains a lot.

91. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by sigurdV
I have not read anything by those superior Masters of Logic since I prefere my own guidance.
That explains a lot.
You misjudge (as expected)
I know what MUST be in their books
I knew the basics already in the seventies and they still lag behind.
They dont have the key to paradox yet.
Ill show you:

I am!
1 I am thinking this.
2 this = "I am thinking this"
3 I am thinking"I am thinking this"

Structure of the syllogism.
1 the assumed sentence saying Z about the object x
2 the sentence identifying said object
3 Reality

1 sentence 1 is not true
2 sentence 1 = "sentence 1 is not true"
3 "sentence 1 is not true" is not true

The Method of Abstraction.
1 x is not true
2 x = "x is not true"
3 "x is not true" is not true

Still no explanation is (easily) seen
so we abstract again
1 xZ
2 x = xZ
3 xZZ

Now we have the key:
(x=xZ) implies xZZ

If the right side is false
then so is the left side
and xZ is NOT identical with x
as we forced it to be.

92. Originally Posted by Ascended
Ok so lets see here if I've actually managed to learn anything:

Lets start with x=x Here we have a completion, something that has finished, over and done with been and gone. This is now fixed in it's time and space, there to remain forever more, terminal and fixed, anchored in it's own reality.

So now we come to x="x" Now this is different this is changing , this is moving, evolving, transient but alive, a focus of consciousness that must move or alternate capable of establishing interconnections with everything and transitioning them all into a single potential focus of one.

So here we now have a problem of how to make x=x = x="x".
why is there a problem? a= not true, b = not true isn't true, c = its not true that b isn't true.

93. still can't fit free will into this.

94. is a choice the result of a prediction, or is a prediction a result of a choice?

95. Originally Posted by curious mind
is a choice the result of a prediction, or is a prediction a result of a choice?
A true deterministic prediction would already know the choice before it is made. The prediction would include the choice and the result of it.

96. Originally Posted by sigurdV
I knew the basics already in the seventies and they still lag behind.
That's right. That explains why you are a world renowned philosopher and they are posting incoherent nonsense on Internet forums.

97. Originally Posted by Neverfly
Originally Posted by curious mind
is a choice the result of a prediction, or is a prediction a result of a choice?
A true deterministic prediction would already know the choice before it is made. The prediction would include the choice and the result of it.
yes because a choice is/was/were made at one point.

98. Originally Posted by curious mind
Originally Posted by Neverfly
Originally Posted by curious mind
is a choice the result of a prediction, or is a prediction a result of a choice?
A true deterministic prediction would already know the choice before it is made. The prediction would include the choice and the result of it.
yes because a choice is/was/were made at one point.
OK. Let's try this. Smith has an ability to know, infallibly, what will happen in future. When he tells his friend Jones this, Jones says, "That is ridiculous, I will just choose to do the opposite of what you are say I am going to do."

Smith says, "OK, if I offer you a cup of tea or coffee now, I know you will choose tea."

Is Jones "free" to choose coffee as he said he would?

99. that's why i said earlier that, if you would tell somebody the predicted result, can alter/change the outcome. yes jones can even be funky and go for a pepsi instead.

100. Originally Posted by curious mind
that's why i said earlier that, if you would tell somebody the predicted result, can alter/change the outcome. yes jones can even be funky and go for a pepsi instead.
"Smith has an ability to know, infallibly, what will happen in future." If Jones was going to choose Pepsi, he would have known.

You are just arbitrarily changing the rules on the fly to suit your case.

Page 4 of 7 First ... 23456 ... Last
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement