1. let's say, smith knows that tomorrow at 10:12 am jones,walking to work, will be hit by a cell-phone, thrown out the window by an angry woman, and injured. now he only tells his brother about it, who will say 'what ever', result = jones get hit.

but if he tells jones and then jones decides to not walk, but taking the bus instead, said cell-phone won't hit him.

2. So Smith doesn't "know" anything. It is just a vague possibility that might or might not happen. Who cares

Now, what if Smith actually knows what IS going to happen. Not what might happen. Not what he thinks could happen. But what IS actually GOING to happen.

Do you see the difference?

("Yeah, but what if it doesn't happen" )

3. Originally Posted by curious mind
let's say, smith knows that tomorrow at 10:12 am jones,walking to work, will be hit by a cell-phone, thrown out the window by an angry woman, and injured. now he only tells his brother about it, who will say 'what ever', result = jones get hit.

but if he tells jones and then jones decides to not walk, but taking the bus instead, said cell-phone won't hit him.
Still posting rubbish.
What does "know" mean?

4. 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.
This has already been covered. Think about it... if it seems so simple and obvious, why are 5 people arguing with you about it?
Jones cannot go funky.
The prediction can be told to him but Jones would be unable to affect the result.

5. Originally Posted by curious mind
still can't fit free will into this.
"This" wont do curious:
Into what do you want the free will to fit?
And what free will do you have in mind?

6. smith knows that cell-phone will hit jones. if he does nothing, but knowing that, it will happen. but if he tells jones, jones can choose to either laugh at smith and be hit or taking a different route or staying at home to avoid being hit.

smith knows what will happen, and knows him interfering can alter the outcome of what he knows vs not interfering.

7. Originally Posted by curious mind
smith knows that cell-phone will hit jones. if he does nothing, but knowing that, it will happen. but if he tells jones, jones can choose to either laugh at smith and be hit or taking a different route or staying at home to avoid being hit.
smith knows what will happen, and knows him interfering can alter the outcome of what he knows vs not interfering.
In other words he doesn't know.
You're still dancing around the point.

8. Originally Posted by curious mind
smith knows that cell-phone will hit jones. if he does nothing, but knowing that, it will happen. but if he tells jones, jones can choose to either laugh at smith and be hit or taking a different route or staying at home to avoid being hit.

smith knows what will happen, and knows him interfering can alter the outcome of what he knows vs not interfering.
the important element here is prediction. Then knowledge. Then decision.
a) " smith knows that cell-phone will hit jones"
b) jones gets to know smiths prediction
c) What will jones do?
d) And what will his act tell us?

Knowledge
The first instance of knowledge is in a) What smith knows is: IF smith tells jones then jones may choose to avoid it.
It is not true that smith knows jones decision in advance. To predict is not to know.

Proof:
Take a very heavy stone and hold it over your foot,
Will you drop it? Please predict.
Give answer to me if answer is no then "somebody" by mistake
collides with you and you drop the stone.
and come to watch. (as I predicted you took the foot away in last second.)
There is a "free will" seen as resistance to forces like prediction.
Is that what you are after?

9. Originally Posted by sigurdV
the important element here is prediction. Then knowledge. Then decision.
a) " smith knows that cell-phone will hit jones"
b) jones gets to know smiths prediction
c) What will jones do?
d) And what will his act tell us?

Knowledge
The first instance of knowledge is in a) What smith knows is: IF smith tells jones then jones may choose to avoid it.
It is not true that smith knows jones decision in advance. To predict is not to know.

Proof:
Take a very heavy stone and hold it over your foot,
Will you drop it? Please predict.
Give answer to me if answer is no then "somebody" by mistake
collides with you and you drop the stone.
and come to watch. (as I predicted you took the foot away in last second.)
There is a "free will" seen as resistance to forces like prediction.
Is that what you are after?
Yeah, blah blah blah.
What has been stated is that knowledge precludes choice.
You too are wandering away from the point.

10. hi, yes...and...no...and...then...we...have
...divine will...basically...fear...guilt...
shame...stubbonness...all...take...away...our
...free...will...and...then...we...have...no
...choice...this...is...why...repentance...re-
opens...the...door...to...humility...temperence
...compassion...courage...gratitude...integrity...
generosity...and...peace...involve...free...will.. .
and...open...the...door...to...devine...will...the
...cheribims...can...not...be...fooled...by...fool ishness!

peace&love...vern

11. Originally Posted by vernpeace
hi, yes...and...no...and...then...we...have
...divine will...basically...fear...guilt...
shame...stubbonness...all...take...away...our
...free...will...and...then...we...have...no
...choice...this...is...why...repentance...re-
opens...the...door...to...humility...temperence
...compassion...courage...gratitude...integrity...
generosity...and...peace...involve...free...will.. .
and...open...the...door...to...devine...will...the
...cheribims...can...not...be...fooled...by...fool ishness!
peace&love...vern
learn to spell,
learn to punctuate,
learn the difference between empty claims and supportable posts.
Oh, and do try to be coherent.

12. hi Dywyddr, like...your...name...you...mean?
yes...its...free...give...it...a...go...and...than k
...Him!

Peace&love...vern

13. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by curious mind
smith knows that cell-phone will hit jones. if he does nothing, but knowing that, it will happen. but if he tells jones, jones can choose to either laugh at smith and be hit or taking a different route or staying at home to avoid being hit.
smith knows what will happen, and knows him interfering can alter the outcome of what he knows vs not interfering.
In other words he doesn't know.
You're still dancing around the point.
he does, but it depends on the choice. if jones decides to not believe smith, he will get hit by the cell-phone. if jones decides to believe him, he won't get hit by it. smith knows.

not interfering = getting hit, interfering = a choice is needed to get hit or not. interfering turns the result of a non-interfering event into a new event with the new result being known to jones upon smith's choice.

14. Originally Posted by curious mind
he does, but it depends on the choice. if jones decides to not believe smith, he will get hit by the cell-phone. if jones decides to believe him, he won't get hit by it. smith knows.

not interfering = getting hit, interfering = a choice is needed to get hit or not. interfering turns the result of a non-interfering event into a new event with the new result being known to jones upon smith's choice.
No. You are wrong. You are, quite simply, not understanding and you've passed the point of ever trying to understand.
Maybe you should spend less time arguing and more time trying to learn something.

15. Originally Posted by curious mind
he does, but it depends on the choice. if jones decides to not believe smith, he will get hit by the cell-phone. if jones decides to believe him, he won't get hit by it. smith knows.
Then he doesn't know.

not interfering = getting hit, interfering = a choice is needed to get hit or not. interfering turns the result of a non-interfering event into a new event with the new result being known to jones upon smith's choice.
Wrong.

If there's an either/ or option then Smith doesn't know. It's that simple.

16. jones knows smith, being a little 2year boy, will fall in the pool and die the next day. so, the next day, he will be at the pool 2 minutes before the known time, and stop smith from falling in.
to you, that makes jones not knowing that smith will die because he interfered and altered the outcome.

17. Originally Posted by curious mind
that makes jones not knowing that smith will die because he interfered and altered the outcome.
Correct. If he actually knew what was going to happen, then he couldn't change it. If he can change it then his "knowledge" is not just flawed, not even wrong, it isn't even knowledge.

18. Originally Posted by curious mind
jones knows smith, being a little 2year boy, will fall in the pool and die the next day. so, the next day, he will be at the pool 2 minutes before the known time, and stop smith from falling in.
to you, that makes jones not knowing that smith will die because he interfered and altered the outcome.
No.

If he Knows (do you get it? KNOWS) that something will happen, then it will happen.

If he KNOWS that a little boy will fall in the pool, then he ALSO MUST KNOW that said person will stand beside the pool to try to prevent it. You cannot remove the deterministic factors from the equation just to support your misconception.

19. Originally Posted by curious mind
jones knows smith, being a little 2year boy, will fall in the pool and die the next day. so, the next day, he will be at the pool 2 minutes before the known time, and stop smith from falling in.
to you, that makes jones not knowing that smith will die because he interfered and altered the outcome.
Could you please ignore the butterflies
Dont start a new argument
before the old is accepted or refused!

Do you still claim prediction and knowledge to be the same?

If you do then tell me:
1 Is knowledge not truth?
2 Is prediction not guesswork?
Explain how they can be the same.

20. Originally Posted by vernpeace
hi, yes...and...no...and...then...we...have
...divine will...basically...fear...guilt...
shame...stubbonness...all...take...away...our
...free...will...and...then...we...have...no
...choice...this...is...why...repentance...re-
opens...the...door...to...humility...temperence
...compassion...courage...gratitude...integrity...
generosity...and...peace...involve...free...will.. .
and...open...the...door...to...devine...will...the
...cheribims...can...not...be...fooled...by...fool ishness!

peace&love...vern
Hi this was funny!
Some sort of poetry.
Are you lost in dreams?
Or will you make a statement?

21. Originally Posted by sigurdV
Originally Posted by curious mind
jones knows smith, being a little 2year boy, will fall in the pool and die the next day. so, the next day, he will be at the pool 2 minutes before the known time, and stop smith from falling in.
to you, that makes jones not knowing that smith will die because he interfered and altered the outcome.
Could you please ignore the butterflies
Dont start a new argument
before the old is accepted or refused!

Do you still claim prediction and knowledge to be the same?

If you do then tell me:
1 Is knowledge not truth?
2 Is prediction not guesswork?
Explain how they can be the same.
when did i claim them to be the same?

22. Originally Posted by curious mind
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Originally Posted by curious mind
jones knows smith, being a little 2year boy, will fall in the pool and die the next day. so, the next day, he will be at the pool 2 minutes before the known time, and stop smith from falling in.
to you, that makes jones not knowing that smith will die because he interfered and altered the outcome.
Could you please ignore the butterflies
Dont start a new argument
before the old is accepted or refused!

Do you claim that prediction and knowledge are the same?

If you do then tell me:
1 Is knowledge not truth?
2 Is prediction not guesswork?
Explain how they can be the same.
when did i claim them to be the same?
¨
I wish I had forgotten to put the word "still" in the sentence.
That made you unwilling to enlighten me with statements...instead you give me a question.
That is impolite unless you also include statements. But its really my own fault:

I assumed something. I TRY not to make assumptions but they slip by my censorship.
I now change the wording so you can see what I intended to ask.
So how do you see the relation between prediction and knowledge then?
I will be happy to know that we are of the same opinion in the matter then analysis can proceed.

23. to predict something includes knowledge, but knowledge doesn't require prediction.

24. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Yeah, blah blah blah.
What has been stated is that knowledge precludes choice.
You too are wandering away from the point.
What point? (I cant count them all.)
"precludes"? New word to me:
Please explain the sentence it is used in.
Especially "knowledge precludes choice".
It sounds exciting!

25. Originally Posted by curious mind
to predict something includes knowledge,
but knowledge doesn't require prediction.
You mean that to know something you need not predict anything.
I wish it were so! Then knowledge seems within reach for anyone.

How did you come by that beautiful piece of knowledge?
I see nothing in the statement that proves the statement.
So how do I, searching for truth, find out its truth.

26. what has knowing to do with prediction? you need prediction to know that a stone is a stone? you need knowledge to know that you stumble about said stone previous of stumbling.

27. Originally Posted by curious mind
what has knowing to do with prediction? you need prediction to know that a stone is a stone? you need knowledge to know that you stumble about said stone previous of stumbling.

Look- the Topic was about Free Will.
Free will is defined as a Will that is Free from Outside Physical Influence.
In a deterministic Universe, all influences, interactions and reactions are measurable and therefor, can be calculated/determined if you know all of the factors exactly.
A deterministic prediction would account for all of the factors and this includes any attempt at thwarting the prediction by "simply choosing" something other than the prediction.
Since any factors that would thwart a prediction are simply a matter of the initial calculations, the only prediction that can possibly be reached is the eventual outcome and no prediction would be made that can be thwarted.

28. Originally Posted by curious mind
what has knowing to do with prediction?
you need prediction to know that a stone is a stone?
Look at the stone you claim is a stone:
I predict that in one minute it will prove itself to be a hungry transformer from Arcturus.
I think we better run

Dont BELIEVE in logic, or anything else for that matter: Test it!
See what predictions can be made and check them against Reality.
Then you KNOW!

29. all i can do is agree to disagree.

30. believer in ahimsa(non violence)

31. Originally Posted by sigurdV
Look at the stone you claim is a stone:
I predict that in one minute it will prove itself to be a hungry transformer from Arcturus.
I think we better run

Dont BELIEVE in logic, or anything else for that matter: Test it!
See what predictions can be made and check them against Reality.
Then you KNOW!
Nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.

Originally Posted by curious mind
all i can do is agree to disagree.
What you mean is: you prefer to retain your (incorrect) opinion, rather than accept the logic.

Originally Posted by parag29081973
believer in ahimsa(non violence)
Absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

32. looks like it. and to keep going would lead into endlessly repeating of what's already said. so i see no reason to keep going, as mentioned twice befor already.

33. Originally Posted by curious mind
looks like it. and to keep going would lead into endlessly repeating of what's already said. so i see no reason to keep going, as mentioned twice befor already.
Yeah, you know what? The only reason it's gone on and on and on is because you chose to block out all other arguments, not listen and over-all, keep repeating your misconceptions and misunderstandings no matter how much correction others tried to give.

"Agree to disagree" is just a cop out.

34. that's ok, i'll manage to live with the blame in disagreement.

35. Originally Posted by curious mind
that's ok, i'll manage to live with the blame in disagreement.
Well, you go ahead and do that. So will HappyBrightly- convinced that his excuses were good enough.

36. after you can bring evidence that there is no free will with an existing god, i'll agree with you.

37. Originally Posted by curious mind
after you can bring evidence that there is no free will with an existing god, i'll agree with you.
Considering that I never made any such argument, I have no need to provide such evidence.

38. Originally Posted by curious mind
after you can bring evidence that there is no free will with an existing god, i'll agree with you.
What do you think the last 400 posts have been? Just because you choose to ignore them with a wave of your hand doesn't invalidate the argument.

Lets try one more time:

An infallible and omniscient god knows everything and cannot be wrong (1), therefore there can be no free will (2).

Do you need it made any simpler?

(1) by definition
(2) because that would mean there were things the omniscient god didn't know or that the infallible god was wrong about. (3)
(3) which is impossible.

39. that's your opinion, not evidence.

40. Originally Posted by Neverfly
Originally Posted by curious mind
after you can bring evidence that there is no free will with an existing god, i'll agree with you.
Considering that I never made any such argument, I have no need to provide such evidence.
yet you say i'm wrong.

41. Originally Posted by curious mind
yet you say i'm wrong.
Because you are. You have the misconception in your head that if a deterministic prediction is made, it can be trumped simply by someone changing their mind. No matter how many times many people have tried to explain to you that a deterministic calculation requires accounting for any change of mind.
Classic case of "Do not confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."

I do not make any argument from a God perspective because that would require a God.
But logic dictates that the definitions and properties of those definitions must be accepted.
Originally Posted by curious mind
Is mathematics opinion?

42. is math free will?

and here i would have to retype what i already typed. and since neither of us can actually prove our opinion, the question about right or wrong is mute. it's just a different opinion.

43. Originally Posted by curious mind
is math free will?

and here i would have to retype what i already typed. and since neither of us can actually prove our opinion, the question about right or wrong is mute. it's just a different opinion.
The word is "moot" and no.
You have posted opinion, we have posted logic.
Inexorable, (so far) irrefutable logic.
Not opinion.

You are wrong.
We are not.
(Unless you can show a fault in the logic).

44. Originally Posted by curious mind
No, it is logic. And, it seems to me, pretty irrefutable. Confirmed by the fact you have made no attempt to refute it other than your usual handwaving.

Please show which of step is logically incorrect. You seem to have three options:

1. An omniscient god doesn't know everything.
2. An infallible god can be wrong.
3. La la la. I've got my fingers in my ears.

So, which is it?

45. Originally Posted by curious mind
is math free will?

and here i would have to retype what i already typed. and since neither of us can actually prove our opinion, the question about right or wrong is mute. it's just a different opinion.
As everyone else has produced logically irrefutable arguments and all you have done is say no, there is only one "opinion" here. Yours. Unsubstantiated. Unsupportable. And wrong.

46. so you're saying an all-knowing god, who interferes to alter the outcome, becomes an unknowing god?

47. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
is math free will?

and here i would have to retype what i already typed. and since neither of us can actually prove our opinion, the question about right or wrong is mute. it's just a different opinion.
As everyone else has produced logically irrefutable arguments and all you have done is say no, there is only one "opinion" here. Yours. Unsubstantiated. Unsupportable. And wrong.
since you're saying my opinion is wrong, only yours is left. and i can apply all the 'Un' words to it also, since it can't be [roven.

48. Originally Posted by curious mind
so you're saying an all-knowing god, who interferes to alter the outcome, becomes an unknowing god?
I don't think anyone is saying that. Where did you get that from? Please try and stay focussed on the discussion at hand.

Please explain how an all-knowing (and infallible) god can NOT know what is going to happen in future.

49. Originally Posted by curious mind
since you're saying my opinion is wrong, only yours is left. and i can apply all the 'Un' words to it also, since it can't be [roven.
So you have absolutely no concept in your head of a logical argument? Extraordinary. How do you manage to survive the day?

50. Originally Posted by curious mind
since you're saying my opinion is wrong, only yours is left.
Yes, you're still confusing logic with opinion.
And you're still assuming that opinion (and uninformed opinion at that) carries the same weight as a chain of logic.

and i can apply all the 'Un' words to it also, since it can't be [roven.
You can "apply" whatever you like - it still won't change the fact that your opinion is worthless.

51. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by curious mind
since you're saying my opinion is wrong, only yours is left.
Yes, you're still confusing logic with opinion.
And you're still assuming that opinion (and uninformed opinion at that) carries the same weight as a chain of logic.

and i can apply all the 'Un' words to it also, since it can't be [roven.
You can "apply" whatever you like - it still won't change the fact that your opinion is worthless.

52. Originally Posted by curious mind
so you're saying an all-knowing god, who interferes to alter the outcome, becomes an unknowing god?
No and no.
At no stage (one more time) is interference required.

53. Originally Posted by curious mind
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by curious mind
since you're saying my opinion is wrong, only yours is left.
Yes, you're still confusing logic with opinion.
And you're still assuming that opinion (and uninformed opinion at that) carries the same weight as a chain of logic.

and i can apply all the 'Un' words to it also, since it can't be [roven.
You can "apply" whatever you like - it still won't change the fact that your opinion is worthless.
So dumb it doesn't even approach being funny.

54. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
so you're saying an all-knowing god, who interferes to alter the outcome, becomes an unknowing god?
I don't think anyone is saying that. Where did you get that from? Please try and stay focussed on the discussion at hand.

Please explain how an all-knowing (and infallible) god can NOT know what is going to happen in future.
the whole thread is about that, but it became jones/smith midway. i explained it more than once, and repeating it again wouldn't make any difference to either of us. it must be predetermined.

55. Originally Posted by curious mind
Please explain how an all-knowing (and infallible) god can NOT know what is going to happen in future.
the whole thread is about that, but it became jones/smith midway. i explained it more than once, and repeating it again wouldn't make any difference to either of us. it must be predetermined.[/QUOTE]

You haven't "explained" anything. To save me searching through the entire thread, can you just say exactly where the logical error in that statement is?

56. there is no logical error.

57. OK. So if an all-knowing (and infallible) god DOES know what is going to happen in future (as you agree) then there is no scope for free will. Because that would mean he would not know what was going to happen.

58. he knows what choice you make/made.

59. Originally Posted by curious mind
he knows what choice you make/made.
Therefore your choice is not free.
If you change your mind at the last second he would be wrong. Which is impossible.

If he is not wrong then he always knew you were going to change your mind at the last second so that was not a free choice. You couldn't NOT change your mind at the last second.

Jesus H. Christ. This is painful. This is worse than toilet training a puppy.

He knows what you will choose. However often you change your mind, however many people try and intervene, he has known since the beginning of time what you will choose. He wrote it down on a scrap of paper that he has just found under the sofa. You made the choice he predicted. You couldn't do otherwise. Therefore your choice was not free.

60. he knows what choice you make/made.

61. So you still have no argument other than "la la la, can't hear you, got my fingers in my ears"?

He knows what choice you made because YOU HAVE NO CHOICE.

Jesus wept.

62. Originally Posted by curious mind
he knows what choice you make/made.
If it is known beforehand then you CAN NOT "choose" otherwise.

63. The sad thing is, I don't even agree with the argument I am supporting. But it is irrefutable logic.

64. Originally Posted by Strange
The sad thing is, I don't even agree with the argument I am supporting. But it is irrefutable logic.
You have no choice but to agree!

65. and the circle closed once more.

66. Originally Posted by curious mind
and the circle closed once more.
My god, but your are not only curious, but a patient mind . Can't you see the logic ?

Someone knows, so someone else won't be able to choose. It's called entanglement, once you measure the decision you measure the knowing, and the other way round. It is a very nice piece of logic, you can fill entire forum with such non-sense, or circle.

Because I am god, I know already what decision circler will made. They cannot conceive that moot point to you, that will destroy their credential. Everybody knows that ego is the stronger unyielding inertial force, they call it "free will".

Go free will, go !

67. you know, with a god like that, every religion should actually hope and pray that god doesn't exist, because that's like living in hell. the murderer had no choice but to kill, it was a god given thingy. how could anyone dare to judge him then.

68. Originally Posted by curious mind
you know, with a god like that, every religion should actually hope and pray that god doesn't exist, because that's like living in hell. the murderer had no choice but to kill, it was a god given thingy. how could anyone dare to judge him then.
Exactly !!!

69. Originally Posted by curious mind
how could anyone dare to judge him then.
If by "him" you mean the murderer, it's simple: we had no choice, it was a god-given thingy.
We're all acting out a play when we don't know the script.
We're puppets, dancing to god's tune.

70. you realize that you basically just said hitler was a god given thing?

71. Originally Posted by curious mind
you realize that you basically just said hitler was a god given thing?
I have already stated, numerous times, if god exists there is no such thing as free will.
Which means that:
If god exists then all we are doing is exactly what god planned for us.
Everything, the good, the indifferent and the bloody horrendous, is what he intended.
If god exists he wants us to suffer.
If god exists he is an incompetent 1 sadist.

1 And yes, I realise that "incompetent" doesn't exactly fall into the category of "omniscient".

72. we wouldn't need a god for all that, since we mastered all that/all the above already.

73. Originally Posted by curious mind
we wouldn't need a god for all that, since we mastered all that/all the above already.
Another logic fail...

74. maybe it was a god given thingy that made me write this.

75. Originally Posted by curious mind
maybe it was a god given thingy that made me write this.
Since god has known for thousands of years that you would write that, you didn't actually have a choice.

76. he surely has an affection for timing then.

77. Originally Posted by curious mind
you realize that you basically just said hitler was a god given thing?
Or maybe ... there is no god ... so we have no one else to blame.

Although Christians often credit God for all the good things and blame man for all the bad things which always seems a little unreasonable. Especially so because if their God did exist he couldn't have given us free will. (See previous 500 posts for the simple reason why not.)

78. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
you realize that you basically just said hitler was a god given thing?
Or maybe ... there is no god ... so we have no one else to blame.

Although Christians often credit God for all the good things and blame man for all the bad things which always seems a little unreasonable. Especially so because if their God did exist he couldn't have given us free will. (See previous 500 posts for the simple reason why not.)
i'm not going for another round.

79. Originally Posted by curious mind
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
you realize that you basically just said hitler was a god given thing?
Or maybe ... there is no god ... so we have no one else to blame.

Although Christians often credit God for all the good things and blame man for all the bad things which always seems a little unreasonable. Especially so because if their God did exist he couldn't have given us free will. (See previous 500 posts for the simple reason why not.)
i'm not going for another round.
ok, I'll do it

There is 500 posts that state : If God exist there is no free will. That statement is free of charge, and surely that half a tons of it make it a logical proof. Especially if your criteria for philosophy is the same that is used for decorating Wall Mart shelves...

Because it have been also proven that free will does not exist, I 'll anyway use my will (that is not free at all, but in relation to my brain circuitry and the various potential of those neurons, carefully charges by a not too strongly propaganda oriented education) to state that it does not in anyway proves or disproves God.

The proof of the proposition is on free willy'st

80. Originally Posted by Boing3000
There is 500 posts that state : If God exist there is no free will. That statement is free of charge
I assume you mean you disagree. So in what way is will "free" if it is known in advance exactly what you will do in every situation? Are you "free" to choose if your choices have all been written down in advance?

I genuinely don't see how you can reconcile those two things.

Because it have been also proven that free will does not exist
That might be a surprise to many philosophers over the last few thousand years.

81. Originally Posted by Strange
I assume you mean you disagree.
Not exactly, I cannot disagree with a void statement, nor agree...

Originally Posted by Strange
So in what way is will "free" if it is known in advance exactly what you will do in every situation?
Will is NOT free. "Free Will" is an oxymoron. A will boils down to some potential that "wants" to realize itself. Being a rock wanting to follow its geodesic in space time, or Joe's wanting to impress its girl friend with a new IPhone.

WILL is the opposite thing to FREE. It means ATTACHED to those potential, it mean wants, change, purpose and goal.
Free means detached, wandering, devoid of influence.

"Known in advance" is a logical fallacy, and a scientific impossibility. You can write the "writing of" in a blog all you want, it is still void.
You cannot even know the position of planet (you know those big chunk of rocks without will) in advance.
But not knowing it does not means, when a decisions will be taken, that it will NOT be base on the local potential at play (like one of this rock (call it the Moon) is just there bathing you in a light that, that day, will turn you melancholic (generally it turns you on but...)

Proposing a being that know all those in advance does not change anything. There is a god that say "I knew it, I knew it, I knew it". So what ?

Originally Posted by Strange
Are you "free" to choose if your choices have all been written down in advance?
Written or not in advance has nothing to do with your "degree of liberty". Raj try to explain that 2 hundredths post below.
Your freedom of choice of will boils down to the number of them being "at hand". The more you have, the more you are "free".
What if you discover today a book where all your decisions was written in advance ? What does it change ?

Originally Posted by Strange
I genuinely don't see how you can reconcile those two things.
I never try to reconcile non-sense, so you'll never see that

Originally Posted by Strange
Because it have been also proven that free will does not exist
That might be a surprise to many philosophers over the last few thousand years.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe, or maybe not. I am afraid you'll have to be more specific about those philosophies

It is well known to philosopher that freedom or liberty can be obtain trough detachment of wants. (which is irrefutable)
I am afraid that in our post fossil carbon dark age, some may also think freedom can only be obtain by an infinite amount of money/energy (which is debatable)

Both could work, one does not need "will" turned into pathological greed. And there are probably a lots of other possibilities...

82. Originally Posted by Boing3000
"Known in advance" is a logical fallacy, and a scientific impossibility. You can write the "writing of" in a blog all you want, it is still void.
You cannot even know the position of planet (you know those big chunk of rocks without will) in advance.
But not knowing it does not means, when a decisions will be taken, that it will NOT be base on the local potential at play (like one of this rock (call it the Moon) is just there bathing you in a light that, that day, will turn you melancholic (generally it turns you on but...)

Proposing a being that know all those in advance does not change anything. There is a god that say "I knew it, I knew it, I knew it". So what ?
And what logical fallacy would it be?

What you just wrote is complete nonsense.

So, we cannot know the position of a planet? By what standard are you using this word, "know?"
And if your will is known in advance, then it's a determined event, not a free choice. It is not a choice that is free from physical constraints.

83. Originally Posted by Boing3000
...
I didn't understand any of that so I am going to take the easy route and assume it all made sense and is beyond me.

84. Originally Posted by Neverfly
And what logical fallacy would it be?
(A => B) => (B => A) [ "=>" means "imply" and parenthesis courtesy of my keyboard]

Originally Posted by Neverfly
What you just wrote is complete nonsense.
Not what you wrote. That is perfectly sensical, you declare you cannot understand.
You haven' that freedom (understanding), I fear. Me knowing that in advance does not imply you have no other will (like trying hard to make a point) nor that I am god.

Originally Posted by Neverfly
So, we cannot know the position of a planet? By what standard are you using this word, "know?"
Nope. Not in the present, even without the uncertainty principle, there is always what bad scientist call a "margin of error" which is in fact a property of nature has observed by sapiens trough math, that needs an INFINITE amount of precision in a INFINITE amount of "frame of references".
There is no such thing as "error" in nature. Just try to compute a distance between two bodies based on two supposedly infinity precise number. Use any supercomputer you wants, ... I'll see you beyond eternity for the infinitely complete answer....

Not in the future either, even based on infinitely (that is fictional) precise quantity (things like say 42 (infinite series of zero omitted to save the universe to explode).
Equations are unsolvable, that is called non-linearity, chaos, and so forth. The universe is just non-linear, that explain why approximation is what science is all about...
The tree-body problem (courtesy of thephysictsforum) is impossibly complicated. You should also know that the universe is composed of more objects than that...

That is the standard I use to use "know". "It's there" can also do, if you cannot reach that degree of freedom. It is also very fine.

Originally Posted by Neverfly
And if your will is known in advance, then it's a determined event, not a free choice. It is not a choice that is free from physical constraints.
The if does not change anything to your sentence because it has no meanings.
Because there is no choice that is free from physical constraints, unless you want to describe some, precisely.
Please do that while not referring to god like entity like soul or supposed superiority of Sapiens over Tuna fish, ... or then describe precisely (that is with piece of logic attached) the criteria used...

Originally Posted by Neverfly
You seem to try to convince you of that again and again. It will continue (until you understand your mistake), because it is very false. That is a knowledge.

From my vantage point I merely regurgitate thoughts from my smarter elders teachers. That is another knowledge.

85. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Nope. Not in the present, even without the uncertainty principle, there is always what bad scientist call a "margin of error" which is in fact a property of nature has observed by sapiens trough math, that needs an INFINITE amount of precision in a INFINITE amount of "frame of references".
There is a big difference between "margin of error" and not knowing. In fact, they have nothing to do with each other. This is an argument typical of mystics and pseudoscientists: "science doesn't know everything therefore my crazy ideas are as valid as anything else".

86. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Boing3000
Nope. Not in the present, even without the uncertainty principle, there is always what bad scientist call a "margin of error" which is in fact a property of nature has observed by sapiens trough math, that needs an INFINITE amount of precision in a INFINITE amount of "frame of references".
There is a big difference between "margin of error" and not knowing. In fact, they have nothing to do with each other. This is an argument typical of mystics and pseudoscientists: "science doesn't know everything therefore my crazy ideas are as valid as anything else".
Yes, thank you for repeating my arguments. "margin of error" is a well known quantity really called "precision", there is no "error" in nature.
Science is the logical way to address that feature, it does that pretty well, so far.

I am wondering what crazy ideas you are talking about. There are a lots of mystics and pseudo philosopher around, making arguments with random words thrown in sequence. They are easily spotable, they like circles...

87. Not only do we have freewill but everything in the Universe has as much free will as we do, if one defines freewill as: "free to chose freely within the limits of its nature and the forces acting upon it." We do not have the freedom to chose to fly, unless we have the money to buy an airline ticket. Science is beginig to accumulate evidence to support this view. Not yet iron clad proof, but enough that added to our subjective experience of freewill, makes for a very serious arguement.

88. Originally Posted by Sealeaf
Not only do we have freewill but everything in the Universe has as much free will as we do, if one defines freewill as: "free to chose freely within the limits of its nature and the forces acting upon it." We do not have the freedom to chose to fly, unless we have the money to buy an airline ticket. Science is beginig to accumulate evidence to support this view. Not yet iron clad proof, but enough that added to our subjective experience of freewill, makes for a very serious arguement.
Yep that is a very coherent definition.

But allow me to find "free to choose freely" a little circular. There are costs associated to choices, every one and each of them.
The Universe seems to be a ensemble of emergent properties emerging(lol) from a chaotic background. It kind of guarantee some amount of un-presivibility, making choosing a never ending surprise...
Let's call it freewill for those who seems to have a special relationship with choices.

89. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Originally Posted by Neverfly
And what logical fallacy would it be?
(A => B) => (B => A) [ "=>" means "imply" and parenthesis courtesy of my keyboard]
You did not answer the question. In a deterministic Universe, if a deterministic prediction is made, what fallacy do you claim would demonstrate that the prediction is merely an implication and that the prediction can be trumped with Free Will?
Originally Posted by Boing3000
Because there is no choice that is free from physical constraints, unless you want to describe some, precisely.
True. Agreed, there.
Originally Posted by Boing3000
Please do that while not referring to god like entity like soul or supposed superiority of Sapiens over Tuna fish, ... or then describe precisely (that is with piece of logic attached) the criteria used...
I have not referred to Gods will over Human will at any time in any of the arguments that I have made.

The rest of your post makes as much sense as your 'equation,' above.

90. You're surely not expecting Boing to make sense?

91. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
You're surely not expecting Boing to make sense?
Well... Even I do it, sometimes...

92. Originally Posted by Neverfly
Originally Posted by Boing3000
Originally Posted by Neverfly
And what logical fallacy would it be?
(A => B) => (B => A) [ "=>" means "imply" and parenthesis courtesy of my keyboard]
You did not answer the question.
Is that so ?
Too bad you cannot understand it. Strange for someone commenting on philosophy forums.
The proposition above is yours and it is FALSE.
Someone predicts implies that someone do, does not imply that if someone do, you can infer anything about someone prediction.
Maybe those links (links) will help you, or maybe your free will will again avoid you to understand such very basic concept. Beware it is full of strange equations...

Originally Posted by Neverfly
In a deterministic Universe, if a deterministic prediction is made,
Well, and interesting hypothesis for though wandering, I'll let you dwell into fictional universe, with fictional free will.

Originally Posted by Neverfly
what fallacy do you claim would demonstrate that the prediction is merely an implication and that the prediction can be trumped with Free Will?
Hum hum.
First I claim nothing appart that "free will" is an oximoron. Secondly fallacies demonstrate nothing, you see, that is why their are called like that.
Third, you have no idea what the last part of your sentence meens. At least I see none.

Originally Posted by Neverfly
Originally Posted by Boing3000
Please do that while not referring to god like entity like soul or supposed superiority of Sapiens over Tuna fish, ... or then describe precisely (that is with piece of logic attached) the criteria used...
I have not referred to Gods will over Human will at any time in any of the arguments that I have made.
Thank you for that. Now try to make any arguments, because you have still to prove that a free will cannot be predicted.
Good luck, you need some, because predictability is very much chaotic, and free will an illusion (just in case you still hang on your non-senses)

Originally Posted by Neverfly
The rest of your post makes as much sense as your 'equation,' above.
That much you are pretty certain. I bet you can predict something out of that.
You should try those mysterious equations in the links. Maybe you'll even learn to fly

93. Boing3000,
You appear to be saying, repeatedly, that I am arguing a position which is the opposite of the one I've argued.
That, alone, tells me that if you are so clueless as to what I've said, I cannot take your rebuttals on this topic seriously.

Neither transposition or inference are on topic, here. This topic is not about what is implied.

94. Originally Posted by Neverfly
Boing3000,
You appear to be saying, repeatedly, that I am arguing a position which is the opposite of the one I've argued.
That, alone, tells me that if you are so clueless as to what I've said, I cannot take your rebuttals on this topic seriously.

Neither transposition or inference are on topic, here. This topic is not about what is implied.
Did I ? when exactly ?
I was talking to Strange, you should not intercept other conversation, especially to argues beside any points. You get carried away so easily.

BTW this topic is about Free Will. But if you want to change it, why not ?

What is it that is implied by free will ? (given it exists, which it does not)

95. Originally Posted by Boing3000
(given it exists, which it does not)
Or is this just another of your baseless assertions?

96. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Did I ? when exactly ?
I was talking to Strange, you should not intercept other conversation, especially to argues beside any points. You get carried away so easily.
I'm really starting to get the impression you play at being insane for effect.
I directly responded to you and you directly responded to me- with quotes from me. Claiming after the fact that I intercepted messages intended for someone else is absurd. You see those quotes in post 492? It says, "Neverfly" and it does not say, "Strange."

You presented an argument I have clearly not made at all
Originally Posted by Boing3000
BTW this topic is about Free Will. But if you want to change it, why not ?
And what would I change it to? I have been on topic. As above, you making very odd and completely unsupported claims about others is easily refuted by their present posts in the thread.
Originally Posted by Boing3000
What is it that is implied by free will ? (given it exists, which it does not)
You are mistaking defined properties as implication.

97. Originally Posted by Neverfly
I directly responded to you and you directly responded to me- with quotes from me. Claiming after the fact that I intercepted messages intended for someone else is absurd. You see those quotes in post 492? It says, "Neverfly" and it does not say, "Strange."
Not quite. You intercept my conversation with Strange at post 482 (try to get your causality right for once)
And now you complain that I am misquoting you.
Should I apologies now ? Because I predict you are going to play the outrage whining again.

Originally Posted by Neverfly
You presented an argument I have clearly not made at all
I present argument that *I* made. I refute silly pointless quoting *you* made.

Originally Posted by Neverfly
Originally Posted by Boing3000
BTW this topic is about Free Will. But if you want to change it, why not ?
And what would I change it to? I have been on topic. As above, you making very odd and completely unsupported claims about others is easily refuted by their present posts in the thread.
Into implied, whatever *you* mean by that, whyever you think it is related to free will. However, you won't bother rationalize it. Ever never.

Originally Posted by Neverfly
Originally Posted by Boing3000
What is it that is implied by free will ? (given it exists, which it does not)
You are mistaking defined properties as implication.
*I* did that ?

98. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Boing3000
(given it exists, which it does not)
Or is this just another of your baseless assertions?
Mine, that of Sealeaf, Raj. Not only assertions, but backed up by logic and complete sentences.

Contrary to you quacking boring void and superbly poetic assertions.

You cannot recognize evidence, so stop pretend to know what that means. Ho, I forgot, you have not that will even if it is gratis.

99. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Not quite. You intercept my conversation with Strange at post 482 (try to get your causality right for once)
And now you complain that I am misquoting you.
Should I apologies now ?
Yes, you should.
That I posted where you replied to Strange is irrelevant. Post 492 shows you direct- at me- claims of arguments that I am not making.
You are using Red Herrings to try to refute it, you are creating circular arguments and frankly, it is pointless. You seem to just want to argue.
Originally Posted by Boing3000
Because I predict you are going to play the outrage whining again.
Nonsense. It is not "outraged whining" when someone points out that you are in error. You are in error and you need to just get over it instead of always trying to weasel out of your own words.
Originally Posted by Boing3000
I refute silly pointless quoting *you* made.
Part of the reason many of your posts are so difficult to understand is because you live in dream-land and see the only 'reality' you wish to see (or create to suit yourself).
I'm sorry... Is that a silly, pointless quote? Feel free to refute it. I could use yet another laugh.
Originally Posted by Boing3000
*I* did that ?
Yes. You also just quoted my direct questions to you without answering them.

Originally Posted by Boing3000
Not only assertions, but backed up by logic and complete sentences.
Oh God! Go on... tell another one!

100. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Mine, that of Sealeaf, Raj. Not only assertions, but backed up by logic and complete sentences.
Oh, wrong again.

Contrary to you quacking boring void and superbly poetic assertions.
You cannot recognize evidence, so stop pretend to know what that means. Ho, I forgot, you have not that will even if it is gratis.
I see, a resort to ad homs rather than actually address my posts.

Page 5 of 7 First ... 34567 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