free will

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
what then? then get the proper background education on the topic.

You just can't admit when your wrong can you? What a big ego problem you have! If you really had a leg to stand on you would have presented it by now. Instead you have tried every trick in the book (and this is the second time you are trying the 'your too ignorant' trick). Sorry, but if background education was all that was needed then you would have no problem at all presenting a reference in support of your claim - yet you have failed to do so. Not one solitary reference.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Hawking called it new. If you realised that Hawking was mistaken, then why did you use him as a reference and suggest that if I was correct then he must be wrong?

[b]If you think it does, you are either wrong or as deluded as a fundamentalist Christian.
What makes you think I think it does? Its you that brought him up in the first place, and I mer ...[text shortened]... ons. You can't simply pick one at random then tell everyone else they are ignorant and wrong.[/b]

Whatever. You are truly an ignorant person and I really have no desire to converse with someone foolish enough to think a physicist is an authority on philosophy. As I said (and you could look up if you were honest) adequate determinism has been around since at least the 2nd century BCE. So when you have the nerve to call someone wrong, check yourself first.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
You are truly an ignorant person and I really have no desire to converse with someone foolish enough to think a physicist is an authority on philosophy.

When did I even suggest that? Strawmen and accusations of ignorance will not get you anywhere. We don't even disagree on a lot. I suspect you are just seeing red and haven't actually been reading my posts very carefully.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
I am not using a non-standard definition. If you are so sure I am, post it and then post the difference between determinism and fatalism. Otherwise, you have no leg to stand on claiming I am wrong. Tell you what, go ask a professor of Quantum mechanics at you local university if it's deterministic. I advise you if you do, be prepared to have your worldview shattered.

edit - even Stephen Hawking says Quantum Mechanics is deterministic.

I think I'll stick with what the experts in the field say. Believe what you will. 😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
You just can't admit when your wrong can you?

you haven't proven me wrong. my speculative argument can't be proven right or wrong, the supporting arguments leading up to the speculative argument were proven with given sources. your lack of background education to understand the given sources are not a failure on my part, those are your failures.

What a big ego problem you have! If you really had a leg to stand on you would have presented it by now.
Instead you have tried every trick in the book (and this is the second time you are trying the 'your too ignorant' trick).

i call it as i see it.

Sorry, but if background education was all that was needed then you would have no problem at all presenting a reference in support of your claim - yet you have failed to do so. Not one solitary reference.

i've given you references. get yourself that background education and reread the references. you can't hope to understand them in your present condition.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you haven't proven me wrong. my speculative argument can't be proven right or wrong,

And once again, I was not even bothering to dispute your speculative argument because it was based on a false premise.

the supporting arguments leading up to the speculative argument were proven with given sources.
No they weren't.

your lack of background education to understand the given sources are not a failure on my part, those are your failures.
Always easy to claim everyone else is just ignorant. Not so easy to actually back up your claims. The fact that you haven't given a single reference in support of your claims nor a logical argument is nothing to do with my background education.
If you genuinely believe you have provided a reference that supports your claim, then please quote the relevant part and I will explain why I do not think it supports your claim.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And once again, I was not even bothering to dispute your speculative argument because it was based on a false premise.

you failed to show what that false premise was. all the premises i made are backed up by current physics.

the supporting arguments leading up to the speculative argument were proven with given sources.
No they weren't.

says you. anyone can check the sources for themselves and come to a different conclusion.

your lack of background education to understand the given sources are not a failure on my part, those are your failures.
Always easy to claim everyone else is just ignorant. Not so easy to actually back up your claims. The fact that you haven't given a single reference in support of your claims nor a logical argument is nothing to do with my background education.
If you genuinely believe you have provided a reference that supports your claim, then please quote the relevant part and I will explain why I do not think it supports your claim.[/b]

the whole parts are relevant since they are interconnected and support each other.

i showed you scientific articles that declare that true randomness doesn't exist in classical physics and it can only found it in the quantum physics.
i then showed you articles that declare quantum physics may be a gateway to a multi-verse and parallel universes.

these are solid support for my speculations concerning free will and randomness. i'm not quiet sure what it is you are disputing since you haven't made a case. all you've done is repeat objections that have been answered. i can only conclude that you don't have the background to understand the presented topics.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you failed to show what that false premise was.

I have stated many times what I think the false premise is. Its rather odd that you keep pretending you don't know.
Here it is again:
I dispute your premise that closed systems are necessarily completely deterministic.

all the premises i made are backed up by current physics.
The one above is not.

says you. anyone can check the sources for themselves and come to a different conclusion.
So we'll leave it up to the audience to decide? Ha ha. Will you never run out of bad debating tactics? Whats next? 'Because the Bible says so'?

the whole parts are relevant since they are interconnected and support each other.
But nowhere do they support your premise.

i showed you scientific articles that declare that true randomness doesn't exist in classical physics and it can only found it in the quantum physics.
Which I do not dispute.

i then showed you articles that declare quantum physics may be a gateway to a multi-verse and parallel universes.
Again, something I do not dispute.

these are solid support for my speculations concerning free will and randomness.
Speculations that I have not disputed.

i'm not quiet sure what it is you are disputing since you haven't made a case.
I have stated very clearly a number of times and do so again at the top of this post.

all you've done is repeat objections that have been answered.
They have not been answered. You simply repeat your claims. That is not an answer.

i can only conclude that you don't have the background to understand the presented topics.
Your conclusion is wrong. I also suspect you are lying, because if that was genuinely what you concluded you would have pointed me to resources to educate myself. But you didn't because you know no such resources exist. In fact something as simple as the claim that closed systems are necessarily deterministic would be on Wikipedia if it were true. So point me to the Wikipedia page. Is that so hard?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have stated many times what I think the false premise is. Its rather odd that you keep pretending you don't know.
Here it is again:
I dispute your premise that closed systems are necessarily completely deterministic.

so you dispute the laws of physics. well good luck with that one.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
so you dispute the laws of physics. well good luck with that one.

No, I dispute your claim that the laws of physics are necessarily deterministic.
Once again, you have failed to provide any references to back it up and have resorted to yet another bad debating tactic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I dispute your claim that the laws of physics are necessarily deterministic.
Once again, you have failed to provide any references to back it up and have resorted to yet another bad debating tactic.

yeah, it's probably a wast of time with you, but for anyone else following along, this will be useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i see many christians on here use free will as a way of excusing bad human behavior. i ask this though - if god knows what is going to happen to everybody then it is impossible for them to have free will. we all have our futures planned out. nothing can change.ELL

Knowing a bad choice is about to be made is not making it, if you make a bad
choice and people saw it coming doesn't mean those people who saw it coming
were at fault you are! If the future was planned out that we have to live with
our choices good or bad and we are the ones making those choices, then we
are the ones making those choices. If all life is just us playing a part in a written
book where we get no choices but those that were written out for us by the
author than yes I agree. You can only be held accountable for that which you
picked to do, and if you’re the one doing the picking, your accountable.
Kelly

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
yeah, it's probably a wast of time with you, but for anyone else following along, this will be useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

I had already read most of that and actually quoted it to someone else in a related discussion. It does not support your position. In fact the phrase 'closed system' doesn't even occur on the page.
Care to try again?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
yeah, it's probably a wast of time with you, but for anyone else following along, this will be useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

"As Stephen Hawking explains, the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities."

Thanks for the link.

Oh, and the people following along think twhitehead is owning you. Just so you know. 🙂

Originally posted by SwissGambit
"As Stephen Hawking explains, the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities."

Thanks for the link.

Oh, and the people following along think twhitehead is owning you. Just so you know. 🙂

Yet determinism requires nothing more than determined probabilities. Determinism does not mean exact predictions. Is that what you think it means?