Free agent cannot be created

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman »

-1- wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:14 am
bahman wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 6:16 pmI think the author is wrong. Any given particle has a determined position and momentum.
Well, the entire quantum mechanic community thinks that the author is right. What math do you have to show that supports that the author is wrong? Just saying "he (or she) is wrong" does not quite cut the mustard.
If we accept that particle is information then it must have a location otherwise the interaction with it is impossible. Regardless, the indeterminacy is not related to the idea of free will.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by -1- »

bahman wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:47 pm
-1- wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:14 am
bahman wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 6:16 pmI think the author is wrong. Any given particle has a determined position and momentum.
Well, the entire quantum mechanic community thinks that the author is right. What math do you have to show that supports that the author is wrong? Just saying "he (or she) is wrong" does not quite cut the mustard.
If we accept that particle is information then it must have a location otherwise the interaction with it is impossible. Regardless, the indeterminacy is not related to the idea of free will.
Free will is related to the idea of determinism. Determinism true - no free will. Determinism false - free will is right.

Why do you say that indeterminancy is unrelated to the mechanisms that direct the possibility or the impossibility of free will? The entire existence of free will depends on whether the world is deteministic or not.

I really don't see how you can say "non-determinism does not affect the notion of free will". Bah! The entire argument you built was on the premise of determinance... once determinance is debunked, you dismiss your own proof by saying that the determinance and your conclusion are not related. This renders your argument invalid, because your argument is based on the premis of determination; once it is shown that determism is false you dismiss its importance, its validty; and yet your argument still is built on the premis. If you dismiss this premis, you render your argument false, and your conclusion false.
Skepdick
Posts: 5034
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Skepdick »

-1- wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:35 pm Free will is related to the idea of determinism. Determinism true - no free will. Determinism false - free will is right.

Why do you say that indeterminancy is unrelated to the mechanisms that direct the possibility or the impossibility of free will? The entire existence of free will depends on whether the world is deteministic or not.

I really don't see how you can say "non-determinism does not affect the notion of free will". Bah! The entire argument you built was on the premise of determinance... once determinance is debunked, you dismiss your own proof by saying that the determinance and your conclusion are not related. This renders your argument invalid, because your argument is based on the premis of determination; once it is shown that determism is false you dismiss its importance, its validty; and yet your argument still is built on the premis. If you dismiss this premis, you render your argument false, and your conclusion false.
You are failing to distinguish between ontology and epistemology. And you are also failing to distinguish between non-determinism and randomness.

Epistemically you can't determine whether the ontology (reality) is deterministic or non-deterministic, so the entire issue about free will is incoherent nonsense.

Non-determinism is the foundation of the Philosophical Language games, but it's utterly irrelevant and inconsequential.

The study of non-determinism is Computer Science. It's perfectly sensible to speak about non-deterministic things while rejecting OR accepting free will.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec18.html
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman »

-1- wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:35 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:47 pm
-1- wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:14 am Well, the entire quantum mechanic community thinks that the author is right. What math do you have to show that supports that the author is wrong? Just saying "he (or she) is wrong" does not quite cut the mustard.
If we accept that particle is information then it must have a location otherwise the interaction with it is impossible. Regardless, the indeterminacy is not related to the idea of free will.
Free will is related to the idea of determinism. Determinism true - no free will. Determinism false - free will is right.
Free will is related to idea of non-determinism.
-1- wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:35 pm Why do you say that indeterminancy is unrelated to the mechanisms that direct the possibility or the impossibility of free will?
Because indeterminacy has nothing to do with non-determinism, give their definitions, I already provided the definitions.
-1- wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:35 pm The entire existence of free will depends on whether the world is deteministic or not.
What do you mean with the world? Does world contain too?
-1- wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:35 pm I really don't see how you can say "non-determinism does not affect the notion of free will".
Non-determinism is related to free will. A system that is non-deterministic is free.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by -1- »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:44 pm You are failing to distinguish between ontology and epistemology. And you are also failing to distinguish between non-determinism and randomness.

Epistemically you can't determine whether the ontology (reality) is deterministic or non-deterministic, so the entire issue about free will is incoherent nonsense.

Non-determinism is the foundation of the Philosophical Language games, but it's utterly irrelevant and inconsequential.

The study of non-determinism is Computer Science. It's perfectly sensible to speak about non-deterministic things while rejecting OR accepting free will.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec18.html
Of course you realize you are completely full of shit.
Skepdick
Posts: 5034
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Skepdick »

-1- wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 12:51 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:44 pm You are failing to distinguish between ontology and epistemology. And you are also failing to distinguish between non-determinism and randomness.

Epistemically you can't determine whether the ontology (reality) is deterministic or non-deterministic, so the entire issue about free will is incoherent nonsense.

Non-determinism is the foundation of the Philosophical Language games, but it's utterly irrelevant and inconsequential.

The study of non-determinism is Computer Science. It's perfectly sensible to speak about non-deterministic things while rejecting OR accepting free will.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec18.html
Of course you realize you are completely full of shit.
What is it with most people on this forum not knowing the difference between themselves and others?

Of course I realise you are completely full of shit.

The ontological determinism or non-determinism of reality is epistemically non-determinable because superdeterminism is currently untestable/unfalsifiable.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by -1- »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jun 20, 2020 7:30 am
What is it with most people on this forum not knowing the difference between themselves and others?

Of course I realise you are completely full of shit.

The ontological determinism or non-determinism of reality is epistemically non-determinable because superdeterminism is currently untestable/unfalsifiable.
Skepdick, you fucking stupid no-good goddamned inbecile, you are hardly worth the conceptual spittle I project toward your feeble persona.
Skepdick
Posts: 5034
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Skepdick »

-1- wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:46 am Skepdick, you fucking stupid no-good goddamned inbecile, you are hardly worth the conceptual spittle I project toward your feeble persona.
Triggered!!! Would you like to unpack this on a couch?
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by -1- »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:25 pm
Triggered!!! Would you like to unpack this on a couch?
Which part of "leave me alone, you shit-for-brains ****" don't you understand?

Go away. Just fucking go away. Play stupid games with your mutti. This forum is for serious grown-ups, you don't belong here, Skepdick.
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by Greylorn Ell »

bahman wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:46 am Here is the argument:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The first premise is correct since causation always aim to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.
Your premise is correct. Your "logic" behind it is faulty. Start with item 1, from which other stuff follows.

Causation does not require knowledge. Do you really believe that our sun's gravitational field, which causes our planet to orbit it once yearly, is something that the sun knows about?

GL
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Free agent cannot be created

Post by bahman »

Greylorn Ell wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 6:22 am
bahman wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:46 am Here is the argument:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The first premise is correct since causation always aim to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.
Your premise is correct. Your "logic" behind it is faulty. Start with item 1, from which other stuff follows.

Causation does not require knowledge. Do you really believe that our sun's gravitational field, which causes our planet to orbit it once yearly, is something that the sun knows about?

GL
Change causation by creation and let me know if the argument makes sense.
Post Reply