Revolution in Thought

[Eodnhoj7]

Here is my revolutionary knowledge.

Everything peacegirl says is wrong.

It is a falsifiable principle if it doesn’t work.

That's very true, and it is a falsifiable principle. And it's a correct principle if it does work.

Since I am the one who discovered the principle I am telling you it always works.

There's no example where it doesn't.

So it's falsifiable in words only but not in practice.

But falsification, as a principle, can be falsified.

[peacegirl]

Here is my revolutionary knowledge.

Everything peacegirl says is wrong.

It is a falsifiable principle if it doesn’t work.

That's very true, and it is a falsifiable principle. And it's a correct principle if it does work.

Since I am the one who discovered the principle I am telling you it always works.

There's no example where it doesn't.

So it's falsifiable in words only but not in practice.

So you're saying the law that man's will is not free and the corollary that follows has to be a little wrong to be right? I am saying that the basic principle that stems from determinism could be falsified if it didn't work to change human conduct. Maybe you're uncomfortable with the word "law". Is that what's bothering you?

[peacegirl]

Or you could post how you would deal with the problem that most people get more satisfaction from power than from altruism.

This is not about altruism per se, although it's human nature to want to help others in serious need. Sure, there's some people who don't care about the well-being of anyone except themselves. But you said "most" people get more satisfaction from power than from altruism. That's a false dichotomy and I don't think it's at all accurate. The economic system in the new world is going to be so different that the financial insecurities that people now have will evaporate, thereby eliminating the need for charities to step in to help.

If what you think about human nature was true, we would already be living in an utopistic world..

Not true.

We have been growing and developing just like a child from
infancy. There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without
passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have
reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going
through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a
shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery
was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because
of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man
responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was
never found if it lies hidden beyond this point? If you recall, Durant
assumed that if man was allowed to believe his will is not free it would
lessen his responsibility because this would enable him to blame other
factors as the cause. If he committed crimes, society was to blame; if
he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine which had slipped a cog
in generating him. It is also true that if it had not been for the
development of laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of
right and wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of
this coming Golden Age.

Yet despite the fact that we have been
brought up to believe that man can be blamed and punished for doing
what he was taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone of all law
and order up to now, although we are about to shed the last stage of
the rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point); the force that
has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the mankind
systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of satisfaction,
or this invariable law of God states explicitly, as we perceive these
mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL IS NOT
FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE DOES.
This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that the
mathematical corollary, God’s commandment, does not apply to
anything after it is done — only before.

“I don’t understand why God’s commandment applies to
something before it is done, and not after. Does this mean you can
blame after a crime has taken place? And doesn’t this go back to the
same problem man has been faced with since time immemorial; how
to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of our
penal code? How is it humanly possible not to judge, not to criticize,
not to blame and punish those acts of crime when we know that man
was not compelled to do them if he didn’t want to? If someone killed
my loved one how is it possible not to hate the individual responsible,
not to judge this as an act of evil, not to desire some form of revenge?
I still don’t understand how not blaming will prevent man from
hurting his fellow man if this is his desire. Though this may be an
undeniable corollary, how is it humanly possible not to hold someone
responsible for murder, rape, the killing of six million people, etc.?
Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these crimes or
pretend they didn’t happen? Besides, what will prevent someone from
blaming and punishing despite the fact that will is not free — if it
gives him greater satisfaction? Just because man’s will is not free is
certainly not a sufficient explanation as to why there should be no
blame.”

This has always been the greatest stumbling block which kept free
will on the throne until the present time. It is a natural reaction to
blame after you’ve been hurt. The reason God’s commandment does
not apply to anything after it is done, only before, is because it has the
power to prevent those very acts of evil for which a penal code was
previously necessary, as part of our development. At this juncture, I
shall repeat a passage from Chapter One to remind the reader of
important facts that must be understood before continuing.

[Logik]

But falsification, as a principle, can be falsified.

It can. The falsification of falsification requires perfect knowledge.

[Logik]

So you're saying the law that man's will is not free

I am saying that it's a distinction without a difference.

and the corollary that follows has to be a little wrong to be right?

It's not the corollary. It's the first law of epistemology. Unless you have perfect knowledge, your hypothesis is (in some way) wrong.
Do you have perfect knowledge?

I am saying that the basic principle that stems from determinism could be falsified if it didn't work to change human conduct. Maybe you're uncomfortable with the word "law". Is that what's bothering you?

No. Words don't make me uncomfortable.

The fact that you can't tell me what you would admit as evidence against this "discovery" makes me uncomfortable.

[Eodnhoj7]

But falsification, as a principle, can be falsified.

It can. The falsification of falsification requires perfect knowledge.

Actually it doesn't unless "perfect knowledge" is axiomized in some other state. I can falsify "x" event because of "y" event, and this falsification exists as "true" due to "y" event. However if "z" event comes along and proves "x" as true; we understand that "x" is false relative to "y" but true relative to "z" thus necessitating that falsification is always true and false at the same time in different respects.

[Logik]

Actually it doesn't unless "perfect knowledge" is axiomized in some other state. I can falsify "x" event because of "y" event, and this falsification exists as "true" due to "y" event. However if "z" event comes along and proves "x" as true; we understand that "x" is false relative to "y" but true relative to "z" thus necessitating that falsification is always true and false at the same time in different respects.

It is axiomatised. Statistical mechanics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics ) + Bayesian inference ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference ) + Principle of maximum entropy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy )

In English the hypothesis "Man's will is either....":
Free
Or
Not Free

As expressed by the eternal philosophical dichotomy. Assuming that the proposition is in some way testable (e.g it's actually meaningful) the initial belief about man's free will is that there's 50% probability that it's free and 50% probability that it's not free.

TL;DR Is man's will free? I don't know.

Till you define the experiment by which you measure "freedom" my belief about man's will is at 0 decibels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel

[Atla]

The reason God’s commandment does
not apply to anything after it is done, only before, is because it has the
power to prevent those very acts of evil for which a penal code was
previously necessary, as part of our development.

God's commandment? You think there is a divine force working behind the scenes?
And how does it prevent the evil acts?

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually it doesn't unless "perfect knowledge" is axiomized in some other state. I can falsify "x" event because of "y" event, and this falsification exists as "true" due to "y" event. However if "z" event comes along and proves "x" as true; we understand that "x" is false relative to "y" but true relative to "z" thus necessitating that falsification is always true and false at the same time in different respects.

It is axiomatised. Statistical mechanics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics ) + Bayesian inference ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference ) + Principle of maximum entropy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy )

In English the hypothesis "Man's will is either....":
Free
Or
Not Free

As expressed by the eternal philosophical dichotomy. Assuming that the proposition is in some way testable (e.g it's actually meaningful) the initial belief about man's free will is that there's 50% probability that it's free and 50% probability that it's not free.

TL;DR Is man's will free? I don't know.

Till you define the experiment by which you measure "freedom" my belief about man's will is at 0 decibels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel


This "dichotomy" is false when there is either "or" or "not or". "Or" takes on a sythetic property of continual divergence, and we are left with a triadic state to knowledge. Divergence is an ever present median and necessitates all knowledge as a process of movement.

Dually this "or" is divergence to "and" as a relative thetical/antithetical statement, and we are left with the "and/or" dichotomy as "divergence/convergence" as grounded in "synthesis as movement".

You cannot define an experiment without using base abstract/empirical properties such as "synthesis" that necessitate the framework as subject to higher laws which reduce it (the framework) to a probabilistic dichotomy in and of itself that cannot be rationalized as a be all end all of knowledge without falling into the same contradiction it seeks to avoid.

This "synthetic" property to all of phenomenon, observed dichotomously through convergence/divergence, in and of itself is cause in and of itself due to its recursive properties and the nature of "free will" exists in an accords through deterministic laws that are unavoidable.

[Logik]

Actually it doesn't unless "perfect knowledge" is axiomized in some other state. I can falsify "x" event because of "y" event, and this falsification exists as "true" due to "y" event. However if "z" event comes along and proves "x" as true; we understand that "x" is false relative to "y" but true relative to "z" thus necessitating that falsification is always true and false at the same time in different respects.

It is axiomatised. Statistical mechanics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics ) + Bayesian inference ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference ) + Principle of maximum entropy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy )

In English the hypothesis "Man's will is either....":
Free
Or
Not Free

As expressed by the eternal philosophical dichotomy. Assuming that the proposition is in some way testable (e.g it's actually meaningful) the initial belief about man's free will is that there's 50% probability that it's free and 50% probability that it's not free.

TL;DR Is man's will free? I don't know.

Till you define the experiment by which you measure "freedom" my belief about man's will is at 0 decibels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel


This "dichotomy" is false when there is either "or" or "not or". "Or" takes on a sythetic property of continual divergence, and we are left with a triadic state to knowledge. Divergence is an ever present median and necessitates all knowledge as a process of movement.

Dually this "or" is divergence to "and" as a relative thetical/antithetical statement, and we are left with the "and/or" dichotomy as "divergence/convergence" as grounded in "synthesis as movement".

You cannot define an experiment without using base abstract/empirical properties such as "synthesis" that necessitate the framework as subject to higher laws which reduce it (the framework) to a probabilistic dichotomy in and of itself that cannot be rationalized as a be all end all of knowledge without falling into the same contradiction it seeks to avoid.

This "synthetic" property to all of phenomenon, observed dichotomously through convergence/divergence, in and of itself is cause in and of itself due to its recursive properties and the nature of "free will" exists in an accords through deterministic laws that are unavoidable.

*yawn* Bayesian inference is formalised relativism.

[Eodnhoj7]

It is axiomatised. Statistical mechanics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics ) + Bayesian inference ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference ) + Principle of maximum entropy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy )

In English the hypothesis "Man's will is either....":
Free
Or
Not Free

As expressed by the eternal philosophical dichotomy. Assuming that the proposition is in some way testable (e.g it's actually meaningful) the initial belief about man's free will is that there's 50% probability that it's free and 50% probability that it's not free.

TL;DR Is man's will free? I don't know.

Till you define the experiment by which you measure "freedom" my belief about man's will is at 0 decibels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel


This "dichotomy" is false when there is either "or" or "not or". "Or" takes on a sythetic property of continual divergence, and we are left with a triadic state to knowledge. Divergence is an ever present median and necessitates all knowledge as a process of movement.

Dually this "or" is divergence to "and" as a relative thetical/antithetical statement, and we are left with the "and/or" dichotomy as "divergence/convergence" as grounded in "synthesis as movement".

You cannot define an experiment without using base abstract/empirical properties such as "synthesis" that necessitate the framework as subject to higher laws which reduce it (the framework) to a probabilistic dichotomy in and of itself that cannot be rationalized as a be all end all of knowledge without falling into the same contradiction it seeks to avoid.

This "synthetic" property to all of phenomenon, observed dichotomously through convergence/divergence, in and of itself is cause in and of itself due to its recursive properties and the nature of "free will" exists in an accords through deterministic laws that are unavoidable.

*yawn* Bayesian inference is formalised relativism.

False, Bayesian inference is subject to a higher law as further mathematical/logical laws and symbols diverge/converge to result in this framework. Bayesian inference cannot maintain itself under its own framework without requires some framework to determine it. Even the symbol nature of Bayesian inference necessitates all "or" symbols to exist simultaneously as "and" symbols when inverted. Bayesian inference can be inverted, symbolically as well the nature of "synthesis" being inverted to a dualism of determinism/acausality or One (synthesis) and "Many" (Causality/Acausality).

[Logik]

False, Bayesian inference is subject to a higher law as further mathematical/logical laws and symbols diverge/converge to result in this framework. Bayesian inference cannot maintain itself under its own framework without requires some framework to determine it. Even the symbol nature of Bayesian inference necessitates all "or" symbols to exist simultaneously as "and" symbols when inverted. Bayesian inference can be inverted, symbolically as well the nature of "synthesis" being inverted to a dualism of determinism/acausality or One (synthesis) and "Many" (Causality/Acausality).

Bayesian inference is basic integer counting.

The available evidence being equally spread across the hypotheses.

[Eodnhoj7]

False, Bayesian inference is subject to a higher law as further mathematical/logical laws and symbols diverge/converge to result in this framework. Bayesian inference cannot maintain itself under its own framework without requires some framework to determine it. Even the symbol nature of Bayesian inference necessitates all "or" symbols to exist simultaneously as "and" symbols when inverted. Bayesian inference can be inverted, symbolically as well the nature of "synthesis" being inverted to a dualism of determinism/acausality or One (synthesis) and "Many" (Causality/Acausality).

Bayesian inference is basic integer counting.

The available evidence being equally spread across the hypotheses.

And how do you "count" the act of "counting"?

[Nick_A]

Socialism and the progressive agenda is clearly falsifiable and doesn't work yet people keep swallowing it hook line and sinker. I wonder why that is?

[Eodnhoj7]

Socialism and the progressive agenda is clearly falsifiable and doesn't work yet people keep swallowing it hook line and sinker. I wonder why that is?

And you are arguing this "revolution in thought" is socialistic and progressive?