Warpspeedpeteys' Proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter warpspeedpetey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hatsoff said:
I don’t know where you’re getting all these bizarre preliminary assumptions. In what way is free will “mathematically improbable” in a deterministic universe? And what is this business of “fak[ing]…data points”?

Free will is simply our ability to exercise voluntary physical action. In other words, it’s a trivial consequence our organismal ability to think. Nothing about determinism changes that.
Click to expand...
If inert physical events are determined by other inert physical events, then its makes no sense to speak of “voluntary” action being the product of physical processes.
 
Only in human-speak.

[petey is my guardian angel’s name]

[notsuposedtotellyouthat]
 
Oreoracle said:
Come now, Petey. Making arguments for free will based on the appearance of such? This isn’t like you at all.
Click to expand...
im making the argument on trillions of tests of free will that we empirically experience everyday. empirical evidence is after all the standard, isnt it? i think you have implied that more than once yourself.
I think you’re trying to block me from the wrong angle. I do not contest that we each make use of willpower hundreds of times a day. What I contest is that this will is “free.” What does it mean to be free? If it means to be undetermined and indefinite, then it seems strange to posit that our will is free. Our usage of will can often be traced to our personalities, which seem to have form. Every quality of our personalities is a shackle that prevents us from being free (more precisely, the personalities are “us”), just as the qualities of a rock and its surroundings will direct its course as it soars through the air. You can’t escape the fact that willpower is used by you, and you are anything but free or indeterminate, which is why we label you as an object in language (by calling you “you”). Indeed, the only “thing” that is free is that which is without qualities: nothingness.
Click to expand...
the beauty of the argument is that no matter the way in which the “illusion” of free will works or the qaulifiers one attaches, it still runs afoul of the near mathematical impossibility of the universe just randomly forming in such a way as to perform that illusion flawlessly trillions of times per day. do you think it reasonable that the universe just happened to form in such a way as to give us the illusion of free will trillions of times per day, for no reason other than pure chance? if it is real, then my argument holds, if it is illusion then we are left with a universe obviously designed to fake free will. which then becomes evidence of a designer, still accomplishing the goal of the argument.
Of course it is! The law of gravity was derived from our observations of falling objects. We didn’t just begin speaking metaphysical babble and claim that gravitative force must exist without having experienced it. Without observations, you have nothing.
Click to expand...
dont cherry pick, you know full well i am refering to the inability of science to have any empirical evidence of conditions prior to planck time.
Why couldn’t the maximal, necessary being have been inanimate? Why did it have to be conscious, intelligent, and sentient?
Click to expand...
can an inanimate object be maximal? surely it is greater to be animate rather than inanimate, to be concious is greater than unconcious, intelligence is greater than stupidity and sentience is greater than non-sentience. all these lacks would then would not be maximal.
You even admitted on another thread that the causal chain never had to exist. Nothingness, as in no causal chain, was a possible world.
Click to expand...
it is a set of nothing, by making it a set, it becomes something and not nothing. and yes, im a working Thomist, my positions change from time to time as new information comes in. im sure to keep evolving as my understanding does.
Since your later premises build off of (P2), then any problems with (P2) will be severely damaging to your argument. As of now, your argument is resting on the unstable grounds of ambiguity and mystery.
Click to expand...
well, i dont think there is anything ambiguous about the argument. your talking about free will in ways that dont affect the argument. it doesnt matter how the illusion is performed, rather the near mathematical impossibility of a determinant universe being randomly formed in such a way as to fake free will, trillions of times per day.
 
WinterWH said:
Only in human-speak.

[petey is my guardian angel’s name]

[notsuposedtotellyouthat]
Click to expand...
😛 sweet! mine doesnt have time to talk to me, i keep her way too busy. all i get is the occasionall dirty look!
 
hatsoff said:
Logic is a system of rules of inference developed in a semantic language. We physical humans are (usually) the ones who shape the rules, and who do the actual inferring.
Click to expand...
So you don’t believe that logic has any objective application, and you agree that this is just your belief correct?
 
warpspeedpetey said:
which bizarre preliminary assumptions are you refering too?
Click to expand...
I already mentioned two of them, and you have responded to both, as quoted thusly:
the illusion of free will is mathematically improbable in a deterministic universe. as i said here in the OP.
Click to expand...
“if we can determine the beginning state of a closed system we can predict the state of that system anywhere along its developement. if free will is deterministic that means that the start of the universe was randomly formed in such a way as to perfectly fake all those data points. for no reason at all other than pure chance. such an arrangement though, if true, would smack of design rather than random chance. after all what would be the odds of every particle in the universe being arranged in such a way as to give us a near perfect illusion of free will, by chance.”
Click to expand...
None of that is necessary for deterministic free will, nor the illusion of non-deterministic free will.
data points refers to the trillions of times per day that individuals exercise their free will.
Click to expand...
Nothing is being “faked.” We really do exercise free will–just not the sort of free will you apparently envision.
so we can break physical determinism with thought? how does that work?
Click to expand...
No. The universe may well be deterministic. Our thoughts simply run on that deterministic substrate.
 
MindOverMatter said:
So you don’t believe that logic has any objective application, and you agree that this is just your belief correct?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean by “objective application.” Moreover, this is not merely my belief, but the clear and unambiguous reality. Logics are formal (and occasionally informal) systems of inference developed by human beings. Such is quite obvious.
 
hatsoff said:
I don’t know what you mean by "objective application.
Click to expand...
Does any of it apply to objective reality.
hatsoff said:
" Moreover, this is not merely my belief, but the clear and unambiguous reality. Logics are formal (and occasionally informal) systems of inference developed by human beings. Such is quite obvious.
Click to expand...
Its not obvious to me what you are talking about. Can you please explain some more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top