You said " i will choose", or "i can choose the alternative", but in both cases, you are presupposing that you do have a "choice". No, you don` t have a choice, and you choice is an illusion of the deep reality that it is only math in the sky. You argument don` t work, since you are supposing the very thing you are trying to show, namely, choice.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

You said " i will choose", or "i can choose the alternative", but in both cases, you are presupposing that you do have a "choice". No, you don` t have a choice, and you choice is an illusion of the deep reality that it is only math in the sky. You argument don` t work, since you are supposing the very thing you are trying to show, namely, choice.

Piffle. Explain why I cant choose 01 if your maths says I'll choose 10.

What I said was that although it was obvious that apples fell to the ground and did not soar upward, Newton still believed that required explanation. Therefore, what is obvious still requires explanation.

kennethamy wrote:

What I said was that although it was obvious that apples fell to the ground and did not soar upward, Newton still believed that required explanation. Therefore, what is obvious still requires explanation.

You use the example of an apple falling, but an apple falling is not obvious. Thus, you don ` t have an example of something that is obvious, and requires explanation.


You might say "apples always fall", but the frequency of how much it occurs has no bearing on it being obvious.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

What I said was that although it was obvious that apples fell to the ground and did not soar upward, Newton still believed that required explanation. Therefore, what is obvious still requires explanation.

You use the example of an apple falling, but an apple falling is not obvious. Thus, you don ` t have an example of something that is obvious, and requires explanation.


You might say "apples always fall", but the frequency of how much it occurs has no bearing on it being obvious.

Of course it is obvious that apples fall and do not soar. It was just because people never gave it a thought, and never thought it needed explanation, that Newton was a genius, for he saw that what ordinary people did not believe needed explanation did need explanation.

You are doing the same thing as before, and you obvious did not understand my explanation. What you say here is NOT an argument of any sort.

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

You are doing the same thing as before, and you obvious did not understand my explanation. What you say here is NOT an argument of any sort.

Right, another determinist with no argument, unable to meet the in your face obvious objection. I just cant be bothered. If you want to believe absurd nonsense, that's your affair.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

I don't understand how you make the jump from the restriction of freewill, by the governing laws of reality, to the non-existence of freewill.
Freewill could very well exist within restrictions, no one said freewill need be omnipotent.

You objective is to show that there is free will.

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

I don't understand how you make the jump from the restriction of freewill, by the governing laws of reality, to the non-existence of freewill.
Freewill could very well exist within restrictions, no one said freewill need be omnipotent.

Well, most people i think imagine free willing as something that breaks with the laws. If this conception is true, then there is obvious no free will.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

You objective is to show that there is free will.

Full blown nonsense. Your objective is to support the claim that biology is fully mathematisable. As that claim is obviously false and the only support you've offered for it is "it's obvious", all you have is a faith based bunch of supernatural bollocks. I can not be bothered with any more of this crap from determinists, today. It is so unredeemedly teenaged.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

I don't understand how you make the jump from the restriction of freewill, by the governing laws of reality, to the non-existence of freewill.
Freewill could very well exist within restrictions, no one said freewill need be omnipotent.

Well, most people i think imagine free willing as something that breaks with the laws. If this conception is true, then there is obvious no free will.

OK , that works fine, I can't say whether or not most people think that, but it doesn't matter. It is true that freewill must exist within the framework of laws governing existence, if it exists at all. I feel the same about miracles.
So far as I can see, though, there is no reason freewill cannot exist within those restrictions as a limited ability, relative to choice.

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

I don't understand how you make the jump from the restriction of freewill, by the governing laws of reality, to the non-existence of freewill.
Freewill could very well exist within restrictions, no one said freewill need be omnipotent.

Well, most people i think imagine free willing as something that breaks with the laws. If this conception is true, then there is obvious no free will.

OK , that works fine, I can't say whether or not most people think that, but it doesn't matter. It is true that freewill must exist within the framework of laws governing existence, if it exists at all. I feel the same about miracles.
So far as I can see, though, there is no reason freewill cannot exist within those restrictions as a limited ability, relative to choice.

Perhaps you agree with this "John is not free, but john thinks he is free".

ughaibu wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Can you explain why this is not obvious? Explanation is needed when something is not obvious. since it is so obvious, thus, no explanation is needed.

On the contrary, it's quite obviously false. If you produce a piece of mathematics that states which of a given pair of numbers I will choose, I can choose the alternative, thus demonstrating that your mathematical determinism fails. If there is any serious philosopher who supports your position, link me to their publications page.

You said "i will choose", or "i can choose the alternative", but in both cases, you are presupposing that you do have a "choice". No, you don` t have a choice, and you choice is an illusion of the deep reality that it is only math in the sky. You argument don` t work, since you are supposing the very thing you are trying to show, namely, choice.

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

I don't understand how you make the jump from the restriction of freewill, by the governing laws of reality, to the non-existence of freewill.
Freewill could very well exist within restrictions, no one said freewill need be omnipotent.

Well, most people i think imagine free willing as something that breaks with the laws. If this conception is true, then there is obvious no free will.

OK , that works fine, I can't say whether or not most people think that, but it doesn't matter. It is true that freewill must exist within the framework of laws governing existence, if it exists at all. I feel the same about miracles.
So far as I can see, though, there is no reason freewill cannot exist within those restrictions as a limited ability, relative to choice.

Perhaps you agree with this "John is not free, but john thinks he is free".

TuringEquivalent wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Can you explain why this is not obvious? Explanation is needed when something is not obvious. since it is so obvious, thus, no explanation is needed.

On the contrary, it's quite obviously false. If you produce a piece of mathematics that states which of a given pair of numbers I will choose, I can choose the alternative, thus demonstrating that your mathematical determinism fails. If there is any serious philosopher who supports your position, link me to their publications page.

You said "i will choose", or "i can choose the alternative", but in both cases, you are presupposing that you do have a "choice". No, you don` t have a choice, and you choice is an illusion of the deep reality that it is only math in the sky. You argument don` t work, since you are supposing the very thing you are trying to show, namely, choice.

Very well, replace the word "choose" with "pick", so as not to presuppose choice. Is there a possibility that you will pick one number if you know that the math states you will pick the other? (If you think "pick" still implies choice, you can use another word or phrase, such as "say" or "point to".)

TuringEquivalent wrote:

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

wayne wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:

There is no free will. I am sorry kids. The world is deterministic, and it is governed by laws. What free will cannot be is some process that breaks from the laws that govern our world. Whatever, it is, it must obey the law, or else, it is just wrong.

I don't understand how you make the jump from the restriction of freewill, by the governing laws of reality, to the non-existence of freewill.
Freewill could very well exist within restrictions, no one said freewill need be omnipotent.

Well, most people i think imagine free willing as something that breaks with the laws. If this conception is true, then there is obvious no free will.

OK , that works fine, I can't say whether or not most people think that, but it doesn't matter. It is true that freewill must exist within the framework of laws governing existence, if it exists at all. I feel the same about miracles.
So far as I can see, though, there is no reason freewill cannot exist within those restrictions as a limited ability, relative to choice.

Perhaps you agree with this "John is not free, but john thinks he is free".

Well, it would depend on the circumstances. John might think he was free to marry Esmeralda or not, as he chose. But he really might be under the power of a powerful hypnotist, who is making him want to marry Esmeralda. In that case, he is not marrying Esmeralda freely.

But, on the other hand, if John met Esmeralda at a ball, and fell in love with her because of her beauty and her kindness (and the fact that her father is the CEO of Walmart's ) then he is marrying Esmeralda freely, because he wants to, and he is not compelled, then if John thinks he is free to marry Esmeralda (or not) he is (of course) right.

So, as I say, it depends.

ACB wrote:

Is there a possibility that you will pick one number if you know that the math states you will pick the other?

Don` t someone have to pick something, and does not no imply choice?