Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;145955 wrote:

Irregardless he says! Wow, you're dumb.

great counter-point

Irregardless - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

common usage my friend, oh wait I guess this isn't scrabble...or is it?:detective:

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;145952 wrote:

Please stop talking to me.

Bob chimp is wondering if you always respond this way when ridiculed about insanity instead of chaning to something that makes sense and is true. Bob chimp also knows that when atoms combine they are longer atoms. They are molecules or isotopes. Bob chimps must know more about chemistry too.

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 11:02 PM ----------

Night Ripper;145955 wrote:

Irregardless he says! Wow, you're dumb.

Bob chimps thinks you are a hypocrit. You don't know the definition of the most rudimentary words. Bob chimp thinks that you aren't even advanced enough to go to spelling class until you know definitions. Bob chimp thinks all people should know how to read. Bob chimp has you in his thoughts.

@OntheWindowStand,

OntheWindowStand;145957 wrote:

Bob chimp is wondering if you always respond this way when ridiculed about insanity instead of chaning to something that makes sense and is true. Bob chimp also knows that when atoms combine they are longer atoms. They are molecules or isotopes. Bob chimps must know more about chemistry too.

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 11:02 PM ----------

Bob chimps thinks you are a hypocrit. You don't know the definition of the most rudimentary words. Bob chimp thinks that you aren't even advanced enough to go to spelling class until you know definitions. Bob chimp thinks all people should know how to read. Bob chimp has you in his thoughts.

It's really hard to understand what you're saying when you talk like an idiot. However, it sounded like you might have something philosophical in there. Something about chemistry. Are you trying to say that 1 atom + 1 atom is covalent bonding and not nuclear fusion? Why is that? It seems ad hoc.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;145963 wrote:

It's really hard to understand what you're saying when you talk like an idiot. However, it sounded like you might have something philosophical in there. Something about chemistry. Are you trying to say that 1 atom + 1 atom is covalent bonding and not nuclear fusion? Why is that? It seems ad hoc.

Bob chimp says that in the case for fusion this actually a null point. because all you are doing is making a new element and to take the point further bob chimp says that trying to add matter to show that something always equals one when combined shows a lack of understanding in regards to thermodynamics. Bob chimp knows that matter can neither be destroyed or created so you arent even adding one and one. You are just claiming to be doing so.

@OntheWindowStand,

OntheWindowStand;145965 wrote:

Bob chimp says. . . .

Even on the assumption that you're an eight year old, surely you're bored with this crap, by now???

@OntheWindowStand,

OntheWindowStand;145965 wrote:

matter can neither be destroyed or created so you arent even adding one and one. You are just claiming to be doing so.

That doesn't help Amperage's argument but thanks for sharing.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;145967 wrote:

Even on the assumption that you're an eight year old, surely you're bored with this crap, by now???

Bob chimp thinks that ughaibu and night ripper have no ability to examine beliefs or evidence. Bob chimps thinks you have to graduate before you can talk/debate to the master.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;145968 wrote:

That doesn't help Amperage's argument but thanks for sharing.

I find it odd that you are now hellbent on arguing that 1+1 does NOT equal 2....

are you honestly trying to dispute this fact?

and of course this whole issue is just a means of avoiding the fact that you have yet to answer the fact that you claim that evidence can't prove something is physically impossible while not realizing you have no evidence for this, and, in fact, you can't even use evidence since using evidence(apparently) cannot prove the opposite to be impossible by your own premise thereby creating a self refuting situation.

@Amperage,

Amperage;145972 wrote:

I find it odd that you are now hellbent on arguing that 1+1 does NOT equal 2....

are you honestly trying to dispute this fact?

It depends on which axioms you adopt. Do you know what axioms are? It's a fancy word for assumption.

@Amperage,

Amperage;145972 wrote:

I find it odd that you are now hellbent on arguing that 1+1 does NOT equal 2....

are you honestly trying to dispute this fact?

He is just like someone who hasn't thought about god and cant say why they believe in him. Some can but few can. Ripper is the same way. In the same way that people believe things because they want to in regards to the issue of god's existance; Ripper has now expanded this sentiment to every aspect of his life.

Good Job Ripper!! When you were 10 years old you prolly had a firmer grasp of reality and what was true. Age has diluted you, NOT refined you as it should for everyone.

@Amperage,

Amperage;145972 wrote:

and of course this whole issue is just a means of avoiding the fact that you have yet to answer the fact that you claim that evidence can't prove something is physically impossible while not realizing you have no evidence for this, and, in fact, you can't even use evidence since using evidence(apparently) cannot prove the opposite to be impossible by your own premise

And of course this just means you are avoiding the fact that I am claiming logical impossibility not physical impossibility. Therefore there is no inconsistency in what I'm saying.

It's logically impossible to test for physical impossibility. That's not a contradiction at all.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;145976 wrote:

And of course this just means you are avoiding the fact that I am claiming logical impossibility not physical impossibility. Therefore there is no inconsistency in what I'm saying.

It's logically impossible to test for physical impossibility. That's not a contradiction at all.

I just realized that you have the most twisted idea of what science is and what it is used for. You are a paragon of the village idiot.

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 11:35 PM ----------

Ripper I think you should go away and never post on this topic again. You have ruined all discussion in this thread by your blabbering. You must think that everyone is always mad, this isn't true, it is only true when people deal with morons.

@OntheWindowStand,

OntheWindowStand;145977 wrote:

I just realized that you have the most twisted idea of what science is and what it is used for. You are a paragon of the village idiot.

Please stop being abusive and either talk to me or not. I'm not crazy at all. I'm sorry if you've gotten that impression but this is a philosophy discussion. So, stuff like "men can get pregnant but they won't" needs to be taken in context. I shop at a grocery store just like you. I wear Nikes, Levis and Polo shirts. I drive a Lexus. I'm a computer programmer and I'm also studying philosophy. I'm just trying to have a logical discussion. I'm sorry if I've offended you or if you think this is just a game but I'm tired of playing and I'm asking you nicely, human being to human being, please just talk to me nicely or leave me alone. We don't need to make this world a worse place than it is, alright? You must have some kind of heart if you are here on a deep thinking discussion website so please forgive any offense I've made and let's start over. Thanks.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;145980 wrote:

Please stop being abusive and either talk to me or not. I'm not crazy at all. I'm sorry if you've gotten that impression but this is a philosophy discussion. So, stuff like "men can get pregnant but they won't" needs to be taken in context. I shop at a grocery store just like you. I wear Nikes, Levis and Polo shirts. I drive a Lexus. I'm a computer programmer and I'm also studying philosophy. I'm just trying to have a logical discussion. I'm sorry if I've offended you or if you think this is just a game but I'm tired of playing and I'm asking you nicely, human being to human being, please just talk to me nicely or leave me alone. We don't need to make this world a worse place than it is, alright? You must have some kind of heart if you are here on a deep thinking discussion website so please forgive any offense I've made and let's start over. Thanks.

The ONLY reason that I became hostile is because you literally did not address a single thing that I said. This is incredibly FRUSTRATING!

To be honest the only thing that angers me is when someone shuts themselves off from truth or something that contradicts what they believe then acts like they their position is valid. When someone does this their position is worth less than sh!t as far as I'm concerned. When someone doesn't address a single thing that I said I become angry because this is generally the conclusion i come to.

No this isn't literally the only thing that makes me mad just a main one.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;145976 wrote:

And of course this just means you are avoiding the fact that I am claiming logical impossibility not physical impossibility. Therefore there is no inconsistency in what I'm saying.

It's logically impossible to test for physical impossibility. That's not a contradiction at all.

please elaborate on how it's logically impossible to test for physical impossibility?

I can think of one test right off the bat.....is what I want to physically test for(for example say I want to test if humans can breathe underwater) logically impossible? If so, then it's also physically impossible. If not, then some other test is required.

In order to disprove the statement it's logically impossible to test for physical impossibility one needs but to ask, "in any given situation can anything be ruled out, ever?" If even 1 thing can be ruled out then it is physically impossible for that thing to be responsible for said situation.

Obviously if you were to suddenly stub your toe and an investigation was launched I think we can both agree that I can be ruled out as a suspect as I am nowhere near you nor do I know you.

I think the thing you're missing is that physical impossibilities stem from the confines of the world we live in and the physical/natural laws that govern existence. Due to the laws of nature being what they are, certain things are physically impossible.

@OntheWindowStand,

OntheWindowStand;145982 wrote:

The ONLY reason that I became hostile is because you literally did not address a single thing that I said. This is incredibly FRUSTRATING!

Well, I'm not an idiot, crazy or doing it on purpose. We're just having a communication problem. You're welcome to try again. You can always repeat yourself if I ignore something you've said.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;145985 wrote:

Well, I'm not an idiot, crazy or doing it on purpose. We're just having a communication problem. You're welcome to try again. You can always repeat yourself if I ignore something you've said.

If you are willing to acknowledge valid criticism and to READ all of what I say and then address it I will try again. But not now I am tired and I am going to go to sleep now.

@Amperage,

Amperage;145984 wrote:

please elaborate on how it's logically impossible to test for physical impossibility?

Imagine two universes:

In universe A by chance, nothing ever accelerates faster than the speed of light. It's not physically impossible, it just simply doesn't happen.

In universe B it's not just chance, it's physically impossible for anything to accelerate faster than the speed of light. Of course, since it's physically impossible it also doesn't happen.

The problem is, each of these universes is experimentally identical. It's logically impossible for any experiment to determine the difference between identical predictions. Therefore it's logically impossible to test for physical impossibility. QED.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;145988 wrote:

Imagine two universes:

In universe A by chance, nothing ever accelerates faster than the speed of light. It's not physically impossible, it just simply doesn't happen.

In universe B it's not just chance, it's physically impossible for anything to accelerate faster than the speed of light. Of course, since it's physically impossible it also doesn't happen.

The problem is, each of these universes is experimentally identical. It's logically impossible for any experiment to determine the difference between identical predictions. Therefore it's logically impossible to test for physical impossibility. QED.

the problem with these 2 examples is your statment "each of these universes is experimentally identical".

you basically are saying universe A and universe B are different then you go on to say universe A and universe B are the same.

it's a contradiction. If universe A is different from universe B by the fact that in universe A things CANNOT go faster than the speed of light and in universe B things just don't go faster than the speed of light then they would be experimentally different. You can't just arbitrarily say, "well world1 is X while world2 is not X but they are both experimentally the same" anymore than I can say well I'm a bachelor and I'm married. I mean I can say that but the phrase is meaningless

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;145988 wrote:

Imagine two universes:

In universe A by chance, nothing ever accelerates faster than the speed of light. It's not physically impossible, it just simply doesn't happen.

In universe B it's not just chance, it's physically impossible for anything to accelerate faster than the speed of light. Of course, since it's physically impossible it also doesn't happen.

The problem is, each of these universes is experimentally identical. It's logically impossible for any experiment to determine the difference between identical predictions. Therefore it's logically impossible to test for physical impossibility. QED.

It is correct that experimentally they are the same. But you seem to be disregarding the burden of proof. The natural position is that B is correct while A needs validation but as you have already stated experimentally they are identical so there is no reason to believe it. I could claim to be omnipresent or omniscient and then say that I am excercising these attributes in way that makes it appear as though I am neither. Scenario B is that I have neither of the attributes. Use Occam's razor. Experimentally they are both the same but which one has the burden of proof???(Rhetorical question)

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know