I don't know that I'd go that far.

He may improve, if he ever decides to do so, and part of that is acknowledging that having at least a minimal understanding of logic is a step in the right direction. He may not take the steps to do so if he stops discussing it all together.

Nevertheless, I feel your frustration.

I don't know that I'd go that far.

He may improve, if he ever decides to do so, and part of that is acknowledging that having at least a minimal understanding of logic is a step in the right direction. He may not take the steps to do so if he stops discussing it all together.

I like your optimism, fast. However, some expressly choose to abandon critical thinking altogether and "stick to the comfort of their own esoteric gibberish," as we see clearly articulated above. The stubborn refusal to be corrected on one's logical errors is an immediate indication of intellectual poverty and philosophical auto-eroticism. I don't think there's much hope other than perhaps finding a little entertainment from it. Oh well...

I am convinced that in your case the problem runs deeper...oh well who gives a damn...

For the purpose a variable can be considered an object...

The nature of every part on the set directly or indirectly relates to the Whole and emerges from first and final causes...

read on...

fully dialectical and self explained without confronting BEING Ontic Eternal immutable nature...

It refers to a priori intrinsic knowledge that a variable has of the total amount of objects there is and their form conformity (relational simulation),

which are also objects, on the Universal set structure in relation to itself.

It may explain entanglement in Quantum Mechanics...

A Meta Variable is the set of continued variables in discrete space packets of the same apparent variable.

The number or total of all possible relations between the elements of the set...for instance, for a Universe of 10 variables there would be a total of 100 possible relations.

each variable self nature in the axis of the "program" implies knowledge on the total of variables there is,

their ordered relations in space time and its "GPS" position in relation to them and the role to be simulated accordingly with the "project"

Each variable/object inner nature contains a priori the form to conform with its future form on discrete space time packet,

thus simulating transition/movement, and implying previous knowledge of its paired next object moment,

and structural architectural conformity with the entire project of reality through time space simulated continuity...

Simulating causation from an a priori reality implies perfect conformity between what is now and what comes to be tomorrow even if in truth they really coexist, there you have your algorithm...

I would have thought that what distinguishes fatalism from hard deteminism is that hard determinism implies causal efficacity of human action. Of course, the question, how the term "fatalism" should be used, is not so important as the question, about the doctrine (whatever it is called) that human action is inefficacious. However, that doctrine is generally called, "fatalism".

If you are a determinist, then you hold that every event that occurs is physically necessary. If you are a hard determinist, you hold that because every event that occurs is physically necessary, that there is no free will. Compatibilists hold that every event that occurs is physically necessary, but that does not entail that free will is false.

To say that event E is physically necessary is to say that E. is subsumed under some law of nature, N. so that it is logically impossible that N. is true but E fails to occur. (Given, of course, that the initial conditions physically necessary for the occurrence of E. obtain).

With this in mind, make your case against hard determinism. I agree with you that hard determinism is false. But what is your argument against hard determinism?

What an insight! You consistently say things without actually saying anything.

verbalism [ˈvɜːbəˌlɪzəm]
n 1. an exaggerated emphasis on the importance of words by the uncritical acceptance of assertions in place of explanations, the use of rhetorical style, etc.
2. a statement lacking real content, 3. a phrase or sentence devoid or almost devoid of meaning.
4. a use of words regarded as obscuring ideas or reality; verbiage.

---------- Post added 05-07-2010 at 01:14 AM ----------



No, variables are not objects. Variables are symbols which function as place-holders for individual constants--or names (a, b, c, d)--which in turn refer to objects--and are found only within formal systems such as mathematics and logic.

You didn't answer my questions:

What "necessary order" are you speaking of? What "relation of the variables" are you speaking of? What are "variables," specifically their function and purpose in logic?



Again, you didn't answer my questions:

What is "qualitative identity"? What is an "algorithm"? And how, exactly, does logic "give rise to the qualitative identity of variables"? What do you mean by this? Can you give me an example of how this is supposed to work in logic, please? And what do you mean by "gives rise to"?



No. The following doesn't produce what I asked. For the third time:

Can you please show me a logical demonstration of what you just said using SET-THEORY?

Do you even know what a logical demonstration is? It is an argument, or proof, that consists of a conclusion which follows validly from a set of premises, in this case, using set-theory. You talk the talk--now walk the walk, genius.



This still doesn't explain why Hard-determinism is impossible, hence necessarily false. You've just told me that we "don't have a model."



verbiage. Again, what does "dialectical" mean in regard to hard determinism? What does it mean to "confront Being Ontic Eternal immutable nature"??

My question: What is a "nominal quantitative value" and what does that have to do with with determinism?

Your answer:



So "nominal quantitative value" means the variable "x" (which is a symbol) has knowledge of objects and their conformity? Huh? Symbols have knowledge??



So "x" has knowledge of objects "on the Universal set in relation to itself"?

What the f*ck?



whatever.



You explained a "meta-variable" by saying they are "continued variables" and space packets of "apparent variables." What are "continued and apparent variables"?

sheesh...You didn't even answer my question:

What is the difference between a "meta-variable" and a "variable"?

And what is a "space packet"? Is that like a child's liquid fruit roll-up astronauts consume in space from a cylinder tube?



That doesn't tell me anything other than the fact that 10 is a factor of 100, or 10-squared is 100.

Moreover, I don't find the definition of "total set potential" anywhere online. Can you direct my to the appropriate source? You are clearly making this up!



How can symbols (variables) have knowledge? Sentient beings have knowledge. Words and symbols don't have knowledge.

And variables are symbols-- place-holders for individual constants (a, b, c, d)--found in both mathematics and logic which represent a quantifiable domain--nothing more, nothing less. They don't have representational capacity independent of logical truth-functions and mathematical functions. So variables don't have "knowledge."



Wow. So variables are ordered according to space-time GPS coordinates? How enlightening! And their relations are "simulated according to the project"? Wow!



So the symbol "x" has an a priori inner nature that conforms to future space time packets? LOL!



And they simulate movement? Wow! And these variables imply knowledge? Wow! I am learning so much!

This is amazing!

All of this esoteric garbage is an attempt to avoid my questions by deliberate obfuscation and empty rhetoric--hence, it is a RED HERRING since it fails to address anything at all.

Now explain to me what all this means in layman's terms instead of couching it in BS. If you really understand what you just said, you would be able to:

(1) Teach it to me.
(2) Provide an demonstration by example.

You fail to do both, therefore, it is highly likely you don't even understand what you just said, or your understanding of things is so damn rudimentary that you have no choice but to hide your ignorance by deliberately steering the conversation into your own private language verbiage no one else understands but you.



No, you still haven't answered my question!!!! I asked you this:

Which aspects of set theory do you disagree with, now, and why do you disagree with those aspects? And how is Hard-determinism "dialectical"? What does "dialectical" mean?

Moreover, what you just said is NOT an algorithm: An algorithm is a set of rules for solving a problem in a finite number of steps. And causation is not an algorithm. And we don't need to "simulate causation" in order to understand the a priori definition of what it is. You haven't even told me what causation is. You are just repeating the obvious fact that causation is nothing but the causal sufficiency of one event producing an effect in another. We are dealing with determinism which says that given a set of initial conditions, the cause is sufficient for the effect in accordance with universal laws. And whether or not simultaneous causation is possible at all, or whether causation is continuous or discrete, are other questions irrelevant to the topics at hand concerning the alleged incompability of free-will, determinism, and fatalism in this thread. So stay on track. Why are you the only person who can't pay attention to the philosophical problems at stake?



Being doesn't "grow in nothingeness," whatever that means. This violates the axiom of existence which says nothing comes from nothing, and Being does not arise from nothing.

But you don't have any inductive evidence other than what people do, not what a person can do given his alleged "range of forking alternative options." Hard-determinism is no less inductively supported than Libertarianism. But this isn't even the problem.

I agree 1. is true. 1. is intuitively correct to me; I just don't know how I want to analyze free will. Suppose a person does X. Do I analyze freedom to do Y in terms of counterfactuals about what a person would have done if he wanted to Y instead of X, or in terms of what a person could do given his available options before him? The "forking path" model with respect to free-will is not the same as a counterfactual analysis of creaturely freedom. The problem is that determinism directly challenges the former notion (which you apparently hold), but not so easily challenge the latter.

So I just don't know where I fall on the philosophical map with respect to reconciling free-will and determinism. You have to admit it is much more complicated than you are doing it justice since if determinism is true, it seems plainly obvious to incompatibilist determinists that since every event that is caused is causally determined, and all actions are events, then an agent who acts could have not done anything other than what he did do.

But what do you think I should apologize for (if you do)?

The only thing I need to figure out about you is if you're willfully this dense at times or it's just a sign of your advancing age.

If you were to apologize for anything, you should probably apologize for the more offensive mistake of claiming that my statements show that I don't understand the issue at hand. That's a pretty harsh claim to make even when you have some kind of evidence but when you don't even understand my statements in the first place and are therefore not in the position to make that call, that's just pathetic.

All you know is that you don't understand what I said. It could be my fault (doubtful) or it could be yours. I think it's yours because you seem to love causing confusion. I guess because it gives you an escape route when you're shown wrong.

The only thing I need to figure out about you is if you're willfully this dense at times or it's just a sign of your advancing age.

If you were to apologize for anything, you should probably apologize for the more offensive mistake of claiming that my statements show that I don't understand the issue at hand. That's a pretty harsh claim to make even when you have some kind of evidence but when you don't even understand my statements in the first place and are therefore not in the position to make that call, that's just pathetic.

All you know is that you don't understand what I said. It could be my fault (doubtful) or it could be yours. I think it's yours because you seem to love causing confusion. I guess because it gives you an escape route when you're shown wrong.

I know you feel that you have been wronged, and the victim of the greatest injustice since the Crucifixion. But could you possibly stop whining about it? No one has shown I am wrong, because I wasn't wrong. Now you may believe I was wrong, but, as I have already pointed out, that is because you do not understand what the issue is all about.

I know you feel that you have been wronged, and the victim of the greatest injustice since the Crucifixion. But could you possibly stop whining about it?

No one has shown I am wrong, because I wasn't wrong. Now you may believe I was wrong, but, as I have already pointed out, that is because you do not understand what the issue is all about.

Think we can turn to philosophy instead of talking about you. Something you seem to believe is of world-wide interest.

Yes, you seem to be a victim of the same failing as Night Ripper.

How so ?
So your choice is always a conscientious one, is it ? everything is measured and weighted ? right...
It just happens that is not the impression I get from neurologists on the matter ...you know it already I guess...address it !

---------- Post added 05-07-2010 at 08:06 AM ----------

More before you thinking on something there are causes for your thinking based on urges, impulses, that also have a cause...choosing is directed from the beginning.

Determinism is the thesis that every event has a cause. I am a determinist. What would make you think that I do not believed that choices are caused? And what difference does it make whether or not they are conscious choices? They are still caused. (Some people might not believe that their choices are caused because they are not conscious of their choices. But, since I am a determinist, I don't believe that is true, and I am not one of those people. So it looks as if you are creating a strawman).

This all comes very much accordingly with what I have been defending so far with a few more non aligned thinkers out there...
And of course it matters when concerning free will. That is exactly what was underlined in it in the first place, was it not ?
although it was clearly avoided any direct answer to that, and I can empathise why when I look to the forum reactions on this issue, it was suficiently sugested that such was the case.
...Anyway, thanks for bring it up Hue !

Am I ?

Yes, you are, because you say that I believe that some choices do not have causes, and that is not true. I believe that all choices have causes. Whether they are conscious or unconscious choices. So, you have created a strawman, since you impute a belief to me that I do not have. You seem to be in the grip of the following argument:

1. Kennethamy believes in free will.
2. Everyone who believes in free will, believes some choices have no cause,''

Therefore, 3. Kennethamy believes some choices have no cause.

The trouble with the argument is that premise 2 is false.