thank you fast this is precisely what I was getting at but kenneth failed to answer and instead took the opportunity to criticize my analogy. If we presuppose hard determinism then everything that happens does so necessarily(physical necessity that is).

But it isn't that your analogy is wrong-or right. It is that if it is meant as an argument, it is a bad argument. I suppose that if people were like dominoes, then people would not have free will. But, have you any reason to suppose that people are like dominoes? If you have, you have not presented any. Perhaps you want to say that if hard determinism is true, then people are like dominoes. Fine, Let us suppose that is true. But what is supposed to follow from that? I don't get the point of the analogy, is what I am saying.

Now, about fast's post. I suppose that it can be argued that if nothing that happens to us is what is up to us, then we do not have free will, since we could not have done otherwise than we actually did do. And fatalism, as I understand it, is the doctrine that nothing that happens to us is up to us, and so, fatalism implies we do not have free will. I agree. Is there any more?

A and B entail recognition that ones?s nature is the cause of the difference of the seconds nature...I suppose you don?t understand that either...the difference between plural and singular, finite and infinite...the very first basis for the notion of relation.

So the validity of an specific argument is independent of the terms regarding the very same argument ? Shinning brilliant and majestic your reasoning !

What is to be, or not to be as part or apart of the empirical world, shown to be proven ?

you sound more and more like a parrot !

Do insults and some formal knowledge give you the impression of being intelligent ? How old are you ?

Oh and do me a last favour, pick the toilet comment and throw yourself in it, my patience has limits to this kind of idiocy !

I am trying to get you to see that the implications of hard determinism are that what happens does so by physical necessity. The analogy is not meant as an argument but a means of getting you to see that without free will we are powerless to effect the chain of events that is taking place. If we're the 5th domino and the first one falls, assuming they've been set up correctly, we'll eventually fall due to the 4th and we will in turn make the 6th domino fall so to speak.

If you can agree with that then I can move on with the rest of my argument......or rather, the distinction I'm specifically trying to draw attention to between hard-determinism and fatalism

But that is not just the implication of hard determinism. That is the implication of determinism. Determinism says that all events (with the exception of micro-events) are physically necessitated. Who (save, perhaps ughaibu) would deny that? If one domino falls on another, the second is going to fall, of course, unless some other countervailing causes intervene. It is because of this latter consideration that all statements of the form, A causes B, have attached to them ceterus paribus clauses.

"A" and "B" represent truth-valuable propositions which can be true or false. And the truth-value of the conjunction "A and B" is a direct function of the truth values of its parts, namely, A and B, respectively. If the conjunction "A and B" is true, then it logically follows "A" is true and "B" is true, regardless of what those propositions are.

NO !

A and B are interdependent. If they are to relate and not to transcend each other, A recognizes B as not A, and therefore by assimilating the state of B can tell itself as A1. The opposite is also true, therefore B2 !

A alone or B alone are not to be but true...A and B, AB, are already different from A or B alone...they incorporate the other dialectically.

What they are as a conjunction, they are in relation to each other, and relative to each other, and dependent on each other

Haha! I can't believe you deny the logical truths of first-order propositional logic. Get a life.

Whatever "transcend," "interdependent," and "A and B recognizing eachother" is supposed to mean, Logic sure as sh*t doesn't say anything like this. None of this makes any sense.



No. "And" is a truth-functional connective. "And" is not a relation in logic. Relations in logic are either symmetric, anti-symmetric, reflexive, irreflexive, or transitive. Look it up, genius:

Equivalence relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is why you could never be a Hard Determinist even if you want it to be.

I believe everything logic included is an a priori mix of things...its a simulation !
Relation between "objects" is implicit to the whole as a set from the beginning, and excluding Time as time is a "side effect"...the "thing" Logic, regards all interrelations inside the set, the potential of the set.
Logic total set potential, algorithm, is a priori present in each variable describing their must be relation directly to its local pairs and indirectly to the whole set itself its nominal quantitative value...
More, the meta variable its the potential of relation of a variable with its pairs in the set, and is intrinsic in the variable from the very first moment.

One should never miss an opportunity to talk when keeping silent leads others to think one is a fool, and talking removes all doubt.

Another mindless word salad! Challenge: Show me a logical demonstration of what you just said using SET-THEORY. Wait, you don't know how?:eek:

Logical connective - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Propositional calculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First-order logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Logical possibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modal logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Possible world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Remind me to never enter into a dialogue with this kind of nonsense again.

But that is not just the implication of hard determinism. That is the implication of determinism. Determinism says that all events (with the exception of micro-events) are physically necessitated. Who (save, perhaps ughaibu) would deny that? If one domino falls on another, the second is going to fall, of course, unless some other countervailing causes intervene. It is because of this latter consideration that all statements of the form, A causes B, have attached to them ceterus paribus clauses.

I disagree with some aspects of set theory, and it has been an issue before, precisely because my Hard-Deterministic perspective is dialectical and a priori.

I believe in an Universal Set...I believe there are no empty sets. And I also believe that a set can contain itself always...plus, on top of that all, I am not by far a mathematician...and yes that is insane arrogance. Maybe we talk it again in a couple of decades !
See you around ! :poke-eye:

Lol! Oh, I see. Now you run away when you can't put your money where your mouth is. You're so full of sh*t.:rolleyes:

Again, I would like to see a logical demonstration of what you just said using SET-THEORY.

Read all my posts. is there somewhere more or less suggested...I won?t bother to prove you what you cannot certainly understand...besides I am not sufficiently organized or willing, to bring the entire thing up again and running in a minute... is something very hard to do indeed...so I guess you are right...we will see that in the future you bet we will !

Yeah, ok....lol. Just admit it: you have no clue what the hell you are talking about, and you never did. Don't try to bullsh*t me. You can't even answer any of my questions. I warned you that you would embarass yourself if you kept it up.

but soft determinism or a compatibilist or even a free will incompatibilist would not say that a persons is bound by physical necessity in terms of their actions so I don't see how you can say that. I am specifically making a case against hard determinism for that reason

- Reality is all there is.

Logic therefore is not independent of Reality, but intrinsic to Reality.

- Concepts as any other objects are subsets of a Universal set...

...with intrinsic logic value...

...relating them to the Whole and to each other according to their position in the grid at any given moment in time space...

...There is no difference between abstract and concrete objects...

Logic is expressed in Time Space frame,

or more abstractly it expresses an necessary order in the relation of the variables,

an algorithm which ultimately also gives rise to their form or qualitative identity ( to the variables)...

You are not obliged to accept it or to deny it, but to consider it partially or in its full meaning if you want to.

Here is why you could never be a Hard Determinist even if you want it to be.

I believe everything logic included is an a priori mix of things...its a simulation !
Relation between "objects" is implicit to the whole as a set from the beginning, and excluding Time as time is a "side effect"...
The "thing" Logic, regards all interrelations inside the set, the potential of the set.
Logic total set potential, algorithm, is a priori present in each variable describing their must be relation directly to its local pairs and indirectly to the whole set itself its nominal quantitative value...this also describes the difference in nature of each variable in relation to the others...
More, the meta variable its the potential of relation of a variable with its pairs in the set, and is intrinsic in the variable from the very first moment.

This is also a case for fatalism and even against true causation if one wants to see it as such...

I disagree with some aspects of set theory, and it has been an issue before, precisely because my Hard-Deterministic perspective is dialectical and a priori.

And on top of it, your question about the drunk shows you simply don't understand what is at issue.

No, it doesn't and I'd like to know why you think otherwise.

You don't really, do you? It will just make you feel bad,

Nevermind, I keep forgetting you're just a troll.