Is Free Will Merely an Illusion Shaped by Genetics and Environment?

[Mattius_]

Let me start here... There are two known variables which fabricate a persons behavior. One being genetics, the other being enviroment...

it does not matter the proportion of each. the only thing that matters is that they are unchangebable by the person under the influence of these two variables...

So, we have two known variables that constitute a person... and both are unmanipulative by the person under the influence... (Think about it)

So I now ask, where is the free will in every decision that you make in your lifetime has been based on random and uncontrollable happenings in the past...

But you say that to a certain extent my theory works, but inevitably these 2 variables do not decide our whole life.

I ask, why do not these 2 variables extend to every crevice of our minds and bodies? what explanations do you have behind your judgement?

and secondly, if we do somehow differ and we are able to make our own decisions, how do our brains differ from any other physical object? physical objects are completely dependent and consequently evolve with change... what factors make our brain any different? None that i know of... So in saying that, are brain, the control center for all thought, is totally dependent upon outside forces acting upon it, and consequently changes in response to these outside forces.

So, i shall return to my thesis by saying that we are completely controlled by outside forces and are at the mercy of random happenings from our past which constitue the decisions we make in the present...

So now we can conclude that through scientific decuction, free will is not existant...

Anything contrary to this is pure speculation...

I am not proving anything here... The only thing i am showing you is that there are 2 sides here; One of those sides is backed up by scientific deduction, The other, purely speculatory...

Any questions?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

You're concept is on the Biological level, sound.

I do believe that I have created a theory that, on the level of physics, proves not only that their is no free will, but the greater claim is that the entire course of EVERYTHING in a given universe (as a closed system) is absolutely predetermined.

I have never shared this theory with anyone. Partly because I didn't have anyone to talk about it with, and partly (without sounding insane) because I feel it's something someone might steal from me.

If there are any physics gurus here, I wish to talk about it safely. Any offers?

Anyhow - based on the evidence you have provided, and on my professional knowledge of Biology, I would say define free will. And then I'll tell you if we have it! But I mostly agree with you.

 

[Mattius_]

Well to go further into my deduction we must turn to physics...

Although i have expressed our 2 known variables,i do believe that another variable is in the equation. This variable, which may be mistaken for a supernatural or godlike force is more probably the force of quantum mechanics... So now we have our 2 random variables rooted and dependent upon the uncertainty principal. The uncertainty principal of quantum mechanics may fill the void Athiesm has left in understanding our 'everything'. This final piece of the 'explanation to everything' puzzle may one day shape our thought.

Is this in anyway along the lines of your theory athiest?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I am unsure totally of what you mean. However know, it's not anything along my theory at all.

I'm going to speak with whoever responds and is knowledgeable. Perhaps I'll post it. But I don't need random people posting spams. I just want to know why my theory is wrong, if it is. Because it's extremely simplistic.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I am unsure totally of what you mean. However know, it's not anything along my theory at all.

I'm going to speak with whoever responds and is knowledgeable. Perhaps I'll post it. But I don't need random people posting spams. I just want to know why my theory is wrong, if it is. Because it's extremely simplistic.

Well, current theory suggests that there is a certain amount of complete randomness in the universe, so there is space for free will. Whther it exists or not, though, is irrelevant, because it certainly APPEARS to exist, which is close enough for gov't work!

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Zero, what is the area of study or theories which involve this randomness?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Zero, what is the area of study or theories which involve this randomness?

Its quantum stuff...*grins*, don't ask me, bub, I just know it exists, more or less.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, current theory suggests that there is a certain amount of complete randomness in the universe, so there is space for free will. Whther it exists or not, though, is irrelevant, because it certainly APPEARS to exist, which is close enough for gov't work!

I'd have to agree. The current theories are all revolving around "magical" pantheistic ideas. One is all and all is one, whatever. Note that the essential statement of quantum mechanics is as fluffy and uncertain as they come, but the results of the equations are as exacting as they come. Two steps forward, one step backwards.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

QM is something I'll surely be getting into. Along the way. Since I am schooled in Biology, and I doubt I'll like chemistry much, I think I'll learn physics more (now that I've completed my one year intro) on my own.

 

[Mattius_]

he is referring to the uncertainty principal athiest...

anyways, to an extent my theory is completely useless but in a different sense. You could say that my theory is not applicable to our life because by nature we will not accept this logic truly and sincerely fact. Just as athiest believes in no god or afterlife, he cannot possibly sincerely accept this to be fact (conciously or not) because to believe in life inevitably transformed into eternal abyss at death is to prove life pointless. his mind will not accept this logic because his mind will not allow logic to interrupt progress. So my thesis here is that blood deems this hypothesis inevitably useless..

 

[Zero]

Ummmm...again, it doesn't matter, because whether or not things are determined, we cannot know which way they will go, and they certainly appear random enough to accept the premise of free will as being useful, if not 'true'.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mattius_
Let me start here... There are two known variables
which fabricate a persons behavior. One being genetics,
the other being enviroment...

These "variables" are merely statistical
approximations of physical laws in action.
The whole science of biology is just that too.

As for the question posed in this thread's name:
My answer would be: Yes, it appears to be so.
Of course, you have to understand that "duductivly
ruled out" is only a probablistic(like everything
else in the Universe) term referring to deductions
connected to current reasoning systems in turn
connected to observation. You see, "free will"
implies lack of laws, at least according to
the reasoning systems science currently recognizes.

As for QM, stop using it as some sort of
magic wand for any belief starting from God
and "down to" free-will. This is pathetic.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Let me start here... There are two known variables which fabricate a persons behavior. One being genetics, the other being enviroment...

You're starting from an assumption. You assume that free will/choice is not one of the deciding factors.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Drag - QuantumCarl is indeed pathetic, I agree. He should be disallowed from using such a name.

Adam - He's not making any assumption. He displayed the two known factors in behavior. Free-Will is not a known factor, mainly because it doesn't exist at all.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - QuantumCarl is indeed pathetic, I agree. He should be disallowed from using such a name.

Adam - He's not making any assumption. He displayed the two known factors in behavior. Free-Will is not a known factor, mainly because it doesn't exist at all.

Again, you make an assumption, that free will does not exist. The other two factors, nature and nurture, are proven to exist and to influence us, but I doubt very much that anyone has proven definitively that one or the other has a certain, specific percentage of control over our development.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Adam - it's you who's making an assumption.

As I said, he's speaking of the two factos which influence behavior. You're given credibility to a completely randomly chosen claim. Think of all the millions of possible conceptual ideas of things that could affect behavior.

What if said that elves in our heads, control slight changes in perceptions of environment, thus affecting our behavior.

Would one even waste the time of considering such a claim? I should hope not.

Likewise, the idea that there is some kind of magical ability to surpase all physics and logic, and that out of nowhere comes some intertia for some behavior which is truly some kind of randomness in the universe, is just as obsurd.

I certainly would give it no thought whatsoever.

Making an assumption of either of these is barely making an assumption at all. So concluding, sure it's an assumption, but come one, some level of assumptions must be made; otherwise there'd be an infinite amount of possibilities in any of the infinite amount of places to put these infinite amount of possibilities.

 

[The Opiner]

My thoughts run very close to those of LogicalAtheist. I have posted several messages on the old version of Physics Forum questioning the supposed violation of cause and effect (~determinism) in most of the currently accepted theories about subatomic behavior (~QM).

I learned through these discussions that while there is dissention coming from some quarters (which gives me some hope that determinism holds truly everywhere, as I have believed for 35 years now) the majority (vast majority ?) of physicists are convinced that true randomness - which I take as meaning "uncaused" - exists at the quantal level. Furthermore, and additionally disturbing, this randomness is believed to have effects at the macroscopic level as well.

So my question to LogicalAtheist is: How can (we) you rail so confidently against randomness (~current, accepted QM theory) when so many professional, exceedingly bright, students of physics are convinced otherwise? I myself have to admit that I just will never understand their full. mathematically rigorous and esoteric arguments.
My only hope is that another, deterministic, theory gains widespread acceptace soon. I am not getting any younger.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Because given the understanding that QM and GR disagree, it's therefore (at its current state) not a very reliable concept is it?

From that, I choose to say that neither of them could produce such a result as to say "randomness exists". Sure they could produce a number value which could be correct up to some point. But to prove the falsitiy or truth to a claim, I won't accept that from a theory that science agress has some flaw in its compatibility.

That's why. Hope that makes sense?

In other words, I suppose the "answer", being string theory and unified theory, will probably clean up the problems with QM and GR and also show they're isn't such randomness.

That is my reasoning there. I do not accept the claim that randomness is existant. Despite the fact that my theory I have yet to post here states that in fact the entire course of the "universe" is indeed predetermined (and no one has yet to show me my error) I don't find that grim.

It's not like it means I can see the future. Furthermore, a solid theory that randomness is existant, using a formula, would also be nice.

Originally posted by The Opiner
My thoughts run very close to those of LogicalAtheist. I have posted several messages on the old version of Physics Forum questioning the supposed violation of cause and effect (~determinism) in most of the currently accepted theories about subatomic behavior (~QM).

I learned through these discussions that while there is dissention coming from some quarters (which gives me some hope that determinism holds truly everywhere, as I have believed for 35 years now) the majority (vast majority ?) of physicists are convinced that true randomness - which I take as meaning "uncaused" - exists at the quantal level. Furthermore, and additionally disturbing, this randomness is believed to have effects at the macroscopic level as well.

So my question to LogicalAtheist is: How can (we) you rail so confidently against randomness (~current, accepted QM theory) when so many professional, exceedingly bright, students of physics are convinced otherwise? I myself have to admit that I just will never understand their full. mathematically rigorous and esoteric arguments.
My only hope is that another, deterministic, theory gains widespread acceptace soon. I am not getting any younger.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Because given the understanding that QM and GR disagree, it's therefore (at its current state) not a very reliable concept is it?

Actually, they are both very reliable in their own fields (the very large and very small respectively), and they may (soon) be unified by a Theory of Everything. But, that's a subject for another thread, I guess.

As far as Free Will goes, I agree with Zero. As I've said before, it cannot be proven or disproven.

Let's say that I believe in Free Will (merely for the purpose of argument). Then let's say that I try to prove that I have Free Will. However, every attempt that I make at proving Free Will could just be a part of my predestined future, and is thus entirely useless.

Now, let's say that I believe in predestination (merely for the purpose of argument). Then let's say that I try to prove that my future is predestined. However, every attempt that I make to prove predestination could be the result of a Free choice.

Thus, it cannot be proven, and it won't affect our lives at all (since we can still try to do all of the things that we would "like to do", without ever being able to tell whether it's predestined or up to Free Will).

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - QuantumCarl is indeed pathetic, I agree. He
should be disallowed from using such a name.

I don't know if this is supposed to
be a joke or a serious statement, but I
DO seriously advise you to get a grip
on yourself. The fact that some of your
opinions (certainly not all) are included
amongst the mainstream opinions of many on PF
does not give you the right to speak that way
to other members. After all, recpect is a
must for a scientist so he could appreciate
all opinions appropriately and without bias.

Peace and long life.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

It's absurd that people here who know scientific material are unable to understand the power of the scientific method. "free will" can be proven or disproven as well as anything in reality. Absolutely anything in reality adheres to a method of proof.

How many of you know very well the power of the scientific method? I use it everyday almost. I'm utterly concerned at how otherwise scientific people are diminishing its power!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
It's absurd that people here who know scientific material are unable to understand the power of the scientific method. "free will" can be proven or disproven as well as anything in reality. Absolutely anything in reality adheres to a method of proof.

How many of you know very well the power of the scientific method? I use it everyday almost. I'm utterly concerned at how otherwise scientific people are diminishing its power!

It's powerful, as we all well know, but it is not all-powerful. Besides, did you even read my reasoning in the previous post?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
It's absurd that people here who know scientific
material are unable to understand the power of
the scientific method. "free will" can be proven
or disproven as well as anything in reality.
Absolutely anything in reality adheres to a
method of proof.

Please, prove that everything in reality
adheres to a method of proof.
Thank you.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Please, prove that everything in reality
adheres to a method of proof.
Thank you.

You have asked something of LogicalAtheist that is paradoxical, and thus impossible, to accomplish. You probably know this already, I'm just making sure.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
You have asked something of LogicalAtheist
that is paradoxical, and thus impossible,
to accomplish. You probably know this already,
I'm just making sure.

Isn't the best way to learn - personal
trial and error ?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Drag - I wouldn't share information if I could. Furthermore, it's widely accepted in the distinguished scientific community that everything in reality adheres to reality.

Thus, since reality is reality, it adheres to a proof. That proof is reality.

Easily said. Nothing further from me.


Mentat - Your statement doesn't work because your first assumption is

"Let's say that I believe in Free Will (merely for the purpose of argument)."

But, you don't. And when you operate under the reality that you don't, or even if you operate under an unknown if, then the truth is easily found.

So, your assumption immediately rules out taking place in this reality, since in this reality you don't have free will.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Isn't the best way to learn - personal
trial and error ?

You mean I should have let the poor soul try it, so that he could fail, and then suddenly assume that you were right? Wait a minute, that's exactly what you wanted. Oh well, spoiled now, isn't it?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by drag
Isn't the best way to learn - personal
trial and error ?

If we assume that, then I sure hope you've realized your trial was an error and learned.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - I wouldn't share information if I could. Furthermore, it's widely accepted in the distinguished scientific community that everything in reality adheres to reality.

Thus, since reality is reality, it adheres to a proof. That proof is reality.

Easily said. Nothing further from me.


Mentat - Your statement doesn't work because your first assumption is

"Let's say that I believe in Free Will (merely for the purpose of argument)."

But, you don't. And when you operate under the reality that you don't, or even if you operate under an unknown if, then the truth is easily found.

So, your assumption immediately rules out taking place in this reality, since in this reality you don't have free will.

Did you happen to read the rest of my post? I clearly showed that I also don't believe in predestination. It is my belief that neither can be proven or disproven, and thus the argument is moot.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Mentat
Did you happen to read the rest of my post? I clearly showed that I also don't believe in predestination. It is my belief that neither can be proven or disproven, and thus the argument is moot.

I like you mentat, but you committed the subjectivist falacy. Weather or not you "believe in predestination" doesn't change it's truth or falsity.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I like you mentat, but you committed the subjectivist falacy. Weather or not you "believe in predestination" doesn't change it's truth or falsity.

I know that, but the reasoning in my post (which I hope you've read by now, since you are attempting to respond to it) shows that such a thing (as "predestination's truth or falsity") cannot be proven.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Mentat - I read it the first second you posted it. Sure it can be proven or disproven. As easily as anything. I don't understand why some think one thing is easier or harder to prove. Perhaps certain things take more technology, or more formulas, but they are all provable.

And once they are proven either way, the ultimate statement needed to prove it, is just as simple as the statement to do anything.

In otherwords, the work may be harder, but once it's done it needn't be repeated (unless for rechecking).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mentat - I read it the first second you posted it. Sure it can be proven or disproven. As easily as anything. I don't understand why some think one thing is easier or harder to prove. Perhaps certain things take more technology, or more formulas, but they are all provable.

And once they are proven either way, the ultimate statement needed to prove it, is just as simple as the statement to do anything.

In otherwords, the work may be harder, but once it's done it needn't be repeated (unless for rechecking).

This is why Free Will cannot be disproven:
Any attempt that one makes at disproving Free Will could just as easily be considered a "willful" action, on their part, and thus defeats it's own purpose.

This is why Free Will cannot be proven:
Any attempt one makes at proving Free Will could just as easily be considered to be the acting out of their predestined futures (meaning, they were predestined to question their own predestination), and thus defeats it's own purpose.

I don't see how I can be much more clear.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Mentat
This is why Free Will cannot be disproven:
Any attempt that one makes at disproving Free Will could just as easily be considered a "willful" action, on their part, and thus defeats it's own purpose.

This is why Free Will cannot be proven:
Any attempt one makes at proving Free Will could just as easily be considered to be the acting out of their predestined futures (meaning, they were predestined to question their own predestination), and thus defeats it's own purpose.

I don't see how I can be much more clear.

Well, your statements are clear, however they are inapplicable, and therefore false in their conclusions. You're using some kind of philosophical paradoxical idea. But this has no basis in reality.

To say free will is present is to say that all of the agents of causation (we know of at any particular time) that indeed could be used to "predict" a given event (however hard it is doesn't matter, merely that it is possible) are not the complete list of agents of causation.


If we use the scientific method to study such agents known at a given time, using of course a vary simple subject of atoms or perhaps something smaller.

And we do indeed continuously predict the outcome, would you agree that it's looking favorable at least, that our agents are all that is at causation?

Now I ask you. in our world of atoms, and things lesser than that ONLY...

Does not a chemical reaction always produce the predicted results, when done correctly?

When done correctly, does Newton's laws (or equal laws more paplicable to all in the universe) always predict outcomes?

Do all the other laws and accepted theories indeed produce predictable laws so much to the extent at which we have the knowledge to do so currently, and please without nitpicking details.

Then I ask you, why if using simple atoms, and moving to simple objects, if said agents predict with 100% accuracy of the CORRECTLY PERFORMED EXPERIEENTATIONS, why would it be proper to ever question that another agent is at work, when indeed no other agents are needed, and an agent that, when added, produces no change as when the other agents are used, is not an agent at all.


My point being ultimately. You're using a pradoxical language statement. But in the world it has no application.

 

[Adam]

http://www.hazlitt.org/e-texts/morality/ch27.html
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/clark_22_2.html
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm
http://world.std.com/~twc/fearof.htm
http://world.std.com/~twc/neurosci.htm

 

[Hurkyl]

Furthermore, a solid theory that randomness is existant, using a formula, would also be nice.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics states that the standard deviation of a position probability density function (pdf) times the standard deviation of a momentum pdf for the same particle is no less than one half h-bar.

If we assume the universe is deterministic, then, in principle, the position and momentum of a particle can be determined precisely. IOW, the standard deviation of the pdf's for position and momentum would be zero. However, this violates the HUP because zero times zero is less than one half h-bar, therefore the assumption is incorrect and the universe is nondeterministic.

 

[Mattius_]

Well, i tried... Egocentrism too often gets into the way of debate... I thought i had stumbled onto forums more than that but i was wrong.

 

[Hurkyl]

The views expressed by particular individuals of the forum do not necessarily reflect the views of the forum in general. There are many on the forum who believe they know a lot (and a few of them are quite justified in that belief), but to my knowledge we have only one member who thinks dissenting viewpoints are so obviously wrong they don't merit any discussion.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Well, i tried... Egocentrism too often gets into the way of debate... I thought i had stumbled onto forums more than that but i was wrong.

Egocentrism? You claim not to center around yourself and your POV?

Facts are facts. No matter what one "believes" or wishes to be true, the truth does not change because of this.

Apparently you're just saddened you did not get what you wanted. This is often the case in reality, I would teach oneself to like the truth, no matter what it is. Because then you will never be disappointed!

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
The views expressed by particular individuals of the forum do not necessarily reflect the views of the forum in general. There are many on the forum who believe they know a lot (and a few of them are quite justified in that belief), but to my knowledge we have only one member who thinks dissenting viewpoints are so obviously wrong they don't merit any discussion,

Surely dissenting views are fine to discuss. But if one wants to start a debate that will end with some real result one must

1. Make a claim
2. Make it as simple and specific as possible
3. Define ALL terms
4. Scrutinize the hell out of the claim BEFORE bringing it to others. It's like proofreading, you do it BEFORE you turn your paper in, otherwise others are going to do it for you.

Those are general helpers. Most people here I imagine them posting a post as it pops into their head.

The more scientific 50% of the crowd here doesn't do it. And it doesn't go unnoticed.

 

[Hurkyl]

Those four points are good guidelines, but more important than all of them combined is the willingness to listen to dissenting opinions.

And don't forget there is a similar burden on the others who join a debate once started.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - I wouldn't share information if I could.

What do you mean by that ?

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Furthermore, it's widely accepted in the
distinguished scientific community that
everything in reality adheres to reality.

Thus, since reality is reality, it adheres
to a proof. That proof is reality.

How do you know that you can know absolute
reality and thus make the above relevant ?
Here's an additional task for you then, please,
prove that you can know absolute reality.

Mentat, sometimes you talk too much...

Peace and long life.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Drag said to me:

Prove that you can know absolute reality.

Define "prove"

Define "know"

Define "absolute"

Define "reality"

Define those, and check my signature, then retype the task, or put it as a claim and i'll take a STAB at it. Perhaps starting a new topic called "LA - Prove Reality" since it's way off topic. Although the topic is dead.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Surely dissenting views are fine to discuss. But if one wants to start a debate that will end with some real result one must

1. Make a claim
2. Make it as simple and specific as possible
3. Define ALL terms
4. Scrutinize the hell out of the claim BEFORE bringing it to others. It's like proofreading, you do it BEFORE you turn your paper in, otherwise others are going to do it for you.

Not bad for setting up an empirical experiment, but this is the philosophy section. Here people only need to make sense and not contradict facts; further, one even gets to start out with a "fuzzy" idea and see how it goes. Do you not like this? Well, don't forget you can always move on to somewhere that better meets your needs.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Those are general helpers. Most people here I imagine them posting a post as it pops into their head. The more scientific 50% of the crowd here doesn't do it. And it doesn't go unnoticed.

Just too condescending! I don't understand why you think you can come to a site that was around long before you found it, populated by some pretty smart and educated people, and then start criticizing the format and members. You haven't proven you can think at all except like a mindless computer. Hey, we already have plenty of computer think, why not show us what you've got to offer we humans?

And what about the fine art of listening? Do you know why most people don't listen? It's because they want to be the center of the universe, and also usually want to indulge their infatuation with themselves. If this were a nursery for adult children, then maybe that style would be more welcome. Right now, the last thing we need is another raging narcissist.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Hurkyl
There are many on the forum who believe they
know a lot (and a few of them are quite
justified in that belief), but to my knowledge
we have only one member who thinks dissenting
viewpoints are so obviously wrong they don't
merit any discussion.

I think we got two - there's another one
in the politics forums (a mentor, btw).

LA, about what Mentat was telling you.
Science calls its laws theories for the simple
reason that they are not absolute. Since
they are not absolute you can not use them
to absolutely prove/disprove things.
Free will also seems to defy all reasoning
systems we have so far, but who said we won't
have new ones ? Reasoning systems often have
their source in science - observation which
is in turn, like I said above, not absolute.

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Not bad for setting up an empirical experiment, but this is the philosophy section. Here people only need to make sense and not contradict facts; further, one even gets to start out with a "fuzzy" idea and see how it goes. Do you not like this? Well, don't forget you can always move on to somewhere that better meets your needs.



Just too condescending! I don't understand why you think you can come to a site that was around long before you found it, populated by some pretty smart and educated people, and then start criticizing the format and members. You haven't proven you can think at all except like a mindless computer. Hey, we already have plenty of computer think, why not show us what you've got to offer we humans?

And what about the fine art of listening? Do you know why most people don't listen? It's because they want to be the center of the universe, and also usually want to indulge their infatuation with themselves. If this were a nursery for adult children, then maybe that style would be more welcome. Right now, the last thing we need is another raging narcissist.

How nice. If you take it as condescending then you're unable to properly comprehend what I am trying to display. I am making a critique based upon the foundation of writing in a logical manner.

If you find something like this an insult, I just have nothing to say.

 

[Adam]

Prove that you can know absolute reality.

As opposed to partial reality?

Define "prove"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prove

Define "know"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=know

Define "absolute"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=absolute

Define "reality"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reality

Easy.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Define "prove"

Show absolute truth of...

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Define "know"

Be aware of, I guess.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Define "absolute"

Totally unquestinable - true. The only examples
I can give for this are not from reality, but
from abstract systems - the rules of chess for
example. These abstract systems are absolute
because we defined them.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Define "reality"

The Universe.

You originally said:

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Furthermore, it's widely accepted in the
distinguished scientific community that
everything in reality adheres to reality.

Thus, since reality is reality, it adheres
to a proof. That proof is reality.

And I responded with:

Originally posted by drag
How do you know that you can know absolute
reality and thus make the above relevant ?
Here's an additional task for you then, please,
prove that you can know absolute reality.

Now, if you have no problem with my definitions
above, please, carry on.

Live long and prosper.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I have no problems with your definitions. It doesn't matter to me if they agree with mine or not. I merely wanted to see this claim as definied by you. depending on the definitions the answer could change. But I wanted to indeed address your claim.

Adjusted claim:

Provide proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt", that empirical evidence of reality exists.

Honestly, I still do not understand the claim. I understand you want me to prove something, and to what degree you want it, and obviously you want empirical evidence, but of what?

I wish I could answer this, but alas I am confused. Please help!

Unless my adjusted claim is perfect for what you're asking. If it is then, I think perhaps it's a bit to "fundamentally philosophical".

PS: Adam. Firstly my comments weren't for you. Secondly your attempt at humour or something else isn't taken. Your post was utterly useless to no one. Thirdly, dictionary.com is the lazy mans place to get incorrect and irrelevant definitions when the definition of terms is so important as this.

 

[drag]

Greetings LA !

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Adjusted claim:

Provide proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt", that
empirical evidence of reality exists.

Honestly, I still do not understand the claim.
I understand you want me to prove something,
and to what degree you want it, and obviously
you want empirical evidence, but of what?

Of an empirical proof that empirical evidence/proof
of anything in reality exists. After all, you said
it yourself - the proper and advisable way of
discussing subjects here is by presenting claims
and their proofs - justifications. After all, you said:

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
"free will" can be proven or disproven as well
as anything in reality. Absolutely anything in
reality adheres to a method of proof.

------------------------------------

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I wish I could answer this, but alas I am
confused. Please help!

It's quite alright, you're supposed to be...

Live long and prosper.