I've often wondered why Christians believed that God was an advocate for free will. Even when I was Christian, the bible made it clear that He was in direct opposition to it. If a deity demands that you do X or burn forever, it's absurd to consider that free will. Choosing an ice cream flavor is free will, but having a gun put up to your head and being told what to do and what not to do is not.
And just in case there was any confusion about whether or not God really did promote free will, that was cleared up with comments about how he 'hardened the heart' of the pharaoh and others to influence their decisions.
you have to realize that everything you are doing is of free-will. any talk that may use oiut of our mouths is an example of a will of freedom. there is no thought to it. there is the freedom. that is a free. it all makes sense. that is freedom.
I imagine that a misunderstanding of the Bible is the reason of your dilemma, I read the bible so many times, not once in any analysis that I must note that you HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. Note that, the words. HAVE. TO. DO. IT. people die all the time, nobody actually does care.
A theorem is not the sort of thing that can be trumped. You're never going to observe, say, a triangle in flat space whose angles add up to more than 180 degrees. You might observe such a triangle in curved space, but then you're just using a different geometry with different theorems, which doesn't contradict the theorems of Euclidean geometry.
That's why physicists have to look for loopholes in Bell's theorem. They know that they can't just contradict it. The math is inescapable. That's what makes a theorem a theorem.
Believe it or not, I do know what a Theorem is, but I'm worried you have a misunderstanding about how theorems in physics come about.
The axioms physical theorems base themselves off of are established laws of physics, for example the Schrödinger's equation. From that starting point, you are correct they can't be 'trumped.' But, in physics, those "laws" can be trumped or overturned by experiments, as quantum mechanics did to Newton mechanics. All of those theorems based solely on Newton mechanics are still MATHEMATICALLY correct, but no longer (well, 'never did') perfectly explain a physical system.
Now, to over turn a theorem such as Bell's Theorem by showing something like Schrödinger's equation doesn't completely describe the physical system is really really hard for obvious reasons. Thus, it's much easier (and less revolutionary) to try and poke holes in the test set-up.
Just to go out on a limb again -and likely get misinterpreted again- IF we did observe a triangle in flat space whose angles add up to more than 180 degrees, it wouldn't mathematically invalidate anything. It would just mean Euclid's Postulates aren't physically applicable.
I've been dreading reading this post because I know it would elicit some negative emotions in me. But... well... here we go...
Well, one of the problems with that argument is the faulty assumption that every causal chain is finite. Here, you rely the opposite assumption -- that every causal chain must be infinite, that no "why?" line of inquiry can ever terminate anywhere, that any terminal line of "why?" inquiry is somehow bad or wrong or false. I would reject that assumption. Maybe Born-rule events are legitimate terminuses for causal chains!
It's not that I feel every causal chain 'must' be infinite. (I would hope at this point you know I don't think anything 'must' be anything other than what it is. And, I've never claimed to know what something is.) It is that an finite causal chain is anathema to science inquiry. Maybe there are "ultimate answers" we're capable of understanding. Maybe knowledge is finite. But, if it is and we do get there, then science inquiry is over.
But, I'm saying we're not there yet, and until we are we need to keep our minds open to unexpected possibilities shown to us by experimentation as well as mathematical rigor. (I didn't mean to downplay mathematical rigor in my other posts. I can't write enough "verys" to express how very important it is. I was angry at you before. I admit that.)
What undermines epistemology is the notion that because there exists a potential observation that might falsify a theory, the theory should not be regarded as true.
Which isn't a claim I made. I made the same claim as: "In my mind, there is nonzero epistemic probability that any result obtained empirically is wrong." I just then elaborated on how it could be proven empirically wrong.
Again, I deny this is the case. Physicists are no longer looking for phlogiston.
But they are still testing Bell's Theorem. Do you feel those that are are trying to undermine epistemology?
Based on your statement, it sounds like you feel those people currently testing Bell's Theorem might as well be redoing the Michelson–Morley experiment for all they're adding to human knowledge.
As to the rest of your post, I must admit I don't know enough about "Hume's criteria, Gleason's theorem, epistemic probabilities, the Born rule, etc." to sensibly comment on it. And, I'm guessing reading Wiki pages isn't going to change that this time around. Your professional knowledge outstrips my own in the matter to the point in which I wounder why you even bother engaging me in conversation at all.
I'm guessing you're likely asking yourself that same question.
Now -if you don't mind- I'd like to stop thinking about this thread and get back to turning my intern high-school teaching license into a level-one high-school teaching license.
NVM, if it didn't happen in 2 months of not responding, it's not going to happen now.
...
You know, I think I actually feel better now.
The ontological argument is one of the stupidest things that has ever been written.
"Nosferatu is the greatest vampire ever. If he didn't exist, he wouldn't be the geatest vampire ever. Therefore Nosferatu must exist."
Does this even deserve being taken seriously?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
"If a random number generator/dice/some other form of chance controls what it is we do, then we are not in control of what we do." = "If an engine/some other power source propels a car, then the car is not self-propelled." The car is self-propelled, because the engine is a part of the car, as opposed to a horse-drawn carriage where the horse is external.
Right, but how is that analogous to the random scenario?
Likewise, if your brain is controlling you, then you are controlling yourself, because your brain is part of you, as opposed to a marionette where the strings are pulled by someone else. This is true regardless of what's actually going on in the brain, whether it be random, deterministic, or something else.
No, it's not true regardless of what's actually going on in the brain, because if what is going on the brain is truly random, then then brain is itself subject to some other force, be it a random number generator, a dice, notched bones, or whatever other cosmic Dungeon Master tool is being used.
Correct. However, you said nothing of consciousness in your definition.
Fair. What about "ability to consciously influence an outcome"?
Arguing that something has no value or purpose is very different than arguing that the thing is impossible. It's very possible for something to exist with no value; tons of things do.
And how are you evaluating "value", anyway?
Meaning.
Why? If there's a difference between absurdity and incoherence, I don't know what it is.
Equivocating. Something can be capable of being understood, yet still be ridiculous.
And what I was saying is that it's not absurd under a certain utilitarian reading. You can compare how much good the rock caused and how much harm the rock caused, concluding that the fall of the rock created negative utility - was morally wrong, under a utilitarian understanding of "morally wrong".
Except that's ridiculous (and yet I understood it. QED.) Something cannot behave in a morally incorrect way if it is not a moral agent, and something cannot be a moral agent if it is incapable of either comprehending the concept of right and wrong, or is capable of comprehending right and wrong but incapable of influencing its own actions using this comprehension, of which the rock is capable of neither.
A rock falling on people is tragic, but we cannot rationally fault the rock for it. It cannot make choices.
Your reasoning here is completely circular. You're using the proposition that we can't be held accountable if we don't have free will to justify the proposition that we can't be held accountable if we don't have free will.
HOW can one be held accountable for one's own actions if one is not in control of one's own actions - no, no, I know you're going to pull some trick on the word "can," I'll rephrase that: how can one be justifiably held accountable if one is not in control of one's own actions?
If I commit a crime, is someone justified to blame you for my actions? No, they are not. You are not in control of my actions. It is not justified to blame you for my actions, for my actions are not something you control, they are something I control. Therefore it is not justified to blame anyone else for my actions other than me, because I alone control my actions.
And if it were found that I am not in control of my actions, it would not be justified to blame me for them. You yourself made the distinction between the marionette being in control and the puppeteer.
In fact, if we don't have free will, we don't have any choice in the matter.
... Well played.
Couldn't choice be "action and reaction" of an internal sort?
That's a stretch.
It's how the brain actually works.[/quote]I mean, yes, but when I said, "action and reaction," I meant something along the lines of baking soda in water, or what happens to a rock when gravity makes it fall.
It's absolutely standard philosophical practice. Otherwise, we'd have such illuminating conversations as, "What is a god?" "A deity." "Okay, so what is a deity?" "A god."
Ok, fine, "To, of one's own volition, TAKE one or more of two or more possible options."
you have to realize that everything you are doing is of free-will. any talk that may use oiut of our mouths is an example of a will of freedom. there is no thought to it. there is the freedom. that is a free. it all makes sense. that is freedom.
I imagine that a misunderstanding of the Bible is the reason of your dilemma, I read the bible so many times, not once in any analysis that I must note that you HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. Note that, the words. HAVE. TO. DO. IT. people die all the time, nobody actually does care.
The axioms physical theorems base themselves off of are established laws of physics, for example the Schrödinger's equation. From that starting point, you are correct they can't be 'trumped.' But, in physics, those "laws" can be trumped or overturned by experiments, as quantum mechanics did to Newton mechanics. All of those theorems based solely on Newton mechanics are still MATHEMATICALLY correct, but no longer (well, 'never did') perfectly explain a physical system.
Now, to over turn a theorem such as Bell's Theorem by showing something like Schrödinger's equation doesn't completely describe the physical system is really really hard for obvious reasons. Thus, it's much easier (and less revolutionary) to try and poke holes in the test set-up.
Just to go out on a limb again -and likely get misinterpreted again- IF we did observe a triangle in flat space whose angles add up to more than 180 degrees, it wouldn't mathematically invalidate anything. It would just mean Euclid's Postulates aren't physically applicable.
I've been dreading reading this post because I know it would elicit some negative emotions in me. But... well... here we go...
It's not that I feel every causal chain 'must' be infinite. (I would hope at this point you know I don't think anything 'must' be anything other than what it is. And, I've never claimed to know what something is.) It is that an finite causal chain is anathema to science inquiry. Maybe there are "ultimate answers" we're capable of understanding. Maybe knowledge is finite. But, if it is and we do get there, then science inquiry is over.
But, I'm saying we're not there yet, and until we are we need to keep our minds open to unexpected possibilities shown to us by experimentation as well as mathematical rigor. (I didn't mean to downplay mathematical rigor in my other posts. I can't write enough "verys" to express how very important it is. I was angry at you before. I admit that.)
Which isn't a claim I made. I made the same claim as: "In my mind, there is nonzero epistemic probability that any result obtained empirically is wrong." I just then elaborated on how it could be proven empirically wrong.
But they are still testing Bell's Theorem. Do you feel those that are are trying to undermine epistemology?
Based on your statement, it sounds like you feel those people currently testing Bell's Theorem might as well be redoing the Michelson–Morley experiment for all they're adding to human knowledge.
As to the rest of your post, I must admit I don't know enough about "Hume's criteria, Gleason's theorem, epistemic probabilities, the Born rule, etc." to sensibly comment on it. And, I'm guessing reading Wiki pages isn't going to change that this time around. Your professional knowledge outstrips my own in the matter to the point in which I wounder why you even bother engaging me in conversation at all.
I'm guessing you're likely asking yourself that same question.
Now -if you don't mind- I'd like to stop thinking about this thread and get back to turning my intern high-school teaching license into a level-one high-school teaching license.NVM, if it didn't happen in 2 months of not responding, it's not going to happen now.
...
You know, I think I actually feel better now.
"Nosferatu is the greatest vampire ever. If he didn't exist, he wouldn't be the geatest vampire ever. Therefore Nosferatu must exist."
Does this even deserve being taken seriously?
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Right, but how is that analogous to the random scenario?
No, it's not true regardless of what's actually going on in the brain, because if what is going on the brain is truly random, then then brain is itself subject to some other force, be it a random number generator, a dice, notched bones, or whatever other cosmic Dungeon Master tool is being used.
Fair. What about "ability to consciously influence an outcome"?
Meaning.
Equivocating. Something can be capable of being understood, yet still be ridiculous.
Except that's ridiculous (and yet I understood it. QED.) Something cannot behave in a morally incorrect way if it is not a moral agent, and something cannot be a moral agent if it is incapable of either comprehending the concept of right and wrong, or is capable of comprehending right and wrong but incapable of influencing its own actions using this comprehension, of which the rock is capable of neither.
A rock falling on people is tragic, but we cannot rationally fault the rock for it. It cannot make choices.
HOW can one be held accountable for one's own actions if one is not in control of one's own actions - no, no, I know you're going to pull some trick on the word "can," I'll rephrase that: how can one be justifiably held accountable if one is not in control of one's own actions?
If I commit a crime, is someone justified to blame you for my actions? No, they are not. You are not in control of my actions. It is not justified to blame you for my actions, for my actions are not something you control, they are something I control. Therefore it is not justified to blame anyone else for my actions other than me, because I alone control my actions.
And if it were found that I am not in control of my actions, it would not be justified to blame me for them. You yourself made the distinction between the marionette being in control and the puppeteer.
... Well played.
It's how the brain actually works.[/quote]I mean, yes, but when I said, "action and reaction," I meant something along the lines of baking soda in water, or what happens to a rock when gravity makes it fall.
Ok, fine, "To, of one's own volition, TAKE one or more of two or more possible options."