A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Words, definitions, and formulas mean nothing as far as reality is concerned unless reality can confirm it. And reality does not confirm that we live in a different time than the present. You are kooky David. You can believe anything you want, but be careful because the men in the white coats might take you away.

She's got you bang to rights there, David. You completely forgot option c: simply reject reality and substitute your own.

It has worked for fundies for thousands of years, and it is not going to stop working now just because of something difficult that takes a lot of investment. The only thing that can counter it is something simple that satisfies the same emotional needs without any difficult soul-searching.

If you have already been promised an ever-improving series of lives, why on earth would you choose a single one, more than half spent already, without any frills or magic?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

No to you: words thoughts and definitions mean nothing to you. Unless words nothing and definitions can be corrupted to mean nothing.

You are a fraud.

Sidhe, you really have nothing of value to say because you have no idea what this book is about. You couldn't tell me what the discovery is for the life of you. See I was right. I told you that you are under a compulsion to come to this thread because the choice not to come gives you less satisfaction. You just proved that your will is not free. Thank you!.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sidhe, you really have nothing of value to say because you have no idea what this book is about. You couldn't tell me what the discovery is for the life of you. See I was right. I told you that you are under a compulsion to come to this thread because the choice not to come gives you less satisfaction. You just proved that your will is not free. Thank you!.

That's too easy. Any response at all makes him think he is playing a wonderfully inventive mind-game with you. A game where all the outcomes are determined after the fact - much like yours in fact!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That's too easy. Any response at all makes him think he is playing a wonderfully inventive mind-game with you. A game where all the outcomes are determined after the fact - much like yours in fact!

I realize that he can't believe --- after a century long debate --- that it could be this easy. It's true that all the outcomes are determined after the fact, which is where he is right in the sense that we get to have our cake and eat it too.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That's too easy. Any response at all makes him think he is playing a wonderfully inventive mind-game with you. A game where all the outcomes are determined after the fact - much like yours in fact!

That's the point.

If I specify the game and the rules and all the rules mean I always win: then is there any point in playing, after all no matter what happens I win.

Let's play a game.

The rules:

If I land on a snake I get to decide whether it really is a snake or a ladder

If you land on a snake it is a snake

If you land on a ladder it is a snake.

You go first.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that he can't believe --- after a century long debate --- that it could be this easy. It's true that all the outcomes are determined after the fact, which is where he is right in the sense that we get to have our cake and eat it too.

By that analogy I meant you want to have determinism be true and false and there to be no free will actually, but nm.

The fact is if "determinism is the way the universe works at all levels" is a false logical statement, LFW (Libertarian Free Will) is true, if it is a true statement then LFW is false. And that's all there is to it really, however you define your parameters.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

By that analogy I meant you want to have determinism be true and false and there to be no free will actually, but nm.

I do not have an agenda. I don't want reality to be anything other than what it is. The fact is determinism is not false; it is true.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

The fact is if "determinism is the way the universe works at all levels" is a false logical statement, LFW (Libertarian Free Will) is true, if it is a true statement then LFW is false. And that's all there is to it really, however you define your parameters.

That's not all there is to it. To say that "determinism is the way the universe works at all levels" is not a false logical statement if it is true that determinism is the way the universe works at all levels. Libertarian free will is not the way the universe works because it is not confirmed by reality. It is an illusion at all levels.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not have an agenda. I don't want reality to be anything other than what it is. The fact is determinism is not false; it is true.

That's not all there is to it. To say that "determinism is the way the universe works at all levels" is not a false logical statement if it is true that determinism is the way the universe works at all levels. Libertarian free will is not the way the universe works because it is not confirmed by reality. It is an illusion at all levels.

Quantum mechanics would tend to argue with the clockwork universe.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not all there is to it. To say that "determinism is the way the universe works at all levels" is not a false logical statement if it is true that determinism is the way the universe works at all levels. Libertarian free will is not the way the universe works because it is not confirmed by reality. It is an illusion at all levels.

My goodness, there goes the derper, once again telling Reality how it is supposed to work, unfazed by the fact that she has no knowledge or education whatsoever.

Ever hear of "quantum mechanics," asshat? No, of course not!

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by davidm

My goodness, there goes the derper, once again telling Reality how it is supposed to work, unfazed by the fact that she has no knowledge or education whatsoever.

Ever hear of "quantum mechanics," asshat? No, of course not!

I hope she has at least a basic education, the basics of quantum mechanics are learnt at 16-18.

I am studying as technically a first year graduate so if she wants a lesson I can provide one.

A good place to start though would be Laplace's Demon.

Arguments against Laplace's demon

Due to its assumption of determinism, Laplace's thought experiment is inherently incompatible with quantum mechanical theories, where chance is an essential part of the world's unfolding. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example, states that exact measurements of positions and momentum may not be defined (and observed) together with more than a given precision.

John Polkinghorne argues that nature is cloud-like rather than clock-like and points out that, apart from any other problems, uncertainty about the exact position of an electron on the other side of the universe would be sufficient to invalidate a calculation about the position of an O2 molecule in air after 50 collisions with its neighbours (i.e. in about 0.1 ns), even if they were solely influenced by Newton's laws.[4]

According to chemical engineer Robert Ulanowicz, in his 1986 book Growth and Development, Laplace's demon met its end with early 19th century developments of the concepts of irreversibility, entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics. In other words, Laplace's demon was based on the premise of reversibility and classical mechanics; however, under current theory, thermodynamics (i.e. real processes) are thought to be irreversible in practical terms (compared to the age of the universe, for instance).

In 2008, David Wolpert used Cantor diagonalization to disprove Laplace's demon. He did this by assuming that the demon is a computational device and showing that no two such devices can completely predict each other.[5] If the demon were not contained within and computed by the universe, any accurate simulation of the universe would be indistinguishable from the universe to an internal observer, and the argument remains distinct from what is observable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I hope she has at least a basic education, the basics of quantum mechanics are learnt at 16-18.

I am studying as technically a first year graduate so if she wants a lesson I can provide one.

A good place to start though would be Laplace's Demon.

What's your point Mr. Smarty Pants? Do you actually think anything you have offered discredits Lessans? You are in for the ride of your life. You are talking science fiction, do you not understand that? You are in la la land.

[Vivisectus]

We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.

I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.

She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's your point Mr. Smarty Pants? Do you actually think anything you have offered discredits Lessans? You are in for the ride of your life. You are talking science fiction, do you not understand that? You are in la la land.

Science = Science fiction?

Nice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Quantum mechanics would tend to argue with the clockwork universe.

I don't care what quantum mechanics tends to argue; if you understood the reasoning behind Lessans' claim, you would know for yourself that man's will is not free. That's like saying one plus one can't be two because quantum mechanics would tend to argue that it's eleven. There are thousands of theories out there, but only one can be true.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what quantum mechanics tends to argue; if you understood the reasoning behind Lessans' claim, you would know for yourself that man's will is not free. That's like saying one plus one can't be two because quantum mechanics would tend to argue that it's eleven. There are thousands of theories out there, but only one can be true.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what quantum mechanics tends to argue; if you understood the reasoning behind Lessans' claim, you would know for yourself that man's will is not free. That's like saying one plus one can't be two because quantum mechanics would tend to argue that it's eleven. There are thousands of theories out there, but only one can be true.

It is clear that you do not care what reality is.

Another problem is that Lessans doesn't offer any valid reasoning, just vague unsuported assertions, and man's will is free.

1+1= 11 is a joke, just like Lessans book, and quantum mechanics does not argue against 1+1=2. You seriously need more education.

There are several theories that are true, but on different subjects, but here again Lessans did not offer even a theory. Just vague assertions with out any support or evidence, just nonsensical fantasy, and imaginary conversations with imaginary friends. Is it time yet for the nice men in the white jackets to take you back to your room for your med's?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

My goodness, there goes the derper, once again telling Reality how it is supposed to work, unfazed by the fact that she has no knowledge or education whatsoever.

Ever hear of "quantum mechanics," asshat? No, of course not!

If you believe that we can live in the past, present, and future, then you are the one telling Reality how it is supposed to work, not me. Just because I don't know that much about quantum mechanics and chaos theory doesn't mean I'm wrong about determinism. I am not telling Reality how it is supposed to work; I am describing what I know to be true about Reality.

This picture of a clockwork universe has persisted in science until modern times. Only with the advent of quantum physics has the old Newtonian universe been challenged. Some scientists and philosophers alike see quantum physics as the way out for a purely deterministic universe. Likewise, Gregory Mulhauser’s early ‘zany’ notion that Chaos theory might be the means of explaining free will, might not be the non-deterministic solution he had been hoping for (Mulhauser,1998, xvii). Chaos theory states that the unpredictability of a chaotic system, such as the weather, is not due to any lack of governing laws but to the fact that the system is sensitive to minute, immeasurable variations in the initial condition. Famously the hypothesis is that a butterfly flapping its wings may cause a tidal wave on the other side of the world.

http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/determinism.htm

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We covered this ages ago. We used to more easy to understand workaround by explaining that the universe may or may not be deterministic in nature, but that it certainly is not determined, meaning that for all practical intents and purposes free will and the non-existence of predestination continue to be experienced.

I argued that a machine to predict the whole universe would either have to be larger than the universe, as each particle in it would have to be represented by something, or else it would have to run slower than the universe, meaning that the universe would always be ahead of the model and that it would no longer predict anything.

She didn't see the point of that, either. It is a religious position, and these are impregnable because all we have to offer is doubt, the possibility of having wasted time believing a pipe-dream, and things that take a lot of work to understand and do not give you the kind of answers you want, just the kind of answers that are there. How can that ever weigh up to the easy, one-size-fits-all solution that features perfect happiness (which will only come after we are all dead BTW) and the glory of having been the torch-bearer for this miracle?

Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very well supported. You are not understanding that there always has to be a preference in order to break a tie between two or more choices, even if it's to do nothing, or do something completely different.

If there is a tie there can be no preference. If there is no preference, then, according to Lessans' system, there can be no choice and the end result is paralysis. Fortunately for us, Lessans is wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you seem to think that

1. having two equal choices negates determinism because you can't move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

This is completely fallacious.

Having two (or more) equal choices means that you can't move in the direction of greater satisfaction because neither choice provides more satisfaction than another. Determinism doesn't even enter into it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

2. confusing what he meant by insisting that "nothing can make you do anything against your will" includes physical force.

He was not referring to physical force Angakuk. I've said this numerous times but you still seem to think that this negates his proof. It does nothing of the sort. Physical force is someone using their will against you; it has nothing to do with your will.

You have indeed said it numerous times, but you have yet to show us where Lessans says it. Until I see, in Lessans' own words, that he excludes overwhelming physical force from consideration I will continue to take his words at face value when he claims that nothing in the whole universe can make a man do something that he does not want to do.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'll explain this when you can explain how we can live in the future and the past, as well as the present, without your logic being completely full of holes?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, we're really talking about two different things. I told you all along that determinism, the way it is defined by Lessans, doesn't have anything to do with 'cause' in the sense that you are defining it. Don't you see that? If I'm a torch-bearer, so are you, and so is anybody who spreads this important knowledge.

Does insanity particularly schizophrenia run in your family?

Serious question.

[Sidhe]

I'll explain this when you can explain how we can live in the future and the past, as well as the present, without your logic being completely full of holes?

Time is a philosophical question being that time is a concept and is based on perception, and perception is of course subjective.

But lets ask ourselves about time: what it is, what it is related to, what makes it go faster or slower, what the present is what the past means, what the future is, what even the arrow of times direction is.

Now there is no reason to assume that we are travelling through time in a forward motion, what we perceive does tell us that we are travelling through some sort of time but not what the milestones are.

Selim 752 Nodnol.

It could quite easily be the case that I am travelling to the past, and everyone else is likewise, there is no fundamental way of knowing unless an alien turns up and observes us going backwards through our lives.


Ouroboros.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ros-simple.svg

Redness.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If there is a tie there can be no preference. If there is no preference, then, according to Lessans' system, there can be no choice and the end result is paralysis. Fortunately for us, Lessans is wrong.

You are still missing the entire point. If there is no preference, that doesn't mean a decision can't be made to break the paralysis. The choice then becomes do I pick one (even though it doesn't matter which one; this happens all the time Angakuk) or not choosing any, and deciding (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to move onto something else. If you were paralyzed, you would have never moved off of the spot called "here" to "there". But you did move off the spot because you are not in the same position as you were before.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you seem to think that

1. having two equal choices negates determinism because you can't move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

This is completely fallacious.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Having two (or more) equal choices means that you can't move in the direction of greater satisfaction because neither choice provides more satisfaction than another. Determinism doesn't even enter into it.

I mentioned before that you aren't getting it because you don't realize that every single movement (not just when choosing between two alternatives) is in one direction ONLY. We are determined; we are under a compulsion to move in one direction ONLY, so to say determinism doesn't enter into it doesn't even make logical sense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

2. confusing what he meant by insisting that "nothing can make you do anything against your will" includes physical force.

He was not referring to physical force Angakuk. I've said this numerous times but you still seem to think that this negates his proof. It does nothing of the sort. Physical force is someone using their will against you; it has nothing to do with your will.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You have indeed said it numerous times, but you have yet to show us where Lessans says it. Until I see, in Lessans' own words, that he excludes overwhelming physical force from consideration I will continue to take his words at face value when he claims that nothing in the whole universe can make a man do something that he does not want to do.

This is going to prevent you from understanding the rest of this discovery. How unfortunate. How can the statement "nothing can make me do anything against my will" have anything to do with someone else's will? I can't prevent someone from physically picking me up and putting me in a dungeon because that is their will, but I do have control over my reaction to that situation because that involves my will. No one can make me talk, for example. They can't make my vocal chords force me to say what I don't want to say. That's what he means by that statement.

[Sidhe]

What is the direction? And how can you tell?

You should try and understand the nature of CPT violations before you dig an even deeper hole.

CPT symmetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here would be a good start.

Consequences and implications

A consequence of this derivation is that a violation of CPT automatically indicates a Lorentz violation.

The implication of CPT symmetry is that a "mirror-image" of our universe — with all objects having their positions reflected by an imaginary plane (corresponding to a parity inversion), all momenta reversed (corresponding to a time inversion) and with all matter replaced by antimatter (corresponding to a charge inversion)— would evolve under exactly our physical laws. The CPT transformation turns our universe into its "mirror image" and vice versa. CPT symmetry is recognized to be a fundamental property of physical laws.

In order to preserve this symmetry, every violation of the combined symmetry of two of its components (such as CP) must have a corresponding violation in the third component (such as T); in fact, mathematically, these are the same thing. Thus violations in T symmetry are often referred to as CP violations.

The CPT theorem can be generalized to take into account pin groups.

In mathematics, the pin group is a certain subgroup of the Clifford algebra associated to a quadratic space. It maps 2-to-1 to the orthogonal group, just as the spin group maps 2-to-1 to the special orthogonal group.

In general the map from the Pin group to the orthogonal group is not onto or a universal covering space, but if the quadratic form is definite (and dimension is greater than 2), it is both.

The non-trivial element of the kernel is denoted − 1, which should not be confused with the orthogonal transform of reflection through the origin, generally denoted − I.
Contents

Definite form

The pin group of a definite form maps onto the orthogonal group, and each component is simply connected: it double covers the orthogonal group. The pin groups for a positive definite quadratic form Q and for its negative − Q are not isomorphic, but the orthogonal groups are.[note 1]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Does insanity particularly schizophrenia run in your family?

Serious question.

Mirror mirror on the wall... who's the biggest troll of all?