A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But you said "there must be a Supreme Intelligence that is behind these laws"

I said that because it makes me wonder how these mathematical laws got started being that this world is not here by chance. But's that's pure speculation on my part.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, we had this discussion and you seem to have forgotten something Kael pointed out in the other thread long ago

I only took that from the discussion in Chapter One. I'll repeat this excerpt again.

p. 38 The belief in
free will was compelled to remain in power until the present time
because no one had conclusive proof that determinism was true, nor
could anyone slay the fiery dragon which seemed like an impossible
feat. Is it any wonder that Johnson didn’t want to get into this matter
any further? Is it any wonder Durant never went beyond the
vestibule? Are you beginning to recognize why it has been so difficult
to get this knowledge thoroughly investigated? Since the modern
world of science was playing havoc with religion it needed a boost and
along came, just in the nick of time, a scientist who gave seven reasons
why he believed in God. A. Cressy Morrison, who wrote his book,
“Man Does Not Stand Alone,” was almost convinced that God was
a reality. He challenged Julian Huxley’s conclusions written in his
book, “Man Stands Alone.” Both tried to answer the question, “Is
there a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe?” Who is right?
Huxley said “no there isn’t,” but Morrison’s arguments were
mathematically sound and he gave quite a boost to instilling faith
again in those people who were really beginning to wonder. I can
almost remember word for word how he tried to prove that nothing
happens by chance, and he did prove it except for this element of evil.
It went something like this:

“Chance seems erratic, unexpected and subject to no method of
calculation, but though we are startled by its surprises, chance is
subject to rigid and unbreakable law. The proverbial penny may turn
up heads ten times in a row and the chance of an eleventh is not
expected but is still one in two, but the chances of a run of ten heads
coming up consecutively is very small. Supposing you have a bag
containing one hundred marbles, ninety-nine black and one white.
Shake the bag and let out one. The chance that the first marble out
of the bag is the white one is exactly one in one hundred. Now put
the marbles back and start again. The chance of the white coming out
is still one in a hundred, but the chance of the white coming out first
twice in succession is one in ten thousand (one hundred times one
hundred).

Now try a third time and the chance of the white coming out three
times in succession is one hundred times ten thousand or one in a
million. Try another time or two and the figures become
astronomical. The results of chance are as clearly bound by law as the
fact that two plus two equals four.

In a game in which cards are shuffled and an ace of spades was
dealt to one of the players, ace of hearts to the next, clubs to the third
and diamonds to the dealer, followed by the deuces, the threes and so
on, until each player had a complete set in numerical order, no one
would believe the cards had not been arranged.

The chances are so great against such a happening that it probably
never did happen in all the games played anywhere since cards was
invented. But there are those who say it could happen, and I suppose
the possibility does exist. Suppose a little child is asked by an expert
chess player to beat him at chess in thirty-four moves and the child
makes every move by pure chance exactly right to meet every twist and
turn the expert attempts and does beat him in thirty-four moves. The
expert would certainly think it was a dream or that he was out of his
mind. But there are those who think the possibility of this happening
by chance does exist. And I agree, it could happen, however small the
possibility.

My purpose in this discussion of chance is to point out
clearly and scientifically the narrow limits which any life can exist on
earth and prove by real evidence that all the nearly exact requirements
of life could not be brought about on one planet at one time by
chance. The size of the earth, the distance from the sun, the thickness
of the earth’s crust, the quantity of water, the amount of carbon
dioxide, the volume of nitrogen, the emergence of man and his
survival all point to order out of chaos, to design and purpose, and to
the fact that according to the inexorable laws of mathematics all these
could not occur by chance simultaneously on one planet once in a
billion times. It could so occur, but it did not so occur.

When the
facts are so overwhelming and when we recognize as we must the
attributes of our minds which are not material, is it possible to flaunt
the evidence and take the one chance in a billion that we and all else
are the result of chance? We have found that there are 999,999,999
chances to one against a belief that all things happen by chance.
Science will not deny the facts as stated; the mathematicians will
agree that the figures are correct. Now we encounter the stubborn
resistance of the human mind, which is reluctant to give up fixed
ideas. The early Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took two
thousand years to convince men that this fact is true.
New ideas encounter opposition, ridicule and abuse, but truth
survives and is verified. The argument is closed; the case is submitted
to you, the jury, and your verdict will be awaited with confidence.”

Morrison never realized that all the mathematical arguments in
the world could never reveal God until we were delivered from evil;
consequently, he was compelled to join the ranks of those who had
faith. Nobody has yet said he knows for a mathematical fact that God
is real, otherwise, there would be no need for faith. I know that two
plus two equals four, I don’t have faith that it’s true. Well, do you still
believe there is no Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe through
mathematical laws which include the relation of man with man, and
that everything happens by chance? Do you believe that your faith in
God has been in vain? You are in for the surprise of your life.

This discussion on chance brings forcibly to the attention of the
reader the fact that this world did not come about by chance. The
purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the
universe. By delivering mankind from evil, the last vestige of doubt
is removed. Through our deliverance, God is revealed to us; but the
evil is not removed to prove that God is not a figment of the
imagination, but only because it is evil. He becomes an
epiphenomenon of this tremendous fire that will be built to burn away
the evil, and the light that is shed reveals His presence as the cause of
the evil that He is now removing through these discoveries which He
also caused; and no person alive will be able to dispute these
undeniable facts.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what you're getting at. He is saying that contra-causal free will originally justified the idea of moral responsibility and just deserts. The naturalistic view says there is no such thing as having this kind of libertarian free will because we are not the ultimate originators of our actions.

I am saying that Libertarian free will is an extreme view, and if that is what Waller was arguing against then it is almost like a strawman because so few people hold that view.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that because it makes me wonder how these mathematical laws got started being that this world is not here by chance. But's that's pure speculation on my part.

The whole of reality is so large that pretty much any and all things that can possibly happen, have happened or will happen...multiple times.

Law of Truly Large Numbers

With a large enough sample, any outrageous thing is likely to happen (Diaconis and Mosteller 1989). Littlewood (1986) considered an event which occurs one in a million times to be "surprising." Taking this definition, close to 100000 surprising events are "expected" each year in the United States alone and, in the world at large, "we can be absolutely sure that we will see incredibly remarkable events" (Diaconis and Mosteller 1989).

Law of Truly Large Numbers -- from Wolfram MathWorld

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I only took that from the discussion in Chapter One. I'll repeat this excerpt again.

Yes, the previous discussion was from that part of the book, which was nothing but an argument from incredulity by people (Lessans and Morrison) who didn't understand probability at all.

Let’s take a look at Morrison’s “Seven Reasons” and spend a little time uncovering the dogmatic illogic that underpins its heartfelt, if ultimately erroneous contentions.

First: “By unwavering mathematical law we can prove that our universe was designed and executed by a great engineering Intelligence.”

Comment: This would all be well and good if Morrison actually went on to do that. Astoundingly, he really doesn’t even make an attempt. The only “unwavering mathematical law” he presents turns out to be a gross misuse of probability and statistics when he calculates the odds of pulling ten coins out of a pocket in perfect order.

There is no meaningful calculation of the odds of the moon being farther from or closer to the earth than it is. It is where it is. The odds are 100%. There is no meaningful calculation of the odds of the Earth being tilted differently than it is now. It’s already tilted 23 degrees. The probability of that is 100%.

There are billions of galaxies, and trillions of stars, and certainly trillions of planets as well. Many if not most of them cannot support life. At least one can. What are the odds of that? 100%. We know this because it did happen. Something HAD to happen, and it just so happened that this one could support life. You can’t tell if it was an accident or not, because the probability remains the same.


Debate on God's Existance in NFB

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have clarified over and over again that this is a metaphor. God in my way of using the term is not a Being. God is a mathematical power that is beyond our capability to understand. All we can see is the manifestation of these laws, which are awe inspiring. Stop telling me what to believe or how I have to express myself. I can use the term "God" in the way I am using this term, and I feel very comfortable. We do not know how these laws that will bring peace on earth came into being. I do not believe this world is here by accident based on these observations which are in the process of being fulfilled. You can conclude anything you want, but leave me alone in what I choose to believe based on Lessans' observations, which is bothering no one.

No one is telling you what to believe. You can indeed use the term 'God' anyway you like. What we are telling you is that you should quit claiming that you are using the term metaphorically. We are telling you that because that is not what you are doing.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am saying that Libertarian free will is an extreme view, and if that is what Waller was arguing against then it is almost like a strawman because so few people hold that view.

In Waller's defense, according to Clark's review, Waller spends very little time addressing the Libertarian notion of free will and puts most of his effort into refuting the Compatibilist idea of free will. Now, having said that, it appears to me, from Clark's review (I have never read anything by Waller and can only address what Clark has to say about him), that while Waller claims to be addressing the Compatibilist version of free will his underlying assumptions regarding the nature of free will remain those espoused by the Libertarian point of view. In other words, Waller appears (according to what Clark writes) to be arguing against a version of Compatibilist free will that is really just plain old fashioned Libertarian free will in fancy dress.

[Vivisectus]

It absolutely does. You cannot have free will and in the same breath say you have no free will. You can talk yourself into believing you can have both, but you cannot in actuality, just like you cannot be dead (heart stopped for an extended period of time) and alive at the same time. If you don't know by now (which means you will probably never know), that when I say we don't have free will, this does not mean we aren't able to make choices based on the antecedent conditions that are before us.

Try reading it again and think about what "causality" actually means before you start going on and on.

I told you that I refuse to listen to anyone who treats me or my father with disrespect, and calling him an ignoramous is extremely disrespectful. Therefore, I'm skipping this post. In fact, 90% of what you say are pure attacks, nothing substantive whatsoever, therefore I really have no desire to talk to you anymore. Give me the link to the forum you suggest. It will be refreshing for me to take a break from this one.

Calling him an ignoramus is extremely accurate: the man seems to have been ignorant of some of the most basic facts. And I fully understand that there are many things in this post which you do not want to hear about at all: sticking your head in the sand is always easier when your ideas are exposed for the nonsense they are.

But hey! Don't take my word for it. You cannot understand what I am saying half the time anyway. Let us do exactly what you say you want to do in the book, and get this discovery reviewed!

The site is this one: AskPhilosophers.org

Present the basic tenets of your book there - scientists will review it (the panel is made up of 20 or so professional philosophers) and hey presto! You have achieved what your father was unable to achieve in 40 years with the click of a button. Isn't technology wonderful?

Think of it! The book, being absolutely correct, will immediately convince these worthy scholars. You will have proponents in every major university in the US and the UK, proponents who teach philosophy to students every day! Surely this will herald the real beginning of the revolution: what better place to get the book exposed to the very people who should be verifying it! Not only do they have the credentials to properly review it, they are each of them in a position to teach this knowledge to hundred of students!

All that for free - no need to go through expensive or time-consuming marketing. Once your book is taught in the philosophy department of most major universities, the news will surely spread. What better endorsement, what better way to get rid of some of the bias you keep accusing every last critic of this book of?

Honestly. I do not understand why you have not jumped on this opportunity ages ago. You must hate world peace or something.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am saying that Libertarian free will is an extreme view, and if that is what Waller was arguing against then it is almost like a strawman because so few people hold that view.

He was not arguing against it; he was just making a comment that in the past this was the belief that gave people the justification to blame and punish and hold people morally responsible. After all, if we are not caused to do what we do, then we have a choice, and if it's the wrong one (according to the moralists), we can now be blamed and held accountable by those doing the judging. They are saying in so many words that the punishment is their just desert. That could be where the phrase justice has been served comes from when we capture a perpetrator and give him what [we believe] he deserves in terms of punishment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Try reading it again and think about what "causality" actually means before you start going on and on.

I know enough about causality in terms of this book to be able to speak about it.

Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[2]

In common usage, causality is also the relationship between a set of factors (causes) and a phenomenon (the effect). Anything that affects an effect is a factor of that effect.

Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I told you that I refuse to listen to anyone who treats me or my father with disrespect, and calling him an ignoramous is extremely disrespectful. Therefore, I'm skipping this post. In fact, 90% of what you say are pure attacks, nothing substantive whatsoever, therefore I really have no desire to talk to you anymore. Give me the link to the forum you suggest. It will be refreshing for me to take a break from this one.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Calling him an ignoramus is extremely accurate: the man seems to have been ignorant of some of the most basic facts. And I fully understand that there are many things in this post which you do not want to hear about at all: sticking your head in the sand is always easier when your ideas are exposed for the nonsense they are.

But hey! Don't take my word for it. You cannot understand what I am saying half the time anyway. Let us do exactly what you say you want to do in the book, and get this discovery reviewed!

The site is this one: AskPhilosophers.org

Present the basic tenets of your book there - scientists will review it (the panel is made up of 20 or so professional philosophers) and hey presto! You have achieved what your father was unable to achieve in 40 years with the click of a button. Isn't technology wonderful?

Think of it! The book, being absolutely correct, will immediately convince these worthy scholars. You will have proponents in every major university in the US and the UK, proponents who teach philosophy to students every day! Surely this will herald the real beginning of the revolution: what better place to get the book exposed to the very people who should be verifying it! Not only do they have the credentials to properly review it, they are each of them in a position to teach this knowledge to hundred of students!

All that for free - no need to go through expensive or time-consuming marketing. Once your book is taught in the philosophy department of most major universities, the news will surely spread. What better endorsement, what better way to get rid of some of the bias you keep accusing every last critic of this book of?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Honestly. I do not understand why you have not jumped on this opportunity ages ago. You must hate world peace or something.

You are so resentful of Lessans and I don't know what I did to bring this resentfulness out in you. As far as askaphilosopher, I have no idea who these people are or what their worldview is. Just because they are philosophy instructors does not mean they are open minded to new ideas. Durant was a philosopher but his worldview was based on the idea of free will, and he could not see for the life of him how to overcome the implications of determinism. His syllogistic reasoning convinced him he was right, when he was completely wrong. I will hold onto this link and see what it's about. If there is anyone on the panel that is a proponent of determinism, the review would be more fair, otherwise I'm afraid bias would be built in. That doesn't mean they couldn't see the validity of these principles, but it would be that much more of a challenge, as it is in here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The whole of reality is so large that pretty much any and all things that can possibly happen, have happened or will happen...multiple times.

Yes, the previous discussion was from that part of the book, which was nothing but an argument from incredulity by people (Lessans and Morrison) who didn't understand probability at all.

I believe his odds are correct, and just because it did happen this way, the odds of this happening statistically, or the probability that life would come into existence due to a random event doesn't sit well with me. If it makes sense to you because of the probability that out of the trillions of planets, one should be this lucky, then you're entitled to side with Huxley, who said man stands alone. I am not invested in changing your mind, or arguing over whether there is a Supreme Intelligence (a mathematical power) governing our universe. What matters to me is showing people that these laws work and can prevent war and crime. If Lessans is right, and we can rid the world of all evil, that's good enough for me, even though the miracle of peace will come through ordinary means, not something supernatural.

[LadyShea]

I will hold onto this link and see what it's about. If there is anyone on the panel that is a proponent of determinism, the review would be more fair, otherwise I'm afraid bias would be built in. That doesn't mean they couldn't see the validity of these principles, but it would that much more of a challenge.

What does it matter? It's a free review from people in a position to understand difficult concepts. If you hope to get billions of people on board, some of them are going to have biases. You can't only present it to people who are already inclined to agree.

[Spacemonkey]

Hey Peacegirl. Remember Lessans example of the girl who goes into 10 stores, paying a dollar to get in, a dollar to get out, spending half her remaining money in each store, and finishing with no money? Do you think you could refer back to Lessans' own manuscripts and tell us his answer for how much he thought she started with? What was Lessans' answer?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe his odds are correct, and just because it did happen this way, the odds of this happening statistically, or the probability that life would come into existence due to a random event doesn't sit well with me.

That is the argument from incredulity. You have a hard time imagining the number of events taking place over the entire, enormous Universe within its 13 billion year lifespan. With that many events, ANY event that is possible within the laws of physics is equally likely to happen.


How can you deem that his odds are correct if we don't know the numbers he used to calculate them?

Probability is the likelihood of one or more events happening divided by the number of possible outcomes.

You must have the number of total possible outcomes to calculate the odds of any one event happening. What is the number of possible outcomes in a 13 billion year old enormous Universe?

You said you agree with the odds of Earth being what and where it is are one in a billion. We are a solar system so let's calculate using stars. There are 200+ billion stars in the Milky Way alone. Using the one in a billion number you agree with, what is the probability of Earth occurring in the Milky Way?

[Vivisectus]

I know enough about causality in terms of this book to be able to speak about it.

[I]Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[2]

In common usage, causality is also the relationship between a set of factors (causes) and a phenomenon (the effect). Anything that affects an effect is a factor of that effect.

...and you said that belief in free will suspends causality. And then confirmed that was what you said and meant. Which means you are either off your rocker, or you just didn't have a clue what you are talking about.

You are such a vindictive guy and I don't know what I did to bring this out in you.

I have literally given you what you said you could never find: access to the scientific community! The Scientists! (tm) that your father just could not reach! If the theories in the book are "undeniable" and "mathematical", how can it fail to convince them? And once they are convinced, they will teach it to their students - in universities all over the US and the UK.

Unless, of course, the book is unconvincing and full of fallacies. If that is the case, they will point it out and nothing happens. But hey! Neither do you lose anything. You don't actually have any credibility to lose.

I have no idea who these philosophers are or what their worldview is. Just because they are philosophy instrucotrs does not mean they are open minded to new ideas.

Professors is what we generally call them. Why is their worldview important? You are making excuses before you even start. just like the book, you brand all criticism as biased before you have even presented your ideas. Tut tut, Peacegirl! This is not the behavior of someone with a genuine discovery, but that of a crackpot!

And I should say being open to new ideas - or at least carefully analyzing them - is part of the job spec. Once they analyze it, will they not be brought to agreement move by move, like in a chess-game? That is what the book says anyway. I would think this is the perfect opportunity to get these ideas out there!

Durant was a philosopher but his worldview was based on the idea of free will, and he could not see how to overcome the implications of determinism. His syllogistic reasoning convinced him he was right, when he was completely wrong.

I do not understand where this obsession with an obscure philosopher who is now remembered (when he is remembered at all) mostly for his cheerful pop-science history books comes from.

Even if philosophers remain unconvinced, they can at least give you a professional opinion about the book. It is their job to analyse ideas. And if the ideas have merit, then surely one of the 37 panelists, all professional thinkers, should be able to spot it?

I will hold onto this link and see what it's about. If there is anyone on the panel that is a proponent of determinism, the review would be more fair, otherwise I'm afraid bias would be built in. That doesn't mean they couldn't see the validity of these principles, but it would that much more of a challenge.

There are bound to be several - determinism is not a rare point of view. At the very least they will all have an excellent understanding of the concept.

I find it very strange that this scientific, mathematical, undeniable work apparently requires people to already agree with some of it in order to be convincing, but there you go.

So why not submit the chapter on free will - or perhaps a synopsis, as it is rather wordy - and see what they think? Enough of these lily-livered excuses, lets get some work done! The revolution awaits!

[LadyShea]

Some pertinent questions and answers at that forum

AskPhilosophers.org
AskPhilosophers.org

Originally Posted by Eddy Nahmias on July 26, 2012

It sounds like you might be talking about Sam Harris' new book, Free Will. If so, you might be interested in my review of it at The Philosopher's Magazine here: http://www.thephilosophersmagazine.c...ew/15359/12081

Much of my response focuses on Harris' confused definitions of free will. The answer to your question is a definitive NO: free will does not have a single or obvious definition such that it need not be defined when discussed, especially in a book that claims we lack free will (what exactly do we lack? and do we care about the thing we are being told we lack?)

How did Lessans define free will? I don't remember a clear definition. I'll search for it

[LadyShea]

What is a "Mathematical Power"? That's a strange euphemism to use for God.

Why did God cause evil?

Originally Posted by Lessans

He becomes an epiphenomenon of this tremendous fire that will be built to burn away the evil, and the light that is shed reveals His presence as the cause of the evil that He is now removing through these discoveries which He also caused; and no person alive will be able to dispute these undeniable facts.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Hey Peacegirl. Remember Lessans example of the girl who goes into 10 stores, paying a dollar to get in, a dollar to get out, spending half her remaining money in each store, and finishing with no money? Do you think you could refer back to Lessans' own manuscripts and tell us his answer for how much he thought she started with? What was Lessans' answer?

I missed this puzzle until now.

show spoiler

It looks like we can work out the answer by working back from the last store. When she's in the store she would need $2 so that she could spend half ($1) and be left with the $1 to leave.

That means that as she's about to leave the ninth store she would have $4, so she'd have $8 after entering it.

To find how much she has after entering each store, we just add $2 to the amount we worked out for the following store and double, so starting with the tenth store and working back to the first the amounts go:

2, 8, 20, 44, 92, 188, 380, 764, 1532, 3068.

To this we need to add the $1 she pays to get into the first store, so unless I've missed something or my arithmetic is off, I think she starts out with $3069.

[LadyShea]

Hmm, this sounds all too familiar

Originally Posted by Eddy Nahmias in his review of Sam Harris' essay Free Will

Harris misreads or ignores the arguments offered by the majority position in philosophy, compatibilism, which rejects the impossible conditions Harris foists on free will.
His response: “the ‘free will’ that compatibilists defend is not the free will that most people feel they have.” Harris mistakenly describes Daniel Dennett’s view as suggesting that conscious agency is irrelevant to free will and then uses this misrepresentation to represent all compatibilist views, including ones that explicitly discuss Harris’s concern about how we can consciously control our actions in light of competing desires. He quotes my New York Times column describing free will in terms of having capacities
for conscious deliberation, planning and self-control and having the opportunity to exercise these capacities in action. Harris responds that “these phenomena have nothing to do with free will”.*Nothing?

*
Eddy Nahmias is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and the Neuroscience Institute at Georgia State University. He received his PhD from Duke University and his BA from Emory University. He specializes in philosophy of mind and cognitive science, moral psychology, and experimental philosophy.

He is a panelist at the AskPhilosophers forum. I am digging his writing.

Originally Posted by Eddy Nahmias

But I don't see any good reason to define free will as God-given or instantiated only in souls (and some of my work studying folk intuitions about free will suggests that most people agree with me). Rather, free will is the capacity to make choices and control actions such that one can be responsible for one's actions. This capacity is extremely complex (and for a naturalist like me, it's no surprise that it requires something as complex as the most complexly structured thing in the universe, the human brain--indeed, it's hard to see how a soul, whatever that might be, has the right sort of complexity). But I don't think "strange" is the right word for it.

How could the capacity for free will arise without a designer God. Like everything else in the biological world--the process of evolution. Some of the capacities involved in free will, such as the ability to consciously envision various possible future situations, each of which depends on what one chooses to do, were likely selected for directly because of their contribution to survival (and reproduction). Others, such as the ability to consider one's own mental states, such as desires, may have been a byproduct of abilities selected for other benefits, such as the ability to represent other individuals' mental states (the better to see, for instance, if they are trying to deceive you in complex cooperative ventures).

[LadyShea]

More great stuff. Thanks Viv for the link! I like this guy whole lots

Originally Posted by Eddy Nahmias

Determinism is a thesis about the relations between states (or events) in the universe. A deterministic universe is one in which, holding fixed the past states (or events) and the laws of nature, there is only one possible future set of states (or events). So, it might appear that determinism means that nothing is contingent or could happen otherwise. But that appearance is misleading, because the past or the laws were not necessary and they could have been different. If they had been different than they actually are, then the future events would be different than they actually will be.

If determinism meant that everything is necessary, then it would mean that there is only one possible universe. Nothing could be or could have been different than it is. That doesn't fit with the way we think about possibility. There are lots of possible universes--lots of ways things might have been or might be. But if determinism is true, the only way the present or future could be different than they actually are is if the past or laws were different than they actually were. I think this actually accords with the way we think about most (or all) events in our universe. The tree fell in the forest at this time and in this way. Could it have fallen in a slightly different way (or time)? Sure, but only if something had been slightly different leading up to its falling--the speed or direction of the wind, the saturation of the ground, the strength of the roots, etc. But for those things to be different, earlier things would have had to be different. And so on.

Perhaps our decisions are no different (I'm assuming you had the issue of free will in mind when you asked this question). You consider various options about what to order for lunch (or what major to pick or career path to follow or whom to marry!) After deliberation, you decide on X. Could you have chosen Y? Well, if determinism is true, only if something had been slightly different, such as the considerations you thought about or the strength of certain desires you had. And for those to be different, something earlier would have had to be different. And so on. But determinism does not rule out those possibilities. And if determinism is false, then it seems your decisions could be different for no reason at all, which doesn't sound so great either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does it matter? It's a free review from people in a position to understand difficult concepts. If you hope to get billions of people on board, some of them are going to have biases. You can't only present it to people who are already inclined to agree.

That's why I am sharing with whomever. I'm trying to get people who can be objective enough to listen and really hear what he is saying, without fighting me every step of the way. There is alway time to disagree, but give the man a chance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Hey Peacegirl. Remember Lessans example of the girl who goes into 10 stores, paying a dollar to get in, a dollar to get out, spending half her remaining money in each store, and finishing with no money? Do you think you could refer back to Lessans' own manuscripts and tell us his answer for how much he thought she started with? What was Lessans' answer?

p. 59 Since time immemorial the two opposing forces of good and evil
compelled theologians to separate the world into two realms, with God
responsible for all the good in the world and Satan responsible for the
evil while endowing man with free will so that this separation could be
reasonable. Giving birth to Satan or some other force of darkness as
an explanation for the evil that existed illustrates how religion tried
desperately to cling to the belief in a merciful God. But this dividing
line between good and evil will no longer be necessary when the
corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, demonstrates that once it becomes
a permanent condition of the environment, all the evil (hurt) in
human relations must come to a peaceful end.

The absolute proof
that man’s will is not free is the undeniable fact that we are given no
alternative but to move in this direction once it is understood that this
law can control man’s actions only by obeying this corollary, for then
everything that came into existence which caused us to blame and
punish must, out of absolute necessity, take leave of this earth.
Mankind will be given no choice; this has been taken out of our
hands, as is the motion of the earth around the sun.

The first step is realizing that the solution requires that we work
our problem backwards which means that every step of the way will be
a forced move which will become a loose end and only when all these
ends are drawn together will the blueprint be complete. It is only by
extending our slide rule, Thou Shall Not Blame, which is the key, that
we are given the means to unlock the solution. An example of
working a problem backwards, follow this: If you were told that a
woman with a pocketbook full of money went on a spending spree to
ten stores, paid a dollar to get in every one, a dollar to get out, spent
half of what she had in each and came out of the last place absolutely
broke, it would be very easy to determine the amount of money she
had to start because the dollar she paid to get out of the last store
which broke her must represent one-half of the money spent there.
Consequently, she had two dollars left after paying a dollar to get in,
giving her three just before entering. Since she paid a dollar to get out
of the penultimate store, this added to the three gives her four which
represents one-half of the money spent there. Continuing this process
eight more times it is absolutely undeniable that she must have begun
her spending spree with $3,060. As we can see from this example,
when a key fact is available from which to reason it is then possible to
solve a problem, but when it is not, we must form conjectures and
express opinions with the aid of logic.

At first glance it appears
impossible not to blame an individual for murder, or any heinous
crime, but when we extend this key fact it can be seen that these acts
of evil are not condoned with the understanding that man’s will is not
free, but prevented. Regardless of someone’s opinion as to the
rightness or wrongness of the answer to the problem I just gave, an
opinion that would have to be based upon a logical conclusion as is
that of our experts when considering the impossibility of removing all
evil from our lives, we know the answer is correct because the
reasoning that follows from this key fact is scientifically sound.

By a similar process of working our problem backwards we can
officially launch the Golden Age which necessitates the removal of all
forms of blame (the judgment of what is right for another) so that
each person knows he is completely free to do what he wants to do.
Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation
of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide
rule which God has given us as a guide. By now I hope you
understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything
that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil using
the word God only as a symbol for the former. Actually no one gave
me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force
that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the
direction of satisfaction and for me to be satisfied after reading Will
Durant’s analysis of free will it was necessary to disagree with what
obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is a "Mathematical Power"? That's a strange euphemism to use for God.

Why did God cause evil?

Because mankind is developing at a mathematical rate due to these laws of nature (which Lessans refers to as God). Mankind had to go through the necessary stages of evil in order to reach this point in his development, just as a baby has to go through the necessary stages of development to become an adult.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because mankind is developing at a mathematical rate due to these laws of nature (which Lessans refers to as God). Mankind had to go through the necessary stages of evil in order to reach this point in his development, just as a baby has to go through the necessary stages of development to become an adult.

Impersonal laws of nature do not impose timelines and requirements like that. You are talking about a supernatural deity, YET AGAIN

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I am sharing with whomever. I'm trying to get people who can be objective enough to listen and really hear what he is saying, without fighting me every step of the way. There is alway time to disagree, but give the man a chance.

Then share it with the panel of philosophers. Why were you resistant?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does it matter? It's a free review from people in a position to understand difficult concepts. If you hope to get billions of people on board, some of them are going to have biases. You can't only present it to people who are already inclined to agree.

I will call them personally if I do anything. They are not all going to read this whole book, trust me. This is not even the area of interest many of these philosophers hold.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then share it with the panel of philosophers. Why were you resistant?

I'm not resistant. I have one guy's address who is interested in the book, not from this group. I think I'm going to post the first three chapters on my website. That should be enough for them to know if they are interested to learn more, but to expect them to read an entire online book of 600 pages is asking a lot, and I don't think the majority of them are going to do it. If I contact a person first, and they act interested, that's a different story.