The illusion of free will

Quantum Quack said:
if that is what you wish to believe go for it...
or are you saying your ability to believe is somehow different to mine?
Your mere existence is subject to belief, didn't you know...?
Do you know you exist or do you believe you exist. and if you know you exist do you believe what you know?
do you know that science will tell you that cause and effect are an illusion?
A temporal mirage! So what does that make you and the choices you make?

Freewill is as illlusionary as reality is...so to say that freewill is an illusion is actually saying zip, because it is all a temporal illusion?
Therefore freewill is as real as real is...

Unless you wish to believe that reality is ...uhm... real? :)
Click to expand...

What "science will tell you that cause and effect are an illusion"?

What scientist said this? What research are you talking about?
 
cluelusshusbund said:
I rode you'r merry-go-round to try an see if you actualy had an argument... but you got zip.!!!
Click to expand...

Makes u an me both. Zip!
Problem is u played ur hand too soon...normally u get a number of posts before you declare the sham behind your silly questions.
 
Last edited:
Jan Ardena said:
Quote Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund

I rode you'r merry-go-round to try an see if you actualy had an argument... but you got zip.!!!
Click to expand...
Have you looked at your contribution?

QQ has done all the work, and all you've done is asked pointless questions, and offered nothing.

Fraid ur the one who has got zip!!!

jan.
Click to expand...

yes, but give him credit for recognizing the ride..
 
NMSquirrel is not an idiot, but a person with an opinion like everyone else.

Name calling is an infraction of the rules.
 
Aqueous Id said:
What "science will tell you that cause and effect are an illusion"?

What scientist said this? What research are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Minkowski/Einstein space time will...
The past does not exist nor does the future.. yes?
Then Cause and effect are temporal illusions... yes?

How long does the present moment last for?
and if zero duration , how big is the universe at any t=0
or
if t= 0 duration d = what?
(8 years and not once properly refuted)

any ways I posted all the diagrams earlier in this thread and if you are interested you may wish to seek them out.
 
Last edited:
Aqueous Id said:
NMSquirrel is not an idiot, but a person with an opinion like everyone else.

Name calling is an infraction of the rules.
Click to expand...
your bait and switch tactics are blatantly obvious.
If clueless and NMSQuirrel were smart enough to recognize the ride and I post:
U probably don't realize it but I don't post for the idiots.
Click to expand...
I am paying them a compliment...


Opinion:
Because you guys are so bent on trapping me into giving the mod cause to act you failed to pick up on how your own obsession made you feel I was being critical and provided you the opportunity you have been seeking from the start.

Maybe after 13, 390 posts to this forum site alone I could be given a little credit for knowing a bait and switch when I see it...


so you think I am name calling when in fact I was paying a compliment... why is that?
and I get a PM from one poster indicating he felt the same way... [ chuckle ]

so I'll repeat my compliment, "I don't post for the idiots" ok? You happy now?
as there are many guest and other readers of this thread than those who post to it...to consider as well...
 
Last edited:
No I'm not happy with pretense, including the one that feels qualified to call anyone else an idiot.

If you want to get this back on track, you should apologize to NMSquirrel and answer the questions I asked you immediately above
 
Aqueous Id said:
No I'm not happy with pretense, including the one that feels qualified to call anyone else an idiot.

If you want to get this back on track, you should apologize to NMSquirrel
Click to expand...

Why would I want to go out of my way to do that? When you have only offended yourself due to jumping to conclusions.

and answer the questions I asked you immediately above
Click to expand...
I have responded to your questions as I see fit.. If that is not adequate then go ask someone else...
or alternatively you may even feel inclined to discuss the issue properly in a mature and erudite fashion...

The past does not exist nor does the future.. yes?
Then Cause and effect are temporal illusions... yes?

How long does the present moment last for?
and if zero duration , how big is the universe at any t=0
or
if t= 0 duration d = what?
(8 years and not once properly refuted)

any ways I posted all the diagrams earlier in this thread and if you are interested you may wish to seek them out.
Click to expand...
 
Quantum Quack said:
Why would I want to go out of my way to do that? When you have only offended yourself due to jumping to conclusions.


I have responded to your questions as I see fit.. If that is not adequate then go ask someone else...
or alternatively you may even feel inclined to discuss the issue properly in a mature and erudite fashion...
Click to expand...

You are making statements that characterize the laws of nature contrary to observation.
 
Aqueous Id said:
You are making statements that characterize the laws of nature contrary to observation.
Click to expand...
Explain what you mean.
The fact the at any t=0 duration d=0 is a simple outcome of conventional physics. Especially in Minkowski/Einstein Space time, just one outcome that is currently being over looked and unexplained. [ as far as been proved with over 8 years of searching]
Logically it is also valid but one has to get past the knee jerk reactions that such a "truth" tends to generate first before realizing it in the correct light.
and
The fact that the past is materially non-existent and nor is the future is simple logic based on observation. Therefore "cause and effect" are temporal illusions.

You also state "the laws of nature" as if they are correctly understood and not subject to change if others are found or blatant errors eventually revealed. This is not a healthy position to take IMO.


The other thing to keep in mind although I am confident you do, is that:

"Logically derived truths do not a reality make"
so every thing I have just put forward is merely what I believe to be logical truisms and not necessarily the true reality of things.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Quote Originally Posted by Aqueous Id

NMSquirrel is not an idiot, but a person with an opinion like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Name calling is an infraction of the rules.As I said. I don't post for the idiots!
Click to expand...

actually I did not see this as directed towards me,
since he posted in response to me, he said he doesn't reply to posts from idiots.(he replied to me, so that eliminated me from the comment)

but..it was directed at someone else, who needs a new tagline, so QQ your gonna have to be a little more creative when insulting him.
(already talked to him about his tagline, said he is waiting for appropriate insult)
 
The fact that the past is materially non-existent
Click to expand...

um, there is LOADS of material from the past that still exist..
i don't think its a 'material' non-existence, you are talking about.

in fact I am sure that what you are referring to is two different things (reasoning for past non-existence vs future non-existence)
simply because the past is already caused and the future has yet to be caused.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Logically derived truths do not a reality make
Click to expand...
I would call that a blatant contradiction of the fundamental premise of the scientific method. Especially if we expand "true" to "true beyond a reasonable doubt."

The natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical evidence of its present and past behavior.

To deny this premise (without presenting the extrordinary evidence required by the Rule of Laplace before such an extraordinary assertion can be treated with respect) is to identify oneself (at least) as not a scientist and (at worst) as an antiscientist. In either case one is posting on the wrong website, since this is supposed to be a place of science.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
I would call that a blatant contradiction of the fundamental premise of the scientific method. Especially if we expand "true" to "true beyond a reasonable doubt."

The natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical evidence of its present and past behavior.

To deny this premise (without presenting the extrordinary evidence required by the Rule of Laplace before such an extraordinary assertion can be treated with respect) is to identify oneself (at least) as not a scientist and (at worst) as an antiscientist. In either case one is posting on the wrong website, since this is supposed to be a place of science.
Click to expand...

but even you Fraggle must understand that the logic is ABOUT a reality that it, the logic, is being applied to an observation of reality and not the other way around.
It could be said that logic truths can mimic reality in the form of solid theoretic's, hypothesis, reasoning. But this is always qualified by the term beyond reasonable doubt, and that is a completely subjective qualification.

  • What does "beyond reasonable doubt" mean?
  • How is it standardized?
  • How does it pass the scientific method?

I do not accept buzz word [phrase] usage generally with out at least understanding the limitations of language, logic, reasoning and qualifications such as "Beyond a reasonable doubt".
You are suggesting that my comment fails to pass the scientific method when it describes what the scientific method is seeking to mitigate, and then you have stated the term "beyond reasonable doubt" and appear to consider that to be immune to the scientific method?
why?

and...
this statement of yours:
The natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical evidence of its present and past behavior.
Click to expand...
Could better reflect the truth by being worded as follows IMO :

"The natural universe is considered by science to be a closed system whose behavior can be confidently predicted by theories derived logically from empirical evidence of its present and past behavior by science."
 
Last edited:
NMSquirrel said:
actually I did not see this as directed towards me,
since he posted in response to me, he said he doesn't reply to posts from idiots.(he replied to me, so that eliminated me from the comment)

but..it was directed at someone else, who needs a new tagline, so QQ your gonna have to be a little more creative when insulting him.
(already talked to him about his tagline, said he is waiting for appropriate insult)
Click to expand...
I would strongly suggest that you do not underestimate clueless, his skill at being what ever he is shows no bounds! :)
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
I would call that a blatant contradiction of the fundamental premise of the scientific method. Especially if we expand "true" to "true beyond a reasonable doubt."

The natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical evidence of its present and past behavior.

To deny this premise (without presenting the extrordinary evidence required by the Rule of Laplace before such an extraordinary assertion can be treated with respect) is to identify oneself (at least) as not a scientist and (at worst) as an antiscientist. In either case one is posting on the wrong website, since this is supposed to be a place of science.
Click to expand...
perhaps as a person with a strong interest in scientific truths you would like to have a go at explaining how big the universe is at t=0 when t=0 Duration?

Just be careful if you choose to publish the the only rational answer possible, you will then have to spend 8 or more years being victimized for spreading anti scientific gossip!

time.png
 
NMSquirrel said:
actually I did not see this as directed towards me,
since he posted in response to me, he said he doesn't reply to posts from idiots.(he replied to me, so that eliminated me from the comment)

but..it was directed at someone else, who needs a new tagline, so QQ your gonna have to be a little more creative when insulting him.
(already talked to him about his tagline, said he is waiting for appropriate insult)
Click to expand...

What you have misquoted makes a world of difference to the question... can you see the mistake?

key word highlighted in bold
here is my statement:
As I said. I don't post for the idiots!
Click to expand...
I was referring to the reader not the poster...
Sciforums is after all about an intelligent community ...yes?
[ I don't dumb down just to keep the reader happy .... ]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top