The illusion of free will

[Sarkus]

the edited post included the following..[sorry]

The logical truth involved [ all worlds and situations]

"Nothing" can exist if there is no time for something to exist in.
If the shutter speed of the camera was set at zero duration there would be no snap shot... agreed?

Sure, but "no snap shot" is not analogous to the "existence of nothing". You are trying to claim existence of "nothing" in a state that you suggest precludes the very possibility of existence.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it, and doing so through a play on language. But I think this has been pointed out to you previously.
In summary, your premises are contradictory: existence is impossible / "nothing" exists. You either need to show that "nothing" exists while the state of existence is possible, or you need to accept that as soon as you claim that existence is not possible, there can be no "nothing".

As such, if the shutter is closed ("existence is impossible") it is meaningless to claim that "nothing" exists, since you are claiming a state for it (existence) that you have already precluded.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'll repeat the issue

The logical truth involved [ all worlds and situations]

"Nothing" can exist if there is no time for something to exist in.

or reworded to avoid your focus on the semantics of the word "nothing":
"Something can not exist unless it has time to do so"
or
"For something to exist it MUST have time to do so"


are you able to show why the above are not a logical truth?

Can you show that the logic expressed can be invalidated and in what circumstance it can be invalidated?
Note: the above question is not a taunt. It has no hidden agenda, it is simply that I give you the benefit of doubt.
If you can invalidate it, you can. If you can't then you can't...
I am not presuming to know your answer before it is given.

 

[Quantum Quack]

the consensus is that you are wrong, that you don't know what you are talking about.. this is the basis for my claim that others do not know what you are talking about.

do I really need to explain this?

Yep, you have made a claim that you have not supported...
Unless you expect me to accept that the consensus, which includes you, is, as you claim it to be, with out proper reason to do so.

So give me proper reason to consider your opinion as valid and worthy of merit.

Question:
If others do not know what I am talking about then how can they make an assessment as to whether I am right or wrong?

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Sarkus,
Here is a diagram that may clarify things even further...[ contextually ]

 

[Sarkus]

I'll repeat the issue


or reworded to avoid your focus on the semantics of the word "nothing":
"Something can not exist unless it has time to do so"
or
"For something to exist it MUST have time to do so"


are you able to show why the above are not a logical truth?

You are putting the element "nothing" in the set of "things that exist" while at the same time stating that the set is void (i.e. "existence is not possible").
I.e. you are being paradoxical in your statements.

The "rewordings" are nothing of the sort, as they are completely different from a syntactic point of view.
There does not appear to be any "logic" behind the claims, as that is all they seem to be: claims; unsupported by you and as such require no refutation.
Merely referring to them as "logical thruths" does not make them so. If you think they are: what are the premises upon which they are built? What is the argument that leads from premise to conclusion?

Can you show that the logic expressed can be invalidated and in what circumstance it can be invalidated?

To show whether or not the logic expressed can be invalidated, there first needs to be logic that is actually expressed.

Note: the above question is not a taunt. It has no hidden agenda, it is simply that I give you the benefit of doubt.

What exactly is that you doubt that you presume to give me the benefit of it?

 

[river]

I don't find free-will this complicated , and nor is it to my mind

Free-will is of degrees of , and those degrees of .. Are based on knowledge , questioning , inquiry , curiosity , exploration and the ability to change ones mind

Am I wrong and are you wrong , are both wrong or right and all the various combinations thereof .....thinking

Free-will is a quality of brain-mind evolution

The more knowledge we come across …....the more the brain-mind expands its potential .......the more free-will can and is expressed

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are putting the element "nothing" in the set of "things that exist" while at the same time stating that the set is void (i.e. "existence is not possible").
I.e. you are being paradoxical in your statements.

but Sarkus "Nothing" is non-existent! How can it be an element of a set "things that exist"?

The "rewordings" are nothing of the sort, as they are completely different from a syntactic point of view.
There does not appear to be any "logic" behind the claims, as that is all they seem to be: claims; unsupported by you and as such require no refutation.

in what way is there no logic behind the claim?

Merely referring to them as "logical truths" does not make them so.

of course not...why do you think I would think that?

If you think they are: what are the premises upon which they are built? What is the argument that leads from premise to conclusion?
What exactly is that you doubt that you presume to give me the benefit of it?

By presuming to know your answer before you give it means no discussion is really possible.
By allowing for the possibility of being wrong means that the possibility of being right becomes real.
Your post above offer very little justification to consider the claim of a logical truth to be invalidated.
Just because you have failed to invalidate it doesn't automatically make it valid.
It just means the issue is still open... [ and always will be as this is the nature of remaining objective]

the image again just to maintain context:

 

[Sarkus]

@Sarkus,
Here is a diagram that may clarify things even further...[ contextually ]

Reposting the same diagram that you have posted in numerous threads will only lead to the same answers.
Do you actually even understand the diagram you keep posting?
And why do you think it suggests to you that at t=0 nothing exists, rather than merely that nothing is moving?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Reposting the same diagram that you have posted in numerous threads will only lead to the same answers.
Do you actually even understand the diagram you keep posting?
And why do you think it suggests to you that at t=0 nothing exists, rather than merely that nothing is moving?

are you suggesting absolute rest exists?
...and if it is not moving for how long is it stationary?

 

[Sarkus]

but Sarkus "Nothing" is non-existent! How can it be an element of a set "things that exist"?

Then why do you claim, and keep claiming, that "nothingness" exists? Your very statement was: "'Nothing' can exist if there is no time for something to exist in. " This ("nothingness") is the fundamental element that you require to exist for freewill to be genuine... the existence of "nothingness" into which we are therefore free to move. And now you are switching to agreeing that "nothing" is non-existent. So where does that leave your claim for a genuine freewill, given that you now concede that "nothing" can not exist, and thus there must always be something.

in what way is there no logic behind the claim?

There are no premises, no argument, just a claim. There is no requisite structure for a logical argument. Or at least not one that is clear.

of course not...why do you think I would think that?

Because that is what you seem to be doing.

By presuming to know your answer before you give it means no discussion is really possible.
By allowing for the possibility of being wrong means that the possibility of being right becomes real.
Your post above offer very little justification to consider the claim of a logical truth to be invalidated.

Your initial statement has been shown to be invalid as per above, and you acknowledge its invalidity by switching your claim.
Whether this is what you had meant to claim or not is for you to determine, but what you said has indeed been shown to be invalid.
And, again, for the rest to be (in)validated there has to be some logic presented. Currently there is not.

Just because you have failed to invalidate it doesn't automatically make it valid.
It just means the issue is still open... [ and always will be as this is the nature of remaining objective]

If you don't provide any logic, it can not be invalidated or validated. You are now suggesting that an inability to invalidate (or validate) what you have not provided somehow leaves what you have not provided as "still open"? If you don't bring your logic to the table, you close the issue to everyone other than yourself.

 

[Sarkus]

are you suggesting absolute rest exists?

Only for precisely 0 seconds.

...and if it is not moving for how long is it stationary?

It remains motionless until $$t \neq 0$$.
So again, do you actually understand the diagram you keep posting?
And why do you think it suggests to you that at t=0 nothing exists, rather than merely that nothing is moving?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Then why do you claim, and keep claiming, that "nothingness" exists? Your very statement was: "'Nothing' can exist if there is no time for something to exist in. " This ("nothingness") is the fundamental element that you require to exist for freewill to be genuine... the existence of "nothingness" into which we are therefore free to move. And now you are switching to agreeing that "nothing" is non-existent. So where does that leave your claim for a genuine freewill, given that you now concede that "nothing" can not exist, and thus there must always be something.

There is actually nothing wrong with this statement however your interpretation creates a dilemma.

'Nothing' can exist if there is no time for something to exist in.

"No-thing can exist if there is no time for something to exist in"

You have interpreted it so that "nothing" acquires a value when it can not acquire a value.

 

[Quantum Quack]

are you suggesting absolute rest exists?

Only for precisely 0 seconds.
It remains motionless until $$t \neq 0$$.

What remains motionless for zero time duration? eh?:m:
That's some weed you smokin' man!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Just as a matter of interest and a lead to another thread perhaps.
re:

You have interpreted it so that "nothing" acquires a value when it can not acquire a value.

when
A=A
is proved by
A-A= 0
it suggest that the value of A is relative to the value of zero

however I wonder if the reverse is true.
Is the non-value of zero relative to the value A ?
My answer would be no....

 

[NMSquirrel]

Yep, you have made a claim that you have not supported...
Unless you expect me to accept that the consensus, which includes you, is, as you claim it to be, with out proper reason to do so.

even if I gave proper reason, you would not accept it.
are you saying that no one has said that you are wrong?
or are you just trying to double talk and sidestep.

So give me proper reason to consider your opinion as valid and worthy of merit.

I will play the same card you do on this one..
nope, don't have give you proper reason, if you cant figure that reason out for yourself, you aint gonna listen to anything I have to say.

Question:
If others do not know what I am talking about then how can they make an assessment as to whether I am right or wrong?

this is sciforums we are talking about.

and the fact that you keep rehashing the same bit over and over and over and over....says that no one understand what you are talking about.(and I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you do know what you are talking about, its just everyone else who isn't getting it)

but if you continue to argue on autopilot I may just change my mind.
but then again.. who cares what I think.
I have/had no real point to make. yet you continue to argue.. tells me a lot about you.

BTW, since I am an amateur, and can only argue so far when it comes to the actual science, reading the discussion between you and sarkus, I would have to conclude that sarkus is right and you are wrong.(bet you insult me for saying your wrong)
he has done more to try and explain than you have.
you just keep rehashing the same things over and over.

and no I don't have to explain myself.
if you don't get it, you never will.

 

[Quantum Quack]

even if I gave proper reason, you would not accept it.
are you saying that no one has said that you are wrong?
or are you just trying to double talk and sidestep.



I will play the same card you do on this one..
nope, don't have give you proper reason, if you cant figure that reason out for yourself, you aint gonna listen to anything I have to say.


this is sciforums we are talking about.

and the fact that you keep rehashing the same bit over and over and over and over....says that no one understand what you are talking about.(and I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you do know what you are talking about, its just everyone else who isn't getting it)

but if you continue to argue on autopilot I may just change my mind.
but then again.. who cares what I think.
I have/had no real point to make. yet you continue to argue.. tells me a lot about you.

BTW, since I am an amateur, and can only argue so far when it comes to the actual science, reading the discussion between you and sarkus, I would have to conclude that sarkus is right and you are wrong.(bet you insult me for saying your wrong)
he has done more to try and explain than you have.
you just keep rehashing the same things over and over.

and no I don't have to explain myself.
if you don't get it, you never will.

Consensus is not limited to sciforums. Nor is it limited to only those who decide to respond to posts.
[given the hostility displayed towards me, this is not surprising.]
the issue currently in discussion with Sarkus is posted as a new thread :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141211-Claim-for-a-logical-truth&p=3177400#post3177400

I look forward to your erudite participation!

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Sarkus,

Until certain logical truths can be accommodated the issue of demonstrating relevance to "freewill" being an illusion or not, is unable to be properly entertained. IMO
One such truth is mentioned here and open for discussion at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141211-Claim-for-a-logical-truth&p=3177400#post3177400
and perhaps you would care to repeat your counter in that thread so others can determine it's worth with out the "baggage" of this thread being involved.

 

[river]

QQ

Your link doesn't work , at least not me , it comes up as an error

 

[Quantum Quack]

Fixed it , thanks...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141211-Claim-for-a-logical-truth&p=3177400#post3177400

 

[Sarkus]

There is actually nothing wrong with this statement however your interpretation creates a dilemma.

You have yet to show that there is nothing wrong with the statement. You asked if I could show that the logic expressed was invalid, but until you set out your logic for arriving at it, your request is meaningless.

"No-thing can exist if there is no time for something to exist in"

You have interpreted it so that "nothing" acquires a value when it can not acquire a value.

No, you did that by equating it to zero, and claiming it could exist.
If you are now changing your tack, as you appear to be doing, and claiming that "nothing can not exist" then you are concluding that only something can exist, and that to talk of "nothing" existing is meaningless, and thus invalidates much of what you have previously argued.