User Controls
Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
-
2017-08-17 at 6:36 AM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 7:15 AM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 7:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Mathematics are hard logic. You don't get more factual than maths.
In this case, we have a deductive proof i.e. it is 100% true fact.
The proof essentially establishes with basic mathematics that for the relevant scientific observations to be nonrandom, you would basically have to violate the fundamental laws of logic. Essentially, you would need to say that 1+2 or 1+3 or 2+3 can be bigger that 1+2+3.
There's nothing hypothetical about that. That's not what "hypothetical" means.
the way i see it is like e=mc^2.
we can say that we know all about e, m, and c.
but how accurately and empirically prove that e really is equal to mc^2. how accurately can we count and measure mega billions of watts ??? -
2017-08-17 at 9:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader the way i see it is like e=mc^2.
we can say that we know all about e, m, and c.
but how accurately and empirically prove that e really is equal to mc^2. how accurately can we count and measure mega billions of watts ???
To put it simply, e=mc² is a physics equation, which you might call a hypothetical equation. To verify it, we need to find a way to actually measure the mass energy of objects, or see predictions consistent with it. How we do that is a separate discussion, and I can tell you about it, but it's not relevant to Bell's Inequality. It is a model
Bell's Inequality is a simple mathematical proof. It doesn't model anything. It simply gives us an axiomatic truth, that is similar in nature to saying "1+3 cannot be more than 1+2 + 2+3".
Watching the video would make this clear, it's a very simple and elegant proof. -
2017-08-17 at 11:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon No because you, as an agent of free will, are making it do something. Its predisposition, by the fundàmental laws of the universe, is to stay at rest. In the same way, me hitting you in the head with a sledgehammer does not make the spattering of your brains into a free action.
So this argument now is about you not understanding compatibilism and using my simplified version for you (because you're getting dinner and dumber in the discussion) to give a weird broken idea of it and build an argument off it.
In compatibilist theory, we account for qualia of thought, second (and higher) order reasoning and agency. But I'm not going to get into this discussion with you because at this point, it's just your job to educate yourself on basic terms rather than vomit out words without understanding the core concepts involved.
Thoughts just arise in the mind. You are no more the author of your next thought that you are of the next sentence I write. You believe input goes into person, person spits out output, and you call that free will. Even if a person's supposed "free will" output is already determined by the input. -
2017-08-17 at 12:30 PM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 12:51 PM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 12:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Thoughts just arise in the mind. You are no more the author of your next thought that you are of the next sentence I write. You believe input goes into person, person spits out output, and you call that free will. Even if a person's supposed "free will" output is already determined by the input.
If I give you the same input, will you necessarily output the same thing as me? -
2017-08-17 at 3:01 PM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 3:12 PM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 3:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Are we the same person? If you put input into two systems that have different programming, do you get the same output? Do computers have your so-called "freewill"?
Compatibilism has already addressed this question. Again, if you're not willing to brush up on the basic terms, then why are you insisting on discussing the subject?
Is a computer an agent of free will? No. Considering that it is being compelled by an(other) agent of free will (whatever human or ultimately human designed system goes into creating it), it is not. So stop babbling it over an over. In compatibilist theory, this would be like me putting you in chains and making you perform a certain action.
Your output is not determined by external inputs. You, as a system, are creating outputs as a result of your mechanical (in the most literaly sense of the word, your physical mechanics) predispositions, and we both agree on that. But you are literally giving me a nonsense argument for how that isn't free will because you could not do otherwise.
so again, for the jillionth time, ignore any part of my argument, and answedr this question; for a free being, if they do not spit out outputs based on some mechanical predisposition, by what mechanism would they make a free choice, and how would it be distinct from either randomness or free choice?
I don't want your retarded babbling about the the intuitive idea of free will, because you're trying to avoid making a specific definition by trying to make me accept a flawed inference. I have explicitly defined my parameters, and it is time for you to define yours, or kill yourself.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-08-17 at 3:22 PM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 6:04 PM UTC
-
2017-08-17 at 6:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Compatibilism has already addressed this question. Again, if you're not willing to brush up on the basic terms, then why are you insisting on discussing the subject?
Is a computer an agent of free will? No. Considering that it is being compelled by an(other) agent of free will (whatever human or ultimately human designed system goes into creating it), it is not. So stop babbling it over an over. In compatibilist theory, this would be like me putting you in chains and making you perform a certain action.
Your output is not determined by external inputs. You, as a system, are creating outputs as a result of your mechanical (in the most literaly sense of the word, your physical mechanics) predispositions, and we both agree on that. But you are literally giving me a nonsense argument for how that isn't free will because you could not do otherwise.
so again, for the jillionth time, ignore any part of my argument, and answedr this question; for a free being, if they do not spit out outputs based on some mechanical predisposition, by what mechanism would they make a free choice, and how would it be distinct from either randomness or free choice?
I don't want your retarded babbling about the the intuitive idea of free will, because you're trying to avoid making a specific definition by trying to make me accept a flawed inference. I have explicitly defined my parameters, and it is time for you to define yours, or kill yourself.
I'm not the one who insisted on talking about this. You did.
I haven't been talking about compatibilism at all. I'm talking about classical, libertarian free will. I have already defined it as such. You are just asking me to repeat myself. I get the feeling you don't actually want to talk about this at all, you just want to go around in circles and call me names.
My argument is not nonsense. You are just trying to switch what freewill means. I have not been speaking about compatibilism. Freewill as I have been using it is literally impossible. -
2017-08-17 at 7:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Free will is not possible unless you change the meaning of it.
I mean if you give it a retarded, internally consistent and self-contradictory meaning then of course. I'm asking you for any definition of free will that isn't selfcontradictory. You're saying it is not possible and everything is "not it". But you're not saying what "it" is. -
2017-08-17 at 7:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I'm not the one who insisted on talking about this. You did.
Let me rephrase; don't insist on arguing with a strong positive position on a subject if you don't understand the subject.I haven't been talking about compatibilism at all. I'm talking about classical, libertarian free will. I have already defined it as such. You are just asking me to repeat myself. I get the feeling you don't actually want to talk about this at all, you just want to go around in circles and call me names.
I have been talking about compatibilism, because I'm telling you why that definition of free will is valid, well defined, meaningful and very much jives with the way people think of "free will".
You keep saying "the classical, libertarian concept of free will", but you refuse to define what that means. You're ducking and dodging harder than Floyd Mayweather. The only reason this conversation is going in circles is because despite me making it overwhelmingly easy for you to move forward with dozens of different approaches to defining it, you refuse to commit to any definition of free will, yet make positive statements about what is not free will, and that free will cannot exist.My argument is not nonsense. You are just trying to switch what freewill means. I have not been speaking about compatibilism. Freewill as I have been using it is literally impossible.
Your argument is absolute nonsense because you are not telling me what the fuck free will means, what it implies, what it entails, what its nature of it would be. -
2017-08-17 at 7:37 PM UTCThis mind numbing conversation in a nutshell:
Obbe: The animal Zarblox is impossible
Me: What is Zarblox?
Obbe: What everyone thinks what Zarblox is.
Me: What does everyone think Zarblox is?
Obbe: An animal that is impossible
Me: But what the fuck is a Zarblox? Is Zarblox just any creature that is impossible? In that case, I could tell you a creature that is impossible and it would be a Zarblox.
Obbe: No, that's not what Zarblox is, a Zarblox is a creature that is impossible
Me: How is it impossible? Is it impossible for it to physically exist? Conceptually exist?
Obbe: Zarblox is impossible
Me: What impossible characteristics does it have?
Obbe: Zarblox is impossible
Me: What would it take for Zarblox to be possible?
Obbe: Zarblox is impossible
Me: Lets assume Zarblox is possible and exist. What would it look like?
Obbe: Zarblox is impossible
Me: Lets assume Zarblox is possible and exist. What would it behave like?
Obbe: Zarblox is impossibleThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-08-17 at 7:46 PM UTCjust push them
-
2017-08-17 at 7:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon This mind numbing conversation in a nutshell:
Obbe: The animal Zarblox is impossible
Me: What is Zarblox?
Obbe: What everyone thinks what Zarblox is.
Me: What does everyone think Zarblox is?
Obbe: An animal that is impossible
Me: But what the fuck is a Zarblox? Is Zarblox just any creature that is impossible? In that case, I could tell you a creature that is impossible and it would be a Zarblox.
Obbe: No, that's not what Zarblox is, a Zarblox is a creature that is impossible
Me: How is it impossible? Is it impossible for it to physically exist? Conceptually exist?
Obbe: Zarblox is impossible
Me: What impossible characteristics does it have?
Obbe: Zarblox is impossible
Me: What would it take for Zarblox to be possible?
Obbe: Zarblox is impossible
Me: Lets assume Zarblox is possible and exist. What would it look like?
Obbe: Zarblox is impossible
Me: Lets assume Zarblox is possible and exist. What would it behave like?
Obbe: Zarblox is impossible
Wait so like I'm confused. Impossible in all circumstances, including location? Like if i were to move a zarblox to another room like the bathroom or whatever, could "a zarblox located in the bathroom" technically exist? -
2017-08-17 at 8:14 PM UTC
