 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
No, any logic used to back up either position, in that case, for and against, falls into the camp of either side, becomes as subjective as that side, and merely aggregates the logic used to back up that own position, and carries no baring over that other side, remember the court analogy? If an objective is placed above either position, with wildcards of its own, it can choose one position, but only because of those wildcards that are alien out of context, in which case. each position has the capacity to be backed up by equal amounts of logic, in this case, one is merely filling that capacity, but indeed, it is the capacity not the degree to which it is filled that matters out of context, or in a neutral context, whereas, if you add wildcards, in this case, a debate attempting to determine whether the shroud is real or not, then that debate will choose a certain side, either because of its own preference or because, as is often the case in debates, the "sports" like nature of the thing "who can use the most logic", which is alien to the validity of the argument out of context and unapplied, which is what I'm talking about, in this context, with Sloww.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
Its the ability to take advantage of ones liberty to do something (to make a choice), purely independently, as in, not influenced by deterministic external factors.
Determinism means that if one accounts for those externel factors, as in all of them, then you can predict the choice one person will make.
My argument is that different people have different views, so the relativist argument applies in the sense that it is a matter for ones own subjective perception. However, my own view is that ones own decisions are influenced entirely by internel and external factors, but in our 4-d universe, our ability to calculate them accurately decreases exponentially as the time from the source or end event increases, due to heisenbergs theory and schrodingers thesis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
each position has the capacity to be backed up by equal amounts of logic |
How? I'd like to see that proved, or even shown. If something is true for that context, then it can be backed up with more logic than somethign that is false for that context.
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
Determinism means that if one accounts for those externel factors, as in all of them, then you can predict the choice one person will make. |
Not quite. Determinism is when something is predictable, in that with perfect knowledge of that person, you would know what they would do. It means either that they have no choice, or that their choice is determined by something beyond their control. It is still not necessarily that any person can predict it, as perfect knowledge is impossible.
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
My argument is that different people have different views, so the relativist argument applies in the sense that it is a matter for ones own subjective perception. |
The relativist argument is also a subjective though. Many people do not believe in relativism, so it does not mean it is a matter for everyones subjective perception, it means you believe that it is. Moreover, since either our actions are predetermined or not, there is a right and a wrong answer. Nobody knows which it is, and so we cannot be sure, but not all views are equally valid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
The relativist argument is also a subjective though
|
Only in the context of relativism vs others, in which case I am free to advocate relativism but accept that I am subjective along with that. Out of context, it is equally valid, in the context of subjective vs subjective, it is objective.
quote:
How? I'd like to see that proved
|
-1,0,1. I'll email you my article on it when its completed, I cant be bothered paraphrasing a massive argument when I'm out of coffee.
quote:
Not quite. Determinism is when something is predictable
|
So, like I said predictable to a degree. Look at the weather forecast thing. You have most of the information, accuracy degrades quickly. You have all the information, accuracy still degrades due to uncertainty, but not in the model of total info, total knowledge for all intents and purposes within that context.
quote:
If something is true for that context, then it can be backed up with more logic than somethign that is false for that context
|
The key is, "for that context". Out of context, where the question of validity of subjectives arises, the wildcards of true or false by definition do not apply. Whether you cognetively or in reality apply a context to a subjective, or rather, apply a wildcard(s) to a subjective, you are taking it out out of context, and placing it in a tainted context, which is slanting the playing field.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
Out of context, it is equally valid |
Only if you assume relativism. If you assume absolutism, then it is never equally valid. You cannot argue that relativism is equally valid unless you use relativism to argue it. Assuming non relativism, you cannot show that relativism is equally valid.
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
in the context of subjective vs subjective, it is objective. |
If I don't believe in relativism, then whether objective or not, I believe it is wrong. Objective does not mean right or best, as I gave with the example of the Euro earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
So, like I said predictable to a degree. |
IMHO not. I believe it is completely unpredictable, or more exactly, chaotic. Hence with perfect knowledge, it is perfectly predictable. Without perfect knowledge, it is unpredictable and chaotic.
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
The key is, "for that context". |
Everything is in some context, when it is applied. Hence when you apply it, it cannot be backed up with exactly the same amount of logic. If something is true for that context, presuming that is the context of the argument, then it can be backed up with more logic than something that is false, for the context of that argument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zero
Physicists may laugh at what Im saying but I think the universe can be understood and predicted thru science.
None of this quantum physics, I think uncertainty comes only from our limitations, thats all. |
HA-HA!
Incidentally, the current theories of physics have no room for free-will. If they are correct then every decision you ever 'make' is not really 'you' but a consequence of physical laws. You are nothing - just a puppet.
So, for those of you who don't believe in free-will, how would you reconcile determinism with your morality? For example, should criminals be sent to prison? After all, it was determinism that made them do it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
Bodd's has a point.
It is a tough thing to reconcile. On the one hand, I have the desire not to punish people for something that they had no control over (ie. their genes and experience - who they are). On the other hand I have the benefit to society of having laws, and on removing from society those that break them. There has to be a balance between the two, therefore punishments not as strict because the person had no control over it, but also punishments that are enough to try to disuade others from offending. I favour rehabilitation wherever possible, and the removal from society until rehabilitation can have taken effect, by use of some form of prison or other locked perimeter. If rehabilitation will never be possible, then there is a choice between life (meanign actual life) in prisonment, or the death penalty. It is hard to reconcile, but without punishments, there is the problem of innocents being harmed. If someone is harming others, whether they have control over it or not, they must be stopped. Laws should be set to make the least amount of harm possible, whether for victims or for perpitrators IMHO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Bodds, I said we don't have free will, not that we cannot choose. We can choose, but it is that what we choose is determined by who we are, which is something beyond our control. Therefore we can choose, but that choice is determined by something beyond our control. |
But as long we can choose, we still influence who we are. It´s not that we get a person who can choose at the age of let´s say 12, 18 or 21, and then we always act deterministic, according to our personal beliefs etc.
If this happens, it is an ongoing process. And when we can choose, "what we are" is not totally out of our control. It may be influenced by a lot of outside factors, but if we do not have the slightes piece of control about our decisions we cannot count as conscious beings any longer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Only if you assume relativism
|
I do  . My argument is only objective in that context, to other people, noteably absolutists and those that disagree, it is merely a subjective that disagrees with their own, however, objective to that, relativism applies (to which others may critique at that level, and so forth).
quote:
If I don't believe in relativism, then whether objective or not, I believe it is wrong
|
If you dont believe in relativism, you are an idiot  jk
quote:
Objective does not mean right or best
|
I never said it did, given a certain context. In the context you specified, what is best is the economists view, but only because of the wildcards of that particular context! However, the method of judging and the validity of points of view, in and out of context is dictated by objectivity and in that case. Incidentally, what makes the economist in that case better is the fact that he is objective with regards to the wildcards themselves, but dont get me qualifying fractals here, its soo much easier to draw a purty picture!
quote:
IMHO not. I believe it is completely unpredictable, or more exactly, chaotic. Hence with perfect knowledge, it is perfectly predictable
|
Absolutely, my argument is based on chaos theory. However perfect knowledge means Transdimensional knowledge, as opposed to 4-d knowledge, in order to account for uncertainty principles.
quote:
Everything is in some context, when it is applied. Hence when you apply it, it cannot be backed up with exactly the same amount of logic. If something is true for that context, presuming that is the context of the argument, then it can be backed up with more logic than something that is false, for the context of that argument
|
My god Jim, he's starting to get it! jk
To avoid lexical ambiguity, when I say out of context, I mean a lack of (pseudo) objective judging, as opposed to n+2 dimensional context. An example would be a court where the truth to an event is unknown, perhaps a war againt a nation based on the subjective whims of another with no independent judge, or an argument between oranges and apples. With no-one to choose between them, with the wildcards of whether they like oranges or apples, both fruits are equally valid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Lack of control does not equal lack of consciousness
|
Thats a good way of looking at it, although a platonic idealist may argue by saying that because reality (and thus control) is all in the mind, it can in fact be controlled by at least that mind.
quote:
If we assume determinism, there are no choices.
|
But as far as we are concerned at X point in time, with only our incomplete knowledge of the past and present, determinism does not apply (in that context, n dimensional, with n+1, in which Drogue and myself are arguing, it does).
In other words, someone has to make those deterministic choices, and we dont have knowledge of what is writting in stone, only that they are set in stone. We dont have the benefit of a retrospectoscope in the present.
quote:
How about calling it a probability that society will take one particular outcome over the other
|
You still have two choices, any question of speculation about the probability of an event or its outcome preceeding the actual event is not relevant to determinism, perhaps, only to serve as a basis for our decision making.
quote:
That implies a form of free will. That we are free to choose...
|
As far as the individual at that point of making the choice is concerned, he is free to choose. Only looking back can we say that he was not, but at the actual event, we cannot know better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
Absolutely, my argument is based on chaos theory.
|
A traditional Chaotic system is still perfectly (traditionally) deterministic, so it cannot be the source of free-will.
(BTW, for 'free-will' I am using BeBro's definition above, whixh is a rather good one  )
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
However perfect knowledge means Transdimensional knowledge, as opposed to 4-d knowledge, in order to account for uncertainty principles.
|
This sounds like complete bull! What is `Transdimensional knowledge', and what does it have to do with the uncertainty principle? If you are saying that the universe is unpredictable because one needs 'somewhere else' to calculate all the variables, I agree. But this has nothing to do with free-will and nothing to do with higher dimensions. 
It seems clear to me that in order to have free-will in the universe, we need to have some weakly coupled system which is non-deterministic. It must be weakly coupled so that our physics experiments don't notice it, but our brains do. It must be non-deterministic (ie. inherently non-predictive - not just quantum mechanically non-predictive, since quantum mechanics, despite its bad press, is predictive) to provide the free-will bit. It is interesting to note that that implies that there is a part of us which is beyond the physical - or at least beyond the description of physics. Rather like a 'soul'....
As a side issue, if we don't have free-will, why would the quantum mechanical wavefunction collapse to an eigenstate when we look at it? Shouldn't we just be another part of the experiment? This is the old Schroedinger's cat problem. My take is that it is the non-predictive weakly coupled system (our 'free-will' if you like) that collapses the wavefunction.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
As a side issue, if we don't have free-will, why would the quantum mechanical wavefunction collapse to an eigenstate when we look at it? Shouldn't we just be another part of the experiment? This is the old Schroedinger's cat problem. My take is that it is the non-predictive weakly coupled system (our 'free-will' if you like) that collapses the wavefunction. |
I really don't like that from an aesthetic point of view.
Free will (assuming it exists) is something that only comes about when you have a certain level of sophistication. Be it technological, biological or other. In your take on the situation there has to be a non-arbitrary point at which life on Earth gained the power of free will and hence the ability to collapse wavefunctions. If it takes a human-esque mind that means wavefunctions have only been collapsing for a few million years. If it merely needs a living organism that puts it at a few billion years. Either way this means that for the bulk of the universe's existence nothing possessed free will, and hence no wavefunctions collapsed.
In such a scenario you create considerable problems in explaining the evolution of the universe and the creation of a creature that has the free will to collapse the zillions of eigenstates from which it came into the single history from it could come. Or in other words, you are saying that if you don't observe a multistate universe it will create a creature that can observe itself, and in doing so will collapse it to a single state universe. That just doesn't sit right with me.
Last edited by Dauphin on 25-06-2003 at 18:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
What is `Transdimensional knowledge'
|
Dreadfully sorry, I wrote that with Drogue in mind, since he is familiar with my arguments.
Briefly, this universe, to use the Einsteinian constructs, is 4-dimensional, the spatial dimensions that we all know, and time. However, there are infinities in this universe, and factors that remain entirely random from this perspective, and where this is relevant includes such things as Heisenbergs theory, as well as Schrodingers (remember the cat?).
WIthout going into too many details, they state that even with total knowledge of this 4 dimensional universe at a given point, we can only know positions and not velocities, in complete and accurate proportion to position. As such, even with 100% knowledge of this universe, our accuracy of predictions will decrease exponentially from the epoch of complete knowledge, a sort of universal weather forecast-like situation.
By viewing the universe from a transdimensional (or in this case 5-14 dimensions depending on whether you include elements of string theory) perspective, ones perception of time is changed so that ours becomes a vector like length or depth. As such, Heisenbergs theory no longer exists, so chaos theory as we know it, assuming perfect knowledge kicks in.
Total knowledge of this 4-d universe is not infinite knowledge, required to make total, 100%, complete, unfettered determinism work.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-06-2003 06:13
|