Is our destiny fixed?

Religions > Atheism > Is our destiny fixed?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 6

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"someone4"
Date:	07 Sep 2005 06:36:03 PM
Object:	Is our destiny fixed?

The evidence of scientific discovery has shown that there are causes
behind the effects that we see.
During what can be called the 'quantum revolution' we were told that
there was in fact randomness (effects without cause), though despite
the assurances of Von Neumann and others (that it was impossible that
effects do have causes), Bohmian mechanics does give an explanation
where effects have a cause. It doesn't matter whether it is right or
wrong (in its explanation), by its very existence it shows that it is
possible (backed up by the history of scientific discovery), that our
lack of an explanation is due to our ignorance.
Obviously if effects have a cause, or in other words. that whatever
happens is inevitable given the cause(s), then our future is fixed
given the initial state at the 'Big Bang' and the laws that happen to
govern the universe.
Just wondering how many atheists on the channel believe in a fixed
destiny?
I realise (from reading this newsgroup) that atheism means believing in
nothing in particular, but I was just interested in seeing in what the
atheists on the channel do believe in. The specific question is:
Do you believe that your destiny is fixed and that that there is
nothing you can do to alter it.
If not, it seems that you must believe that effects don't have a cause
(against the history of scientific evidence)
Maybe there are alternatives that I haven't considered, if so, I'd be
interested in hearing of them.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed?	25 Sep 2005 07:05:45 PM

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1127691161.707866.112260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<...>

Fred Stone wrote:

So what?
If you don't know whether it's possible or not, you just don't know.

Even if you don't like how I had defined Truth and Untruth, by
definition *all* that is not impossible is possible. Therefore at the
beginning of this statement, when I said:
"Everything is possible, though perhaps improbable, until proven
impossible."

It is correct, as by definition, unless it is proven to be impossible,
it must be possible.

If X is not proved to be false, that doesn't make it necessarily true.
Putting "possible" in place of "true" doesn't alter that situation.

And no amount of meetings of BAMAS "Bruised Arse Mutual Appreciation
Society" will change it.

Feel free to reply with more Stupid Logic so I can kick you around
again.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"This city, for the first time that I can remember,
is drug-free and violence-free.
And we plan to keep it that way." - Mayor Ray Nagin
.

User: "someone4"
Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed?	25 Sep 2005 07:16:51 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

So what?
If you don't know whether it's possible or not, you just don't know.

someone4 wrote:

Even if you don't like how I had defined Truth and Untruth, by
definition *all* that is not impossible is possible. Therefore at the
beginning of this statement, when I said:
"Everything is possible, though perhaps improbable, until proven
impossible."
It is correct, as by definition, unless it is proven to be impossible,
it must be possible.

Fred Stone wroteL

If X is not proved to be false, that doesn't make it necessarily true.
utting "possible" in place of "true" doesn't alter that situation.

But I'm not putting 'possible' in place of 'true'. If it was 'true' it
wasn't just possible, it was. I am simply saying that 'possible' is an
admission of ignorance as to whether it is true or not. Therefore if
you are not sure whether something is true or not true, then you should
admit ignorance and say that it is possible 'I don't know one way or
the other'.

someone4 wrote:

And no amount of meetings of BAMAS "Bruised Arse Mutual Appreciation
Society" will change it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Feel free to reply with more Stupid Logic so I can kick you around
again.

You are living in a dream world. Only in your imagination have you put
a point across and held it. In reality, i.e. checking through this
post, you will see again, and again and again, that you have been
broken. You are a fully paid up member of BAMAS.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed?	25 Sep 2005 10:29:43 PM

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1127693811.715183.170300@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

So what?
If you don't know whether it's possible or not, you just don't know.

someone4 wrote:

Even if you don't like how I had defined Truth and Untruth, by
definition *all* that is not impossible is possible. Therefore at
the beginning of this statement, when I said:
"Everything is possible, though perhaps improbable, until proven
impossible."

It is correct, as by definition, unless it is proven to be
impossible, it must be possible.

Fred Stone wrote

If X is not proved to be false, that doesn't make it necessarily true.
Putting "possible" in place of "true" doesn't alter that situation.

But I'm not putting 'possible' in place of 'true'. If it was 'true' it
wasn't just possible, it was. I am simply saying that 'possible' is an
admission of ignorance as to whether it is true or not.

You're wrong. These statements are *not* equivalent:
"It's possible."
"I don't know if it's possible or not."
"It's possible but I don't know if it's really true."
"It's possible but I doubt that it's true."
"Possible" is not an admission of ignorance. It's a claim that something
*COULD* be true, just as "Impossible" is a claim that something COULD
NOT be true.
If I don't know, I don't know. That is not a claim either way.

Therefore if
you are not sure whether something is true or not true, then you
should admit ignorance and say that it is possible 'I don't know one
way or the other'.

Saying "I don't know" is not an admission that the thing could be true.
It's not an admission of any sort of knowledge.

someone4 wrote:

And no amount of meetings of BAMAS "Bruised Arse Mutual
Appreciation Society" will change it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Feel free to reply with more Stupid Logic so I can kick you around
again.

You are living in a dream world.

You just don't get it, do you, Glenn?
Your poses and your Stupid Logic will not get you anywhere in this
forum. If it wasn't me kicking you around it would be somebody else.
We've been solving better crafted logic puzzles than yours for *years*.

Only in your imagination have you put
a point across and held it.

Thanks for conceding so gracefully. :-)

In reality, i.e. checking through this
post, you will see again, and again and again, that you have been
broken.

In your dreams. The only thing you've proved is that cannot support your
own claims with evidence.

You are a fully paid up member of BAMAS.

You're owned, Glenn. You're just a toy to kick around. Be sure to come
back and let me kick you around some more.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"This city, for the first time that I can remember,
is drug-free and violence-free.
And we plan to keep it that way." - Mayor Ray Nagin
.

User: "someone4"
Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed?	26 Sep 2005 05:13:09 AM

Fred Stone wrote:

So what?
If you don't know whether it's possible or not, you just don't know.

someone4 wrote:

Even if you don't like how I had defined Truth and Untruth, by
definition *all* that is not impossible is possible. Therefore at
the beginning of this statement, when I said:
"Everything is possible, though perhaps improbable, until proven
impossible."
It is correct, as by definition, unless it is proven to be
impossible, it must be possible.

Fred Stone wrote

If X is not proved to be false, that doesn't make it necessarily true.
Putting "possible" in place of "true" doesn't alter that situation.

someone4 wrote:

But I'm not putting 'possible' in place of 'true'. If it was 'true' it
wasn't just possible, it was. I am simply saying that 'possible' is an
admission of ignorance as to whether it is true or not.

Fred Stone wrote:

Note we are talking about possible with regards to explanations, not
about whether a person will ever run 100m in 8 seconds or not.
Explanations are either true or false. The second statement therefore
doesn't make sense with respect to an explanation. The other statements
with regards to explanations are equivalent, apart from the last, in
which the person has added information about how probable they think it
is.
Fred Stone wrote:

"Possible" is not an admission of ignorance. It's a claim that something
*COULD* be true, just as "Impossible" is a claim that something COULD
NOT be true.
If I don't know, I don't know. That is not a claim either way.

To say that an explanation is impossible is to claim that is *NOT*
true. To claim the explanation is a fact, is to claim it *IS* true. To
claim the explanation is possible, is simply to admit ignorance of
whether it is correct or not. Randomness or strict cause and effect are
both possible explanations of the physical universe that we find
ourselves in. By saying they are possible, we are simply saying that we
don't know whether they are true or false. We are simply admitting
ignorance. We know that they can't both be true.

someone4 wrote:

Therefore if
you are not sure whether something is true or not true, then you
should admit ignorance and say that it is possible 'I don't know one
way or the other'.

Fred Stone wrote:

Saying "I don't know" is not an admission that the thing could be true.
It's not an admission of any sort of knowledge.

It is an admission of ignorance over whether the explanation is true or
false. So it is an admission that it could be true. It is also an
admission that it could be false.

someone4 wrote:

And no amount of meetings of BAMAS "Bruised Arse Mutual
Appreciation Society" will change it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Feel free to reply with more Stupid Logic so I can kick you around
again.

someone4 wrote:

You are living in a dream world.

Fred Stone wrote:

LOL! I'm not putting forward any logic puzzle Fred, so much for your
understanding. Then again I remember when you used to argue that
Bohmian mechanics wasn't a deterministic theory. Now you don't deny it.
So I guess you've learned something.
Kicking me around? What with? Your concept of a choice between
non-optional options.

someone4 wrote:

Only in your imagination have you put
a point across and held it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Thanks for conceding so gracefully. :-)

That wasn't conceding anything Fred, other than in only in *your
imagination* have you put a point across and held it. Though I think
that might even be wrong. I suspect you know that you are, and having
been speaking rubbish. As I said, given some of your disingenious
replies in this post, claiming to of said things, then retreating to
the concept that you had said them months ago in another unspecified
post. I suspect you are a sad troll, and I know that on this forum
there are people that think of you as such.

someone4 wrote:

In reality, i.e. checking through this
post, you will see again, and again and again, that you have been
broken.

Fred Stone wrote:

In your dreams. The only thing you've proved is that cannot support your
own claims with evidence.

Fred even in this very post "Is your destiny fixed" you have backed
down from your original statements.
You claimed that I didn't understand what Bohm meant by determinism,
then you agreed with my definition of determinism.
You put forward two papers which you claimed broke my argument, and
stated that I was incapable of backing up my arguments. Even though you
refused to point out what in the papers would effect my claim, I took a
look at them, and one I used to back up my claim, and the other I
showed did not affect my claim. I even asked you whether my rebuttal of
the paper was as sufficient, to which you replied "It's not relevant
to the argument." It was relevant to the argument that you claimed
the paper undermined what I was saying, and that I couldn't defend my
claims.
You claimed that radioactive decay was proven to be acausal, but
actually in statistical mechanics, radioactivity is thought to be
randomly caused by quantum tunnelling. Bohmian mechanics predicts
quantum tunnelling and therefore gives a deterministic explanation to
radioactive decay.
You claimed that there were options when you made your choice, then you
retreated to the idea that the initial state and equations implied your
choice, between what you conceded were non-optional options (i.e. they
weren't options).
The list goes on Fred. The point being, you haven't held any position
that you have put forward. It has been embarrassing watching you say
silly things and then be shown to be a fool.

someone4 wrote:

You are a fully paid up member of BAMAS.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're owned, Glenn. You're just a toy to kick around. Be sure to come
back and let me kick you around some more.

You sad man.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed?	26 Sep 2005 08:01:35 AM

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1127729589.028428.65400@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

So what?
If you don't know whether it's possible or not, you just don't
know.

someone4 wrote:

Even if you don't like how I had defined Truth and Untruth, by
definition *all* that is not impossible is possible. Therefore at
the beginning of this statement, when I said:
"Everything is possible, though perhaps improbable, until proven
impossible."

It is correct, as by definition, unless it is proven to be
impossible, it must be possible.

Fred Stone wrote

If X is not proved to be false, that doesn't make it necessarily
true. Putting "possible" in place of "true" doesn't alter that
situation.

someone4 wrote:

But I'm not putting 'possible' in place of 'true'. If it was 'true'
it wasn't just possible, it was. I am simply saying that 'possible'
is an admission of ignorance as to whether it is true or not.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're wrong. These statements are *not* equivalent:

"It's possible."
"I don't know if it's possible or not."
"It's possible but I don't know if it's really true."
"It's possible but I doubt that it's true."

Note we are talking about possible with regards to explanations, not
about whether a person will ever run 100m in 8 seconds or not.

It makes no difference, Glenn.

Explanations are either true or false. The second statement therefore
doesn't make sense with respect to an explanation.

Prove it.

The other
statements with regards to explanations are equivalent, apart from the
last, in which the person has added information about how probable
they think it is.

Fred Stone wrote:

"Possible" is not an admission of ignorance. It's a claim that
something *COULD* be true, just as "Impossible" is a claim that
something COULD NOT be true.

If I don't know, I don't know. That is not a claim either way.

No, Glenn, that is not the case.

Randomness or strict cause and effect
are both possible explanations of the physical universe that we find
ourselves in. By saying they are possible, we are simply saying that
we don't know whether they are true or false. We are simply admitting
ignorance. We know that they can't both be true.

someone4 wrote:

Therefore if
you are not sure whether something is true or not true, then you
should admit ignorance and say that it is possible 'I don't know one
way or the other'.

Fred Stone wrote:

Saying "I don't know" is not an admission that the thing could be
true. It's not an admission of any sort of knowledge.

It is an admission of ignorance over whether the explanation is true
or false. So it is an admission that it could be true. It is also an
admission that it could be false.

That is not the definition of "possible", Glenn.

someone4 wrote:

And no amount of meetings of BAMAS "Bruised Arse Mutual
Appreciation Society" will change it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Feel free to reply with more Stupid Logic so I can kick you around
again.

someone4 wrote:

You are living in a dream world.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're still equivocating between physical determinism and philosophical
determinism. Your fallacies all revolve around that equivocation.

Kicking me around? What with? Your concept of a choice between
non-optional options.

And Glenn parades his Stupid Logic again for all to see.

someone4 wrote:

Only in your imagination have you put
a point across and held it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Thanks for conceding so gracefully. :-)

You're so full of *****, Glenn, your eyes must be brown.

someone4 wrote:

In reality, i.e. checking through this
post, you will see again, and again and again, that you have been
broken.

Fred Stone wrote:

In your dreams. The only thing you've proved is that cannot support
your own claims with evidence.

Fred even in this very post "Is your destiny fixed" you have backed
down from your original statements.

*****.

You claimed that I didn't understand what Bohm meant by determinism,
then you agreed with my definition of determinism.

No, Glenn, I agreed with Bohm's definition of determinism. You *still*
don't understand what he meant.

You put forward two papers which you claimed broke my argument, and
stated that I was incapable of backing up my arguments. Even though
you refused to point out what in the papers would effect my claim, I
took a look at them, and one I used to back up my claim, and the other
I showed did not affect my claim.

You did nothing of the sort. You cherry-picked one paper and made
erroneous claims about it.

I even asked you whether my rebuttal
of the paper was as sufficient, to which you replied "It's not
relevant to the argument." It was relevant to the argument that you
claimed the paper undermined what I was saying, and that I couldn't
defend my claims.

You're still full of *****, Glenn.

You claimed that radioactive decay was proven to be acausal, but
actually in statistical mechanics, radioactivity is thought to be
randomly caused by quantum tunnelling. Bohmian mechanics predicts
quantum tunnelling and therefore gives a deterministic explanation to
radioactive decay.

You've describe something as being caused by an acausal event, and
Bohm's "prediction" doesn't make quantum tunneling causal. You're just
bloody ignorant, and you refuse to learn enough to make any explanation
worth the trouble.

You claimed that there were options when you made your choice, then
you retreated to the idea that the initial state and equations implied
your choice, between what you conceded were non-optional options (i.e.
they weren't options).

That wasn't a retreat, Glenn, and I didn't concede anything of the sort.
Your imagination is working overtime.

The list goes on Fred. The point being, you haven't held any position
that you have put forward. It has been embarrassing watching you say
silly things and then be shown to be a fool.

You're so full of *****.

someone4 wrote:

You are a fully paid up member of BAMAS.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're owned, Glenn. You're just a toy to kick around. Be sure to come
back and let me kick you around some more.

You sad man.

You pitiful, arrogant, stupid cat toy.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"This city, for the first time that I can remember,
is drug-free and violence-free.
And we plan to keep it that way." - Mayor Ray Nagin
.

User: "someone4"
Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed?	26 Sep 2005 11:17:32 AM

Fred Stone wrote:

So what?
If you don't know whether it's possible or not, you just don't
know.

someone4 wrote:

Even if you don't like how I had defined Truth and Untruth, by
definition *all* that is not impossible is possible. Therefore at
the beginning of this statement, when I said:
"Everything is possible, though perhaps improbable, until proven
impossible."
It is correct, as by definition, unless it is proven to be
impossible, it must be possible.

Fred Stone wrote

If X is not proved to be false, that doesn't make it necessarily
true. Putting "possible" in place of "true" doesn't alter that
situation.

someone4 wrote:

But I'm not putting 'possible' in place of 'true'. If it was 'true'
it wasn't just possible, it was. I am simply saying that 'possible'
is an admission of ignorance as to whether it is true or not.

Fred Stone wrote:

someone4 wrote:

Note we are talking about possible with regards to explanations, not
about whether a person will ever run 100m in 8 seconds or not.

Fred Stone wrote:

It makes no difference, Glenn.

Yes it does.

someone4 wrote:

Explanations are either true or false. The second statement therefore
doesn't make sense with respect to an explanation.

Fred Stone wrote:

Prove it.

Well an explanation as I said is either true or false. If you don't
know either way, then the explanation is possible, though subjectively
it might be deemed to be improbable. So to say with respect to an
explanation that "I don't know if it's possible or not", doesn't make
sense, because you are saying the equivalent of "I don't know that I
don't know if it is a true or false explanation".

someone4 wrote:

The other
statements with regards to explanations are equivalent, apart from the
last, in which the person has added information about how probable
they think it is.
Fred Stone wrote:

"Possible" is not an admission of ignorance. It's a claim that
something *COULD* be true, just as "Impossible" is a claim that
something COULD NOT be true.
If I don't know, I don't know. That is not a claim either way.

someone wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

No, Glenn, that is not the case.

Yes it is.

someone4 wrote:

Seem a bit quiet here Fred?

someone4 wrote:

Therefore if
you are not sure whether something is true or not true, then you
should admit ignorance and say that it is possible 'I don't know one
way or the other'.

Fred Stone wrote:

Saying "I don't know" is not an admission that the thing could be
true. It's not an admission of any sort of knowledge.

someone4 wrote:

It is an admission of ignorance over whether the explanation is true
or false. So it is an admission that it could be true. It is also an
admission that it could be false.

Fred Stone wrote:

That is not the definition of "possible", Glenn.

see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=possible
The first definition is:
1. Capable of happening, existing or being true without contradicting
proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
If it is contradicting proven facts, laws or circumstances, then it
would be known to be impossible.
It it doesn't then by definition it is possible.
So as I said, if it isn't known to be impossible, then it is possible.
Well that looks like another point you've been broken on.

someone4 wrote:

And no amount of meetings of BAMAS "Bruised Arse Mutual
Appreciation Society" will change it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Feel free to reply with more Stupid Logic so I can kick you around
again.

someone4 wrote:

You are living in a dream world.

Fred Stone wrote:

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

You're still equivocating between physical determinism and philosophical
determinism. Your fallacies all revolve around that equivocation.

This has nothing to do with me Fred. You used to insist that Bohmian
mechanics wasn't a deterministic theory, now you admit that it is.

someone4 wrote:

Kicking me around? What with? Your concept of a choice between
non-optional options.

Fred Stone wrote:

And Glenn parades his Stupid Logic again for all to see.

Well my Stupid Logic seems good enough to break you each and every
time. Also why you don't attempt to use any logic of your own to refute
what I am saying?

someone4 wrote:

Only in your imagination have you put
a point across and held it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Thanks for conceding so gracefully. :-)

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

You're so full of *****, Glenn, your eyes must be brown.

It is true Fred, there are quite a few people on this forum that call
you a troll.

someone4 wrote:

In reality, i.e. checking through this
post, you will see again, and again and again, that you have been
broken.

Fred Stone wrote:

In your dreams. The only thing you've proved is that cannot support
your own claims with evidence.

someone4 wrote:

Fred even in this very post "Is your destiny fixed" you have backed
down from your original statements.

Fred Stone wrote:

*****.

Er, no it isn't, as I show below.

someone4 wrote:

You claimed that I didn't understand what Bohm meant by determinism,
then you agreed with my definition of determinism.

Fred Stone wrote:

No, Glenn, I agreed with Bohm's definition of determinism. You *still*
don't understand what he meant.

It wasn't Bohm's definition that I gave you Fred, it was Jean
Bricmont's, and I had paraphrased it, bringing in the concept of a
universe program being run.
Why don't you point out what I didn't understand in what I had written,
and you agreed with?

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

You did nothing of the sort. You cherry-picked one paper and made
erroneous claims about it.

What erroneous claims did I make Fred? Let me guess, you won't be able
to state one, now I wonder why that is... wait a minute, I've got it,
Fred Stone is a lying troll! Ah, now it all becomes clear!

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

You're still full of *****, Glenn.

No Fred I'm not, I am simply pointing out, how in just this post, you
have been broken again and again, and what do you do when faced with
the evidence? Say that I am full of *****, yet make no attempt to show
that what I have said is false. The reason you don't is because it
isn't. You are a troll, and you show yourself as such.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

Nothing is random (acausal) in Bohmian mechanics, including quantum
tunnelling. Therefore Bohmian mechanics does give a deterministic
explanation of radioactive decay (as it is thought to be caused by
quantum tunnelling).
You don't give any explanations Fred, because you can't.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

That wasn't a retreat, Glenn, and I didn't concede anything of the sort.
Your imagination is working overtime.

Not a retreat? You had said that both options would possible at the
time you made your choice. Obviously this isn't true in determinism,
from the initial state and laws of nature, all future states would be
fixed. Then you retreated the concept of your choice being implied in
the initial state and laws of nature. This wasn't just a retreat, it
was being broken again, because originally you had said that there were
possible options at the time you make your choice, and with determinism
this simply would not be the case.

someone4 wrote:

The list goes on Fred. The point being, you haven't held any position
that you have put forward. It has been embarrassing watching you say
silly things and then be shown to be a fool.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're so full of *****.

No Fred, you are.

someone4 wrote:

You are a fully paid up member of BAMAS.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're owned, Glenn. You're just a toy to kick around. Be sure to come
back and let me kick you around some more.

someone4 wrote:

You sad man.

Fred Stone wrote:

You pitiful, arrogant, stupid cat toy.

You are an arrogant, rude, disingenious, lying troll, you know it, I
know it, and so do quite a few people on this forum.
Why don't you simply stop replying to any threads that I may start?
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed?	26 Sep 2005 12:25:54 PM

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1127751452.898301.44370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

So what?
If you don't know whether it's possible or not, you just don't
know.

someone4 wrote:

Even if you don't like how I had defined Truth and Untruth, by
definition *all* that is not impossible is possible. Therefore
at the beginning of this statement, when I said:
"Everything is possible, though perhaps improbable, until proven
impossible."

It is correct, as by definition, unless it is proven to be
impossible, it must be possible.

Fred Stone wrote

If X is not proved to be false, that doesn't make it necessarily
true. Putting "possible" in place of "true" doesn't alter that
situation.

someone4 wrote:

But I'm not putting 'possible' in place of 'true'. If it was
'true' it wasn't just possible, it was. I am simply saying that
'possible' is an admission of ignorance as to whether it is true
or not.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're wrong. These statements are *not* equivalent:

"It's possible."
"I don't know if it's possible or not."
"It's possible but I don't know if it's really true."
"It's possible but I doubt that it's true."

someone4 wrote:

Note we are talking about possible with regards to explanations, not
about whether a person will ever run 100m in 8 seconds or not.

Fred Stone wrote:

It makes no difference, Glenn.

Yes it does.

someone4 wrote:

Explanations are either true or false. The second statement
therefore doesn't make sense with respect to an explanation.

Fred Stone wrote:

Prove it.

No, Glenn, the state of your knowledge of the truth of a proposition
doesn't affect the actual truth value of the proposition. That's true
whether the proposition is an "explanation" or not.

someone4 wrote:

The other
statements with regards to explanations are equivalent, apart from
the last, in which the person has added information about how
probable they think it is.

Fred Stone wrote:

"Possible" is not an admission of ignorance. It's a claim that
something *COULD* be true, just as "Impossible" is a claim that
something COULD NOT be true.

If I don't know, I don't know. That is not a claim either way.

someone wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

No, Glenn, that is not the case.

Yes it is.

No, it's not.

someone4 wrote:

Randomness or strict cause and effect
are both possible explanations of the physical universe that we find
ourselves in. By saying they are possible, we are simply saying that
we don't know whether they are true or false. We are simply
admitting ignorance. We know that they can't both be true.

Seem a bit quiet here Fred?

What, you think I have to answer you every time you repeat yourself? No
wonder you think you proved something.

someone4 wrote:

Therefore if
you are not sure whether something is true or not true, then you
should admit ignorance and say that it is possible 'I don't know
one way or the other'.

Fred Stone wrote:

Saying "I don't know" is not an admission that the thing could be
true. It's not an admission of any sort of knowledge.

someone4 wrote:

It is an admission of ignorance over whether the explanation is true
or false. So it is an admission that it could be true. It is also an
admission that it could be false.

Fred Stone wrote:

That is not the definition of "possible", Glenn.

see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=possible

The first definition is:

1. Capable of happening, existing or being true without contradicting
proven facts, laws, or circumstances.

If it is contradicting proven facts, laws or circumstances, then it
would be known to be impossible.

It it doesn't then by definition it is possible.

You forgot the part about "capable of happening, existing, or being
true". If you don't know that, you don't know that it's possible,
therefore you cannot *CLAIM* that it's possible just because it hasn't
been proved to be impossible.

So as I said, if it isn't known to be impossible, then it is possible.

Well that looks like another point you've been broken on.

Nope, that's another point that you've twisted beyond recognition. You
just ignore facts that are inconvenient and then blow smoke around until
people get tired of your games.

someone4 wrote:

And no amount of meetings of BAMAS "Bruised Arse Mutual
Appreciation Society" will change it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Feel free to reply with more Stupid Logic so I can kick you around
again.

someone4 wrote:

You are living in a dream world.

Fred Stone wrote:

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

You're still equivocating between physical determinism and
philosophical determinism. Your fallacies all revolve around that
equivocation.

This has nothing to do with me Fred. You used to insist that Bohmian
mechanics wasn't a deterministic theory, now you admit that it is.

No, Glenn, you're wrong. I have insisted all along that Bohm's
mathematically deterministic formulae do not imply philosophical
determinism. I even pointed out where Bricmont makes that distinction in
the very paper that you cited.

someone4 wrote:

Kicking me around? What with? Your concept of a choice between
non-optional options.

Fred Stone wrote:

And Glenn parades his Stupid Logic again for all to see.

Well my Stupid Logic seems good enough to break you each and every
time. Also why you don't attempt to use any logic of your own to
refute what I am saying?

You haven't broken me on anything.

someone4 wrote:

Only in your imagination have you put
a point across and held it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Thanks for conceding so gracefully. :-)

someone4 wrote:

That wasn't conceding anything Fred, other than in only in *your
imagination* have you put a point across and held it. Though I think
that might even be wrong. I suspect you know that you are, and
having been speaking rubbish. As I said, given some of your
disingenious replies in this post, claiming to of said things, then
retreating to the concept that you had said them months ago in
another unspecified post. I suspect you are a sad troll, and I know
that on this forum there are people that think of you as such.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're so full of *****, Glenn, your eyes must be brown.

It is true Fred, there are quite a few people on this forum that call
you a troll.

So?

someone4 wrote:

In reality, i.e. checking through this
post, you will see again, and again and again, that you have been
broken.

Fred Stone wrote:

In your dreams. The only thing you've proved is that cannot support
your own claims with evidence.

someone4 wrote:

Fred even in this very post "Is your destiny fixed" you have backed
down from your original statements.

Fred Stone wrote:

*****.

Er, no it isn't, as I show below.

Er, yes it is, as I broke you below.

someone4 wrote:

You claimed that I didn't understand what Bohm meant by determinism,
then you agreed with my definition of determinism.

Fred Stone wrote:

No, Glenn, I agreed with Bohm's definition of determinism. You *still*
don't understand what he meant.

It wasn't Bohm's definition that I gave you Fred, it was Jean
Bricmont's, and I had paraphrased it, bringing in the concept of a
universe program being run.

Why don't you point out what I didn't understand in what I had
written, and you agreed with?

I have pointed that out, Glenn, many times. Why don't you pay attention?

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

You did nothing of the sort. You cherry-picked one paper and made
erroneous claims about it.

What erroneous claims did I make Fred? Let me guess, you won't be able
to state one, now I wonder why that is... wait a minute, I've got it,
Fred Stone is a lying troll! Ah, now it all becomes clear!

Asked and answered, Glenn. I'm not going to play that game. You can snip
and run all you want. Go right ahead.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

You're still full of *****, Glenn.

I've showed your errors more times than I can count. You proceed to
ignore that every time and just repeat your same assertions over again.
I've called you on that before, and now you're doing it again. And
you're calling me a troll into the bargain.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

And once again you just repeat your ignorance. We've been over this and
over it and over it again. I even dug up references for you, which you
promptly snipped and ran away from.

You don't give any explanations Fred, because you can't.

someone4 wrote:

You claimed that there were options when you made your choice, then
you retreated to the idea that the initial state and equations
implied your choice, between what you conceded were non-optional
options (i.e. they weren't options).

Fred Stone wrote:

That wasn't a retreat, Glenn, and I didn't concede anything of the
sort. Your imagination is working overtime.

I have said all along that my existence and my "will" is implied by
those laws of nature.
There was no retreat.

This wasn't just a retreat, it
was being broken again, because originally you had said that there
were possible options at the time you make your choice, and with
determinism this simply would not be the case.

I've beaten that one to death, Glenn. Why don't you ever pay attention?

someone4 wrote:

The list goes on Fred. The point being, you haven't held any
position that you have put forward. It has been embarrassing
watching you say silly things and then be shown to be a fool.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're so full of *****.

No Fred, you are.

No, Glenn, you are.

someone4 wrote:

You are a fully paid up member of BAMAS.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're owned, Glenn. You're just a toy to kick around. Be sure to
come back and let me kick you around some more.

someone4 wrote:

You sad man.

Fred Stone wrote:

You pitiful, arrogant, stupid cat toy.

You are an arrogant, rude, disingenious, lying troll, you know it, I
know it, and so do quite a few people on this forum.

Whooop de do. Now you're just playing to the gallery.
I'm impressed. Now *****.

Why don't you simply stop replying to any threads that I may start?

Why don't you simply go away and never post here again?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"This city, for the first time that I can remember,
is drug-free and violence-free.
And we plan to keep it that way." - Mayor Ray Nagin
.

User: "someone4"
Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed?	27 Sep 2005 07:17:55 AM

Fred Stone wrote:

So what?
If you don't know whether it's possible or not, you just don't
know.

someone4 wrote:

Even if you don't like how I had defined Truth and Untruth,
by
definition *all* that is not impossible is possible. Therefore
at the beginning of this statement, when I said:
"Everything is possible, though perhaps improbable, until proven
impossible."
It is correct, as by definition, unless it is proven to be
impossible, it must be possible.

Fred Stone wrote

If X is not proved to be false, that doesn't make it necessarily
true. Putting "possible" in place of "true" doesn't alter that
situation.

someone4 wrote:

But I'm not putting 'possible' in place of 'true'. If it was
'true' it wasn't just possible, it was. I am simply saying that
'possible' is an admission of ignorance as to whether it is true
or not.

Fred Stone wrote:

someone4 wrote:

Note we are talking about possible with regards to explanations, not
about whether a person will ever run 100m in 8 seconds or not.

Fred Stone wrote:

It makes no difference, Glenn.

someone4 wrote:

Yes it does.

someone4 wrote:

Explanations are either true or false. The second statement
therefore doesn't make sense with respect to an explanation.

Fred Stone wrote:

Prove it.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

No, Glenn, the state of your knowledge of the truth of a proposition
doesn't affect the actual truth value of the proposition. That's true
whether the proposition is an "explanation" or not.

I never said it did Fred.

someone4 wrote:

The other
statements with regards to explanations are equivalent, apart from
the last, in which the person has added information about how
probable they think it is.
Fred Stone wrote:

"Possible" is not an admission of ignorance. It's a claim that
something *COULD* be true, just as "Impossible" is a claim that
something COULD NOT be true.
If I don't know, I don't know. That is not a claim either way.

someone wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

No, Glenn, that is not the case.

someone4 wrote:

Yes it is.

Fred Stone wrote:

No, it's not.

Prove it.

someone4 wrote:

Randomness or strict cause and effect
are both possible explanations of the physical universe that we find
ourselves in. By saying they are possible, we are simply saying that
we don't know whether they are true or false. We are simply
admitting ignorance. We know that they can't both be true.

someone4 wrote:

Seem a bit quiet here Fred?

Fred Stone wrote:

What, you think I have to answer you every time you repeat yourself? No
wonder you think you proved something.

You are lying again, I had never said that before.

someone4 wrote:

Therefore if
you are not sure whether something is true or not true, then you
should admit ignorance and say that it is possible 'I don't know
one way or the other'.

Fred Stone wrote:

Saying "I don't know" is not an admission that the thing could be
true. It's not an admission of any sort of knowledge.

someone4 wrote:

It is an admission of ignorance over whether the explanation is true
or false. So it is an admission that it could be true. It is also an
admission that it could be false.

Fred Stone wrote:

That is not the definition of "possible", Glenn.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

I didn't forget it Fred, but if the explanation doesn't contradict
proven facts, laws or circumstances, then it would to our knowledge be
"capable of happening, existing, or being true".

someone4 wrote:

So as I said, if it isn't known to be impossible, then it is possible.
Well that looks like another point you've been broken on.

Fred Stone wrote:

Nope, that's another point that you've twisted beyond recognition. You
just ignore facts that are inconvenient and then blow smoke around until
people get tired of your games.

If someone gave you an explanation that didn't contradict any proven
facts, laws or circumstances, on what basis would you consider it to be
uncapable of being true? It's you that blows smoke, until people get
tired of your trolling.

someone4 wrote:

And no amount of meetings of BAMAS "Bruised Arse Mutual
Appreciation Society" will change it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Feel free to reply with more Stupid Logic so I can kick you around
again.

someone4 wrote:

You are living in a dream world.

Fred Stone wrote:

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

You're still equivocating between physical determinism and
philosophical determinism. Your fallacies all revolve around that
equivocation.

someone4 wrote:

This has nothing to do with me Fred. You used to insist that Bohmian
mechanics wasn't a deterministic theory, now you admit that it is.

Fred Stone wrote:

I never said that underlying reality is deterministic. I have simply
said that pre-quantum revolution, science held to the beliefs that
effects had causes. Post-quantum revolution, we were assured that this
could not be the case, and that it was impossible. I am simply
highlighting that this is not the case, as Bohmian mechanics is a
deterministic theory (effects have causes). So the claim that it was
impossible was stupid. The whole of scientific evidence points towards
effects having causes. Though, I admit, this doesn't make it so.

someone4 wrote:

Kicking me around? What with? Your concept of a choice between
non-optional options.

Fred Stone wrote:

And Glenn parades his Stupid Logic again for all to see.

someone4 wrote:

Well my Stupid Logic seems good enough to break you each and every
time. Also why you don't attempt to use any logic of your own to
refute what I am saying?

Fred Stone wrote:

You haven't broken me on anything.

Yes I have Fred, and it is plain for all to see.

someone4 wrote:

Only in your imagination have you put
a point across and held it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Thanks for conceding so gracefully. :-)

someone4 wrote:

That wasn't conceding anything Fred, other than in only in *your
imagination* have you put a point across and held it. Though I think
that might even be wrong. I suspect you know that you are, and
having been speaking rubbish. As I said, given some of your
disingenious replies in this post, claiming to of said things, then
retreating to the concept that you had said them months ago in
another unspecified post. I suspect you are a sad troll, and I know
that on this forum there are people that think of you as such.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're so full of *****, Glenn, your eyes must be brown.

someone4 wrote:

It is true Fred, there are quite a few people on this forum that call
you a troll.

Fred Stone wrote:

So?

So why do you think that is Fred? It is because you are. You aren't
even arguing the point that with determinism your future would be
fixed, and that A and B would not both be possible. In fact what are
you actually disagreeing on? The only thing I can see, is that you are
trying to put a weak compatabilist argument up, that doesn't contradict
what I am saying, it just tries to redefine 'free will' in such a way
as to make it compatible with determinism.

someone4 wrote:

In reality, i.e. checking through this
post, you will see again, and again and again, that you have been
broken.

Fred Stone wrote:

In your dreams. The only thing you've proved is that cannot support
your own claims with evidence.

someone4 wrote:

Fred even in this very post "Is your destiny fixed" you have backed
down from your original statements.

Fred Stone wrote:

*****.

someone4 wrote:

Er, no it isn't, as I show below.

Fred Stone wrote:

Er, yes it is, as I broke you below.

You couldn't break anything Fred, you simply don't have sufficient
comprehension of what you are talking about, or any credible references
of anyone backing up your claims. For example, you claimed A and B were
both possible before you made your choice.
To highlight the point further to backup my statement, so that you
can't just say that it is me suggesting it, from:
( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ )
The concept that there were multiple possibilities is known as the
'Garden of Forking Paths Models and Alternative Possibilities Worries'
covered in section 2.1, and it highlights that while compatabilists
have attempted to overcome the incompatabilists arguments, they are
pretty weak, in section 3.3 'The Classical Compatibilist Conditional
Analysis' it covers the compatabilist argument to the 'Garden of
Forking Paths'. It concludes:
"The classical compatibilist attempt to answer the incompatibilist
objection failed. Even if an unencumbered agent does what she wants, if
she is determined, at least as the incompatibilist maintains, she could
not have done otherwise. Since, as the objection goes, freedom of will
requires freedom involving alternative possibilities, classical
compatibilist freedom falls."
There are other arguments for compatabilism, but they are not the one
that you put forward originally, that there are different possible
alternatives when the choice was made.
All you show below is that you are a lying troll.

someone4 wrote:

You claimed that I didn't understand what Bohm meant by determinism,
then you agreed with my definition of determinism.

Fred Stone wrote:

No, Glenn, I agreed with Bohm's definition of determinism. You *still*
don't understand what he meant.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

I have pointed that out, Glenn, many times. Why don't you pay attention?

Liar. Prove me wrong if you aren't. You won't because you can't,
because you are a lying troll.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

You did nothing of the sort. You cherry-picked one paper and made
erroneous claims about it.

someone4 wrote:

What erroneous claims did I make Fred? Let me guess, you won't be able
to state one, now I wonder why that is... wait a minute, I've got it,
Fred Stone is a lying troll! Ah, now it all becomes clear!

Fred Stone wrote:

Asked and answered, Glenn. I'm not going to play that game. You can snip
and run all you want. Go right ahead.

There is no snip and running being done Fred, and guess what, I
predicted you wouldn't be able to state one, and I was right. You
couldn't state one, because you are what I said, a lying troll.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

You're still full of *****, Glenn.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

Yet again you make no attempt to show why what I said was false, why is
that, oh yeah, Fred Stone is a lying troll.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

And once again you just repeat your ignorance. We've been over this and
over it and over it again. I even dug up references for you, which you
promptly snipped and ran away from.

No you didn't, you are lying again. Will you produce the evidence, no.
Why? Because Fred Stone is a lying troll.

someone4 wrote:

You don't give any explanations Fred, because you can't.

someone4 wrote:

You claimed that there were options when you made your choice, then
you retreated to the idea that the initial state and equations
implied your choice, between what you conceded were non-optional
options (i.e. they weren't options).

Fred Stone wrote:

That wasn't a retreat, Glenn, and I didn't concede anything of the
sort. Your imagination is working overtime.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

I have said all along that my existence and my "will" is implied by
those laws of nature.
There was no retreat.

Liar you said:
------------
My choice is what makes one option "possible" (because it was chosen)
and the other "impossible" (because it was not chosen).
------------
I then asked you:
------------
When did you consider yourself to have made your choice? Before you
were born?
------------
You then said:
------------
When I made my choice.
------------
You obviously didn't make your choice before you were born, and you had
said that your choice was what made one possible and the other
impossible, i.e. they were both possible before your choice was made.
You did later retreat to the position that the initial state and laws
implied what you would do. Though this isn't compatible with your above
statement, as with the idea of what you will do being implied in the
initial state and laws, there are no possible options when it comes to
making your choice. There is only what you will do.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

I've beaten that one to death, Glenn. Why don't you ever pay attention?

Liar.

someone4 wrote:

The list goes on Fred. The point being, you haven't held any
position that you have put forward. It has been embarrassing
watching you say silly things and then be shown to be a fool.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're so full of *****.

someone4 wrote:

No Fred, you are.

Fred Stone wrote:

No, Glenn, you are.

Well there are ample opportunities I have given you above to produce
evidence to show that you have done the things you claim. If you are
not a lying troll, why don't you take them up and show it? Oh, that's
right, because you are!

someone4 wrote:

You are a fully paid up member of BAMAS.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're owned, Glenn. You're just a toy to kick around. Be sure to
come back and let me kick you around some more.

someone4 wrote:

You sad man.

Fred Stone wrote:

You pitiful, arrogant, stupid cat toy.

someone4 wrote:

You are an arrogant, rude, disingenious, lying troll, you know it, I
know it, and so do quite a few people on this forum.

Fred Stone wrote:

Whooop de do. Now you're just playing to the gallery.
I'm impressed. Now *****.

Why don't you? You don't own this forum, and don't feel obliged to
respond to any topics I post. You are a lying troll, and if you aren't
you will start to produce some evidence in response to my accusations
above.

someone4 wrote:

Why don't you simply stop replying to any threads that I may start?

Fred Stone wrote:

Why don't you simply go away and never post here again?

Because this forum is not owned by the lying troll that calls himself
Fred Stone.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Is our destiny fixed?	27 Sep 2005 07:57:11 AM

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1127823475.894548.291080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

So what?
If you don't know whether it's possible or not, you just don't
know.

someone4 wrote:

Even if you don't like how I had defined Truth and Untruth,
by
definition *all* that is not impossible is possible. Therefore
at the beginning of this statement, when I said:
"Everything is possible, though perhaps improbable, until
proven impossible."

It is correct, as by definition, unless it is proven to be
impossible, it must be possible.

Fred Stone wrote

If X is not proved to be false, that doesn't make it necessarily
true. Putting "possible" in place of "true" doesn't alter that
situation.

someone4 wrote:

But I'm not putting 'possible' in place of 'true'. If it was
'true' it wasn't just possible, it was. I am simply saying that
'possible' is an admission of ignorance as to whether it is true
or not.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're wrong. These statements are *not* equivalent:

"It's possible."
"I don't know if it's possible or not."
"It's possible but I don't know if it's really true."
"It's possible but I doubt that it's true."

someone4 wrote:

Note we are talking about possible with regards to explanations,
not about whether a person will ever run 100m in 8 seconds or not.

Fred Stone wrote:

It makes no difference, Glenn.

someone4 wrote:

Yes it does.

someone4 wrote:

Explanations are either true or false. The second statement
therefore doesn't make sense with respect to an explanation.

Fred Stone wrote:

Prove it.

someone4 wrote:

Well an explanation as I said is either true or false. If you don't
know either way, then the explanation is possible, though
subjectively it might be deemed to be improbable. So to say with
respect to an explanation that "I don't know if it's possible or
not", doesn't make sense, because you are saying the equivalent of
"I don't know that I don't know if it is a true or false
explanation".

Fred Stone wrote:

No, Glenn, the state of your knowledge of the truth of a proposition
doesn't affect the actual truth value of the proposition. That's true
whether the proposition is an "explanation" or not.

I never said it did Fred.

Yes you did. "If you don't know either way, then the explanation is
possible..."

someone4 wrote:

The other
statements with regards to explanations are equivalent, apart from
the last, in which the person has added information about how
probable they think it is.

Fred Stone wrote:

"Possible" is not an admission of ignorance. It's a claim that
something *COULD* be true, just as "Impossible" is a claim that
something COULD NOT be true.

If I don't know, I don't know. That is not a claim either way.

someone wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

No, Glenn, that is not the case.

someone4 wrote:

Yes it is.

Fred Stone wrote:

No, it's not.

Prove it.

"Possible" is not a claim of ignorance, it's a claim to know that the
thing is possible.

someone4 wrote:

Randomness or strict cause and effect
are both possible explanations of the physical universe that we
find ourselves in. By saying they are possible, we are simply
saying that we don't know whether they are true or false. We are
simply admitting ignorance. We know that they can't both be true.

someone4 wrote:

Seem a bit quiet here Fred?

Fred Stone wrote:

What, you think I have to answer you every time you repeat yourself?
No wonder you think you proved something.

You are lying again, I had never said that before.

You are lying, Glenn, and this very thread is proof of that.

someone4 wrote:

Therefore if
you are not sure whether something is true or not true, then you
should admit ignorance and say that it is possible 'I don't know
one way or the other'.

Fred Stone wrote:

Saying "I don't know" is not an admission that the thing could be
true. It's not an admission of any sort of knowledge.

someone4 wrote:

It is an admission of ignorance over whether the explanation is
true or false. So it is an admission that it could be true. It is
also an admission that it could be false.

Fred Stone wrote:

That is not the definition of "possible", Glenn.

someone4 wrote:

see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=possible

The first definition is:

1. Capable of happening, existing or being true without
contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.

If it is contradicting proven facts, laws or circumstances, then it
would be known to be impossible.

It it doesn't then by definition it is possible.

Fred Stone wrote:

I didn't forget it Fred, but if the explanation doesn't contradict
proven facts, laws or circumstances, then it would to our knowledge be
"capable of happening, existing, or being true".

Not necessarily.

someone4 wrote:

So as I said, if it isn't known to be impossible, then it is
possible. Well that looks like another point you've been broken on.

Fred Stone wrote:

Nope, that's another point that you've twisted beyond recognition. You
just ignore facts that are inconvenient and then blow smoke around
until people get tired of your games.

If someone gave you an explanation that didn't contradict any proven
facts, laws or circumstances, on what basis would you consider it to
be uncapable of being true?

I would consider that question to be undecided, if it hadn't been shown
*not* to contradict proven facts, laws, or circumstances.

It's you that blows smoke, until people
get tired of your trolling.

I'm just blowing your smoke away.

someone4 wrote:

And no amount of meetings of BAMAS "Bruised Arse Mutual
Appreciation Society" will change it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Feel free to reply with more Stupid Logic so I can kick you
around again.

someone4 wrote:

You are living in a dream world.

Fred Stone wrote:

You just don't get it, do you, Glenn?
Your poses and your Stupid Logic will not get you anywhere in this
forum. If it wasn't me kicking you around it would be somebody
else. We've been solving better crafted logic puzzles than yours
for *years*.

someone4 wrote:

LOL! I'm not putting forward any logic puzzle Fred, so much for
your understanding. Then again I remember when you used to argue
that Bohmian mechanics wasn't a deterministic theory. Now you
don't deny it. So I guess you've learned something.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're still equivocating between physical determinism and
philosophical determinism. Your fallacies all revolve around that
equivocation.

someone4 wrote:

This has nothing to do with me Fred. You used to insist that Bohmian
mechanics wasn't a deterministic theory, now you admit that it is.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're wrong again, since Bohm is *not* the whole of scientific
evidence. Bohm *himself* disavowed any such claim.

someone4 wrote:

Kicking me around? What with? Your concept of a choice between
non-optional options.

Fred Stone wrote:

And Glenn parades his Stupid Logic again for all to see.

someone4 wrote:

Well my Stupid Logic seems good enough to break you each and every
time. Also why you don't attempt to use any logic of your own to
refute what I am saying?

Fred Stone wrote:

You haven't broken me on anything.

Yes I have Fred, and it is plain for all to see.

Only to a deluded fool like you.

someone4 wrote:

Only in your imagination have you put
a point across and held it.

Fred Stone wrote:

Thanks for conceding so gracefully. :-)

someone4 wrote:

That wasn't conceding anything Fred, other than in only in *your
imagination* have you put a point across and held it. Though I
think that might even be wrong. I suspect you know that you are,
and having been speaking rubbish. As I said, given some of your
disingenious replies in this post, claiming to of said things,
then retreating to the concept that you had said them months ago
in another unspecified post. I suspect you are a sad troll, and I
know that on this forum there are people that think of you as
such.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're so full of *****, Glenn, your eyes must be brown.

someone4 wrote:

It is true Fred, there are quite a few people on this forum that
call you a troll.

Fred Stone wrote:

So?

So why do you think that is Fred? It is because you are. You aren't
even arguing the point that with determinism your future would be
fixed, and that A and B would not both be possible. In fact what are
you actually disagreeing on? The only thing I can see, is that you are
trying to put a weak compatabilist argument up, that doesn't
contradict what I am saying, it just tries to redefine 'free will' in
such a way as to make it compatible with determinism.

That's all I have to do, Glenn, to defeat your claim that free will
requires something outside the material plane.

someone4 wrote:

In reality, i.e. checking through this
post, you will see again, and again and again, that you have
been broken.

Fred Stone wrote:

In your dreams. The only thing you've proved is that cannot
support your own claims with evidence.

someone4 wrote:

Fred even in this very post "Is your destiny fixed" you have
backed down from your original statements.

Fred Stone wrote:

*****.

someone4 wrote:

Er, no it isn't, as I show below.

Fred Stone wrote:

Er, yes it is, as I broke you below.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwBeckermann.html
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwCompatCampbell.html
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwCompatDennettTaylor.html

To highlight the point further to backup my statement, so that you
can't just say that it is me suggesting it, from:
( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ )

The concept that there were multiple possibilities is known as the
'Garden of Forking Paths Models and Alternative Possibilities Worries'
covered in section 2.1, and it highlights that while compatabilists
have attempted to overcome the incompatabilists arguments, they are
pretty weak, in section 3.3 'The Classical Compatibilist Conditional
Analysis' it covers the compatabilist argument to the 'Garden of
Forking Paths'. It concludes:

"The classical compatibilist attempt to answer the incompatibilist
objection failed. Even if an unencumbered agent does what she wants,
if she is determined, at least as the incompatibilist maintains, she
could not have done otherwise. Since, as the objection goes, freedom
of will requires freedom involving alternative possibilities,
classical compatibilist freedom falls."

There are other arguments for compatabilism, but they are not the one
that you put forward originally, that there are different possible
alternatives when the choice was made.

That is not the sum of my argument, Glenn. It's your own lying twisting
distortion of my argument.

All you show below is that you are a lying troll.

Yawn.

someone4 wrote:

You claimed that I didn't understand what Bohm meant by
determinism, then you agreed with my definition of determinism.

Fred Stone wrote:

No, Glenn, I agreed with Bohm's definition of determinism. You
*still* don't understand what he meant.

someone4 wrote:

It wasn't Bohm's definition that I gave you Fred, it was Jean
Bricmont's, and I had paraphrased it, bringing in the concept of a
universe program being run.

Why don't you point out what I didn't understand in what I had
written, and you agreed with?

Fred Stone wrote:

I have pointed that out, Glenn, many times. Why don't you pay
attention?

Liar. Prove me wrong if you aren't. You won't because you can't,
because you are a lying troll.

Yawn.

someone4 wrote:

You put forward two papers which you claimed broke my argument,
and stated that I was incapable of backing up my arguments. Even
though you refused to point out what in the papers would effect my
claim, I took a look at them, and one I used to back up my claim,
and the other I showed did not affect my claim.

Fred Stone wrote:

You did nothing of the sort. You cherry-picked one paper and made
erroneous claims about it.

someone4 wrote:

What erroneous claims did I make Fred? Let me guess, you won't be
able to state one, now I wonder why that is... wait a minute, I've
got it, Fred Stone is a lying troll! Ah, now it all becomes clear!

Fred Stone wrote:

Asked and answered, Glenn. I'm not going to play that game. You can
snip and run all you want. Go right ahead.

There is no snip and running being done Fred, and guess what, I
predicted you wouldn't be able to state one, and I was right. You
couldn't state one, because you are what I said, a lying troll.

yAwn.

someone4 wrote:

I even asked you whether my rebuttal
of the paper was as sufficient, to which you replied "It's not
relevant to the argument." It was relevant to the argument that
you claimed the paper undermined what I was saying, and that I
couldn't defend my claims.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're still full of *****, Glenn.

someone4 wrote:

No Fred I'm not, I am simply pointing out, how in just this post,
you have been broken again and again, and what do you do when faced
with the evidence? Say that I am full of *****, yet make no attempt
to show that what I have said is false. The reason you don't is
because it isn't. You are a troll, and you show yourself as such.

Fred Stone wrote:

I've showed your errors more times than I can count. You proceed to
ignore that every time and just repeat your same assertions over
again. I've called you on that before, and now you're doing it again.
And you're calling me a troll into the bargain.

Yet again you make no attempt to show why what I said was false, why
is that, oh yeah, Fred Stone is a lying troll.

yaWn.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

You've describe something as being caused by an acausal event, and
Bohm's "prediction" doesn't make quantum tunneling causal. You're
just bloody ignorant, and you refuse to learn enough to make any
explanation worth the trouble.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

And once again you just repeat your ignorance. We've been over this
and over it and over it again. I even dug up references for you, which
you promptly snipped and ran away from.

No you didn't, you are lying again. Will you produce the evidence, no.
Why? Because Fred Stone is a lying troll.

yawN.

someone4 wrote:

You don't give any explanations Fred, because you can't.

someone4 wrote:

You claimed that there were options when you made your choice,
then you retreated to the idea that the initial state and
equations implied your choice, between what you conceded were
non-optional options (i.e. they weren't options).

Fred Stone wrote:

That wasn't a retreat, Glenn, and I didn't concede anything of the
sort. Your imagination is working overtime.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

I have said all along that my existence and my "will" is implied by
those laws of nature.
There was no retreat.

There is no conflict there.

You obviously didn't make your choice before you were born, and you
had said that your choice was what made one possible and the other
impossible, i.e. they were both possible before your choice was made.

There is no conflict there either. In fact I have said that they *never*
were both possible, because they were defined to be mutually exclusive.

You did later retreat to the position that the initial state and laws
implied what you would do.

That was no retreat. That is entirely compatible with everything that I
have said, all deriving from my position that *I* chose because *I* was
the one in the direct chain of causality that led to the event chosen.

Though this isn't compatible with your
above statement, as with the idea of what you will do being implied in
the initial state and laws, there are no possible options when it
comes to making your choice. There is only what you will do.

There is no conflict there.

someone4 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

I've beaten that one to death, Glenn. Why don't you ever pay
attention?

Liar.

YAWN.

someone4 wrote:

The list goes on Fred. The point being, you haven't held any
position that you have put forward. It has been embarrassing
watching you say silly things and then be shown to be a fool.

Fred Stone wrote:

You're so full of *****.

someone4 wrote:

No Fred, you are.