DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**duminyricky** · 06-23-2012, 02:03 PM

Obviously I borrowed it as a response to the casuality dilemma you borrowed. Just throwing one theory against another. At the end of the day the scientific theorys of today do not rest on absolute determinism as in the case of QM, which falsifies the premise you put up.

The then "what if" questions are mere hypothetical and can be responded by imagining a 100 other "what if" scenarios.

Even if you say that you were determined to speak against freewill, the truth of statement is not yet established since determination implies you were forced to say so. So if you havent established the truth of the statement then you can't say you were forced to say so, which rests upon the truthness of your statement. Your goal is to prove determination. You instead presume determination along the way.

Secondly my point was on regards to tasting freewill. When you speak about freewill, we have to know what freewill is in the first place. Now it is because we have tasted freewill that we know it. Its impossible that you could be forced and yet be aware of what exactly freewill is. So the mere fact that we discuss freewill knowingly is proof of its existance because a forced object would not be aware of what exactly freewill is. Just as a blind man wouldnt know color until he tasted color similarly a forced man wouldnt know freewill until he tasted freewill.

I have not made an appeal to any probabilistic scientific claim , rather i have made an appeal to the established scientific facts for which there can be no alternate description. QM does not falsify anything that i have said as you are yet to show a clear link between free will and QM. Keep it in mind that the non-locality in QM can show some ultimate fixation negating free will at all. If you mentioned QM to show that reality may have alternate description or it may have randomness then that does not work. There is no unanimity between the physicists about the status of randomness and probabilistic description of reality in QM that it is something ultimate or this disorder have an order deep down. A better option in the favor of alternate description of reality would have been to click the concept of possible worlds in modal logic. That would have made sense.

Your second objection does not work as well. It might be true that due to determinism i might not be able established the fact of the statement in which i deny free will but that does not mean that i have not established the truth. It is the genetic fallacy , trying to falsify a statement by explaining away its origins.

06-23-2012, 02:03 PM	#16
duminyricky Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 464 Senior Member	Obviously I borrowed it as a response to the casuality dilemma you borrowed. Just throwing one theory against another. At the end of the day the scientific theorys of today do not rest on absolute determinism as in the case of QM, which falsifies the premise you put up. The then "what if" questions are mere hypothetical and can be responded by imagining a 100 other "what if" scenarios. Even if you say that you were determined to speak against freewill, the truth of statement is not yet established since determination implies you were forced to say so. So if you havent established the truth of the statement then you can't say you were forced to say so, which rests upon the truthness of your statement. Your goal is to prove determination. You instead presume determination along the way. Secondly my point was on regards to tasting freewill. When you speak about freewill, we have to know what freewill is in the first place. Now it is because we have tasted freewill that we know it. Its impossible that you could be forced and yet be aware of what exactly freewill is. So the mere fact that we discuss freewill knowingly is proof of its existance because a forced object would not be aware of what exactly freewill is. Just as a blind man wouldnt know color until he tasted color similarly a forced man wouldnt know freewill until he tasted freewill. I have not made an appeal to any probabilistic scientific claim , rather i have made an appeal to the established scientific facts for which there can be no alternate description. QM does not falsify anything that i have said as you are yet to show a clear link between free will and QM. Keep it in mind that the non-locality in QM can show some ultimate fixation negating free will at all. If you mentioned QM to show that reality may have alternate description or it may have randomness then that does not work. There is no unanimity between the physicists about the status of randomness and probabilistic description of reality in QM that it is something ultimate or this disorder have an order deep down. A better option in the favor of alternate description of reality would have been to click the concept of possible worlds in modal logic. That would have made sense. Your second objection does not work as well. It might be true that due to determinism i might not be able established the fact of the statement in which i deny free will but that does not mean that i have not established the truth. It is the genetic fallacy , trying to falsify a statement by explaining away its origins.
	Quote