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

**Golotop** · 06-23-2012, 05:32 PM

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.

Not really. What you say are mere theoretical inferences which are probabilistic. They see nature working in a directed pattern and they come up with these theoretical claims which are not proved by itself.
While the premise upon which they built their argument is flawed by itself as QM is found as undirected. Now you could come up with various "what if" scenarios in QM not being directed and so can anyone else come up with various "what if" scenarios for possible undirected-ness in macro level of nature. All i did was throw one theory against another to break down the argument from their start. The ijma of scientists are just ijma upon a probabilistic inference just as is their ijma on evolution theory. Means nothing.

Moreover, being directed does not mean there can be no influence of freewill. A clock is directed as it works, yet a being can adjust its time and direction of rotation and so forth from freewill. Hence in similar case freewill can adjust different aspects of a directed nature. Indeed material existences are all from the category of possibilities and not necessities. The law of nature are mere one possibility and not a necessity. So the direction of nature is just possibility and rationally capable of going in other directions. Just because certain aspects of nature appear to always remain in the same one directed manner there is no reason to apply that one directed-ness to everything of nature and claim it impossible to direct it otherwise. Just because you are incapable of rotating the sun in the other direction, doesn't mean you can't rotate you hand in any of the directions. So there are plenty of false generalizations being made by the argument you put forth.

But its not required to get into a theory war to refute it, as the soul does not belong to the same category of material object they study in the first place. Hence it is a materialist fallacy applying material standards to something other than it.

Moreover, as i said, free will is knowledge from intuition. We are born with it. We experience it. To reject it is equivalent to a man who has vision and hearing, but keeps saying that he is blind and deaf.

And i don't see a fallacy in the argument since the truth of the argument you make is dependent on the origin. You started by claiming its all a illusion and hence automatically implies that what you say by yourself is also merely an illusion. The argument of illusion you used was to reject the intuitive knowledge but instead goes onto to refute your argument by itself as an illusion too.

As for the forced issue, it implies you are forced to make statements rejecting freewill, therefore all the theory's and arguments you make was forced. I'm also forced to make the statement defending freewill. So everything is forced and everybody is forced. And we are incapable of knowing the truth including the idea that we are forced in the first place.

i,.e., when you say : "Im forced when i say im forced for so and so reasons."
Then it implies the so and so reasons you gave was forced too. So how do you know its true ? You were merely forced to accept the reasons as true. So then you don't know the truth of the reasoning as you were forced to see it as true and hence the statement invalidates itself as your incapable of knowing if its true. If you and me are incapable of knowing then our discussion and assertions made here is futile and nothing is established, as the basis of knowing, rational, logic is being negated by it and thereby self refuting.

In short, as someone else put it, according to materialism, whatever you just said now and believe is a mere cause of big bang.

06-23-2012, 05:32 PM	#18
Golotop Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 366 Senior Member	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. Not really. What you say are mere theoretical inferences which are probabilistic. They see nature working in a directed pattern and they come up with these theoretical claims which are not proved by itself. While the premise upon which they built their argument is flawed by itself as QM is found as undirected. Now you could come up with various "what if" scenarios in QM not being directed and so can anyone else come up with various "what if" scenarios for possible undirected-ness in macro level of nature. All i did was throw one theory against another to break down the argument from their start. The ijma of scientists are just ijma upon a probabilistic inference just as is their ijma on evolution theory. Means nothing. Moreover, being directed does not mean there can be no influence of freewill. A clock is directed as it works, yet a being can adjust its time and direction of rotation and so forth from freewill. Hence in similar case freewill can adjust different aspects of a directed nature. Indeed material existences are all from the category of possibilities and not necessities. The law of nature are mere one possibility and not a necessity. So the direction of nature is just possibility and rationally capable of going in other directions. Just because certain aspects of nature appear to always remain in the same one directed manner there is no reason to apply that one directed-ness to everything of nature and claim it impossible to direct it otherwise. Just because you are incapable of rotating the sun in the other direction, doesn't mean you can't rotate you hand in any of the directions. So there are plenty of false generalizations being made by the argument you put forth. But its not required to get into a theory war to refute it, as the soul does not belong to the same category of material object they study in the first place. Hence it is a materialist fallacy applying material standards to something other than it. Moreover, as i said, free will is knowledge from intuition. We are born with it. We experience it. To reject it is equivalent to a man who has vision and hearing, but keeps saying that he is blind and deaf. And i don't see a fallacy in the argument since the truth of the argument you make is dependent on the origin. You started by claiming its all a illusion and hence automatically implies that what you say by yourself is also merely an illusion. The argument of illusion you used was to reject the intuitive knowledge but instead goes onto to refute your argument by itself as an illusion too. As for the forced issue, it implies you are forced to make statements rejecting freewill, therefore all the theory's and arguments you make was forced. I'm also forced to make the statement defending freewill. So everything is forced and everybody is forced. And we are incapable of knowing the truth including the idea that we are forced in the first place. i,.e., when you say : "Im forced when i say im forced for so and so reasons." Then it implies the so and so reasons you gave was forced too. So how do you know its true ? You were merely forced to accept the reasons as true. So then you don't know the truth of the reasoning as you were forced to see it as true and hence the statement invalidates itself as your incapable of knowing if its true. If you and me are incapable of knowing then our discussion and assertions made here is futile and nothing is established, as the basis of knowing, rational, logic is being negated by it and thereby self refuting. In short, as someone else put it, according to materialism, whatever you just said now and believe is a mere cause of big bang.
	Quote