|
|
#31
11-06-2005, 02:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
But you will still always be left with this argument... 1. God is omnipotent 2. Humans are not omnipotent 3. Humans cannot understand what an omnipotent being would do [/ QUOTE ] This argument has nothing to do with God's intentions. 
|
|
#32
11-06-2005, 02:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
But you will still always be left with this argument... [/ QUOTE ] Not a fact - 1. God is omnipotent Is a fact - 2. Humans are not omnipotent 3. Cannot be drived since 1 is not proved This is an argument solely relevant for theists, right?
|
|
#33
11-07-2005, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The LAWS are fixed. The outcomes of those laws are probabilistic in the theory. [/ QUOTE ] What you want are fixed laws and absolute chance, which is self-contradictory. Either the laws are ultimate or chance is ultimate. Either way, no free will. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know what "absolute chance" is. In any case, I don't want anything. That's your mistake, not mine. I am interested in what is based on the evidence, not figuring out some version of things which feels like something I want or appeals to me emotionally somehow. That's not a valid method for separating truth from fiction. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It seems clear that you don't know anything about science. [/ QUOTE ] I know that science assumes order in the universe AND chance though it can prove neither and they are self-contradictory. [/ QUOTE ] They aren't self-contradictory at all. That you would think so only further exposes your ignorance. You can't "prove" something in science in the sense that you can show that no possible outcome can contradict a predictive theory. You can only add evidence by showing all known outcomes conform to the predictive theory. This is quite a bit better however, than "faith" where you accept something based on no evidence at all. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Do you realize that heat transfer on a microscopic level is just atoms wiggling around randomly, bumping into each other in a process that appears completely random on a local scale? [/ QUOTE ] Which is it, random or apparently random? [/ QUOTE ] Definitions of "random" is a very complex subject and the meaning changes according to context. The point here being that measurements will produce probability distributions of variables, and in that sense the variables are considered stochastic or random. [ QUOTE ] Why can't the process randomly be completely different tomorrow? [/ QUOTE ] It can be and it will be. And yet the macroscopic behavior will be the same. [ QUOTE ] How can anything mean anything if chance reigns? [/ QUOTE ] What do you mean "mean anything". If meaning is information content, why are you looking for information content in "anything." [ QUOTE ] What purpose or meaning is there in an accident? [/ QUOTE ] I don't know what an "accident" is nor do I know what you mean by "purpose" or "meaning" in something like an evolutionary process. It is what it is. I think you are falling back on some kind of emotional litmus test as to whether you will accept it as being "purposeful". This is nonsense. It is what it is, you can't deny it because you are looking for "purpose" in it and can't find it. [ QUOTE ] How can you claim validity to something that is the product of an accident? [/ QUOTE ] Well, the "validity" thing is your hangup, not mine. How do I know if evolution is "valid"? What criteria can I apply to the process to determine if it is "valid"? [ QUOTE ] And if the will is accidental, it may be free in the sense of undetermined, but how is it a choice? [/ QUOTE ] I frankly don't know if I have choice. I certainly feel like I do, but whether or not that is illusory is something I cannot know. You may find that emotionally troubling. I don't, and even if I did, I know it is invalid to reject something based on the grounds of an emotional reaction. If I could reject things and know that they were not the truth based on them being emotionally disturbing, there would be no child molsters, no murderers, no hemmorhagic fevers. But as horrifying as those things are, I know it is absurd to reject them because I don't find them "purposeful" or "meaningful" or "valid". The evidence tells me they exist, so I must accept that they do. If I were to tell you I deny that there are child molesters because such a thing would lack "meaning" or "purpose", you would tell me I was talking like a crazy man. And I would be. But so are you to reject evolution which proceeds by selection over chance variation because you can't figure out how it is "purposeful" or "meaningful." eastbay
|
|
#34
11-07-2005, 03:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
This is quite a bit better however, than "faith" where you accept something based on no evidence at all. [/ QUOTE ] Science is based on faith. [ QUOTE ] I don't know what "absolute chance" is. Definitions of "random" is a very complex subject and the meaning changes according to context. I don't know what an "accident" is [/ QUOTE ] Seems kinda simple: [ QUOTE ] random SYLLABICATION: ran·dom PRONUNCIATION: rndm ADJECTIVE: 1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It can be and it will be. And yet the macroscopic behavior will be the same. [/ QUOTE ] Are you sure? If so, how? [ QUOTE ] How do I know if evolution is "valid"? [/ QUOTE ] How can you know Christianity isn't? [ QUOTE ] You may find that emotionally troubling. [/ QUOTE ] You're the one who keeps bringing up emotion.
|
|
#35
11-07-2005, 04:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
ZeeJustin, it seems that your paradox rests on the unsaid premise
1) Free Will means that in any particular situation in which an agent chooses freely, he could have done otherwise I think that if we take a compatabilist approach to free will we can say that your 3 premises are true but free will exists because the agent is the causal factor in the choice being made. For example, imagine a person trying to exit a room with 3 doors, the person chooses the door in the middle, but unbeknownst to him the other 2 doors are locked and the only way out is the middle door. To any outside observer that knew you would attempt to leave the room they could predict that you would use the middle door, but the fact that they knew but weren't a causal factor in your decision to do so means that your actions were in fact still free.
|
|
#36
11-07-2005, 06:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
Quoting a dictionary definition of "random" in order to show that the definition of "random" is not 'very complex subject and the meaning changes according to context' (as was stated by eastbay) is silly to say the least. Sorry about using this word here, but I find no better way to describe what you have just did in your post.
Also, I don't mean it as a personal thing, because I don't know you well enough, but I find people who quote definitions from dictionaries in order to make a point (unless it's a discussion about 'what is said in a specific dictionary') really lacking in understanding with regard to the meaning of "understanding". Really: why should anyone wonder about the meaning of concepts such as "truth", "self", "mind", "energy" when you can open a dictionary and finish with it very quickly? This is absurd.
|
|
#37
11-07-2005, 06:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
Really: why should anyone wonder about the meaning of concepts such as "truth", "self", "mind", "energy" when you can open a dictionary and finish with it very quickly? This is absurd. [/ QUOTE ] Eastbay said this: [ QUOTE ] Do you realize that heat transfer on a microscopic level is just atoms wiggling around randomly, bumping into each other in a process that appears completely random on a local scale? [/ QUOTE ] I said this: [ QUOTE ] Which is it, random or apparently random? [/ QUOTE ] Eastbay replied: [ QUOTE ] Definitions of "random" is a very complex subject and the meaning changes according to context. [/ QUOTE ] Whereupon I gave the dictionary definition. I did it because eastbay was ambiguous in the original quote, first saying "randomly" then saying "appears...random". This seems to be an attempt to have it both ways. The problem isn't one of context but of language. There's a difference between "is random" and "appears random". If there's a disagreement about the meaning of a word, well, that's why they invented dictionaries. The dictionary is unambiguous. It's what I mean by the word. If you and eastbay mean something different, go ahead. If that's absurd, I can't see why.
|
|
#38
11-07-2005, 07:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
If there's a disagreement about the meaning of a word, well, that's why they invented dictionaries. [/ QUOTE ] No. Dictionaries are completely irrelevant when there is a disagreement about the meaning of a word between people who have full control of the language they use (unless, again, for some specific argument about 'what does the dictionary say', or for making a rulling in a game like scrabble [but in that case definitions don't matter anyway]). This is really fundamental, and I actually find it strange that I have to "explain" this. A dictionary is nothing but an (almost) tautoligcal set of definitions (and by that, I mean that if you start to look for the dictionary definitions of each word that you find in a certain definition of a certain word in the same dictionary, you'll go in circles, obviously), created by _specific_ people, in order to help you in getting some extremely rough approximation of what a word might "mean", and for what purposes it might "serve", and that's if you don't have any better idea about it. You go to a dictionary if you happen to hear/read a word you don't recognize, or don't remember well, or not sure how to spell, etc. Again: using it in order to make a point in a discussion like the one here, is completely absurd.
|
|
#40
11-07-2005, 10:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Restating the Paradox
[ QUOTE ]
Science is based on faith. [/ QUOTE ] No, it's not. Your argument is an intellectually dishonest one as you are trying to use the word "faith" in different contexts, but keep the same meanings. Also, you said on the first page that our "genes" make use choose between pancakes and waffles in the morning. This demonstrates such an absurdly bad understanding of both evolution and psychology that you can't possibly expect anyone to take you seriously.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
