Generalizing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-08-2012, 06:57 AM
RE: Generalizing
(04-08-2012 06:35 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

I wrote that post at 7am right after I woke up. Turn this into a semantical argument if you like. The content of my argument does not rest on my use of the word fact in that one instance. I'm pretty sure you know that.
There is actually a huge difference between arguing on a suggestion of something being true and arguing based on something that has been proven to be true. The argument you presented is "recent science suggests that X is true, therefore it is true". I couldn't find a source supporting that the majority of the scientific community shares the point of view that past, present and future exist simultaneously.

(04-08-2012 06:35 AM)Ghost Wrote:  



Direct all further complaints to Brian Greene.
Why would I direct my complaints to Brian Greene when I'm arguing with you? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
04-08-2012, 07:33 AM
RE: Generalizing
(04-08-2012 06:57 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-08-2012 06:35 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

I wrote that post at 7am right after I woke up. Turn this into a semantical argument if you like. The content of my argument does not rest on my use of the word fact in that one instance. I'm pretty sure you know that.
There is actually a huge difference between arguing on a suggestion of something being true and arguing based on something that has been proven to be true. The argument you presented is "recent science suggests that X is true, therefore it is true". I couldn't find a source supporting that the majority of the scientific community shares the point of view that past, present and future exist simultaneously.

(04-08-2012 06:35 AM)Ghost Wrote:  



Direct all further complaints to Brian Greene.
Why would I direct my complaints to Brian Greene when I'm arguing with you? Consider

Quote:Brian Greene American theoretical physicist and string theorist.

I'm almost certain that this is just a special on the mathematical exploration of time. Drinking Beverage

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
04-08-2012, 08:33 AM
RE: Generalizing
OK.

Einstein supports it but hey, what the fuck does he know? He's just a fashion whore.

You're making the claim, not me. I'm just showing that one does not necessarily flow from the other as you claim. Your response is to attack me. And in doing so, you explain in your wisdom how science is about the known and the proven and offer no proofs to support your hypothesis whatsoever. I on the other hand post the opinions of several prominent physicists whose theories discount yours. Oh, but they don't count because they're just the cool flavour du jour. Your kung fu is weak.

I'm not going to dignify your responses any longer unless you see fit to discuss the science instead of attacking me personally.

Hey, Vosur.

He's the one promoting the science. I'm just parroting it. I didn't invent it. If you want to have an argument about the science, take it up with him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 08:49 AM
RE: Generalizing
(04-08-2012 08:33 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Einstein supports it but hey, what the fuck does he know? He's just a fashion whore.

He knows nothing. He is dead. Newton was right... until he was wrong. Einstein was right... until he was wrong. Science doesn't have its own Popes, applauded for their infallibility. And please don't resort to argument from authority.

(04-08-2012 08:33 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Your response is to attack me.

There was no ad hominem. I was attacking your position. Re-read what you said to me, to see who attacked whom.

You are being very irrational.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Red Celt's post
04-08-2012, 09:14 AM
RE: Generalizing
This is jokes.

You ended your first response with a snyde comment. You then told me that I just didn't undersrand science. Nowhere have you actually made a comment on anything that I said.

Argument from authority? You've got too be joking. I'm not citing Einstein because he's a god, I'm citing him because his theories, upon which my argument is based (and for which I offered video of other scientists supporting them) have been proven over and over. You have made zero comment on that. Instead, you decide to attempt to show that I just don't understand how science works. A typical tactic that is as weak as it is flawed.

Your argument is shocking to me. It sounds like "evolution is just a theory" to me. Still, throughout, you've made no actual comment on the content of what I said and offered no scientific evidence to support the notion that if there is an omniscient God then that fact negates free will.

So if you want to keep arguing that I don't get it maaaaan, and that science can't be cited because it's only right until it's wrong, you go right ahead.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 09:33 AM
RE: Generalizing
I'm not feeling much peace, love and empathy, Matt. Rolleyes
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 09:40 AM
RE: Generalizing
That's why I aint sayin it to you, jackass.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 09:46 AM
RE: Generalizing
(04-08-2012 09:40 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Your response is to attack me.
(04-08-2012 09:40 AM)Ghost Wrote:  That's why I aint sayin it to you, jackass.
Complaining about people insulting you (which they didn't even to) and then using an ad hominem yourself. I smell a hypocrite. Sleepy

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
04-08-2012, 09:47 AM
RE: Generalizing
(04-08-2012 09:40 AM)Ghost Wrote:  That's why I aint sayin it to you, jackass.

You are far too emotionally invested in this debate, and you are using blatant ad hominems. Get over yourself.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
04-08-2012, 10:06 AM
RE: Generalizing
(04-08-2012 06:35 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

I wrote that post at 7am right after I woke up. Turn this into a semantical argument if you like. The content of my argument does not rest on my use of the word fact in that one instance. I'm pretty sure you know that.





Direct all further complaints to Brian Greene.

Hey, Red Celt.

I'm sorry if the science is making your life difficult. But please don't accuse me of being some sort of science hipster. Weak sauce, dude.

Quote:Which is why I referred to free will as a magnificent illusion. If every action we make was pre-ordained at the beginning of time, then we could never have made any other action. We're not agents who can ad-lib. We're actors reading from a very old script.

Free will is not the illusion, time is. It's not that the future is set and we cannot avoid it, it's that all of time exists simultaneously. It is not linear as we perceive it to be (the past is gone, I am now, the future has yet to happen). This does not mean that you have no free agency. You can act within time, at least, there's no evidence to suggest that you cannot, or more to the point, that you do not.

The preordination you are describing is actually causality which is a different notion entirely; and one that has yet to be proven. Causality suggests that previous actions strictly determine future actions. It's the material version of destiny. Causality assumes that the future does not yet exist. Whether causality is true or not has no bearing on the illusion of time.

Quote:If everything is pre-ordained, then it doesn't matter if God is omniscient, a rubber chicken or a little umbrella resting in an Alabama Slammer. Every action God takes is also pre-ordained. Imagine that notion... an infinite existence, knowing how everything will unfold...

Again, saying that the past prescribes the future, causality, is a different argument.

As far as God's actions being pre-ordained, that would suggest that he is not omnipotent. There's no reason to assume that. (There's not much reason to assume anything about God for that matter)

The point that I am making, quite simply, is that if God can perceive time as a whole, then he can know what happens at any point in time; he can be omniscient. That doesn't mean that free agency is necessarily negated.

So be a smart ass all you like and make glib comments about me holding onto illusions because oh, crime of crimes, I disagreed with your hypothesis. I have science on my side. You do not. Now how you gonna act?

GENERAL NOTE: I of course am not suggesting that God exists, neither am I suggesting that he does not. I'm simply showing that this particular notion, that omniscience necessarily negates free will and/or vice versa, is unsupported by physics as it is currently understood. Free will can exist in a universe with an entity that knows everything if, as the science suggests, all of time exists simultaneously. People might be upset that it opens a door for God. I don't particularly care. My allegiance is to science.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

The idea that all time exists simultaneously is based on how time would relate from one item to the velocity of other distant items.

After watching your documentary, there is a portion of it also making the claim that time seems to have a linearity to it that we do not fundamentally understand.

From the big bang to us the arrow of time was set.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: