See my answer to Prom, below..
.
That’s all very presumptuous of you, right down to the meaning of my name.
What does New Age physics entail?
I tried yoga, I didn’t like it, it wasn’t for me.. I’m more chi gong x weight-bearing exercises..
I walk a path towards peace, more like..
No-one‘s cared for my philosophy before, so excuse my laissez-faire attitude in my haste in defining it. 
.
Neither.. see below..
.
The only human actions that are truly determined are eating, sleeping, and ablutions, other than that the rest are down to compatibilistic endeavours of the free-will kind.
Such endeavours can take one back to a deterministic place.. depending on the action made.
Keep wondering.
.
Relying on somebody else’s assumptions and not your own. Lol!
What was it you were saying again, about doing such?
.
Taken from here: Do Truths Exist in a Hierarchy? - #121 by MagsJ
.
Duplicate.. oops
I wrote a post in the “Absolutely Random” thread about the reality of choice.
Essentially, on how the notion of having a choice, a say, on what we do is fundamentally more important than ascertaining once and for all whether we are free or determined.
I think the most important thing about a man’s life is to be able to say he acts according to his will, and chooses his course of action, and is always 100% cognizant of what he does, and could act otherwise if he wanted it hard enough. So that, no matter what the action, how noble or how atrocious, you can always confront the guy with the consequences of his deeds and know he can be held accountable for them because he was always fully aware of everything he did.
This approach pushes the entire free will x determinism debate to the background and focus on the results and the awareness of human actions instead.
One can be fully aware of being forced to do something against one’s will. You can then say the person apparently didn’t want not to do it hard enough, but one logically cannot will one’s will…
Why? For all we know, the impression that this “must be” so is just another empty experience…
For all we know, we are a brain in a vat. For all we know, this is a dream and solipsism is real. For all we know, 2 + 2 is not 4, as an evil demon is confusing us about it. For all we know, God has an excellent reason for bone cancer in children. I don’t base my opinions on such possibilities. Is it possible that I am wrong, of course - I don’t want to hold anything as an unquestionable dogma. But is it probable that I am wrong; is there reason and evidence to suggest so?
I’m also a compatibilist, freedom in the metaphysical sense is a bit hard to defend, but freedom in the sense of consistency with one’s own motivations and values is still meaningful. I wouldn’t call libertarian free will a priori nonsense though. You can formulate libertarian free will as a hypothesis and with the neuroscience of the future perhaps even test it.
Monism is an a priori given? So mind-body dualism is a priori wrong? That statement definitely requires elaboration, if not a book or two.
Sure, but those are all positive claims. Mine, rightly understood, is only a negative claim: ‘For all we know, the impression that this “must be” so is no more than an impression.’ Contrast:
“For all we know, we are a brain in a vat [i.e., something beyond what we experience]. For all we know, this is a dream [a mere experience] and solipsism is real [i.e, there is a self (ipse) beyond the experience—a dreamer behind the dream]. For all we know, 2 + 2 is not 4 [just a negative claim 
], as an evil demon is confusing us about it [a positive claim 
]. For all we know, God has an excellent reason for bone cancer in children [i.e., there’s an intelligence behind the phenomenon].”
The burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim. They are to provide evidence for their god’s existence, whether it be an ‘actual’ god behind bone cancer in children, or a Cartesian evil demon, or a self, or a substance.
I don’t have much time right now so this will be rough and ready, but how about this:
“There is absolutely nothing” is a truth-claim.
If there were absolutely nothing, “there is absolutely nothing” would be true.
In order for a statement to be true, it must correspond to the state of the world.
If (2) and (3) are both true, there being absolutely nothing corresponds to a state of the world.
For the world to have a state, it must exist.
If (2), (3), (4) and (5) are all true, then it being true that there is absolutely nothing entails that the world exists in a particular state, which is a contradiction.
The most plausible premise to reject is (2): If there were absolutely nothing, “there is absolutely nothing” would be true.
Therefore it is not true that if there were absolutely nothing, “there is absolutely nothing” would be true.
But this is the only possible situation that we could affirm “there is absolutely nothing” is true.
Hence, “there is absolutely nothing” cannot be true.
I might have made a mistake somewhere, but this is the kind of thought process.
That’s all fine and dandy, but remember that my primary claim was that, for all we know, the impression that this (or that!) “must be” so is no more than an impression. Well then:
Note that my added parentheses aren’t necessarily exhaustive.
You could say all a priori claims are no more than impressions. You probably do want to say that. You probably have a point. Nevertheless we will bet the house on impressions like 2 + 2 = 4.
Possibly all truths are contingent, thus a hierarchy is time/space bound
‘Truth’ refers to a perspective’s probability.
All perspectives are subjective, evaluated relative to objective reality.
Just as strength is a measure of weakness, ignorance is a measure of gnosis, objectivity is measure of subjectivity.
Truth claims to be more probable than another perspective…never attaining absolute certainty.
So, we can say that ‘truth’ is an evaluation of a perspective’s probability, relative to other perspectives and, more importantly, relative to an indifferent objective world.
The better question is how do we evaluate the quality of a perspective - its truth?
Yes, the truth of hierarchy is enforced power, but that does that always make it right? Is all forms of power right or correct?
The nihilists and even the fascists will say might makes right, but if the entire world just came down to might and slaughter with nothing else we would see the internal combustion of all human civilization into chaos very quickly. That kind of be all form of thinking leads to total chaos.
.
Within the confines of the man-made stratosphere, probably yes.
Outside of the confines of the man-made stratosphere, probably not.
.
I’ve always seen them as two separate entities, the surreal conceptualised world and the real.. blame it on the Art. 
.
“..all I see of her here are brief comments on what others say.’
I stopped sharing my own ideas and ideals a few years back, coz.. low-IQ forum trolls —> flinging faeces, coz.. jealous.
..instead, I only share them in real-life/real-time. ; )
.
..imagine being so dumb that when I say -for example- that I really dislike an advert, the dumb actually equate that to me disliking/hating-on the person in the ad.
Such imaginings^ ..hence the [dire] state of the current world and society at large - I don’t need my thoughts and philosophical-offerings being constantly policed straw-manned or my character constantly being attacked and not my argument, but that’s low-IQs for you. 
This gurl ain’t feeding no trolls..
You don’t have to share your own personal ideas to feed the trolls. Any and all comments do the trick.
Example. This guy is trolling… he’s claiming I haven’t improved myself while defending an illiterate, unemployed single mother on welfare:
That’s why spending substantial time here is a waste.
This forum is for arguing and debating. It facilitates and creates argument, tension and stress. Sustained participation is not healthy. That’s why I mainly just share my ideas and leave. I want someone to love and help, not a group to argue with.
She doesn’t have one. She’s a scatter-brained loony with no life. An old used-up movie extra. She lives on this forum because she has nothing better to do.
She’s easy too. Just talk her up a couple weeks and she’ll let you hit it. The wine helps.