New Discovery

It’s irrelevant to you. Therefore others are obligated to see it as irrelevant too? Even in an autononmous universe? After all, in a wholly determined universe, the laws of matter decide what we think we know is true or not true.

It gets us somewhere because you simply dismiss all those “unknown unknowns” as irrelevant to that which you seek to convey here: that your own “progressive” future hinges on having enough people “choose” to grasp the author’s wholly determined point of view.

You acknowledge there are seemingly questions that cannot be answered but whatever those answers might be have nothing to do with your own answers here and now.

Then [in my view] back to your own rendition of “definitional logic”:

What compels me to refuse here? Is it “I” or my brain embedded in that which compels nature to compel all of us to think, feel, say and do things that are ever and always wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

Like whatever gets us further is not in turn just another inherent, necessary manifestion of nature.

You ask…

As though any of us can actually choose of our own free will to get them. From my frame of mind the more you embrace the idea of “choosing” to get things, the more you sound just like the libertarians who argue that they actully do choose to get things.

And the reason I’m not letting you…? Then around and around we go. Only I am more than willing to concede that my frame of mind here is beyond my own capacity to demonstrate as either free or determined. How on earth could I possibly know that given all that I am still unable to grasp about the objective relationship between “I” and “all there is”. If it is even objective at all.

On the Science Channel last night they speculated about yet another component embedded in the mystery of our existing universe:
sciencechannel.com/tv-shows … a-hologram

“I” in the hologram?

Entrenched? Exactly!!

Or maybe others here may well succeed in helping me to understand the different ways in which being entrenched might be understood in a determined universe.

Like this “different environment” is within our actual capacity to make more “progressive”. Like if enough of us “choose” to read and concur with the author’s own determined assumptions above, nature at least stands a chance of being more in sync with your own moral and political prejudices regarding that which constitutes “peace and prosperity”.

And this [of course] has nothing to do with my own assumption that [either freely or not] you and the author have concocted this frame of mind in order to sustain the psychological “comfort and consolation” that it brings you.

No, I am pointing out that one very important consequence of embracing a wholly determined universe is that being a victim is just an illusion. You become only that which you were never able not to become. Wanting to or not wanting to is no less embodied in the laws of matter unfolding necessarily in accordance to…to what exactly?

To the physics behind the hologram above? To God’s will?

But here you are able to sustain what may or may not be the illusion that you know best how to grasp these extraordinary relationships.

No one is obligated to see anything they don’t want to see. I am not out of line though to say that it’s irrelevant to know whether 1+1 is true in the entire universe to know that it is true here on earth and is the basic building block of many physical structures.

This new world is not dependent on your understanding specifically.

They don’t. They are irrelevant because they don’t apply.

It is not definitional logic to give an accurate definition of what is actually taking place in the real world.

The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years.

I have never denied this, but you refuse to consider that nature cannot make you do anything against your will. This entire 10 pages has only been a repeat of two sound principles 1) WE ARE COMPELLED TO MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION and 2) NOTHING, NOT EVEN NATURE, CAN MAKE OR FORCE US TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST OUR WILL IF WE DON’T PERMIT IT. Why can’t you be a good investigator to see where this leads rather than waste lots of bandwidth?

I told you I’m not accusing you of refusing to want to know about this discovery if you’re not interested. I know your lack of interest is beyond your control.

Because accusations are a form of attack, which lead to counterattacks. This can be on an individual or a collective scale, which warrants attention if we want to prevent conflicts that often lead to war, crime, and other forms of hurt.

Who is saying it’s not? But again, being that every action is in the direction of greater satisfaction does not mean you can’t change your Modus operandi if you want to. Your signature answers are keeping you stuck.

This needs qualification again. If “of your own free will” means “of your own desire”, yes you can actually choose a different way of responding IF you find that your present way of responding isn’t helpful.

I’ve clarified this many times. You actually DO choose to get things. That is where part of the confusion lies. Although choice is not free the second you choose, of meaningful differences, what you prefer, you could have not chosen otherwise. But this doesn’t mean you didn’t have a choice beforehand.

[i]It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’
The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’

Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible
for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly
that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective.
But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to
forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible
for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in
total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for
understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and
reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep
an open mind and proceed with the investigation.
[/i]

The objective relationship between you and all there is, is irrelevant to the knowledge that life on earth moves in one direction only, rendering FREE choice an illusion, but a persistent one. How in the world can our choices be free when we are under a compulsion to choose what gives us greater satisfaction from one moment to another? This is an invariable law that cannot be broken.

I am only interested in demonstrating how we can eliminate the hurt in human relations right here on earth. There are so many theories out there.
Holograms may be interesting to think about but they do not negate the authenticity of this discovery.

When you say “determined universe” you are implying that you are just a peg in a wheel. If we are to communicate you need to stop thinking that you have no choice before you do something. We were given the attribute of contemplation which is comprised of options.

Not only are you assuming that the author made assumptions (which he didn’t), but now you are assuming I have moral and political prejudices. :open_mouth:

Another accusation, eh? If this wasn’t such an important discovery, this conversation would be humorous! :laughing:

Just because everything had to be does not mean we can’t prevent people from becoming victims (those that have been hurt by others) and it certainly doesn’t mean we can’t define the word.

[i]vic·tim
/ˈviktəm/
noun

a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.[/i]

Hologram or no hologram, the purpose of this discovery is to show how we can prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary… but when this knowledge will be brought to light is anyone’s guess. I just hope it’s sooner rather than later. :confused:

Unless of course nature obligates you to want to. And you are not out of line only because you were never really able to want to be anything here other than what you must be. Your own obligatory embodiment of nature. Then it’s back to the assumptions that nature obligates us both to make here.

As though pointing this out has anything at all to do with actually responding to my point that you simply ignore all of the unknown unknowns that stand between what you think you know and all that can be known about these relationships.

My own “lack of interest” in correcting my understanding of them is, as you note, “beyond my control”, but: but that’s not an excuse for still refusing to.

Not to get too technical here but: Huh?

Asserting this as you do here is no less preposterous to me now than it was before. You reduce everything that can be known in and about the universe down to how you have come to understand things here and now on earth.

And then expect me and others to just go along with it while acknowledging that our reactions here are in fact beyond our control.

Yeah, that’s my argument too. But how you are able to make it your own argument in turn basically encompasses the gap between us.

No, when I say “determined universe” I am acknowledging right from the start that my own understanding of that can only reflect the gap between what I think it means and all that can be known about the universe that I am simply not privy to here and now. Anymore than you are. Only I am willing to own up to the “for all practical purposes” implication of that because unlike you I have not imagined some “progressive” future that seems to be predicated on others understanding these things as I do.

Okay, but what on earth does this have to do with the point that I make?

Note to others:

My polemical bent aside, what am I missing here?

In a wholly determined cosmos, I’ll fall back to a 25 year old disproof I made about god …

If god knows every reason why god knows everything god knows, and all of those reasons are external, then by virtue of them all being external, there is 0% reason why god can possibly have an internal to believe that god exists. Since this argument is true by definition, were this actually the case, god cannot perceive, under the circumstances of absolute knowledge of causes beyond ones self, a self.

If, however, god knows every reason why god knows what god knows, and all of those reasons are internal, then god could not perceive anything outside of god with which to reference god exists relative to an “other”.

The argument I stated even further, is that at 100% for both of these extremes, will force logical catatonia, making the being non sentient.

The point being, if you are even aware that you exist, the cosmos is impossible to be wholly determined …

That’s proof through contradiction.

And since iambiguous is reading and responding to this thread: debate me

That’s right iambiguous … I made that proof a quarter of a century ago. What do you think I can do now!?

So here’s the deal iambiguous:

I gave you the why existence exists instead of not existing proof

I gave you the abortion proof

I gave you political proof

And I gave you the freewill proof

Debate me.

I fulfilled all of your impossible tasks.

You’re in the wrong thread Ecmandu. Debate iambiguous elsewhere.

Actually, aside from the iambiguous mutterings…

I just proved that freewill has to exist, in your thread.

It is absolutely on topic.

If you think for one second that you proved free will true, this shows how utterly wrong your reasoning is. Prove to me that you could do otherwise, which is the only proof of free will that would hold weight. But it’s impossible to do, so you have no proof. You’re here because you have a beef with iambiguous.

Peacegirl,

Well, aren’t you quite the disingenuous person.

I addressedyou directly in this thread about how mutually exclusive pleasures make your world peace idea insoluble …
You never responded to it, other than to demand that I show the post where you used the word “pleasure”

Oh sorry!! I forgot, the word was SATIFACTION…

Oh, how horrible I am.

Here’s is proof:

viewtopic.php?p=2726853#p2726853

Reply to that!

No no no iambiguous. Stop using “a wholly determined universe” as your “get off the hook” card that exempts you from answering directly.

That’s not how the word “obligated” is normally used. Obviously we have no control over what we desire or don’t desire. There you go again saying the same old thing as if it’s a new revelation. #-o

You’re not obligated to say anything you don’t want to. Stop using the term in an unconventional way, which can only cause confusion.

I gave two undeniable principles that lead to the two-sided equation (which you have no knowledge about.) There are no unknowns that stand between the soundness of these principles. You do not know what you’re talking about iambiguous.

You are constantly using the excuse that you can’t help yourself in order to justify your responses, which is exactly what libertarians worry about, for all anyone would need to say is: I couldn’t help killing that person, nature made me do it and they would be excused. Do you see the problem here?

You may not understand many things that I do, and I may not understand many things that you do. So what? This has no relation to the undeniable nature of this discovery.

If there is a gap between us, there is NO need to close it. Your lack of understanding (the gap) will not stop this discovery from coming to light when the time is right. Do you think a lack of understanding of Edison’s discovery on your part would have prevented the lightbulb from being discovered?

You’re off the beaten track. You sound like a nihilist very determined to prove that a progressive future is not something we can achieve.

You said in a determined world there are no victims. I said yes there are. I get what you’re saying when looked at in total perspective, but who in the world can see it this way when they have been attacked and left for dead?

Everything!

The two words are not synonymous.

Who said you’re horrible because you’re mistaken?

Is this the post that you think proves free will? :confused:

Yes, it isolates the variables of 100% determinism and in proof through contradiction, demonstrates that a sentient being cannot live in a 100% determined cosmos, its self evident that you are sentient, and thus it’s self evident that 100% determinism is false.

It’s also all true by definition.

You see, what I did peacegirl, like every great logitician, is that I used a proof (mine) from one field and applied it to a completely different field.

The two words are not synonymous. So now am I an ingenuous person? :slight_smile:

Who said you’re horrible just because you’re mistaken?

A sentient being cannot live in a 100% determined cosmos
You are a sentient being
Therefore, 100% determinism is false.

You call that a great proof? I call that an invalid syllogism. Your very first premise is false so the conclusion is false. Secondly, where does your syllogism prove man’s will is free other than stating an opinion? Just to say a sentient being cannot live in a 100% determined cosmos is not a factual statement. I think you need to offer your definition of determinism because confusion often arises due to semantics, just like you thought greater satisfaction meant greater pleasure.

Umm… peacegirl… get ahold of yourself.

You left out the precedent meat of the proof.

You fabricated a syllogism as a straw man and really didn’t put the entire proof together.

You know, the part where I described:

If a being knows every reason why they know what they know:

And all of those reasons are external

And/or

All of those reasons are internal,

Then, they know no reason why they can possibly exist.

This causes a state of consciousness called “logical catatonia”, which makes such beings non sentient.

Peacegirl,

I forgot my audience… so here we go!

If a being knows every reason why they know what they know: and!

All of those reasons are external ( ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM!!!)

And/or

All of those reasons are internal (ABSOLUTE CREATIONISM)

Then such a being cannot be a sentient being…

This is more confused logic in my opinion. External/determinism? Internal/creationism? At the risk of looking ignorant, I don’t get what you’re saying, let alone your proof of free will. Logical catatonia? This is just more jumbled logic. Would you please break this down in layman’s terms? And what does “I forgot my audience” mean?

I’ll try, though I have to admit, it took me a while to make it that parsimonious and understandable. Thanks for bearing with me, because, as we all know from the US constitution, all citizens are entitled to bear arms! Even polar bear arms!

So here’s the deal, joking aside:

Think about this…

If you knew every reason why you knew what you knew, and through absolute determinism, all of those reasons were outside of you, example: I thought about dave because an acorn dropped in Libya …

Once this reaches 100%!!!

Everything is acting upon you, and you upon nothing.

Since it you upon nothing, it’s impossible (logically) for there to be a you

Is that better?

That’s only half the proof

I was right. Your definition of determinism is the problem, not the fact that man’s will is not free once the accurate definition is clarified.

You offered no counter argument.

Let’s debate this, you and I

Ecmandu, I have no idea when you came to this thread but for 10 pages all I have done is explain why man’s will is not free. Do you want me to go over it with you?