For someone who claims to know something for a mathematical fact, a simple set theory argument about limits is unfortunately unfathomable to you.
Let’s try this again:
You’re making an inferential proof, not a proof from limits.
I’m making better than an inferential proof, I’m making a proof from limits.
Hypothetically!!! (By definition)
The absolute deterministic stance is this:
You know every reason why you know what you know, and all of those reasons are defined as outside of you.
If that hypothetical by definition is true, then, what does that do to this hypothetical being?
It forces it so that the being cannot possibly comprehend why it can act in any way upon anything, in any way. There is no otherness with which this being can possibly discern it’s own existence relative to. At absolute determinism, it’s impossibly for the being to be sentient. I’m not speaking about approach here, strictly, the limit.
What is deep about this proof, is that it proves the absence of omniscience, and also proves that because of this absence we have at least SOME measure of freewill. We don’t know every reason why we know what we know (omniscience – the limit!!)
Thus, all information is not 100% determined for sentient, even hypothetically, beings.
Determinism does not mean you have to know every reason why you know what you know, therefore the rest of your proof doesn’t fly. I never heard of such a definition. I don’t think this is proof of free will at all although it is fine to say you acted freely, which only means you chose without external constraint. I am not even sure what you think free will is.
In that absence of a limit proof, you have to use something called an inferential proof (which is what you’re asserting)
Limit proofs are much more powerful than inferential proofs.
An example of an inferential proof is that the counting numbers are all in what’s called a well ordered (sequential) set.
1,2,3,4,5,6… etc
Now this actually doesn’t have a limit proof because we can’t get to the end.
It’s called an inferential proof, because we know it’s true, but we can’t prove it, and we know we can’t prove it.
The proof I’m giving you is much more powerful than an inferential proof (which you are attempting but haven’t proven (that you really have an inferential proof))
I’m giving a limit proof. Those are incontrovertible
One of us is wrong. Your attempt to prove determinism impossible because of a limit proof based on an invalid premise, does not in any way prove freedom of the will. But if you believe you’re right, the more power to you.
According to you, the solution to world peace is finding our true nature, but then you further argue that we have no choice.
So… my question to you, from the perspective of an absolute determinist, why bother making this thread if you are correct? It’s illogical from your argument, to make a thread that tries to teach people what you’ve proven (even if you don’t post the thread) all of them will learn what you posted (by your proof)???
It’s illogical because nobody has a choice according to your proof, so, you sharing the proof suggests that people do have a choice. In contradicting yourself, by virtue of at a minimum, parsimony, you proved that you don’t even believe your own proof.
Of course people have a choice otherwise what would be the point of deliberation? But the choice, once it’s decided upon, could not have been otherwise since we can only move in one direction.
That’s one of the most classic freewill arguments that exists !!
Honestly, I think you are very confused!!
You say a person can make a choice (that’s not determinism but the way !!!')
Then you say that once they make a choice, it couldn’t have been any other way!!
Well yeah!! No shit!!
If we travel back in time to our exact past, we will just be us in our exact past.
This argument you’re presenting is a CLASSIC freewill argument!!! Whoa!?! Like seriously, this is …
Umm never mind …
So here’s the deal.
Yes, when a choice (freewill) is made, a singularity occurs at that decision point and makes it so that AFTER that point, that no other decision COULD have been made.!!!
Yeah, that’s true, every choice is bound by restraints.
If I like smoking cigarettes while taking a walk, I need an able body, with good lungs, cigarettes and a lighter. There is no such thing as a choice without restriction. It’s impossible.
That doesn’t mean that you are using the term absolute determinism correctly. Quite the contrary, you’re defining a modicum of freewill as absolute determinism, and thus, this whole thread is absurd.
I’m not talking about the conditions that are required for a choice to be made.
That is true because the conditions necessary have not been met. How can you smoke a cigarette if you don’t have a cigarette? This has nothing to do with what I’m talking about and I think you know it. By the way, you don’t need an able body or good lungs to smoke.
Just because we can make choices without external restraint does not grant us free will. There is no modicum of free will and please don’t misrepresent what I’m saying just because you don’t understand yet.
We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false. So without any further ado, let us begin.”
It’s only a contradiction if you are defining determinism the way you are, which is not completely accurate. Scroll up. That’s why a definition that clarifies certain things is so important to reconcile this longstanding conflict.
I already did show you the goods, you just wave your hands and say I didn’t show you the goods.
Determinism is when one thing is caused (determined) by something else. Absolute determinism is when there is zero percent autonomy.
You’re arguing absolute determinism.
Using the definition of absolute determinism I gave you the limit proof, which shows that some level of autonomy (freewill) must exist.
Next, all I have to do to crumble your entire house of cards is show that your own definitions are internally inconsistent, and to do that, all I have to do is show only ONE example of a mutually exclusive satisfaction, which I did.
You are arguing against a false definition around the word “cause”. Absolute determinism does not negate autonomy. This discussion has understandably become something irreconcilable the way it’s framed.
Agreed, but it’s not what you think it is. We can have autonomy and our choices be fully determined. Do you see why words can cause logical contraptions that have no basis in reality?
You did not Ecmandu. You would have to show that you can choose a dissatisfying option when a more satisfying option is available to you.
Can you at least preface this with “in my humble opinion”. That would go a long way.
You’re saying that (in saying we have autonomy that ultimately determined), that we can choose anything that we want, but it’s all just determined in an ultimate sense. What if I choose not to have everything determined in an ultimate sense?
Oh! You’re saying I don’t have autonomy there and only there, but I have autonomy everywhere else.
You’re argument is that no matter what any or everybeing does, nobody has a choice but for it all to be for the greater good (as you proved) You’re the one wearing rose colored glasses not me.