atheists for freedom
nando_r...@yahoo.com
interest in, knowledge about freedom? I'm talking about the simple
concept of things turning out one way or another alternatively in the
event.
There are some scientific theories about it like some information
interpretations of quantum mechanics, or so called "strong
anticipation" theory. A computerexperiment where they effectively
searched a database by looking at what the results of a searchprogram
would be if the program would have run, but not actually running it.
But there is also the common knowledge about freedom used practically
in daily life, and religious knowledge about creation and final
judgement etc.
So is there any atheist here who is any good at that sort of logic of
alternatives, that respects that kind of knowledge and has a handle on
it.
The reason I ask is because in this logic what does the actual job of
deciding is basically unknowable, and commonly refferred to as
spiritual, and most atheists don't acknowledge anything spiritual. So
if you all would acknowledge freedom is real, then you would become
more religious.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9c5181e9-b17f-4134...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Wow! Such bending, warping, and twisting of an already deranged though - I
have never seen before.
Most atheists do not acknowledge anything that has no valid evidence.
Freedom is real, but it has absolutely nothing to do with your religious
inventions or fabrications.
Interesting that you speak of logic, when it is all too apparent that it is
NOT your strong suit!
nando_r...@yahoo.com
evidence, because most of them follow science, in the West at least.
However if you knew something about freedom, then you would know that
it is wrong to be objective about some things, for instance beauty,
love etc. that one should be subjective about them. That is because
these things are so to say the owners of decisions, what makes
something turn out one way instead of another, and the usual logic of
cause and effect, of forcing, doesn't work with it. Basically one
should be free about some things, which means to decide on the spot,
to be spontaneous, to create information yourself instead of passing
on information you find in the universe, and there faith plays the
main role.
so generally
knowledge about freedom -> religious
knowledge about force -> irreligious
On 19 nov, 02:02, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> NOT your strong suit!- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
shuttlt
> Are there any atheists here that have a strong affection for, or
> interest in, knowledge about freedom? I'm talking about the simple
> concept of things turning out one way or another alternatively in the
> event.
> There are some scientific theories about it like some information
> interpretations of quantum mechanics,
Please link to one of these 'information interpretations' that you
agree with. Previous discussions of this have been made difficult by
you only linking to interpretations that you do not hold. Presumably
there is a paper somewhere that you can link to?
> or so called "strong
> anticipation" theory.
Strong anticipation is based on things only turning out one way. If
things could turn out one way, or another, it would not be possible to
anticipate them.
> A computerexperiment where they effectively
> searched a database by looking at what the results of a searchprogram
> would be if the program would have run, but not actually running it.
> But there is also the common knowledge about freedom used practically
> in daily life, and religious knowledge about creation and final
> judgement etc.
What do you mean by religious knowledge? Do you mean to imply that
religious knowledge is knowledge of real things, and 'true' in some
real sense? For example, is "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is
the Messenger of Allah." religious knowledge? Is the story of the
Olympian Gods battling the Titans religious knowledge? How can we know
if religious knowledge is true?
> So is there any atheist here who is any good at that sort of logic of
> alternatives, that respects that kind of knowledge and has a handle on
> it.
Certainly. You mistake not agreeing with you for not understanding
you. If all you mean by the logic of choosing is to say, OK, perhaps
things can turn out one way or another. Clearly this would impose an
abolute limit on what is knowable about the future. Equally, there are
a bunch of other absolute limits on what we can know about the future
that, under most circumstances, are most significant. In terms of
making physical predictions about the world, the logic of choosing
isn't particularly helpful.
> The reason I ask is because in this logic what does the actual job of
> deciding is basically unknowable, and commonly refferred to as
> spiritual, and most atheists don't acknowledge anything spiritual.
No. You are confused. If by spiritual you do indeed mean "the
unknowable" then most athiests are happy to acknowledge this. What is
beyond the visible universe may very well be unknowable (doubtless
there are better examples). Is ZF Set Theory consistent is unknowable.
If by spiritual you mean something religious involving God[s], then of
course athiests don't acknowledge this.
> So
> if you all would acknowledge freedom is real, then you would become
> more religious.
No. Religion is not about freedom. There are plenty of religions that
assume predestination, in other words, they say things can't turn out
one way or another. Similarly most, if not all, athiests believe that
some things are very probably unknowable (individual athiests may well
differ on the exact list). If your definition of the spiritual is
simply "the unknowable", then you have constructed a straw man.
Athiests believe in the unknowable.
> However if you knew something about freedom, then you would know that
> it is wrong to be objective about some things, for instance beauty,
> love etc. that one should be subjective about them.
Like Wayne Rooney and his spiritual appreciation of the beauty of
'Auld Slapper'.
> That is because
> these things are so to say the owners of decisions, what makes
> something turn out one way instead of another, and the usual logic of
> cause and effect, of forcing, doesn't work with it.
Many religions disagree with you. Religious knowledge is no good for
deciding anything, whether subjective or objective.
> Basically one
> should be free about some things, which means to decide on the spot,
> to be spontaneous, to create information yourself instead of passing
> on information you find in the universe, and there faith plays the
> main role.
Please define what you mean by information. Please link to a
definition/paper/book/article that defines it in the sense in which
YOU mean it here. As previously asked.... do you mean that there is no
more information in the Qur’an than in a sufficiently long list of the
outcomes of coin tosses of a drunk in an Amsterdam door way?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
out one way or another, you don't respect knowledge about freedom only
force you respect, you don't try to develop it, you don't have a
handle on it.
Shuttit wrote:
"Strong anticipation is based on things only turning out one way. If
things could turn out one way, or another, it would not be possible to
anticipate them."
That is complete and utter BULLSHIT. It says we can't anticipate the
result of a football match because it can turn out one way or another.
So again you make a HUGE klonker of an error, why don't you just shut
up.
The question is can I trust you to be any good with using this logic
of things turning out one way or another. The answer is no.
shuttlt
> You never actually use logic of things turning
> out one way or another, you don't respect knowledge about freedom only
> force you respect, you don't try to develop it, you don't have a
> handle on it.
But I accept that it is possible that things may be genuinely
undetermined and that things *may* happen for unknown reasons, or even
no reason at all.
>
> Shuttit wrote:
>
> "Strong anticipation is based on things only turning out one way. If
> things could turn out one way, or another, it would not be possible to
> anticipate them."
>
> That is complete and utter BULLSHIT. It says we can't anticipate the
> result of a football match because it can turn out one way or another.
> So again you make a HUGE klonker of an error, why don't you just shut
> up.
Generally the examples of strong anticipation have been for planetary
bodies for which we have good equations and know what we expect to
happen. It isn't clear to me how we could tell if there was a small
amount of true uncaused randomness in football results given the
insurmountable difficulties in fully understanding even the
deterministic elements.
In any case, your English grammer is confused here. Are you saying
that you can, or can't anticipate the result of football matches? When
Dubois talks about gravitation involving Strong Anticipation, he is
clearly talking about bodies being able to predict the future. Are you
therefore saying that you can predict football matches? Equally, you
say that strong anticipation means that things can turn out one way or
another, and hence can't be predicted... So the Earth can not predict
the future position of the Sun.... even though we can. In summary, are
you claiming strong anticipation says the Earth can anticipate the
future location of the Sun, and are you saying that you can anticipate
the result of football matches?
> The question is can I trust you to be any good with using this logic
> of things turning out one way or another. The answer is no.
I have been reading a book on Logic lately. Propositional logic,
predicate logic, modal logic.... strangely your logic didn't get
mentioned. There is no special logic of things turning out one way or
another. Our limited knowledge of the world always puts us in a
position where things might, from our perspective, turn out one way or
another. Whether or not things really actually could turn out one way
or another adds nothing to our ability to predict anything about the
world.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
all the bullshit about it. Why don't you just develop it. Specifically
to answer the question here about the owner of a decision. The photon
can turn out one way or another, the point where it goes the one way
instead of the other is the choice.
Now you will begin to protest about using the word choice here, but
really, that is the only sensible word for it. I could not easily
think about it using any other word. If one thinks in terms of
alternatives, then the word choice is indispensable to describe the
act where one of the alternatives is realized and the other discarded.
And my thinking about it is productive, because I could theorize
independently how to make a password cracker thinking this way.
So the question here is about the owner of a choice, which in my
opnion cannot be known objectively. We can see for instance a person
going one way or another, deciding to go left instead of right. Now
for practical purposes the person can be said to be the owner of the
choice. However we can't construe this in terms of cause and effect,
so to say that because the person consists of x, therefore the person
went left, because that would omit the fact that the person also could
have gone right. So instead the owner of the choice must be regarded
subjectively, for instance the person went left instead of right by
courage. Courage here is something spiritual, which is subjectively
established to be real. For the same decision we could say it was
cowardice, and that would not be less or more correct in scientific
terms. What would be wrong in scientific terms is to say that the
result was forced. This also includes defining courage to be some
innate heritable trait, and then to say that by this innate trait of
courage the person was forced to go left. Explanations in terms of
being forced are categorically false for free acts.
Now saying something about it, that actually makes any sense and is
not total bullshit.
shuttlt
Could you explain religious knowledge for me Nando and in what sense
it can be regarded as 'true'. I mean, there are few claims of any
importance made by one religion that aren't constradicted by another
religion, whether current or ancient. Even within Abrahamic religions
who share notions of creation and final judgement, there is no
agreement that there is free will "in the sense of things turning out
one way or another".
nando_r...@yahoo.com
very specifically how the spiritual applies in relation to
decisionmaking. In the example courage /cowarice is spiritual. Whether
it is true or not is a matter of subjective judgement / faith. That
explains the mainstay of religious type knowledge.
shuttlt
> If you want to continue talking about it, then why don't you just stop
> all the bullshit about it. Why don't you just develop it. Specifically
> to answer the question here about the owner of a decision. The photon
> can turn out one way or another, the point where it goes the one way
> instead of the other is the choice.
could go one way, or another. If you want to call the outcome a
decision and say that the photon owns the decision, then I'm find with
those definitions as far as they go.
> Now you will begin to protest about using the word choice here, but
> really, that is the only sensible word for it.
I don't protest at all, so long as you don't then imply you've proved
that anything to which we apply the word 'choice' works in a similar
way.
> I could not easily
> think about it using any other word.
I don't ask you to.
> If one thinks in terms of
> alternatives, then the word choice is indispensable to describe the
> act where one of the alternatives is realized and the other discarded.
I don't ask you to stop using the word choice to describe this.
> And my thinking about it is productive, because I could theorize
> independently how to make a password cracker thinking this way.
The password cracker that people talk about in quantum computing works
in a significantly different way to the bomb test. The bomb test isn't
a quantum computer. In any case, I don't doubt that a password cracker
is possible based on the bomb test, it's just not the best way to go
about it. By the way, what independent theorizing are you doing?
> So the question here is about the owner of a choice, which in my
> opnion cannot be known objectively.
If there is an owner, I agree, it can't be known.
> We can see for instance a person
> going one way or another, deciding to go left instead of right. Now
> for practical purposes the person can be said to be the owner of the
> choice.
I agree.
> However we can't construe this in terms of cause and effect,
> so to say that because the person consists of x, therefore the person
> went left, because that would omit the fact that the person also could
> have gone right.
How do you know that they could have gone left as well as right? How
do you know it wasn't completely determined?
> So instead the owner of the choice must be regarded
> subjectively, for instance the person went left instead of right by
> courage.
So here 'courage' simply means 'for unknown reasons that may, or may
not relate to the individual'. Perhaps as some religious people
believe, God made the person go left. The decision really has little
to do with the person except in the sense that they are the object
through which God's actions are manifested.
> Courage here is something spiritual,
By 'spiritual', you mean that it is 'unknowable' rather than that it
has anything to do with God, or spirits, yes?
> which is subjectively
> established to be real.
So an unknown cause is part of the set of unknown causes.... yes I
agree.... unless you seek to assume that it has anything to do with God
[s].
> For the same decision we could say it was
> cowardice, and that would not be less or more correct in scientific
> terms.
I agree. You define cowardice as another 'unknown' reason that is also
part of the set of 'unknown' reasons. Fine by me.
> What would be wrong in scientific terms is to say that the
> result was forced.
Only if it isn't. How do you explain in your analysis people who
suffer brain damage that alters their perception of risk? They may act
corageously, but their courage is clearly the result of physical
aspects of their brains. How about military training, which is clearly
an attempt to get people to act courageously, are you saying it has no
effect? What about the threat of being shot for desertion, does that
have no effect?
> This also includes defining courage to be some
> innate heritable trait, and then to say that by this innate trait of
> courage the person was forced to go left. Explanations in terms of
> being forced are categorically false for free acts.
Please provide evidence that courage and cowardice aren't socially
hereditable.
shuttlt
> Unfortunately this is yet more bullshit from you. I already addressed
> very specifically how the spiritual applies in relation to
> decisionmaking. In the example courage /cowarice is spiritual. Whether
> it is true or not is a matter of subjective judgement / faith. That
> explains the mainstay of religious type knowledge.
or may not be true and that there is certainly no way to know based on
religious knowledge? For all you know, there will be no final
judgement and only pharaohs get an afterlife?
If religious knowledge can't actually establish anything as true, why
bring it up in your argument?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
consequence of this crap Shuttit is spewing, is not so much to destroy
religion, it is to simply destroy any knowledge about freedom, in the
sense of things actually turning out one way or another
alternatively.
What were you saying again, you can't anticipate an event that can
turn out one way or another. This is the level of knowledge that you
will get about freedom if you listen to Shuttit. Listen to the horse's
ass farting.
shuttlt
> Even more totally insane bullshit that you write. And folks the
> consequence of this crap Shuttit is spewing, is not so much to destroy
> religion, it is to simply destroy any knowledge about freedom, in the
> sense of things actually turning out one way or another
> alternatively.
about the final judgement?
> What were you saying again, you can't anticipate an event that can
> turn out one way or another. This is the level of knowledge that you
> will get about freedom if you listen to Shuttit. Listen to the horse's
> ass farting.
If you can anticipate an event then you already know that the event is
going to happen. If you know that the event if going to happen then
things can't "go one way or another".
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Folks, now Shuttit is saying you can't anticipate choices, but he
doesn't mean it. He will simply forget about it the next day for sure.
It was only some throwaway conjecture in the moment that seemed useful
to him to destroy knowledge about freedom. The point being to throw
anything at knowledge about freedom so that it is destroyed, and he
can get back to his safe delusional world where everything is forced.
shuttlt
> I am yet further disgusted by your willful ignorance.
> Folks, now Shuttit is saying you can't anticipate choices, but he
> doesn't mean it.
Are you talking about photons here, the results football matches, next
week's EuroMillions lottery results? What?
> He will simply forget about it the next day for sure.
Nope. Of course, you could clarify what context the choosing is taking
place in and I'll clarify my meaning in that context.
> It was only some throwaway conjecture in the moment that seemed useful
> to him to destroy knowledge about freedom.
Are you saying you can anticipate which way the photon will go, or
next weeks EuroMillions? By anticipate, do you not mean 'know the
result'?
> The point being to throw
> anything at knowledge about freedom so that it is destroyed, and he
> can get back to his safe delusional world where everything is forced.
What do you anticipate next weeks EuroMillions draw to be? Can you
anticipate which path the photon will take? Please give an example of
any event that you insist could have "turned out one way or another"
but which one can also anticipate the outcome of.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Dubois is using anticipation in the sense of free will of people and
the behavior of planets etc. So he gives a theory about free will of
people, and he gives a theory about the perihelion of Mercury through
anticipatory behaviour of the gravitational field.
Again the question remains, why is somebody wilfully ignorant about
things turning out one way or another alternatively? That is so FUCKED
UP and SICK to willfully ignore knowledge about freedom like that, in
favor of force explanations for everything. That is the thing here
that's just unacceptable and OUTRAGEOUS. And this has nothing to do
with accepting my version of things, or Dubois version, or Taborsky,
this is just a vicious onslaught on any knowledge about freedom using
all kinds of low debating tricks such as lying, misrepresentation,
making stuff up, asking stoopid questions, to sabotage the effort.
shuttlt
> You talked about anticipation in the sense that Dubois is using it.
> Dubois is using anticipation in the sense of free will of people and
> the behavior of planets etc.
Could you cite him using strong anticipation about people rather than
planets, or do you mean to include that? They are rather different
things after all. Strong anticipation is where future states of the
systems are built into the current state of the system. Weak
anticipation is where some brain or other models the system and tries
to predict it's future state.
> So he gives a theory about free will of
> people, and he gives a theory about the perihelion of Mercury through
> anticipatory behaviour of the gravitational field.
If we are able to know what the future is going to be in the present,
that is to say 'anticipate' the future, then the future is already set
in stone.
> Again the question remains, why is somebody wilfully ignorant about
> things turning out one way or another alternatively?
That isn't what Dubois's papers are about. They are concerned with
making predictions about future events, or the appearence of such.
This can't be done if those future events are as yet undecided.
> That is so FUCKED
> UP and SICK to willfully ignore knowledge about freedom like that, in
> favor of force explanations for everything.
For the thousands time I am quite willing to believe as you do that
things happen for unknown reasons. Clearly these would still be force
explanations in your own terminology. Unlike you, I don't logically
discount the possibility that things happen for no reason. You are the
one who insists on cause and effect and force explanations. You just
want the cause to be 'unknown'.
> That is the thing here
> that's just unacceptable and OUTRAGEOUS.
What is outrageous is that you attack people who talk of causes and
instead you substitute causes of your own. For reasons best known to
yourself you are satisfied with this because the causes are *unknown*.
> And this has nothing to do
> with accepting my version of things, or Dubois version, or Taborsky,
> this is just a vicious onslaught on any knowledge about freedom using
> all kinds of low debating tricks such as lying, misrepresentation,
> making stuff up, asking stoopid questions, to sabotage the effort.
Nando. Have you ever convinced anybody, ever that what you say isn't a
huge sack of circular, self supporting dillusion? I've asked you yes/
no questions over and over and you refuse to answer them, stupid
though they may be. All you'd have to do is post a one word reply to
them - yes, or no.
I'll do you a deal. You ask me any yes/no question that does not
assume the answer to any other question (i.e. the "when did you stop
beating your wife trick?") and you answer one of mine. Deal? We can
clarify as much as we like, but the first word has to be "yes", or
"no" in answer to the question.
shuttlt
While I wait, I thought I'd look at your agument from the first
post...
Information Interpretation:
Irrelevant. This is one interpretation amongst many. You have no
reason to suppose this interpretation is more correct, other than you
would like it to be. In any case, you have so far been unwilling to
link to a version of the theory that you don't also disagree with.
computer experiment:
This is certainly interesting, however, it doesn't establish what you
want it to. What it shows is that, in some sense, the other
possibilities exist to a sufficient degree that we can obtain
information about them. This isn't the same as saying that prior to
the event it was undetermined which way the photon would go. It could
be that, in some sense, the other possibilities exist, but could not
possibly have happened. It could be that, as in Many Worlds, it isn't
even a meaningful question as all possibilities necessarily do happen.
Common Knowledge about freedom:
This is the best argument you have and it's crap and we've been over
it before. The main point though is: why in the world would we expect
out common knowledge to help us in regard to quantum machanics and the
deep structure of causation. Quantum mechanics is renown for being
counter-intuitive.
Religious knowledge:
You yourself admit that religious knowledge can't actually tell us
whether a thing is so or not. Some religions say one thing, others
another. So much of most religions are by definition wrong since they
disagree with so many other religions that it is difficult to see how
religion can be regarded as a reliable source on anything.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
" the selection process of states to be actualized amongst the
multiple potential
states is independent of the fundamental dynamics of the brain,
independent of
initial conditions and so completely unpredictable"
So Dubois says "completely unpredictable" and Shuttit says "..Dubois's
papers ...are concerned with making predictions about future events,"
Yet another HUGE KLONKER of an error your make Shuttit. Anybody paying
any credence to what Shuttit is saying must be just a similar liar
like Shuttit, out to destroy any knowledge about freedom.
shuttlt
> Dubois 2000 Review....
> " the selection process of states to be actualized amongst the
> multiple potential
> states is independent of the fundamental dynamics of the brain,
> independent of
> initial conditions and so completely unpredictable"
>
> So Dubois says "completely unpredictable" and Shuttit says "..Dubois's
> papers ...are concerned with making predictions about future events,"
to support your argument, not me. Second you have cropped the quote
midway through sentences. Nowhere does he mention anticipation in your
quote. Given that he says the future states of the system are
unpredictable, in what sense are they anticipatory? In any case, the
quote as it stands looks like standard quantum mechanics. Quantum
processes are random. WOW!
> Yet another HUGE KLONKER of an error your make Shuttit. Anybody paying
> any credence to what Shuttit is saying must be just a similar liar
> like Shuttit, out to destroy any knowledge about freedom.
Please explain what you mean by anticipation if it isn't about knowing
the outcome of future events?
shuttlt
source:
http://test.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&m=143638&ns=1
(Dubois, Review of hyperincursive anticipatory systems)
"6.1 Free Will as Unpredictable Hyperincursive Anticipation Karl
Pribram asked me (by email, after the CASYS'99 conference): "How can
an anticipatory hyperincursive system be modeled without a future
defined goal?". My answer was: an hyperincursive anticipatory system
generates multiple potential states at each time step and corresponds
to one-to- many relations. A selection parameter must be defined to
select a particular state amongst these multiple potential states.
These multiple potential states collapse to one state (amongst these
states,) which becomes the actual state.
This reminds me the following comment an auditor made after a
conference on anticipatory hyperincursion I made: "You have found the
basic theory of free will".Indeed, the brain may be considered as an
anticipatory hyperincursive neural net which generates multiple
potential future states which collapse to actual states by learning:
the selection process of states to be actualized amongst the multiple
potential states is independent of the fundamental dynamics of the
brain, independent of initial conditions and so completely
unpredictable (and computable). The selection by learning deals with
inputs from the brain itself (via the genetic code and
selfreflection). These inputs are final causes at each time step.This
creates a memory and at the same time a program, which give rise to
the mind, what I called a computing memory. Each mind is unique in the
sense that this is the subjective experience of each brain that
actualized potential states. The free will means that we can choose a
state amongst the multiple potential states emerging from the
preceding already actualized states. The free will depends strongly on
the history of all the past memorized events and is not identical for
each mind. The free will does not means that the mind can make what he
wants but that he can choose amongst multiple possible choices. For a
human being, this is not possible to fly by itself, like a bird, but
man invented airplanes to actualize that."
nando_r...@yahoo.com
about what Dubois says. Blatantly false statements. And then you use
these blatantly false statements to discredit what I say, the same way
that several of your fellow freedom deniers did previously.
So that takes care of Shuttit. Now is there any atheist who has a
genuine interest in knowledge about freedom, and capable of applying
the logic?
shuttlt
> So you don't care what Dubois says, yet you proceed to make statements
> about what Dubois says.
Dubois is saying that future states can be anticipated then there is
clearly no freedom since the future is determined. If Dubois is saying
that future states can't be predicted because quantum mechanics is
unpredictable, then that is just what everybody else thinks, so he
doesn't add anything. What he seems to be doing though is saying both.
The thing is that you haven't quoted any evidence that things
anticipate the as yet undetermined future. There are no results that
Dubois can point to that are not equally well explained by more
conventional understandings of the world.
It's not enough for you to point to some guys theory of everything
that fits in with your ideas. All that shows is that IF that theory is
true then you might be right. You have to show that Dubois is right
and everybody else is wrong if you are going to go around claiming
that our minds are a quantum wave that anticipates their own as yet
undetermined future.... All that is make believe unless you can point
to an experiment that that theory can account for and other theories
can't.
> Blatantly false statements. And then you use
> these blatantly false statements to discredit what I say, the same way
> that several of your fellow freedom deniers did previously.
I am not God's messenger. I am not always correct. My intention though
is to be truthful.
Any luck with doing card tricks by using your mind as a quantum bomb
test? No? Really??? You do surprise me! If I didn't know better I'd
say the whole idea was bollocks.
> So that takes care of Shuttit.
Sorry, it doesn't. You clearly can't anticipate the future very well.
Perhaps you need to concentrate on getting you quantum mind in the
right state of coherence.
shuttlt
final causes at each time step." Midway through the last paragraph in
the longer Dubois post that I just quoted. It sounds very much to me
like the logic of cause and effect.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Shuttit:
" It could be that, in some sense, the other possibilities exist, but
could not
possibly have happened."
A possibility that cannot happen is not a possibility, it is just a
logical error.
The computer experiment at issue:
http://news.illinois.edu/news/06/0222quantum.html
“By placing our photon in a quantum superposition of running and not
running the search algorithm, we obtained information about the answer
even when the photon did not run the search algorithm,”
So to say: the photon hat 2 alternatives where to go, but in the event
only realized the one alternative where the search algorithm didn't
run. But then they could still gather data about what would have
happened if the search algorithm had run. Broadly that is because if
you decide the state of a photon at a point where alternative paths
for the photon come together, then next the photon will go just 1 way
every time you try. But if you decide the state of the photon at a
point where there are no alternatives coming together, then the photon
will next go one way or another every time you try. So by setting up
the searchprogram to stop the photon if it found the number, and let
the photon pass through if it didn't find the number, then either the
alternatives would come together, or they would not come together. So
you can tell what is in the database by seeing if at some point there
are alternatives coming together, or there aren't alternatives coming
together.
So now what Shuttit wants you to do is to understand this computer-
experiment without using that principle of things turning out one way
or another. He says this is possible, he is also a bullshit liar.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Anticipation seems to be an anti-causation, because a future event can
produce an effect in the present time. A fundamental question is : are
actual systems really causal ? In looking in equations of physics,
there is no evidence that causation plays a central role or even
exists ! What physics learn to us is that natural evolution of systems
obeys invariance, like the conservation of energy, for example. All
physics can be explained and understood without any causation but with
the conservation of some properties, in reference to the very famous
Noether Theorem.
shuttlt
> I passed over this ode to delusional thinking.
>
> Shuttit:
> " It could be that, in some sense, the other possibilities exist, but
> could not
> possibly have happened."
>
> A possibility that cannot happen is not a possibility, it is just a
> logical error.
pass. I win! What's my prize?
> The computer experiment at issue:http://news.illinois.edu/news/06/0222quantum.html
>
> “By placing our photon in a quantum superposition of running and not
> running the search algorithm, we obtained information about the answer
> even when the photon did not run the search algorithm,”
I know this.
> So to say: the photon hat 2 alternatives where to go, but in the event
> only realized the one alternative where the search algorithm didn't
> run.
It had two alternatives, sometimes it chose one, sometimes it chose
the other. You are talking about one of the times that it took the
paths where the algorithm didn't run. OK.
> But then they could still gather data about what would have
> happened if the search algorithm had run.
Yes, I know.
> Broadly that is because if
> you decide the state of a photon at a point where alternative paths
> for the photon come together, then next the photon will go just 1 way
> every time you try. But if you decide the state of the photon at a
> point where there are no alternatives coming together, then the photon
> will next go one way or another every time you try. So by setting up
> the searchprogram to stop the photon if it found the number, and let
> the photon pass through if it didn't find the number, then either the
> alternatives would come together, or they would not come together.
In other words, it's the bomb test. Why make it more complex than it
is?
> So
> you can tell what is in the database by seeing if at some point there
> are alternatives coming together, or there aren't alternatives coming
> together.
The bomb test.
> So now what Shuttit wants you to do is to understand this computer-
> experiment without using that principle of things turning out one way
> or another.
Hmmm. Many worlds explains it at least as well as your explanation
since it is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, just like
information theory and all interpretations are equivalent in terms of
any experiment you care to pick.
> He says this is possible, he is also a bullshit liar.
Nando, the interesting thing about the experiment is that you get
information about what would have happened IF the photon went down the
other path. You do not have an experiment that can show that the
photon really could have gone down the other path, because no such
experiment exists. If you want to believe that you can get the
information about the other path because of free will, then fine, but
you haven't proved it, because you can't.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
usuable as the other explanation. See you in a couple of years when
you got that explanation ready.
shuttlt
> http://www.mindspring.com/~cerebroscopic/Dubois.html
> Anticipation seems to be an anti-causation, because a future event can
> produce an effect in the present time. A fundamental question is : are
> actual systems really causal ? In looking in equations of physics,
> there is no evidence that causation plays a central role or even
> exists !
would you. It's inconvenient, fiddly and we only have data on the
present and the past. If NASA wanted to send a rocket to the Moon
using the future position of the Moon, they would first have to
compute that future position based on it's present and it's past
positions. We don't have access to the future. The fact that equations
of motion are deterministic though means that we can rewrite them in
the way that you describe.
If The universe is not deterministic, you can't do this however.
> What physics learn to us is that natural evolution of systems
> obeys invariance, like the conservation of energy, for example. All
> physics can be explained and understood without any causation but with
> the conservation of some properties, in reference to the very famous
> Noether Theorem.
I agree with all this. Causation really is just a convenient way of
thinking about things. All we can really say is that given a situation
X0 at time t0, then another situation X1 will occure at time t1. Most
of the time at least, it should be possible to turn that around and
have the future event as the cause of the present one. It isn't any
more right, or more meaningful. One has to be careful though as,
logically at least, two seperate present states might give rise to the
same future one. I suspect if you are a strict determinist though,
this isn't a problem.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
alternatives not realized, from alternatives not existing, so thereby
they can prove that the photon could have gone down the other path, by
proving that an alternative existed there.
shuttlt
> Go ahead then explain it in terms of many worlds that is equally
> usuable as the other explanation. See you in a couple of years when
> you got that explanation ready.
interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and the Nobel Prize committee
hasn't realized? Or is it being surpressed by the Illuminati?
Anyway, neither of us are qualified to speak about Quantum Physics,
but I'll give it a go.
The photon sets out going down both paths at once in the freaky
quantum state of uncertainty we know and love. It then encounters the
bomb, at this point three alternative worlds fork off.
World 1:
The bomb blows up, the photon went down path B.
World 2:
The live bomb does not blow up, the photon goes down path A.
World 3:
The bomb was a dud, the photon carries on in a freaky quantum state.
If you can tell whether or not the photon is in a freaky quantum
state, then you can tell whether the bomb is live without blowing it
up.
Really though my belief in this is based on Physicists saying that all
the interpretations of quantum mechanics are equivalent. Neither of us
is knowledgable enough about quantum mechanics to challenge them on
that. If it pleases you I will seek a more authoritative description
of the bomb test as seen from the many worlds interpretation.
shuttlt
> You are, ofcourse, completely wrong. They can distinghuish
> alternatives not realized, from alternatives not existing, so thereby
> they can prove that the photon could have gone down the other path, by
> proving that an alternative existed there.
the same way as the 'realized' alternative, or a different way? If a
different way, different in what way?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
worlds that is actually usable for searching the database that way.
shuttlt
> So that is no then. You can't provide an explanation in terms of many
> worlds that is actually usable for searching the database that way.
In what way is my explanation inadiquate? Do you not believe that we
can tell if the photon is in a freaky quantum state? Give me a hint as
to where you think I've gone wrong....
nando_r...@yahoo.com
less, believes freedom is real. But directly stemming from his belief
that freedom is real, he is calling for more religious type
appreciation for the creativity in nature. That is the only atheist
that I know so far who believes freedom is real. And he directly
relates religion to his belief that freedom is real.
shuttlt
"One conceptual way to understand this phenomenon is through the
Everett many-worlds interpretation. The superposition behavior is
analogous to having parallel worlds for all possible states of the
photon. Therefore, when a photon encounters a half-silvered mirror, in
one world it passes through, and in another world it reflects off the
mirror. These two worlds are completely separate except for the
particle in superposition. The photon that passes through the mirror
in one world may interact with the photon that reflected off the
mirror in the other world. The photons may continue to interact with
each other until an observer from one world measures the photon's
state."
Hmm... so Wikipedia specifically use many-worlds to explain the bomb
test. How odd since, according to you, the bomb test disproves many-
worlds. In the same article they have a "step-by-step explanation of
what happens" in the bomb test in many-worlds.
Link -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb-tester
shuttlt
> The scientist Stuart Kaufmann is a selfproclaimed atheist who, more or
> less, believes freedom is real.
>But directly stemming from his belief
> that freedom is real, he is calling for more religious type
> appreciation for the creativity in nature.
I bet he can't prove that freedom is real. Are you sure he isn't New
Age, or something? Must we count astrologers and psychics as athiests?
> That is the only atheist
> that I know so far who believes freedom is real.
So he's an athiest who believes stuff without evidence. OK. We all do
it, so long as he admits there is no evidence.
>And he directly
> relates religion to his belief that freedom is real.
So a you've found a 'selfproclaimed athiest' who I've never heard of
who relates a belief in God (or do you mean something else by religion
here?) to his belief that freedom is real.
I don't care. This is an appeal to authority. Kurt Gödel had a proof
of the existence of God. He's far smarter than either of us, but I
still think he's wrong. Please produce an argument rather than random
people who may once have expressed a personal opinion that may perhaps
not wholely contradict yours.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
only think in terms of cause and effect. The logical progression in
the explanation does not actually work to find live bombs in a
collection of live and duds. You are welcome to try to omit any
mention of possibility in an explanation of such an experiment,
because of your insane hatered of possibilities, but so far you have
failed.
shuttlt
over. The wikipedia article claims that it CAN sort bombs. Anywho,
I'll try again and you tell me which step I go wrong in.
1. In World 1, the bomb is live and in World 2 the bomb is a dud.
2. The bomb is down path B.
3. A photon sets off in a state off in a state of superposition.
4. We get to the point where if the photon had traveled down path B,
it would have hit the bomb.
World 1a.
5. The photon does not hit the bomb and travels down path A.
6. It hits the final mirror.
World 1aa
6. It arrives at target C.
World 1ab
7. It arrives at target D
World 1b.
8. It hits the bomb and explodes.
9. No photon arrives at either C or D.
World 2
10. The photon stays in a state of superposition and, due to the
interference can only end up at detector D.
So, if the bomb is live, it will explode with odds of 50%, hit C 25%
of the time and hit D 25% of the time.
If the bomb is a dud, it will always hit D.
So, if the bomb explodes, we know it is live. If the photon hits C, we
know it is live. If the photon hits D, the odds are 2/3 that it's a
dud and 1/3 that its live (assuming 50% live bombs).
In other words, if the photon hits detector C we know that the bomb
was live without having interacted with it.
shuttlt
it in the experiment. Three new worlds are created containing Shuttlt
(1), Shuttlt(2) and Shuttlt(3). Shuttlt(1) observes the photon arrive
at detector C and knows that the bomb is live. Shuttlt(2) observes the
photon arrive at detector D and can't be sure that the bomb is live or
dud. Shuttlt(3) observes the bomb explode and knows that the bomb is
live.
Shuttlt(1) has managed to find out that the bomb is live without
interacting with it.
Please point to where I am talking about 'possibilities' here.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
believes freedom is real.
And it is possible to be an atheist and believe freedom is real. First
of all simply by not believing any gods are in the spiritual realm
doing the deciding. So you can believe like courage and cowardice are
spiritual, but those things arent gods. Or you can simply believe that
the spiritual realm is empty, which means that you wont use words like
courage and cowardice.
shuttlt
> So, more bullshit and lies, and there is still no atheist showing who
> believes freedom is real.
interpretation? So, it might be true? But if many worlds is true, then
there is no "things could happen one way or another". So, "freedom in
the sense of things could happen one way or another", might not be
true. Oh dear! POOF! goes all your certainty that "freedom is real".
> And it is possible to be an atheist and believe freedom is real.
In the sense of believing that things could turn out one way, or
another? Certainly.
> First
> of all simply by not believing any gods are in the spiritual realm
> doing the deciding.
This is kind of obvious since athiests don't believe in Gods, whether
in the spiritual realm, or manifesting themselves in burning bushes.
> So you can believe like courage and cowardice are
> spiritual, but those things arent gods.
But in what sense do they exist? In an abstract sense like 'the
concept of number', 'the concept 3', 'the universal set'? One can of
course believe in a Platonic realm of ideas. There's no evidence for
it of course.
> Or you can simply believe that
> the spiritual realm is empty, which means that you wont use words like
> courage and cowardice.
Certainly you can use words like courage and cowardice. There is
courageous and cowardly behaviour. That behaviour can be described
sufficiently well so that in many cases we can definately say that a
given behaviour was heroic. This definition makes no reference to the
spiritual.
You've also forgotten the case where the spiritual realm isn't just
empty, but doesn't exist.
All this is moot, since you have no way of telling which is the case.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
zillions of universes, and freedom not being real. What is threatening
is that no atheist at all takes up the cause for freedom on the
intellectual level in 10 years talking to them about it, and the
prevalence of atheism in society now.
Below bullshit is from somebody who hates knowledge about freedom.
shuttlt schreef:
shuttlt
> My beliefs are not threatened by your totally insane ideas about
> zillions of universes,
yours (in Scientific circles at least).
> and freedom not being real.
If freedom is things happening without being causally determined as
you previously indicated then it's you that doesn't believe in it
since you keep introducing the spiritual as the cause. Personally I
don't discount things happening outside of causation.
> What is threatening
> is that no atheist at all takes up the cause for freedom on the
> intellectual level in 10 years talking to them about it, and the
> prevalence of atheism in society now.
You complain that no athiest is willing to take up the cause of some
spiritual realm being the First Cause. Nando, the reason is that
people who believe that are by and large religious people. You may
find a few people sitting at the fringe and then it becomes a question
of definitions of athiesm.
So you have your beliefs and I have mine and neither of us can prove
them. God may exist, then again he might not. Free will may exist,
then again it may not. Islam might be correct, but then again so could
Sikhism, or athiesm. What more can be said? Presumably given that
you've been talking for 14+ years (not 10) about this on UseNet you
feel there is more to say. What is dissappointing is that in 14 years
you haven't moved beyond simply restating your beliefs over and over.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
about freedom, which is simply factual. That is the only way you can
sustain your bizarre anti-human hatered of religion, by denying the
facts. And the spiritual is not a cause, it is what does the job of
deciding, and causes dont do that RETARD.
shuttlt schreef:
shuttlt
> No you are a sick, sick, retard because you sabotage the knowledge
> about freedom, which is simply factual.
impression, but I had thought you meant to argue a case for freedom
being real.
> That is the only way you can
> sustain your bizarre anti-human hatered of religion, by denying the
> facts.
I think you mean assumptions rather than facts.
> And the spiritual is not a cause, it is what does the job of
> deciding, and causes dont do that RETARD.
So the spiritual doesn't cause the photon to go left or right? If the
spiritual has no effect at all, why go on about it? If it isn't the
cause of anything, I'm not surprised you've failed to provide any
evidence for it.
Anyway, perhaps you should read up on causation, maybe you do mean
that the spiritual realm causes things after all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
nando_r...@yahoo.com
such. You omitted to mention that in a many world interpretation, the
universes must also merge back together again, same as at the point
where alternatives come out equal. So you wave this many world
bullshit around as if it could disprove freedom, but you cant
practically handle this bullshit many world interpretation. A many
world person would ask themselves in which world he is. But asking
such a question to himself in turn creates several more worlds,
because such questioning is a form of choosing. So ad infinite worlds
are created, because the suggestion is of having an overview of
worlds, but the overview creates worlds in turn, ad infinite. And if
there is no overview of the universes, so to avoid the infinite, then
there also cant be a theory of many universes that is true to fact. So
a theory about many universes depends on special pleading, that some
choices are creating universes, but other choices not.
Its true that most scientists believe in many universes, and that
means most scientists are nuts. As we can well see from time to time
whole societies going nuts, like with nazism and communism, and tribal
warfare, now scientists have gone nuts. Its quite evident that it is
nuts, because they dont actually use many worlds in any practical way.
There is no paper that explains the spread of malaria in terms of many
worlds. So the function is only in their minds, and the function is to
sabotage knowledge about freedom.
shuttlt schreef:
shuttlt
> No freedom is a proven fact, the computer experiment demonstrates
> such.
or on a conventional x86 computer as you claim is possible, then you
might be able to back this up. Right now, it's wishful thinking. The
fact that you think, or at least have thought that you can simulate
the bomb test on a conventional computer shows how little you
understand it.
> You omitted to mention that in a many world interpretation, the
> universes must also merge back together again, same as at the point
> where alternatives come out equal.
No, that isn't the case. Once split, they stay split. If you think
otherwise, please cite an authoritative source. Right now it seems to
me that you are objecting to your own private many-worlds
interpretation.
> So you wave this many world
> bullshit around as if it could disprove freedom, but you cant
> practically handle this bullshit many world interpretation.
So you can't actually think of anything that is actually wrong in the
many-worlds interpretation then? Other than that you don't like it,
obviously.
> A many
> world person would ask themselves in which world he is.
Yes, perhaps.
> But asking
> such a question to himself in turn creates several more worlds,
> because such questioning is a form of choosing.
Not so much. Microscopic quantum events cause the additional worlds to
be created. It may be that some combinations of those events lead to
the question you mention being asked. The question is more
meaningfully seen as the result of the quantum events rather than
their cause. As far as we know there is no cause for the quantum
events to turn out one way, or another.
> So ad infinite worlds
> are created, because the suggestion is of having an overview of
> worlds, but the overview creates worlds in turn, ad infinite.
Not infinite, but a large number, yes. Remeber, the bomb test only
resulted in three additional worlds, not an infinite number.
> And if
> there is no overview of the universes, so to avoid the infinite, then
> there also cant be a theory of many universes that is true to fact.
They aren't infinite, and even if they were, please provide evidence
that an infinite number of universes leads to a contradiction. I doubt
either your maths, or your physics is up to the challenge.
> So
> a theory about many universes depends on special pleading, that some
> choices are creating universes, but other choices not.
No. Sorry. It is clearly defined which events lead to the creation of
new universes in the many-worlds interpretation.
> Its true that most scientists believe in many universes, and that
> means most scientists are nuts.
No. Wrong again. Most scientists believe in the Copenhagan
Interpretation. I think you are confusing Scientists with Science
Fiction writers who definately prefer many-worlds. Personally, I don't
think it's important to come down in favour of one interpretation.
Which one makes a given problem easiest to think about is the
appropriate one to use, whether thats Copenhagan, Many-Worlds,
Information Theory, or some other one. That isn't the same as saying
that they actually describe what is happening though.
> As we can well see from time to time
> whole societies going nuts, like with nazism and communism, and tribal
> warfare, now scientists have gone nuts.
Don't forget Iran, and Afganistan went pretty nuts under the Taliban.
> Its quite evident that it is
> nuts, because they dont actually use many worlds in any practical way.
Because it has no practical implications, just like all the other
Interpretations. They are all equivalent.
> There is no paper that explains the spread of malaria in terms of many
> worlds.
No. Because it isn't relevant. There is no paper that explains the
spread of malaria in terms of Einsteins Field Equations either. How
long do you think every scientific paper would be if the authors
started with their pet Quantum Interpretation, worked up through
quantum mechanics, atomic physics, organic chemistry etc. etc. etc.
until they got to distribution patterns of malaria in subsaharan
Africa. Every paper would run to many hundreds of pages 95% of which
would be exactly the same as every other paper.
Of course, if some bright spark thinks of some new light that many-
worlds throws on malaria, then doubtless a paper will be written. It's
quite unlikely to be a very practical paper though since ALL the
interpretations of quantum mechanics are equivalent. You do understand
what equivalent means, don't you?
> So the function is only in their minds, and the function is to
> sabotage knowledge about freedom.
I agree that all interpretations of QM are really only ways of making
it easier to think about the equations. We really shouldn't go over
interpreting them. They are all as true as one another so far as we
can tell.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
when there are alternative photons, so when there are no alternative
photons, there must be 1 universe. Otherwise universes are copied
regardless of alternatives, and the logic soesnt work. Also You have
to figure out an enumeration scheme, where every universe receives a
true unique number otherwise it is a matter of choice which number to
attribute a universe.
As far as i know many worlds is favorite amongst scientists in a poll
on it.
Now stop being a retard and develop knowledge about freedom.
shuttlt schreef:
shuttlt
could cite some authoratative statement on this? At the very least
could you point to the moment in the bomb test where the worlds merge.
> There are only separate universes for
> when there are alternative photons, so when there are no alternative
> photons, there must be 1 universe.
This sounds like a new version of many-worlds. We can call it Nando's
Many-Worlds Interpretation to avoid the possibility of Confusing it
with Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation.
> Otherwise universes are copied
> regardless of alternatives, and the logic soesnt work.
Do you imagine that these interpretations are based on scientists in a
pub speculating on what might be? What's to say universes can't be
copied? What law is broken? Clearly this doesn't relate to Everett's
Many World's Interpretation, but you shouldn't discard Nando's Many
Worlds Interpretation so readily.
If there was such an obvious flaw in Everett's Many-World's
Interpretation as you seem to suppose, don't you think Neils Bohr
would have mentioned it?
> Also You have
> to figure out an enumeration scheme, where every universe receives a
> true unique number otherwise it is a matter of choice which number to
> attribute a universe.
What on Earth makes you suppose that there must be a non-arbitrary
number assigned to each universe? So God can look it up in his Junior
Deity's Almanac of Universes? Index the Universe by all the quantum
events and their outcomes that have taken place if you like, or any
other scheme you can think of.... start at 1, then 2, then 3.....
whatever.
> As far as i know many worlds is favorite amongst scientists in a poll
> on it.
It doesn't matter in the slightest.
> Now stop being a retard and develop knowledge about freedom.
Demonstrate that freedom is real and I will gladly do so.
So far all this talk of freedom is based on religious knowledge that
is disputed by many religions, and on your Information Interpretation
of QM that you refuse to explain, and can't be shown to be true. This
is not strong footing. Why not say that you find it comforting to
believe that freedom is real (in your sense) and be done with it?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
studying it. You are such an idiot. I already showed you how it is
established as a matter of fact that freedom is real. And because
freedom is real, it is unknowable which way a choice turns out. That
is where the spiritual applies.
Now is there any atheist at all, that does actually accept the
evidence, both common and scientific that freedom is indeed real? And
this is a sincere request for help to defend and develop this simple
knowledge about freedom in terms of things turning out one way or
another alternatively, against a very deliberate onslaught on it in
the intellectual field by totally insane scientists, Darwinists, and
all kinds of modernists.
shuttlt
> Good grief, there is no authority on many worlds theory, no professors
> studying it.
own private one. Here is a link to a paper from 2001 called "Locality
in the Everett Interpretation of Heisenberg-Picture Quantum Mechanics"
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103079 . Had you read the wikipedia
article on Many Worlds that I linked to you would see several papers
at the bottom, doubtless more can be located if you are curious.
> You are such an idiot.
I am rubber, you are glue.
> I already showed you how it is
> established as a matter of fact that freedom is real.
No you didn't. You said that freedom is real because some religions
say it is and some say it isn't. You say freedom is real because of
your private interpretation of an experiment that you don't understand
for which there are other interpretations that you attack on the
grounds that they are incompatible with freedom being real.
> And because
> freedom is real, it is unknowable which way a choice turns out. That
> is where the spiritual applies.
Ah, so again, in your view, the spiritual is the CAUSE of the choice
turning out one way or another. You need to abandon this logic of
cause and effect that you are so keen on.
> Now is there any atheist at all, that does actually accept the
> evidence, both common and scientific that freedom is indeed real?
But I accept the possibility that the cause of the photon taking path
A or path B may be unknowable, or there may be no cause at all. Here I
stand, or sit, an atheist, prepared to contemplate this possibility.
I've said as much for weeks. What you want though is an athiest who
believes in some mysterious 'spiritual' realm where emotions and
beauty live. People who believe in such a realm are commonly called
religious. You are seeking a religious athiest. Good luck with you
search. I am hunting for a 7 foot dwarf holding a square circle, if
you happen to see one, please let me know.
> And
> this is a sincere request for help to defend and develop this simple
> knowledge about freedom in terms of things turning out one way or
> another alternatively, against a very deliberate onslaught on it in
> the intellectual field by totally insane scientists, Darwinists, and
> all kinds of modernists.
So, you can't find anything wrong with many-worlds? You can't find any
authoratative quote that the worlds must merge back together? You
can't find any quote that says the worlds must be indexed in a non-
arbitrary way?
I have a challenge for you:
You believe the bomb test can be simulated in your head, or on a
conventional computer.
Here's a challenge. I'll write a Bomb class (C++, C#, VB, Java,
whatever you like). The Bomb object contains a private boolian
variable 'isLive' that is randomly set to true, or false. There is one
public method 'isBombLive()'. It returns false if isLive is set to
false and halts the program if isLive is set to true. Your job is to
write a program that can detect cases when isLive is set to true
without halting the program. Pseudocode would do if you aren't
comfortable with real code, I'll happily turn it into a real program
for you.
Deal?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
around to it.
Being an atheist is not about being anti-freedom, or anti-spiritual,
it's about not believing in any god. On second thought my guess is
that there are loads of atheists who are pro spiritual. Who so to say
insist on it that love, hate, courage and such are spiritual things,
as what does the job of deciding, realizing one alternative and
discarding the other, and that these things can't be known objectively
or measured. Most atheists are not nazi types who think they can
measure superiority. To acknowledge the spiritual in science is simply
to say that science does not cover good and evil, that these things
are properly acknowledged freely, spontaneous, subjective. And we can
well see historically that those in science who proposed good and evil
to be measurable in some way, were also the same ones who most
politicized science, communists and nazi's.
Your reference mentions the labeling problem I already pointed out,
viz assigning numbers to the universes. So thanks for pointing out
that I understand many universe theory better then you do yourself.
And it is still a completely useless theory that is nothing more than
a philosophical crossword puzzle.
On Nov 22, 7:20 pm, shuttlt <shut...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 5:19 pm, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:> Good grief, there is no authority on many worlds theory, no professors
> > studying it.
>
> So, in other words, the Many-Worlds theory you are attacking is your
> own private one. Here is a link to a paper from 2001 called "Locality
> in the Everett Interpretation of Heisenberg-Picture Quantum Mechanics"http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103079. Had you read the wikipedia
shuttlt
> If that's the case then I will change the wikipedia article when I get
> around to it.
Good luck with that.
> Being an atheist is not about being anti-freedom, or anti-spiritual,
> it's about not believing in any god. On second thought my guess is
> that there are loads of atheists who are pro spiritual.
In the sense of an actual spiritual realm in which beauty really does
exist? Hmmmm. Let me know when you find one.
> Who so to say
> insist on it that love, hate, courage and such are spiritual things,
> as what does the job of deciding, realizing one alternative and
> discarding the other, and that these things can't be known objectively
> or measured.
It depends what you mean by spiritual. When you find an atheist who
believes in this stuff we can ask him/her. Few atheists believe that
the Platonic realm of Ideal Forms really exists. I have certainly
never encountered one.
> Most atheists are not nazi types who think they can
> measure superiority.
Superiority in what sense? Usain Bolt is a superior runner to either
one of us. If you really wanted we could probably quantify how
superior he is. Do these atheists, that you claim exist but
unaccountably are unable to find, believe that Usain Bolt is not a
superior runner to them? Perhaps you should update Mr Bolts wikipedia
page to say that it ammounts to Nazi hate speach to claim that he is a
superior runner to Mr Nando Ronteltap, or indeed Stephen Hawking.
Perhaps Mr Hawking should be in the UK 2012 100m team. Or do you mean
superior in some other sense?
> To acknowledge the spiritual in science is simply
> to say that science does not cover good and evil, that these things
> are properly acknowledged freely, spontaneous, subjective. And we can
> well see historically that those in science who proposed good and evil
> to be measurable in some way, were also the same ones who most
> politicized science, communists and nazi's.
Are you trying to say that you can't think of anything wrong with
Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation? I assume that's why you are
changing the subject. It must surely be time for you to start a new
thread. Did you know incidentally that Catholics believe that good and
evil are measurable? Different levels of sins etc... they even put a
number to it and have to do that many 'Hail Marys'.
> Your reference mentions the labeling problem I already pointed out,
> viz assigning numbers to the universes. So thanks for pointing out
You are quite right that I missed the connection. However, they
suggest a solution to the problem. In any case this is with respect to
only one formulation of QM. I really don't care though about whether
universes have to merge, or they have to be labeled. The point is that
it isn't possible to disprove the Many-Worlds Interpretation. You
haven't done it. Scientists are still taking it seriously, as can be
seen from the 2001 paper, QED freewill could be false.
> that I understand many universe theory better then you do yourself.
Even though you claim nothing authoratative has ever been written on
it. How did you gain this knowledge if you didn't read it? Did you
make it up perhaps? I don't doubt that you understand the version that
you have made up better than me.
> And it is still a completely useless theory that is nothing more than
> a philosophical crossword puzzle.
I agree, as are all the interpretations of quantum mechanics since
they are all equivalent. There is no way for us to tell which one is
true. It is very foolish to go choosing one and acting like it is true
and the others are false. Are you ready to drop your nonsense about
the Information Interpretation now?
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ee9f3dae-e6bb-4a8d...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Good grief, there is no authority on many worlds theory, no professors
studying it. You are such an idiot. I already showed you how it is
established as a matter of fact that freedom is real. And because
freedom is real, it is unknowable which way a choice turns out. That
is where the spiritual applies.
Now is there any atheist at all, that does actually accept the
evidence, both common and scientific that freedom is indeed real? And
this is a sincere request for help to defend and develop this simple
knowledge about freedom in terms of things turning out one way or
another alternatively, against a very deliberate onslaught on it in
the intellectual field by totally insane scientists, Darwinists, and
all kinds of modernists.
*****Freedom is a concept - based entirely on individual human opinions.
*****It is as "real" as "beautiful", or "ugly".
*****"Spiritual" doesn't even belong in the discussion.
***** Why should atheists, or anyone else, accept something JUST because YOU
bellow that it's real and supported by evidence (which you invent)?
**** You have "established" nothing - you have only bellowed.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
describe in terms of freedom, in terms of things turning out one way
or another? For example people turning out one way or another, or
photons, or planets. Are you any good with that?
The answer is, no you are not, you are a complete idiot about it. You
can only think of explanations in terms of force, and when it comes to
explaining in terms of freedom, then you are a stammering retard
nerd.
So be mindful that you are a stupid idiot about this issue. Also be
mindful in your personal life, when people talk about choosing, that
you are a stupid idiot who will always explain everything in terms of
being forced, including how people act. You will fantasize some
psychological mechanism forcing, some culture forcing, some chemicals
forcing, some bullshit forcing, but still you are a nerd incapable to
properly address people as the owners of their choices.
That's what you got for basicly denying freedom is real.
On 23 nov, 06:51, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
shuttlt
> Pepsifreak, ask yourself, do you know much of anything about how to
> describe in terms of freedom, in terms of things turning out one way
> or another? For example people turning out one way or another, or
> photons, or planets. Are you any good with that?
>
> The answer is, no you are not, you are a complete idiot about it. You
> can only think of explanations in terms of force, and when it comes to
> explaining in terms of freedom, then you are a stammering retard
> nerd.
A and the photon is forced to obey?
> So be mindful that you are a stupid idiot about this issue. Also be
> mindful in your personal life, when people talk about choosing, that
> you are a stupid idiot who will always explain everything in terms of
> being forced, including how people act. You will fantasize some
> psychological mechanism forcing, some culture forcing, some chemicals
> forcing, some bullshit forcing,
or some spiritual forcing.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
have already told you ten times or more. Next time you will be
summarily executed.
shuttlt
> Yes for the last time it is the spritual DECIDING, not forcing, as I
> have already told you ten times or more.
it only that deciding is the name YOU choose to apply when we are
talking about something 'spiritual'?
> Next time you will be
> summarily executed.
No I won't. Your anticipation skills fail you again.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ecaef1ab-f21a-4f7a...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Pepsifreak, ask yourself, do you know much of anything about how to
> describe in terms of freedom, in terms of things turning out one way
> or another? For example people turning out one way or another, or
> photons, or planets. Are you any good with that?
Yes.
>
> The answer is, no you are not, you are a complete idiot about it. You
> can only think of explanations in terms of force, and when it comes to
> explaining in terms of freedom, then you are a stammering retard
> nerd.
Oh ... because I don't kiss your ass and automatically accept your
unsupported word for reality?
Fuck off!
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b648495f-4964-47d1...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> Yes for the last time it is the spritual DECIDING, not forcing, as I
> have already told you ten times or more. Next time you will be
> summarily executed.
Repeating the same meaningless crap ten times, does not make it fact.
Neither is inventing stupid "clich�s" like "spiritual deciding"!
What is that - picking which fortune teller you're going to visit this
weekend?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
between a suspect choosing to kill, or a suspect being forced to kill.
shuttlt
> I will ask the judge when I shoot you if he sees any difference at all
> between a suspect choosing to kill, or a suspect being forced to kill.
insanity and use your UseNet posting as evidence.
Is this a way of avoiding explaining what the difference is between
deciding, causing and focing?
shuttlt
definitions, see the previously linked to Wikipedia article on
causality):
1. If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily
implies the presence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply
that y will occur.
2. If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily
implies the presence of y. However, another cause z may alternatively
cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x.
3. x probabilistically causes y if x's occurrence increases the
probability of y.
Now, if you really mean that the spiritual plane isn't a cause, then I
struggle to imagine what, if any, function the spiritual realm is
playing. The spiritual realm could decide to decide that the photon
should go down path A and the photon might instead go down path B. The
decision of the spiritual realm neither has the power to force the
photon to go down the chosen path, no even to make the chosen path
more likely.
I strongly suspect you do in fact think that the spiritual causes the
photon to take the chosen path for all your posts raging against
causality.
Doubtless you are using some unusually definition of cause.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
what the spiritual realm is doing more than 10 times, it is doing the
job of deciding, realizing the one alternative and discarding the
other. Make the photon turn out C instead of D, making the person grab
the bottle instead of letting the drink stand. You delusonially equate
deciding with forcing, which no judge in a court of law does.
But i give up now, I will become a stupid freedom denying idiot as
well, deliberately and consistently denying freedom everywhere. So as
to say, that the intellectual world of the West can go fuck
themselves. And I will promote nazism, and all is to hell, and all is
better that way.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
way or another, then describe evolution as a decisionprocess like
Taborsky did.
Go ahead.
On Nov 23, 5:03 pm, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
shuttlt
> Yes you struggle what the spiritual realm is doing, but I told you
> what the spiritual realm is doing more than 10 times, it is doing the
> job of deciding, realizing the one alternative and discarding the
> other.
to turn out one way or another. You have been attacking cause and
effect. I struggle to decern a difference between saying the spiritual
decides which way the photon will go and saying the spiritual causes
the photon to go a particular way. Perhaps you can resolve the
apparant contradiction?
> Make the photon turn out C instead of D, making the person grab
> the bottle instead of letting the drink stand. You delusonially equate
> deciding with forcing, which no judge in a court of law does.
Forcing is a difficult term. Are we talking about a Scientific force,
or when somebodies will with respect to a particular decision is
thwarted? It is madness to muddle up the two.
> But i give up now, I will become a stupid freedom denying idiot as
> well, deliberately and consistently denying freedom everywhere. So as
> to say, that the intellectual world of the West can go fuck
> themselves. And I will promote nazism, and all is to hell, and all is
> better that way.
I don't ask you to say stuff you don't believe. I just ask you to
explain what the precise nuanced difference is that you are driving at
when you attack cause and effect while saying that the spiritual
decides which way the photon goes.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b6b6ff11-0959-4867...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
So you know how to describe things in terms of them turning out one
way or another, then describe evolution as a decisionprocess like
Taborsky did.
Go ahead.
*****Avoiding answering the point.
*****Typical bull shitting moron!
*****and top posting too......
*
nando_r...@yahoo.com
freedom is real. You have no reason to be angry with me. When I say
you are ignorant about freedom, then really that is just the way it
is. I am telling you the truth, but you are telling me a lie, that you
can understand things in terms of them turning out one way or another,
freedom. Don't be a liar, whats it to you, here on usenet to show the
truth about yourself basically anonymously, that you are an ignorant
twit when it comes to for instance describing evolution as a
decisionprocess.
Now really you can't be genuinely an atheist, in a socially easy way,
when you also disbelieve freedom isn't real. I mean then it's like,
disbelieving gods, disbelieving freedom, what's next to go?
The basic premise is simple, a thing can turn out one way or another
alternatively. So it isn't forced to go the one way, it is free to go
either way. So then you basically lost the cause and effect
explaining, explaining in terms of being forced. Now really is it
passable to be an ignorant twit about such a simple thing on the
intellectual level. I don't think so.
On Nov 24, 4:58 pm, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
> > Fuck off!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
nando_r...@yahoo.com
With force no information is created, with choice there is. So to say
with a force explanation, if you know where the moon is now, then you
know where the moon is next, and previously. So there is no new
information created, no matter when you look, you have the information
for all times. But with choice, there is new information, the result
of the choice, which way it turned out.
causes are usually seen looking toward the past from the viewpoint of
an effect, but choices are usually seen looking to a point in the
past, the moment the choice was made, and then looking forward from
that point to the future of alternatives. So there is a whole
different perspective of time.
etc.
shuttlt
> It is a categorical difference between force and freedom.
>
> With force no information is created, with choice there is. So to say
> with a force explanation, if you know where the moon is now, then you
> know where the moon is next, and previously. So there is no new
> information created, no matter when you look, you have the information
> for all times. But with choice, there is new information, the result
> of the choice, which way it turned out.
Information Theory definition where a list of the results of the coin
tosses of a drunk in an Amsterdam doorway may contain more Information
that the Qur'an and where the outcome of a choice may lead to the
information content of a system to diminish and where formless
dissordered chaos may contain more information tha meaningful order?
> causes are usually seen looking toward the past from the viewpoint of
> an effect, but choices are usually seen looking to a point in the
> past, the moment the choice was made, and then looking forward from
> that point to the future of alternatives. So there is a whole
> different perspective of time.
This is not a familiar way of looking at causes and effects to me. It
is clear though that, at least in terms of the definitions from
Wikipedia, your logic of choosing is talking about causes and effects.
I accept however that you are using a different definition of cause
and effect. I will look at that now.
You describe both causes and choices as taking place in the past, so
in that respect they are identical. In the future from the perspective
of the cause is the effect. In the future, from the perspective of the
choice are the alternatives. What confuses me here is that, once we
know what the choice is then there are no alternatives, there is only
one possibility. So in the past we have the event/choice and in the
future we have the event/single alternative.
It seems to me that once we take cause/choice as having happened, or
as guaranteed to happen, there is no difference between a cause and a
choice. You aren't making a statement about the relationship between
causes and effects, and choices and the effects of choices, you are
defining causes as events that are deterministically bound to take
place? and choices as events that are not bound to take place? Yes?
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8a3fb6b7-75d8-44e8...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
I have a good reason to be angry, intellectuals of all sorts denying
freedom is real. You have no reason to be angry with me. When I say
you are ignorant about freedom, then really that is just the way it
is.
***** Wow ..... such arrogance! Are you god? Are your words and opinions
carved in stone, like the ten commandments?
***** I, and others, are ignorant JUST because you say so?
*****Get your head (and your imagined halo) out of your ass - moron!
****I never said freedom isn't real (I don't know what others have said).
****All I said was that your bellowing about "spiritualy" was seriously, and
mentally, flawed.
*****You've done, nor said, anything that contradicts my assertion.
I am telling you the truth,
****** Only in your own delusional mind.
furlan
<snip>
> Forcing is a difficult term. Are we talking about a Scientific force, or
> when somebodies will with respect to a particular decision is thwarted?
Especially when you consider its use in magic, just sayin'... ;-P
ciao,
f
--
aa #2301
Anyone can make the simple complicated, creativity is making the
complicated simple.
-- Charles Mingus
nando_r...@yahoo.com
freedom isn't real. In your lifetime while there was genocide in
Rwanda, you were disbelieving freedom is real. While the earth is
being destroyed through global warming, acid rain, over exploitation,
you are saying freedom isn't real. You consistenly and deliberately
destroy any knowledge about it, not having any knowledge about it of
your own. You are the devil's spawn, denying freedom is real, having
that relativizing statistical view on things, based on a selfconfessed
lack of knowledge, which view takes away from the drama of the actual
choices made. You are a murderer a destroyer, a scoffer, a dictator, a
manipulator.
Who could ever think that the devil would be so clever to have people
simply denying freedom is real. To simply redefine the word choice to
mean that things can't actually turn out an alternative way. That is a
genius deception of the devil. And what is even more genius is that
the devil has made it the fundaments of the pursuit of knowledge,
science, to methodically destroy knowledge about freedom. The devil
has devised the "scientific method" in such a way so to limit science
to cause and effect, expressly excluding freedom. That is brilliant,
to have the pursuers of knowledge destroy knowledge.
Because it is clear that all your doing is destroying knowledge about
things turning out one way or another. Wether it is Jews in the
gaschambers, a photon turning out one way or another, or evolution
proceding by reasoned and informed decision, the selfproclaimed
defender of knowledge is consistently and deliberately destroying all
knowledge about it.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
terms of a decisionprocess.
Come on mr pepsi, you won't describe evolution as a decisionprocess
because
1. you don't know how
2. you don't want to know how
So that means you are against knowledge about freedom. I am simply
telling the truth here people.
Pepsi talks about the head in the ass and whatnot, but when it comes
down to it, he will NEVER describe evolution in terms of a decision
process. He is simply against knowledge about freedom, just as I have
been saying all along.
I have been telling you the truth all along, and Pepsi has been
telling you lies all along. And he will continue to lie, there is no
stopping it except by himself. He will use his smarts to think of
reasons why he doesn't have to sincerely describe evolution in terms
of a decisionprocess. I can see Pepsi has much smarts in him, he will
come up with many smart answers, but he will NEVER describe evolution
in terms of a decisionprocess. And by the fact that he won't do that
you can fairly and reasonably tell that he is a liar and wilfully
ignorant.
On Nov 25, 6:03 am, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9b3cf184-88c2-42c5...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
When the Jews were gassed at Auschwitz the scientists were saying
freedom isn't real. In your lifetime while there was genocide in
Rwanda, you were disbelieving freedom is real. While the earth is
being destroyed through global warming, acid rain, over exploitation,
you are saying freedom isn't real. You consistenly and deliberately
destroy any knowledge about it, not having any knowledge about it of
your own. You are the devil's spawn, denying freedom is real, having
that relativizing statistical view on things, based on a selfconfessed
lack of knowledge, which view takes away from the drama of the actual
choices made. You are a murderer a destroyer, a scoffer, a dictator, a
manipulator.
Who could ever think that the devil would be so clever to have people
simply denying freedom is real.
******************
Clearly you cannot comprehend (or be honest) about what is being said.
Freedom IS real.
Absolute freedom is merely a concept that cannot be absolutely reached or
defined.
Freedom has nothing to do with your deluded definitions of both freedom and
spirituality"
No one has (as far as I know) said "freedom" doesn't exist.
All they (we) are saying is that 99.99% of your bellowed opinion is nothing
more than arrogant crap.
shuttlt
> When the Jews were gassed at Auschwitz the scientists were saying
> freedom isn't real.
did were involved, but some weren't. Some who didn't were involved as
well, but again, some weren't. And some non-scientists who didn't
believe in freedom were involved, and some non-scientists who didn't
believe in freedom were not involved. Then again some non-scientists
who didn't believe in freedom were involved and some non-scientists
who didn't believe in freedom weren't.
Shall we make the same argument now about porridge, or wiener
schnitzel?
> In your lifetime while there was genocide in
> Rwanda, you were disbelieving freedom is real.
Nelson Mandela was also freed in my lifetime. Also the Challenger
exploded. Is there some causal relationship you are trying to
establish?
> While the earth is
> being destroyed through global warming, acid rain, over exploitation,
> you are saying freedom isn't real.
Peace has pretty much come to Northern Ireland, and the Berlin Wall
has fallen. Am I responsible for these things, or not? Incidentally, I
hate to mention it, but by your definition of freedom... things
turning out one way, or another, I don't say that freedom isn't real.
> You consistenly and deliberately
> destroy any knowledge about it, not having any knowledge about it of
> your own. You are the devil's spawn, denying freedom is real, having
> that relativizing statistical view on things, based on a selfconfessed
> lack of knowledge, which view takes away from the drama of the actual
> choices made. You are a murderer a destroyer, a scoffer, a dictator, a
> manipulator.
I can't find an argument in there to respond to, so I won't.
> Who could ever think that the devil would be so clever to have people
> simply denying freedom is real.
Is the devil real? As in an actual entity?
> To simply redefine the word choice to
> mean that things can't actually turn out an alternative way.
There are many definitions. What is important is the concepts we are
referring to. Frankly I couldn't give a flying toss what concept you
redder to by 'choice' so long as I know what it is.
> That is a
> genius deception of the devil.
What on Earth makes you believe the devil exists?
> And what is even more genius is that
> the devil has made it the fundaments of the pursuit of knowledge,
> science, to methodically destroy knowledge about freedom.
Surely if God existed, God could do something about it? I mean, he's
more powerful, isn't he? Also, it seems a bit odd that, in your view
knowledge leads to the devil and ignorance leads to God. Are you
ignorant? What if through ignorance you mistook the devil for God?
Maybe more knowledge would lead to God. Perhaps God leads to the
devil, and sometimes also to God and ignorance leads to God, but also
sometime to the devil.
Am I using the logic of choosing now?
> The devil
> has devised the "scientific method" in such a way so to limit science
> to cause and effect, expressly excluding freedom. That is brilliant,
> to have the pursuers of knowledge destroy knowledge.
But as we've discussed, 'spiritual choosing' as you define it is
covered by the definition of 'cause and effect' as used in science and
philosophy. I thought choosing was all about freedom? What is it that
this 'devil' has excluded then?
> Because it is clear that all your doing is destroying knowledge about
> things turning out one way or another.
Even though I say that things may turn out one way or another. You on
the other hand insist that they are all CAUSED by something. You are
the one who doesn't believe things can turn out one way or the other.
> Wether it is Jews in the
> gaschambers, a photon turning out one way or another, or evolution
> proceding by reasoned and informed decision, the selfproclaimed
> defender of knowledge is consistently and deliberately destroying all
> knowledge about it.
Who is this self proclaimed defender of knowledge? Do you have a quote
where this person says they are defending knowledge? That seems rather
like one of your lines.
shuttlt
In any case, to recap the argument:
1. Freedom is real because some religions say it is and some say it
isn't.
2. Freedom is real because you believe some interpretations of quantum
mechanics say it is, and you believe some say it won't.
3. People who don't believe freedom is real are wicked because some of
them have been involved in wicked things and some of them haven't and
some people who do believe in freedom have done wicked things and some
haven't.
Are you by any chance a professional logician, Nando? I'm just so
impressed by how your conclusions necessarily follow from your
premises.
The thought just occurred to me. Is the logic of choosing where you
pick any conclusion you like that is actually contradicted by your
assumptions?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
enter, and do whatever I want. That's because there is a place in the
heart of every person, where this kind of knowledge about freedom, of
things turning out one way or another, on a kind of more intellectual
level, applies. That is just in the nature of human beings, that
because they have free will, and have knowledge, that there is a place
in the heart where this kind of knowledge applies.And either you build
something there, develop something, cherish something, or not. And
because you are retarded and willfully ignorant about freedom, you
can't easily get to that place in your own heart. But I can just cut
through and through, and I can easily enter, and what I say there
goes, and what I say doesn't go, doesn't go, and what you say doesn't
much matter. So I say the devil's worship goes on there in your heart,
and so it does.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Look Pepsifreak is just a carboncopy of yourself. It is the same
thing, I can call him names whatever, and it is all justified by
reasonable judgement, and basically he knows that, and so do you. Say
something serious about the facts. There is a long history of people
taking freedom seriously, and they all came to the conclusion to have
a distinct category for what does the actual job of making it turn out
one way instead of the other. That's just a right way of organizing
knowledge, it solves a lot of problems. You are not taking the
knowledge seriously is why you don't have a distinct category. You are
making bizarre excuses not to develop knowledge about freedom, talking
about many worlds. But if you leave all that, and actually consider
what it means that something is free to go either way, then it is very
clear that a distinct category is neccessary.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7111a81a-c02f-4bfa...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> It's like this, you have a place in your heart where I can easily
> enter, and do whatever I want. That's because there is a place in the
> heart of every person, where this kind of knowledge about freedom, of
> things turning out one way or another, on a kind of more intellectual
> level, applies. That is just in the nature of human beings, that
> because they have free will, and have knowledge, that there is a place
> in the heart where this kind of knowledge applies.And either you build
> something there, develop something, cherish something, or not. And
> because you are retarded and willfully ignorant about freedom, you
> can't easily get to that place in your own heart. But I can just cut
> through and through, and I can easily enter, and what I say there
> goes, and what I say doesn't go, doesn't go, and what you say doesn't
> much matter. So I say the devil's worship goes on there in your heart,
> and so it does.
A massive compilation of ignorance, arrogance, and fraudulent delusions!
"Because I say so"!
shuttlt
> It's like this, you have a place in your heart where I can easily
> enter, and do whatever I want.
so, how will I know?
> That's because there is a place in the
> heart of every person, where this kind of knowledge about freedom, of
> things turning out one way or another, on a kind of more intellectual
> level, applies.
This sounds like circular reasoning to me. You know that freedom is
real because there is a place in every human heart that knows freedom
is real.
Incidentally, how do you know that there is a place in every human
heart that knows freedom is real?
> That is just in the nature of human beings, that
> because they have free will, and have knowledge, that there is a place
> in the heart where this kind of knowledge applies.
Ah, so, you know freedom is real because there is a place in every
human heart that knows freedom is real. You know there is a place in
every human heart that knows freedom is real because freedom is real.
10 marks to the first student who can spot the logical fallacy.
> And either you build
> something there, develop something, cherish something, or not.
I thought you said it was already there? Now its a void that we have
to fill? Can we choose what to fill it with?
> And
> because you are retarded and willfully ignorant about freedom, you
> can't easily get to that place in your own heart. But I can just cut
> through and through, and I can easily enter, and what I say there
> goes, and what I say doesn't go, doesn't go, and what you say doesn't
> much matter.
Are you talking about your heart, or my heart here? It sounds like you
are saying that there is a place inside you that you can go and
believe what you want no matter what I say. OK. Go there then. But
that isn't any more of an argument than saying that if you put your
fingers in your ears and sing "la la la" then you can't hear me any
more. It also doesn't make the things that you believe true, and the
things I believe false. Other people go into the place in themselves
where they feel no shame and think different thoughts to you. Why is
your secret place in your heart truer than other peoples?
> So I say the devil's worship goes on there in your heart,
> and so it does.
You saying that the devil worships in my heart makes it true that the
devil worships in my heart....? Who the fuck are you to claim to know
this? Clearly not somebody who has an argument to defend any longer.
Any luck doing the quantum bomb test in your head by the way? Any
progress to report? No? You surprise me!
nando_r...@yahoo.com
describe evolution in terms of a decisionprocess. He talks about
choosing all the time in daily life, yet he doesn't have a handle
intellectually on the logic of things turning out one way or another.
EVERYBODY KNOWS PEPSIFREAK IS AN IGNORANT TWIT ABOUT FREEDOM. Even
most all the other people reading this realize that they themselves
are also ignorant twits when it comes to describing things in terms of
freedom. That is why they keep quiet. But it is no use to be quiet
because the truth is already revealed by deduction, that most all
atheists on this forum are ignorant twits about freedom, because they
follow science, and scientists mostly don't even accept freedom is
real.
Now it's your turn again Pepsifreak. Why don't you start out with your
assertion that freedom is real. And if freedom is real, then surely
there is freedom in the way organisms come to be. Now you take it from
there, how do species come to be in light of this freedom. YOU KNOW
THAT ANY OTHER ARGUMENT IS BULLSHIT. And there is much bullshit you
can throw at me, like for instance, many universe theory, and bullshit
about the definition of freedom, and bullshit about some philophers
opinions about freedom being consistent with atheism, bullshit about
the lack of freedom in theocracies, and so on.
On 29 nov, 14:32, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
nando_r...@yahoo.com
It's like this, you have a place in your heart where I can easily
enter, and do whatever I want. That's because there is a place in the
heart of every person, where this kind of knowledge about freedom, of
things turning out one way or another, on a kind of more intellectual
level, applies. That is just in the nature of human beings, that
because they have free will, and have knowledge, that there is a
place
in the heart where this kind of knowledge applies.And either you
build
something there, develop something, cherish something, or not. And
because you are retarded and willfully ignorant about freedom, you
can't easily get to that place in your own heart. But I can just cut
through and through, and I can easily enter, and what I say there
goes, and what I say doesn't go, doesn't go, and what you say doesn't
much matter. So I say the devil's worship goes on there in your
heart,
and so it does.
Yes that's about right, I do get a sense of that, that your mind is
caught up in bizarre fantasies about many universes and meanwhile you
just leave this door open for anybody to enter, and do whatever they
want.
You know the genius of scripture of the final judgement, is that God
will also make choices on your choices. First you make choices in
daily life, and then at the final judgement God looks at those
choices, and chooses Himself whether or not your choices are good or
bad. That's a good reason for praying hard, that God will decide in
the end about the choices you make.
shuttlt
> It's like this, you have a place in your heart where I can easily
> enter, and do whatever I want.
Claimed without evidence. In any case, if you can do what you want
there... can you put ideas and claims there that aren't true?
> That's because there is a place in the
> heart of every person, where this kind of knowledge about freedom, of
> things turning out one way or another, on a kind of more intellectual
> level, applies.
Claimed without evidence.
> That is just in the nature of human beings, that
> because they have free will, and have knowledge, that there is a
> place
> in the heart where this kind of knowledge applies.
Claimed without evidence.
> And either you
> build
> something there, develop something, cherish something, or not.
I thought you said it had to be a particular thing, namely knowledge
of freedom, that we develop there. Now you say it is 'something' that
we can develop there. What makes you think that 'knowledge of freedom'
is what this place is for, when other things can grow there also?
> And
> because you are retarded and willfully ignorant about freedom, you
> can't easily get to that place in your own heart.
You haven't provided any evidence that such a place exists, or that it
has a purpose.
> But I can just cut
> through and through, and I can easily enter, and what I say there
> goes, and what I say doesn't go, doesn't go, and what you say doesn't
> much matter.
Certainly. What I say about the made up secret place in your heart,
where anything you really want to be true is true, doesn't much
matter. As it happens, I have such a place also... in that place
unicorns exist and pixies come to tuck me into bed at night. Does this
mean that unicorns and pixies exist?
> So I say the devil's worship goes on there in your
> heart,
> and so it does.
But this is only true in the special secret place in YOUR heart where
whatever you really really wish to be true is true. In the real world
where your wishes don't come true just by wishing, what you say
doesn't matter.
> Yes that's about right, I do get a sense of that, that your mind is
> caught up in bizarre fantasies about many universes and meanwhile you
> just leave this door open for anybody to enter, and do whatever they
> want.
I don't believe in many universes. As for letting anybody enter my
mind... if they have evidence and rational argument to support their
ideas, then sure, why not?
> You know the genius of scripture of the final judgement, is that God
> will also make choices on your choices.
Whose scripture? By no means all Christians and Muslims agree with you
on your interpretation here, then of course there are the Buddhists,
the Hindus, the Wiccans..... Why is your final judgement story the
right one and all the stuff that other religions believe just a silly
fantasy?
> First you make choices in
> daily life, and then at the final judgement God looks at those
> choices, and chooses Himself whether or not your choices are good or
> bad.
Who says? Other religions and other religious people disagree with
your claims. Why should I pick your religion over theirs?
> That's a good reason for praying hard, that God will decide in
> the end about the choices you make.
Countless billions who believe different things about God to you might
well disagree.
Anyway, your argument has reduced down to... you're right because you
say you are and everybody who disagrees has been touched by the devil.
I thought you had rational arguments to back up your ideas. 14 years
of debate and all you have is "I'm right because I say I am!". Nando,
this is pretty weak. It's not even an argument.
Any luck with using your mind to do the quantum bomb test on a deck of
cards?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
to be, but really the evidence is already fundamentally established,
and you are just anti-freedom. And this means all people that include
freedom in their view of the universe have a better understanding of
it than yourself, including especially creationists.
shuttlt
> You object that there is no evidence for freedom in how organisms come
> to be, but really the evidence is already fundamentally established,
how some religions say you're right and others say you're wrong? Do
you mean how you claim some interpretations of quantum mechanics say
you're right and others say you're wrong? Which evidence is this?
> and you are just anti-freedom.
Nope. Unlike you, I am prepared to believe that uncaused things
happen, in other words that determinism is false. Unless you mean
something more by freedom than 'one thing could happen, or another'
then I do not discount freedom. I struggle to see how one could prove
that freedom exists, but who knows... The fact that you keep insisting
that I don't believe in freedom makes me wonder whether you don't
actually mean more by freedom than you are willing to admit...
something more religious perhaps?
> And this means all people that include
> freedom in their view of the universe have a better understanding of
> it than yourself, including especially creationists.
Only if you are right. If you're wrong they, and you, are just poor
unfortunate individuals deluded by wishful thinking and confirmation
bias. Do you have any evidence that freedom is a useful concept in
understanding how organisms come to be? Are these creation scientists
better at genetic engineering than non-creationist scientists? Has
anything been cloned using the principles of creationism? Have any
diseases been cured using the principles of creationism? Have any new
treatments been developed using the principles of creationism? Where
are the processes that creation science can explain (falsifiably) and
non-creation science can't? What remarkable new fields are creation
scientists working on using the principles of creation science?
Build yourself a de la Warr Camera and perhaps it will produce a
picture of an argument for you.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
the logic of it, who care for the knowledge about it. You don't have a
handle on the logic, you just have a handle on thinking up (bizarre)
counterarguments that freedom isn't real at all. Your only use in this
thread is to demonstrate the consistency of deny gods = deny freedom.
shuttlt
> This thread is for atheists who are for freedom, who have a handle on
> the logic of it, who care for the knowledge about it.
> You don't have a
> handle on the logic, you just have a handle on thinking up (bizarre)
> counterarguments that freedom isn't real at all.
You still haven't come up with any situation that the logic of
choosing can, falsifiably, explain that conventional logic can't. When
it was pointed out that your logic of choosing actually fitted happily
into the definition of cause and effect you went quiet on the matter.
Have you thought of some way in which choosing isn't a case of cause
and effect?
> Your only use in this
> thread is to demonstrate the consistency of deny gods = deny freedom.
As discussed ad nausium, I do not deny freedom. I do not deny the
possibility that things happen that, at some point in the past, might
have turned out differently. Many religious people do, but I don't. Is
there some part of the definition of freedom that you aren't stating
that I'm falling foul of?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
issue of describing things in terms of them turning out one way or
another. Good grief what a load of bullshit you write.
> > > picture of an argument for you.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
shuttlt
> Yes by posting in this thread you turn people away from the simple
> issue of describing things in terms of them turning out one way or
> another. Good grief what a load of bullshit you write.
You are arguing for your definition of 'freedom' as in "things turning
out one way or another". I am pointing out the problems with your
argument, e.g. your brilliantly misconceived 'some religions believe
in freedom, some don't argument'. That is not the same as denying
'Freedom'. Certainly the obvious flaws in your argument, which I am
pointing out, undermine your argument, but do you suppose those people
who believe in 'Freedom' believe in it for the reasons you do?
Do you have any evidence of somebody posting here and saying "Gee, I
believed in freedom, but thanks to this chap Shuttlt and his attacks
on Nando's argument I'm beginning to have doubts." You are a lone
voice. Nobody thinks as you do. Nobody elses ideas are undermined by
you being shown to be wrong. If you don't want people to critique what
you say, don't post your ideas several times a day for 14 years on a
public internet forum.
None of this matters though because you accused me of denying freedom,
which I DO NOT DO. It is entirely possible that strict determinism is
false and things may go one way or another. See!!! That was me stating
my position as one of NOT denying 'Freedom'. Clearly that is different
from your position which is that 'Freedom' is a fact and you can prove
it and anybody who says otherwise is being influenced by the devil.
I ask again, what is the unstated element in your definition of
freedom that I am denying? Either state it, or apologise.
shuttlt
using a different definition of 'deny' to me are you? By 'deny
freedom', I mean 'to say that freedom is a false hypothesis'. I
certainly do not do this. You don't mean some kind of religious sense
of 'deny', do you? Like to not nurture the knowledge of freedom in the
secret place inside myself that you mentioned earlier? In this sense,
'deny freedom' means to not accept freedom as a fact. This
interpretation of course assumes that there is some kind of call-to-
freedom that is not being heeded.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
way, so that means that on a practical basis you are denying freedom.
Theoretically you hold open the possibility, but in practice you deny
it. In practice you treat all descriptions in terms of freedom as
false.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
weak atheism, only you do it with freedom. So that is God, freedom,
the loch ness monster, pixies and invisible pink unicorns that you are
agnostic about. But the thing is you actively sabotage the knowledge
about freedom. You are a twit about it, say stupid things, and keep
yourself stupid, and other people as well. You might otherwise get a
handle on the logic of it, regardless if you believe it is real or
not, so that is more like denying than being agnostic.
shuttlt
> You don't support any theory about organisms coming to be in a free
> way, so that means that on a practical basis you are denying freedom.
origins of life in the dim and distant past? What do you mean?
> Theoretically you hold open the possibility, but in practice you deny
> it.
Nope. Regarding things turning out one way or another, I really don't
know.
> In practice you treat all descriptions in terms of freedom as
> false.
No, I treat YOUR descriptions of freedom as false because you always
want to go beyond the definition to claim it can explain a rabbit
evading a fox, or the de la Warr camera, or some other insane bunk
that you stop talking about the moment you are challenged.
How are your experiments with turning your brain into a quantum bomb
test going by the way? Any developments?
On Dec 1, 9:57 pm, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> That's about the same difference between socalled strong atheism and
> weak atheism, only you do it with freedom. So that is God, freedom,
> the loch ness monster, pixies and invisible pink unicorns that you are
> agnostic about.
Saying it's agnostic is a misunderstanding. There is no reason to
believe in invisible pink unicorns. I don't think invisible unicorns
exist. They are rather arbitrarily chosen after all. 'Freedom' in the
sense of turning out one way or another might be real and is not an
arbitrary notion. I have no idea how to judge the odds. I genuinely
don't know whether 'Freedom' is real or not. Maybe my gut tells me it
isn't, but it's not a position I would feel comfortable putting any
money on.
In any case, something being both invisible and pink is surely a
contradiction. When we are talking purely about whether I believe in
determinism or not, I genuinely don't think the issue is decidable.
Your ideas however are internally contradictory and therefore wrong.
My goal isn't to attack 'Freedom', but to attack your contradictory,
circular thinking.
> But the thing is you actively sabotage the knowledge
> about freedom.
What knowledge? Do you mean the knowledge that we must nurture in our
hearts and protect from facts and arguments and thoughts that might
cause it to whither?
> You are a twit about it, say stupid things, and keep
> yourself stupid, and other people as well.
What other people are these. I have seen no evidence that anybody has
ever agreed with you. Peoples natural reaction to your arguments seems
to be incomprehension, and ammusement.
> You might otherwise get a
> handle on the logic of it, regardless if you believe it is real or
> not, so that is more like denying than being agnostic.
But you are unable to come up with an argument in favour of 'Freedom'
as in things turning out one way or another, other than some religions
say 'Freedom' is real, but some don't and some interpretations of
quantum mechanics, according to you, say 'Freedom is real' and some
don't. Why would anybody believe in something if the arguments in
favour of it's existence are so weak.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
real. I just don't buy it, I don't respect it, and you should just
keep out of the thread so not to sabotage it. This newsgroup is about
atheism, about not believing in any god. It's not about not believing
freedom is real. And the issue here is how do you handle that as an
atheist, believing freedom is real, having welldeveloped sophisticated
knowledge about how things act in a free way, while not believing in
any god still. And the central question of this issue is how to regard
the owner to a decision. And I say the answer to that is to regard the
owner subjectively, spontaneously, by another decision, instead of
objectively by meaurement. Now if you keep on posting your doubts
about freedom being real at all in the thread, than you are going to
mess up the sophistication of people in thinking about it,you keep
their knowledge at level zero, and that is just messing up the
debate.
shuttlt
> I can't really talk to anybody who their gut says that freedom isn't
> real.
assume that "Freedom is real". That doesn't say much for your
arguments in favour of 'Freedom being real', or your ability to
empathise with other peoples position. Have you given up defending it
from a Physics perspective now?
> I just don't buy it,
So, you think I do believe 'Freedom is real'? If you insist on
believing that everybody shares your assumptions, I can certainly
understand your confusion and frustration.
> I don't respect it,
I don't care.
> and you should just
> keep out of the thread so not to sabotage it.
But if I wasn't in this thread you'd be here on your own. PepsiFreak
has posted a few times, but you don't seem wildly keen to talk to him/
her either.
> This newsgroup is about
> atheism, about not believing in any god. It's not about not believing
> freedom is real.
Nice use of the double negative there Nando. The forum isn't really
about freedom at all, yet you seem obsessively fixated on it.
> And the issue here is how do you handle that as an
> atheist, believing freedom is real, having welldeveloped sophisticated
> knowledge about how things act in a free way, while not believing in
> any god still.
So you want to know how an athiest can handle believing in something
that may or may not exist and for which there is no evidence. The
grounds for not believing in God are exactly the same as the grounds
for not believing in freedom. What kind of hypocrytical fool would
disbelieve in God for lack of evidence and believe in 'Freedom'
despite there being no evidence for it. At best you are going to get
somebody whose gut tells them that 'Freedom' does exist, but if they
are an athiest, they will still be pretty doubtful equivocal about it.
> And the central question of this issue is how to regard
> the owner to a decision. And I say the answer to that is to regard the
> owner subjectively, spontaneously, by another decision, instead of
> objectively by meaurement.
You are using your private definition of subjectivity here of course.
Which is to say that the owner of the decision should be regarded as
spiritual. Now, you have defined the spiritual as being the unknowable
thing that does the deciding - presumably to avoid making it too sound
religious. So, the owner of the decision is unknowable. I agree.
> Now if you keep on posting your doubts
> about freedom being real at all in the thread, than you are going to
> mess up the sophistication of people in thinking about it,you keep
> their knowledge at level zero, and that is just messing up the
> debate.
Which people are these? I have been reading many of your old threads
and I haven't yet found one where one of these sophisticated
individuals engages you in discussion. Do you mean you? Isn't it good
to keep their/your knowledge at zero? You've already said that the
devil has constructed scientific reasoning so that it works against
your Truth. Surely the less knowledge people have the more they will
be inclined to agree with you? Or do you mean the Knowledge that one
must nurture in ones heart in the face of satanic scientific counter
arguments?
shuttlt
interesting debates you have with these enlightened atheists who
believe in "organisms coming to be in a free way", whatever that may
mean.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
such like words that imply that freedom is real, and then doubts that
freedom is real in the same sentence, then to me that's such
disgusting mindbending philosphy that I want nothing to do with.
Pepsifreak wants to believe freedom is real, he said it is real, he
never knew there was a problem with it and atheism. You well
demonstrated that there is a big problem.
Daniel Dennet : freedom is not real, but we can talk as though it is
regardless: atheist
Richard Dawkins: says he can't even begin to think what a theory about
subjectivity would look like: atheist
Stuart Kaufmann: says freedom is real and consequently calls for more
respect for the creativity found in nature: atheist
So that's some of the ways an atheist can deal with freedom, by
disregarding it, or by making it a mystery, or by acknowledging it is
real and becoming more religious, but not in respect to any god.
shuttlt
> When somebody talks about "possibility" and "choosing" and using other
> such like words that imply that freedom is real, and then doubts that
> freedom is real in the same sentence, then to me that's such
> disgusting mindbending philosphy that I want nothing to do with.
>
> Pepsifreak wants to believe freedom is real, he said it is real, he
> never knew there was a problem with it and atheism. You well
> demonstrated that there is a big problem.
>
> Daniel Dennet : freedom is not real, but we can talk as though it is
> regardless: atheist
> Richard Dawkins: says he can't even begin to think what a theory about
> subjectivity would look like: atheist
> Stuart Kaufmann: says freedom is real and consequently calls for more
> respect for the creativity found in nature: atheist
>
> So that's some of the ways an atheist can deal with freedom, by
> disregarding it, or by making it a mystery, or by acknowledging it is
> real and becoming more religious, but not in respect to any god.
do so as the hordes of sophisticated people with whome you are
debating may become discouraged by my participation.