Taking Down Determinism

[The Man]

See how you confuse my idea of the non-deterministic nature of Pi with the idea of determinism. If you cannot separate those two, you will never understand anything I have been saying.

See how your “idea of the non-deterministic nature of Pi” is part of your “idea of determinism”? Until you understand that, “you will never understand anything” about your own “idea of determinism”.

If you had researched the idea of determinism before you began posting your gibberish it wouldn't have been quite so gibberishish.

I’m still waiting for you to answer the specific questions and challenges directed at your “idea of determinism”. Perhaps you have no actual self-consistent and generally consistent “idea of determinism” and just want to keep posting numerological “gibberishish” as your “idea of determinism“?

My OP was clear on the definition of determinism I was using and minimal research will show that it is still a common viewpoint today.

Hence your problem, “minimal research”.

If you want to argue your own version of determinism you are free to start a thread on it. Trolling in this thread to get someone to listen to your idiosyncratic views is disingenuous.

If you don’t want to make “your own version of determinism” self-consistent and generally consistent with the determinism that you and everyone depends on everyday, then you’re just beating your own strawman. That you can’t stand up long enough to knock down. While it might provide you with some self satisfaction to kick your own strawman when he can‘t get up and you can‘t prop him up, you’re not going to prove anything to anyone with your ridiculous “poof”. Other than that you evidently just like to kick your own strawman while he’s down. Now that is just idiosyncratically disingenuous

Enough to recognize your lack of comprehension.

Still not enough to recognize your own, how unfortunate for you.




I’ll give you one last chance, answer these questions…

Given that approximate values of Pi are claimed valid for your “proof,” would 3.2 or just 3 ounces also be “non-deterministic”? Where does the applicability of the approximations end? Does one even have to know how much or is it only the amount that matters. In other words can it randomly be a “non-deterministic” amount or does it have to deterministically be a “non-deterministic” amount?


Why ounces? Why not grams, dynes or grains? Is 3.1415 grams, dynes or grains also “non-deterministic”? How about 97.562 grams, 95679 dynes or 1374.4 grains


Why poison? Would 3.1415 tons of lead work as well, “non-deterministically” that is? How about 6283 pounds?

So typing just those numbers or those numbers is some particular order? Would typing 5 1 1 4 3 9 be a “non-deterministic” action, as it is “typing those numbers”? Why those numbers and not others? If ordering is a factor then why some particular order or ordering?

… or you can just continue to dance on your strawman, by yourself, to your hearts content.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

See how your “idea of the non-deterministic nature of Pi” is part of your “idea of determinism”? Until you understand that, “you will never understand anything” about your own “idea of determinism”.

You are continuing to make the mistake of mixing two ideas I have kept separate; determinism and the non-deterministic nature of the value of Pi. If you can't make that distinction you will not be able to understand the argument any more than you already haven't understood it.

I’m still waiting for you to answer the specific questions and challenges directed at your “idea of determinism”. Perhaps you have no actual self-consistent and generally consistent “idea of determinism” and just want to keep posting numerological “gibberishish” as your “idea of determinism“?

You have made no unanswered challenges of merit.

I don't get your argument that "my post isn't gibberish, yours is". Could you expound on that?

Hence your problem, “minimal research”.

It's appropriate that you admit that the problem with my post is that you cannot perform even minimal research.

If you don’t want to make “your own version of determinism” self-consistent and generally consistent with the determinism that you and everyone depends on everyday, then you’re just beating your own strawman. That you can’t stand up long enough to knock down. While it might provide you with some self satisfaction to kick your own strawman when he can‘t get up and you can‘t prop him up, you’re not going to prove anything to anyone with your ridiculous “poof”. Other than that you evidently just like to kick your own strawman while he’s down. Now that is just idiosyncratically disingenuous

Your silly strawman analogy does not apply, no matter how many times you try to anthropomorphise it.
You didn't have time to figure out what "idiosyncratically disingenuous" meant, did you?

I’ll give you one last chance, answer these questions…

Any number you pick from a non-deterministic value is non-deterministic.
Present an argument if you have one, but don't ask the same question over and over that has been answered over and over.

… or you can just continue to dance on your strawman, by yourself, to your hearts content.

See previous castigation.