Those darned Laws Of Physics

[SpaceLord]

So you are claiming that YOU DO NOT OBEY THE LAWS OF PHSYICS???

Can you prove this claim? – because you sound insane just by muttering it.



sockpuppets and logical fallacy are the ballywick of you and your a-Theist friends. I deal in facts, such as:

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Deal with it religious fanatic. Deal with it before it is too late.



When since I am arguing that you don’t have “free will” and you seem to be disagreeing with me I guess I got the crazy idea that you (An A-Theist) were actually trying to take a position and argue a point, but I guess it’s silly to assume that an A-Theists would actually have enough Ballz to take a position and stick to it.



Why isn’t “the jury still out on God then”? How did you manage to assume A-Theism so fast?

Without evidence for “free will” you’re a-Theism is even less logical than a belief in the Tooth Fairy.



So if you honestly don’t believe in “free will”, then that means you MUST believe that this is TRUE.

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

If not explain why you don’t believe it, and how you account for this matter instead?

Or you can go on demonstrating that you aren’t interested in discussion, and instead are just here to promote your unfounded dogmatic religious beliefs in the divine cult of A-Theism.

Ok, franko, you''re really jibbering now. I never said that either of the first two parts of your cut-and-paste syllogism are completely incorrect. However, the fallacy occurs when you try to "compose" those two statements together falsely, thus, the Fallacy of Composition.

And, no, we are not arguring about free will. What I really want to do is point put the syllogism as a whole is flawed.

And when did you get the idea I am a atheist? Because I point out when you are incorrect? For the record, I am agnostic. I don't know whether there is a god or not. I haven't found good evidence for one.

And, franko, in my opinion, the "jury is still out on god." I do believe that's agnosticism.

Where is your evidence for the existence of your "Logical Goddess?" I want to see it. You've never provided it, yet not only do you believe a god exists, you have given the god a name. Heck, you've even given your "god" a gender.

So, you believe in something without giving evidence. So, until you can give out this bit of wisdom, you are no skeptic.

 

[Peskanov]

---
quote:
I think that if I were to respond to your questions here the debate would turn into one regarding materialism and non-materilist positions.

If you'll forgive me I'd rather avoid that as it has been extensively discussed before.
---

Ok;

--
quote:
Specifically what I'm interested in is if we assume materialism, or indeed any materialist position to be incorrect (notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of that position), why is it still meaningless for libertarian free will to exist? If my understanding is correct people such as Win, Victor Danilchenko and Stimpy Cat all deny the intelligibility of libertarian free will no matter what metaphysical position we assume to be correct
---

I am in that position too. Or very near.
I have read several texts about idealism, dualism, and even the mental monism suggested by Hammegk. All of them work with causation to establish relations between his parts. IMO, they try to avoid explaining how free will works putting it on the center of their scheme. Still, free will is a visible complex phenomena, not a simple one like, for example, movement. It must be a complex system, or it must be a really lucky random chain.
No matter you put free will inside or outside a physical model, you still have a complex thing to explain. UCE sugested to me that it could a very simple source, without capabilities of reckoning, or memory. But then, what is the difference with a random source?

---
quote:
Maybe there's some confusion over the phrase "libertarian free will"? To clarify, I am not denying that the self partially determines ones actions (only partially because of human limitations and state of ones brain). And of course ones mood, purposes, previous experiences will influence ones actions. And indeed if one knew absolutely everything about a person at a given specific point in time, and knew absolutely everything about his environment, then one could predict his behaviour with complete confidence. So yes, my behaviour is determined by what I am . What I am denying is that ones actions are completely determined by factors external to oneself. Since I clearly have free will (in the broadest sense) since I can decide to scratch my nose right now or whatever, it seems that those who propose libertarian free will is meaningless must assert that what we intrinsically are is determined by factors external to oneself.
---

Let's see you, say:
1.- If one knew absolutely everything about a person at a given specific point in time, and knew absolutely everything about his environment, then one could predict his behaviour with complete confidence.
2.- My behaviour is determined by what I am.

With these two, you are saying that free will coul be deterministic, aren't you? Maybe outside the physical mode, but still deterministic, not?

3.- Those who propose libertarian free will is meaningless must assert that what we intrinsically are is determined by factors external to oneself.

I think I get it. The key word here is "determined by external".
But in you view, a simple computer has free will, because the source of his behaviour is internal, not determined for external factors.
After all, I can program a computer to make all kind of decissions without external output...A computer can choose to "scratch his nose" by itself.
In both cases, human and computer, you could say that internal factors made the decission.

---
quote:
So if materialism is false what could these factors possibly be??
---

At risk of sounding thick, the few ones I can think are: telepathy, premonitory dreams, ghost visions...
But I am very suspicious about all of them

 

[Aardvark_DK]

Hey, Franko, your straw men are cheating at poker! I've lost several hundred imaginary dollars already!

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

If you cannot give a formal definition for it then you cannot meaningfully talk about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if so that doesn't alter the fact we can directly experience it.

No, it means that the above is a completely meaningless statement. If you can't define it, then you can't meaningfully talk about it.

I am certainly directly experiencing things. I have a choice.

(1) I can invent an intuitively motivated concept of "phenomenal consciousness", which I can't formally define, and which is therefore incoherent. I can then assert that phenomenal consciousness is what I directly experience, which is completely meaningless.

or

(2) I can define "phenomenal consciousness" to be my direct experiences, and then go about trying to determine what the actual characteristics of it are, and what its logical relationship to the rest of the World is.

I pick number (2).

Saying that it does or does not exist is completely devoid of any meaning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely not. If we directly experience something, then that something exists.

Yes, whatever it is that you directly experience, exists. If you define "phenomenal consciousness" to be your direct experiences, then it is formally defined, and it exists. But if you don't define it at all, instead asserting that it cannot be formally defined, and then assert that it is what you directly experience, then you are just talking nonsense.

As for phenomenal consciousness, I can provide a formal definition for the term. I have no doubt that you would simply say "that is not phenomenal consciousness, it is just the neural correlates", but if the neural correlates are the only thing that we can meaningfully talk about, then it is meaningless for you to say that there is more to it than that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you're really being preposterous! See what I said above.

How is it preposterous? I define phenomenal consciousness to be my experiences. The scientific evidence clearly indicates that my experiences are neurological processes in my brain. You claim that those processes are not the experiences themselves, but simply correlates to the real experiences, which are undefinable. I say this is meaningless nonsense.

Apparently you don't either, seeing as you have no formal definition for the term, and don't believe that one is possible. You are essentially saying that free-will is an incoherent concept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, see above.

Nothing you said above addresses the point that an undefined concept is not meaningful.

What claim? I haven't made any claim, only definitions. I define "determinism" to mean a system whose output is completely determined by its input and initial conditions, according to some logical algorithm. I define "random" to mean a system whose output is not completely determined by its input and initial conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've defined they exhaust all possibilities yes. But your definition of random is contentious. Something might not be determined by its input and initial conditions and yet not be random; namely libertarian free will. You establish nothing by simply defining libertarian free will out of existence. You need to demonstrate your definition of randomness is sound.

Contentious? I define random that way because that is the only coherent definition for the term that I know of. You are suggesting that it could be coherently defined in a different way, so as to allow for something to be non-deterministic and non-random. Provide your definition. If you don't like my definition for random, then provide one of your own, and explain what the difference between "random" and "non-deterministic" is.

Anyway this is all clearly nonsence as our behaviour is clearly not random, and yet it is conceivable that our behaviour could not be described by an algorithm.

This is not clear at all. Remember that random does not mean completely unpredictable. Where is your evidence that behavior is not random? Such evidence would be amazing, because it would make behavior the only phenomenon in nature that isn't.

You cannot claim it is logically impossible for our behaviour not to be able to be described by an algorithm (and yet not be random).

Nope. It is logically impossible, using the definitions I gave. If you mean something else by random, then provide your definition. As it is, I have no idea what you mean by "random". And since you are defining free-will in terms of that term, by saying that the will is neither deterministic nor random, I have no idea what that means either.

So far, you have only stated what free-will and random don't mean. You must explain what they do mean, and what the difference between them are, otherwise your entire argument is meaningless.

It depends on how you define things. For me, saying that the physical world is not closed is meaningless, because the term "physical" refers to interactions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I've told you countless times before, you are in error with your definition of physical.

How can a definition be in error? My definition of physical is the scientific definition of the term. If you mean something different by the term, then define it. Don't just tell me you disagree with my definition, but never provide one of your own!

If something affects something physical, then it is also physical by definition of what "physical" means". Thus the physical world is closed by definition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok let's put it another way. All change in the Universe is not amenable to description by physical laws.

That is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and therefore an undefendable position.

If you define physical differently than I do, then you would need to explain how you define it before I could even attempt to address your question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All that which can be discerned from the third person perspective.

OK. But that's not a very useful definition. In any event, what difference does this make. Your definition of the word physical is different than mine. So what? How does this relate to the argument? The set of things that I call "physical" is still closed. What difference does it make if you choose to refer to that set with a different label?

As for your previous question:

Ok, I decide to scratch my nose. You say that it is determined. Fair enough. But suppose that I deny the physical world is closed, so that my scratching of my nose is not completely physically caused. Would you say that my action is therefore mentally caused and is still therefore determined?

Yes, using your definition of "physical", it is still determined. Furthermore, what you are calling "physical" and "mental" are both just subsets of what I call "physical".

I will say that your decision to scratch your nose must either be determined or random.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I know, and as I keep saying you need to demonstrate this. Seems to revolve around your definition of "random".

Hmmmm, that's all you've said! So much for your demonstration that libertarian free will is meaningless

Until you can provide a coherent definition for it, it is meaningless. What is free-will, according to you? Don't tell me what it isn't, tell me what it is.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Franko]

justsaygnosis,

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics
People are made of Atoms
People obey the Laws of Physics.


I have to agree that people are entirely subject to the laws of physics.
To my perception ( for what that's worth ) homo-sapien, as a subset of the laws of physics, has a greater range of expression and intents in how it will obey the laws of physics so this can easily be perceived as libertarian free will.

You are correct, but in calling it “free will” you are making about as much sense as a person who calls the Earth Flat, even though he knows it is a sphere.

You don’t have “free will”. Determinism is the rule, and your actions are governed by Fate/Destiny. Comprehend how reality really operates and you will find that reality is easier to navigate in a successful manner.

The question remains as to whether every choice made by a person is made exclusively by a 'higher power'.

You are an Agnostic … are you not?

(I like Agnostics – for the most part they are all Skeptics.)

If that is so then the homo-sapien is a puppet designed for the muse of that higher power.

Not necessarily.

With that said, it's easy to say to anyone who holds that premise to be true, "If you don't care for me then go and take it up with god. I have no control over how I am constituted, let alone anything else."

You think Fate is that simple? You shouldn’t be so naïve JSG, just as a round Earth turned out to be far more complex than a Flat one, Fate turns out to be much more complex than the childish notion of “free will”.

 

[Franko]

SpaceCadet:

Ok, franko, you''re really jibbering now. I never said that either of the first two parts of your cut-and-paste syllogism are completely incorrect. However, the fallacy occurs when you try to "compose" those two statements together falsely, thus, the Fallacy of Composition.

Okay … Here’s my syllogism:

Major Premise: Atoms obey TLOP (TLOP = The Laws of Physics)
Minor Premise: You are made of Atoms.
Conclusion: YOU OBEY TLOP!

Now you are conceding that the two premises are valid, and instead you are claiming that because of the logical error of The Fallacy of Composition that the Conclusion (YOU OBEY TLOP) is flawed – it is FALSE.

Okay, so this should be very simple for you to demonstrate. Because YOU OBEY TLOP is a binary mutually exclusive option. In order to prove it FALSE, all you have to do is prove that the opposite is more True – all you have to do is NOT OBEY TLOP!

So let us see your demonstration. If you are claiming that YOU DO NOT OBEY TLOP, then simply demonstrate YOU NOT OBEYING TLOP and I will concede that I am wrong and you really do have magic “free will” powers. (then Randi will give you $1,000,000.00)

And, no, we are not arguring about free will. What I really want to do is point put the syllogism as a whole is flawed.

Ehh … the syllogism is all about “free will” Spacecadet. You do know what we are talking about – don’t you A-Theist?

And when did you get the idea I am a atheist? Because I point out when you are incorrect? For the record, I am agnostic. I don't know whether there is a god or not. I haven't found good evidence for one.

And, franko, in my opinion, the "jury is still out on god." I do believe that's agnosticism.

Well in that case I apologize for being rude to you. My bad. I thought you were an A-Theist based on your language, style, and tone.

I have nothing against Agnostics though. In my experience Agnostics are generally Pragmatic and Skeptical; two highly desirable qualities in a Graviton.

Alright … good karma for you Spacelord Again, my apology.

Where is your evidence for the existence of your "Logical Goddess?" I want to see it. You've never provided it, yet not only do you believe a god exists, you have given the god a name. Heck, you've even given your "god" a gender.

So, you believe in something without giving evidence. So, until you can give out this bit of wisdom, you are no skeptic.

The evidence for God centers around the fact that Determinism is True and you do not have “free will”. A person cannot believe that they have “free will” (the A-Theist un-God) and perceive the Logical Goddess at the same Time. That would be kind of like trying to perceive that the Earth was a moving Sphere while simultaneously believing it was flat and motionless.

 

[Franko]

Brette:
Ok

I think I'm getting a glimmer of understanding here - thanks to all who have the patience to keep on explaining

In essence:

The terms are not well defined thus are open to too much interpretation.

The conclusion is not a forgone conclusion from the premises (although all three may be true - subject to the lack of definition)

Is this what I'm understanding so far?

Darling, when you get it figured out will you explain it to me?

I still can’t see the invisible flaw that Whitehead, Stimpy, Trixy, and Da’ Fool (A-Theists one and all) perceive. The Emperor Still looks butt naked to me …

Here is the deal, your mind is made of atoms – chemicals. Now the behavior of Atoms/Chemicals is totally, completely and utterly controlled by an objective set of rules – the four fundamental forces of physics. Unless you are claiming that YOUR MIND is the source of those rules (those LAWS) then YOU are not controlling your behavior – those rules are.

It is like you said with your baseball example, just because you don’t know what the rules of the game are doesn’t mean that the game doesn’t have any rules. Obviously the game (reality) has rules and obviously those rules are inviolate.

Now whatever made up the rules of the game is controlling the atoms that make up your brain, and therefore whatever made up those rules (whatever created TLOP) is controlling YOU. All that remains to determine is whether “the thing” that created the rules (the source of TLOP) is conscious, or non-conscious.

If it is non-conscious, then you are controlled by a non-conscious force, and therefore you are also non-conscious; however, if the source of TLOP is conscious, then a Superior entity is controlling your actions, and your claim that there is no god is absurd.

By the way the issue of randomness is absurd in this context. Aside from the fact that random action is no more “free will” than determined action is, your actions cannot be “random”. To claim that your actions are random is the same as claiming that the present is not based on the past, and if that is True, then how come your name is still Soubrette?

 

[Akots]

You think Fate is that simple? You shouldn’t be so naïve JSG, just as a round Earth turned out to be far more complex than a Flat one, Fate turns out to be much more complex than the childish notion of “free will”.

If you hold your hands behind your back, one of them holding a penny, then to me, the odds of picking the penny are 50/50. The instant I choose, it is destiny... making the same choice again will yield identical results.

But to us, the odds are still 50/50... right up until you open your hands, and show us our fate.

Clearly, if fate is so complex as to be impossible to understand from a mortal viewpoint then it is indistinguishable from freedom. Our bodies are predestined, but not our minds. Our choices are still ours to make, and no higher power can take that from us.

It is easy to see things after they have happened, and say it was fate. If we cannot predict, then it is as good as random. That is all that matters.

 

[Franko]

Akots,

Prior to the other day … had we talked before Akots?

If you hold your hands behind your back, one of them holding a penny, then to me, the odds of picking the penny are 50/50. The instant I choose, it is destiny... making the same choice again will yield identical results.

But to us, the odds are still 50/50... right up until you open your hands, and show us our fate.

Aren’t the odds of you guessing the correct answer either 100% or 0% and it is all preordained in advance?

Clearly, if fate is so complex as to be impossible to understand from a mortal viewpoint then it is indistinguishable from freedom.

That would be True, except who ever said that it was “impossible”?

Beyond what is Logically contradictory, what exactly is “impossible”? Are you claiming that Determinism is somehow logically inconsistent or contradictory?

I think you have it backwards.

Our bodies are predestined, but not our minds.

Isn’t your mind (your physical brain) just a part of your body?

It is all “matter” – isn’t it? You are just an arrangement of Atoms and nothing more?

Our choices are still ours to make, and no higher power can take that from us.

In a manner of speaking you might be correct …

How do you label yourself Akots?

1) Theist/Deist (God Exist = True) GOD EXISTS.
2) A-Theist (God Exist = False) GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
3) Agnostic (God Exist = Unknown) NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.

 

[SpaceLord]

franko:

So, if I believe determinism is real, and we do not have free will, I cannot be an atheist? Many Christians, albiet the least "thinking," believe in free will.

Why can't we believe in determinism and atheism?

Since Quantum Mechanics hinges on probability, do you believe it is wrong? Is there an "Evil Genius" tampering with the results? QM does appear to explain quite a few things rather well.

 

[Franko]

Spacelord:
So, if I believe determinism is real, and we do not have free will, I cannot be an atheist? Many Christians, albiet the least "thinking," believe in free will.

Many Christians who don’t know any better will tell you that they have “free will”, but as soon as you start getting specific it becomes apparent that not only don’t they actually believe in “free will’, but they don’t behave like they believe they have “free will”.

But it’s a moot point what Christians believe. We are talking about True reality, not Christianity.

Why can't we believe in determinism and atheism?

If Determinism is True and TLOP is non-conscious, then you are also non-conscious. Do you perceive that you are “non-conscious”???

In other words, if TLOP is non-conscious, then essentially you are saying that TLOP is just a machine. But by the same token you would also be just a machine, a simpler less complex machine controlled by (subordinate to) Superior TLOP.

Since Quantum Mechanics hinges on probability, do you believe it is wrong?

You cannot have probability without Determinism.

Think about this, if I ask you to randomly draw a card from a deck, what is the odds you draw a “red” card?

How do you know that the answer is 50% .... ? It’s because you know (intuitively determined) that all the cards are either “red’ or “black”. One hundred percent divided by 2 equals 50%, but if you had no idea what colors the cards could be you’d have no probability.

Is there an "Evil Genius" tampering with the results? QM does appear to explain quite a few things rather well.

Things aren’t as uncertain as they seem. Uncertainty and Science mix like oil and water. Science is all about predicting the future. The moment you claim that it is all random you have ceased being Scientific (or skeptical), and you have crossed into the realm of magic and mysticism.

 

[Soubrette]

Frank

Would you agree that the terms used in your jingle are imprecise?

That The Laws of Physics to which you are referring to is open to interpretation.

That the term obey is used conventionally with regard to other autonomous life forms

That people are made of more than atoms (see Tricky's post on exactly what)

I like your apology - a person acts in a certain way which you interpret as atheism and are rude to them for - you were wrong so you apologise. Yet the behaviour itself remains the same. So is it true to you that someone merely being an atheist is enough to justify rudeness to them - unless they own a pair of breasts of course ?

Sou

 

[SpaceLord]

Frank

Would you agree that the terms used in your jingle are imprecise?

That The Laws of Physics to which you are referring to is open to interpretation.

That the term obey is used conventionally with regard to other autonomous life forms

That people are made of more than atoms (see Tricky's post on exactly what)

I like your apology - a person acts in a certain way which you interpret as atheism and are rude to them for - you were wrong so you apologise. Yet the behaviour itself remains the same. So is it true to you that someone merely being an atheist is enough to justify rudeness to them - unless they own a pair of breasts of course ?

Sou

I need to get a pair of them.

 

[Akots]

Akots,

Prior to the other day … had we talked before Akots?

I do not recall specificaly... I have likely responded to your posts, but nothing I would call a conversation.

Aren’t the odds of you guessing the correct answer either 100% or 0% and it is all preordained in advance?

The odds are only "fixed" after the decision has been made... what if I make a guess, and then you refuse to show me? I will never know the answer, but to you, the odds are fixed; either 100%, or 0%. But to me, the odds are still based only on what I know of the situation. Likewise, if I keep my guess to myself, and you show me your hands, you are the one left unknowing... the odds to me are 100% or 0%, but to you, they are 50%, untill i tell you my guess.

A correct guess means 100% correct for that trial. Incorrect, means 0% for that trial. But until that happens, and the truth is revealed, the odds are still 50%... it doesn't matter that YOU know which hand holds the penny, because you do not know which choice I will make.

It's easy enough to infect the pure randomness, though... if you pick the left hand every time, then I will tend to lean that way.

That would be True, except who ever said that it was “impossible”?

I said "If it is impossible." I am not declaring this to be reality, but am stating a parameter of my argument.

Beyond what is Logically contradictory, what exactly is “impossible”? Are you claiming that Determinism is somehow logically inconsistent or contradictory?

I think you have it backwards.

I'm not one to judge your determinism (or rather, i am not aware if i am or now... ). But it is relatively impossible for me to entre into orbit by bouncing on a pogo-stick. If every human being bounced on a pogo-stick once a day for a thousand years, not a single one would entre into orbit purely by means of the pogo-stick

Perhaps someday, reality will change, and we will gain the ability to fly through such a simplistic device... but until then, it is relatively impossible. It is not completely impossible, because I cannot say with any certainty that it will forever remain impossible.

However, for the purposes of argument, when i say "impossible" I refer to things that will never be possible. Conditions that our species will never be able to achieve. I can offer no theoretical examples of such a thing, and so I offer only conjecture. When i state this arguement, i do not say such an impossability exists... i simply refer to "that which cannot be possible."

Isn’t your mind (your physical brain) just a part of your body?

It could easily be argued that gravity is not a part of my body. It is a property of my body, non-physical itself, but still directly related to a state of matter, and completely quantifiable.

The question of immortality will be answered when we confirm if the soul is a propertyof the body, or instead the body is a property of the soul.

It is all “matter” – isn’t it? You are just an arrangement of Atoms and nothing more?

Yes, there is matter. But gravity, light, and heat are not matter in themselves... they are properies of matter. Conciousness and free will could easily be a property of matter, exceedingly exclusive to matter that we define as "organic."

I am nothing more than atoms... but oh! how gloriously and miraculously they arrange themselves. Surely, atomic physicists are the great philosophers of the earth...

In a manner of speaking you might be correct …

I was? I hope I didn't miss it...

How do you label yourself Akots?

1) Theist/Deist (God Exist = True) GOD EXISTS.
2) A-Theist (God Exist = False) GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
3) Agnostic (God Exist = Unknown) NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.

A label is an arbitrary property ascribed by others. I am myself, and have no labels for such a normal state of being. I label others to define their existance in terms my "ego" can comprehend, because otherwise, I could not apply my experiences to theirs. In return, they label me.

Interestingly, it is their labels of myself that convinces me of their actual existance as more than figments of my imaginations.

I believe you have already labeled me A-Theist. So it is.

 

[Franko]

Soubrette,

Okay … Here’s my syllogism:

Major Premise: Atoms obey TLOP (TLOP = The Laws of Physics)
Minor Premise: You are made of Atoms.
Conclusion: YOU OBEY TLOP!

Now you are conceding that the two premises are valid, and instead you are claiming that because of the logical error of The Fallacy of Composition that the Conclusion (YOU OBEY TLOP) is flawed – it is FALSE.

Okay, so this should be very simple for you to demonstrate. Because YOU OBEY TLOP is a binary mutually exclusive option. In order to prove it FALSE, all you have to do is prove that the opposite is more True – all you have to do is NOT OBEY TLOP!

So let us see your demonstration. If you are claiming that YOU DO NOT OBEY TLOP, then simply demonstrate YOU NOT OBEYING TLOP and I will concede that I am wrong and you really do have magic “free will” powers. (then Randi will give you $1,000,000.00)

Would you agree that the terms used in your jingle are imprecise?

No, either you ALWAYS OBEY the laws of Physics, or you can DISOBEY the Laws of Physics. What EXACTLY do you find imprecise about this Brette?

What other option(s) are you and the A-Theists claiming is (are) missing?

That The Laws of Physics to which you are referring to is open to interpretation.

Here is the deal, your mind is made of atoms – chemicals. Now the behavior of Atoms/Chemicals is totally, completely and utterly controlled by an objective set of rules – the four fundamental forces of physics. Unless you are claiming that YOUR MIND is the source of those rules (those LAWS) then YOU are not controlling your behavior – those rules are.

It is like you said with your baseball example, just because you don’t know what the rules of the game are doesn’t mean that the game doesn’t have any rules. Obviously the game (reality) has rules and obviously those rules are inviolate.

Now whatever made up the rules of the game is controlling the atoms that make up your brain, and therefore whatever made up those rules (whatever created TLOP) is controlling YOU. All that remains to determine is whether “the thing” that created the rules (the source of TLOP) is conscious, or non-conscious.

That the term obey is used conventionally with regard to other autonomous life forms

So you are claiming that Atoms do not “OBEY” the Laws of Physics now?

How about the Moon Brette? Does the Moon obey the Laws of Physics? What is making the Moon orbit the Earth … “free will”???

Does that make more sense to you Brette?

That people are made of more than atoms (see Tricky's post on exactly what)

Not if you want to call yourself a materialist they aren’t!

You are nothing more than the sum of your parts A-Theist. It’s not like you have a Soul … is it?

As for “Tricky”, all I hear from him is absurd dogma that I have refuted 100 times already. If you comprehend what Trixy claimed, then why don’t you explain it to me?

unless they own a pair of breasts of course

Yeah, think about it Darling … for all I know you are a 15 year old boy and you don’t have any breast either …

 

[Soubrette]

No I'm saying the terms of the jingle are imprecise Frank - that's the only issue I wish to thrash out with you at this moment on this thread. Do you not agree that they are colloquial terms used to make your point?

To clarify - I have no problem with the premises or the conclusion but I am aware I give a liberal interpretation to the jingle compared to other people.

Sou

 

[Tricky]

Major Premise: Atoms obey TLOP (TLOP = The Laws of Physics)
Minor Premise: You are made of Atoms.
Conclusion: YOU OBEY TLOP!

Now you are conceding that the two premises are valid, and instead you are claiming that because of the logical error of The Fallacy of Composition that the Conclusion (YOU OBEY TLOP) is flawed – it is FALSE.

It is quite possible to have a set of two premises and a conclusion that are all true, yet not be a valid syllogism. This example was given by Whitefork a long time ago.

Some Saudis are Muslims.
Some Muslims are terrorists.
Therefore some Saudis are terrorists.

No one would argue that there are some Saudi terrorists, but it does not follow from the sylogism. It is theoretically possible that the sets of Saudi Muslims and Muslim Terrorists do not overlap at all. The discovery that the sets do overlap in no way validates the syllogism.

Now as to the baseball analogy:
Do you concede that it is possible to know all the rules of baseball and to play a baseball game without violating a single rule, yet still not know the outcome of the game?

And thank you for the compliment.

 

[Franko]

Brette,

Conclusion: YOU OBEY TLOP!

Forget the syllogism!

All that really matters is the conclusion anyway:

YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

Are you claiming that you do not ALWAYS obey the Laws of physics Brette???

When don’t you obey the laws of physics?

What is your EVIDENCE that You occasionally (or always?) disobey the laws of Physics?

Do you have any evidence? If not, then what happen to your Skepticism?

I thought you understood The Fallacy of Composition??? I thought you were gonna explain it to me in your own words? I still don’t see the invisible flaw whereby BOTH premises and the conclusion are correct, but one claims that the syllogism is Still flawed regardless. That sounds more like dogmatism then skepticism!

Don’t tell me that you can’t explain it Enchantress? I’ll be real disappointed if you have fallen under Whitefork and the Trickster’s spell so easily …

I have no problem with the premises or the conclusion but I am aware I give a liberal interpretation to the jingle compared to other people.

You mean you have a “normal interpretation” whereas Tricky and his A-Theists lackeys use every semantic trick in the book because they desperately don’t want this to be True?

 

[Franko]

Tricky: (A-Theism Cult recruiter)
It is quite possible to have a set of two premises and a conclusion that are all true, yet not be a valid syllogism. This example was given by Whitefork a long time ago.

So you are conceding that the conclusion is True tricky-one?

YOU OBEY TLOP?

 

[Akots]

Franko:

Humans Define RLOP
Atoms Disobey RLOP
Humans Redefine RLOP

it is so.

RLOP <> TLOP