Those darned Laws Of Physics

[Tricky]

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

YOU OBEY TLOP?

I told you that I accepted it a long time ago, Franko, depending on your definition of "obey".

However, you have never shown any evidence that the laws of physics prohibit free will. You have never shown any evidence that the universe is deterministic.

Can I assume that you are now accepting that your syllogism is not valid, even if your conclusion is? Do you concede that even if a baseball game does not violate a single rule, that the outcome is uncertain?

 

[Franko]

So what are you claiming now Akots ... that the Laws of Physics don't exist?

Yeah ... very "scientific".

Listen my little friend, if your religion requires you to deny the existence of the Laws of Physics, then it is time you seriously considered a new religion.

... next I suppose you will be telling me that TOAST is more complex than a HUMAN BEING?!?!!!

 

[Franko]

However, you have never shown any evidence that the laws of physics prohibit free will. You have never shown any evidence that the universe is deterministic.

... and you have never showed me that the present is NOT based on the past. You have not demonstarted that the Buc's lost the Superbowl.

 

[Tricky]

... and you have never showed me that the present is NOT based on the past. You have not demonstarted that the Buc's lost the Superbowl.

Slipping into non sequitur?

Can you answer my question? It's a binary response, your favorite kind.

Do you concede that even if a baseball game does not violate a single rule of baseball, that the outcome is uncertain?

 

[Akots]

So what are you claiming now Akots ... that the Laws of Physics don't exist?

Yeah ... very "scientific".

Listen my little friend, if your religion requires you to deny the existence of the Laws of Physics, then it is time you seriously considered a new religion.

... next I suppose you will be telling me that TOAST is more complex than a HUMAN BEING?!?!!!

Would i be incorrect in stating that the laws of Physics are verry much like the laws of painting, perspective, color shading, and depth-perception? The Scientific Laws Of Physics allow us to paint a picture, however crude and imperct, of a certain partition of reality that we have defined through experience, observation, and probability

This is RLOP... Relative Laws of Physics.

If you refer to the actual, literal underlying reality upon which our subjective science is based, then you instead refer to the nature of the universe. And that, my friend, is subject to many, many things more than TLOP.

 

[Aardvark_DK]

will be telling me that TOAST is more complex than a HUMAN BEING?!?!!!

Well, Franko, you're the one who insists that a toaster is more conscious than a piece of bread.

 

[Franko]

Tricky:
Do you concede that even if a baseball game does not violate a single rule of baseball, that the outcome is uncertain?

Uncertain from who's perspective?

Certainly not a bookmaker's, or a professional gambler's, or God's.

Say I put the Orioles up against a little league team made up of 12 and 13 year old kids? Like you said, no rules of baseball will be broken -- who would you predict gets the win?

 

[Tricky]

Uncertain from who's perspective?

Certainly not a bookmaker's, or a professional gambler's

Oh? and where are these bookmakers and gamblers who have never been wrong? Produce one for me and I will gladly admit my error in exchange for the unlimited wealth such a discovery would give me.

Or you could produce God. That would convince me.

 

[Franko]

Would i be incorrect in stating that the laws of Physics are verry much like the laws of painting, perspective, color shading, and depth-perception? The Scientific Laws Of Physics allow us to paint a picture, however crude and imperct, of a certain partition of reality that we have defined through experience, observation, and probability

This is RLOP... Relative Laws of Physics.

If you refer to the actual, literal underlying reality upon which our subjective science is based, then you instead refer to the nature of the universe. And that, my friend, is subject to many, many things more than TLOP.

Akots, I have had the argument where an A-Theist claims that not knowing the Laws of Physics means that we don’t actually obey them (and therefore have “free willy”) more times than I can count.

If you want to believe that the Earth was actually flat and motionless when people use to believe it was flat and motionless you go right ahead.

By the same token if you want to pretend that an incomplete understanding of TLOP means that you don’t actually OBEY TLOP then keep believing it. I love people who believe it, they are practically begging me to take complete and total advantage of them.

Moron-boy: (A-Theist Toadie)

Well, Franko, you're the one who insists that a toaster is more conscious than a piece of bread.

… Like I was saying …

 

[Franko]

Tricky: (Self-loving, God-hating, A-Theist)
Oh? and where are these bookmakers and gamblers who have never been wrong? Produce one for me and I will gladly admit my error in exchange for the unlimited wealth such a discovery would give me.

I know plenty of bookies who are right far more often then they are wrong!

Have you ever read a newspaper Trixy? Have you ever seen the point spread? Do a little empirical investigation and see how often the predictions for who wins are wrong.

Or you could produce God. That would convince me.

How about you produce some evidence for your magic “free will” powers first?

It is difficult for me to convince you that “God” exists when you have already convinced yourself that YOU are “god”.

 

[Soubrette]

Brette,



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 …



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?

I believe that for a hard materialist the jingle holds

I think most people on this thread would agree with that also

The few that wouldn't - well I hope they're maybe rethinking their belief systems now

Sou

 

[Akots]

I am simply saying that if "TLOP" is how things really are... and RLOP is our imperfect interpretation of how things are.

If i know TLOP, The ni can tell you how every atom in the universe will move... but if I know RLOP, then I can tell you what MOST atoms would do, under certain situations.

Can we agree on this? it is vital to me.

 

[Franko]

Akots,

I am simply saying that if "TLOP" is how things really are... and RLOP is our imperfect interpretation of how things are.

Okay, but how is that relevant to this discussion?

It doesn’t matter that we don’t know precisely what TLOP is (as opposed to RLOP). All that matters is that we know TLOP does exist in perfect form, even if we do not precisely understand that perfect form in the present.

If i know TLOP, Then i can tell you how every atom in the universe will move...

Yeah … that’s Laplace.

… but if I know RLOP, then I can tell you what MOST atoms would do, under certain situations.

Can we agree on this? it is vital to me.

Yes, I’d agree that your understanding of TLOP (imperfect RLOP) is far less than God’s understanding of TLOP (perfect TLOP). That is Why God controls YOU instead of it being the other way round.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky: (Self-loving, God-hating, A-Theist)

LOL. I love it when you start to foam at the mouth.

I know plenty of bookies who are right far more often then they are wrong!

Yes but you said they are "not uncertain". That doesn't mean usually right, Franko, that means never wrong. You know. Sort of the way you envision yourself?

Have you ever read a newspaper Trixy? Have you ever seen the point spread? Do a little empirical investigation and see how often the predictions for who wins are wrong.

Again, find me one who is 100% correct on all the point spreads. Even if they are 100% knowledgable about the Rules of Baseball, they cannot do it. Can you? Not even with the help of The Goddess?

{spam omitted}

 

[Franko]

I notice you skipped this one ... was that on purpose?

Tricky: (A-Theist)
Or you could produce God. That would convince me.

How about you produce some evidence for your magic “free will” powers first?

It is difficult for me to convince you that “God” exists when you have already convinced yourself that YOU are “god”.

 

[Akots]

Akots,



Okay, but how is that relevant to this discussion?

It doesn’t matter that we don’t know precisely what TLOP is (as opposed to RLOP). All that matters is that we know TLOP does exist in perfect form, even if we do not precisely understand that perfect form in the present.

Yes, I’d agree that your understanding of TLOP (imperfect RLOP) is far less than God’s understanding of TLOP (perfect TLOP). That is Why God controls YOU instead of it being the other way round.

But you see, that is the most important point of all...

If a concious being cannot distinguish the difference between a FATED action and a CHOSEN a
ction, then CONCIOUSNESS states there is no difference. They may not be the same, but they are EFFECTIVELY the same.

As long as our knowledge of a given situation is imperfect, then we cannot say with 100% certainty that we had no choice at all. If w elater discover that no, we really didn't have any choice, it doesn't negate the fact that we MADE that choice in the past. It simply means the choice was irellevant.

If we learn enough, we discover that ALL our decisions were irellevant.

But there are limits to human knowledge, Franko... thsi is where my previous defenition of Impossible comes into play. If there are things we CAN NOT KNOW under ANY circumstances, no matter HOW far the human race advances, then our knowledge of the universe is fundamentaly imperfect. The very knowledge human entities cannot comprehend serve as god's dice.

Perhaps if we COULD learn to predict the universe, we would be fated. But since some of it is off-limits to our conciousness, and always will be, there will laways be something to seed the random number generator. There will be a blindspot we cannot see.

Under those conditions, given the limitations of our conciousness, we cannot predict the universe, except in tiny, flickering fistfuls at a time.

 

[Loki]

Franko,

Forget the syllogism!

All that really matters is the conclusion anyway:

Hooray!!! Now that only took 18 months....

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.

Oh...well, I though for a moment we had made some progress. I guess not...

Perhaps you can see the invisible flaw in this ? :

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

Note : The premises are true. The conclusion true. The syllogism is flawed. Curse that damnable invisible flaw!!!

 

[Tricky]

I notice you skipped this one ... was that on purpose?

How about you produce some evidence for your magic “free will” powers first?

It is difficult for me to convince you that “God” exists when you have already convinced yourself that YOU are “god”.

As always, I am willing to defend any claims I have made. Please indicate where I made these claims, for truly, I can't remember doing so.

 

[Franko]

Loki: (A-Theist nitwit)

Perhaps you can see the invisible flaw in this ? :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Saudis are Muslims.
Some Muslims are terrorists.
Therefore some Saudis are terrorists.

Yeah, loki, howz about you cutting to the chase and demonstrating your ability to DISOBEY TLOP???

If you can't DISOBEY TLOP then you don't have any "free will". But don't let that interfer with your fantasy play hour Loki. For all I care you can go on believing Santa Claus brings presents at Christmas and that the Earth is Flat.

Either put up or shut up Religious Fanatic.

BTW -- some Saudis are terrorists, In fact, most of the guys who hijacked the 9/11 planes were Saudi citizens, so your example isn't exactly making your point.

 

[Loki]

CNNNN : Dateline, February 12, 2003

In news just to hand, leading academics thoughout the world are alarmed by the spread of the world's first "logical virus". Known as the "Invisible Flaw", the virus has begun attacking syllogisms thoughout the world. Believed to have originated somewhere near Baltimore, the virus works by injecting a subtle and almost undetectable flaw into the logic of otherwise perfectly valid syllogisms.

The virus was first discovered by Ms Soubrette Kindamaterialist of Bristol, England, while surfing the Web. "It just sort of struck me as odd" she said, "the syllogism looks okay, and the premises and conclusion seem true, yet somehow I'm not sure..."

Logicians have expressed fears that, if left untrreated, the virus could lead to the complete collapse of logic with months. A failure of logic would potentially have disastrous consequences for humanity, with possible outcomes including a huge increase in the popularity of Country and Western music, an overwhelming desire by some polical leaders to invade Iraq, a widespread belief in the ability of former ballroom dancers to "talk to the dead", and
a dramatic rise in the number of teenagers with "Posh and Becks Forever" tattoos.

Dr. Stupid, an American physicist based in Germany, has dismissed the virus as "unlikely". Rather, he believes it's more a case of "some idiot on the internet failing to understand basic logic". This opinion was seconded by Professor Whitefork of Harvard, who insisted that logic can survive this crisis - "really, don't waste anymore time on this - it's pretty damn simple".

A spokesman for the Vatican offered the following brief statement on the spread of the "Invisible Flaw" :

"Woe to you, oh Earth and Sea,
for the Devil sends the beast with wrath,
because he knows the time is short...
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast
for it is a human number, its number is Six hundred and sixty six."

When asked to explain the significance of this, the spokesman replied "Damned if I know, but it sure has a nice ring to it."

UberCardinal Franko, from the Church of Logical Deism, has declared the existence of the Flaw to be "heretical nonsense - and believe me, I know nonsense when I see it". When asked what his exact position with the Church was, UberCardinal Franko replied "er ... I take out the trash."

Wiccan spokesman Great Elk Tricky was quick to add "personally, I don't care about Syllogisms - its a Full Moon tomorrow night, and my wife's gonna dance naked around a fire!" (CNNNN will bring you live coverage of the naked fire dance in our special "When Good Wives go Wiggan..." - see local guides for times).

CNNNN will continue to provide up to the minute coverage of this crisis - up until such time as something else interesting happens. Like a kid falling off a bike. Or something. Anything.