Regarding Franko...

[MRC_Hans]

I notice that you go to great lengths to Not Say a lot. I know that a lot of other people notice it too. It makes you look weak and afraid A-Theist.

I notice you go to great lengths to try to claim what I say, instead of just reading my statements. I makes you look dogmatic and unreliable.


Okay so here: [MRC] = NOT[Not [Bound by TLOP]]

Same as: [MRC] = Bound by TLOP




And here: [MRC] <> NOT[Obey TLOP]

Same as: [MRC] = Obeys TLOP

So from #1: MRC is Bound by TLOP.
And by #2: MRC Obeys TLOP.

Since YOU are the one claiming there is a difference why don’t YOU explain what that difference is? (or were we all suppose to read your mind?)

What is this, the fifth post where you are circling about this? What is it you don't understand? I am bound by/restrained by/obeying the laws of physics, take your pick, anyhow, last time I looked, I could not break the laws of physics. In my cosmology, however, tlop are probabilistic, a non-conscious set of rules that the universe functions by.

(I ask how does tlop bind me differently from my car)
You won’t like my answer, so why don’t you tell me?

Whether people like your answers dont usually bother you. But my answer is: No difference.

You have stated that YOU are BOUND by TLOP, YOU have stated that YOU OBEY TLOP. Which of your actions are NOT controlled by TLOP MRC? Since you are the one making this ridiculous claim why is it that you believe I must provide the evidence for it?

Mmmm which claim?

Apparently You are afraid of wearing out your cut and paste keys. Either that or (more likely) you NEVER answered this point. Ohhh well, it is like I always say A-Theism is the ultimate Fear-based Religion.

Or it might be that i dont expect you to understand it this time, either.

MRC when you go for a drive, does your less conscious Car have more “free will” than You do? If not, then why not? How is it that less conscious TLOP (according to you) is able to control you, but not your less conscious Car?

This seems like a huge contradiction on your part, and the fact that no A-Theists ever wants to even attempt to address this point makes me conclude it is because they realize that they cannot address it. At least not logically.

Imagine you are driving your car. Suddenly, on the way down a hill, the steering wheel comes off in your hands, and when you try to slam the brakes, you find the dont work. Now your car is controlling you. Does this mean, according to your logic, that it has suddenly become more conscious than you?


(I say "You conclude too much")
Well then Why on Earth don’t you set me straight? What are you afraid of/Hiding? Is it like some secret of the Illuminati or something MRC?

(Whereafter Franko pastes in the same wacky and unfoundes conclusions again, below: )
But I take it that you are claiming NOT to be controlled by TLOP, so explain what that means? What does it mean when you say that YOU are “choosing” from “available options”? Aren’t chemical reactions in your brain controlled the TLOP “choosing” from “available options”? “Matter” is all that exist according to you, so if “matter” is all that exist, what is the YOU that you are claiming is doing the choosing? Or are YOU claiming that YOU are the source of TLOP?

You still conclude too much, and I'm not going to bother with sorting it out all the time.

Let me give you some advice. I doubt you will take it, but I like when I predict your future and you still let it happen. If you aren’t going to respond to my posts, then you shouldn’t be so public about not responding.

Try and read the above again. Isnt that a very very strange thing to say when you claim that I "have no more free will than (sorry, then) the Moon"? If you think you are right, and I assume you think that, then just exactly how am I going to be able follow your kind advice?

… Unless you are just a masochist at heart?

You mean by trying to talk sense to a bonehead like you? ...Guess you're right, maybe I should stop.

Hans

 

[Franko]

MRC,

how would you define "Indeterminism"? Be precise. Don't just say "NOT DETERMINISM" unless you spell out specifically and exactly what you mean by Determinism.

 

[Max560]

maybe you can use another example?
I dont see how this argument supports your belief

Which part are you not able to understand?

Look:

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

What example are you looking for?

 

[MRC_Hans]

MRC,

how would you define "Indeterminism"? Be precise. Don't just say "NOT DETERMINISM" unless you spell out specifically and exactly what you mean by Determinism.

I dont seem to have used the word "indeterminism" in this debate, so I see no reason why I should define it for you, but there is always www.dictionary.com (you should use it more!) :

Indeterminism :
1 Unpredictability.
2 Philosophy. The doctrine that there are some events, particularly some human actions or decisions, which have no cause.

I have mainly used three therms in this debate, and they're adjectives:

Deterministic: Completely based on previous state.
Random: Completely independent on previous state.
Probabilistic: Partly based on previous state. There is a catch to this, because you can show that there exists probabilistic functions that are not based on any previous states.

So it might be better to define a probabilistic event as an event, the outcome of which, can predicted with some finite precision.

If we use predictability as definition, deterministic events are completely predictable (knowable), whereas random events are completely unpredictable (unknowable).

There is a special class of random events that seem probabilistic, but are not: Ranged random events. The roll of a die is one such event; it can be predicted to yield a value from one to six (incl.), but because all outcomes in the range are (in theory) equally likely, it is still unpredictable and thus random.

Hans

 

[wraith]

Which part are you not able to understand?

Look:

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

does it?

 

[Tricky]

does it?

Yes.

 

[hammegk]

There is a special class of random events that seem probabilistic, but are not: Ranged random events. The roll of a die is one such event; it can be predicted to yield a value from one to six (incl.), but because all outcomes in the range are (in theory) equally likely, it is still unpredictable and thus random.

Hans

You lose me here. The fact that a 6-die can direct subsequent action down 1 of 6 possible paths does not sound "random" to me.

A die with sides ranging from infinity+ to infinity- would be random, but no bound set can meet this criterion.


BTW, YOU seem to believe you are made of atoms.

 

[Franko]

Which part are you not able to understand?

Look:

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

What example are you looking for?

Right, the English language is a fractal, just like the Mandelbrot set. In fact, if you ask MRC I am sure he will tell you that since the 26 letters of the English alphabet are Determined and no new information is entering the "English Language System" that all posts, essays, novels, all forms of writting in English which could possible exist already exist in a way right now.

That's called Fatalism.

 

[Franko]

MRC: (severely delusional A-Theist fanatic)

Deterministic: Completely based on previous state.
Random: Completely independent on previous state.
Probabilistic: Partly based on previous state. There is a catch to this, because you can show that there exists probabilistic functions that are not based on any previous states.

So it might be better to define a probabilistic event as an event, the outcome of which, can predicted with some finite precision.

If we use predictability as definition, deterministic events are completely predictable (knowable), whereas random events are completely unpredictable (unknowable).

There is a special class of random events that seem probabilistic, but are not: Ranged random events. The roll of a die is one such event; it can be predicted to yield a value from one to six (incl.), but because all outcomes in the range are (in theory) equally likely, it is still unpredictable and thus random.

So essentially your argument for A-Theism all boils down to ...

If we cannot comprehend (predict) the behavior of a system in the present, then surely that system must be Magical and completely unpredictable for all times.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You lose me here. The fact that a 6-die can direct subsequent action down 1 of 6 possible paths does not sound "random" to me.

A die with sides ranging from infinity+ to infinity- would be random, but no bound set can meet this criterion.


BTW, YOU seem to believe you are made of atoms.

A random range is: All values within the range are equally likely.

I am made of atoms + information. You can put all the atoms needed to make a human in a vat. They don't make a human. You lack the information of how they are put together.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

So essentially your argument for A-Theism all boils down to ...

If we cannot comprehend (predict) the behavior of a system in the present, then surely that system must be Magical and completely unpredictable for all times.

How do you make that conclusion from me defining a set of mathemathical terms?

Hans

 

[Max560]

does it?

Yes.

 

[Franko]

MRC:
How do you make that conclusion from me defining a set of mathemathical terms?

Well, if that is not what you are saying, then please specify exactly how you are claiming anything different? You seem to be claiming that (like the Aether) it is impossible that Heisenberg and his divinely inspired inerrant Uncertainty principle could possibly be wrong.

It's cute because you remind me of Cardinal Bellarmine or one of his little flunkies when you say it.

 

[Max560]

Right, the English language is a fractal, just like the Mandelbrot set. In fact, if you ask MRC I am sure he will tell you that since the 26 letters of the English alphabet are Determined and no new information is entering the "English Language System" that all posts, essays, novels, all forms of writting in English which could possible exist already exist in a way right now.

That's called Fatalism.

What's all this jibber jabber about fractals?

You have nothing to say.

Read and understand:

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Arguement"

In your simple head, you believe that you have something to say. Take that whole quote of yours up there, sub it in wherever you see "arguement" in the proof shown above, and all should make sense to you. Any meaning that you think is ascribed to your "arguement" is an artifact caused by a mental shortcoming of yours.

 

[Franko]

MaxFactor: (a-Theist nitwit)
What's all this jibber jabber about fractals?

Talk to the Hans, man.

You see, according to MR.C no new information can possibly enter a closed system (like the 26 letter English language). Since everything possible to write is dictated by those 26 letters and a finite number of possible combinations, everything which could have been written – in a way – already has been written.

You have nothing to say.

Well not according to nitwit A-Theists like you and MRC. At least not unless someone adds a couple of new letters to the alphabet.

Read and understand:

First you will need to write in a manner that can be comprehended by people who haven’t been brainwashed into your pessimistic little cult (A-Theism).

TLOL states that letters can be placed in sequences, and that spaces and symbols can be placed in that sequence.

Okay, so far you have a subroutine of Fatalism …

Letters obey TLOL
Your "argument" contains letters
Your "argument" obeys TLOL

TLOL controls Letters controls Your "Argument"

So if by TLOL you mean the English rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. then yes, I would agree. All of you posts in English are bound by your knowledge of the rules of the English language. The same is True for me and everyone else here.

Is this your way of being a mini-Fatalists?

In your simple head, you believe that you have something to say.

No … apparently that is what You thought. 1) we have your post here as evidence of this, 2) since I doubt you can read minds, I seriously doubt that you know what I believe, and 3) I am most likely just a figment of your imagination anyway.

Take that whole quote of yours up there, sub it in wherever you see "arguement" in the proof shown above, and all should make sense to you.

It made sense to me before. You are the one who seems to have trouble comprehending it A-Theist. Gee, I wonder what your malfunction is … ?

Any meaning that you think is ascribed to your "arguement" is an artifact caused by a mental shortcoming of yours.

Are you sure I even exist mentally? Can a figment of your imagination have “shortcomings”? I mean seriously … the whole figment thing is a pretty big “shortcoming” all on it’s own. Would you like me to pretend that I am concerned about my mental state now? Look, whatever you want, I am your figment after all …

 

[MRC_Hans]

Franko blabbers:

Talk to the Hans, man.

You see, according to MR.C no new information can possibly enter a closed system (like the 26 letter English language). Since everything possible to write is dictated by those 26 letters and a finite number of possible combinations, everything which could have been written – in a way – already has been written.

As usual, Franko misinterprets, misquotes, mixes his own cosmology with that of others. Since he does this consistently, I assume that it is deliberate. If he was just imbicile, he would get it right by chance sometimes.

Frank'o: The above is crap, and you know it. Why dont you demonstrate how information enters a closed, deterministic system, if thats what you believe is possible? Why dont you explain how new words and sentences enters a book, once it is printed? Or you could explain your claim that language is a closed system. Or your claim that the 26 letters of the English alphabet dictates what can ever be written (tell that to the Chinese, heheh).

Hans

 

[CWL]

... and let's not forget the fact that the Scandinavian alphabets have 29 letters.

 

[Aardvark_DK]

I thought Swedish had something like 35 since you like to put little dots over every bloody vowel you come across.

 

[CWL]

I thought Swedish had something like 35 since you like to put little dots over every bloody vowel you come across.

Nope, just å, æ, ø. Of course we write them properly (and in the correct order): å, ä, ö. What is that little letter conspiracy you guys have going with the Norwegians anyway?

 

[Franko]

MRC:

Frank'o: The above is crap, and you know it. Why dont you demonstrate how information enters a closed, deterministic system, if thats what you believe is possible? Why dont you explain how new words and sentences enters a book, once it is printed? Or you could explain your claim that language is a closed system. Or your claim that the 26 letters of the English alphabet dictates what can ever be written (tell that to the Chinese, heheh).

But Han-Job, you told me specifically that the Mandelbrot set was a closed system, and that the image of the Mandelbrot set was not art because it was determined by the algorithm that generated it.

I would assume that be the same token the English language is also a fractal, because the English language is determined by the 26 letter character set, and the rules (algorithm) of English grammar and spelling. Ergo in the same way that the Mandelbrot image is not an artwork because it is determined, no written word can be considered "Art" because everything written with the English language is determined by the Laws of English.

If not, then explain the contradiction? I kept asking you to precisely define the term "Art", but you A-Theists Hate to actually pin yourselves down by defining a term.