The Solution To The Mystery

God, the FSM, and everything else.
User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7936
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby landrew » Tue Jul 24, 2018 7:18 pm

It seems to me that the concept of free-will should be common ground between the atheist and the theist. In a free-will universe, we have the ability to choose our actions, and experience the consequences. Anything else would result in a programmed, robotic existence for which all outcomes could be predicted, and consequences meaningless.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby TazAnastazio » Tue Jul 24, 2018 8:56 pm

landrew wrote:It seems to me that the concept of free-will should be common ground between the atheist and the theist. In a free-will universe, we have the ability to choose our actions, and experience the consequences. Anything else would result in a programmed, robotic existence for which all outcomes could be predicted, and consequences meaningless.


:gp:
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby TazAnastazio » Tue Jul 24, 2018 9:23 pm

Monster wrote:TazAnastazio, have you shared your ideas on other forums, or with your acquaintances in real life? If so, what kind of responses did you get? Did you win any converts?


I have discussed a few ideas with people. I do discern genuine interest from those that would give me a chance to explain instead of being dismissive ( I once got a response from a young person suggesting that I was ignorant to suggest that the future does not exist since math or science proves it, to which I said, "well noone then should be blamed for their pre-determined future" the person seemed to be in bewilderment, but I left it at that...sometimes the place and time don't allow for a prolonged conversation).

Some people are fixated rigidly to their ideas, I started changing mine when I took that Cosmos course, in my late teens. Others are not willing to consider the possibilities. Once two young mormons knocked at my door, one cold morning, I spent perhaps 45 minutes trying to explain how best it would have been if they would have spent their time productively; " go to Starbucks, get a book and a coffee, start a conversation with a young lady instead of wasting your life trying to secure some old person's position in society! " Do you think the mormon sect, would like to hear that? Or the greek orthodox abbots, or the midlle eastern imams, or the Jehovah witnesses for that matter? See what I mean?

If I'm given any credit for my ideas I would not reject it, but Im not looking to "convert" people! My goal is the betterment of society and humanity by means of people living their life to the best of their ability while at the same time taking care not to generate negativity to others and society. My goal is for people to learn from the past and live a better future, precisly because that is the only way to predict its outcome; by trying to build the future the preferable way, since it is not yet built, and non-existing. My goal is for people to also think and feel positively, be optemistic and live without ever disregarding their consciousness; live their life to the fullest according to their ability, be productive and work towards the betterment of their life, without disregarding the well being of other people, society, humanity and the environment; and also live without ever loosing hope. My goal is balance, by counterbalancing negativity with positivity.

I am willing to share with the younger generation what I have learned without becoming bothersome. Because, since life is too short, there is no time for them to learn from their mistakes, but they can learn from mine and from the mistakes and experience of others like myself. At the same time we all can learn from the lessons of history, Socrates stated "I know one thing, I don't know nothing." I say "I know one thing, there is an infinity of things we'll never know about."
Last edited by TazAnastazio on Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:04 am, edited 3 times in total.
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9600
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Poodle » Tue Jul 24, 2018 9:57 pm

placid wrote:Bye the way sorry for any typo errors, spelling is all in check, it's all done for you via the dictionary ... so you don't have to worry about being made to look like a dip sh*t when ever the urge comes to dump your sh*t in this cess pool of other dumpded lumps of sh*t ...In fact, the reason for the typo errors is that I am typing so fast because I'd rather spend as little time as possible here , and simply cannot be bothered to hang around worrying about whether or not one should correct the spelling typos or not...I mean, what do I care about things like that, it's not like I give a dam about earning smarty points for good presentation when I own the whole god damn presentation that is life anyway. I AM IT..who cares about a few slip ups here and there, I'm a genie out of my bottle, sh*t happens sometimes.

Signed God aka no one.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ...so fu*k you...you little sh*t stains on my mirror.

Yep - definitely a distinct acceleration on her normal downward spiral.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28553
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:18 am

placid wrote: ...so fu*k you...you little sh*t stains on my mirror.
placid wrote:Hitler's execution of the jews was an act of love and I stand by those words
Poor confused Placid. It only took Placid three days to have a complete breakdown this time. :lol:


Placid is very mad at the moment. Six months ago he wrote
placid wrote:I don't exist
placid wrote:I'm not here, you have no proof I'm here,
placid five posts later wrote:I'm here just like every one else is .....
placid one post later wrote: No one is saying this...
placid one post later wrote: I'm saying I don't exist

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=29039&p=626629&hilit=electron#p626597
Today Placid writes
placid wrote:In fact, the reason for the typo errors is that I am typing so fast because I'd rather spend as little time as possible here


What a loony! :lol: :lol:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby mirror93 » Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:40 am

So placid do you exist or not? Sometimes I wonder if you don't and are only the chopra's center trolling bot generated to troll and spam forums
:paladin:

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Lausten » Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:05 am

landrew wrote:It seems to me that the concept of free-will should be common ground between the atheist and the theist. In a free-will universe, we have the ability to choose our actions, and experience the consequences. Anything else would result in a programmed, robotic existence for which all outcomes could be predicted, and consequences meaningless.

No it wouldn't. You would need a computer the same size as the universe to hold all the inputs before you could predict the outcomes.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28553
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:46 am

Lausten wrote:No it wouldn't. You would need a computer the same size as the universe to hold all the inputs before you could predict the outcomes.


Off Topic
It was Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814 who thought that if you knew everything about the universe you could predict the future mechanically. It was Heisenberg in 1927 who determined that as you can never know the exact location and velocity of anything in the universe, simultaneously. If you can't ever know the exact position and velocity of anything in the universe, then there is no fixed starting point to predict the future mechanically.


Therefore I suggest that even if you had a computer that was as complex as the universe, you could never "punch" the universe's information into it to get a starting point. :D

This saddened me, because I loved Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse Five . In that novel the aliens tell the human. Billy Pilgrim that the universe will be destroyed when one of their pilots tests a new fuel. Billy Pilgrim complains and asks them to stop the pilot. The alien "Tralfamadoreans" laugh at him and say "Our pilot was always going to destroy the universe from the moment it started.

I now know that is not how real physics works and I guess that means we have free will
:D

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7936
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby landrew » Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:51 am

Lausten wrote:
landrew wrote:It seems to me that the concept of free-will should be common ground between the atheist and the theist. In a free-will universe, we have the ability to choose our actions, and experience the consequences. Anything else would result in a programmed, robotic existence for which all outcomes could be predicted, and consequences meaningless.

No it wouldn't. You would need a computer the same size as the universe to hold all the inputs before you could predict the outcomes.

To put this in simpler terms, a human has more free will than an ant. Ants are more predictable than humans.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11557
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jul 25, 2018 5:23 am

The idea of free will is still a work in progress. We simply do not know if our actions are free or predetermined. Lots of data either way, but nothing definitive. Personally, I doubt it matters, as long as we are left with the firm impression that we are free.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28553
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

More insane religious claims

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 25, 2018 7:11 am

TazAnastazio wrote:I don't know what Placid was trying to say.
placid wrote:What I said was that every act, be it of good or bad intention is and can only be from an act of LOVE..the source of all action..in reality ......


Placid is lying again. Placid thought he deleted all his Hitler posts......here they are :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
placid wrote: Where do people get the information that Hitler was a nasty Jew-killer?
placid wrote: Do your own research into the truth of Hitler's Germany?
placid wrote: Hitler had to do something, He was a leader trying to protect his country,
placid wrote: Hitler was coerced into war by forces higher up on the political chessboard,
placid wrote: we cannot hold him entirely responsible for what happened. Hitler was not the baddie that people make him out to be

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1374
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby placid » Wed Jul 25, 2018 7:22 am

Still waiting for the claimed ''critical thinker'' to show up?

No thought is real, unless the ''thinker'' is proved to exist...where is it?

Meanwhile, just keep believing in the fairy tale that there is a ''thinker'', because without the belief in that, there is no tale.

But yeah, we all like a good story...albeit imagined.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28553
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

More insane religious claims

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:00 am

placid wrote:Still waiting for the claimed ''critical thinker'' to show up?

placid wrote: Where do people get the information that Hitler was a nasty Jew-killer?
placid wrote: Do your own research into the truth of Hitler's Germany?
placid wrote: Hitler had to do something, He was a leader trying to protect his country,
placid wrote: Hitler was coerced into war by forces higher up on the political chessboard,
placid wrote: we cannot hold him entirely responsible for what happened. Hitler was not the baddie that people make him out to be


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1374
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby placid » Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:12 am

Still waiting....

Stillness speaking....

Stop trying to show up to your own show, there is no room in here for two.

Love has no opposite.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9600
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Poodle » Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:18 am

Still reading ...
Still watching a simpleton in denial ...
Still waiting for Placid to utter a single word of sense ...
... and realising what eternity may mean.

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4115
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Unlimited_Oracular_Guidance
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby Upton_O_Goode » Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:56 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
placid wrote:Still waiting for the claimed ''critical thinker'' to show up?

placid wrote: Where do people get the information that Hitler was a nasty Jew-killer?
placid wrote: Do your own research into the truth of Hitler's Germany?
placid wrote: Hitler had to do something, He was a leader trying to protect his country,
placid wrote: Hitler was coerced into war by forces higher up on the political chessboard,
placid wrote: we cannot hold him entirely responsible for what happened. Hitler was not the baddie that people make him out to be


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Funny, yes. But appalling also. Here's a case where one would like to hear the same person weigh in on Stalin. After all, the opposition to his policies was very real. So why wasn't he justified in murdering 1000 people a day during 1937--38? That was the "shortest way with dissenters" as far as he was concerned. As he put it, "No man, no problem." Somehow, I doubt if all these wonderful "insights" about Hitler will be applied to Stalin.
"Still, doubts gnawed at everyone. And under no circumstances could I acknowledge my own similar doubts. In order to coax the participants into psychic stability, I had to appear to be rock-solidly convinced of the necessity of carrying out this horrifyingly cruel command."

Rudolf Höß, hanged facing Auschwitz, the camp he commanded, in April 1947. He admitted to 1.1 to 1.5 million murders carried out under his command. Eichmann told him the number was 2.5 million.

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4115
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Unlimited_Oracular_Guidance
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Upton_O_Goode » Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:14 am

landrew wrote:It seems to me that the concept of free-will should be common ground between the atheist and the theist. In a free-will universe, we have the ability to choose our actions, and experience the consequences. Anything else would result in a programmed, robotic existence for which all outcomes could be predicted, and consequences meaningless.


Here I know I tread on a mine-field. A friend of mine has convinced me that the whole problem of free will is incoherent. We don't have clear enough definitions of what a personality is, and we don't have any testable, observable description of a way even to define what it means for an act to be free. Of course, as Matthew points out, we do have a very clear physical model of indeterminacy/uncertainty. They are based on randomness, if you use the probability interpretation of early quantum mechanics. You have a probability distribution that can be represented by either a probability density function or a discrete probability measure assigning 1 to a particular value of the variable and zero to all sets of values not containing that value. And here we run into an absolute mathematical barricade. In this model, the Fourier transform of the position operator is the momentum operator, and it is a provable mathematical theorem that when these are given by density functions, the product of the standard deviations of these two has a distinct positive minimum. Those standard deviations are the measure of uncertainty. It gets still worse if you use the discrete model, since the Fourier transform of the delta-function is the constant function 1. In other words, if you have perfect information about the location of a particle (the delta-function), then you have no information about its momentum.

The same principle applies to radiation. As far as I (former specialist in harmonic analysis) am concerned, the uncertainty principle is a theorem: a function and its Fourier transform cannot both be concentrated beyond a definite limit. That's why you can get very short bursts (femto-second long) of radiation, but the price is a very wide range of frequencies. And you can get very narrow-band bursts of radiation, but they can't be of short duration. The amplitude of a signal as a function of time has as a Fourier transform the amplitudes of the frequencies that make up the signal.

Well, OK, skip the technical details. The question remains: Is uncertainty/randomness the same thing as free will? That comes back to the definitional questions my friend has posed to me.
"Still, doubts gnawed at everyone. And under no circumstances could I acknowledge my own similar doubts. In order to coax the participants into psychic stability, I had to appear to be rock-solidly convinced of the necessity of carrying out this horrifyingly cruel command."

Rudolf Höß, hanged facing Auschwitz, the camp he commanded, in April 1947. He admitted to 1.1 to 1.5 million murders carried out under his command. Eichmann told him the number was 2.5 million.

User avatar
TazAnastazio
Poster
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:06 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby TazAnastazio » Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:08 pm

Statistics is propably the only subject I never cared much about. Sure a sample out of a pool would yield data but something about " every second so many children die from said cause..." didn't quite made much sense to me... Even in the case of limited choices and propable outcomes, we still have the free-will to make our own choice.

Let's leave the Hitler subject already. Unless he had a severe brain damage or was otherwise mentally ill (wrong amount of substances in the brain for which he had no choice - possessed by a demon religion would say), he was responsible for the attrocities he commited. He was propably the most evil person in history based on the life loss involved. His thoughts were all his own, he could have been in control of his feelings, or go seclude himself to the mountains seek psychiatric help or what have you; unless he was completely psychotic; which he was not! He knew what he was doing, he had the mental ability to convince others and make them commit equally attrocious and even worse acts. His actions were sinister and deliberate. Nothing was predetermined, he had the free will to use his power for a good cause instead for as evil as he possibly could.

Nothing justifies the loss of one single innocent human life, nothing at all whatsoever! The only thing that would justify the taking of a human life is to prevent the loss of other human lives.

No hierarchy in a "political chessboard" would have "coerced" me or make me by any means, cause the loss of millions of human lives. I would not take one innocent life in exchange for owing the whole world with everything in it. Not only because of "what profits a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul"; but because I would not want some creep to take my life in exchange for owing the whole world. Of course giving my life to save the whole world, requires no explanation. Giving one's life to save others is an act of heroism. Not all of us are genetically, or mentally "destined" / fit to be heroes; but none of us should be a creep.

In a tragedy, there is no guilty party. The outcome of Nazi Germany was due to Hitler and his supporters! They were guilty and fully responsible of the attrocities commited. People had the free-will to make a diffetent choice and build an alternative future.
Last edited by TazAnastazio on Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
These concepts are certainly true :
The Infinite is the reason for all existence and phenomena; while the future does not exist, it is the most precious thing of all ! While the ultimate positivity achievable would be the ideal, between negative choices, the best is the less negative one ! Humanity should always strive to counterbalance the emerging property of existence, negativity; with positivity.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7936
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby landrew » Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
landrew wrote:It seems to me that the concept of free-will should be common ground between the atheist and the theist. In a free-will universe, we have the ability to choose our actions, and experience the consequences. Anything else would result in a programmed, robotic existence for which all outcomes could be predicted, and consequences meaningless.


Here I know I tread on a mine-field. A friend of mine has convinced me that the whole problem of free will is incoherent. We don't have clear enough definitions of what a personality is, and we don't have any testable, observable description of a way even to define what it means for an act to be free. Of course, as Matthew points out, we do have a very clear physical model of indeterminacy/uncertainty. They are based on randomness, if you use the probability interpretation of early quantum mechanics. You have a probability distribution that can be represented by either a probability density function or a discrete probability measure assigning 1 to a particular value of the variable and zero to all sets of values not containing that value. And here we run into an absolute mathematical barricade. In this model, the Fourier transform of the position operator is the momentum operator, and it is a provable mathematical theorem that when these are given by density functions, the product of the standard deviations of these two has a distinct positive minimum. Those standard deviations are the measure of uncertainty. It gets still worse if you use the discrete model, since the Fourier transform of the delta-function is the constant function 1. In other words, if you have perfect information about the location of a particle (the delta-function), then you have no information about its momentum.

The same principle applies to radiation. As far as I (former specialist in harmonic analysis) am concerned, the uncertainty principle is a theorem: a function and its Fourier transform cannot both be concentrated beyond a definite limit. That's why you can get very short bursts (femto-second long) of radiation, but the price is a very wide range of frequencies. And you can get very narrow-band bursts of radiation, but they can't be of short duration. The amplitude of a signal as a function of time has as a Fourier transform the amplitudes of the frequencies that make up the signal.

Well, OK, skip the technical details. The question remains: Is uncertainty/randomness the same thing as free will? That comes back to the definitional questions my friend has posed to me.

I wrestled with this one for a long time. How much of what we do is random, pre-determined or consciously chosen? Someone has suggested that calculating what is predetermined would require a computer bigger than the universe itself, but that doesn't affect whether or not all destinies are in fact predetermined. If the problem hasn't been solved, that in no way proves that a solution doesn't exist. In short, it may all be calculable and predetermined, even if we can't do it. One has nothing to do with the other.

But I abandoned that line of thinking; what matters is what we do and choose to do. A colony of ants will build on your lawn if the conditions fit their programming. They have no project manager who decides that you will be showing up with cans of ant-killer eventually, "so let's not build here." But we are different. We decided to undertake the task of defeating Hitler and Japan, despite their overwhelming successes at the beginning. It would have been so much easier to make a deal, and live with the consequences, but we didn't. The world is a very different place because of our collective free-will choices.

Yet we sometimes give away our free will, much to our own detriment. We enter into contracts, partnerships and agreements, willingly foregoing our free-will for some other form of gain. Addictions are a chemical loss of free will. When we can no longer choose our actions to serve our best interests when we have become slaves to a substance.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter about the nature of free-will; we each have to make our best choices in life, so that we can win Pascal's Wager. Life may have no meaning but just in case it does, let's make it count.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby mirror93 » Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:58 pm

Lausten wrote:
landrew wrote:It seems to me that the concept of free-will should be common ground between the atheist and the theist. In a free-will universe, we have the ability to choose our actions, and experience the consequences. Anything else would result in a programmed, robotic existence for which all outcomes could be predicted, and consequences meaningless.

No it wouldn't. You would need a computer the same size as the universe to hold all the inputs before you could predict the outcomes.


is there even a size to the universe? I mean, it's theorized that it may or may not, but we can't know
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby mirror93 » Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:06 pm

Are you really questioning this, placid? I thought you were trolling, but now I see you may be mental and maybe cannot reflect about your own thoughts, perhaps?

placid wrote:No thought is real, unless the ''thinker'' is proved to exist...where is it?

you thought about that before you posted, did you know that you always think about something before doing it? 'thought' is not a tangible thing you can hold or see with your physical eyes Placid, you know that don't you? :lol:

placid wrote:Meanwhile, just keep believing in the fairy tale that there is a ''thinker'', because without the belief in that, there is no tale.

Placid, what do you think a 'thinker' means? Are you expecting to see a soul inside you called thinker? How would you know that it would be a thinker? How would you expect to see a thinker? Cmo'n be specific, you're just using fallacies and avoiding the true meaning of the term 'thinker'.. :lol:

think·er
ˈTHiNGkər/Submit
noun
a person who thinks deeply and seriously.
a person with highly developed intellectual powers, especially one whose profession involves intellectual activity.

Anyone who sees your posts, analyzes the BS in their minds and reflect upon it ARE thinkers.

placid wrote:But yeah, we all like a good story...albeit imagined.

If there was no one imagining, imagination couldn't EVER happen. When there is no one in the room, do you think 'nothing' can imagine? No. Have you ever seen empty space imagining? or a rock perhaps? Nope. It has to be someone with a brain.

[ but I doubt you want to understand it, you want nothing but promote your spamming non duality frustrated agenda, and show your love for Hitler ]
:paladin:

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7936
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby landrew » Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:43 pm

mirror93 wrote:
Lausten wrote:
landrew wrote:It seems to me that the concept of free-will should be common ground between the atheist and the theist. In a free-will universe, we have the ability to choose our actions, and experience the consequences. Anything else would result in a programmed, robotic existence for which all outcomes could be predicted, and consequences meaningless.

No it wouldn't. You would need a computer the same size as the universe to hold all the inputs before you could predict the outcomes.


is there even a size to the universe? I mean, it's theorized that it may or may not, but we can't know

It's a bit like the "tree falling in a forest" philosophical question. To my way of thinking, of course it makes a sound, and whether it's heard or not is irrelevant.

In the same way, I believe that the solution to a massive computational problem can exist, even if it hasn't been solved. The fact that someone doesn't know the digits of pi, doesn't mean that pi does not exist. An artisan can calculate circles with calipers all his life without ever hearing about pi.

So if all our actions are predetermined, then theoretically a computer of sufficient complexity could resolve it, and predict all outcomes with perfect certainty. The perfect universal simulator if you will. Whether this calculation has been done somewhere, or whether it can be done with foreseeable technology is irrelevant. This is an assumption that supports the absence of free will, but in our case, it doesn't matter. If you don't hear the tree falling, it can fall on you just the same.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby mirror93 » Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:53 pm

placid wrote:Still waiting....

Stillness speaking....

Stop trying to show up to your own show, there is no room in here for two.

Love has no opposite.


i.e, the placid persona wants her own worldview (that she learned from others, i.e gurus;hippies) to be everyone's worldview. Nope. No. That's not gonna happen. It's better to pretend this is all a dream and we are fooling you in your reality, otherwise you will end up more frustrated than you already are. :lol: :D
Last edited by mirror93 on Wed Jul 25, 2018 5:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
:paladin:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby mirror93 » Wed Jul 25, 2018 5:03 pm

I mean, is it even worth answering placid's fake doubts? (on second thought, I think we should. When someone is searching any of her religious advaita phrases on google, it will appear all of her gibberish being debunked here, so I think her posts can be of some use)
:paladin:

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1168
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Cadmusteeth » Wed Jul 25, 2018 7:16 pm

Matthew does that so I think there is no harm in adding to that.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Lausten » Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:17 pm

landrew wrote:
mirror93 wrote:
Lausten wrote:
landrew wrote:It seems to me that the concept of free-will should be common ground between the atheist and the theist. In a free-will universe, we have the ability to choose our actions, and experience the consequences. Anything else would result in a programmed, robotic existence for which all outcomes could be predicted, and consequences meaningless.

No it wouldn't. You would need a computer the same size as the universe to hold all the inputs before you could predict the outcomes.


is there even a size to the universe? I mean, it's theorized that it may or may not, but we can't know

It's a bit like the "tree falling in a forest" philosophical question. To my way of thinking, of course it makes a sound, and whether it's heard or not is irrelevant.

In the same way, I believe that the solution to a massive computational problem can exist, even if it hasn't been solved. The fact that someone doesn't know the digits of pi, doesn't mean that pi does not exist. An artisan can calculate circles with calipers all his life without ever hearing about pi.

So if all our actions are predetermined, then theoretically a computer of sufficient complexity could resolve it, and predict all outcomes with perfect certainty. The perfect universal simulator if you will. Whether this calculation has been done somewhere, or whether it can be done with foreseeable technology is irrelevant. This is an assumption that supports the absence of free will, but in our case, it doesn't matter. If you don't hear the tree falling, it can fall on you just the same.

Hold your horses there. First, you said "all outcomes could be predicted". By whom? If it's some theoretical "whom" that is beyond our abilities to even fathom, then it does matter. If you are going to divorce yourself from reality that much and say anything is possible, you might as well be placid. Of course it's relevant.

That we can philosophically say there is no free will does not lead to the conclusion that we can predict outcomes. It does lead to us being in charge of our instincts. We can manipulate our brain chemistry and fix or improve ourselves. That's us interacting with our own natural causes. The fact that we call that "determining our future" is what is irrelevant. We are in the illusion and we can't just step out of it. What appear to be voluntary choices are caused by the same types of reactions that cause us to involuntarily pull our hand off of a hot stove.

All of this speculation anyway. There is no consensus on what consciousness is, but we do know quite a bit and the question really needs to be asked in the other direction. If we can overcome all of the natural chemistry that leads us to eat what we do and feel the way we feel, what is doing that? That thought you just had to start typing an answer, where did that come from? It came from a million different inputs, most of them you are not aware of.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Lausten » Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:32 pm

placid wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Matthew, myself and others here are skeptics. That means we adhere to rational and critical thinking. We reject religious, irrational and superstition based thinking. Simply, that means we believe only that which is based on credible evidence. Most of the stuff promulgated in this thread is not based on anything credible, so we reject it. Anyone who cannot handle our rejection of nonsense can find another forum where people are gullible enough to believe total bull-shit.

It seems there's an awful lot of thinking and believing going on around here.

Okay, where is the credible evidence of ''a thinker'', please show it?

and while your at it, please show the credible evidence of ''a believer'' and maybe kill two birds with one stone ..now,wouldn't that be very clever of you...will be awaiting the showings...when you can show, then I and only I will decide whether that showing is worthy of rejection or not. :shock:

The fact that you can't locate a "thinker" or define what "thinking" is, does not negate the value of thinking as we know it. What you are asking is for us to add "as we know it" to the end of every sentence. By pointing out the limits of our knowledge, you have accomplished nothing other than showing that neither or us is certain of anything. But what is "certain"? See, I can do it too.

The words Lance choose have been defined and refined over centuries. Whole books are written on their meaning. We use them to navigate this existence. But you don't care about any of that. You think that since you figured out that we don't know anything for certain, that makes you smarter, that puts you in some higher plain of wisdom and enlightenment, that it gives you the power to decide what definitions are "worthy". Sorry Mr. Guru, you've been exposed. :lol:
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7936
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby landrew » Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:52 pm

Lausten wrote:Hold your horses there. First, you said "all outcomes could be predicted". By whom? If it's some theoretical "whom" that is beyond our abilities to even fathom, then it does matter. If you are going to divorce yourself from reality that much and say anything is possible, you might as well be placid. Of course it's relevant.

I thought I had taken a few pains to explain this one. I never said "all outcomes" could be predicted, but some predictions could have an outcome. Now, whether or not we have the means to determine that outcome, is irrelevant to whether it exists or not. The proposal is that if every variable in the universe were known (notwithstanding the infinite nature of the universe) then theoretically every outcome could have a value, whether we could derive that value or not.

Yes, I know that it might require a computer larger than the universe itself, but that doesn't affect whether such an outcome exists or not; only that we lack the means to reach it. My point is that "unreachable" places exist, whether we can get there or not.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9600
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Poodle » Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:54 pm

Placid doesn't approve of books. She thinks 'book learning' is totally invalid. As a matter of fact, she thinks 'learning' is invalid, unless its learning the tiresome repetition of conflated opposites.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28553
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:01 am

Upton_O_Goode wrote:Funny, yes. But appalling also.
There is a large pro-Nazi following in the old Advaita religious cult, to which Placid belongs. It stems from a pro-Nazi French woman, who adopted the Indian name Savitri Devi and pretended she was Indian. She didn't die until 1982.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi
Savitri_Devi.jpg


Pilgrimage is a book by Savitri Devi. It is a personal account of her pilgrimage to various National Socialist "holy sites" in 1953. It was published in Calcutta in 1958. The book is dedicated "To the German People" and opens with quotations from the Bhagawad Gita.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28553
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

More insane religious claims

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:17 am

Cadmusteeth wrote:Matthew does that so I think there is no harm in adding to that.


I can debunk Placid's religious Advaita claim in seconds.

Placid claims that objects only exist for the instant that we are observing them. Thus there has to be an observer.

However, we can see the star Alpha Centauri A, which is 4.2 light years away. As it took 4.2 years for the light of that star to reach us, it means the star existed 4.2 years ago. I then look at the next nearest star which is 4.3 light years away....and the next at 4.7 light years away....and so on back 13.2 billion years and that means all those stars must have existed in the past.

Placid doesn't know that light has a speed and assumed we see everything instantaneously.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby mirror93 » Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:49 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Cadmusteeth wrote:Matthew does that so I think there is no harm in adding to that.


I can debunk Placid's religious Advaita claim in seconds.

Placid claims that objects only exist for the instant that we are observing them. Thus there has to be an observer.

However, we can see the star Alpha Centauri A, which is 4.2 light years away. As it took 4.2 years for the light of that star to reach us, it means the star existed 4.2 years ago. I then look at the next nearest star which is 4.3 light years away....and the next at 4.7 light years away....and so on back 13.2 billion years and that means all those stars must have existed in the past.

Placid doesn't know that light has a speed and assumed we see everything instantaneously.
:lol: :lol: :lol:


Even then, considering the possibility that we saw every bit of these stars instantaneously as they are now, Placid would still be wrong, because we didn't know about these stars before
:paladin:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28553
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:01 am

mirror93 wrote:Even then, considering the possibility that we saw every bit of these stars instantaneously as they are now, Placid would still be wrong, because we didn't know about these stars before

It really doesn't matter. Even at a microscopic level we don't see two things at exactly the same time as light has a speed. Placid simply never knew that.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14684
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:37 am

landrew wrote:
It's a bit like the "tree falling in a forest" philosophical question. To my way of thinking, of course it makes a sound, and whether it's heard or not is irrelevant.

Its not philosophical at all. Rather, purely definitional. Trees falling create waves in the air. Sentient creatures have to hear the wave for there to be a sound. Its the same issue as whether or not "Red" exists.

Simple dictionary skills.

Sound: The particular auditory effect produced by a given cause.

IIRC, this is the second issue this clean up round where you have made very basic fails by clinging to ignorance. Interesting for someone who is not and can read?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4115
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Unlimited_Oracular_Guidance
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: More insane religious claims

Postby Upton_O_Goode » Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:13 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Upton_O_Goode wrote:Funny, yes. But appalling also.
There is a large pro-Nazi following in the old Advaita religious cult, to which Placid belongs. It stems from a pro-Nazi French woman, who adopted the Indian name Savitri Devi and pretended she was Indian. She didn't die until 1982.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi
Savitri_Devi.jpg

Pilgrimage is a book by Savitri Devi. It is a personal account of her pilgrimage to various National Socialist "holy sites" in 1953. It was published in Calcutta in 1958. The book is dedicated "To the German People" and opens with quotations from the Bhagawad Gita.


So, is placid a real person? Obviously, there's a real person somewhere behind the posts, but a lot of them look like bot-generated anti-Semitic rants. In any case, attempting argument with placid is futile; you can't reach a person so sunk in irrational hatred, arrogance, and ignorance. You might as well try to teach a pig to eat with a knife and fork; it wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.
"Still, doubts gnawed at everyone. And under no circumstances could I acknowledge my own similar doubts. In order to coax the participants into psychic stability, I had to appear to be rock-solidly convinced of the necessity of carrying out this horrifyingly cruel command."

Rudolf Höß, hanged facing Auschwitz, the camp he commanded, in April 1947. He admitted to 1.1 to 1.5 million murders carried out under his command. Eichmann told him the number was 2.5 million.

User avatar
placid
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1374
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:39 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby placid » Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:17 am

Lausten wrote:
placid wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Matthew, myself and others here are skeptics. That means we adhere to rational and critical thinking. We reject religious, irrational and superstition based thinking. Simply, that means we believe only that which is based on credible evidence. Most of the stuff promulgated in this thread is not based on anything credible, so we reject it. Anyone who cannot handle our rejection of nonsense can find another forum where people are gullible enough to believe total bull-shit.

It seems there's an awful lot of thinking and believing going on around here.

Okay, where is the credible evidence of ''a thinker'', please show it?

and while your at it, please show the credible evidence of ''a believer'' and maybe kill two birds with one stone ..now,wouldn't that be very clever of you...will be awaiting the showings...when you can show, then I and only I will decide whether that showing is worthy of rejection or not. :shock:

The fact that you can't locate a "thinker" or define what "thinking" is, does not negate the value of thinking as we know it. What you are asking is for us to add "as we know it" to the end of every sentence. By pointing out the limits of our knowledge, you have accomplished nothing other than showing that neither or us is certain of anything. But what is "certain"? See, I can do it too.


Exactly what Advaita is saying...albeit in a different way...and is what I'm trying to point out, to those lunatics who reject Avaita, namely, that venomous viper that goes by the title Matthew.

I'm just trying to show people who choose to reject this common sense albeit put in a different context ..that is doesn't mean the view is woo...so I'm reminding the woo callers to remove the plank from their own eye before rejecting the common sense of anothers view point.


Lausten wrote:The words Lance choose have been defined and refined over centuries. Whole books are written on their meaning. We use them to navigate this existence. But you don't care about any of that. You think that since you figured out that we don't know anything for certain, that makes you smarter, that puts you in some higher plain of wisdom and enlightenment, that it gives you the power to decide what definitions are "worthy". Sorry Mr. Guru, you've been exposed. :lol:


I'm not trying to be smarter you insecure one. I could say that about you when you feel the urgent need to respond to everything I say, in order to make what I say less important in order that yours is. In other words, you are being a hypocrite by crushing everything I say to make you look like the more knowledgable one ...and you are too thick to see that plank in your own eye..and is what I'm trying to point out.

No one is enlightened, everything is enlightenment. It's not something to get, you suggested it is, not me, you are defensive as usual.

I want to express myself like anyone else here, and all I get is abuse after abuse after abuse, as if you people have got something to defend. I happen to like expressing the truth that is nondual reality.

So, everything you have said in your respnse to me, is the Same thing Advaita is saying, albeit in a different contex ..so that doesn't mean Advaita is Woo.

Calling my veiw woo doesn't mean it is. I can just as easy call your view woo too...how are we going to know who is RIGHT or WRONG?

Do people actually exist just to make fun of each others ideas, and slap them down so low for ever having the courage to think outside the box ...is that all we are good for? is that the best a human being can do?

Don't you think that is pathetic? I know I am guilty of name calling as well, in defence, but all I'm trying to show is that we don't have to live in a world like that...lets all just sling mud in each others eyes, that will be fun then won't it, can we ever see clearly, all of us? Who do we think we are fighting with?


I'm just trying to show people who choose to reject this common sense that we all share and know, aka knowledge ..that just because it's expressed in a different context ..it doesn't mean that view is woo...so I'm reminding the woo callers to remove the plank from their own eye before rejecting the common sense of anothers view point.

No one can expose that which does not exist except as a concept.

Any tom dick and harry knows a concept, but can the knower of every concept be known ..that is another story.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14684
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:35 am

"but can the knower of every concept be known" //// how is this relevant to anything?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Lausten » Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:53 am

placid wrote:
I'm not trying to be smarter you insecure one. I could say that about you when you feel the urgent need to respond to everything I say, in order to make what I say less important in order that yours is. In other words, you are being a hypocrite by crushing everything I say to make you look like the more knowledgable one ...and you are too thick to see that plank in your own eye..and is what I'm trying to point out.

No one is enlightened, everything is enlightenment. It's not something to get, you suggested it is, not me, you are defensive as usual.

I want to express myself like anyone else here, and all I get is abuse after abuse after abuse, as if you people have got something to defend. I happen to like expressing the truth that is nondual reality.

So, everything you have said in your respnse to me, is the Same thing Advaita is saying, albeit in a different contex ..so that doesn't mean Advaita is Woo.

Calling my veiw woo doesn't mean it is. I can just as easy call your view woo too...how are we going to know who is RIGHT or WRONG?


Sorry, didn't realize you had taken the advanced guru course. It says, when someone catches you doing your BS say some everything/nothing stuff. Well, I do know what is right and what is wrong, so I see your rhetorical question and raise you some common sense.

Also, I like the way you slip in some insults while you're putting me down for insulting you and then call me a hypocrite. Well done.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7936
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby landrew » Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:06 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
landrew wrote:
It's a bit like the "tree falling in a forest" philosophical question. To my way of thinking, of course it makes a sound, and whether it's heard or not is irrelevant.

Its not philosophical at all. Rather, purely definitional. Trees falling create waves in the air. Sentient creatures have to hear the wave for there to be a sound. Its the same issue as whether or not "Red" exists.

Simple dictionary skills.

Sound: The particular auditory effect produced by a given cause.

IIRC, this is the second issue this clean up round where you have made very basic fails by clinging to ignorance. Interesting for someone who is not and can read?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree ... n_a_forest
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: The Solution To The Mystery

Postby Lausten » Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:56 pm

A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com


Return to “Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest