A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wrote the websites down. I am interested in creating a blog but the only problem is that the type of people that would even come close to understanding this discussion are those in these type forums, not in just some blog out in left field. So I'm between a rock and a hard place.

Most of us read blogs that address our fields of interest. You can also go to forums and link people to your blog for more information.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It is still on some computers as a PDF, but the last thing you want is for people to have access to the whole book now. I should ask my son-in-law to help, I'm sure there is a way to reformat my copy of the PDF and post it somewhere.

You're probably right about people having complete access. I almost vomited when people began taking everything out of context and corrupting the book the way they did.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Evidently not.

peacegirl, you're making a very poor showing of it, right off the bat.

Either you don't understand what people are asking for, or you're ignoring their very useful and important advice.


ETA: Eratosthenes measured the Earth's circumference in 230 B.C.E.

This really has nothing to do with the discovery, but you will tear even the slightest miscalculation as proof that he is wrong about everything. But he's not wrong and arguing over these trivial facts doesn't change the truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As was pointed out to you before (sorry I forgot by whom)

An apple falls to the ground <---observation

Gravity causes apples to fall to the ground <---explanation

We don't want explanations right now, we want observations.

I know what you want and I'm going to give it to you but in a slightly different way than last time. It didn't work last time. Your synopsis was not complete, but you thought it was, and therefore you thought his proof was wrong. I hope you bear with me. If no one likes the way I'm demonstrating this very important work, then don't follow this thread.

[LadyShea]

Then start presenting and quit telling everyone what to do.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can give you the name of the chapters in the book which gives an overview of where the book is headed, but I cannot explain the first two chapters in this simple way. Too much is left out and then people will tell me he's wrong. Been there, done that.

What, exactly, is left out? The only reason the book is so long is that he spends pages and pages of needless verbosity expounding on just how right he is and having imaginary conversations with imaginary doubters whom he imaginarily convinces.

If you can't see why all that is unnecessary for any 'discovery' with real evidence on its side (or perhaps realize that there is no real evidence and his 'discovery' cannot survive the light of day without all the smoke and mirrors?), we are truly wasting our time here.

[specious_reasons]

peacegirl, I was being a dick, there are no moderators here.

This is a free-speech forum and no one dictates the content here. If I had a teacher with the rank incompetence you show, I'd have no problems upsetting their lecture.

If anything in the Universe could be different, then of course the outcome would be different because the determinants leading up to someone's choice would be different. But we're talking about a Universe where we cannot go back in time and change the past. Being able to change the past is complete fantasy, and I'm discussing reality.

It's called a thought experiment. Even the Holy Lessans indulged in them. You know, the whole "if God turned on the Sun at noon" fiasco? That's a thought experiment, a shitty, shitty thought experiment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then start presenting and quit telling everyone what to do.

LadyShea, that is funny because you're constantly telling me what to do, how to present myself, and what to say in regard to science. Give it up already. You just showed that your prejudicial attitude dictates that everyone should give their thoughts, but not me. I can't speak my truth. Is this crazy thinking or what?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can give you the name of the chapters in the book which gives an overview of where the book is headed, but I cannot explain the first two chapters in this simple way. Too much is left out and then people will tell me he's wrong. Been there, done that.

Originally Posted by Kael

What, exactly, is left out? The only reason the book is so long is that he spends pages and pages of needless verbosity expounding on just how right he is and having imaginary conversations with imaginary doubters whom he imaginarily convinces.

No Kael, your interpretation is completely wrong. There is no imaginary anything, and unless you can give this man a break, you'll think you're right, and I am not going to argue with you anymore. Believe what you believe.

Originally Posted by Kael

If you can't see why all that is unnecessary for any 'discovery' with real evidence on its side (or perhaps realize that there is no real evidence and his 'discovery' cannot survive the light of day without all the smoke and mirrors?), we are truly wasting our time here.

I agree. But it's not me that's missing out; it's you.

[davidm]

There is a lot of interesting conversation in this thread, particularly the QM stuff. I suggest not letting peacegirl muck it up. Lessans' "no-free-will" argument has already been disposed of by logic alone; he commited a modal fallacy without knowing it (lack of education) and that's that. I suggest a fruitful discussion can be had about free will and determinism, however, including on the points I already raised (Aristotle's sea battle argument, etc.)

[LadyShea]

You can speak your truth anytime you want! Nobody is stopping you from posting whatever you want, whenever and however you want. Yet you don't post it. There are no moderators here. You can only be banned, edited, or censored if you post illegal shit, or if you threaten people or reveal their personal information.

Start teaching anytime, however if you want your intended "students" to actually listen you should follow their requests.

Nobody has to pay any attention you know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, it is full of hilarious stuff, just quick rundown:

1. To wake a child is to blame it for sleeping.

2. People will have sex on the dinner table (but only if the children are not around; yet it's not explained why the children need to leave. Isnt' that blaming them for wanting to watch?)

3. People will prance about scantily clad and fall in love with the genitals of the first person they meet without even a conversation. They will mate for live/ Divorce will be mathematically impossible. BUT!

4. It will be a mathematical impossibility for people to share the same bed. Bed will only be for teh quck and dirty, and then separate beds.

5. Vaccinations are wrong.

6. Anyone can be a doctor! Just hang out a shingle

7. No one will call Seymour a moron anymore, because in the New World such judgemental terms will not exist.

That's just seven off the top of my head that cracked me up.

It would crack anybody up David the way you misconstrued what was being said (probably because you hate that we see in real time), if they didn't know where these observations originated. What else could Lessans have done but to emphasize NOT TO READ THE BOOK UNTIL THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS WERE UNDERSTOOD. WHAT IS IT YOU MISSED DAVID? IN SPITE OF YOUR EFFORT TO DISCREDIT LESSANS, YOU MISSED THE ENTIRE CORE OF THIS KNOWLEDGE, SO WHY SHOULD ANYONE TAKE YOUR REBUTTAL SERIOUSLY?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would crack anybody up David the way you misconstrued what was being said (probably because you hate that we see in real time), if they didn't know where these observations originated. What else could Lessans have done but to emphasize NOT TO READ THE BOOK UNTIL THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS WERE UNDERSTOOD. WHAT IS IT YOU MISSED DAVID BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY MISSED THE CORE OF THIS KNOWLEDGE.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can speak your truth anytime you want! Nobody is stopping you from posting whatever you want, whenever and however you want. Yet you don't post it. There are no moderators here. You can only be banned, edited, or censored if you post illegal shit, or if you threaten people or reveal their personal information.

Start teaching anytime, however if you want your intended "students" to actually listen you should follow their requests.

Nobody has to pay any attention you know.

Nobody has to pay attention unless they are interested in the content. So far there seems to be interest, but I need to show that Lessans was right about determinism and that it is not a modal fallacy.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

I suggest a fruitful discussion can be had about free will and determinism, however, including on the points I already raised

I've been having a bit of discussion in PM about this, because I am not seeing why the free will v. determinism issue is meaningful outside of theology. Isn't the heart of it about ethics and actions (morality and behavior?). If so, shouldn't we be discussing those things?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I think the ontology described by QM is close to MW.

But the point where MW goes wrong is where it says (or you say) "superpositions are real worlds in, well, superposition". I think that's a daft thing to say; there's one real world; it involves superposition. I don't think you need to start splitting things up into 'worlds' to make sense of our experiences in quantum mechanics. Unless you secretly want a classical world to talk about.

I've read Schrodinger's Kittens (and In Search of Schrodinger's Cat), and enjoyed them both. I bumped into the author at one of my postgrad interviews, actually! Sadly I didn't realise until after he'd left who he was, I'd have tried to speak to him. I preferred the first book to the second.

But isn't this kind of a semantic point? It's like the difference between a universe or a multiverse; we can say that the multiverse means that there is more than one universe, or we can fall back on the original intent of the word "universe" -- encompassing all that there is or could be -- and just say that the universe comprises the multiverse, or consists of the multiverse.

So, then, we could say that the World comprises "many worlds"; would that be more on target?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I don't think you need to start splitting things up into 'worlds' to make sense of our experiences in quantum mechanics. Unless you secretly want a classical world to talk about.

I think for most people it's easier to talk about whatever they are experiencing as "this world" and any other possible realities (or invisible facets of reality) as "other worlds". Start getting too far up the no-frame-of-reference asshole and you lose the average person.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've been having a bit of discussion in PM about this, because I am not seeing why the free will v. determinism issue is meaningful outside of theology. Isn't the heart of it about ethics and actions (morality and behavior?). If so, shouldn't we be discussing those things?

I think it's meaningful outside of theology because of the examples already given; for instance, if causal determinism is correct, we have no free will because our present mental state is caused by prior physical states in the universe. Or again, if logical determinism is correct, we have no free will because of the sea battle argument: If it's true today that tomorrow there will be a sea battle, then no one can prevent the sea battle from occurring. Or again, if we lack agency (the "I" is an illusion) then our decisions are made subconsciously even before we are aware of them and free will is an illusion (see the Libett experiments from the 80s). Or again, if the future exists as does the past, then no one can alter or change the future course of events any more than they can change past events and so again free will would be an illusion. And so on.

As it happens, I think all of these arguments against free will fail, and it might be an interesting philosophical discussion to try to demonstrate why these arguments do not succeed.

[LadyShea]

Fair enough. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around thoughts I perceive as impractical, or inapplicable to my life is all. I am trying though

Originally Posted by davidm

if the future exists as does the past, then no one can alter or change the future course of events any more than they can change past events

I do have a bit of an interest in this. I saw an explanation of time that was really intriguing (bear in mind it was pop-sci, so I've no idea what the theory is called or related to). Basically it said the future is constantly forming from or being created by the present. Is that causal determinism? The idea that ALL the current physical states in the universe determine the future physical states in the universe?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Fair enough. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around thoughts I perceive as impractical, or inapplicable to my life is all. I am trying though

I do have a bit of an interest in this. I saw an explanation of time that was really intriguing (bear in mind it was pop-sci, so I've no idea what the theory is called or related to). Basically it said the future is constantly forming from or being created by the present. Is that causal determinism? The idea that ALL the current physical states in the universe determine the future physical states in the universe?

That would be a kind of causal determinism, yes, but bear in mind that quantum mechanics is at odds with causal determinism. Causal determinism is most likely false for that reason alone. However, there are other grounds, even apart from QM, to question causal determinism.

What I have in mind with the above is something that might be called "ontological determinism." It goes back to the discussion in the other thread of eternalism vs. presentism. The relativity of simultaneity seems to show that future states are as real as present states and past states. This means the future exists along with the past and present. Obviously they don't all exist NOW, but at their respective temporal locations, but they are real for all that. So if the future is real I can't change it. If I can't change the future does that mean I lack free will? That is the question.

[LadyShea]

But just because the future exists, does that mean it's populated by immutable physical states?

Again, layperson so give me some huge latitude okay...but, if particles are constantly blinking in and out of existence now (as I have heard posited), then that would also be happening in some other now, meaning the inclusive physical state at any given moment is not fixed.

[LadyShea]

If I can't change the future does that mean I lack free will?

Doesn't it depend on how one is defining free will? Maybe we ought to do that.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by davidm

There is a lot of interesting conversation in this thread, particularly the QM stuff. I suggest not letting peacegirl muck it up. Lessans' "no-free-will" argument has already been disposed of by logic alone; he commited a modal fallacy without knowing it (lack of education) and that's that. I suggest a fruitful discussion can be had about free will and determinism, however, including on the points I already raised (Aristotle's sea battle argument, etc.)

I'm still trying to parse the QM stuff in this thread. I haven't had a physics class with QM content in nigh on 20 years. I understand some aspects of it, but the details are rough and sometimes counterintuitive.

I'm also trying not to rely on determinacy or nondeterminacy for the free will argument. I think they're related but not required.

Actually, I'm going back and reading what Clutch Munny wrote:

The short version is that it depends what you thought "free will" meant in the first place. If you think it means just that your actions are caused by your desires, then if it turns out that your desires just are brain states, neurology won't limit your free will -- it'll manifest your free will.

If you think free will means that your actions should depend on your will in a way that is not determined by the wider causal order of events in the world, then the fact that brains cause behaviour will certainly seem a puzzle.

And I'm thinking the free will, real or not is almost a red-herring. It's like it's just not that important, unless you want to incorporate a God into your universe.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've been having a bit of discussion in PM about this, because I am not seeing why the free will v. determinism issue is meaningful outside of theology. Isn't the heart of it about ethics and actions (morality and behavior?). If so, shouldn't we be discussing those things?

We seem to think an awful lot alike, LadyShea. It's cool, but a bit freaky.

[LadyShea]

And I'm thinking the free will, real or not is almost a red-herring. It's like it's just not that important, unless you want to incorporate a God into your universe.

That's kinda where I was going with my theology comment.