Determinism vs Freewill

[Gregory A]

Planets need not apply

time is our primary measure of distance or space. How big is the Milky Way galaxy? Our answer: x light years or parsecs. Little else would make practical sense. Yes, ultimately it is just imposing our select periodic structures upon nature. But other animals do that kind of thing too.

Select periodic structures is right. Atomic clocks are just a more precise way of measuring motion and have nothing whatever to do with time as we measure it. Years, months & days have no real relationship with each other either. The earth moving around the sun, the moon orbiting the earth, the earth rotating on its axis have no possibility of being synchronized as you know.

If for example we were on a space hotel in geosynchronous orbit over the equator we could witness a continuous sunrise, midday or sunset and then the time as measured on our clocks would cease to have much relevance. Whereas Time a chronological progression does not appear to exist at all. Another way of looking at is that the dinosaurs are all around us still but are there in a form that we don't perceive of as creatures and instead we see as dust. There is only motion devoid of direction?

 

[Gregory A]

No, the above quote does not make sense......too vague for one thing. Objections to anything in particular?

Blame it on my poor wordskills maybe. But if we do try and refute something (anything in particular) that is real, then we need to do that out of ignorance of those things that support its existence. You don't seem to understand the difference between time & Time for example. But that said your actions in pulling out of this debate are supportive of determinism in action. Which in this instance is that some of those here who do get what I'm saying will find it too disagreeable for their leftwing agenda and backout, those (still on the left) who don't get what it is will continue to reply. The Right by the way won't get any of this maybe because of their usual lack of formal education. A complete catch 22 for me. So I can only hope someone here has enough principle so that they can override their ideology in favor of being more objective.

 

[Gregory A]

Cities are not hives, nor ruled by a hive mind. They are more like rats nests of individual rats seeking to make little rats and get as much food and rat bed material ass possible without being attacked by the other rats.

It is a rat race out there but still some similarities that say would not exist if comparing bees to monkeys

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay, so forget politics and let's strive to be objective.

You're saying time is a measure of motion. Say for example, motion = x feet / sec. A distance covered per unit of time. Motion is defined as

noun
the action or process of moving or of changing place or position; movement.

Notice how we use a nouns to describe actions? We are so hopelessly confused.

Verb:

noun

1. a word used to describe an action,

Anyways, no. Feet / sec is speed. Like I said, time -- the sort of time you're talking about, is simply a measure of distance (or area) (or space). It's an abstraction that we've developed and persist in using because it's practical for us to do so. The epitome of impractical not to.

The earth moving around the sun, the moon orbiting the earth, the earth rotating on its axis have no possibility of being synchronized as you know.

Would depend on one's definition or usage of synchronized, methinks. Neither here nor there.

If for example we were on a space hotel in geosynchronous orbit over the equator we could witness a continuous sunrise, midday or sunset and then the time as measured on our clocks would cease to have much relevance. Whereas Time a chronological progression does not appear to exist at all. Another way of looking at is that the dinosaurs are all around us still but are there in a form that we don't perceive of as creatures and instead we see as dust. There is only motion devoid of direction?

Not really. The Earth's tilt and varying distance from the Sun ensure that things continue to change with the seasons, even at the Equator. And the Dinosaurs may or may not have existed in any comparable plane. The Earth's crust has changed dramatically since back then.
The only thing I'd like you to understand is that time is simply a convention we find useful. Therefore, it is a measure of space that we find convenient, and NOT a property of space itself.
Migrating birds use time in some sense or other.. Chickens.. Cicadas.. All find their own conceptions of it very useful.

 

[JoeMoma]

Blame it on my poor wordskills maybe. But if we do try and refute something (anything in particular) that is real, then we need to do that out of ignorance of those things that support its existence. You don't seem to understand the difference between time & Time for example. But that said your actions in pulling out of this debate are supportive of determinism in action. Which in this instance is that some of those here who do get what I'm saying will find it too disagreeable for their leftwing agenda and backout, those (still on the left) who don't get what it is will continue to reply. The Right by the way won't get any of this maybe because of their usual lack of formal education. A complete catch 22 for me. So I can only hope someone here has enough principle so that they can override their ideology in favor of being more objective.

I'm not trying to refute anything, thus what you are saying makes little to no sense to me regarding to you quoting my post.

And what exactly do you mean with "the difference between time & Time"? Do words change definition due to capitalization?

 

[Gregory A]

Same here. With religionists all around. A massive, old church almost within spitting distance. Yet we disagree regarding the implications of the Big Bang. Determine anything from that?

Apart from determining that as someone on the Left you consequently grab at anything within reach to use as a weapon in your battle against the Right. Determinism being a favorite weapon of the Left in its battle with a religion perceived as patriarchal with its male God and male representatives, Moses, Jesus & Muhammad. But be aware in your zeal you may find you really are clasping at a straw with this Big Bang thing.

 

[Gregory A]

Okay, so forget politics and let's strive to be objective.

That would be the hard part (hard enough if only to ourselves) as either of us would need to concede we are wrong. Because politics is kind of based on emotion I'm afraid.

You're saying time is a measure of motion. Say for example, motion = x feet / sec. A distance covered per unit of time. Motion is defined as

One second is still a physical measure of the earth's rotation. This we then convert with an analog to digital converter known simply as a clock (its hands analogous to the earth's rotation, in motion, pointing to digits on its face) giving us a concept of time.

Notice how we use a nouns to describe actions? We are so hopelessly confused.

Verb:

Anyways, no. Feet / sec is speed. Like I said, time -- the sort of time you're talking about, is simply a measure of distance (or area) (or space). It's an abstraction that we've developed and persist in using because it's practical for us to do so. The epitome of impractical not to.
Would depend on one's definition or usage of synchronized, methinks. Neither here nor there.

Not really. The Earth's tilt and varying distance from the Sun ensure that things continue to change with the seasons, even at the Equator. And the Dinosaurs may or may not have existed in any comparable plane. The Earth's crust has changed dramatically since back then.
The only thing I'd like you to understand is that time is simply a convention we find useful. Therefore, it is a measure of space that we find convenient, and NOT a property of space itself.
Migrating birds use time in some sense or other.. Chickens.. Cicadas.. All find their own conceptions of it very useful.

You are right it would need to be the hotel that's synchronized with the sun not the earth. And it would not be a rising sun or setting sun, but a risen or about to set sun. There would be no apparent motion apart from the slow movement of the earth. Time is the measure of motion to us a concept enforced with fading memories of daily activities.

I say, if I can understand something then anyone can understand it too. Which, unfortunately, is not saying anyone can understand what I am saying.

 

[Gregory A]

I'm not trying to refute anything, thus what you are saying makes little to no sense to me regarding to you quoting my post.

And what exactly do you mean with "the difference between time & Time"? Do words change definition due to capitalization?

Free will was what you were refuting. And as I'd said one of the reasons you challenge the concept of free will is because you are ignorant of some of those things pertaining to it. For example, time, the measure of rates of motion and Time the chronological aspect we apply to what is only a sense of flow of something that only appears to relate to time. One is an actual (although not completely accurate) measure the other is a concept. Years separate us from the past conceptually. Otherwise the rotation of the earth around the sun is a 'continuous cycle' and is nothing suggestive of any direction.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Apart from determining that as someone on the Left you consequently grab at anything within reach to use as a weapon in your battle against the Right. Determinism being a favorite weapon of the Left in its battle with a religion perceived as patriarchal with its male God and male representatives, Moses, Jesus & Muhammad. But be aware in your zeal you may find you really are clasping at a straw with this Big Bang thing.

Be aware in your zeal you may find you really are clasping at straws with all this "as someone on the Left" and "battle against the Right" stuff. You're the only one making this about politics. I am an atheist and thus, like you, disinclined to take much of religious dogma seriously. But there are plenty of atheists on "the Right" and religionists on "the Left." I don't care a fig about any of that here.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Years separate us from the past conceptually. Otherwise the rotation of the earth around the sun is a 'continuous cycle' and is nothing suggestive of any direction.

Have you studied relativity at all? Depends on one's point of view. The Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years, the Sun is about 4.6 billion, the Big Bang happened (yes, it happened) about 13.8 billion years ago.

Science!

Show some respect.

"nothing suggestive of any direction"? Whaa? Does the Sun appear to rise in the East every (sunny) day or not? Well, regardless, it hasn't been there forever and neither have we. The planets now reside in a plane. Sure didn't start off that way. What are you smoking?

 

[JoeMoma]

Free will was what you were refuting. And as I'd said one of the reasons you challenge the concept of free will is because you are ignorant of some of those things pertaining to it. For example, time, the measure of rates of motion and Time the chronological aspect we apply to what is only a sense of flow of something that only appears to relate to time. One is an actual (although not completely accurate) measure the other is a concept. Years separate us from the past conceptually. Otherwise the rotation of the earth around the sun is a 'continuous cycle' and is nothing suggestive of any direction.

No, I gave a list of axioms and said if all the axioms are true that refutes free will. I did not say all those axioms are true and I'm sure their truth is debatable. As time is concerned, see axiom #2, God knows all past, future, and present.

 

[Grumblenuts]

One second is still a physical measure of the earth's rotation. This we then convert with an analog to digital converter known simply as a clock (its hands analogous to the earth's rotation, in motion, pointing to digits on its face) giving us a concept of time.

That's a nice construction, but untrue nonetheless. No one needs a clock to conceive of time. In fact, we have well developed internal clocks that impose time constraints upon us with no need of visual aids, nor even consciousness.

 

[Gregory A]

Have you studied relativity at all? Depends on one's point of view. The Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years, the Sun is about 4.6 billion, the Big Bang happened (yes, it happened) about 13.8 billion years ago.

Science!

Show some respect.

"nothing suggestive of any direction"? Whaa? Does the Sun appear to rise in the East every (sunny) day or not? Well, regardless, it hasn't been there forever and neither have we. The planets now reside in a plane. Sure didn't start off that way. What are you smoking?

(wrong reply below, sorry)

The earth's rotation is continuous (sunrises combined with the our sleep cycle) creating the illusion of another day occuring. But still days are a concept. Why else could we break up years, months (but not weeks) & days into independent measures? The earth orbit of sun, the orbit of the moon & the rotation of earth have nothing to do with each other, completely unrelated measures of what we call time. But are instead are non-directional measures of motion.

 

[Gregory A]

No, I gave a list of axioms and said if all the axioms are true that refutes free will. I did not say all those axioms are true and I'm sure their truth is debatable. As time is concerned, see axiom #2, God knows all past, future, and present.

Technically that's what you'd said. But that's not what you had implied. And once again more ignorance relating to Time. We conceive of the past as it is represented by our memories. We can see the past, including the Big Bang (a continuous process) that's if it were not hidden by various factors but then not see the future because it is flowing ahead of us light moving away too fast preventing its viewing. A god standing outside of (traveling through) Time could see the whole picture, past present and future witnessing changes in a continuous way.

 

[Gregory A]

Have you studied relativity at all? Depends on one's point of view. The Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years, the Sun is about 4.6 billion, the Big Bang happened (yes, it happened) about 13.8 billion years ago.

Science!

Show some respect.

"nothing suggestive of any direction"? Whaa? Does the Sun appear to rise in the East every (sunny) day or not? Well, regardless, it hasn't been there forever and neither have we. The planets now reside in a plane. Sure didn't start off that way. What are you smoking?

The earth's rotation is continuous (sunrises combined with the our sleep cycle) creating the illusion of another day occuring. But still days are a concept. Why else could we break up years, months (but not weeks) & days into independent measures? The earth orbit of sun, the orbit of the moon & the rotation of earth have nothing to do with each other, completely unrelated measures of what we call time. But are instead are non-directional measures of motion.

 

[Gregory A]

Be aware in your zeal you may find you really are clasping at straws with all this "as someone on the Left" and "battle against the Right" stuff. You're the only one making this about politics. I am an atheist and thus, like you, disinclined to take much of religious dogma seriously. But there are plenty of atheists on "the Right" and religionists on "the Left." I don't care a fig about any of that here.

(I've replied to the wrong person with the above. Sorry. )

I'd pointed out in my intro OP that those things 'determined' were winning the battle. And part of that is to do with politics. It's best explained in this way: I see the Left as a Hydra one of its many heads being atheism (feminism, environmentalism, etc.). The problem with atheism that I see is that it's not a non-belief in god/s but is instead an opposition to something that is real which is religion. From that we can see politics can't be put aside if that is what motivates an atheist. And sure there can be different uses for atheism, personal gain in the form of notoriety for example. So, what I'm saying then is (the all birds fallacy thing) that if for example all those on the left were atheists, then that would not mean all atheists are on the left. But this still making it easy for me to believe that any atheists I encounter here will also most likely support the Left, and that's in other ways too. My chances of completing my mission predetermined to fail it appears.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes, I'd say you've been shooting a lot of blanks, but I prefer remaining diplomatic as long as possible. But it seems I owe you an apology now too. I had somehow gathered you were some Christ-like martyr or something, sacrificing your bad self for a team or cause you don't even believe in. But you're no atheist, that's for sure. I don't know what you are, but I'm an atheist. So keep insulting me. I love it.

Btw, it's best to describe atheism as lacking religious belief rather than "non belief" but whatever. No worries. Us atheists are far less likely to go around bothering others with our religious beliefs than vice-versa.

 

[Gregory A]

(I've replied to the wrong person with the above. Sorry. )

I'd pointed out in my intro OP that those things 'determined' were winning the battle. And part of that is to do with politics. It's best explained in this way: I see the Left as a Hydra one of its many heads being atheism (feminism, environmentalism, etc.). The problem with atheism that I see is that it's not a non-belief in god/s but is instead an opposition to something that is real which is religion. From that we can see politics can't be put aside if that is what motivates an atheist. And sure there can be different uses for atheism, personal gain in the form of notoriety for example. So, what I'm saying then is (the all birds fallacy thing) that if for example all those on the left were atheists, then that would not mean all atheists are on the left. But this still making it easy for me to believe that any atheists I encounter here will also most likely support the Left, and that's in other ways too. My chances of completing my mission predetermined to fail it appears.

Yes, I'd say you've been shooting a lot of blanks, but I prefer remaining diplomatic as long as possible. But it seems I owe you an apology now too. I had somehow gathered you were some Christ-like martyr or something, sacrificing your bad self for a team or cause you don't even believe in. But you're no atheist, that's for sure. I don't know what you are, but I'm an atheist. So keep insulting me. I love it.

Btw, it's best to describe atheism as lacking religious belief rather than "non belief" but whatever. No worries. Us atheists are far less likely to go around bothering others with our religious beliefs than vice-versa.

I'm a theist. This means I believe there is a god, but does not necessarily mean I am religious.

My purpose here is to challenge a particular process that is threatening the existence of mankind and by successfully doing so also provide some evidence of free will just to round things off.

The chances of me doing that on my own are zero. I have no formal qualifications whatever, poor wordskills and no leadership skills at all. But that's how it should be if what I'm saying has any meaning. Someone who claims to possess all of those skills and then have any sort of meaningful message would obviously be a fake.

The prediction was that I'd end up debating only those that didn't understand anything much of what I'm saying. So here we are at that point now.

 

[JoeMoma]

The prediction was that I'd end up debating only those that didn't understand anything much of what I'm saying. So here we are at that point now.

A self fulfilling prophecy -- as you openly admit, poor word skills.

 

[Gregory A]

A self fulfilling prophecy -- as you openly admit, poor word skills.

Or, you are a sore-loser who's now resorting to hit and runs as a form of therapy for your hurt pride.

You got beat. So that can't just be put down to an opponent's poor wordskills.