GENIUS FORUMS

guest_of_logic: Non sequitur, and furthermore false, and I can demonstrate why: I might be ignorant that the earth is roughly spherical, but yet have no specific belief in which shape and form it has; thus - not having a false belief - I would not be deluded in this respect. Thus, this particular i...

Hmm, "working on a piece of ass" as art... at which point does this "art" become pornography?

An acausal event, if such a thing were possible, would have something about it that had no cause whatsoever no restrictions at all. And this is impossible. guest of logic: Why is it impossible? Kevin Solway: Because it would throw the whole Universe into total chaos. There wouldn't be anything rest...

People often use the term "indeterminism", but they don't use it to mean the opposite of determinism. Rather, they use it to mean "we cannot determine". Oh, yes, I see - looking at the definitions of "indeterminism" on dictionary.com, I see that one definition is "...

Great post, brokenhead - thanks for that. You've almost convinced me that restrictions don't need to exist, but for one issue: the fact that under your scenario, particles and anti-particles, and only particles and anti-particles, get acausally created, seems to be a restriction of sorts - in the se...

Determinism and non-determinism have nothing whatsoever to do with one another, but you are talking about them as though one was the opposite of the other. "Determinism" means "caused", whereas "non-determinism" means "we cannot determine". These are two enti...

Ah, kissaki, you spirited yet misguided fellow. I do at least appreciate your enthusiasm, unoriginal as you are. Ignorance is guaranteed if delusion is not addressed, thus ignorance is a subset of delusion Non sequitur, and furthermore false, and I can demonstrate why: I might be ignorant that the e...

[a description of "random"] In other words, it "just happens". I don't really have an argument with that, if that's how you prefer to think about it, except to reiterate that it "just happens" within constraints. So the question posed by guest and maestro is: Why can't...

David Quinn wrote:An expert physicist and an uneducated child might both think they understand quantum mechanics, but the delusion of the latter doesn't have any bearing on the understanding enjoyed by the former.

How can any one individual know for certain which of these two individuals s/he most resembles?

Nice one, Anna (and Jason). I didn't have the inspiration to combat the drivel in this thread, so it's good to be able to simply throw my support behind your response(s). [outstanding replies in other threads coming... well, if I can find the inspiration, then soon, otherwise "in due course&quo...

That jungle was too inaccessible to me; I prefer the forest.

So which is it? Both statements made by you: No rigorous evidence that women are delusional or that it is pretty much undeniable that most of the high achievers in the fields of science, mathematics, and philosophy are men? Let me clarify that the first statement that you attribute to me should rea...

804 wrote:I mean, it's not like you're arguing yourself to someone dedicating their life to psychiatry or anything.

804, can you please clarify: are you a psychiatrist? Or are you saying rather that you've studied it (informally or formally, please clarify) but are not actually qualified as a psychiatrist?

Let's take the article for what it is, a man attacking the delusion of women. It comes across to me as a guy selecting a series of stories and anecdotes to push his personal view of women, without any rigourous evidence that this view of women is valid in general. Yes, some women behave badly. Some...

Kevin: If anything at all happened without cause then everything would be chaotic. guest_of_logic: Such is your assertion Kevin: Rather, I have proven conclusively that this is the case. You have made arguments, but they are conclusive proof only in your own mind (or, who knows, perhaps in the mind...

It seems more sensible to me to say that a thing is "random" when we cannot predict ahead of time what its result will be, and when it is equally likely to be one of a range of values. Yes, I know that it does, because you've made it plain that that's your understanding of "random&qu...

Well, Mr R of QRS, as one with access to Absolute Truth (tm), I would rather hope that you would explain it to me.

I've been trying to contain myself to the one thread, but this one is just begging for certain things to be said (or, rather, written, and then read). Quality article. If you like unbridled, largely unbacked opinion that supports your prejudices, then sure. For the more discerning reader and partici...

Kevin, Kevin: "Random" either means unpredictable and caused (fully determined), or it means unpredictable and uncaused. I believe I am correct in assuming you mean the latter, since you clearly don't mean the first. guest_of_logic: The latter is closer to what I mean, but it's not a perfe...

Kevin, guest_of_logic: For a start, you could stop interpreting my random as your uncaused. Kevin: "Random" either means unpredictable and caused (fully determined), or it means unpredictable and uncaused. I believe I am correct in assuming you mean the latter, since you clearly don't mean...

For a start, you could stop interpreting my random as your uncaused. But let me show you where you're going wrong. You write: "But within the acausality, beyond the point at which restrictions (causes) came to an end, there would necessarily be no restrictions whatsoever." Fine - have it t...

Kevin: This is the crux of the matter, because if you can't see that constraints are in fact causes, there's no point in continuing with this discussion. guest_of_logic: I acknowledge that a constraint is in some sense a cause. Kevin: That's not good enough. You need to see that a constraint is in ...

David: Perhaps we need to define exactly what we mean by "determinism" and "indeterminism". It could be that we are talking at cross-purposes here. What is your exact conception of "completely deterministic causality"? guest_of_logic: To me it means that one state of t...

Kevin: The most obvious reason there can't be any constrained acausal events is the purely logical one which David pointed out previously. It doesn't make any sense to say that there is a caused (constrained) uncaused thing. It is simply a contradiction in terms and can therefore be dismissed out o...

Kevin, I am quickly growing weary of debating with you. Your arguments are weak, and you fail to adequately consider your opponent's (my) point of view. Please don't be surprised if I stop responding to you beyond the odd jeer. For now I will do you the courtesy of a full reply. guest_of_logic: Let ...