Mageth

You have heard evidence about free will, and yet said "IF it exists," expressing unconviction. If what you heard is evidence, then you shoud be convinced that it exists.

No, not at all. One must weigh the evidence one is presented to make judgment on the truth of a claim. After examining the arguments for and against free will (both of which present "evidence" and use logical arguments), I'm not convinced free will exists.

My point is that the evidence you are actually saying is maybe outside of logic.

I honestly don't know what you mean here. What kind of evidence would you consider "outside of logic"?

I guess my example about the existence of nothing is really a good one.

Not really. How do you "know" space occupies "nothing"? If you define "nothing" as something that space can occupy, then nothing is something, no? And what does it mean to say "nothing exists?" That all sounds a bit contradictory to me.

Zadok001

7thangel:

You seem to be having a disconnect on the effect of "evidence" on a rational thinker. You said:

"If what you heard is evidence, then you shoud be convinced that it exists."

That is irrational. If I find a leaf on the ground, it is evidence for the existance of a nearby tree - But it is NOT proof, nor should it be independantly convincing. The leaf could have been moved there. (As a matter of fact, the existance of a leaf isn't even evidence for the existance of trees at all. If all trees somehow ceased to exist, but left their leaves behind, we would have leaves but no trees.)

What you are thinking of is incontravertable evidence, which is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to come accross. Usually, all we can do is present overwhelming evidence in favor of a particular viewpoint. Such is the case with the laws of physics. We cannot PROVE their existance in an absolute sense. It is possible, albeit not plausible, that a giant, intelligent, invisible, and (at its own discretion) intangible being controls all physics, shoving particles together at a rate related to their relative masses. That would explain gravity just fine, and is non-falsifiable. Now, if such a being existed, our 'law' of gravity could be broken anytime said being decided not to push particles towards each other. So we don't have a flawless proof of gravitational laws, just experience and evidence.

You seem to be having some difficulty with other terms as well.

eh

Err, learn some logic, seriously. Until you do, there is really no point in anyone here explaining to you the meaning of negatives.

Tat

I;m not sure what it means for something to be true, except meaning true given some universe. One might want to exclude so-called definitional truths (or not), but ordinary facts are true or false preciesy because the evidence, known or not, makes it so.

Given your favorite (non-definitional) fact, it is left as a mental exersize to devise a world in which it is true, and another in which it is false.

Whether all facts are knowable, in principle, is an interesting question. Since we are limited in our vantage point, we may be unable to give any evidence for or against something which is otherwise decidable given perfect information.

But if it is not knowable given our vantage point, why belive it is true or false?

So in general, my question is, what makes you think something is true except evidence?

-Tat

Incidentally, I've used truth rather narrowly, to keep with the rest of the disucssion. One may speak of moral or aethetic "truths" which debatably have no content in the natural world (what should be does not change what is). If this is how you are using truth (strictly prescriptive statements), then I agree, there is no evidence for or against them. Such a discussion, however, runs into the quagmire of metaethics, and I don't think this is what you meant.

excreationist

I would say that one of the things necessary in order to have an intellect would be the ability to learn new things - to formulate new problem solving strategies, etc.
Deep Blue can't do this. It looks at billions of possible sequences of moves and works out which one the best one would be based only on the strategies that its programmers programmed in - not strategies that it has learnt. So therefore, Deep Blue doesn't meet at least one of the requirements needed for having an intellect - so it doesn't have an intellect.
You see, that statement was based on logic. Do you have any other facts that don't involve logic or evidence? Perhaps that the trinity is three persons in one and that Jesus existed eternally but he is the real Son of God... that doesn't seem to involve logic or hard evidence... and you'd say that that is a "fact"....

But are there other examples that even atheists would be able to agree with?

Darth Dane

I have one xample that might fit in.

What happens in sleep?
Are we real in sleep, do we exist in our sleep. I don't know because I am not aware of what happens, but I am aware that something does happen. As scientist have demonstrated with measuring the brain.

That we don't wink out of existance can be seen physically, but what about our mind and such? What happens? We have theories and ideas, but not a single shred of proof.



DD - Shredded Spliff

7thangel

Mageth said: No, not at all. One must weigh the evidence one is presented to make judgment on the truth of a claim. After examining the arguments for and against free will (both of which present "evidence" and use logical arguments), I'm not convinced free will exists.

I believe you; that basing from logical arguments free will does not exists. Because logic is based on physical things. For a free will to be true, there should be an ability within us to control the particles of our brains, defying the laws of physics, to come out with a desired will. But then, some believe it would be a cause of randomness. But then again, how would we really know it is caused by randomness? What really moves the physical things?

Allow me to share. Considering that you are convinced that free will does not exists. At least, I could say, that that is really the message of the created things. We do not differ from any other creatures that our being are bound and is fueled by the laws of physics. Not the other way around, as if we are the one controlling our future. The Bible is the only one that teaches predestination. It teaches us that human is worthless, and is only dependent on the mercy of his/her God.

Mageth said: Not really. How do you "know" space occupies "nothing"? If you define "nothing" as something that space can occupy, then nothing is something, no? And what does it mean to say "nothing exists?" That all sounds a bit contradictory to me.

That is actually the point, how would we know that such space contains nothing, as in “nothing,” or something as in invisible thing? We only know “nothing” based on physical things, basing on logic, but what makes us sure that in the space there is no other thing/s?

Zadok001 said: You seem to be having a disconnect on the effect of "evidence" on a rational thinker.

I do not know if clues are to be considered evidences, though they present a logical argument. The thing is, of the clues, some will be evidences, and some may not be evidences of a particular thing. On the other hand, if the clues are given by the one who actually know the facts, then it is evidence indeed.

God Bless

7thangel

excreationist said: I would say that one of the things necessary in order to have an intellect would be the ability to learn new things - to formulate new problem solving strategies, etc.

Deep Blue can't do this. It looks at billions of possible sequences of moves and works out which one the best one would be based only on the strategies that its programmers programmed in - not strategies that it has learnt. So therefore, Deep Blue doesn't meet at least one of the requirements needed for having an intellect - so it doesn't have an intellect.

That is excellent. Probably you knew better about the existence of man being governed by the laws of physics. And that his/her brain, no matter how complicated it is, is still dependent to the behaviour of the particles in his/her brain, which is governed by the laws of physics. Summing it up, humans are therefore under the control of the laws of physics, and that we did not think independently, such intellect is deterministic, same as the computer.

Now, what is your proof that you can really alter the behavior of the particles of your brain, that can work independently on the dictate of physics? Does the intellect you are referring really exists?

excreationist

My post was only an explanation why Deep Blue has no intellect. Anyway, if I think we are entirely governed by (quantum) physics, then why would I need to explain that our mind works independently of it? As far as the intellect goes, the only aspect I talked about had to do with learning, and I think a system limited to the physical world can do that.

jj

What are you talking about. Excreationist said nothing about the brain not being governed by the laws of physics, rather he suggested that it was.

Do you understand that, at least as this universe is concerned (i.e. if there is a "cause" we can't observe it in this universe) the particles in the brain (those would be atoms and molecules, you know) have uncertainty in position and momentum, and any interaction with them is appears to be governed by the Schroedinger Wave Equation, such interactions appearing in this universe, at least as having a purely probabilistic part.

Therefore, you don't have to alter particles in the brain, or anything like that, the randomness is built in.

This, I think, utterly dismisses the strong form of determinism, at least as PREdetermining it in this universe is concerned, and that may dismiss yours, I don't know, because you haven't stated it in a form that I can parse appropriately.

If you want to argue for hidden variables that we can't observe, fine, but we can't tell the difference here, at least presently between that and randomness. (No, quantum coherence and decoherence do not show this.)