The illusion of free will

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by barcelonic, Feb 12, 2014.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Another thing to consider is that your thoughts, cognition, actions, reactions etc become a memory immediately upon emergence from the zero point moment [event horizon] between past and future. They actually have no reality beyond being a memory. [ Thus the universe exists and is perceived as a temporal phenomena]
    *Before you are forced to delete the insults you are compelled to write, I have had the above checked by others and apart from some minor semantic issues it is quite sound.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Yes, thanks. It has nothing to do with a zero-energy state, but an equilibrium state: if the system is not a zero-energy system then the equilibrium state will not be zero. Which is what both I and NMS have pointed out, which you have either chosen to ignore or simply don't understand.
    Simples, really.
    And as you are consistently demonstrating, your qualification of "IMO" is really not worth the otherwise empty paper on which it is written.

    You are now claiming, within your "rational assessment" that the universe did not exist pre-BB, which is a completely different matter to the present being t=0: one is a case of a zero-length duration of time between the future and past, and the other is before time ever existed.
    But feel free to sneak other concepts or claims into notions that you have previously argued in the hope that we won't notice, because if you throw enough of them around, one of them might actually make sense.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    can't help it can you?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    By "semantic issues" presumably you mean what you refer to as the "zero point moment".
    That aside, you're saying that things, once happened, become memories, and can only be referenced via memory.
    There's no issue there.
    Ah, and here it is. The universe certainly exists. It is certainly perceived as a temporal phenomena.
    So what?
    When did anyone deny, dispute, or claim otherwise? We are temporal creatures: we perceive everything through the passage of time. How does this relate to your claim that at t=0 the universe does not exist?
    I couldn't care less who has checked what you have written. To even make the statement shows you are now resorting to having to appeal to consensus and seemingly to some hidden authority.

    But let's take a cue from your tactic: "You're wrong. I have had this judgement (that you're wrong) checked by others, and it is quite a sound."
    See how easy it is?
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    and when a universe is in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium and has no change nor movement [ including photons, all dead, buried and forgotten ] do you feel the universe would still exist?
    If so, how so?
     
  9. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Then don't make it so easy.
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    The universe will always have movement, unless it is zero-energy and all the positive and negative energy annihilates itself. But that won't happen. Even in a zero-energy universe. And since, according to Newton's Laws, a particle will continue to move unless acted upon, eventually the energy will merely dissipate... i.e. spread so thin as to rarely, if ever, interact. And so will continue to move.
    So there will still be movement.

    I suggest you listen to or read Lawrence Krauss and his thoughts on the heat-death of the universe.
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    it doesn't nor is it supposed to...
    it relates to :
    My post:
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    oh Sarkus you may have missed this edit to post #860:
    and from a more psychological/metaphorical sense it isn't hard to claim that life for humans is a work of fiction, a lie. "From behind the mask we all wear hides the truth" so to speak.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    not according to the basics of thermodynamic equilibrium:
    I'll repeat the quote from wiki
    the universe as a whole, being that system.
    thanks, how ever I would also suggest you get your thoughts sorted out regarding the basics of thermodynamic equilibrium first.
     
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    So your posts don't have any coherent sense to them? You don't relate one post to the next?
    As for the post it replies to: you're basically just arguing "if we don't exist - we don't exist". Yay. Well done, that man!
    Your next challenge will be to show that t=0 is a meaningful proposition for what you are arguing, given that it lasts for a duration of 0 seconds.
    Is non-existence meaningful if it lasts for 0 seconds?
    Is anything meaningful if it lasts for precisely 0 seconds?
    You are looking to attach significance to something that lasts exactly that length of time.
    And not only that, you are trying to claim that for the entire duration of 0 seconds "the laws of physics do not apply"!
    Wow. Think of that... the laws of the universe suspended for a whopping 0 seconds.

    Whodathunkit!
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    eh? Particles are made of what? energy.... energy has to move... no energy movement = no universe.
    no photons = no universe an so on..
     
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    :wallbang:
    Have you ever considered that what I wrote means that the universe, as a system, will never reach thermodynamic equilibrium until the energy within the universe is spread so thin as to never interact, until there is no useful work left to be done?
    As said, you simply do not understand the terms you employ.
     
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    WTF? You're now trying to claim that our imagination is not influenced by the laws of physics??
    Seriously??
    You haven't had enough of claiming that we defy the laws gravity that now you want to move onto how the laws physics don't influence our imagination???
     
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    As I said, even in a zero-energy universe you will have movement unless the positive and negative energy interact and cancel each other out. But if the last iota of postive energy moves in one direction, and the last iota of negative energy in the opposite direction, you are left with a zero-energy universe, and energy (both positive and negative), and movement. But no interaction.
    So how does your rebuttal above address that explanation?
     
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    yes, sometimes reading post on an online forum can be a little challenging [after all I have only made 13000+ posts so I should know I guess], due to sequencing issues... some cope better than others.
    If you could show how my posts are not related I would gladly and hopefully learn from the experience. You may also learn something from the experience as well..
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    therefore thermodynamic equilibrium has not been reached yet...so we wait ... and wait... and wait for the 2nd law of thermodynamics to be proven valid.

    Are you suggesting that the 2nd law is somehow invalid?
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    This is worth a shot:
    of course not....
    Our physical bodies are only temporal as well however "we face" an event horizon of t=0.[nihilo] It is on that horizon that we make our choices and our actions with our imagination which immediately become temporal.
    The leading edge, the brink of the abyss, the cusp of oblivion....the event horizon of nihilo. [The bottomless cup of coffee

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ]


    ------------------------------------------->|nihilo
    temporal existence
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Oookay... let's revist:
    Me: How does this relate to your claim that at t=0 the universe does not exist?
    You: it doesn't nor is it supposed to... it relates to : My post: "So at the exact zero point moment between future and past there is no time duration which logically leads to the conclusion that at any given t=0 we have only nihilo."

    So you agree your post doesn't relate to your notion that at t=0 the universe does not exist, but it relates to your post in which you claim a logical conclusion of there only being "nothingness" (or am I meant to interpret "nihilo" as something else?), which you have previously stated does not exist.
    But then you have also said that it does exist, and has causal influence.

    And your reference to the quantity of posts merely speaks to your willingness to post, not to the quality on which perhaps you should be focusing.
     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Where am I suggesting the 2nd law is invalid? The 2nd law has been proven. Repeatedly. Don't blame me for you not understanding it.
    Are you somehow suggesting that a system that has reached thermodynamic equilibrium does not exist???
     

Share This Page