|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 11, 2022 23:36:04 GMT
If everything is determined and the contradictory stance of both sides of the argument being presented (ie determinism vs. free will) are in fact determined then determinism results in contradiction and anything goes including the existence of free will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2022 16:56:31 GMT
What if the contradiction is determined? What if, for instance, one day everything turns into the contradiction?
If we don't know what will be tomorrow we don't know about contradiction either. The "tomorrow" is our horizon of knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2022 21:48:44 GMT
What if the contradiction is determined? What if, for instance, one day everything turns into the contradiction? If we don't know what will be tomorrow we don't know about contradiction either. The "tomorrow" is our horizon of knowledge. If the contradiction is determined then it is determined anything goes. If anything goes then the polar opposite of determinism, that of free will, occurs thus furthering the contradiction. In other words determinism becomes self-negating as it is determined that there is no determinism. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2022 21:52:25 GMT
What if the contradiction is determined? What if, for instance, one day everything turns into the contradiction? If we don't know what will be tomorrow we don't know about contradiction either. The "tomorrow" is our horizon of knowledge. If the contradiction is determined then it is determined anything goes. If anything goes then the polar opposite of determinism, that of free will, occurs thus furthering the contradiction. In other words determinism becomes self-negating as it is determined that there is no determinism. I was not talking about this, but anyway. I said that if one doesn't know what to be tomorrow, then one doesn't know anything about determination. To be aware of the determination all the events or structure points have to be known. Nobody can claim that there is determination having shadow or cloud elements among all the others. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2022 21:59:13 GMT
If the contradiction is determined then it is determined anything goes. If anything goes then the polar opposite of determinism, that of free will, occurs thus furthering the contradiction. In other words determinism becomes self-negating as it is determined that there is no determinism. I was not talking about this, but anyway. I said that if one doesn't know what to be tomorrow, then one doesn't know anything about determination. To be aware of the determination all the events or structure points have to be known. Nobody can claim that there is determination having shadow or cloud elements among all the others. Considering tomorrow is built on the past then the elements of the past are repeating in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 18, 2022 22:01:08 GMT
good points all round here
but we still need to find a way for determinism and free will to exist
simultaneously without contradiction
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2022 22:06:35 GMT
I was not talking about this, but anyway. I said that if one doesn't know what to be tomorrow, then one doesn't know anything about determination. To be aware of the determination all the events or structure points have to be known. Nobody can claim that there is determination having shadow or cloud elements among all the others. Considering tomorrow is built on the past then the elements of the past are repeating in the future. No, there are other ways to define 'tomorrow', here's one of such: f(x)= y, where f(x) is function for x such that if x has range from 0 till 23, then it add a number from 24 till 1, so: f(x)=y :: 24-x = yAnd now we've got how many hours is for 'tomorrow'. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2022 22:07:38 GMT
good points all round here but we still need to find a way for determinism and free will to exist simultaneously without contradiction Just because something contradicts does not mean they do not exist. 2+2=5 is a contradiction but 2,+,=,5 still exist. The contradiction necessitates the opposing phenomenon as existing simultaneously through opposition. In these respects a paradox results as both phenomena share the same nature of "opposition" thus do not oppose each other; this is the contradiction of contradiction so even while everything self-negates into contradiction there is a self-negation of this self-negation. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2022 22:09:11 GMT
Considering tomorrow is built on the past then the elements of the past are repeating in the future. No, there are other ways to define 'tomorrow', here's one of such: f(x)= y, where f(x) is function for x such that if x has range from 0 till 23, then it add a number from 24 till 1, so: f(x)=y :: 24-x = yAnd now we've got how many hours is for 'tomorrow'. And one "tomorrow" is from another vantage point "yesterday", thus the future is built on the past and as such is the past repeating. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2022 22:09:57 GMT
good points all round here but we still need to find a way for determinism and free will to exist simultaneously without contradiction I can't say I know the answer, but in my life I tried to tie this up with God's will and a will of a man. I describe such an example: 1) a person goes home 2) his destination (of his home) is known 3) and it is known that he surely comes to home 4) but there are several roads in his way 5) which one will be chosen - is not known And for me it is true that God knows where that man will be (he will be at home), but God doesn't know which road is chosen. So, God both knows and doesn't know about it, therefore, there is free will, and there is determination. I know this illustration has got some flaws, but this is my way to explay (for myself) this puzzle. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2022 22:11:49 GMT
No, there are other ways to define 'tomorrow', here's one of such: f(x)= y, where f(x) is function for x such that if x has range from 0 till 23, then it add a number from 24 till 1, so: f(x)=y :: 24-x = yAnd now we've got how many hours is for 'tomorrow'. And one "tomorrow" is from another vantage point "yesterday", thus the future is built on the past and as such is the past repeating. No necessary. That 24-x=y can be applied to anything else, let's say for some temperature or something else. Calling something 'tomorrow' implies nothing serious. One can use words whichever he likes, but it doesn't mean that the meaning of these words exist. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2022 22:15:03 GMT
And one "tomorrow" is from another vantage point "yesterday", thus the future is built on the past and as such is the past repeating. No necessary. That 24-x=y can be applied to anything else, let's say for some temperature or something else. Calling something 'tomorrow' implies nothing serious. One can use words whichever he likes, but it doesn't mean that the meaning of these words exist. If one "can use words whichever he likes" then it necessitates meaning for all words even if said meaning is subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 19, 2022 9:12:09 GMT
good points all round here but we still need to find a way for determinism and free will to exist simultaneously without contradiction Just because something contradicts does not mean they do not exist. 2+2=5 is a contradiction but 2,+,=,5 still exist. The contradiction necessitates the opposing phenomenon as existing simultaneously through opposition. In these respects a paradox results as both phenomena share the same nature of "opposition" thus do not oppose each other; this is the contradiction of contradiction so even while everything self-negates into contradiction there is a self-negation of this self-negation. Contradictions cannot exist in the physical world. They can exist only in the psychological realm. When that mind-map tries to be applied to the physical world, the truth will become apparent.
A paradox is not a contradiction, but instead it is a weakness of language that makes opposition sound like contradiction.
If you add 2 real apples to 2 other real apples you
will always get 4 real apples.
The poor book-keeper or swindler will end up hungry if he does not realize this.
I can add 2 pools of water to 2 pools of water, and they might splash and form 5 pools of water.
This is a paradox because the idea of what constitutes a pool of water is a vague aspect of the language. It has no set definition.
The number of water molecules will always add up.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 19, 2022 9:15:50 GMT
good points all round here but we still need to find a way for determinism and free will to exist simultaneously without contradiction I can't say I know the answer, but in my life I tried to tie this up with God's will and a will of a man. I describe such an example: 1) a person goes home 2) his destination (of his home) is known 3) and it is known that he surely comes to home 4) but there are several roads in his way 5) which one will be chosen - is not known And for me it is true that God knows where that man will be (he will be at home), but God doesn't know which road is chosen. So, God both knows and doesn't know about it, therefore, there is free will, and there is determination. I know this illustration has got some flaws, but this is my way to explay (for myself) this puzzle.
Some might suggest that the flaw is that God cannot be all-knowing and all-powerful and at the same time give us free will.
But to be truly all-powerful and all-knowing, he must also have the power to hide knowledge from himself.
This is why God manifests as man - to see it from the non-Godly perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 19, 2022 9:42:09 GMT
No necessary. That 24-x=y can be applied to anything else, let's say for some temperature or something else. Calling something 'tomorrow' implies nothing serious. One can use words whichever he likes, but it doesn't mean that the meaning of these words exist. If one "can use words whichever he likes" then it necessitates meaning for all words even if said meaning is subjective. You said 'it necessitates meaning for all words...' by which law? If you can use words whichever you like no laws upon you, so there cannot be no necessitaties. |
|
