Belief in free will is equivalent to believing in Santa Claus

a reply to: Andy1144

My statement means that macro control is really an illusion because its controlled by unconscious processes completely out of our knowing and control.

you mean like survival mechanisms? i didnt reply to you before because you just spoke in a circle and i wasn't even sure what you were arguing for or against. you making huge leaps in assumptions and trying to simply explain away a basic function of our physiology just to suit your narrative.

you cant simply say that we cant make decisions because our decisions are made by unconscious processes and then ignore the very survival mechanism that keeps us alive.

and sacrificing yourself for kin or tribe is not an out. that just means that you can make a conscious choice on how you feel about the end of your own existence for the continuation of another entity. which means assigning value to someone other than yourself. which is a decision. no unconscious process could make that decision.

you cant have both.

originally posted by: andy06shake

Current models suggest that there was no space-time before the big bang hence no time, its kind of part and package of the parcel since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences.

There is no space or time now.
It is only words that pretend a future and then there may seem to be space between now and 'then' but where is 'then'?
There is only ever what appears to be happening presently.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

May i suggest, that since you seem to be so sure of the subject, why not try composing a scientific paper outlining your own theory on the topic and submit to the numerous scientific journals and/or institutions pertinent to the subject matter?

Because both mathematics and our understanding of physics somewhat seem to suggest that there is indeed space-time, now, yesterday and for the remainder of the existence of our universe.

That gravity exerting force on your keyboard right now and stopping it floating away should be enough of an indicator that space-time does indeed exist because without it there would be no gravity to hold it in place, just a thought.

a reply to: andy06shake
There is the eating from the tree of knowledge or eating from the tree of life. Have you ever looked for time? Where would yesterday be found?
There are many theories about space and time, many theories about the big bang and many theories about freewill but why believe any of them - have a look and see what is really going on directly.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I'm aware of the fact that there are many theories surrounding the creation of the universe but certainly no credible options that preclude the notion of space-time.

"There is the eating from the tree of knowledge or eating from the tree of life. Have you ever looked for time? Where would yesterday be found?"

The above is theology not science. Have you ever looked for air? Guess that does not exist ether then? Yesterday would be located in the past of course.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Yesterday would be located in the past of course.

Where is the past? Does it exist? Can you see or hear the past? What about the future, where is the future?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Pointless discussion, because you refuse to accept scientific evidence or even offer up your own explanation as to what you think is actually taking place. Pretty much explain the how the current understanding of the big bang theory is incorrect and prove the non existence of both time and space logically? Crap or get off the pot.

What you are discussing is metaphysics, essentially philosophy, without taking into account scientific factual evidence that surrounds us or has been presented to you on numerous different occasions.

For all intents and purposes never mind observational evidence space-time is very real and anyone that does not believe so does not understand the physics/mathematical evidence that suggest such.

Have a nice day, but im not interested in any more of your philosophical gibberish im afraid.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Pretty much explain the how the current understanding of the big bang theory is incorrect and prove the non existence of both time and space logically?

Can you see or hear anything outside of now? Don't believe any understanding or theory - is there anything other than what is happening now? Look and find out for yourself. I do not want an answer or reply because I have a feeling that there will be another insult because the mind will fight this.

a reply to: andy06shake

Have you read Stephen Hawking Brief History of Time

Yes him and many others. But still i think they are wrong....

The thing is, if you take away Our universe you only take away Our timeline. If you go back 20 billions years there was some kind of Space present other than Our universe. This Space would have a timeline of its own. Not Equal to Ours. No matter what universe we take away, you can not take way time. TIme is infinite no matter if Our universe is present or not.

When ordinary People read books from these Authors, they tent to forget to think. There cant be any other universes present Close to Ours. Our universe can not be a rest universe from any another. Because there are no traces of it.

If you understand what you see when you look at the WMAP, you should know that there are no exsternal forces outside Our universe working on the expansion of Our universe. This means that the Space surrounding Our universe is a absolute vaccum. Our universe can not be flat if it is being effected by a surrounding force greater than a vaccum.

If there were exsternal physical forces surrounding Our universe the WMAP would never have looked like it does. Our universe would not be flat. Becasue the forces of other universes surrounding Our universe would effect the expansion rate of Our universe.

The WMAP should also be able to pin point the exact direction this exsternal uiverse effected Ours. If there was a external universe present. It would make a dent in Our expansion. In other Words the exsternal universe would act like friction for Our universe exspantion rate.

The thing is that, Our universe is expanding as if there were no friction present. That means that the only Space surrounidng Our universe is a vaccum, and probably a absolute vacuume.

If that is the case you have God. Because you know what a absolute vaccume would mean? It measn that the Space that existed prior to Our universe was a absolute vaccum...that means that the Space was a absolute constant. And a canstant can not change without a reason or will to do so. Becasue there are no other exsternal forces present to make any changes.

In a absolute vaccume there is not even a chanse of a random change. Because there are no forces present to create a random change.

a reply to: ConstitutionalPatriot

Can you choose to kill everyone you meet?
Can you really? I sure cant.
Because that´s not me. And it never will be.

a reply to: spy66

I can accept the premise that something existed before our current iteration of the universe, probobly another universe(cosmological phase) i imagine. Perfectly happy to entertain the possibility.

However since the singularity that occurred(Big Bang), if indeed produced by a previous universe, in big crunch mode, or what ever other processes was involved(possible collision of multi universe), pretty much excludes any kind of observational aspects of what ever came before, hence its not something we will ever be able to establish, measure, or observe. At least with the current tools and mathematical understanding available to us.

Possibly worth keeping in mind that singularities are bad in physics(Current understanding of such) as they indicate a place where the laws of physics breakdown, and at such places one cannot use physics to get meaningful results.

a reply to: andy06shake

My body is doing the breathing because the brain is sending electrical impulses along the nerves to tell it top do so.

Agreed - but 'you' are not doing it - no one is doing it.
Back to the topic of the thread - where is the freewill?

a reply to: andy06shake

the laws of physics breakdown

The laws of physics that we know of only apply to Our universe. They would not apply to others unless that universe had exactly the same Properties as Ours.

a reply to: spy66

"The laws of physics that we know of only apply to Our universe."

That seems to be the case.

If our universe follows the premise of infinite diversity in infinite combination i imagine others may also where the gravitational constant amongst other things vary significantly.

Observation of such however, now that's a different matter all together.

a reply to: andy06shake

If our universe follows the premise of infinite diversity in infinite combination

Our universe cant fallow a infinite amount of diversity when it is formed as finite. Since Our universe is finite it will have a end.

a reply to: spy66

Suppose it is finite but for all intents and purposes it is infinite, at least our intents and purposes.

So you don't imagine our universe contains much diversity?

Seems rather diverse to me.

a reply to: Andy1144

You seem to be very mixed up. You can't argue that there is no free will by also admitting that there is free will. That makes no logical sense. Since you seem to want to tie logic into your argument (although personally I find your assertions highly illogical in nature), are we to then take it that adulterers, murderers, thieves etc were not acting of their own free will when committing to their acts? To say that you have no free will because you can act against what you think/feel you want is an entirely false argument.

Of course there is free will. Free will however isn't freedom from consequences. It's a very simple assertion that you can do what you want in any given moment, the fact that there are consequences to your actions doesn't mean you have no free will otherwise there would be no need for a prison system.

If there is no free will then how can 2 people who have been subject to exactly the same circumstances turn out to be entirely different, with different life outcomes? It simply doesn't follow that if there were no free will that you could even have a scenario like that.

The problem with determinism like this is that you're essentially arguing that no one should bother trying for anything or work hard, everyone should just stop bothering because we have no free will, it's all been mapped out for us so all we have to do is wait for what's been predetermined. To argue otherwise would be to admit free will.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: spy66

Suppose it is finite but for all intents and purposes it is infinite, at least our intents and purposes.

So you don't imagine our universe contains much diversity?

Seems rather diverse to me.

There is no diversity. It only appears to be because we dont know the future. There will only be one kind of future, not many different once.

If you look at Our universes timeline there is no diversity. The timeline is absolute streight.

a reply to: DeadElf

You can't argue that there is no free will by also admitting that there is free will. That makes no logical sense.

It's because I meant free will in two different ways. So they have two different meanings and paradoxically can be compatible.

originally posted by: Andy1144
a reply to: DeadElf

You can't argue that there is no free will by also admitting that there is free will. That makes no logical sense.

It's because I meant free will in two different ways. So they have two different meanings and paradoxically can be compatible.

Would you present the two different ways/meanings for 'freewill' please?