Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yep, it just needs to be predicated on assumptions that no-one is actually making.

On the other hand, 'if' statements typically need a 'then' in order to make any sense.

How much greater than what?

He sounds a bit like a leprechaun...

O.

Are the arguments against Alan Burns based on universal determinism? I would say, yes.
Has anybody established universal determinism? That is a valid question in any case since a sensible answer could be no, because nobody is seeking to or no, not yet.

Surely several properties of the leprechaun are deterministic them being contingent and that.

[Stranger]

Are the arguments against Alan Burns based on universal determinism? I would say, yes.

Then you'd be wrong - although Alan often inaccurately describes it as such. The argument is that the only logical alternative to full determinism is to introduce some true randomness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then you'd be wrong - although Alan often inaccurately describes it as such. The argument is that the only logical alternative to full determinism is to introduce some true randomness.

That’s all very well but do Leprechauns as suggested by Outrider have free will.

Why does the logical alternative have to be true randomness rather than just “ non determinism”?

[Stranger]

That’s all very well but do Leprechauns as suggested by Outrider have free will.

What are you wibbling about? Where did Outrider mention leprechauns? What do you mean by 'free will'? If you mean the same as Alan, then it's impossible, so nothing can have it.

Why does the logical alternative have to be true randomness rather than just “ non determinism”?

Because that's what non-determined means. If a given state of things can only lead to one outcome, then you have determinism. If it can lead to more than one, then there cannot be a reason for it (the starting state is the same for all possible outcomes), so there must be something that happens for no reason, which means that it's random.

[Outrider]

Are the arguments against Alan Burns based on universal determinism?

Some of them - most of mine, certainly.  As NTS has pointed out, though, you don't need to accept determinism for the arguments against Alan's position to stand, because he's trying to propose some sort of 'third way' between deterministic and random activity, but he's not managed to explain how it logically differs from those two possibilities; indeed, he's failed to give any sort of meaningful explanation of how anything can be both not deterministic but also not random.

Has anybody established universal determinism?

Absolutely established, no. Provisionally established, I'd say yes.

Surely several properties of the leprechaun are deterministic them being contingent and that.

You have some evidence to back that up, I've not seen a peer-reviewed paper on the properties of Leprechauns.

That’s all very well but do Leprechauns as suggested by Outrider have free will.

Outrider suggested no such thing; I don't even think we have free will, I think the notion of free will doesn't stand up to any sort of detailed inspection.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What are you wibbling about? Where did Outrider mention leprechauns? What do you mean by 'free will'? If you mean the same as Alan, then it's impossible, so nothing can have it.

Because that's what non-determined means. If a given state of things can only lead to one outcome, then you have determinism. If it can lead to more than one, then there cannot be a reason for it (the starting state is the same for all possible outcomes), so there must be something that happens for no reason, which means that it's random.

If you did not see that Outrider mentioned Leprechauns, what does that say about the amount of attention you give Outrider?

Where do you place self determination. In determinism or outside determinism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some of them - most of mine, certainly.  As NTS has pointed out, though, you don't need to accept determinism for the arguments against Alan's position to stand, because he's trying to propose some sort of 'third way' between deterministic and random activity, but he's not managed to explain how it logically differs from those two possibilities; indeed, he's failed to give any sort of meaningful explanation of how anything can be both not deterministic but also not random.

Absolutely established, no. Provisionally established, I'd say yes.

You have some evidence to back that up, I've not seen a peer-reviewed paper on the properties of Leprechauns.

Outrider suggested no such thing; I don't even think we have free will, I think the notion of free will doesn't stand up to any sort of detailed inspection.

O.

As I have said I have no horse in this race.

In terms of free will rules of universal determinism do not,i think, apply to God. Following or rejecting God may well be the only thing we can exercise free will over. In this case our decision can go one of two ways and is not influenced by anything external...since what is like God?

[Stranger]

Where do you place self determination. In determinism or outside determinism?

It's some combination of determinism and randomness that is internal to the mind.

[Stranger]

Following or rejecting God may well be the only thing we can exercise free will over.

'Free will' in the sense of not deterministic without randomness is logically self-contradictory so can't be exercised at all by anything.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Free will' in the sense of not deterministic without randomness is logically self-contradictory so can't be exercised at all by anything.

Please demonstrate.

[Stranger]

Please demonstrate.

See #42503, also #40759.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

See #42503, also #40759.

Woefully inadequate. Try harder.

[Nearly Sane]

Woefully inadequate. Try harder.

Why are they inadequate?

[Stranger]

Woefully inadequate. Try harder.

Why? Where is your counterargument? Any fool can just say that some argument is inadequate. Try harder.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why? Where is your counterargument? Any fool can just say that some argument is inadequate. Try harder.

I am not offering a counterargument and definitely not an inadequate one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why are they inadequate?

Because logically the opposite of determinism is non determinism. He seems to have jumped a step to introduce randomness
while not showing his warrant to discount other things which are non deterministic. Why randomness? Because that notion suits his belief.

It dismisses also the human response to God where there is nothing in the universe that is like God and therefore nothing to prepare or determine ones response yet there are two outcomes without randomness commitment to or rejection of God. One doesn't have to believe in God to follow the logic there. Because NTS has discounted and jumped a step IMHO his argument is woefully inadequate.

[Nearly Sane]

Because logically the opposite of determinism is non determinism. He seems to have jumped a step to introduce randomness
while not showing his warrant to discount other things which are non deterministic. Why randomness? Because that notion suits his belief.

It dismisses also the human response to God where there is nothing in the universe that is like God and therefore nothing to prepare or determine ones response yet there are two outcomes without randomness commitment to or rejection of God. One doesn't have to believe in God to follow the logic there. Because NTS has discounted and jumped a step IMHO his argument is woefully inadequate.

What is the difference between non determinism and randomness?

Your second para is based around begging the question, and then some empty language.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is the difference between non determinism and randomness?

Your second para is based around begging the question, and then some empty language.

randomness is a type of non determinism.

''Does God exist'' is not the question here. It is is randomness the only case where there can be more than one outcome and the philosophical point is if one were to choose to accept or reject something unlike anything else then there is nothing but a choice between more than one outcome.

[Nearly Sane]

randomness is a type of non determinism.

''Does God exist'' is not the question here. It is is randomness the only case where there can be more than one outcome and the philosophical point is if one were to choose to accept or reject something unlike anything else then there is nothing but a choice between more than one outcome.

What other 'types' of non determinism are there?

Didn't say 'God exists' was anything here. The begging the question was that because of x there is something that is neither determinist nor random with no justification. The empty language was the stuff mentioning 'God'.

[Stranger]

I am not offering a counterargument and definitely not an inadequate one.

Then you fail to have demonstrated that my argument is in any way inadequate.

Because logically the opposite of determinism is non determinism. He seems to have jumped a step to introduce randomness
while not showing his warrant to discount other things which are non deterministic.

Such as what? Given a state of your mind (or anything else, for that matter) and its environment at some point in time, either there is only one possible future or not. If not, there can be no possible reason for the different possibilities (because the starting point is identical for all of them), so there must be something that happens for no reason and hence it is random.

Or, if you prefer, you can imagine rewinding time and running things again. Either the outcome must be the same or not, and if not, that again means that means that something changed for no reason.

It dismisses also the human response to God where there is nothing in the universe that is like God...

Yes there is, all the other baseless superstitions in the world (including all the other gods that don't match whatever you mean by 'God').

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What other 'types' of non determinism are there?

Didn't say 'God exists' was anything here. The begging the question was that because of x there is something that is neither determinist nor random with no justification. The empty language was the stuff mentioning 'God'.

Free will would be one I suppose. Self determination? now there's a thing...is that free will or as, the name suggests a type of determinism?

Justification of the decision taken on meeting something unlike anything else? That decision has more than one outcome and cannot be influenced by anything else other than the person making the decision. This definition satisfies NTS's definition of non determinism and yet is not random.

[Nearly Sane]

Free will would be one I suppose. Self determination? now there's a thing...is that free will or as, the name suggests a type of determinism?

Justification of the decision taken on meeting something unlike anything else? That decision has more than one outcome and cannot be influenced by anything else other than the person making the decision. This definition satisfies NTS's definition of non determinism and yet is not random.

So state what you mean by free will and show that it makes logical sense.

Your second paragraph is gibberish.

[Stranger]

Free will would be one I suppose. Self determination? now there's a thing...is that free will or as, the name suggests a type of determinism?

Meaningless phrases - how do they work and how do they escape the fact that if some event isn't entirely determined by its antecedents, then it must, to that extent, be determined by nothing (random)?

That decision has more than one outcome and cannot be influenced by anything else other than the person making the decision. This definition satisfies NTS's definition of non determinism and yet is not random.

Drivel - the logic applies just as much to the internal working of a person's mind as it does to anything else. Either the mind is a deterministic system or it isn't and therefore involves randomness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Such as what? Given a state of your mind (or anything else, for that matter) and its environment at some point in time, either there is only one possible future or not. If not, there can be no possible reason for the different possibilities (because the starting point is identical for all of them), so there must be something that happens for no reason and hence it is random.

I'm not with you probably because you seem to be pre-empting a particular choice predicated on previous events. But what if you have to make a decision around something which past events offer neither any guide or determination of the outcome. Have we therefore not reached a point of self determination based not randomly but purely on what is in front of one.

In this way there can be more than one outcome and it not being down to randomness. So how do YOU get straight from determinism to randomness?

[Stranger]

I'm not with you probably because you seem to be pre-empting a particular choice predicated on previous events. But what is you have to make a decision around something which past events offer neither any guide or determination of the outcome. Have we therefore not reached a point of self determination based not randomly but purely on what is in front of one.

In this way there can be more than one outcome and it not being down to randomness. So how do YOU get straight from determinism to randomness?

Nonsense. You're trying to ignore the internal working of the mind and speaking as if this 'you' somehow floats free of all logical constraints (exactly the same mistake Alan keeps making). How the mind works internally the whole point. Without knowing any detail we can still say that it is either a deterministic system or it isn't (and therefore involves randomness by definition). It can't be a deterministic system and not be one at the same time.