Rainbow Dash

Although infinity is not a real number, it is a hyperreal number, which is still a number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number

That is not a fair comparison. Since Leonardo DiCaprio dies at the end of Titanic every time, that just means the movie titanic is deterministic, which is an accurate conclusion; it would not imply that the entire universe is deterministic.

Could you give me an example of how the future might be able to change the past, because the only way I can think of is if there was a time machine that could allow us to go back in time to change the past, which sound crazy to me. If there is a more sensible way for the future to change the past, please enlighten me. *Edit* *Important* I am no longer allowed to post, I can only communicate through edits. I have been given no explanation as to why I can't post. Apparently FDR is a strong supporter of censorship.

Do you really believe the future can change the past? So if I did something in the past that I now regret, I could do something in the present that could undo what I did? Not only does the future changing the past go against our understanding of the universe, it also results in paradoxes that can't happen.

This isn't determinism? Your first line shows that events are necessitated by prior conditions. I thought we concluded that this is determinism. As for "input X = choosing to swat a fly", I believe you are missing the point. Sure choosing to swat a fly resulting in you swatting a fly doesn't necessarily imply determinism, but the important question is: Is you choosing to swat the fly necessitated by any given amount of prior input? Your stance against determinism suggests your answer is no, but the first line of your post suggests your answer is yes, so I am once again confused.

"Every point I discuss is supported by facts in available research" You have the ability to check the validity of the points made by doing your own research. You are complaining that he is making you use Google searches the validate his claims. I don't see why he has to spoon feed you sources. You don't know if he repeats unproven nonsense, because you did not read past the preface.

Such a book is freely available here: http://dcrain.zftp.com/info/Intervention%20Theory.pdf and not enough people are reading it even though it can be obtained online for free and preachers aren't paying the book's author. In actuality, evolution withstood 150 years of pseudo-scientific criticism.

People won't buy the book because they would assume it is propaganda. He wouldn't get a Nobel prize. The Nobel prize doesn't go to the most deserving because it is politically biased, that is how Obama got the Nobel peace prize. Preachers won't pay for people to buy his book disproving evolution if the book claims the alternative to evolution is alien creation. Besides, Christianity is starting to accept evolution, and they are not considering it as much as a threat. As for evolution withstanding 150 years of criticism, Christianity withstood 2000 years of criticism, and it is today the world's most popular religion. So withstanding criticism means nothing.

I am talking about for example when it is claimed that two species share a common ancestor. I know that DNA gets mutated and natural selection determines which genes get passed down; this is not controversial.

I completely agree with you. I would also encourage people to extend this skepticism of scientific claims to evolutionary science as well.

If there is not a 100% chance that a specific action will occur given a certain scenario, then I consider the outcome is random. I think referring to our free will as self caused just sounds more egotistical, but that is just my opinion. I believe I have a satisfactory, non-contradictory understanding of free will and incompatibilism now. Thank you so much for your time and dedication. Advice I would give you for explaining free will to others in the future would be to specifically use the terms deterministic causality and non-deterministic causality, so people don't mistake the two.

So it basically comes down to consciousness, matter, and energy non-deterministically causes the future? I believe the one thing I still don't get how a non-deterministic cause can have no element of random to it.

And when you refer to yourself, are you not just consciousness with matter and energy?

How is this different from a ghost in the machine triggering events?

Keven, If it makes you feel better, I think it may be incompatibalism that I am having trouble with not free will. I get the concept that a choice is a thing in itself that can't be reduced into states of matter and energy, and this making of the choice (by reasoning for example) is an act of free will, and once this choice is made, that person will carry out that action. So I believe I have made some progress. You say that free will is not determinate, but you never claim it to be random, probabilistic, or having multiple resulting futures. I don't know how else to explain indeterminism. Try explaining your understanding of how indeterminism works and maybe we can make better progress. When you speak about causality that is not deterministic, are you talking about partial causality, or probabilistic causality or something like that? Or are you talking about causality like in supply and demand theory where increasing supply causes a decrease in demand? Does an event in my past cause me to behave in a certain way fit into any of these types of causality? Or are you talking about intentional causality?