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?

Ok, now I remember you saying events have a cause but it doesn't necessitate it like childhood trauma causes something but that alone doesn't explain it. In my mind, the frozen person example made me think otherwise. In the frozen person example: given enough information, you said we can know a person's future outcome. How can this be possible if every event is not necessitated by past conditions? As for logical determinism, for example: if I say "you will reply to this post", for my statement to be either true or false, whether or not you will reply to this post must be already determined. An example of logical in-determinism would be if the future splits into two alternate realities, one where you reply to this post, and the other you don't. That would mean my statement can't be considered either true or false. I will try brainstorming different ways we can proceed. Stop saying the experience we have of free will, I don't believe I have this experience of free will that you speak of. I have mentioned this before, so I am not the only one who doesn't always listen.

Keven, It appears you agree with causal determinism (the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature) What is your stance on logical determinism (the notion that all propositions, whether about the past, present, or future, are either true or false)? If you agree with both of these types of determinism, then I would classify you as a compatibalist. does this describe your viewpoints?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

When you say not sufficient conditions, do you mean not sufficient by a normal scenario, or by even the hypothetical time freezing scenario?

I disliked your comment and if you have a problem with that then blame my free will.

To whoever disliked my last post, can you explain what was wrong with it?

You seem to be describing determinism as defined by Wikipedia which states, "Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human action, exist conditions that could cause no other event", You are claiming that given enough conditions, only one possible future can result.

If we are the ones deriving the logic, then logic is derived from our subjective experience of matter and energy, which is not an objective standard.

How is logic derived from matter and energy?

So free will is just the idea that the subjective experience affects the objective universe? In addition,with free will, the subjective experience can't be fully explained using only knowledge of the objective universe? Please tell me I am getting closer to understanding free will.

Is every one of these conditions of satisfaction knowable if you make enough considerations?