According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[pood]

Yes but the disagreement is about the nature of free will, not about determinism.

Not for me. For me, the problem is that hard determinism mistakes determinism for pre-determinism.

I don't think this is right. You're assuming that incomptatibilism necessarily entails a belief in pre-determinism. Whilst there will be some incomptatibilists who do subscribe to pre-determinism (a bizarre worldview) I'm pretty sure most don't. Most incomptatibilists believe that reliable cause and effect means that, under the same conditions, we couldn't act differently and that this robs us of freedom of will - this is standard hard determinism. The disagreement is about the nature of freedom under determinism.

Yes, I basically agree, except that I am arguing that we WOULDN’T act differently under the same circumstances, not that we COULDN’T. The latter is the modal fallacy — modal collapse, confusing contingency with necessity.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

The one thing that is rejected from "possibility" is, in fact, contradiction.

A contradiction is NECESSARILY derived from multiples. In the current context, the focus of multiples is set on multiple possibilities. Not all multiple possibilities effect contradiction even if the actualization of one of the possibilities excludes or precludes actualization of the other alternatives. Your reply was unresponsive.

 

[Jarhyn]

A contradiction is NECESSARILY derived from multiples

And necessarily and sufficiently when those multiples are forced under the same "complete" context, though this is not in the mathematical interpretation of "completeness" in my understanding.

Any viewing of a * in the same "position" "in all respects" as any other * is a fucking contradiction.

In fact this is one of the principal reasons to reject Libertarianism, because that is the claim of the libertarian.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Any viewing of a * in the same "position" "in all respects" as any other * is a fucking contradiction.

Your dimensionless "position" is NOT necessary. It is neither modally nor contingently necessary.

The issue of the same place-time has already been shown to be NOT a contradiction.

You insist on being modally erroneous. That insistence of yours along with your foulness wastes my time. But you go on being the trash-spewing intransigent you.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your dimensionless "position" is NOT necessary

The fuck is this even supposed to mean. I didn't propose a "dimensionless position". Positions are sometimes dimensional, sometimes they're more weird than "dimensions". Sometimes they're along some symmetry group.

The issue of the same place-time has already been shown to be NOT a contradiction

No, it has not been. You have claimed it, kicked a tantrum wanting it to not be so that it is a contradiction, but it is a fucking contradiction.

You insist on being modally erroneous

And again, this does not mean what you think it means.

I reject contradiction.

I insist you reject contradiction or I will keep pointing out that you believe in contradictions.

Seriously, you are fucking ridiculous...

And moreover on a Newtonian level/scale, "same place-time" is entirely disproven by conservation and general relativity.

And most importantly, to declare two different things can be in the exact same place/time in space on a fundamental level is to admit to libertarianism, which we all reject here, and I goddamn fucking wonder why.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that it's contradictory.

This is so goddamn stupid.

And the worst part is that the post trying to refute physical non-contradiction is half screed against any claims of knowledge.

I very much want these folks to take a math class and a software engineering class, instead of wasting that same hour or two out of every day or every other day proving to sun and sundry that they need to.