@thenorfolkmafia
active 6 years, 10 months agoForum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Is that correct Drac? Of course, improvisation, isn’t just about Jazz. But isn’t improvisation, or, making things up as we go along, a form of free will?
The argument is that even the improvisation is pre determined by the makeup of the brain
Dracs belief is the jazz musicians brain is already pre programmed with DNA allowing it to adjust with experiences in a pre destined manner … like a robot basically. Although it sounds ludicrous, there is an element of truth to it
1 member liked this post.
so the deficiencies in the ” standard model” of physics, such as the origin of mass, neutrino oscillations , dark matter and dark energy are conveniently ignored then? Another problem lies within the mathematical framework of the whole thing which is inconsistent with general relativity to the point that one or both theories break down under certain conditions.. big bang /black holes etc
You seem to ignore all the flaws in physics , but then use the limited things we know as a guide for everything else when it’s proven to be a flawed field saturated in ignorance and lack of understanding for even the most basic things.
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by
TheNorfolkMafia.
2 members liked this post.
The free will argument is a complex one. Most people may say ” you can do XYZ so you have free will” but technically if you state we are all products of DNA, nurture/ nature and other experiences then we are all essentially pre programmed. This article is an interesting one
Free will requires that the brain has some special property that operates outside the normal laws of physics. This has never been observed, there is no refutation of this in the magazine article you linked to.
I am open minded to the free will argument hence I posted the article, but why do you keep mentioning ” the normal laws of physics ” when we have such limited understanding of them? You are quoting our 2017 knowledge of physics as the holy grail which generation will look at in years to come in the same way we laugh at people who thought the earth was flat with the sun orbiting it burning witches if they floated in the river for being the devil.
1 member liked this post.
You’re confusing yourself Drac, I’ll simplify it so you can understand. Science has barely evolved to a state where we don’t know if a planet next to us has ever had water or not. You then suggest using these “laws” from such a basic comprehension of physics to define what is and isn’t fact.
I don’t see how that is relevent in any way.
so if a 5 year old using laws to explain how a house is built with 1 % of knowledge states he will use his laws to explain how he intends to build a high rise flat in Glasgow, you would take that as absolute and verified. Science is the 5 year old with its lack of knowledge in so many areas so why use those laws as a template to base your argument on.
But physics has huge gaping gaps of things it can’t explain.
Such as?
parallel universes
time
universe origins ( the big bang is theory)
black holes
Is there a creator
life after death
fate or “free will” etc etc
This is almost verging on the religious argument to defend scriptures .. it’s for you to prove a flawed set of laws if correct not the other way around. Of course there are various entities which operate within our known knowledge of physics but physics has huge gaping gaps of things it can’t explain. To extrapolate a set of laws on celestial bodies which may have no laws simply because the human brain has managed to find a finite set of parameters which certain things operate within is bizarre. The onus is on you to prove , not to disprove a very limited flawed set of “physics laws” which can barely explain 1% of the universe and our understanding of it.
To assert that free will exists, without evidence is the same as asserting that a god exists, without evidence.
The free will argument is a complex one. Most people may say ” you can do XYZ so you have free will” but technically if you state we are all products of DNA, nurture/ nature and other experiences then we are all essentially pre programmed. This article is an interesting one
This really is nonsense and you know it. Whilst science has made major advancements, we are still operating in comparative infancy regarding our understanding of our own significance in the cosmos and comprehending how our environment behaves around us. Gamma rays for eg were only discovered 50 years ago, DNA sequencing has only been introduced in the last 40 years which is nothing taking into account the age of the human race. We are still debating in 2017 whether Mars our closest planet has water ffs and you think ” the laws of physics explain away XYZ” .. laughable
None of those things are laws. I don’t think you know what a law is.
You’re confusing yourself Drac, I’ll simplify it so you can understand. Science has barely evolved to a state where we don’t know if a planet next to us has ever had water or not. You then suggest using these “laws” from such a basic comprehension of physics to define what is and isn’t fact.
The only way to test that theory, which is what it is, is a parallel universe with cameras recording events in every one ascertaining whether identical stimuli present identical results. As you haven’t access to a universe traversing a normal linear time line into a quantum parallel reality your “theory ” can’t be proven or substantiated can it?
The laws of physics dictate that the same decision must always be taken, anything else is impossible. You have to prove that the laws of physics are wrong.
This is almost verging on the religious argument to defend scriptures .. it’s for you to prove a flawed set of laws if correct not the other way around. Of course there are various entities which operate within our known knowledge of physics but physics has huge gaping gaps of things it can’t explain. To extrapolate a set of laws on celestial bodies which may have no laws simply because the human brain has managed to find a finite set of parameters which certain things operate within is bizarre. The onus is on you to prove , not to disprove a very limited flawed set of “physics laws” which can barely explain 1% of the universe and our understanding of it.
1 member liked this post.
The evidence is the ” laws” are continuing to be updated and can’t explain satisfactorily why we are here , how the universe is here or anything else remotely close to being an absolute law.
They have remained fairly constant for a long time now.I’m not sure where you got this idea that they are always changing from.
This really is nonsense and you know it. Whilst science has made major advancements, we are still operating in comparative infancy regarding our understanding of our own significance in the cosmos and comprehending how our environment behaves around us. Gamma rays for eg were only discovered 50 years ago, DNA sequencing has only been introduced in the last 40 years which is nothing taking into account the age of the human race. We are still debating in 2017 whether Mars our closest planet has water ffs and you think ” the laws of physics explain away XYZ” .. laughable
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by
