This time put squarely, I can tell you what's really gobbledygooky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_quantum_mechanics

A pretty load, huh?

Can you justify that? Or somebody told you? I know there's 'probability'... — lepriçok

Maybe it's a language issue. I still don't know what you're saying. Why are you asking "can you justify that" for example?

specifically that they consider causal determinism with regards to decision-making capacities in the brain to be the standard scientific consensus — Isaac

Nope. Not what I said. And yet you even quoted it.

because it is a widely held view among a large proportion of modern scientists that the elements involved in brain activity are large enough to be treated as classical objects, — Isaac

By the way, that strong determinism hasn't been the consensus view in the sciences for over 150 years isn't just about quantum mechanics. One only thinks that when one gains all of one's knowledge about this stuff from message boards.

Some right-libertarians consider the non-aggression principle to be a core part of their beliefs. — alcontali

In my opinion, the principle of non-aggression is rather sufficient, even though to some it might seem empty and lack content. In other words, it forbids trespassing without consent. If it was just consent it would not be enough, and the principle of setting limits to action is a broad and acceptable regulatory principle. If we would like to infuse some substance into the principle of non-aggression, the main pillars are obvious: the respect of life, liberty, property and dignity. These notions are also present in libertarianism and are implied in the requirement of non-aggression, because they are the 'objects' of usual immoral trespassing.

There's no necessity to fall back on anything, because libertarians use common sense morality, not based on any metaphysical doctrine. This would be the empirical part. The question why, and what happens if you show aggression, requires metaphysics, or doesn't if there's no why and nothing happens beyond the legal punishment. You don't burn in hell, your soul doesn't perish etc.

Still, choosing not to be, has consequences. — alcontali

It is an interesting question, because it's not clear if moral principles apply to God him/her/itself. Can God be immoral, if he does, why doesn't he choose to be immoral. How do we know if God should value our life, freedom, property and dignity as objects that make the core of human existence. If I am God's slave, God is immoral.

However, I still recognize that libertarianism is not a complete moral system. It is not the complete answer. — alcontali

I think that libertarian ethics are optimal for modern times, because other systems just add other unnecessary objects of transgression and forbidden types of action that are too restrictive to have a comfortable, yet pacifist life. This implies that there's only empirical obvious harm, which is forbidden and no eternal harm to soul. Bad actions are not wanted because of social utilitarianism in such a case.

Maybe it's a language issue. — Terrapin Station

It's a 10% language issue, and 90% ideology issue, roughly. So, never mind.

Yeah, whatever. I'm quite happy to engage in a discussion, any time you feel like actually advancing anything beyond posturing, but I'm not going to play "guess what the fuck Terrapin is talking about". If my post doesn't address what you've said, then either explain what you've said better or ignore it. There's no discursive value to you just making personal judgements about how stupid everyone is who doesn't interpet your laconic pronouncements in exactly the way you meant them to be interpreted.

So why do you think libertarianism should be about threats to liberty when such threats do not in any way constrain the liberty of the listener?

Threats are evidence liberty may be constrained, or worse. I see no reason to conflate threats to liberty with the denial of liberty.

There's no necessity to fall back on anything, because libertarians use common sense morality, not based on any metaphysical doctrine. — lepriçok

The term "common-sense morality" creates the impression of referring to something rather undocumented. If it is not worth documenting, why use it in the first place? If it is worth documenting, then why hasn't it been done already?

A collection of basic rules will collectively form a system, i.e. a theory. How can you possibly know if a particular conclusion is a theorem in that system if you fail to document the basic rules of such system?

Can God be immoral, if he does, why doesn't he choose to be immoral. — lepriçok

Well, how was Russell's paradox eventually addressed? Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, contain itself? The 1905 Russell's paradox has a long history, but I have rarely run into anybody who actually feels like learning from it. That represents 100+ years of progress in dealing with paradoxes thrown out of the window ...

I think that libertarian ethics are optimal for modern times, because other systems just add other unnecessary objects of transgression and forbidden types of action that are too restrictive to have a comfortable, yet pacifist life. — lepriçok

So, according to you a functioning system of rules is not needed because that would be "too restrictive"? What about systems of arithmetic, such as Dedekind-Peano, Robinson, Presburger, or Skolem's systems? Are their rules also "too restrictive"? These systems may be considered relatively "hard" but that is a feature, and not a bug.

Reasoning outside the confines of a system that imposes strict rules may look remotely attractive, because that is indeed "easier", but that is also rarely how progress is made.

I personally believe that it makes more sense to simply bite the bullet, learn the system -- even if doing so is hard -- and then produce much more meaningful results. It is exactly because logical reasoning within complex systems is hard that mathematics is a respected field. If you want respect for your work, you will have to do what it takes, even if it is hard to do that. The same holds true for morality. If the only reason why you think that it does not need to be a complete (and even complex) system, is that you are looking for an easy way out, then I must reject that approach as worthless.

Systems tend to be indeed difficult to learn, but I learn them anyway. I have always handsomely benefited from that view.

but I'm not going to play "guess what the fuck Terrapin is talking about" — Isaac

There's no need to guess. Learn how to read. Your reading comprehension sucks. You demonstrate that repeatedly.

It has nothing to do with reading comprehension. You said...

the "there is no free will" crowd always wants to appeal to it being a standard view or implication of the sciences that there is no free will. That's wrong, though. The "there is no free will" crowd should have looked at what was going on in the sciences after the mid-1800s — Terrapin Station

Those are your actual words, right? So Your claim is that it is wrong that the standard view or implication of the sciences is that there is no free will, and that this is wrong on account of some development in science that happened after the mid-1800s. That is literally what you claimed.

I posted a quote from an article describing the standard view of neuroscience as being that quantum indeterminacy has no effect on brain processes, which can be treated a classical objects. You said that had nothing to do with it. My quote certainly represented the view of 'the sciences' with regards to quantum indeterminacy and free-will, so the only other option to explain its supposed irrelevancy would be if you were not talking about the discoveries of quantum mechanics, but instead some other scientific advance from the mid 1800s which supports free-will.

So I look at the previous part of your post to get some context. Here you say...

Free will obtains via the fact that the world is not strongly deterministic. The standard view in the sciences, by the way, is that the world is not strongly deterministic, where that's been the standard view for over 150 years now, but somehow the message isn't getting through. In online forums like this, everyone still seems to think that it's the early 1800s and they're supporting Laplace for president. (See "Laplace's demon" if you don't know what I'm talking about.) — Terrapin Station

Brilliant, so now I have the context I'm looking for. Determinism, and Laplacian determinism at that. The claim is made in this paragraph that it is now the standard view (that term 'standard view' is exactly the one used in the paragraph I'm trying to comment on) that the world is "not strongly deterministic". There's also reference to this being the case since the mid 1800s, the same "mid 1800s" as is mentioned in the paragraph I'm commenting on.

So now I have my context - the "standard view" referred to in the paragraph I'm concerned about must be the view that the world is not strongly deterministic, and "what was going on in the sciences after the mid-1800s" refers to undermining Laplace (you even helpfully suggest looking up Laplace's demon if we're unsure what you're talking about). So I do that.

Wikipedia has a helpful section under 'Laplace's demon' listing all the arguments against it (which is what we're looking for). Thermodynamic irreversibility, Quantum mechanical irreversibility, Chaos theory, Cantor diagonalization. The first is not the scientific consensus, it's one man's opinion and there are counter-arguments, so that can't be the argument we're looking for. The second is quantum mechanics and I've been told my quote about quantum mechanics not affecting the brain is not relevant, so that can't be it. The third and fourth are explicitly not about how things function, they're about how much we can predict them - free will is not about our ability to predict what actions will result from the state of the universe, it's about whether they are causal or not, so that's not it.

So Wikipedia is obviously insufficient to find which developments (other than quantum mechanics) are contrary to Laplace with regards to free-will.

So we try something more in depth. The SEP doesn't have an article on Laplace's demon, but it does has one on causal determinism which mentions Laplace's demon.

The first part is all about the confusion between determinism as a state of affairs and determinism as in 'predictability'. This is the only context in which Laplace's demon is mentioned. But since the debate about free-will is about a state of affairs, not our ability to predict that state, this must be irrelevant to what you're getting at. Plus, you mentioned that "standard view" of the sciences - so we can skip the sections on epistemology (that's not a view of the sciences). Next we come to "The Status of Determinism in Physical Theories". Great - herein we must surely find the "standard view" (that's not about quantum mechanics) to which you are referring, the one which the "there's no free will" crowd have neglected to take account of...

First we have "the trajectory of an object that is accelerated unboundedly" - no relation to brain processes there.

Then we have "multiple-particle collisions" - difficult to see that being related to brain processes either, but maybe.

Then, the issues with "infinite numbers of particles, infinite (or unbounded) mass densities, and other dubious infinitary phenomena" - hopefully we're not getting into that one.

An issue with a model "created by John Norton (2003)" - so not that (we're looking fo the view that's been standard for the last 150 years but isn't quantum mechanics).

Another is "a form of indeterminism first highlighted by Earman and Norton (1987)" - so not that.

Finally, "ordinary black holes" obviously don't have anything to do with brains, nor do white holes, although still "most white hole models have Cauchy surfaces and are thus arguably deterministic".

And there my research ended.

So I'm struggling to see how it is my reading comprehension which has field to yield the "standard view" of science which counters Laplace but which is neither quantum mechanics, nor about predictability and which yet affects the "classical objects" of the brain.

So perhaps you could now enlighten us as to what these views are?

The term "common-sense morality" creates the impression of referring to something rather undocumented. — alcontali

I believe there's the following gradation of moral sense in men. Morality inherent in human nature (not in everyone), natural law, morality of reason, theories (philosophy, ethics), institutionalized secular law, Church law, God's law. As libertarians usually are very distrustful of big organizations, like the State, the Church, they tend to rely on common sense, libertarian philosophy, natural law and to a lesser extent institutionalized law in libertarian communities. Everyone, guided by the main libertarian framework, can document their moral principles themselves. The duty to document their moral standards falls on every community separately, with the political libertarian guidance.

Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, contain itself? The 1905 Russell's paradox has a long history, but I have rarely run into anybody who actually feels like learning from it. That represents 100+ years of progress in dealing with paradoxes thrown out of the window ... — alcontali

The lower sets have no choice in this logical paradox, only the extreme one has a choice to 'double' itself. That is to be inside itself or outside itself. So only one set would be really free.

So, according to you a functioning system of rules is not needed because that would be "too restrictive"? What about systems of arithmetic, such as Dedekind-Peano, Robinson, Presburger, or Skolem's systems? Are their rules also "too restrictive"? These systems may be considered relatively "hard" but that is a feature, and not a bug. — alcontali

I have nothing against rules and procedures in general if they are useful, I'm against irrational choke-rules that are concocted in perverted ideologies. We have totalitarianism, communism, fascism, statism, eugenics, social Darwinism, elitism that have all sorts of ethics rules that serve only the needs of narrow groups and do nothing good to humanity.

Systems tend to be indeed difficult to learn, but I learn them anyway. I have always handsomely benefited from that view. — alcontali

My take is that good things are to be learned, stupid - dematerialized.

It may be a standard view of the sciences that brains are effectively deterministic, being of classical (not quantum) scale, but that can only be extrapolated to mean that a standard view of science is that there is no free will if you assume an incompatibilist concept of free will, which is a rather floofy metaphysical and unscientific thing to assume, akin to dualism in philosophy of mind. Contemporary compatibilists view free will as a functional attribute, just like (access) consciousness.

Everyone, guided by the main libertarian framework, can document their moral principles themselves. — lepriçok

Why doesn't one person accept the job of documenting it on behalf of everyone else? I am very wary and also suspicious of the refusal to commit to an immutable set of documentation. That practice allows people to claim a thing and tomorrow the very opposite of that thing. So, no, I am very opposed to that.

We have totalitarianism, communism, fascism, statism, eugenics, social Darwinism, elitism that have all sorts of ethics rules that serve only the needs of narrow groups and do nothing good to humanity. — lepriçok

What these false ideologies all have in common, is that they are not documented in a firmly established system of rules, i.e. a sound theory. That is why these things are mere bullshit.

I agree with quite a few of the concerns in libertarianism. I also totally distrust the State. However, I will only adopt, in practical terms, systematic and functioning alternatives to the State. That is why I am fully committed to bitcoin. I do not trust the State's money. I do not want to hold my savings in it.

So, it is not that I am against libertarian ideas. However, abstract concepts have to be systematic for me to adopt them. Otherwise, they will create the same problem as the false ideologies (such as communism, fascism, ...) that you have mentioned. If you do not systematize and guarantee consistency then you are bound to do just the same as them. Then, it is just going to be yet another evil.

that can only be extrapolated to mean that a standard view of science is that there is no free will if you assume an incompatibilist concept of free will — Pfhorrest

Yes, I agree. The proposition I raised that quote in opposition towards was that those appealing to the sciences to support a lack of free will were wrong because of some scientific advance since the mid 1800s, as specified in the rest of that post. I took that advance to refer to quantum mechanics, apparently I was wrong to do so but have yet to be apprised of what advance was being referred to.

As to people claiming modern science support a lack of free will being wrong for reasons other than scientific advances since the mid 1800s, yes, I'm sure there are plenty of those, definitions of 'free will' being one of them.

I am very wary and also suspicious of the refusal to commit to an immutable set of documentation. That practice allows people to claim a thing and tomorrow the very opposite of that thing. So, no, I am very opposed to that. — alcontali

We have written laws, law enforcement, we have education - this is sufficient. If someone needs a more restricted code of behavior, they can have written codes of ethics in their organization. Ethics is inseparable from free will, it cannot be forced like criminal law if it is based on some tradition, belief system etc. I make a distinction between an immoral and criminal behavior.

What these false ideologies all have in common, is that they are not documented in a firmly established system of rules, i.e. a sound theory. That is why these things are mere bullshit. — alcontali

If a system is not written, it is difficult to discuss it, contradict or agree. But many of them are bookshit, nothing more. Hitler, for instance had "Mein Kampf", where he explained his views on aryan morality. Here he showed evident flaws in his rationality, however, this didn't prevent him to become popular.

Some old moral systems, especially the religious ones are to be reformed, because we live in a different world than thousands of years ago. Progress deniers use arguments that are out of time.

We have written laws — lepriçok

Well, it is exactly by inventing new laws that the State manages to encroach on people's freedom.

The core concern of libertarianism, i.e. the loss of freedom, is caused exactly by continuously imposing new, politically-invented laws, the primary goal of which is to create winners and losers, inevitably leading to the emergence of an oligarchy which concentrates wealth and resources. If you control the law, then you control all the money, if only, because in that case, it is you who prints the money.

Organizing a voting circus to elect law makers who will in turn invent better laws is obviously not the solution either. If the voting circus were able to address the problem, then libertarianism would not even exist as a concern today.

A central belief in Islam is that politicians, elected or not, have no authority to invent new laws because God has invented all the laws already. This makes such continuous freedom-encroachment process impossible.

Therefore, Islam, which is a complete and documented system, has a credible solution for the aforementioned problem, while libertarianism may not have one. Again, I consider libertarianism to be a legitimate concern but certainly not a legitimate system.

I posted a quote from an article describing the standard view of neuroscience as being that quantum indeterminacy has no effect on brain processes, which can be treated a classical objects. You said that had nothing to do with it. My quote certainly represented the view of 'the sciences' with regards to quantum indeterminacy and free-will, so the only other option to explain its supposed irrelevancy would be if you were not talking about the discoveries of quantum mechanics, but instead some other scientific advance from the mid 1800s which supports free-will. — Isaac

I already addressed this. If your reading comprehension didn't suck you'd know that.

By the way, you're also not even understanding this sentence: "The 'there is no free will' crowd always wants to appeal to it being a standard view or implication of the sciences that there is no free will."

I'm not going to explain, over a message board, how to read, especially not to someone with a personality like yours. But not only that. If I wanted to try despite the personality issues, I'd still not bother because you don't have the necessary tools when it comes to reasoning. It would help if you'd work on the personality, though.

I already addressed this. If your reading comprehension didn't suck you'd know that. — Terrapin Station

Right. And we know it's my reading comprehension that's at fault and not the quality of your counter-argument how, exactly?

Right. And we know it's my reading comprehension that's at fault and not the quality of your counter-argument how, exactly? — Isaac

By continuous examples of you not being able to understand relatively simple sentences. If you want to try to explain supposed problems with the sentence construction instead, you're welcome to suggest that.

A central belief in Islam is that politicians, elected or not, have no authority to invent new laws because God has invented all the laws already. This makes such continuous freedom-encroachment process impossible. — alcontali

I'm not educated enough on Islam and Islamic law to discuss the question, but I don't really see the connection between Islamic morality and libertarianism, because I think that it is a rather strict system, which allows very little for freedom. For instance, what does Islam say about religious freedom, and by its norms, am I allowed to choose my creed, or not to believe in God at all. If Islam doesn't allow this, it has little relevance in libertarianism.

Another problem is that there could be distinguished God as the source of moral law and human reason as the source moral law. The first is very speculative, therefore easily refuted using strict logic and empirical facts, while human reason is the only trustworthy place of insights into the human nature and the needs of society, for it to prosper. The religious argument is too extreme and it is not sincere, because it includes unproved facts and lies, to be honest. And this is a huge detriment.

Unless there's something like 'liberal Islam', which I doubt.

I think that it is a rather strict system, which allows very little for freedom — lepriçok

That is obviously debatable. Still, whatever the level of restrictions exists, it cannot be increased. You do not have that guarantee when politicians are allowed to invent new laws.

For instance, what does Islam say about religious freedom, and by its norms, am I allowed to choose my creed, or not to believe in God at all. If Islam doesn't allow this, it has little relevance in libertarianism. — lepriçok

It is not possible to know what an individual believes. Therefore, there are no rules about what you have to believe. Who is going to enforce that anyway? There may be rules about what you can publicly declare, but those exist in every society.

Another problem is that there could be distinguished God as the source of moral law and human reason as the source moral law. The first is very speculative, therefore easily refuted using strict logic and empirical facts, while human reason is the only trustworthy place of insights into the human nature and the needs of society, for it to prosper. — lepriçok

You see, propositional logic is a rule-based system that rests on exactly 14 axioms, i.e. otherwise unexplained, "speculative", and not further justified beliefs.

So, the average atheists -- just like you just did -- invariably ends up claiming that he will use a system based on 14 "speculative" beliefs, i.e. logic, to justify why you should not use systems based on "speculative" beliefs.

Every time you use a number, you drag 9 "speculative" beliefs into the fray, i.e. the Dedekind-Peano axioms. Hence, by using any form of logic, along with any form of numbering, no matter how basic, you base your conclusions on 14+9 = 23 such "speculative" beliefs.

If you oppose logic to "speculative" belief, it only demonstrates that you do not understand the axiomatic nature of the system of logic. Furthermore, there are no systems, i.e. theories, that do not ultimately rest on "speculative" beliefs. That is simply impossible.

By continuous examples of you not being able to understand relatively simple sentences. — Terrapin Station

Ah, so we know you're the one in the right this time because you also think you were right all the other times. Classic argument.

If you want to try to explain supposed problems with the sentence construction instead, you're welcome to suggest that. — Terrapin Station

There's nothing wrong with the sentence. Sentences don't express one and only one thing. Words mean slightly different things to different people in different contexts. Expressions are even more laden with implicit meaning, contextual meaning, etc.

Your sentences are fine, I just need you to clarify what you mean by them, it's not an unreasonable request.

If you oppose logic to "speculative" belief, it only demonstrates that you do not understand the axiomatic nature of the system of logic. Furthermore, there are no systems, i.e. theories, that do not ultimately rest on "speculative" beliefs. That is simply impossible. — alcontali

This is true only if we decide to leave out objective reality in our logic. If you base logic on what really is/occurs around you, than it is 'speculative' only to the extent you don't trust your senses and their interpretation. These are not axioms, rather basic truths of life that everyone agrees with. This solves your problem. Reason and logic must be grounded in this reality to avoid the speculative catastrophe. That is, all transcendental 'knowledge' are such implanted conclusions from axiomatic logic, and has the same problem, since the God reality is a projection of our logical constructs; whereas revelation is altogether unprovable and impossible to rationally discuss. We have to take it on blind trust. So why bother with our unprovable visions and communications, with the transcendental reflection of our logic, when we have all this in ourselves, and being honest with ourselves, accept our inner faculties in an undistorted form. There are theories that our eyes and ears are 'speculative' too, but this belief leads to extreme hallucinatory solipsism.

Ah, so we know you're the one in the right this time because you also think you were right all the other times. — Isaac

Because you consistently demonstrate that you didn't understand what was written. If the sentences are fine, then your reading comprehension is what's the problem.

At any rate, if you need clarification for anything how about asking for clarification rather than arguing?

Because you consistently demonstrate that you didn't understand what was written. If the sentences are fine, then your reading comprehension is what's the problem. — Terrapin Station

If you actually read what I've written, it explains clearly that sentences are not unambiguously of one clear meaning, but that this is not a fault with the sentence, it is a feature of language. Therefore, simply the two facts (that I have misunderstood the meaning of the sentence and that the sentence has no flaws) are not sufficient on their own to justify your assertion that it must therefore be my reading comprehension that's at fault. You'll need to also explain how you think, contrary to all other language, that your sentences were of such god-like perfection that anyone capable of reading would instantly be appraised of exactly the intention you had when writing them.

At any rate, if you need clarification for anything how about asking for clarification rather than arguing? — Terrapin Station

For a start, I'm not about to check my understanding of every comment before replying, that would be both ridiculous and unnecessary. I wait until a misunderstanding becomes apparent. Secondly, I'm exploring this issue by way of a process of elimination as I remain convinced, as do a significant number of others who've engaged with you, that you simply take this childish "that's not what I said..." tack when someone calls you out on your egotism.

If you actually read what I've written, it explains clearly that sentences are not unambiguously of one clear meaning, but that this is not a fault with the sentence, it is a feature of language. — Isaac

So what did you do on your SATs for the reading comprehension section?

So what did you do on your SATs for the reading comprehension section? — Terrapin Station

I didn't take Sat's but in the comprehension test we did have the answer would be that I provided an answer within the acceptable range to sentences deliberately designed by the examiner to be as unambiguous as possible.

What did you do during your degree? Check your essays against the one correct answer?

You take the SAT in high school. It doesn't have anything to do with getting a degree. It has to do with getting into college/university. It's a test that among other things, demonstrates that one is capable of reading normal, high school-level writing and understanding it in a commonsensical manner. It's not "as unambiguous as possible," because you're expected to have commonsense abilities of reading comprehension, so that you could read any average magazine article, newspaper article, etc. and understand both what it's saying and what's it's not saying.

It's not "as unambiguous as possible," because you're expected to have commonsense abilities of reading comprehension, so that you could read any average magazine article, newspaper article, etc. and understand both what it's saying and what's it's not saying. — Terrapin Station

Well if SATs are at that level then the answer to your question would be that I would have answered what the question was asking and not what it was not asking. Obviously. Otherwise I would not have got into university. What a stupid question.

How does any of this prove whether my apparent (I still maintain all this is just bullshit to cover the fact that you can't defend your ideas) failure to understand what you wrote is to do with my poor reading comprehension and not your poor writing skill.

More distraction because you can't answer the actual point.

I brought you up on the point you were blatantly trying to make (that science is non- deterministic therefore can't be used to support non-free-will). You changed the subject to my apparent reading skills. I brought you up on the fact that you've no way of judging whether it's my reading skills or your writing skills at fault. So you change the subject again to comprehension testing.

Same thing happened on the hate speech thread when I brought you up on the hypocrisy of claiming to know what people are capable of tolerating whilst simultaneously claiming psychological theories were overblown. You changed the subject then too.

Now I've brought you up on your disingenuous argumentative tactics we'll get another sudden change of topic. Anything you can't answer, just change the topic.

I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore, I thought at one time there might be some intelligent discussion after you'd got over your grump at me calling you out over on the hate speech thread, but it seems not.