And they strongly suggest that you think that you see the world as it really is, and that this vision includes God. — S

As I say, I was drawn into an off topic discussion and it went on a bit but I am not obliged to continue an off topic discussion just because I was drawn into it with questions; questions that demanded the statements I made. You are the one who was off topic when asking me those questions. I have no objection to being asked questions but answering them does not oblige me any further.

Here is your question:

There are plenty of people who understand the arguments, yet are not convinced by them. Try again, or retract your claim. — EnPassant

Here is my answer:

Do they understand them? Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God. — EnPassant

That was an off topic aside and you are the one who asked the questions. The fact that I answered it does not oblige me to continue with a discussion that is off topic.

Bare assertions that truth comes from God are no such evidence. — S

Like I said I was answering a question that was put to me. It was an aside from the subject of the thread but people kept asking questions and I answered them but only because I was asked. I did not offer assertions as arguments for God's existence but as responses to questions.

The bottom line is, if you're doing philosophy, then you can't get away with bare assertions. — S

Look, I made those statements simply by way of paraphrasing what theists say. Namely, that there is direct knowledge. The thread is not about trying to prove God's existence it is about how people discuss this issue and why discussion is problematic. That is what I'm discussing. You keep trying to draw me into secondary discussions about God's existence which is a distraction. You should also be aware that I was asked where I stand on the issue of God's existence* and I answered that so I was answering a question not making an assertion for discussion.


*Post 568 "By the way...what exactly is your position on the question?"

For instance, there is a position in the metaphysics of physics where the observation of particles is truly spontaneous, there is no mechanism of any kind but truly pure random occurrence manifesting with any particular observation; conforming to statistical rules but with absolutely "nothing happening in between" that determines if a particle is observed right or left, spin up or spin down. Although this seems difficult to accept, it seems equally difficult (to me at least) how to reject this view without a infinite regress of mechanism for the mechanism for the mechanism. — boethius

I agree with your definition of the difference between classical and quantum time (what you seem to call metaphysical time). But if we deem a series of events to be random - like radioactive decay - we should specify by what time line they are random. They are only random according to the classical time line but does that mean they are 'truly' random when measured by quantum time? It may be that in quantum reality radioactive decay may be perfectly regular and predictable (maybe all such events are even simultaneous.) In mathematics it is easy to create a function with a regular input but a seemingly random output.

That is, it's very very likely that there are aspects of reality which we will NEVER understand, just as your dog will never understand the Internet no matter how hard or how long he might try to. — Jake

Marvellous post Jake. You make short work of what I'm trying to say here, namely that the problem involves knowledge and what kinds of knowledge are valid and what their limitations are.

I can accept theists having their personal ideas of the universe but will question them if they put that conviction into the world as "truths" without any rational reasoning or evidence provided that survive the scrutiny all other truth claims in the world needs. — Christoffer

I agree, but the problem is how to define 'rational' and 'evidence' and what kinds of arguments are acceptable. People have a hard time reading from the same page.

You would first need to provide supporting arguments for your bare assertions, which you haven't done, and also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so they'd have to be damn good arguments. Given that you've failed to meet this burden in spite of repeated requests — S

The subject of the thread is not whether God exists, it is about the discourse between theists and atheists and I have answered that; they cannot agree on the definition of reasonable argument.

Granted, I have made assertions but I have made them purely as suggestions. Namely, that knowledge can be attained through non intellectual means. If this, in principle, is true - which it is - why should atheists scoff when theists assert that they have knowledge through non intellectual means? Art, music, carnal knowledge, sensory knowledge etc are non intellectual means to knowledge about the world.

You may also consider the difference between pure knowledge and images of knowledge because this has a lot to do with the way humans know things. For example, consider x^2 for x over a given range. That is an abstract, mathematical concept. Now consider a graph, on paper, of x^2. The graph is a physical image of the mathematical concept. So, consider this carefully because much human knowledge is by way of image rather than direct knowledge; metaphor as opposed to pure knowledge. This is what art and myth are and much science makes use of this kind of imagery (in science it is called a model).

Obviously you are one of those people who will never acknowledge "I do not know"...and would prefer to kid yourself with "alternate reality." — Frank Apisa

There you have it. You decide, purely on the grounds of materialistic ideology, that I am wrong without ever asking what my arguments are. I do acknowledge 'I do not know' if by 'know' you mean knowledge by intellectual means. I don't have an intellectual proof of God. I have already said this.

You're persistently pushing this self-serving exceptionalism, that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be determined by mundane rules of logic — TheSageOfMainStreet

If the intellect could answer this question it would have done so a long time ago.

If you can't do any better than being slippery and evasive, — TheSageOfMainStreet

Evasive about what?

primitive superstitious cult. — TheSageOfMainStreet

What cult are you talking about?

We are talking about whether gods exist or not. — Frank Apisa

No. We are talking about the kinds of arguments for/against God's existence. Those kinds of arguments depend on what is considered to be 'rational'. The question for debate is about why atheists and theists cannot agree on which rationale to use.

We are not discussing what an orange tastes like...or what it feels like to bang some movie star. — Frank Apisa

We are talking about what is acceptable as a rationale. What is acceptable is in terms of knowledge. That there is a non rational kind of knowledge is an important point because it shows that things can be known by consciousness alone. People who demand elementary proofs dismiss knowledge that is gained purely by consciousness, yet I have shown that this kind of knowledge exists.

Which you haven't done. You've just produced a number of wildly controversial bare assertions. No reasonable person would find that compelling. — S

Does 'wildly controversial' mean they won't fit into the primitive rationale of materialism? That is too bad. Why are controversial ideas not compelling to a 'reasonable person'?

As I keep saying, a large part of the problem is that materialists often think they have a monopoly on what is rational; scientism. If these people can't accept that rationality extends beyond science there is no talking to them.

That is the answer to the first post in this thread: there is no agreement on what is rational because the materialists insist on an abbreviated definition of rationality and anything outside it is 'nonsense'.

Hitchen's razor. — S

But since there is no proof I would say there is only a burden to provide a compelling argument.

Then the reasonable conclusion would be agnosticism. — S

Exactly what I think. I doubt that there are many atheists who are without some doubt about their atheism.

What do you see as wrong or inappropriate about simply acknowledging that we do not know if gods exist or not? — Frank Apisa

I have already acknowledged that it is not possible to prove it in intellectual terms. But is there a kind of knowledge that can be gained in a non intellectual way? Of course there is. The intellect will not tell you what an orange tastes like. You can only know directly, by eating the orange. Likewise with carnal knowledge. Intellect won't enlighten you. These kinds of knowledge about the world can only be known directly.

If the intellect is concerned only with abstract knowledge then it is confined to a subset of all possible knowledge.

One cannot arrive at any of these four things (to follow) using logic, reason, science or math:

1) There is at least one GOD.
2) There are no gods.
3) It is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are no gods.
4) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa

That is exactly what I'm saying. It is not possible. So we need to reason it out using a broader definition of 'reason'. The rationale of science is primitive so we need a looser language more appropriate to the task.

Once again, I wonder why you're here if that's what you think. If we don't know enough, then we should just accept that we don't know enough, not invent fantastical stories to fill the gaps in our knowledge. — S

I'm here to address the question of the thread which is why the argument cannot be decided using an intellect that is earthbound and limited by all kinds of tautologies. The answer is that the intellect is not up to the task.

The stories are not 'invented'. They are, by the implicit argument of theism, given by revelation. Instead of insisting they are invented you should be debating whether religion is inspired by revelation.

That just looks like preaching now. You can't just assume things like that. Maybe this is the wrong forum for you. — S

Ok, but what other means do we have to find truth? The intellect has failed. If the intellect could discern truth it would have done so a long time ago. No matter what philosophers say it can be dismantled by clever arguments. Philosophy is like a bunch of viruses constantly mutating and devouring each other. Philosophies change like fashions on the catwalk. If our puny intellects cannot discern truth - and they have failed miserably* - what should we do?

* Except when it comes to the primitive truths of materialism and science. But these truths are too basic to resolve ontological questions.

.I am speaking what I suppose to be the truth.

I mean you no disrespect. But I will speak what I see to be the truth. — Frank Apisa

Ok, we are on the same page now. The question of theism/atheism is not for want of 'evidence' if we adhere to the simplest definition of evidence: everything that is there. The universe and everything in it.

What is this evidence for? Theists and atheists differ in this respect because 'evidence for' is subjective. What to do?

The only way forward is to form arguments about what the evidence seems to suggest. Theists argue for the Fine Tuning Argument. Atheists counter this with the multiverse etc.

Theists argue for design in the natural world. Atheists try to explain the appearence of design as an illusion and try to replace it with elaborate arguments concerning random mutations etc.

Which arguments are most coherent and have most explanatory power? That is the only level the debate can proceed on.

EnPassant: Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.

Is it a blind guess...pretending to be something more? — Frank Apisa

It is my understanding of the world. It is far from a blind guess.

And since it is dependent entirely on a blind guess that there is a "god"...why should it be given any more consideration than one would any other blind guess? — Frank Apisa

Why should it be blind guess? Do you think all theists are stupid or guessing things out of thin air? Don't you think people put a lot of thought into philosophy and religion? Philosophers don't proceed according to blind guesses, they think and if they believe in God it is because their thinking has convinced them. From a philosophical point of view belief is a conviction with a lot of thought behind it, not a blind guess.

And yet, in the context of debate, this looks a lot like an ad hominem, a personal attack. Such approaches have a long and wholly unsuccessful history within debating circles. When applied to humans, they are counter-productive, in terms of the debate. No point. — Pattern-chaser

Thank you.

People are willing to have a meaningful discussion with you, EnPassant, but you are averse to it — Frank Apisa

Not at all. What do you want to discuss within the context of the thread?

This is what humans with a functioning brain call "bullshit." — Frank Apisa

This is what I call meaningless rhetoric designed to avoid proper discussion.

And I hate vague religious-sounding talk with little or no clear meaning. The way I see it, it's your responsibility to be clear, not my responsibility to keep asking what the heck you're talking about. — S

The intellect cannot discern spiritual truth. Truth must come to us from God. The world is filled with human patterns. These patterns are not ultimately real, they are ephemeral. The true pattern of the world is spiritual. Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.

Intellectual debates are an attempt to translate spiritual truth into the atheist's terms because that seems to be the only way atheists will see things.

Once you have evidence that can be tested by others and others test it and get the same results, then it becomes a theory, or more than a belief. It becomes knowledge. — Harry Hindu

True, but the kinds of evidence that can be tested and shared are simple or primitive truths. Science is primitive. Matter is primitive. The atheists are making a mistake in trying to force ontological matters into the primitive framework of matter and explain them in material terms. It is this kind of thing that leads to absurd attempts to explain everything - including ontological matters - in terms of 'survival advantage'.

How can someone paint a masterpiece? - survival advantage.
How can someone create a symphony? - survival advantage. They can always find a way to squeeze it in.

A belief would be more akin to a hypothesis. — Harry Hindu

But not all beliefs are abstract. If I had a thought I believe that I really did have that thought. That belief is not a hypothesis, it is more direct than that. There is intellectual knowledge and there is 'ontological knowledge' if you will. It muddies waters by confusing these two types of knowledge. Knowledge of God is direct. Belief in God is direct. It is not hypothetical. It only becomes hypothetical when it is translated into abstract argument.

Neuroscience has been trying to work out the intricate mechanism of thinking, but we haven't quite grasped it, not to say that it won't be explained in the next few decades. — Anirudh Sharma

All neuroscience can show is that there is a correlation between brain activity and thought. But correlation is not causation. The brain is involved with thought but that does not mean the brain is the source of thought. The analogy of the television is often used. The sound and vision from the tv are processed by the television's components and those components are certainly correlated with the film on view. But does that mean the television is the source of the film? That the television created the script and the music score? These are broadcast to the tv from a remote station. Likewise with the brain, it processes thought but that does not mean it creates thought.

nonsense — S

Specsavers. — S

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that prevents reasoned discussion and blocks the kind of understanding I am talking about.

If Christians actually knew that their God exists, then they could easily provide irrefutable evidence and there would not constantly be disputes by atheists asking for said evidence. — Maureen

Not all things that are true can be proved. If I had a thought yesterday I cannot prove it. But it is true that I had that thought.

But that's very obviously false. There are plenty of people who understand the arguments, yet are not convinced by them. Try again, or retract your claim. — S

Do they understand them? Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God.

Convincing to who? :brow: — S

To anyone who is capable of understanding the arguments.

No problem with making a guess about whether gods exist or not...but that is all it is...A GUESS.

We do not know which is more likely.

No problem with making a guess on which is more likely...but that is all it is...A GUESS. — Frank Apisa

Theist's position on God is not a guess, it is a conviction that can be convincingly argued for.

I may be wrong, but it sounds like you are effectively saying that it is not possible to prove that God(s) exist, so in essence all anyone can do is provide a convincing argument. — Maureen

Yes. But reasoned argument can be tantamount to proof. Good argument can, in principle, become so strong that it can't be convincingly refuted.
Proof belongs to the world of primitive matter and primitive diciplines like science and mathematics etc. Science is about how basic material relations obtain; how pieces of matter join together and how energy flows through systems. Mathematics is about numbers, the most primitive objects we can conceive of. Intellect is concerned with these basic truths. But the intellect cannot rise above these things. That is why we have religion, art, music etc, to express ontological realities. In short, no, I don't think God's existence can be proved in these terms but His existence can be argued for so convincingly that the arguments are close to proof.

No. What accrues is a burden of proof.

That is why anyone with a functioning brain would not assert, "There are no gods" or "There is at least one god."

Do not make the assertion...but if you do, don't pretend there is no burden of proof to meet. — Frank Apisa

Ok, but I was not talking about assertions I was talking about beliefs. If someone says I believe God exists that is not an assertion that God exists, it is a belief. So, belief only requires argument to justify. Yes, if someone say that God certainly exists I guess there is a burden of proof.

Those were not my words...they were someone else's that I was quoting.

Apologies, I misquoted you.

We do not know if gods exist or not.

We do not have a reasonable likelihood estimate in either direction. — Frank Apisa

I disagree. Are the arguments on either side not reasonable? A reasonable argument is not necessarily equivalent to truth but it can still be reasonable in terms of what the proponent understands.

By the way...what exactly is your position on the question? — Frank Apisa

My position is that the human intellect is trapped in linguistics and all manner of tautologies; philosophy is almost impossible when it comes to the 'big questions'. The intellect is not capable of understanding complex ontological realities. But the mind has abilities above primitive mentalism. It is conscious of ontological reality. What is needed is a language that can express our consciousness of that ontological reality. Thus far religion has done so, imperfectly.

The intellect can only construct primitive truths; scientific and mathematical truths. But for ontological truths a more evolved 'higher level' language is required; art, religion, music, literature etc are examples of higher language.

Just as you realize there is no "proof" one way or the other...you should realize there is no "more likely" one way or the other. — Frank Apisa

It is not about what is more likely because it is not about chance, it is about what is real. Why would it be about 'blind guessing'? It is about which argument is more persuasive and has the greatest explanatory power.

But the burden does accrue. — Frank Apisa

How can a burden of proof arise if neither side can prove their position? What accrues is a responsibility to present a persuasive argument.

The core blind guesses in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for. — Frank Apisa

Blind guesses? It is neither delusion nor blind guesses. It is an assertion that can be argued for.

No, theism is held under the same scrutiny as everything else, so when theists provide flawed or illogical arguments, it's pointed out. — Christoffer

The flaws, such as they are, are only secondary items that arise when ontological realities are translated into intellectual/philosophical/theological terms. The core belief in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for.

...if someone wants to assert "they are not unknown" or that "they know GOD"...

...they bear the burden of proof. — Frank Apisa

Why? It is not question of proof either way. It is a question of providing the most convincing arguments. That is all that can be done.

To be 100% confident in making a decision whether to believe in god’s existence or not, you need to study all the related topics (e.g. biology, physiology, psychology, evolution, all religion, etc). Then you would need critical thinking skills to evaluate truth from falsehood and any connections between the subjects. You would also need a lot of time, money and will to do that and this is the reason why so many people cannot speak about the subject meaningfully — akourios

Personally I don't think study or intellect has anything to do with belief in God. It has to do with consciousness. The intellect is not the only way to knowledge. Knowledge (of God and the world) can come directly through consciousness. That is what the atheist cannot accept and dismisses as delusion.

Some would say they are Napoleon. — Frank Apisa

But that is a Dawkinsian assertion of delusion, which you would be required to substantiate. You can 'refute' almost anything by crying 'delusion'. But that is not the way to proceed in a search for what is true.

"Beliefs" or "guesses" are fine. But the guess "There are no gods" and the guess "There is at least one GOD"...are essentially identical. Both are nothing more than blind guesses about the unknown. — Frank Apisa

Some would say they are not unknown. Some say they know God.

Asking for evidence is a very complex question for the atheist to ask. In the simplest sense 'evidence' is just a body of objects, facts, situations etc. Every dust mote, every galaxy, every living being is evidence. Evidence for what?

That is the difference between evidence and 'evidence for'. 'Evidence for' is subjective. Two people can look at a body of facts/evidence and argue differently as to what this body of facts is 'evidence for'.

There is a whole universe of evidence in this sense.

Atheists have convinced many people that the mystery of being is mystery concerning matter and can be addressed in the context of materialism. I disagree. The true mystery of being is an onthological question; the mind is connected to a vast ontological universe of art, mathematics, creativity, religion, music, intelligence. This vast ontological universe is the soul and mystery of being. Why does it exist? What is it?

What the atheist is really asking is "where is the material evidence?" In other words, they are looking for evidence in their own terms. But even in their terms it is everywhere; what is the material universe evidence for? They have their answers prepared. But what about the onthological universe of consciousness and imagination? It is, they argue, an accidental artifact of accidental evolution. In other words, they dismiss it.

You say that if the God exists people could provide 'evidence'. But evidence is everywhere already! What is it evidence for? It is not a question of providing evidence it is a question of providing a coherent and convincing argument as to what the evidence means.
The atheist will respond to this by saying "We want public evidence. Evidence that can be shared and agreed upon." But objective evidence of this kind pertains only to the primitive world of matter and intellect and science. And matter, mathematics and science are primitive and basic. Onthological questions are more sophisticated and evolved. The human intellect is not up to the task. It is earthbound and imprisoned in a web of tautologies and imprecise language.* Materialism and intellect are not able to answer questions concerning ontology and consciousness. The atheist balks at answers that come from consciousness rather than intellect (or a mix both). The only way to answer the atheists is to tell them that these questions pertain to the ontological arena and not (only) the material world.


*As has been said above 'It is possible to be very intelligent and very wrong at the same time'.

I condone neither alcoholism or drugs but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZEivOBQ6nc

The economy is the weakest link in the chain. It may collapse for purely internal reasons (economic meltdown) or it may collapse because of natural disaster, war, over population, soil erosion* etc or a combination of these things.

*Saw a documentary last night on soil erosion and the extermination of all life in the soil due to pesticides. Serious stuff.

Let's see if this holds up. I don't know what the person beside me at work is going to do next. He could commit the changes he's making to a file, he could scrap it, he could yank out the power cable in frustration, etc. I assign actions to each of these and other possible acts he may perform next. But of course, I don't know which he will do, it's unknown to me. So clearly whatever I do next is indeterministic because I lack that knowledge. — MindForged

Well, you may have a point there. Say he pulls the cable and you assign the action 'Check email' to that event. Is there a law of nature that says checking your email is, according to the physical laws of nature, connected to pulling the cable? If he pulls the cable today and you check your email and he pulls it tomorrow and you don't check your email how is that scientifically deterministic? Determinism says that A always follows B but if sometimes it does and sometimes it does not what can we say? What is happening here is that you are making an abstract connection between things, not a directly physical causal connection. So your comment is interesting.*

Normally, if a decision is made, that decision is subject, in principle, to a deterministic unbroken chain of causes in the physical world. At least that point can be argued. But if a digit comes down from the Platonic realm (or whatever you want to call it) and intervenes in the causal chain that causal chain is broken. Yes, it can be argued that the process of locating the digit is deterministic but the value of the digit cannot be physically determined. Also, as I mentioned, the sequence of digits cannot be physically determined. The actions that follow are not following according to physical law; I can choose a different set of actions the next day and respond in a different way to the same digits (the same, but from a different decimal expansion). So if digit 6 has me going to the library today and going to the supermarket tomorrow how can that be physical law if the same digit leads to different results? The connection between the digit and the action is abstract, not physical.


*An action leading to another action, by association, is not the same as an action physically causing another action. There is a difference.

Again, you seem to miss the obvious. The decision is determined and thus whether or not the digits are known beforehand has absolutely nothing to do with determinism. That's epistemology, not metaphysics. — MindForged

That they are not known has to do keeping the experiment 'blind' so that the determinist cannot say there was unconscious interference or brain states influencing things.

The value of the digit is irrelevant because what course of action is done because of the digit in question is the result of the physical states which caused you to put assign each action to each respective number.

Simply associating a number with an action, in advance of the number being known, is not physical determinism. For physical determinism to obtain it must be shown that a physical state determines the choice. The experimenter could as easily have decided that if n is the digit action n+1 will be performed. There is no rigid deterministic connection here.

This has no challenge to determinism at all. "Mathematical reality" isn't determining anything at all here for if it did, the action itself would follow from pure mathematics.

Yes, but it is enough to show that the 'decision' is not physically deterministic. The slightest non deterministic action is enough to prove the case. It is clear enough to me that the 'choice' is determined by mathematical fact, not a physical state. But it is subtle; there are many physically deterministic threads running through this and one has to be careful to see what is deterministic and what is not.

Why does number 1 correspond to " Go to the library"? The answer is because that's what you "chose" to make, and your choice is not arbitrarily outside of determinism.

But it is not just about one choice. There is a sequence of choices corresponding to the sequence of digits and that sequence cannot be decided upon because the sequence of digits is unknown. That is why there is a whole sequence of actions.

The value doesn't determine the choice, the choice determines what the value entails you to do.

See last answer; the sequence itself is not decided upon or chosen. The sequence of actions is determined by how that digits are arranged and that sequence is neither known nor decided upon in advance. Nor is it physically determined.

The choice from the list is determined by which action you "chose" to assign to the digit. How this escapes determinism is beyond me. — MindForged

That is not physical determinism. It is a 'blind' decision because the list is made before the digits are known. Physical determinism says that each physical state is, by way of the physical laws of nature determined by a previous physical state. If this is correct it must be possible to show that the value digit is determined by physical law, but that is not the case. It is determined by mathematical reality. Also, this value is not in the same spirit as the way ordinary applied mathematics determines values. It has nothing to do with applied mathematics. It is a primitive mathematical truth.

That determinism locates the digit has no relevance because it is the value of the digit that determines the choice and that value is a primitive truth, not something that is physically determined. Yes, physical determinism plays a part right up to the point where the digit appears on screen, but thereafter the value of the digit is what determines what happens.

Thats fine, but then you arent really saying much at all here. — DingoJones

I think I am because many determinists - materialists - believe the universe is a physically deterministic machine that is predictable in terms of the physical laws of matter.

Restricting Determinism to direct physical objects is a straw man. — DingoJones

Laplace's original formulation concerned physical law and matter and that is what I am addressing. Mathematical truth is not physically determined by any physical state in the universe. I am not talking here about applied mathematics, I am talking about pure number theory. It is what it is, eternally. That is what is important. Eternal mathematical truth determines what happens, not any physical state.

So basically irrationality or what the number would be used here wasn't important. "Known in advance" is quite vague definition here. By whom? — ssu

By the experimenter. It is necessary that the digit is not known in advance to counter those who say it is having an unconscious influence.

This is a bit confusing. How do you define these two to being "physical", yet then something being "mathematical" as opposition to the first? — ssu

Pure mathematics - as opposed to applied math. - is true, regardless of any physical state.

Those are still determinate events since you could say it was your neurological (clasical) state which chose the irrational number. — JupiterJess

Yes, the original starting number, 11, but not the value of its decimal expansion. One could choose the millionth digit of the expansion of the square root of 2 and that would get around any objection re. 'brain states'.

No, because as I said reality does have a mathematical structure to it. To call that "not reality" is just incoherent, the structure of reality is obviously part of reality. — MindForged

See above re. the difference between applied and pure math. My point is that the value of the digit is not determined by any physical state, yet the digit determines the choice from the list. Therefore the choice is not physically determined. The value of the digit cannot be determined by any physical state - it is what it is beyond matter, space and time. (But as I said, above, my only argument is against physical determinism which argues that every physical state is determined by a previous physical state. But if the choice is determined by a digit, the corresponding event is not physically determined.)