Free Will

Cito di Pense · **#13581** by **Cito di Pense** » Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm

ughaibu wrote:
felltoearth wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
felltoearth wrote:No one, including yourself, has shown that it exists.
When you signed the user agreement for this site, had you neither read nor understood it? Do you think that there are no members of this site who read, understood and signed the user agreement without being under threat?

I clicked a box.
That's a non-answer. Just as a matter of form, I'm going to report you for possibly joining under false pretenses.

Keep turning in those reports, ughaibu. You're building a fine case that you're only here to troll this forum. You massively overrate your attractiveness as a discussion-leader. Even put in the best light, your protests are narcissistic dweebery.

Make us instruments of Thy Mighty Will.

ughaibu wrote:take seriously the proposition that denialism is unacceptable, intellectually and socially.

Take seriously the notion that human social conventions are the manifestations of metaphysical realities? Don't make me laugh. Again.

zoon · **#13582** by **zoon** » Aug 01, 2019 8:44 pm

ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:Somebody recording “x” when they meant “minus x” isn’t going to bring science crashing down?
You're posting pseudo-objections. Think about it, in my argument there was exactly one occasion on which an observation needed to be recorded, for there to be science.

GrahamH wrote:
zoon wrote:Somebody recording “x” when they meant “minus x” isn’t going to bring science crashing down?

I think you are missing the extraordinary scale of his claim. It's not that there will be errors. It is that accurate records would only occur as impossibly improbable coincidence.
If your actions are determined by prior events, such as experimental procedures then you could not record what actually happened.

If you can make any sense of that do let me know.

Yes, I’ve lost the thread of ughaibu’s argument altogether here. I would have expected free will to make recording at least potentially less accurate, given that the recorder is presumably free to put down whatever they want.

Cito di Pense · **#13583** by **Cito di Pense** » Aug 01, 2019 8:54 pm

ughaibu wrote:I'm going to be back in town by twelve to watch a video with my dental hygienist's daughter.
Now, as I have no idea how to describe the universe of interest, or even what the extent of that universe is, and I have no idea what the relevant laws of chemistry and physics, if there are any, are, or the computational ability to calculate the supposed consequences, how in the living ultra fuck can I reliably predict my future?

Because there is only a small probability you'll be struck by a lorry and killed while you're out cycling. What you think of as your free will is contingent on a whole bunch of stuff that only has a small probability of happening. If you ever start treating the locals the way you do faceless people on the internet, you may get your throat cut with a rather higher probability.

felltoearth · **#13584** by **felltoearth** » Aug 01, 2019 10:21 pm

ughaibu wrote:
felltoearth wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
felltoearth wrote:No one, including yourself, has shown that it exists.
When you signed the user agreement for this site, had you neither read nor understood it? Do you think that there are no members of this site who read, understood and signed the user agreement without being under threat?

I clicked a box.
That's a non-answer. Just as a matter of form, I'm going to report you for possibly joining under false pretenses.

In my defense, it’s because I just couldn’t help myself.

ughaibu · **#13585** by **ughaibu** » Aug 02, 2019 12:27 pm

zoon wrote:Yes, I’ve lost the thread of ughaibu’s argument altogether here. I would have expected free will to make recording at least potentially less accurate, given that the recorder is presumably free to put down whatever they want.

The argument we're discussing here says nothing about free will, it demonstrates that the contention that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics is false.
One consequence of this is that free will denial cannot be based on the premise that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics.

GrahamH · **#13586** by **GrahamH** » Aug 02, 2019 1:09 pm

ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:Yes, I’ve lost the thread of ughaibu’s argument altogether here. I would have expected free will to make recording at least potentially less accurate, given that the recorder is presumably free to put down whatever they want.
The argument we're discussing here says nothing about free will, it demonstrates that the contention that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics is false.
One consequence of this is that free will denial cannot be based on the premise that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics.

It goes so far back, and been repeated in great variety for so long that maybe you have forgotten your own statements.

ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:I’m contrasting this ultimate free will, which I think we almost certainly do not have
But if we haven't got this kind of free will, then we can't do science, and as your position appeals to science, it is self-refuting.

You have been repeating this assertion that free will is required for science ad nauseum without justifications.
Lateley you ave doubled down on the absurd notion that if determinism is true researches would be somehow compelled to write the wrong results, or act at random or something.

As zoon notes, free will would seem to increase the possibilities for errors.
A detrministic recording device would do a good job, as would a rule and conditions following researcher whether hard determism is the case or not.

ughaibu · **#13587** by **ughaibu** » Aug 02, 2019 1:27 pm

GrahamH wrote:
ughaibu wrote:The argument we're discussing here says nothing about free will, it demonstrates that the contention that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics is false.
One consequence of this is that free will denial cannot be based on the premise that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics.
It goes so far back, and been repeated in great variety for so long that maybe you have forgotten your own statements.

I first addressed an argument of this form to Zoon here:

ughaibu wrote:[ ]

Notice that the argument makes no mention of free will and it is posted as a refutation of Zoon's denial of a maximal free will defined in terms of laws of chemistry and physics.
You must surely be aware of this, as you've just refreshed yourself about these earlier posts. So, I take it that you're intentionally trying to wind me up, you are trolling.

GrahamH · **#13588** by **GrahamH** » Aug 02, 2019 1:47 pm

ughaibu wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
ughaibu wrote:The argument we're discussing here says nothing about free will, it demonstrates that the contention that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics is false.
One consequence of this is that free will denial cannot be based on the premise that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics.
It goes so far back, and been repeated in great variety for so long that maybe you have forgotten your own statements.
I first addressed an argument of this form to Zoon here:
ughaibu wrote:[ ]
Notice that the argument makes no mention of free will and it is posted as a refutation of Zoon's denial of a maximal free will defined in terms of laws of chemistry and physics.
You must surely be aware of this, as you've just refreshed yourself about these earlier posts. So, I take it that you're intentionally trying to wind me up, you are trolling.

You explicitly mention free will, as I quoted you and omited in your empty quote. Here it is again:

ughaibu wrote:But if we haven't got this kind of free will, then we can't do science, and as your position appeals to science, it is self-refuting.

So it seems it's you who is trolling, repeat posting, evading, insulting, posting empty quotes etc.

ughaibu · **#13589** by **ughaibu** » Aug 02, 2019 1:59 pm

GrahamH wrote:
ughaibu wrote:Notice that the argument makes no mention of free will and it is posted as a refutation of Zoon's denial of a maximal free will defined in terms of laws of chemistry and physics.
You must surely be aware of this, as you've just refreshed yourself about these earlier posts. So, I take it that you're intentionally trying to wind me up, you are trolling.
You explicitly mention free will, as I quoted you and omited in your empty quote.

It is not part of the argument, is it?

Blip · **#13590** by **Blip** » Aug 02, 2019 2:06 pm

!

GENERAL MODNOTE
ughaibu, in your post here you describe another member as ‘an unconscionable idiot’.

For avoidance of doubt, such posting contravenes the Forum Users’ Agreement, specifically section 1.2c, which concerns personal attack: please don’t address or describe other members in this manner.

Any comments on this modnote or moderation should not be made in the thread as they will be considered off topic; they may be removed without further warning.

GrahamH · **#13591** by **GrahamH** » Aug 02, 2019 2:09 pm

If you had any integrity or common sense your response to

zoon wrote:
Yes, I’ve lost the thread of ughaibu’s argument altogether here.

would not be a dig about what your lost argument is not about. In the context of your long rambling pile of posts you do indeed seem to be hammering on this claim that free will is required for science and you would obviously rather throw insults and empty posts that shine any light on your "argument". We know what that sort behaviour is.

ughaibu · **#13592** by **ughaibu** » Aug 02, 2019 2:22 pm

GrahamH wrote:If you had any integrity or common sense your response to
zoon wrote:
Yes, I’ve lost the thread of ughaibu’s argument altogether here.
would not be a dig about what your lost argument is not about.

This:

ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:Yes, I’ve lost the thread of ughaibu’s argument altogether here. I would have expected free will to make recording at least potentially less accurate, given that the recorder is presumably free to put down whatever they want.
The argument we're discussing here says nothing about free will, it demonstrates that the contention that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics is false.
One consequence of this is that free will denial cannot be based on the premise that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics.

isn't "a dig", it's an explanation.

GrahamH wrote:you would obviously rather throw insults and empty posts that shine any light on your "argument".

Here's the first version, linked to above:

ughaibu wrote:let's assume you're correct and that there are some laws of chemistry and physics which, together with a relevant description of the brain and its environment, mathematically entail all future human behaviour. Now let's pose the question what will you be doing between 10.25 and 10:30? According to you this is fully entailed by laws and can, in principle, we computed. Take six pairs of trousers and number them, one to six, do the same for six shirts, six locations in your room, six colours and six animals, then roll five dice and wearing the clothes that match the first two dice, sit in the position indicated by the third dice drawing, in the colour indicated by the fourth dice, the animal indicated by the fifth, during the period between 10:25 and 10:30. What we're doing here is equivalent to recording our observation of the result of rolling the dice, so our ability to do science guarantees that we can do this, but if you're correct, then this means that we can compute what is mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry and physics, by rolling dice, and that is nonsense.
Further, if you are correct and somehow the dice coincidentally match the laws of chemistry and physics, then you should be able to roll the dice again and get the same result. In short, your position is inconsistent with the theory and practice of science.

Here's the second version, first addressed to Rumraket:

ughaibu wrote:three claims: 1. that there are some laws of chemistry and physics which, together with a relevant description of the brain and its environment, mathematically entail all future human behaviour [ ] If we assume that the first claim is true, then there is a time one at which the description and the laws mathematically entail all the future behaviour of two humans A and B. At time two A says "heads you buy, tails I do" and B agrees, at time three A tosses a coin that lands tails up and at time four A buys the drinks for both of them. This is an everyday situation that I'm sure any reader has been in at some time, so you know this behaviour is unproblematically possible, but more to the point, it is another example of a procedure for recording an observation, so it is required by our ability to do science that we can behave like this. In short, if we have the experimental apparatus, in this case a standard coin, and we have the recording equipment, in this case someone selling drinks and enough money to buy a round, then either science is impossible or we can toss the coin and record the result by one of us buying the drinks. [ ] Now consider a different proposal by A, "if your birthday is closer to today, I buy, if mine's closer, you buy". Again, this is equivalent to recording an observation, so they must be able to buy according to the proximity of their birthdays, or there is no science. But this entails that if they combine the methods, then the two methods must agree, otherwise one of the observations can't be recorded. Now we can cut out the drinking and simplify the experiment; if claim 1 is correct, then either there is science or we can find out which of two people's birthdays is closer to today by tossing a coin. Of course we can't do this and there is science, so claim 1 is incorrect.

What is it that you don't understand about this argument? What needs light shining on it?

GrahamH · **#13593** by **GrahamH** » Aug 02, 2019 3:12 pm

ughaibu wrote:Here's the first version, linked to above:
ughaibu wrote:let's assume you're correct and that there are some laws of chemistry and physics which, together with a relevant description of the brain and its environment, mathematically entail all future human behaviour. Now let's pose the question what will you be doing between 10.25 and 10:30? According to you this is fully entailed by laws and can, in principle, we computed. Take six pairs of trousers and number them, one to six, do the same for six shirts, six locations in your room, six colours and six animals, then roll five dice and wearing the clothes that match the first two dice, sit in the position indicated by the third dice drawing, in the colour indicated by the fourth dice, the animal indicated by the fifth, during the period between 10:25 and 10:30. What we're doing here is equivalent to recording our observation of the result of rolling the dice, so our ability to do science guarantees that we can do this, but if you're correct, then this means that we can compute what is mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry and physics, by rolling dice, and that is nonsense.

You could start there. Assuming determinism you consider some behaviour of a person and some dice. You set out a causal relation (the event that selects between A, B etc) between the dice rolls and the person's behaviour. So we get to some outcome which you say is an observation. Fair enough.

But you say "this means that we can compute what is mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry and physics" but no claim has been made about computing dice rolls or people with any precision so why do you assume otherwise? Whether it is entailed or not is not any claim of computability for prediction. zoon has speculated what might result if it could be done in practice which is a different point.

Then you say that if we could predict [dice etc] we could "compute what is mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry and physics, by rolling dice" which doesn't follow at all. If we could accurately predict chaotic systems then we could predict them. That is we could "compute what is entailed", but why "by rolling dice"? Why do you think that rolling dice computes anything?

Nothing in your scenario necessarily looks any different whether determinism is the case or not.

You call it nonsense and I think it is nonsense, but it's your nonsense. Maybe you can make sense of it.

And then perhaps you could explain what stops people doing science, of doing what they are instructed to do on a dice roll or a meter reading or whatever. The instructions say record the temperature on a gauge. The gauge shows 23.4°C why would the researcher write anything other than the correct value?

ughaibu · **#13594** by **ughaibu** » Aug 02, 2019 4:07 pm

GrahamH wrote:Assuming determinism you consider some behaviour of a person and some dice.

No, it is quite clearly stated that I assume "that there are some laws of chemistry and physics which, together with a relevant description of the brain and its environment, mathematically entail all future human behaviour", as you're well aware, determinism is a thesis about laws of nature, not laws of science.

GrahamH wrote:But you say "this means that we can compute what is mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry and physics" but no claim has been made about computing dice rolls or people with any precision so why do you assume otherwise?

The argument was posted in reply to Zoon, who wrote this:

zoon wrote:One possibility is that future neuroscientists might build a supercomputer which predicted in detail everything a particular person does. I think this would be possible in principle, since nerves fire very much more slowly than transistors operate: a nerve does not fire off more than 1,000 impulses per second, while a transistor can carry out billions of operations per second.

The argument demonstrates that he's mistaken, no computer could make the prediction.

GrahamH wrote:Then you say that if we could predict [dice etc] we could "compute what is mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry and physics, by rolling dice" which doesn't follow at all.

I didn't say anything about predicting dice. What I wrote was spelled out here:

ughaibu wrote:I have assumed that there are laws of chemistry/physics which, given the initial conditions of any universe of interest, exactly entail all the subsequent behaviour of the human beings in that universe of interest. Thus the assertion "heads you buy, tails I do" is entailed by the laws, the action of tossing the coin and its result are entailed by the laws, and the act of buying the drinks is entailed by the laws.
The only other assumption is that science requires that researchers can reliably record their observations.
This means that at time three, when A and B observe that the result of tossing the coin is tails, they know, because their recording procedure has been defined by them as "heads you buy, tails I do", that if they have the ability to do science, then it is logically entailed that at time four A will buy the drinks. As, by assumption, it is also the case that there are laws that mathematically entail that at time four A will buy, they have successfully solved the problem of calculating what is entailed by the laws.

GrahamH wrote:Nothing in your scenario necessarily looks any different whether determinism is the case or not.

Of course it does, regardless of whether it is determinism that is true or it is true that there are laws of chemistry/physics that exactly entail all human behaviour, if we can do science, then we can record our observation, but we can perform two different experiments that science itself tells us we cannot record with the same action. By defining our recording procedures to be the same action, we demonstrate that both determinism and the contention that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics, are inconsistent with the requirements and conclusions of science.

GrahamH wrote:And then perhaps you could explain what stops people doing science, of doing what they are instructed to do on a dice roll or a meter reading or whatever. The instructions say record the temperature on a gauge. The gauge shows 23.4°C why would the researcher write anything other than the correct value?

Your comment appears to make no sense. I haven't claimed that people cannot do science, I think it's quite clear that they can, what the argument establishes is only what I have, repeatedly, stated that it establishes.

GrahamH · **#13595** by **GrahamH** » Aug 02, 2019 4:45 pm

ughaibu wrote:I didn't say anything about predicting dice.

Correct, your error was leaving out the dice (or coins), or introducing supernatural dice if you prefer. They are an integral part of the scenario. If "there are laws of chemistry/physics which, given the initial conditions of any universe of interest, exactly entail all the subsequent behaviour" the coins must be part of that but you treat them as a change you can slip in there from some other world to suggest an incompatibility between the scenario and the scenario with coins. There is only one world.

ughaibu wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Nothing in your scenario necessarily looks any different whether determinism is the case or not.
Of course it does, regardless of whether it is determinism that is true or it is true that there are laws of chemistry/physics that exactly entail all human behaviour, if we can do science, then we can record our observation, but we can perform two different experiments that science itself tells us we cannot record with the same action.

Not it doesn't. Under the assumption that everything is entailed by laws of nature on any occasion there is one history, one experimental result and one accurate recording of that result. Your two different experiments are really different, in time and space. For your scenario you describe only one experiment resulting in A buying drinks. There is no otherwise there. On another day, in a separate experiment, B may buy.

ughaibu wrote:
By defining our recording procedures to be the same action, we demonstrate that both determinism and the contention that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics, are inconsistent with the requirements and conclusions of science.

No you don't because the recording procedure can be the same steps but performing them in different circumstances cannot be the same action. It must be two separate actions, one for each experiment, each accurately recording the result. Each, we suppose here, entailed, together with experimental process, by natural laws.

ughaibu · **#13596** by **ughaibu** » Aug 02, 2019 4:59 pm

GrahamH wrote:Correct, your error was leaving out the dice (or coins), or introducing supernatural dice if you prefer. They are an integral part of the scenario. If "there are laws of chemistry/physics which, given the initial conditions of any universe of interest, exactly entail all the subsequent behaviour" the coins must be part of that but you treat them as a change you can slip in there from some other world to suggest an incompatibility between the scenario and the scenario with coins. There is only one world.

You still don't understand how this works, do you?

ughaibu wrote:I have assumed that there are laws of chemistry/physics which, given the initial conditions of any universe of interest, exactly entail all the subsequent behaviour of the human beings in that universe of interest. Thus the assertion "heads you buy, tails I do" is entailed by the laws, the action of tossing the coin and its result are entailed by the laws, and the act of buying the drinks is entailed by the laws.
The only other assumption is that science requires that researchers can reliably record their observations.
This means that at time three, when A and B observe that the result of tossing the coin is tails, they know, because their recording procedure has been defined by them as "heads you buy, tails I do", that if they have the ability to do science, then it is logically entailed that at time four A will buy the drinks. As, by assumption, it is also the case that there are laws that mathematically entail that at time four A will buy, they have successfully solved the problem of calculating what is entailed by the laws.

Everything is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics, by assumption. Everything includes all the dice rolls or coin tosses, obviously! I just don't get it, what is it that you don't understand? Why do you think the dice are supernatural?

GrahamH wrote:Under the assumption that everything is entailed by laws of nature on any occasion there is one history, one experimental result and one accurate recording of that result. Your two different experiments are really different, in time and space. For your scenario you describe only one experiment resulting in A buying drinks. There is no otherwise there. On another day, in a separate experiment, B may buy.

Are you suggesting that we can't run two diagnostic procedures to check whether a patient has a certain disease? You must know that this objection is nonsense.

GrahamH wrote:No you don't because the recording procedure can be the same steps but performing them in different circumstances cannot be the same action. It must be two separate actions, one for each experiment, each accurately recording the result. Each, we suppose here, entailed, together with experimental process, by natural laws.

Again this is irrelevant. Not least because if the theory that all human behaviour is mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics were correct, the pair of experiments would necessarily produce the same result. Surely you've heard of the principle of falsification, well that's what's going on here. I've taken a prediction of the theory and demonstrated that it's inconsistent with science.

GrahamH · **#13597** by **GrahamH** » Aug 02, 2019 5:36 pm

ughaibu wrote:.
GrahamH wrote:No you don't because the recording procedure can be the same steps but performing them in different circumstances cannot be the same action. It must be two separate actions, one for each experiment, each accurately recording the result. Each, we suppose here, entailed, together with experimental process, by natural laws.
Again this is irrelevant. Not least because if the theory that all human behaviour is mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics were correct, the pair of experiments would necessarily produce the same result. Surely you've heard of the principle of falsification, well that's what's going on here. I've taken a prediction of the theory and demonstrated that it's inconsistent with science.

You are mistaken. It does not follow that a pair of experiments must produce the same result. That would only be the case if absolutely every detail was identical, but that would be one single experiment, not two. To say there are two means you are distinguishing them somehow, so the conditions are not identical and that may result in different results . That's science. Repeat experimental procedures while varying the assumed incidental conditions (different time, different place, different experimenter, apparatus etc). See if you get the same result or not. If you do then your model is good. If not there is an error in the model or the apparatus or the experimenter.

The "pair of experiments" are not two events. Your scenario gave the coin toss result and result and that is the singular outcome and matching observation. No contradiction. At some other time, in some other bar, with a different coin or different people you may get a different outcome accurately recorded.

You are pretending you have people on some fixed path while you slip in "a pair of experiments" You can't do that. :naughty:

If you change to a different possible world you can't assume the people will be doing the exact same thing as was entailed in the first world. They will be doing whatever is entailed in that different world and that can be entirely consistent with science.

Cito di Pense · **#13598** by **Cito di Pense** » Aug 02, 2019 6:13 pm

ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:Yes, I’ve lost the thread of ughaibu’s argument altogether here. I would have expected free will to make recording at least potentially less accurate, given that the recorder is presumably free to put down whatever they want.
The argument we're discussing here says nothing about free will, it demonstrates that the contention that all human behaviour is entailed by laws of chemistry/physics is false.

Understanding thermal noise is an outcome of understanding the laws of chemistry and physics. It's not clear that you understand any laws of chemistry and physics. It's prominent among the reasons that we cannot repeat even fairly simple measurements and produce results identical to a previous trial, except by chance and by limitations of the precision of the apparatus. Unless you finally get the fuck out of your armchair and learn something, instead of just sitting there, waving your arms like a madman, you might be able to contribute to a useful discussion of some topic, including whether the laws of chemistry and physics entail free will. All that thermal noise need mean to you is not that free will is demonstrated, but that determinism can't be established. You can tell zoon that all that quantum-indeterminacy-in-the-brain shit she likes to get into is swamped by thermal noise, which also leads to indeterminacy.

The more your ideology grabs you by the balls, as it so obviously has done, the more you are deluded into thinking that the steadfastness of your opinion is a result of the strength of your will. Come on, ughaibu: Make me take you seriously by telling me all about peer pressure, groupthink, and ideology. Be sure to include some psychobabble, which is what you always turn to in a pinch.

GrahamH · **#13599** by **GrahamH** » Aug 02, 2019 6:48 pm

ughaibu wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Your two different experiments are really different, in time and space. For your scenario you describe only one experiment resulting in A buying drinks. There is no otherwise there. On another day, in a separate experiment, B may buy.
Are you suggesting that we can't run two diagnostic procedures to check whether a patient has a certain disease?

Of course not. didn't you read my post? "on another occasion B may buy". Run as many experiments as you like but recognise they are all different events with different conditions and don't expect the experimenters to be zombies going through the motions of some other experiment they are not running. The recording of results is an action specific to the experiment at hand so there is no reason at all to suppose the result is not accurate.

ughaibu · **#13600** by **ughaibu** » Aug 03, 2019 2:18 am

GrahamH wrote:
ughaibu wrote:if the theory that all human behaviour is mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics were correct, the pair of experiments would necessarily produce the same result. Surely you've heard of the principle of falsification, well that's what's going on here. I've taken a prediction of the theory and demonstrated that it's inconsistent with science.
You are mistaken. It does not follow that a pair of experiments must produce the same result.

No, I am not mistaken. The theory states that all human actions are mathematically entailed by laws of chemistry/physics.
1. for the theory to be correct, there must be at least two empirical sciences: chemistry and physics
2. empirical sciences require it to be the case that if researchers make observations, then they almost always accurately record what they observe
3. therefore, if the theory is correct and a researcher observes the result of performing procedure A, the researcher must almost always accurately record what they observe and if a researcher observes the result of performing procedure B, the researcher must almost always accurately record what they observe
4. a researcher can record the observation of result A by performing procedure C and a researcher can record the observation of result B by performing C
5. if the theory is correct, WLOG, the researcher will perform C
6. therefore, if the theory is correct, for all procedures A and B, the result must be such that it is recorded by C
7. there are As and Bs such that science tells us that they will not both be recorded by C
8. therefore, the theory is inconsistent with science
9. the theory requires science
10. therefore the theory cannot be correct.

Got it yet? It's pretty simple.

Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Re: Free Will

Who is online