Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Post #102 paragraphs 4 AND 5. The ones I've been repeatedly quoting to you.
We've been over paragraph 5. I admit that was unfortunate, but I expected you to pay more attention to the more technical definitions, particularly the first one (as I explicitly said the other two were just for people who had trouble understanding).
Paragraph 4 is theoretically compatible with time-dependence. This doesn't mean that it implies time-dependence. As I said right in the paragraph, it's a broader subset of determinism than my original definition. But it is 100% compatible with that initial definition. The fact that you can express the future as a function of the past doesn't imply that you can't express the past as a function of the future.
Obviously the first definition (all times can be expressed as functions of all other times) is a subset of the second definition (all times can be expressed as functions of any past times), which is a subset of the totality of views that (self-described) determinists hold.
C'mon, you're supposed to know math, this should be obvious. I don't know where you get that paragraph 4 implies time-dependence, it certainly does not.
I mean, I write a clearly (and necessarily) time-independent definition in paragraph 1. Then in paragraph 2, I explain that this definition might be too confusing for some readers and is extremely narrow. So in paragraph 3 I say I'm going to offer an alternative explanation that is broader and hopefully easier. And in paragraph 4 I do so. In paragraph 5 I give a summary in "everyday terms."
What part of this isn't clear? If you had thought that paragraph 1 and paragraph 4 were contradictory, why didn't you bring that up AT THE TIME? It can literally be proved mathematically that you are wrong.
Quote:
As I said, it feels as if you're making up crap as you go. You're now telling me that I'm not supposed to argue against the definitions of determinism you put forth, but whatever definitions you choose to use at the moment that you use them. You've changed your definitions and thrown out all sorts of arbitrary things to try to salvage your position.
I'm done... again... for real... again.
You only need to argue against either of the original definitions. Since I've been waiting for your proof for HUNDREDS OF POSTS NOW, I figure you must be waiting for something else before you actually go ahead and support your position. So I'm throwing out whatever you may be waiting for.
If you don't need anything else, THEN GO AHEAD AND DEMONSTRATE YOUR CLAIM THAT MY DEFINITIONS ORIGINALLY GIVEN ARE INTERNALLY CONTRADICTORY.
But you can't, because you already exited stage right with an entire thread full of 100% rhetoric and 0% logic.
Which really just confirms what I knew from the start - if there were a logical contradiction in compatibilism, somebody would have published a proof by now. There was never any logic to your position in the first place, and no definitions would have made support for your claim forthcoming, because it's simply false.