Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

[Terrapin Station]

It's that things spontaneously appear, acausally.

Give one.

Again, it could be EVERY SINGLE EVENT that occurs--so just name any arbitrary event. There's no evidence that any event is (deterministically) causal instead.

[Eodnhoj7]

It's that things spontaneously appear, acausally.

Give one.

Again, it could be EVERY SINGLE EVENT that occurs.

"Could" is not "is". You are arguing from a stance of possibility but this possibility must be first grounded in actuality. A unicorn is possible through the actual state of genetic engineering. An actual leads to a possible, but you have yet to prove one actual example of an acausal event or what can lead to an acausal event.

[Immanuel Can]

It's that things spontaneously appear, acausally.

Give one.

Being expanding from and contracting through a point.

Not an imaginary one. A real one.

[Eodnhoj7]

Give one.

Being expanding from and contracting through a point.

Not an imaginary one. A real one.

A point is empirical. All phenomenon from a distance results in a point. A phenomenon appearing closer observes being expanding from a point.

[Immanuel Can]

Being expanding from and contracting through a point.

Not an imaginary one. A real one.

A point is empirical.

"A point" is a concept, not an empirical fact. Empirical means "capable of being experienced," like science is. It means, show me something real that came from nothing.

In other words, don't just say "a unicorn could exist." Produce the unicorn.

[Immanuel Can]

It's that things spontaneously appear, acausally.

Give one.

Again, it could be EVERY SINGLE EVENT that occurs...

So you say...but purely assumptively. You've NEVER seen it happen. You've not even got an explanation that makes it probable it COULD happen. It's pure imaginging.

I do not think it's true, and want to see your evidence that it is. If you've got none, feel free to say so. Don't try to fake it by saying, "Well, everything."

[Eodnhoj7]

Not an imaginary one. A real one.

A point is empirical.

"A point" is a concept, not an empirical fact. Empirical means "capable of being experienced," like science is. It means, show me something real that came from nothing.

In other words, don't just say "a unicorn could exist." Produce the unicorn.

A point is capable of being experienced, like I said before: "All phenomenon from a distance results in a point. A phenomenon appearing closer observes being expanding from a point."


Dually if experience is what determines what is empirical then mathematics, as an experience of measuring, is empirical.

Third a unicorn exists as an image, it is producible as an image.

[Terrapin Station]

So you say...but purely assumptively. You've NEVER seen it happen.

In just the same sense that one would say assumptively, because they've never seen it happen, that (determinstic) causality obtains between any two events.

[Immanuel Can]

A point is capable of being experienced...

Good. Provide one, so I can "experience" it.

I expect it to cause something, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

So you say...but purely assumptively. You've NEVER seen it happen.

In just the same sense that would would say assumptively, because they've never seen it happen, that (determinstic) causality obtains between any two events.

No, I don't say that at all.

[Eodnhoj7]

A point is capable of being experienced...

Good. Provide one, so I can "experience" it.

I expect it to cause something, of course.

You already are observing the point. Any object from a distance results in a point. Any object up close is observed as a point. The point is absent of form yet expands into various other forms.

[Immanuel Can]

You already are observing the point.

No, believe me...I'm quite certain you have no point.

[Eodnhoj7]

You already are observing the point.

No, believe me...I'm quite certain you have no point.

Then you are not observing anything up close or at a distance and seeing what the forms regress too. As s matter of fact your stance has no proof given a regress of causes eventually leads to a cause which is uncaused. You may observe x lead to y lead to z and assume pure causality however that last observed phenomenon, that of z, has no further causes behind it. It is the last observed phenomenon and as the last observed it leaves a distinct observation of being uncaused.

Causal chains always end in an acausal phenomenon where a continuity of causality is assumed but never proven with the last variable observed.

[Immanuel Can]

You already are observing the point.

No, believe me...I'm quite certain you have no point.

Then you are not observing...

There's nothing to observe. There's not a single case of "acausality" in history, and even conceptually, it's an absurd idea.

[Terrapin Station]

So you say...but purely assumptively. You've NEVER seen it happen.

In just the same sense that would would say assumptively, because they've never seen it happen, that (determinstic) causality obtains between any two events.

No, I don't say that at all.

ohhkay . . . you might not say it, but it's the case.