GENOMNI and other things.

When it comes to categorising right and wrong, If I don't rely on my own opinion, which I would consider to be quite arrogant if I did.

I would have to appeal to the highest absolute authority of the universe, Nature it self.

Right are those things that happen.

Wrong are those things that don't.

Could anyone seriously call Nature wrong?

(C) Copyright 1968 by Mark Gilbert.

No.

I love science, I value it as my most treasured method of investigation.

But I do choose to practice science HONESTLY!

The word science is a bit of a confusion. I believe it literally means knowledge. The practice of science will no more give you knowledge than the practice of doing nothing at all.

Why?

Because science will give you models, that may appear useful, and you may come to trust those models as useful. BUT they are not knowledge. Knowledge is limited to current subjective experience, and the word current is important. See my Intelligent Being Recent Creation hypothesis, the earliest published article in my blog.

One small caveat to models not being knowledge. If you hold a part of that model in your current subjective experience, it is knowledge (knowledge is never of something, knowledge is the thing itself, so that means the knowledge you have is the part of the model, Not part of that which your model tries to describe.) so long as it remains in your subjective experience.

When people say "I have knowledge of something.", I believe they mean, they have a model or description of something. A model is never as accurate as the thing it describes until such a time as that model becomes that which it describes. A model is no longer a model when it becomes that which it describes. And so a model can NEVER be trusted 100%.

Models attempt to describe things. very important word, attempt, or you could put it, A model creator attempts to describe things.

Can someone blow on a table and create a pentium chip?

Nobody knows.

The only way you could get an answer to this is to wait until there are no humans with breath left, and that there is no chance that humans will exist in the future.

In other-words, the end of time, (should there be such a thing.)

And before you state that the laws of thermodynamics prove that the universe will end in energy equilibrium, It doesn't - those laws are a model and not FACT. The laws of thermodynamics suggest final energy equilibrium at a certain level, but SUGGEST is all they manage.

Please try using science to falsify this.

There is nothing in science to rule out the improbable and there is nothing in science that can claim something to be impossible.

A work in progress.

ooooh! now that's an interesting statement.

I believe everyone craves power, whether that power be in the form of compelling conversation, money, strength, propaganda, physical attractiveness or any other form of communication (I personally believe propaganda is the only form of communication. but that is beside the point.).

I also believe Mind Control to be the ultimate form of power in society. Whether it is money that is used to control the mind of a checkout assistant to allow you to leave a store with goods, without being stopped, or witty conversation being used to control the mind of someone so they have a higher regard of your conversation skills, or wether it be the use of nuclear weapons to control the minds of people who might want to gain power over you.

Yes, I believe everyone craves power, whether it be to dominate the world, or to implement world peace and harmony. (which is also world domination, by imposing your ideals of world peace and harmony on people who may not wish it.)

Power is the ability to shape our reality into that which we want. Mind Control is the power to shape the thoughts and actions of others into doing what we want and thus shaping our reality into that which we want, within the limits of human capability. (unless you want to control the minds of all living creatures of course.)

Is is reasonable to believe, that an event can only be presumed to be impossible if you can honestly apply a probability of 0% to such and event?

If this is reasonable, then a Reasonable Person must have doubt about any proposition, for which any alternative proposition has a rigorously calculated probability of greater than 0%.

Does this not mean that, from a Reasonable Person's view point, using scientific method (as I presume this to be the most rigorous form of enquiry into events that we posses.), any proposition not using the limitation 'Always occurs' is not beyond reasonable doubt, (using the definition of 'reasonable doubt' as being doubt of a 'reasonable person")?

I always want, what happens next.

What are your thoughts on the following hypothesis?

No one is free.

I can only do things, that follow the causative nature of the universe.

Quantum theory does not even suggest randomness, just a limit upon our measurement. (also to confuse theory as fact is a gross misuse of logic and science. theories can appear useful and repeatable, but can never be claimed as knowledge of what actually happens.)

Freewill is a concept and nothing else. I have only subjectively noticed than when ever I have a choice to be made, I think over the choices that are available to me (those choices I happen to consider.) compare the choices against logic, feeling and emotion (all of which I consider to be deterministic.) and choose an option (or not.) to follow. At not one point do I experience being able to chose other than the option I actually chose (only models in my mind of outcomes for the choices I consider.)

The only way to demonstrate freewill would be to reverse the sate of the universe back to a point in time where a choice is to be made and testing if I make a different choice. Of course this would me the reversal of all particles, energy and any other constituent of the whole universe, including my memory, so as to render it impossible for me to make the comparison even then. Even if was to be able to send a message back in time to my former self to describe the experiment, that in itself would violate the experiment by altering the state of the universe, so that it is not an exact replica of the original choice.

For consider freewill to exist, we would have to invent a concept that is non deterministic (violates Cause and Effect) and yet does not violate cause and effect as that would be RANDOM. and random choices are free only in that they violate causality and would not be guided by WILL.

I will believe that randomness does not exist. (And I don't mean highly complex so as to be difficult to measure, such as the toss of a coin or the spin of a roulette wheel. I mean random.) until proof of randomness appears.

If I walk down the street, that is not a free choice.

If a mugger, steals from me, that is not a free choice.

If a judge sentences a mugger to detention, that is not a free choice.

If the laws and values of a nation change, that is not a free choice.

More to follow on this, including a revised hypothesis on Freewill, Causality and Correlation/Coincidence......