Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Kevin Aylward]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Where are you getting at?
You just seem to be one of those people who have a twisted
philosophy, claiming that there is no "reality", that everything is
subjective and therefore, than "anything goes". It's frightening,
though.
-----------------
Nonsense, every argument I present is carefully constructed.

But usually wrong.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

bigmike wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0F5D9F.67E2@armory.com...
Guillaume wrote:

Ahhhhhh. Politics and beliefs. The non-ending war.

That's true, but it's a pointless war.
Politics should not deal with beliefs, but should rather deal with
reality.
-----------------
Beliefs are the positions in the argument as to the nature of that
alleged "reality" of yours that you think is so obvious and isn't.


Every time a system of beliefs is put into any kind of
political system, it kind of inevitably becomes dysfunctional.
-------------------------
You mean like women's suffrage, banning child-labor, social security,
or national health care, or universal education, or what? You see,
you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


It's kind of weird to believe that their are no choices
since it is your choice to believe that.

Exactly
Life itself is a choice. You can choose to live, or you can also
choose to kill yourself. The means of doing this is even totally
up to you. Of course, the means of living is also up to you.
---------------------------------
Nonsense. You cannot change the very tiniest belief, because your
beliefs ARE you, AND neither, similarly, can you lift yourself into
the air by your belt. Your mind may lie about having changed your
beliefs at your whim, but in fact, once you are caused to change
by experience, internal and external, and once you change you cannot
stop that either!!

If you COULD actually change what you think on a whim, that is, for
no actual "reason" which would have to persuade your mind into a new
inexorable belief that once again you could not change, why then you
could change your beliefs as to where and what you are, and you could
then immediately live in your fondest fantasy world and it would be
JUST AS ABSOLUTELY REAL as THIS one, you would be a GOD and this
would occur in mere seconds!! Meet the world of "Free Will".

We don't have "Free Whim", obviously, or we would be lost in a world
of our OWN making almost instantly, and then perhaps we would look
catatonic or totally chaotically delusional to the people left in
THIS world!!


Oh, by the way. Isn't this sci.electronics.repair?

Interestingly, it would be kind of obvious that if we indeed
had no choices as human beings, we wouldn't have been able to come
up with electronics or any other scientific stuff. Probably
no written language either.
----------------------------
Nonsense, our minds are given reasons to do such things, but nor are
the things we are "given" to do limited to virtues, either, there are
just as many sick beliefs that have been abused into children's minds
which they suffer from absorbing. Only an ignorant knob would fancy
that it requires "Free Whim" believe what we have been convinced to
believe by experience, which process is just another simple example
of Deterministic Cause and Effect!!


Abused into children's minds? That's about as far fetched as you can
get Steve.

Well, depends on what you mean by abuse.

We were all children at one time, and were brought up differently,
according to our families beliefs, views, and values. As we grow up,
we learn about other peoples beliefs, views, and values, and these
also become part of who we are as an adult. I wouldn't want it any
other way. That is far from abuse.

Not really. I personally consider it abuse to indoctrinate children with
religion. If "religion" was switched to "Teletubbies", the courts would
no doubt step in. Its well understood how effective it is to program
ideas into young children and to all intents, this programming can often
be insurmountable later in life.

Anybody that feels abused because
their parents beleived in religion or had other views that are were
not based on scientific facts, needs to get a life and quite
whinning.

I don't agree..

I was taught both views as I was growing up. Fair enough.

Individual cases, do not a case make. Sure, some may get a more balanced
view, others do not.

Steve, sorry buddy, but your idea that we do not have free will, is
just silly. You suggest that it does not support cause and effect,
but it absolutely does. Matter of fact, it proves it! When we change
our mind about something, there is a reason.

Not necessarily. Given that there is may be no logical rational to
select a particular action, the neurons may just fire randomly and chose
one without direct consciousness being involved, whatever direct
consciousness means

Even if it's for no
other reason, then we want to change our mind. That's the cause. We
are not pre-programmed, and the future is not predetermined.

It don't matter whether the future is predetermined or not. I generally
go by the overall "the future has already happened" approach, that is,
the future can not be changed in the same way as the past cant. However,
practically, since we have no way of realistically predicting the
future, the engineering approximation is that we have free will, sort
off...noting that some things are more free willable than others.

We certainly have a lot of pre-programmes, but they are generic and
dynamic. e.g. we are programmed to kill when we perceive it is in our
ultimate best interests, not to kill indiscriminately, usually...The
point here is that hard coded programs are not flexible to address all
situations.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

bigmike wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0F5D9F.67E2@armory.com...
Guillaume wrote:

------------------------
Yes, but you do not get to pick and choose what you believe, it comes
with the inevitable outcomes of the physical world as your life
progresses. You cannot change your mind by an effort against your
previous belief. The whole idea of Free Will is nonsense. And whatever
finally happens was always what was GOING to happen!


We are not preprogrammed,
------------------
We are not preprogrammed, except by our life experiences.

Blatant contradiction of evolution. If I stick a needle in you arm, you
will move it away due to the pain, irrespective of your experiences,
well assuming your not Arnold who sows himself up after a battle. We are
a combination of both genes and memes, that are selected by the
environment. In general, both must be considered. Neither rules.

Best Regards,

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

George Buyanovsky wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<D6zPa.15946$4O4.1764028@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...

I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and
effect.

You exaggerated:
Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more
appropriate

I already addressed the statistical nature of cause and effect, I used
the qualify "direct" to highlight what I think is missed by many doing
QM. Its easy to do all the sums, get your PhD, yet still not have it
sink in that QM fundamentally says "things happen without a cause". As I
noted, its why Feynmann says "no one understand QM". Without bringing it
to a clear head one simply does not, imo, understand how really
profound, and how at odds it is to conventional understanding QM is.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Dave]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F0F5D9F.67E2@armory.com>...

If you really had no choices, you wouldn't be posting in this
newsgroup. Now where are you getting at exactly?
------------------------
I believe things, therefore I post them. If I was so stupid that I
had a flawed belief system like yours, and if I were affected by
silly points of view which induced my mind to change its beliefs by
simple obvious cause and effect, then obviously I'd stop posting this,
and I'd post some crap like yours, no doubt!!
-Steve

Why don't you take this crap to alt.philosophy or alt.hard_drugs?

 

[John Devereux]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> writes:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Nobody ever dies. If you died, you wouldn't know it, and if
you know it, you didn't die.

Your typical, if it cant be proved, then it can't be true sort of crap.
What part of Goedel did you have trouble with. That there are statements
that are true, but cannot be derived, i.e. proved from existing axioms.

I agree absolutely that it can not be *proved* that one dies, however,
the evidence for this is absolutely overwhelming. e.g people don't do a
lot after having their skulls crushed in, and I don't see too many
reports of ghosts in court telling the judge who killed them.

The idea that you actually believe that you wont die speaks volumes.

If you accept the MWI, then you will always find yourself in a
universe where you have, perhaps "miraculously", "survived".

--

John Devereux

 

[John Del]

Subject: Re: Fried HDTV- repair or replace?
From: "Leonard G. Caillouet" lcaillo_ns_@devoynet.com

"David" <dkuhajda@locl.net.spam> wrote in message

Your set has a 1 in 5 chance over five years of normal use of having an
ordinary failure, that is simply ordinary statistical failure for
electronics at that complicated level. The expected picture tube life if
you watch it like most people is 8 years, around 20,000 hours of use; a
bit
longer if you turned down the contrast and brightness to proper levels.


Where do you get your statistics? Sounds pessimistic to me. We sell and
service these Sony sets, as well as Mitsubishi and I'd be very surprised to
have that high a failure rate or that short a life expectancy. I have
hundreds of sets out there that are over 10 years old and still looking
great.

While individual cases vary, those stats sound right to me. Unfortunately,
most people run their TVs in the default picture modes, which means 100%
contrast\picture levels. This eats up not only the cathodes, but causes
premature screen burning as well. BTW, most weak CRTs I see on middle age
projos are Mitsubishi's.

John Del
Wolcott, CT

"Nothing is so opportune for tyrants as a people tired of its liberty."
Alan Keyes

(remove S for email reply)

 

[Ray L. Volts]

X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:06:06 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !_)?!1k-Y3;]m0U (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Sofie" <sofie@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vgtik6mbjenv31@corp.supernews.com...

James Sweet:
I regularly get supposedly "knowledgeable do-it-yourself repair people" in
my store looking over the wall of transistors and diodes and randomly pick
one that "looks" the same..... I used to spend a lot of time trying to
help them and educate them about JEDEC numbers, voltage ratings, etc......
and in the end they would insist on buying the incorrect part.....
sometimes
totally incorrect like you described with the triac and transistor.....
finally I just gave up......

I hope you have some sort of disclaimer on your receipts. Otherwise, if
somebody burns their house down, they might decide it's a good idea to sue
ya because they weren't "adequately advised or warned". It happens..

Just imagine working in a drug store and as a clerk telling folks which
over-the counter medications to buy....... not me, what if they had a
bad
reaction to the medicine.... here are the products on the shelf , read
the labels, make your own choice and pay your money.

The difference here is that medications do have labels. I haven't met many
electrical components, even on-card ones, that include warning or even
proper-usage labeling. Some of the Rat Shack parts did/do, but mostly they
just list the device's specs on the back.
It's just askin for trouble if you don't put disclaimers on your receipts
and, depending on your state's laws, disclaimers displayed prominently on
large signs hanging on your shop walls.

 

[Sam Goldwasser]

"Sofie" <sofie@olypen.com> writes:

NeoVolt:
Depending on the meter's resistance it might work...... give it a shot.
Obviously the first place to start is to determine the meter's compatibility
with the task you want it to perform. Go to the website that you found and
start the process. Good luck.

Mainly, you need to determine the current sensitivity. It will probably be
between 100 uA and 10 mA full scale. Then, a suitable series resistor will
be needed so it reads correctly for your power supply. You can determine
the sensitivity quite easily.

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Home Page: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Site Info: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: The email address in this message header may no longer work. To
contact me, please use the Feedback Form at repairfaq.org. Thanks.

 

[paul s]

Ray L. Volts wrote:

X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper
postings NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time:
Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:06:06 -0500 (CDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: !_)?!1k-Y3;]m0U
(Encoded at Airnews!) X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Sofie" <sofie@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vgtik6mbjenv31@corp.supernews.com...
James Sweet:
I regularly get supposedly "knowledgeable do-it-yourself repair people"
in my store looking over the wall of transistors and diodes and randomly
pick
one that "looks" the same..... I used to spend a lot of time trying to
help them and educate them about JEDEC numbers, voltage ratings,
etc...... and in the end they would insist on buying the incorrect
part.....
sometimes
totally incorrect like you described with the triac and transistor.....
finally I just gave up......

I hope you have some sort of disclaimer on your receipts. Otherwise, if
somebody burns their house down, they might decide it's a good idea to sue
ya because they weren't "adequately advised or warned". It happens..

As in the infamous 'McDonalds hot coffee' suit. Or those salted peanut
packets 'Warning this product may contain nuts'.

How about KFC? 'Warning this product *may* contain chicken'. ;-)
--
Paul S

 

[Tim Schwartz]

Hello,

Before you start playing with adjustments, I would suggest cleaning the
sled rails and lens as suggested by other posters. There is also a
common problem with the focus coil drive transistors because an
under-sized transistor was used. (This problem also occurs in the 5000
and 5440) Replace Q102 with a 2SD669 or similar transistor, and replace
Q103 with a 2SB649 or similar. Also look for overheated solder joints
in the area of the transistors.

Regards,
Tim Schwartz
Bristol Electronics

Gyro wrote:

Hi guys.

I'm searching for the above since the player has started skipping towards
the end of a CD (tracking offset problem?).

The board is rev. issue 1A and there are five potentiometers; VR101, 102 to
105. Which one solves the tracking problem?

Any help appreciated

Andreas

 

[C What I Mean]

HERE HERE!!

"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5591d176.0307120246.508616bc@posting.google.com...

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:<3F0F5D9F.67E2@armory.com>...

If you really had no choices, you wouldn't be posting in this
newsgroup. Now where are you getting at exactly?
------------------------
I believe things, therefore I post them. If I was so stupid that I
had a flawed belief system like yours, and if I were affected by
silly points of view which induced my mind to change its beliefs by
simple obvious cause and effect, then obviously I'd stop posting this,
and I'd post some crap like yours, no doubt!!
-Steve

Why don't you take this crap to alt.philosophy or alt.hard_drugs?

 

[t.hoehler]

Here's my personal favorite braintwister:
http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

The boxes marked A and B are the same color. Yes they
really are!

Wow, this IS a good one! The explanation is interesting too. It gives good
insight into how highly developed our visual system is.

Regards,
Tom

 

[Sofie]

You are correct, if they were TRUE quality VU meters, don't tear them
apart.....
......but I really doubt that the "old stereo" meters are true VU meters with
the proper and expensive to make ballistics...... and I even doubt that
they would be even a cheap imitation of a proper VU meter. My feeling is
that if he can utilize them, great.
--
Best Regards,
Daniel Sofie
Electronics Supply & Repair
-------------------------------


"JoeElectron" <joeelectron@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93B659230C59Ejoeelectronidentity@167.206.3.2...

Depending on the quality of the meters, VU meters should have specific
ballistic effects. It would be a shame to turn them into voltmeters.



"NeoVolt" <NeoVolt68@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:BhMPa.54$zN4.5@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com:

I have a couple old meters taken from an old stereo that I hope to use
in a new project. They were originally for measuring the left and right
speakers and are labeled "VU Left" and "VU Right". I found this site
http://members.shaw.ca/roma/twenty.html , which has info on metering
power supplies and finding a meters resistance.

Would it work with the two meters from this old stereo? I've got some
software which will let me print out new faces for the meters and would
rather not spend $15-$20 on new meters.

Any help?

NeoVolt







--
The real art of conversation is not only to
say the right thing at the right time,
but also to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.

 

[Arthur Jernberg]

Try 800-400-6386 Ask for Scott Smithstone: Should be able to help or
direct you to someone that has that capability

"cessna" <nfroehling@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:M7LPa.76858$TJ.3963998@twister.austin.rr.com...

Need service manual, ckt boards for a Mitsubishi projection Tv model
unknown (rear cover missing) made mid '80s - early '90s, can email pic
Thanks

 

[ShrikeBack]

jasligon@msn.com (idlemuse) wrote in message news:<82463628.0307110508.7d5b8337@posting.google.com>...

hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack) wrote in message news:<59b8bc96.0307102022.57427a67@posting.google.com>...
There is something that we can show, and that is that the assumption
that all events are ultimately predictable is false. We can show
this through the same mechanism that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem,
and the Halting Theorem use, that is to say, through the Liar's
Paradox.


In fact, the Halting Theorem itself is enough to prove that some
outcomes are, in principle, unpredictable. The conclusion of the
Halting Theorem is that no algorithm can be constructed which will
determine whether or not a given computer program with a given
input will halt, or run indefinitely.

I would pick some nits here. Turing's Halting Theorem does not say
that no algorithm can be constructed that will determine if a given
program with given inputs will terminate, it says that no algorithm
can be constructed that will work for all programs. The Universal
Turing Machine is not capable of carrying out the task of determining
if any arbitrary program will halt (as in calculate 2+2) or not (as in
calculate pi to precision). I'm not sure if that is what you meant.

Yes, your depiction of the Halting Theorem is the correct one, and
yes, it is what I meant (sincerely). I was just being slovenly.

I don't think that changes your argument, though.

.... aside from improving it by removing a defect.

I've chewed on similar analyses before, (I've read GEB, too!)

Heh. It's a great book. This will be an interesting thread, then,
I expect.

and I
think I remain unconvinced that there is direct correlation to
physical determinism. The trick to identifying some undescribed
elements in the incompleteness theorem is having the rules of the
system look at themselves. This is the same self-referencing problem
you get in the liars paradox. If we are looking at a physical system,
there is no rule that says we can't completely describe physical
outcomes of physical processes. Incompleteness only says that when we
apply rules to everything, including themselves, we will find some
elements of everything that aren't fully described by the rules.

I am glad you remain unconvinced that there is a direct correlation
to physical determinism. I hope that we can turn the screw in
deeper and find a convincing argument that it is.

I am aware, too, that my preceding argument only deals with the
epistemological problem of predictability. It is quite possible
that the universe is still utterly deterministic, according to
this argument, but it would be impossible, in spite of that, for
any means of total predictability to devised.

I also have this vague impression that there is a category of things
that exist on the one hand and the category of all things (including
rules) that might exist on the other. I don't know that if we limit
our universe to just the former that Godel even applies.

Under determinism, all events could, in principle, be described
with algorithms, at least on the local level. This seems to me
to be true, though I have no rigorous proof. Thus the universe
itself could be considered isomorphic to some formal system.
If that is true, then a deterministic Universe is either
inconsistent or incomplete in the same sense as whatever formal
system maps to it must be, by a previously shown result.

This always gives me a headache.

I know what you mean.

Therefore, it is impossible to predict every outcome.

There is also the problem of the First Cause. If you don't
assume that the past is infinite, you are stuck admitting
that there was one of these, and a First Cause is by definition
uncaused. If one uncaused event is allowed into your ontology,
how can you disallow the possibility of others?

I think the standard response is that the past is in some sense
infinite. Namely, that the rules themselves (such as logic, and those
governing quantum vacuum fluctuations) have always been here.

I have run across those who believe the past is infinte, though
not in the context of determinism. Moreover, usually, those people
are talking about physical existence. I tell those people that
if the past were infinite, there would have been an infinity
of passing time before the present. Saying something will not
occur until an eternity has passed is equivalent to saying that
it will never happen. Thus, the present would never have been
reached.

You, however, are not referring to physical time, but something
else, where the rules wait in an eternal timelessness for the
moment of creation, in a manner of speaking. I am not convinced
that time can exist without events, though, just as some have
claimed that space cannot exist without matter. If a rule
of logic exists in the void, but there is no one there to think
about it, does it really exist at all?

 

[ShrikeBack]

Misanthrope <amisanthrope@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ccuugv0ebfa44cjj6dqagk55rtf592b59v@4ax.com>...

On 10 Jul 2003 21:22:01 -0700, hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)
wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F0B9B35.7696@armory.com>...
Carlos Antunes wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0B83C0.6033@armory.com...

If you'd actually read anything about Determinism, you'd discover
that QM/Uncertainty has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Bullshit! Determinism is simply an approximation to reality when macroscopic
systems are involved.
----------------------------
You're blowing it out your ass with your handwaving.

No matter what the scale, you cannot show that cause and effect is
not operant.

There is something that we can show, and that is that the assumption
that all events are ultimately predictable is false.

That is not what is required for determinism -- that one be able to
KNOW what the outcome is. Basically you are confusing the
epistemological question of whether or not we could *know* what will
happen with the metaphysical question of whether or not what will
happen is predestined to happen.

I am not confusing the epistemological with the ontological.
I merely made the point that we can indeed show that arbitrary
predictability is unobtainable. You did not deal with my
ontological argument concerning the First Cause.

Misanthrope

"All you have to do in life is die." And, most of us
don't deserve any more than death because the question
isn't "Do we really deserve to die?" The question is
"Do we really deserve to live?"

 

[ShrikeBack]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F0F7C9E.2610@armory.com>...

ShrikeBack wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F0B9B35.7696@armory.com>...
Carlos Antunes wrote:

Bullshit! Determinism is simply an approximation to reality when macroscopic
systems are involved.
----------------------------
You're blowing it out your ass with your handwaving.

No matter what the scale, you cannot show that cause and effect is
not operant.

There is something that we can show, and that is that the assumption
that all events are ultimately predictable is false. We can show
this through the same mechanism that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem,
and the Halting Theorem use, that is to say, through the Liar's
Paradox.
-------------------
And luckily, nothing I base my philosophy upon depends on it.
Of course I decided what to believe with that concern in mind!

You're lying.

In fact, the Halting Theorem itself is enough to prove that some
outcomes are, in principle, unpredictable. The conclusion of the
Halting Theorem is that no algorithm can be constructed which will
determine whether or not a given computer program with a given
input will halt, or run indefinitely.
--------------------
Even if it were provable that things are not predictable, which seems
obvious to me anyway, since our lives are finite and possibility is
NOT, still, causation operates and generates ONE SINGLE OUTCOME for
MY LIFE. this means that whatever cause and effect I CAN get is
entirely sufficient to indicate Determinism.

That doesn't follow. You seem to be saying that because you only
experience one chain of events, only one chain of events is possible.
This is a big leap of faith, not an argument.

In Other Words: The only possible thing happens, NOT because it is so
provably possible, but because it IS the ONLY POSSIBLE THING!!! And thus
everything that does NOT happen in MY Life, was OBVIOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Thus only the one possible outcome ever happens, and that DEFINES
Determinism! And all without any actual "cause and effect" that
anyone needs to argue about with physicists!!!!

The possible does not always happen, unless you define possible
as "that which happens". This is what you seem to be doing.
Hence your argument says, essentially nothing, for it is a
tautology, coupled to a leap to "this proves determinism!"

Therefore, it is impossible to predict every outcome.
-------------------
So how does the Universe decide outcomes, eh?

Well, according to QM, it throws dice.

We know from Chaos Theory that there is NO SUCH THING AS RANDOMNESS!

Chaos Theory proves no such thing. It merely describes how chaotic
behavior can come about in a deterministic system. Thus, it does
establish that chaos is not disproof that determinism is operative.
There is a difference.

If only one outcome occurred, and it does, then clearly the Universe
"decides" (yes, pathetic fallacy, I know, re-phrase as you wish).

Even if the Universe ulitimately follows one path of events (which
cannot be proven, by the way), it does not follow that the "decision"
is predetermined.

There is also the problem of the First Cause. If you don't
assume that the past is infinite, you are stuck admitting
that there was one of these, and a First Cause is by definition
uncaused. If one uncaused event is allowed into your ontology,
how can you disallow the possibility of others?
---------------------------------
I don't think it's provable that the Universe exists Except as a
set of Features to My Perception of it. It began this morning when I
woke up, or when I was born, or when humans arose, take your pick.

If you want to take that tack, then you are getting close to the
idea that existence is created by observation.

Those are all different and actually not terribly well related forms
of time, and all very different with different rules, some virtual.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It doesn't sound very
deterministic to me.

And the "Big Bang" was actually a moment ago when I returned to
consciousness from staring into space living other lives. The Big
Bang is just Infinity when it arises in a new Manifestation.


The fact that reality is and always will be such that it has only one
outcome
at any moment in one life at a time, which is the ONLY way reality
occurs, is what makes Determinism absolutely unquestionable.

Well, prove that reality is and always will be such that it has
only one outcome at any moment in one life at a time.
---------------------------------
I know of no Life that does not have only one outcome.
Do you? Seriously? Don't give me any disingenuous posturing now!

Neither do I know for certain that all decisions are predetermined.
So, if that is your proof that there is only one timeline, then
I have also proven predetermination false.

Bullshit! The fact that there is only one outcome doesn't mean others
weren't possible.
--------------------
Possible is totally meaningless if THEY didn't occur.
If they did not, then they were obviously IMPOSSIBLE!

This is begging the question. You are assuming that determinism
is true when you say this.
------------------------------------
The word "possible" is inextricably bound up in the necessary
concepts, it cannot even be USED otherwise, as I demonstrated.
I was NOT begging the question, I was giving a paradoxical example
as a Socratic illustrative. When YOU USED the word "possible" you
made it necessary!

No. You are confusing the past with the future. It is impossible
for the past to be changed now. It does not follow that the future
is set in the same stone as the past. Possibility is still inherent
in the future.

Every single moment and event is the reuslt of cause and effect, no matter
what the rules are.


Bullshit! Cause and effect cannot even be extracted from Newtonian
mechanics. It needs to be added ad hoc.
-------------------------
This is genuine absurdity on your part. Cause and effect is physics.

Cause and effect can only be universalized as an article of faith.
-----------------------
Maybe, but they can be redefined as something else I find useful,
but which you need not believe, and still they'll bite you!

Maybe.

And the more you say bullshit the more we can see you have nothing
you can really say!!

What are you trying to say here?
---------------------------------
That many times people merely posture instead of making ANY logical
points, and that the REASON they do this is BECAUSE they have NO really
logical points LEFT, and they KNOW IT! Thus they are disingenuous.

You are being disingenuous.

If we could immediately punish disingenuity with death, people would
have to stand up for their bullshit beliefs and admit when they were
wrong!

Who would decide who was wrong?

We don't have Free Will because it would make existence impossible
and chaotic, with no continuity or cause and effect.

The simple fact that several different outcomes are possible, even if only
one is ultimately experienced, negates this conclusion of yours.
-------------------
Possible is strictly a hypothetical, and strictly based on our
awareness of our ignorance and inability to predict due to OUR
failure to know all circumstances, and NOT any failure of cause
and effect!!

It is already demonstrated that the ability to predict everything
is logically impossible. Thus any conclusion you draw about the
universality of cause and effect, and their one-to-one relationship
is a matter of faith.
----------------------------
Goedel's Incompleteness doesn't bother Determinism a bit. As long as
the unwashed everywhere know that there is never more than one future,
that it never comes in twos or threes, there is Determinism.

You haven't established that there is but one possible future.

Que sera sera
Whatever will be will be.
The future's not ours to see.
Que sera sera!
-Doris Day

;-

"Everything must be this way."
-Jim Morrison

The problem is that this question is not a scientific one, but
a philosophical one.
----------------------------
Yes, I agree. But it is pop-QM amateur Xtian physicists everywhere,
dumb as a sack of rocks, who will imagine that THEY are the:

"masters of their fate, captains of their souls"

:thinking that surely people must be held responsible for their
sins, when every Xtian faith preaches that God is, as Isaiah 45:
says:

--
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create
evil: I the LORD do all these things.
--

Well, Christians seem to believe in both predetermination
and free will, simultaneously. That is true. But what does
that have to do with whether or not determinism is true?

Actually the penchant to find people have "Free Will" to choose to
be believers or non-believers or to be responsible for crime all
began back in the Inquisition when the torturers sought comfort for
what they were forced to do, they wanted to know for certain that
those who believed other than RC Church dogma were doing so entirely
of their own "Free Will" and not because they couldn't HELP what
they believed because of their life experiences! Well of course
they were all told LIES about human "Free Will" so they could go
ahead and torture AWAY!! And so European society has had at its
core the seed of evil duplicituousness about "Free Will", ever
since!

I don't think the Inquisition was the genesis of the Liberty
of the Will. Moreoever, it is a fallacy to believe that the
genesis of a proposition has anything to do with its truth.

That being said, this indicates why it is you are wedded so
dogmatically to determinism: because you don't want to be
responsible for what you choose to do. Well, QM randomness
works just as well for that purpose, I would think.

 

[John Larkin]

On 12 Jul 2003 10:41:51 -0700, hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)
wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F0F7C9E.2610@armory.com>...

Actually the penchant to find people have "Free Will" to choose to
be believers or non-believers or to be responsible for crime all
began back in the Inquisition when the torturers sought comfort for
what they were forced to do, they wanted to know for certain that
those who believed other than RC Church dogma were doing so entirely
of their own "Free Will" and not because they couldn't HELP what
they believed because of their life experiences! Well of course
they were all told LIES about human "Free Will" so they could go
ahead and torture AWAY!! And so European society has had at its
core the seed of evil duplicituousness about "Free Will", ever
since!

I don't think the Inquisition was the genesis of the Liberty
of the Will. Moreoever, it is a fallacy to believe that the
genesis of a proposition has anything to do with its truth.

That being said, this indicates why it is you are wedded so
dogmatically to determinism: because you don't want to be
responsible for what you choose to do. Well, QM randomness
works just as well for that purpose, I would think.

1. Right. And assuming determinism (and, I suppose, the non-existance
of consciousness) it seems a lot more fun to be pushed around by
quirky randomness than by some dreary clockwork mechanism.

2. Great writing, but you're going *way* over Steve's head with this
stuff.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:50:34 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

To obviate determinism you'd need alternate realities you could jump
between at will, or, for mind to have the capacity to believe you
were elsewhere than you are and seriously believe it as certainty,
which would instantly render you psychotic, catatonic and insane in
this reality.

---
On the contrary, Steve, I believe that's what actually happens. That
is, our every action changes the fabric of the universe irreversibly and
produces a new light cone for us, its singularity meandering about as we
do. We don't perceive the changes because of something like persistence
of vision, so time seems to flow seamlessly, and continuously, making us
believe we live in a jello-like universe when actually it's more like
grits, as we're starting to learn.
---

We don't have Free Will because it would make existence impossible
and chaotic, with no continuity or cause and effect.

---
Well, it _is_ chaotic, probably because of noise in the system, but if
we didn't have free will, existence would be pointless and we'd only be
along for the ride. Kind of like a ball in a pinball machine. _But_,
even if that were true, someone/something would be working the flippers,
so it wouldn't always be the same ride. And if it wasn't, then
something would be exerting its will, making things happen in
unpredictable ways from the point of view of the ball. You might
counter with the argument that the flipper operator is also operating
under deterministic rules, but how many levels would you want to
traverse before Occam's razor would start making that trip look absurd?

In dreams we take giant leaps compared to the little steps we normally
take in our waking state, and yet we have no trouble with continuity or
cause and effect in that world, so why should we have trouble with it
here where this filter called "reality" keeps us bound?

--
John Fields