Libertarianism without natural rights?

[Laughing_Man]

@Jackson LaRose

Sure they make sense, and I’d be willing to say “more than likely” or “almost surely” they will turn out as you expect, but it has proven scientifically that A will equal A almost every time, but if given enough attempts and time, A will not equal A every once and a while

So you think that every once in a the laws of logic are defied?

[Angurse]

@Jackson LaRose

Sure they make sense, and I’d be willing to say “more than likely” or “almost surely” they will turn out as you expect, but it has proven scientifically that A will equal A almost every time, but if given enough attempts and time, A will not equal A every once and a while.

Proven? Sources?

(Lets ignore the utter silliness of accepting “science” as anything more than an opinion for now)

[apehead]

@nirgrahamUK

@Jackson LaRose

I don’t think we know enough (we may never know enough) to claim anything as absolute.

what is this statement? is it something you believe to be true?, something you believe to be false?, something you believe to be probable? we know for sure that it could not be the case that ‘we could never claim anything absolutely’, why ? because this is self-refuting. its…whooops. just making an absolute claim.

You missed the qualifier “I think”, but you made it up in saying that they are my beliefs, but you dropped the ball again by purposely omitting it to help prove your point about “self-refuting claims”.

I’m saying that short of omniscience, we can’t know who is right and who is wrong. So, if the answers to any ethical question is

A. Right

B. Wrong

C. Don’t know

Then I’m choosing C

Do you understand?

@nirgrahamUK

@Jackson LaRose

I don’t think we know enough (we may never know enough) to claim anything as absolute. I’m sure there were guys like you 50, 100, 500, 1000 years ago, who had it all figured out. Do you think they did, by modern standards?

polylogists, absurd sceptics, and insane people have been with us a long time too. thanks for bringing history into it.

You forgot guys who used everything they knew about the world to formulate their respective concepts of truth, you know, philosophers and prophets.

[Jon_Irenicus]

but if given enough attempts and time, A will not equal A every once and a while.

lolwut

[nirgrahamUK]

@Jackson LaRose

Do you understand?

@Jackson LaRose

Don’t know

lol. i’m wondering whether to adopt this as my standard response to any inquisitive post you should ever make here.

Do I understand?

‘Don’t know’

[apehead]

@Jon Irenicus

but if given enough attempts and time, A will not equal A every once and a while.

lolwut

Try reading “The Elegant Universe” by Brian Greene.

[apehead]

@nirgrahamUK

@Jackson LaRose

Do you understand?

@Jackson LaRose

Don’t know

lol. i’m wondering whether to adopt this as my standard response to any inquisitive post you should ever make here.

Do I understand?

‘Don’t know’

Could be a start. You could also try considering it before you decide to be so cocksure about your unproven assertions.

[apehead]

You fellas should give a quick read, and tell me what you think. I’d genuinely be interested in your opinions.

[Laughing_Man]

@Jackson LaRose

You fellas should give a quick read, and tell me what you think. I’d genuinely be interested in your opinions.

Are you a practitioner of methodological dualism?

[nirgrahamUK]

@Jackson LaRose

You could also try considering it before you decide to be so cocksure about your unproven assertions.

well,i ‘dont know’ about that

[apehead]

@Laughing Man

Are you a practitioner of methodological dualism?

I wouldn’t say so, but I think it’s also important to say I’m not a determinist either, if that’s a tenable position to hold.

[apehead]

@nirgrahamUK

well,i ‘dont know’ about that

Are you a comedian?

[Jon_Irenicus]

Try reading “The Elegant Universe” by Brian Greene.

Try summarising how it proves A (is at the same time and in the same respects) ever not A. BTW A changing to non-A doesn’t count.

[apehead]

@Jon Irenicus

Try reading “The Elegant Universe” by Brian Greene.

Try summarising how it proves A (is at the same time and in the same respects) ever not A. BTW A changing to non-A doesn’t count.

I found this on a physics forum:

“In quantum mechanics, the wavefunction determines the probability of where a particle will be. When this probability wave encounters an energy barrier, most of the wave will be reflected back BUT in quantum mechanics there is a small probability that a small portion of the wave will leak through this energy barrier. Even if the particle does not have sufficient energy to make it through this energy barrier, it can still 'tunnel' through.
For a person to tunnel through a wall, ALL of the particles that you are made of have to tunnel through at the same time. The probability of this happening is absurdly small. But for a photon (a massless particle) or a single electron or proton, the probability is much much much greater.
Without tunneling, the sun would not be able to proceed with nuclear fusion in the core and computer chips would not exist either.
I don't know if this answers your question. But no you can not do it without destroying the object and there is no way to reconstruct it on the other side.”

Here is some more reading

[nirgrahamUK]

@Jackson LaRose

Are you a comedian?

don’t know

[apehead]

If you had to guess.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Jackson LaRose

I found this on a physics forum:

“In quantum mechanics, the wavefunction determines the probability of where a particle will be. When this probability wave encounters an energy barrier, most of the wave will be reflected back BUT in quantum mechanics there is a small probability that a small portion of the wave will leak through this energy barrier. Even if the particle does not have sufficient energy to make it through this energy barrier, it can still 'tunnel' through.
For a person to tunnel through a wall, ALL of the particles that you are made of have to tunnel through at the same time. The probability of this happening is absurdly small. But for a photon (a massless particle) or a single electron or proton, the probability is much much much greater.
Without tunneling, the sun would not be able to proceed with nuclear fusion in the core and computer chips would not exist either.
I don't know if this answers your question. But no you can not do it without destroying the object and there is no way to reconstruct it on the other side.”

Here is some more reading

what in there is supposed to refute identity? or perhaps you don’t know…?

[Jon_Irenicus]

Give this a read.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Jackson LaRose

If you had to guess.

i don’t know how to guess… do you know how? i suppose you don’t know. knowing is so much to hope for…

[apehead]

@nirgrahamUK

@Jackson LaRose

If you had to guess.

i don’t know how to guess… do you know how? i suppose you don’t know. knowing is so much to hope for…

Well, you shouldn’t have to worry about further learning at least.

I envy you, I really do. I wish I already had all the answers.