donnywithana

The corruption thing is something that probably would be better in its own topic, it's a bigger discussion than we can have on the side of this one. Regarding property rights, the fundamental difference between air and other property is that you can't own air. You can own airspace, sure, but the individual molecules of air can not belong to you. We pollute. That's a fact. Pollution is harmful to others in ways that can't be necessarily traced back to one person and proven in a court of law. Also, pollution's effects can often be delayed, and therefore by the time someone is "caught" doing something wrong, the damage might be very difficult to reverse. For example, I'm a nuclear plant operator. I store my spent rods on my property unsafely. Radiation seeps into the ground water and flows into a nearby lake on someone else's property. By the time fish start dying, we've already got a huge problem. But what if someone's been running a fish market selling fish from, among other places, that lake. Now we have all sorts of people eating radiated fish. Not to mention the entire fish market staff who's been chillin' around them. Do you understand how it's much better to ensure that the rods are contained properly even if it means forcing the plant operator to do something not in his best interest?

Rock on.

*sigh* This is exactly the point that I'm trying to wrestle with. In a perfect world, if someone initiated a force against someone else, and it was possible to know that they did it (factually), no one would need to "prove it" in some sort of court setting. It would simply be a case of "you did this, now deal with the consequences." This an impossibly hypothetical situation, but what I'm saying is that for an initiation of force to be wrong, it does not need to be complained about if there exists some ability to simply regulate against it. I think that we have to keep in mind the two things that drive human existence. These are our individual rights, and our existential interrelationships. For example, a child has no implicit right to any of its parents' property. Objectivism espouses that it's moral to help someone only as much as it taking them out of harm's way in an emergency. However, we recognize that allowing a child to starve is bad, so we push to create some mechanism to ensure that we, as a society, care for children until they can fend for themselves. This is not a right in itself granted to the child for being a child, in fact it's a violation of the philosophy of Objectivism, but because we recognize that children don't operate by the same rules that we as adults do, we change the rules for them. The same goes for the environment. Normally, whatever you do to your property is your own business. However, there are some things that you use without paying for. Air, for example. No one owns air, and therefore, if you do something to "your air (which doesn't exist)," you're screwing it up for the rest of us. Thus, a mechanism needs to be in place to protect "air" and "water" and all the other things that we use, but do not use up, and don't belong to us.

Ok, this is undoubtedly not what you were thinking, and personally I don't put much stock in this, but to play devil's advocate (this is a departure from a thought experiment commonly used to illustrate the curvature of spacetime): Let's say there's a two dimensional universe, inhabited by two dimensional beings. As far as they know, everything in their universe behaves through a cause-effect relationship which they understand. Because they do not exist in three dimensions, they don't believe there to be three dimensions at all. However, because their existence is simply a plane in a three dimensional existence, objects from outside this plane can enter their universe without any sort of cause (as far as their universe is concerned). Let's imagine that a sphere were to travel through the two dimensional plane universe. Inhabitants of the universe would observe a circle growing and shrinking spontaneously, without any logical cause. In fact, there would have been no supernatural occurence here. This would simply be a case where the two dimensional beings were unable to properly conceive of the greater existence in which their partial existence resided. Now, imagine a four dimensional round object passing through our universe. It would appear as a sphere growing and shrinking spontaneously, with no apparent cause. This wouldn't be an irrational occurence in the bigger picture, but in our fragmentary universe, we would consider it supernatural. One argument for God could be that He isn't even conscious, but that there is in fact some fourth dimension (other than time) which we can not observe, but can interact with our three dimensional fragment. Thus, certain occurences within the big picture could cause phenomenon in our universe which would not have been caused by anything in our universe. One could even argue that the existence of matter in our universe is a phenomenon caused by some fourth dimension event. Now, this theory has a huge flaw, in that there's no reason to really believe in this fourth dimension except this: We consider spacetime to be a valid concept without any grounding in three dimensional reality, and the idea of "curvature" in spacetime would imply the ability to transcend three dimensional existence and travel directly through spacetime. Keep in mind that I have displayed on many occasions, including on this board, that I don't understand spacetime very well. If my thinking is correct, however, there should be some way to transcend three dimensional existence, or in other words, actually travel straight through spacetime without being subject to the three dimensional irregularity it is subject to. Now say thank you, neverone

Gotcha.

Not exactly. I'm stressing the importance of regulation and responsibility (hehe now I'm in trouble). If you pollute, you're initiating a force on the lives of countless individuals around you ("Live with my negative byproducts, as I refuse to clean up after myself!"). Because of the sheer number of people you could affect indirectly by pollution, there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that someone simply does not pollute in the first place, or if they do, that they take all possible precautions to limit the negative effects. If a factory is releasing toxic gas into the air, are you proposing that each person affected should come collect their damages, while those not feeling significant enough effects should simply deal with it? We aren't anarchists here, why can't we say that within the role of protecting individual freedoms, government should prevent individuals from polluting in any way that they can not completely contain? If someone does pollute, which obviously they will, they should have to pay a set fine for what they're putting into the world. This money could then be used to subsidize some sort of pollution control industry. I hate subsidies, and you all do too, but if we're collecting this money for the reason of stopping pollution, then it should go towards that purpose. Perhaps the companies responsible for the pollution control would be subject to evaluation, and subsidized accordingly? Or contracts could be bid on? I can't see why anyone wouldn't agree that preventing pollution is a desireable end that can be met through rational means (fining those who do it). The problem comes from, "What qualifies as pollution? My car? My cigarette? My breath?" Well your car does, yes, and so a tax might be imposed on emissions and mileage. This would encourage car makers to make more fuel efficient, cleaner cars too, which is good. Your cigarette does too, Mr. Chimney Breath, and you should have to pay a tax when you buy a pack. Don't smoke the whole thing? Give them out to others? Too bad. Your breath? Maybe kinda. If everyone had to pay a small flat tax every year just to bolster the program, I doubt it would be that big of a deal except to those who would say, "We won't pay you this dollar out of PRINCIPAL!" and I don't care about them.

Ok, well after another delightful session of "what does that word mean?" we're at the same place, except with a tightly defined question. But then, what would I expect from you folks? Ok, so here's the question. What is it about man that makes him deserving of rights? Is it merely the species he belongs to? That is to say, if there is some being that was not a Homo Sapien, does it not have rights? If we were to need to abridge this law to incorporate another species, what basis would we evaluate the need for this amendment? One possible factor could be volition. Thus the new summary would be that any volitional being possesses rights. Does this mean that any being without volition does not have rights? Would an individual with brain damage, or a child not yet capable of volitional thought (I am told that this does not develop before birth?) not possess rights? My guess would be that Objectivists would hold these individuals to possess rights themselves. Thus we can ammend the statement to say that any being belonging to a species capable of volition has rights. I guess that answers my question. Any objections?

*sigh* apparantly no one heard me...I'll repost: This seems to be another incarnation of the same argument that has Objectivists against everyone else. Here's how I see it. I interpret Objectivism to state that one is free to pursue their own ends so long as they don't negatively impact anyone else's ability to pursue their own ends. However, Objectivism seems to contradict itself by implying that the right of someone to pursue the end of a healthy environment will have to sue everyone who damages it. Objectivism argues that someone should be able to pollute their own property as much as they want, but this is naive. If someone could pollute their own property with no negative effects on anything else, this would be a viable argument, but anyone with a common sense knowledge of pollution knows that this is not the case. If I create a factory that pumps dangerous chemicals into a stream on my property, and the stream flows through town negatively impacting the stream on the property of others, then they can sue me. However, what happens if they don't notice the change until Timmy comes inside one day with chemical burns from swimming? At this point, I might be responsible for putting the stream back to where it was and paying for the child's treatment. However, what if Timmy gets cancer and dies? How do I pay for that? What if some of the chemicals seeped into the ground and after my efforts to clean them up, some were left behind? What if a bird had eaten a fish from the stream, flown across town, and died in Mary's garden? Now the chemicals in the bird's stomach end up killing all of the worms that come to break down its body, thus hindering Mary's ability to plant a healthy garden. Am I responsible for replacing the worms in Mary's garden? How would she go about proving that I was responsible? How would she even know? The point is, this philosophy requires perfect access to information and instantaneous reaction to any wrong. This isn't the way the world works.

I hope your quoting of what I said was not aimed to dispute my statements...your abridged quote changes my meaning more than a little bit!

If your example implies that buying cigarettes is bad because cigarettes are bad for you: Everyone has access to information about how cigarettes are bad. You have the freedom to take note of this information. You have the freedom to take it to heart or to ignore it. If you do CHOOSE to ignore it, and smoke anyway, then you may become physically addicted to nicotene. You are not free to ignore the physical nature of your body. We are bound to nature. Thus it is true that we are not free. However, you have the choice to try and alter this addiction by quitting. Your body has literal properties that may oppose this process, but they are not irrational. If we freely choose to smoke cigarettes, we might get cancer. We are not free to separate the cause from the effect, to not get cancer if that's in the nature of our bodies' physiology, or to violate the laws of existence. That's the only way that irrationality comes into play here.

I think that putting the responsibility on teachers to know everything about their field is impractical. Employers have the right to monitor their teachers, or to replace them with more knowledgeable ones. It is the employer's responsibility to ensure that all of the teachers in their institution are well informed. If they fail in this respect, the reputation of their institution will suffer and their profits will decrease, possibly putting them out of business. A teacher's moral responsibility comes from a dedication to integrity. If they do not possess or value integrity, then they may be dismissed. A teacher that values integrity will teach their students whatever they believe to be true in the best way possible. It is not immoral for them to be wrong, if they are working with incomplete or inaccurate information. Look at the Rearden/D'Arconia confrontation in Atlas Shrugged for an illustration of this. Teaching based on inaccurate information, however, is not the goal of a righteous teacher. Integrity and pride would drive them to desire to be the best at their profession, thus prompting them to verify their information. To compartmentalize this: Being incorrect is not immoral Choosing not to pursue the state of correctness is Employers have the right to dismiss immoral teachers The public has the right not to support institutions that employ immoral teachers

This seems to be another incarnation of the same argument that has Objectivists against everyone else. Here's how I see it. I interpret Objectivism to state that one is free to pursue their own ends so long as they don't negatively impact anyone else's ability to pursue their own ends. However, Objectivism seems to contradict itself by implying that the right of someone to pursue the end of a healthy environment will have to sue everyone who damages it. Objectivism argues that someone should be able to pollute their own property as much as they want, but this is naive. If someone could pollute their own property with no negative effects on anything else, this would be a viable argument, but anyone with a common sense knowledge of pollution knows that this is not the case. If I create a factory that pumps dangerous chemicals into a stream on my property, and the stream flows through town negatively impacting the stream on the property of others, then they can sue me. However, what happens if they don't notice the change until Timmy comes inside one day with chemical burns from swimming? At this point, I might be responsible for putting the stream back to where it was and paying for the child's treatment. However, what if Timmy gets cancer and dies? How do I pay for that? What if some of the chemicals seeped into the ground and after my efforts to clean them up, some were left behind? What if a bird had eaten a fish from the stream, flown across town, and died in Mary's garden? Now the chemicals in the bird's stomach end up killing all of the worms that come to break down its body, thus hindering Mary's ability to plant a healthy garden. Am I responsible for replacing the worms in Mary's garden? How would she go about proving that I was responsible? How would she even know? The point is, this philosophy requires perfect access to information and instantaneous reaction to any wrong. This isn't the way the world works. Oh and I wasn't able to find anything on Yahoo about the composite aircrafts, could you please post a link? I'm interested.

In a monogamous relationship, you enter into a compact that states, "I will be faithful to you." When evaluating the prospect of breaking that compact, you must perform an analysis of integrity. There are two important considerations. First, you must determine whether or not you believe your relationship to be of substantial value to you to make forgoing the affair worthwile. It's simple economic problem of opportunity cost. If the total revenue of the affair exceeds the total cost of losing your relationship, then it would in many ways be wrong NOT to do it. The next consideration would be if you would in fact tell your partner. This is a philosophical question based on the type of relationship and partner in question. I personally wouldn't want to know, I'd rather my girlfriend tell me that she couldn't continue the relationship anymore than to have her tell me. Honestly, this is more for her emotional well being, because I would probably make her tell me if it was because he was better than me, or if she was too weak to choose what was better for her in the long run over a short term thrill. Either way, it sucks, but in the former situation, it's my burden, and in the latter, it's hers. Sex is a complicated issue in terms of morality. Sex is physically pleasurable, and barring some sort of infection, a healthy practice. It burns calories, elevates heart rate, and releases pleasant neurotransmitters into the brain. Therefore, it is literally a good action. However, sex has certain attachments in our society. This makes it very open to interpretation. This is where Objectivism becomes inconvenient and we usually choose to turn to subjective epistemology and rules approach ontology, both of which state, "it doesn't matter what's right or wrong; true or false, outside of the individual's interpretation of those things." An Objectivist approach to this would be to sit down with a girl who's gotten attached to you by accident and explain to her exactly why you weren't interested in a relationship, and possibly discuss how she might elevate herself to worthiness. I'd love to see that in action. What ACTUALLY happens is we talk about irrational feelings and cloudy non-concepts, eventually leading the "offended" party to not know exactly what went wrong, but only that they aren't very happy with it. So I guess the conclusion here would be that sex doesn't have to be a bad thing, but because we often don't approach it rationally as either a simple physical act (like a back rub) or an expression of love, it can not be considered infallible.

Uneducated question: If spacetime "curves," or alternatively, compresses, as it approaches matter, could it be that spacetime has a uniform amount of "energy" per "volume," and when compressed sufficiently, it can "change phases" and become mass? Is this a misunderstanding of how spacetime works? The reasoning I used is this. When you convert matter to energy, its "gravitational field" should "loosen," thus "decompressing" spacetime, right? Ok, so if spacetime were to decompress with the conversion of mass to energy, is it conceivable that this change could happen in a wave? I don't know, so don't yell at me. IF any of what I've said so far is true, which probably isn't likely... Could waves of this sort interfere with each other in certain places and create matter? 'Cause that would be sweet.

Ok first of all, I'm not a vegetarian. Here's my thought process. If Objectivism holds life as the fundamental value, and believes that coercion is bad, then why would it be ok to raise an animal in captivity and then kill it? Is it because they don't have volition? That they aren't conscious? Then would it be ethical to kill and eat a brain damaged human? The same goes for any animal domestication. To force an animal to live the way a person would want is a clear violation of its rights. Is this a logical interpretation of the ideology?

This is the type of situation where Objectivists get called misguided idealists whose ideas aren't "practical." If you look at the world economy today, you'll notice a few important things. The World Trade Organization, collectively, clearly understands that the barriers to trade that are hindering global freedom are wrong. For example, over the next few years, subsidies and tariffs worldwide are scheduled to decrease, gradually phasing out these harmful practices. However, this process is slow. This isn't because the people in charge only slowly understand what the problems are. Please don't be so arrogant. This is because these are elected officials, whose constituents see no problem with their immoral practices. If politicians were to implement drastic changes too quickly, they would be deposed in favor of those who would stay truer to the historical looting so many individuals have enjoyed. For example, it is wrong to pay a farm subsidy with tax dollars wrenched from the populace with the threat of force, while worthy, but unsubsidized, competitors are left to die. The politicians see this, at least to an extent, and are trying to fix it. But you try and simpy remove the subsidy and see how your constituents react. There's a reason that these lobbies were awarded these subsidies in the first place, and it's because they're very good at making people feel sorry for them without explaining to them who'll be paying for their relief. An economic boycott is a naive solution in many ways, because for a boycott to be effective, you need to have an important enough group of people moving in conjuction. If every single one of us were to boycott the companies who succeeded through looting, no one would notice. It would take a politically invested world educated in right and wrong, in the truest sense, to give weight to a boycott. For now, effort needs to be directed towards promoting awareness of these issues and of our views. Only an informed populace will be able to make the necessary changes.

Ok, well I'll admit that you very clearly understand this subject a lot better than I do (your knowledge of the subject clearly exceeds that of my astronomy TA), so let me explain where I get confused. Relative time is something of an abstract concept, that might be looked at as the rate of aging of certain atoms in relation to others. If that definition doesn't serve, then I'd appreciate an alternative. Let's say we're both at point A. I travel with vigor away from point A, and you remain there. Because of my speed, you are able to observe my atomic makeup age more slowly than yours. However, from my reference point, I can clearly see your atomic makeup aging more slowly than mine. Now, is this due to a sort of redshift in the transmission of light that would mean that light reflecting off of you would have to travel progressively farther to reach me, and vice versa? If so, then were I to turn back and come at you at the same speed, would I see your time going faster, and vice versa, because it was light would have to travel progressively less distance to reach me, and therefore I could in essence make up the difference? I gather that this isn't the case, because then time would not in fact "dilate" (or as I prefer to look at it, the aging of atoms would not be slowed). If atomic lives are being slowed down, what's doing it? I'm not asking rhetorically, I don't know and haven't been able to find a quick answer (I'd love to sit down and read the necessary books, but I'm putting off studying as it is right now). I guess the question I'm trying to ask is what is slowing these atoms' lives down? I've heard of the idea that we can move through either time or space to a finite extent, and if we move through space faster, we move through time slower, but that implies some absolute reference point as well. And as for the speed of light being constant: if I'm traveling away from a light source faster than you, and a photon of light as shot from the light source as I pass you, shouldn't it reach both of us, from our separate reference points, at the same time? If so, then wouldn't the photon have to be in two different places at once? How is this possible?

Look, ESP can't exist if it's defined as "extra sensory perception," because in order to percieve something, you must sense it. However, to say that the conventional five senses are the only ones that exist is naive. For example, sharks can perceive electrical impulses from fish. There was a horse called Clever Hans who could sense anticipation. Read about it elsewhere if you haven't heard of it, I don't feel like telling the story. The point is, our bodies express all sorts of things that we don't necessarily think about. Brain waves are electrical impulses traveling throughout our brains. In times of stress, our brain activity rises to heights unknown in normal states. It's possible that an individual would be able to sense these electrical disturbances. I'm not saying that telepathy is or is not real, just that it isn't an irrational concept. Someone might conceivably be able to sense brain activity, and if their brain was able to decode the meaning of someone else's brain activity, they could possibly be able to "read their mind." Again, I'm not saying that this happens, just that it could. Could someone have telekenetic powers? I don't see why "absolutely not." Electrical fields are produced within the brain, and so it wouldn't be absolutely impossible for someone's brain to be able to create an exceptionally strong field. To focus this field would require some faculty that I don't believe humans have, but it's not impossible. As for ghosts and disembodied spirits of any kind, I can't necessarily figure out any way that the phenomenon would work. Not to say that there is no way, just that I can't figure it out. Upon dying, all sorts of brain activity goes on, and there could technically be some emission of an electrical impulse during that time. However, the impulse would not have a brain of its own, and therefore would be incapable of cognition of any sort, since it's not actually a being. That kind of ruins the idea of a ghost. I mean, in dying, I could see someone being able to do just about anything as being technically possible, but for them to be able to do anything after death just seems kind of mystical.

In terms of the observed consequences of the theory, that's what I meant when I said "but unfortunately it makes some predictions that we can't explain yet." What causes my objection is this: If Jonny Rocket is moving quickly through space in his star scooter, his time slows down in relation to us. However, because there is no absolute reference point, from Jonny's perspective, it would be us who were the ones moving about, and not him. Therefore, why is it that our time would not be dilating? Another consequence of the "no absolute reference point" postulate is that it implies that the universe did not orginate at "a point in space," but instead originated "everywhere." This is because if the universe were finite in dimension, and all space originated at the Big Bang, and proceeded to expand outward, then all space at the time would have been filled by the Big Bang "package." This has a disturbing consequence. It would mean that if you were sitting in the area occupied by the Big Bang "stuff," then if you were to travel away from your current point, you still could not leave the area in which this "package" was located, because the package would encompass all existence. Thus, you could travel on and on, but never be able to get outside the Big Bang, which would mean that, in fact, the Big Bang happened "everywhere." The true nature of the "curved space" postulate this leads to can not be properly conceived of by a human brain, because human brains operate in three dimensions, or four if you include time. The dimension that would have to exist to substantiate this hypothesis would have to exist outside of "reality" as we perceive it. I'm not saying that this means it's necessarily false, I'm just hoping that there's another way to explain it. One way that I was grappling with would be the pervasion of some sort of "ether," an idea which has been discredited somewhat due to no one bothering to actually define what it was. I was thinking, however, that a property of ether would be some level of viscosity. I don't exactly know precisely how this would work, but here are some implications: As something traveled more quickly through ether, the process of atomic "aging" would be slowed, as the atom would have to expend some sort of energy on displacing this ether, and thereby slowing the rest of its functioning. This would lead to the slowing of clocks that has been seen in high speed objects, as one could conclude that the atoms composing these objects would have to pay some sort of energetic "tax" to travel through the ether. This would also help explain why as something approaches higher speeds, it requires a higher marginal energy to incite it to move faster. As something travels faster, it would have to displace more ether, and therefore it would have to have more energy to do it with. There are problems with my idea, however. Light, for example, does not slow down as it travels, so the viscosity of ether could not involve friction. My understanding of how "fields" work is very fragmentary, but if ether did not have mass, but was simply a property of "empty space," then it would not necessarily exert a force on an object with an "ether displacing field" around it. This field could be equated to a proportional property of energy, and therefore in order to move through ether an object could either draw energy from other processes within it to create this field (slowing down aging, decreasing kinetic energy), or would simply have to be given more energy from something else (an accelerating agent). Hope that wasn't a lot more than you were looking for, but I think it makes a lot more sense than the Theory of Relativity. Even if it's more complicated, it would certainly help solve a lot of the theory's more paradoxical issues.

Actually both things you pointed out as flaws in his knowledge are correct. In order to have a universe that started at one point, you must conclude that the universe is finite in extent. However, the universe, by definition, can have no bounds. This means that if you go forward, you must inevitably return to your beginning point eventually, because the universe is finitely infinite. This results in a curved space philosophy that suggests that space is curved in all directions, and that there is no way to avoid this phenomenon through a change in direction or orientation. This is very possibly an incorrect viewpoint, as it's not actually based on anything but logic which rises up from very questionable postulates (most noteably that space did not exist without the observable universe). This theory is, however, a direct departure from the Theory of Relativity, which states that there are no absolutes except for the speed of light and that physical laws are the same for everyone. If you actually read the Theory of Relativity, you'll be mortified that science accepts it as true, but unfortunately it makes some predictions that we can't explain yet, and because the ideas behind it may not work, but the implications do, no one really cares. Objectivism can not, by its own tenets, accept that the Theory of Relativity is a valid theory, and I personally am working my hardest to come up with an alternative. I'm not a physics student, however, so this is pretty hard. You all seem like smart people, so any help with this would be appreciated. The part about an act of creation is the application of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that all things move towards chaotic equilibrium. In other words, if the universe were eternal, there would exist uniform temperature and distribution of energy. This is because high energy objects must lose energy to low energy objects over an eternity. Thus it is concluded, quite possibly falsely, that the universe must have begun. Now, a more logical view of the universe would hold that it originated in a vast space, starting as a quantity of matter and bursting into what we see now, which would explain the divergence of matter within it. This still begs the question, "Where did it come from and how/why?" but that's not something that we currently have the resources to understand. Alternative views of the universe that make some sense more disconcerting. One is that we are the three dimensional projection of a universe existing in more dimensions. To understand this: A sphere moving through a two dimensional universe would appear as a circle growing and shrinking. Think of a ball moving through a plane. A circle moving through a one dimensional universe would appear as two points diverging and converging. Now, how would a four dimensional circular entity move through a three dimensional universe? It would appear as a sphere expanding and contracting. Could the universe simply be a three dimensional projection of a phenonenon occuring in dimensions that we don't have the faculty to understand? It certainly makes logical sense, but it's pretty troubling.

Anything that a computer physically could never do is impossible to humans as well. This includes anything truly involving the conquering of infinity or nothing. For example, humans will never be able to make something that will travel infinitely fast. According to modern science, infinitely fast is approximately the speed of light, because all external time would stop if you traveled that fast. A sidenote: it's being debated if light in fact travels the speed of light. It's also impossible for someone to cool something below "absolute zero," because this involves taking kinetic energy from a source which has none. According to modern scientific thought, it would be impossible for a human to in fact move anywhere, due the scientific community's refusal to acknowledge the existence of absolute location in the universe. To expand on this: scientists embracing the theory of relativity assert that there is in fact no such thing as absolute location, only relative location. This leads to the idea of a finitely infinite universe in which space is curved in upon itself, imperceptibly and unobservably, in all directions, and traveling in an absolutely straight line is necessarily impossible. Can someone please slap these people? Or slap me, if I'm totally misunderstanding something.

I mean, do you actually want me to explain charges and atomic bombs? I mean, I can only go so far as- well whatever, suffice it to say that I understand them as well as they would be understood by someone with an elementary level physics education (in other words, I get the quark deal (subatomic particles), the effect of energy on an atom's ability to hold electrons (charge) and I how by breaking apart particles, energy is released (atomic energy)). More importantly, let me pose a question, rather than pick apart what you've said, as seems to be the common method of argument on this board. Suppose you had an extremely powerful computer that could percieve existence, and write its own programs to conform to what it percieved, with the ability to change previous programs written on false assumptions or poor efficiency, etc. This computer could react to its environment in progressively more advanced ways, and eventually it's probable that the computer would develop a set of programs that would perfectly take into account the computer's environment, to the limits of its perception. The computer would not have volition, because it's a computer, but what if no one told the computer this fact. As new information came in, the computer would analyze it and integrate it with the immense store of information already available to it. If the computer had been programmed from early stages not to be curious, it would take a reprogramming of some sort, either by direct external influence, or from indirect analysis of new information that would lead it towards a sort of reevaluation of its strategy. This is a sort of microcosmic evaluation of the way a human brain works. One could extrapolate a causal theory for knowledge and thought, but I'm not going to get into it unless the conversation goes there. I will conclude with the illustration of a human baby, which, in the womb, is granted a brand new, completely clean brain. The first perception of the baby is the first piece of information available to its brain; before perception there can be no thought. As perception provides the brain with more and more information, the brain develops networks in which to interpret and store this information. Certain instinctual, evolved, traits are present in the brain before any of this happens. These brain functions have nothing to do with free will, they are genetically ingrained reactionary measures. The issue arises in thinking that the development of cognitive abilities to interpret perception is any different. The human brain is genetically predisposed to build a cognitive network to interpret incoming information. By the time this conversation is taking place, our brains have developed to a level of (oh Almighty God, it's this term again!) "irreducable complexity." Of course, this isn't a valid assessment, but can't you see that this is what you're saying when you bring in a reason defying external force like "free will?"

I'm not saying our minds don't work in the way that's observed, I'm simply suggesting that this is simply the natural consequence of their physical properties. To use the Windows example, a computer may have extraordinary programming language, and based on the language used to program it, it could come to various conclusions. It can not, however, choose to act contrary to its nature. Don't interpret this wrong. What I'm saying amounts to this: Let's say I pose a choice to you. If I were to have a way of analyzing every variable, every influence, every atomic process, etc., going on within your mind, I would be able to predict the outcome of your thought process. Now, were I to tell you my prediction, I would have influenced the experiment, and thus I would have to reanalyze. The problem is inherently infinitely complex, because with every change, a new set of variables is introduced. I'm not saying that your beliefs are the sole determinants of your brain's calculation processes, so the space capsule illustration is invalid. I'm saying that the brain works exactly like a computer. To give an appropriately complex example: Wendy asks you on a date. Your past experiences with Wendy, girls in general, dates, etc, will be main determinants of your response. However, perceptive influences triggered by Wendy's presence might release neurotransmitters in strategic sectors of the brain, elliciting cognitive responses which could alter your answer. Wendy's shirt may trigger other neurotransmitters which could affect your decision; as could the current availability of food in your stomach, or any of the other informational inputs your brain may draw on for its cerebral processes. The point is, nothing will enter your brain unnaturally, and your decision will be determined entirely computatively.

I guess my point was that if we knew all the workings that determine the behavior of every particle in the universe, we should be able to predict how they would work together in every situation. No particle can simply begin to operate in a different way without an external force acting upon it. Thus, it can not "choose" to change its behavior. If every particle operates this way, then there can be no volition anywhere.

Careful, that sounds quite similar to religious arguments I've heard... There's something out there that made all this, we just can't explain it...