/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12403961
Holy shit. Philosophical as opposed to what? Mathematical? Do you see any mathematics in the question? Obviously a big part of the solution is how you use reason and potentially mathematics to figure it out. It's very sad that it took me pointing it out for you to realize it.
Also just because the question is philosophical in nature, doesn't mean it doesn't have an answer. I explained the answer in my post. I suggest you actually read the posts you reply to before getting so pissy about them.

>>12167693
>So because we use our senses to prove things everything we sense and percieve is correct proof
I never claimed such retardation.
All I said is that if I perceive something and have no reason to believe my perception is flawed, it's rational to trust my perception.
If you don't realize how that's different from asserting that everything we sense and perceive is correct proof, then you're indeed retarded.
>So what if I percieve there to be no free will
Then, assuming you have no reason to doubt your perception, it's rational for you to believe you don't have free will.

>>11718020