Ok, they aren't the best and probably won't help people like me but...

1. If A is B and B is C. Then is A always going to be C? (this was in one of those stupid IQ tests my brother got me to take (i beat him ) i said no he said yes)
2. In sign language, does the same movement mean the same word to English people and, for example, French people? Basicaly, is it a universal language or are there specific languages inside it?
3. (the most dumb of all) Do you belive time travel is possible? And as soon as it is available to humans (assuming it's possible) do you believe that we shall all loose free will (as it would be possible to see our own actions)?
4. Ignorance is bliss. I agree with that, do you?

By the way, about time travel, do not say answer question 3 by sayying "no, because we could just do something else", that is the dumbest answer in the world and wrong. I believe we loose free will as we are destined to do it no matter what we do (because it would be a 100% fact that we would do it). This also is links with (theoreticaly) going back in time. We would be destined to do what we would do if we went back in time, if we did anything, including anything that you would think would affect the world in the most ridiculous way (e.g. destroying all humans) it wou;dn't affect your "present" because you would have been supposed to do it to shape the time in which you live in. Either you would fail in doing it (maybe you left out some or just killed the wrong beings ) or simply something would happen after that would make your present time turn out that way. This may sound rather gumbled but i guess in a basic way it's a paradox. You can't go back in time and kill your parents before you were born (no matter what happens in the movies) as if you did you wouldn't be born to do it so either you fail in doing it or you kill the wrong being (so you wouldn't start to fade away slowly until you manage to set things straight (dam movies, making people believe dumb stuff))

Sorry for the questions being weird but oh well, life continues

1. Yes.

2. Dunno.

3. No. Also, the free will thing? No, because you can't see into the future. At least not for yourself in your current situation. If you look into the future, you see how you would have acted not knowing what you would have done. By looking, you gain that knowledge, and will act accordingly on it, and in doing so will change the future as you are watching it. You can't see what hasn't happened yet.

4. Depends. If it's something I could try to fix, then I'd rather know about it. If I have no power to change it, ignorance would be bliss.

You do realize there's more than one way to approach a paradox, right?

There's the idea that anything you can do has already been done, or there's the theory that anything you change will immediately affect you.

With the former, nothing happens to you because it already has. In this case, there's no way to change anything.

In the other case, you can totally ♥♥♥♥ up history.

In either case it's entirely impossible. At least to humans.

Question two is quite stupid. There's American sign language, International, and other localized forms. International uses symbols for words; American uses symbols for letters.

4. Ignorance is bliss if you prefer being unaware to being prepared.

I don't care if the future is bleak, I'd rather know than not.

Time travel being possible might just prove that free will does not exist. Not going to explain this one unless I need to and have a good reason.
Also: You would have to be able to go BOTH WAYS in time travel for the free will paradox to even happen, I think?

You have American Sign Language, etc.

Ignorance is bliss, but true beauty is found through tragedy and knowledge, is it not? Also a human is never truly ignorant, really.

ABC: through time maybe not, instantaneously, yes. Unless there is some accepted part of quantum mechanics/chaos mathematics/etc that I don't know yet.

@Control: I'm talking about when (more like if) time travel becomes possible, do we loose free will the moment it is possible. I believe it would be if people used this to go forwards intime, but if they only went back then i think we might just be able to keep free will. I believe we could loose it if we went forwards because then everything would be preplanned immediately as soon as we went forward for the person to be able to go forward (if that doesn't make sense it would be like simply fastforwarding things (except for the person doing the time traveling) as everything, i believe, would immediately become destined to happen)

@Grif: but if we could "fudge up history", would something like killing our real parents before our birth be possible to be done succesfuly? Or would we not be able to do it because if we did we wouldn't be born to do it?

@Alenth Eneil: I belive you would have to go both ways yes, going back in time would be fine and back to the original time you moved from would be fine but if we went forwards... (read @Control)

Alternative issue: Time travel can only be done within your lifespan? Would it juxtapose you back into yourself? Or forward, as it is.

Lazyfaith seems to not even believe in free will to begin with.

I don't think you would replace yourself in the period of time you visit. In a way i guess the show "doctor who" shows my beliefs in a way. No matter what he does nothing changes in the future because he was supposed to go back in time and do it.

I believe in free will until we start to go forwards in time (assuming that's possible), and i believe it is close to being wiped out when we start to go back in time (or is atleast very limited)...

unless someone could sway me other wise

But without time travel, your own thoughts imply an absence of free will in the following sense;

We all just act based on the person we are at the time we take the action. Without seeing the outcome, we have no input to make us consider how to avoid them, so free will does not exist because we have no input to give it to us.

Through this same argument, I can argue straight against you in just as logical a fashion: Forward time travel would GIVE us free will (there is another argument I have against this as well but it's not important to this point). Reasoning: y being able to see the future effects of our lives, we could chose to change them, but without time travel, we have nothing to go by.

Then I could just start tearing up the idea that free will exists at all. (By which I mean now, in the past, in the future, and in the case of any time travel.)

I think i get what you are saying (I am still an adolescence). You say that this can be approached from any angle with atleast an ok argument for it?
But which side do you believe and why that over apposign arguments?

Also, I can see how and why people could approach it from differant sides but i still reamin adamant in the belief that I am right in this occasion.

From my understanding of the sciences (all of them in general), free will seems to have a hard time existing. There's a lot I don't know, so maybe molecular biochemics/physics or quantum theories or chaos mathematics hold a key that allows for free will. But even those all have rules that are followed, even if thus far we can only express tose rules as probability and chance. The fact remains that there is no way to say that we are not just (insanely complicated) machines, computers if you will, that operate on input and give an output. The existence of accurate psychological examinations helps to imply that the human mind is rationalizable on some level, although I also hold to the belief that it would require something smarter than a human (by quite a lot) to fully understand any one person on the level where you could prove there is no free will, only what neurons happen to be active when you make a decision.

The reason I can give a fully acceptable argument (none of which seem as convincing to me as the above, though) is that this is philosophy, not science, at the moment. On the countermark, science stems from philosophy, and generally the simplest, and most opposition-eliminating philosophical postulation is accepted as the most accurate. In that case, I find the absence of free will to have a rather strong argument.

I would provide incremental examples on the machinist view of humanity, but I figure that is something that you can do for yourself.

I'm open to anything that breaks my argument, too. As long as it doesn't make things obscenely complicated I guess. Occams' razor, etc.

A tad off topic here, but this is bugging me.

The correct term is adolescent, the noun, as opposed to adolescence, the adjective.

What about the parallel universe theory in regards to time travel? Whenever you go forwards or backwards in time, you open up a universe (or it already exists) that is identical in every way to ours up to the point that you left.

Then you can do whatever you want and no consequences will come to you, just your parallel self. So if you kill your parallel grandfather, your parallel self ceases to exist, but you remain.

Parallels is a big WHAT IF sitting on top of everything though.

Not to mention it half-allows an escape from my anti-free-will argument.

Quiet you, at least there's no paradoxes.

I thought I got rid of them already.