But this thread is based off a theory.

Then you win.

http://americanhumanist.org/system/s...ng_Theory.jpeg

"BS theory crap"? Is that what you call ideas that you can't understand? I've explained my point in detail. TBH, as far as I'm concerned, it should be the default position. Since free will has never been proven to exist, then the default position should be that it doesn't until compelling evidence to the contrary is presented.

The universe is governed by naturalistic laws, which are described by humans in mathematical terms. Unless you believe in souls, magic, god, or whatever else I'm leaving out that might violate those laws, then humans should be bound by those same laws, meaning that human action is mathematically predictable. Just because human consciousness is hard to grasp for hairless apes who still leave shit stains in their underwear does not mean that all of a sudden the natural laws which govern the universe become null and void.

Your entire argument about some crazy bitch with a defective brain microwaving her baby is irrelevant. If her brain doesn't work right, then you can't say that her acting irrationally by normal human standards has any significance when it comes to the rest of us. Cause she's ****ing crazy.

You yourself said that our brains are capable of being overwhelmed with passion and emotions, which in itself suggests that our brains are wired to do so. We can already explain why some people act in irrational manners but it can be through a number of reasons.

Humans already do several things that don't act on a rationally thought out basis that aren't atrocious. Think of almost any social situation and ask how rational it is, even though it can be explained through revolutionary theory. You being unable to grasp their logic as to why they did it doesn't matter. As sad as it is, some people are wired to have a thought process that would justify some of those things in the same manner that you use fallacies, a generally frowned upon tactic in debate because when you strip it down, your argument doesn't necessarily negate anything. You're just overwhelmed by emotions. The reason that we have standards in logic is to overcome this common trait. It's like we almost assumed it was a problem based off of statistics ie math. Most people don't know that they're idiots, so these standards are a safe guard that they put out to account for that instead of relying on gut feelings and the irrational human mind.

There's a reason why we don't have the most concrete method of finding these things out: ethics. We can't just slice open everyone's mind when they have a disorder.

I'm sorry that I have to resort to that dern fancy talk, but I reckoned it was the only way to get mah point across.

I really don't think so. I mean, it would depend. If say I had contracted a rare disease by going to some foreign country, maybe I would advise Alternative Universe Trollheart (forever now known as AUT) not to do that. If it was to save his life or better it, maybe. But other than that I can't see any real reason I should interfere with him. I mean, AUT might be a white supremacist or a serial killer or a priest or like to wear dresses or be the founder of a death metal band, or even an AUT Merzbow. Some of these things I would probably THINK of changing, but why would I and who am I to do that? I don't know how his life, in his universe, is gonna change if I do that. Might be better, might be worse. Can't play God.
Well I already said, AUT might go back to his car for something, or have a sudden bout of indigestion and not want to walk anymore. He might get mugged, or hear someone scream and go to investigate. It might rain. He might suddenly, urgently need a crap. The possibilities are endless really, which is why every single decision you make in your life is exactly that: a decision to go one way or the other. Even look at TV. You might decide to watch a new show, get totally into it, so much so that you stop writing that novel you had intended to finish. AUT does not watch the show and becomes a famous novelist. It goes on and on...

True. I'd also add that the not knowing the possible outcomes of your outcomes could be reason enough to stay away from your alternate self just to make sure nothing happens to both you and your alternate self.

I'd also like to add that i'm happy to see people getting into this conversation. This is something even before the thread idea came up that I had a bit of interest in, and it's interesting to see other perspectives.

Why would he do that? He'd have exactly the same things that you did, and exactly the same reasons or lack thereof to go back to his car.

He would have eaten the same things you did, with exactly the same physiological response. Why would he get indigestion and not you?

The same people in his vicinity would be in yours as well. Any mugger who might happen upon him would happen upon you as well.

See above.

Weather conditions would also be the same.

See above.

Why should the possibilities be endless? There may very well be only one possibility.

Still works. Lots of words, still no sense or reason. But if it works for you, cool.

Doesn't work for me.

Logic doesn't work for you? That really unfortunate. I bet politicians love you though, so it's not all bad.

Do you have anything to defend your opinion with apart from 'heh, dem's a lotta words' and fallacies? If so please share.

I agree and understand your counter-arguments, but I think the brain is reasonable explanation for things happening differently. It's reasonable for someone to remember or forget something that alters their path creating a split timeline. You don't have control over every thought you have and you don't respond to the same thing the same way every time.

LOL, this is ridiculous to argue over.