> To continue on, my argument of determinism could be summed up as thus:
> P1: The only two reasons to do anything is because you are forced or because you want to
I'd restate P1 as,
Every action is (EITHER) the result of a previous event (or combination of events) (OR) NOT the result of a previous event (or combination of events) in other words, the result of an uncaused, perfectly spontaneous, unique causa-sui or uncaused-cause (OR) some combination of BOTH caused and uncaused events (some percentage that is caused and some percentage that is uncaused (indistinguishable from random noise), the exact ratios are immaterial because any combination results in the same logical outcome, some part determined and some part indistinguishable from random, resulting in ZERO "freewill").
> P2: You do not choose what you want and don't want
I'd restate P2 as,
(IFF) you choose to NOT act according to a particular desire (THEN) you are STILL acting on a DESIRE to NOT act on a particular desire. You are (EITHER) automatically deferring to a hierarchy of personal desires (OR) acting as the result of an uncaused, perfectly spontaneous, unique causa-sui or uncaused-cause (indistinguishable from random noise, completely outside of your ability to control).
> C: Therefore you do not choose your actions, [your actions are the result of an automatic desire hierarchy and or some combination of desire hierarchy and uncaused, uncontrollable random noise] Free Will doesn't exist.
I'd restate C as,
Any action you take that is "WILLFUL" (intentional) is the direct result of some DESIRE which is the result of the causal chain (NOT isolated from "external-causes"). A "WILLFUL" action is a caused action. A "WILLFUL" action cannot ever be considered "FREE".
Any action you take that is "FREE" cannot ever be intentional. In order for it to be "FREE" it must be free from all previous events. Any action you take that is "FREE" from all previous events is, by definition, indistinguishable from random noise.
NO COMBINATION OF "FREE" AND "WILLFUL" CAUSES CAN EVER GENERATE A "MORAL" "CHOICE".
> My argument for science could be summed up as follows:
> P1: Scientists are capable of predicting behavior before a decision is made
> P2: Scientists make this prediction solely on the basis of subconscious brain activity
> Con: Therefore the person does not choose their actions, Free will doesn't exist
This is a very seductive argument that I avoid like the plague.
The "freewillers" always take refuge in an "appeal to ignorance".
They love to claim that since humans are "unpredictable", that means they have "freewill" (quantum mechanics).
You can never "win" this battle because there are (probably) always going to be "unpredictable" human actions.
It's a lot like the familiar "gods in the gaps" argument (you don't know what happened "before" the "big-bang"???? therefore god$).
Of course they DON'T argue that since dogs and spiders (and automobiles and tornados for that matter) are not "perfectly predictable" that they must ALSO possess the magic-fairy-dust of "freewill".
Anyway, arguing that humans ARE predictable simply plays to their (perceived) "strengths".
Your best argument isn't for DETERMINISM, it's for INDETERMINISM.
DETERMINISM precludes the existence of "freewill".
INDETERMINISM ALSO precludes the existence of "freewill".
And if they say they know for certain that they have "freewill" because they FEEL like they have a "real" "choice", then try and gently point out to them that what they call "freewill" is simply an emotion.
If you can FEEL something, but can't logically justify it, then what you are experiencing is an EMOTION.
If you can FEEL god($) love, that in-and-of-itself is NOT evidence for the existence of god($).
> If you're going to be charging the God I worship with murder, you better have some damn good arguments. This debate challenge is tantamount to walking up to God and accusing him of one of the most deplorable acts you can think of.
DEBATE RESOLUTION: To worship "YHWH" is to worship a slaughterer of women and children.
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 However, all the girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves.
> In conclusion: Despite the idea of people only making one decision in one timeline, the explanation is that the moral agent endorses this action.
There is only one demonstrable timeline. Therefore there is only one possible action. This precludes "free will". There is no "could have acted otherwise".
And even IFF there was some sort of hyperdimensionalmultiverse, that hypothesis supposes that all conceivable variations on the proposed action are manifest. This also precludes "free will". Making all possible choices at each decision branch is not an "act of will".
> As such, there is a possibility of the other opposing decision being made. As the person "can" exercise the different choice, while still being themselves, this proves that free will exists.
Each "choice" is (EITHER) an act of will and therefore goal oriented and therefore determined by desire which is not consciously "chosen" (OR) each "choice" is wholly or partially disconnected from the causal chain of determinism (indeterminism) and wholly or partially influenced by un-willed forces that are indistinguishable from random noise.
> My burden was here to prove that either determinism didn't exist, or that free will is compatible with determinism. Because the former is extremely difficult to accomplish, I left it con to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and still displayed the fact that he only said you merely act in a pre-determined manner with no reasoning.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that indeterminism (determinism + some non-deterministic noise) is ALSO incompatible with the concept of logically-coherent "free will".
> Even if you do not choose your reasoning, the fact is that you had the other choice possible to you. Each individual human being is able to select both choices in a crucial circumstance where you are to select either a choice A or a choice B. They are able to back this up with their motivations and ideals.
Motives and ideals are arguments supporting a concrete chain of cause-and-effect (determinism) NOT "freedom".
> If free will did not exist, it seems plainly illogical that the decisions are not 100% in one set of way (showing motivators overpowering consciousness), or 50-50 (showing randomness).
It is impossible to demonstrate whether or not "decisions are not 100% in one set of way".
There is no way to go back in time and "decide" to "choose" a different path.
> And the person would feel coerced in some manner, or have severe cognitive dissonance against the big decision.
The emotion, or feeling of coercion itself is no indication of determinism or indeterminism.
> By the fact that outside motivators can make people feel in control or out of control (especially concerning addiction), it's definitive that the person would have to have free will in the first place, to feel violation of the action.
The emotion, or feeling of "control" itself is no indication of determinism or indeterminism.
> Clearly, I have shown already that free will exists.
You seem to be arguing that "free will" is primarily evidenced by your feelings, not by logical-necessity.
An intentional (willed, goal oriented) action cannot be "free" (AND) a free action (indistinguishable from random) cannot be intentional (willed, goal oriented).
We "feel free" when we can fulfil our desires, but we do not intentionally choose our desires (we are slaves to our impulses).
"Free Will" is merely an emotion, not a logically coherent FACT.
Looking over this again, I think the main point that I should have emphasized more is the fact that photovoltaics and wind turbines cannot be manufactured without oil and coal. And in their current forms, both photovoltaics and wind turbines require plastics, which are derived from crude oil. If you imagine a world with no coal or oil, the (energy and dollar) cost of producing a photovoltaic and or wind turbine would be significantly increased (and their designs would need to be dramatically modified).
(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]
Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.
(2) Proposed definition: "objective"
Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]
For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":
(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]
(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]
And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]
> "If Elo has no correlation with skill," I disliked this line a lot, as that exact correlation had already been shown.
ELO seems to be a good measure of persistence.
Since noob sniping is apparently not penalized and there seems to be a large number of forfeits from people who lose interest, anyone who grinds as many debates as possible and never forfeits will be rewarded for their effort.
Even highly skilled, highly ranked debaters, like Danielle on the old site seemed to overwhelm their opposition with a Gish Gallop of citations and had the favor of the moderators who were empowered to strike down any votes against them for "insufficient RFV".
I was originally very excited to participate in ranked debates, but I quickly learned that no matter how "logical" and "objective" the voting guidelines were believed to be, the actual judges themselves are incapable of acknowledging their own bias blind spot.
I have proposed that all debates be "self-moderated", that is to say that only the two participants in each debate are allowed to vote.
This way, the goal of the debate is to ACTUALLY CONVINCE YOUR DEBATE PARTNER and not simply make them look silly in order to sway an audience.
It seems like such an insanely simple solution to what many consider "a virtually intractable problem".
"What is currently not true is that God could have saved everything or anything He wanted without an ark, because He did not save everything or anything He wanted without an ark..."
I see. Your own statement here seems to contradict the standard argument that "YHWH" is OMNIPOTENT.
"Yeah, the water would have been mightily diluted from salt water by that much rain, but, who knows? Since God can make an ass talk [Numbers 22:], I suspect He can make fish breath brackish water for an interim period. 300 days? 400? 200?"
Pulling this thread dismantles the entire Noah story.
(IFF) "YHWH" can do anything it wishes (THEN) it could have "saved" everything it wanted or deemed "good" including Noah +family and any animals it wanted to save WITHOUT AN ARK.
(IFF) the police are called for every classroom disturbance (THEN) Ahmed was not discriminated (or islamaphobed) against.
(IFF) the police are called for a very few classroom disturbances (AND) the distribution of those cases is representative of the population of the school (THEN) Ahmed was not discriminated (or islamaphobed) against.
(IFF) the police were only called for Ahmed's classroom disturbance and not for any other classroom disturbance (THEN) Ahmed was discriminated (or islamaphobed) against.
So we agree that endless digits behind a number is just as illogical as endless digits before a number?
Infinite - There is no number so close to infinity such that you can't multiply it by 2 and have a new number larger still. Therefore, there is no closest number to infinity. Is that not what an infinite number supposedly is? Or rather, is that not what 0.9r is? A number infinitely close to 1 but not at 1? Such a number isn't logically possible because it's existence isn't consistent with the foregoing reasoning excluding such a number's existence.
Certainly 0.9r ROUNDS to 1. However, in the "real world" you have to add something to 0.9r in order for it to actually cross the line between 0.9r and 1.
The smaller the increment, the more accurate your result will be, but there is a very real practical limit to how small of an increment can be realistically added.
And so, we end up with a precision problem. Certainly there may be some theoretical "remainder", but if that remainder is beyond our scope of measure, it is de-facto meaningless.
You might like this, "We will force you to be free" - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX4AVFymCBg
Don't forget about the plants!! - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
I'd love to vote, but my RFD's always get rejected (there is no such thing as "unbiased").
SAMPLE BIAS IS UNIVERSAL.
> To continue on, my argument of determinism could be summed up as thus:
> P1: The only two reasons to do anything is because you are forced or because you want to
I'd restate P1 as,
Every action is (EITHER) the result of a previous event (or combination of events) (OR) NOT the result of a previous event (or combination of events) in other words, the result of an uncaused, perfectly spontaneous, unique causa-sui or uncaused-cause (OR) some combination of BOTH caused and uncaused events (some percentage that is caused and some percentage that is uncaused (indistinguishable from random noise), the exact ratios are immaterial because any combination results in the same logical outcome, some part determined and some part indistinguishable from random, resulting in ZERO "freewill").
> P2: You do not choose what you want and don't want
I'd restate P2 as,
(IFF) you choose to NOT act according to a particular desire (THEN) you are STILL acting on a DESIRE to NOT act on a particular desire. You are (EITHER) automatically deferring to a hierarchy of personal desires (OR) acting as the result of an uncaused, perfectly spontaneous, unique causa-sui or uncaused-cause (indistinguishable from random noise, completely outside of your ability to control).
> C: Therefore you do not choose your actions, [your actions are the result of an automatic desire hierarchy and or some combination of desire hierarchy and uncaused, uncontrollable random noise] Free Will doesn't exist.
I'd restate C as,
Any action you take that is "WILLFUL" (intentional) is the direct result of some DESIRE which is the result of the causal chain (NOT isolated from "external-causes"). A "WILLFUL" action is a caused action. A "WILLFUL" action cannot ever be considered "FREE".
Any action you take that is "FREE" cannot ever be intentional. In order for it to be "FREE" it must be free from all previous events. Any action you take that is "FREE" from all previous events is, by definition, indistinguishable from random noise.
NO COMBINATION OF "FREE" AND "WILLFUL" CAUSES CAN EVER GENERATE A "MORAL" "CHOICE".
> My argument for science could be summed up as follows:
> P1: Scientists are capable of predicting behavior before a decision is made
> P2: Scientists make this prediction solely on the basis of subconscious brain activity
> Con: Therefore the person does not choose their actions, Free will doesn't exist
This is a very seductive argument that I avoid like the plague.
The "freewillers" always take refuge in an "appeal to ignorance".
They love to claim that since humans are "unpredictable", that means they have "freewill" (quantum mechanics).
You can never "win" this battle because there are (probably) always going to be "unpredictable" human actions.
It's a lot like the familiar "gods in the gaps" argument (you don't know what happened "before" the "big-bang"???? therefore god$).
Of course they DON'T argue that since dogs and spiders (and automobiles and tornados for that matter) are not "perfectly predictable" that they must ALSO possess the magic-fairy-dust of "freewill".
Anyway, arguing that humans ARE predictable simply plays to their (perceived) "strengths".
Your best argument isn't for DETERMINISM, it's for INDETERMINISM.
DETERMINISM precludes the existence of "freewill".
INDETERMINISM ALSO precludes the existence of "freewill".
And if they say they know for certain that they have "freewill" because they FEEL like they have a "real" "choice", then try and gently point out to them that what they call "freewill" is simply an emotion.
If you can FEEL something, but can't logically justify it, then what you are experiencing is an EMOTION.
If you can FEEL god($) love, that in-and-of-itself is NOT evidence for the existence of god($).
> If you're going to be charging the God I worship with murder, you better have some damn good arguments. This debate challenge is tantamount to walking up to God and accusing him of one of the most deplorable acts you can think of.
DEBATE RESOLUTION: To worship "YHWH" is to worship a slaughterer of women and children.
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 However, all the girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves.
> In conclusion: Despite the idea of people only making one decision in one timeline, the explanation is that the moral agent endorses this action.
There is only one demonstrable timeline. Therefore there is only one possible action. This precludes "free will". There is no "could have acted otherwise".
And even IFF there was some sort of hyperdimensionalmultiverse, that hypothesis supposes that all conceivable variations on the proposed action are manifest. This also precludes "free will". Making all possible choices at each decision branch is not an "act of will".
> As such, there is a possibility of the other opposing decision being made. As the person "can" exercise the different choice, while still being themselves, this proves that free will exists.
Each "choice" is (EITHER) an act of will and therefore goal oriented and therefore determined by desire which is not consciously "chosen" (OR) each "choice" is wholly or partially disconnected from the causal chain of determinism (indeterminism) and wholly or partially influenced by un-willed forces that are indistinguishable from random noise.
> My burden was here to prove that either determinism didn't exist, or that free will is compatible with determinism. Because the former is extremely difficult to accomplish, I left it con to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and still displayed the fact that he only said you merely act in a pre-determined manner with no reasoning.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that indeterminism (determinism + some non-deterministic noise) is ALSO incompatible with the concept of logically-coherent "free will".
> Even if you do not choose your reasoning, the fact is that you had the other choice possible to you. Each individual human being is able to select both choices in a crucial circumstance where you are to select either a choice A or a choice B. They are able to back this up with their motivations and ideals.
Motives and ideals are arguments supporting a concrete chain of cause-and-effect (determinism) NOT "freedom".
> If free will did not exist, it seems plainly illogical that the decisions are not 100% in one set of way (showing motivators overpowering consciousness), or 50-50 (showing randomness).
It is impossible to demonstrate whether or not "decisions are not 100% in one set of way".
There is no way to go back in time and "decide" to "choose" a different path.
> And the person would feel coerced in some manner, or have severe cognitive dissonance against the big decision.
The emotion, or feeling of coercion itself is no indication of determinism or indeterminism.
> By the fact that outside motivators can make people feel in control or out of control (especially concerning addiction), it's definitive that the person would have to have free will in the first place, to feel violation of the action.
The emotion, or feeling of "control" itself is no indication of determinism or indeterminism.
> Clearly, I have shown already that free will exists.
You seem to be arguing that "free will" is primarily evidenced by your feelings, not by logical-necessity.
The Standard Argument Against Free Will (TSAAFW)
An intentional (willed, goal oriented) action cannot be "free" (AND) a free action (indistinguishable from random) cannot be intentional (willed, goal oriented).
We "feel free" when we can fulfil our desires, but we do not intentionally choose our desires (we are slaves to our impulses).
"Free Will" is merely an emotion, not a logically coherent FACT.
You can always post your RFD under, https://www.debateart.com/forum/miscellaneous/topics
I'd like to read it but I'm not going to download it from dropbox.
Isn't a systemic error simply a second-order human error?
If I create a robot (or a system) and that robot (or system) kills someone, am I guilty of manslaughter?
Did PRO and CON agree on those definitions?
PRO and CON must agree on their definitions before any debate can proceed.
In 30 seconds - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd1HGmobf5g&list=PLpmLmx2zr10OM14A77GpwxYV6JVrZq6Oj
"It is individuals who are racist. There's a distinct difference, and that is what this debate is about." - -
Ok. So what would you call a system *designed by racists* that does not provide equal outcomes for people of different skin-tones?
Would you call that system "demonstrably biased against people of certain skin-tones"?
Doesn't that sound like hair-splitting?
LOL
Don't forget the constitutional argument - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQUhJTxK5mA
Since I am 99% sure I have no chance of winning, I hope Danielle is fine with self-plagiarism.
Nice.
Looking over this again, I think the main point that I should have emphasized more is the fact that photovoltaics and wind turbines cannot be manufactured without oil and coal. And in their current forms, both photovoltaics and wind turbines require plastics, which are derived from crude oil. If you imagine a world with no coal or oil, the (energy and dollar) cost of producing a photovoltaic and or wind turbine would be significantly increased (and their designs would need to be dramatically modified).
Thank you for your thorough and insightful analysis.
I'm flattered by your attention.
Thank you very much for your candor and participation in this debate.
I've actually learned a great deal of valuable information as a result of your actions.
Would you consider reviewing and casting a vote on this debate?
Would you consider reviewing and casting a vote on this debate?
I disagree.
And furthermore, I guarantee I will give you at least 1 point for participation.
So, if I fail to present an argument that you personally consider convincing, all you have to do to "win" the debate is to NOT grant me any points.
You really can't lose.
This is not some sort of trick.
I'm willing to openly negotiate based any definition you personally prefer.
Feel free to propose your own personally preferred definition of "the methodologies of science".
Feel free to propose your own personally preferred definition of "science".
Feel free to propose your own personally preferred definition of "objective".
(1) Proposed definition: "science"
(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]
Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.
(2) Proposed definition: "objective"
Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]
(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]
For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":
(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]
(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]
And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]
Both.
> "If Elo has no correlation with skill," I disliked this line a lot, as that exact correlation had already been shown.
ELO seems to be a good measure of persistence.
Since noob sniping is apparently not penalized and there seems to be a large number of forfeits from people who lose interest, anyone who grinds as many debates as possible and never forfeits will be rewarded for their effort.
Even highly skilled, highly ranked debaters, like Danielle on the old site seemed to overwhelm their opposition with a Gish Gallop of citations and had the favor of the moderators who were empowered to strike down any votes against them for "insufficient RFV".
Thanks for the mentions.
I was originally very excited to participate in ranked debates, but I quickly learned that no matter how "logical" and "objective" the voting guidelines were believed to be, the actual judges themselves are incapable of acknowledging their own bias blind spot.
I have proposed that all debates be "self-moderated", that is to say that only the two participants in each debate are allowed to vote.
This way, the goal of the debate is to ACTUALLY CONVINCE YOUR DEBATE PARTNER and not simply make them look silly in order to sway an audience.
It seems like such an insanely simple solution to what many consider "a virtually intractable problem".
"What is currently not true is that God could have saved everything or anything He wanted without an ark, because He did not save everything or anything He wanted without an ark..."
I see. Your own statement here seems to contradict the standard argument that "YHWH" is OMNIPOTENT.
Please explain.
"Yeah, the water would have been mightily diluted from salt water by that much rain, but, who knows? Since God can make an ass talk [Numbers 22:], I suspect He can make fish breath brackish water for an interim period. 300 days? 400? 200?"
Pulling this thread dismantles the entire Noah story.
(IFF) "YHWH" can do anything it wishes (THEN) it could have "saved" everything it wanted or deemed "good" including Noah +family and any animals it wanted to save WITHOUT AN ARK.
Round 1 is for ad hominems.
Round 2 is for special pleading and poisoning the well.
Round 3 is for red-herrings.
Round 4 is for declaring victory.
Round 5 is for straw-men and slippery slope arguments.
I've tried your suggestion too many times before and had my efforts struck from the record for not meeting these criteria.
Only PRO and CON [[themselves]] can determine which particular excerpts can be properly considered their respective "Main Arguments".
Per https://www.debateart.com/rules
"This survey must be comprehensive, which is to say that it must survey all or most of the main arguments in the debate..."
So, for the record, can you both please point out to me what you consider to be your Main Arguments from this particular debate.
"The comprehensiveness requirement simply requires you analyze the "main" arguments, of which there are usually 2 to 5 in a debate."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/864?page=4&post_number=79
PRO fails to give even a single example of some moral command (OMF) that might (necessarily) supposedly come from a god.
You also haven't ruled out possible court room bias.
I'm not drawing conclusions, merely presenting hypotheticals in an attempt to highlight the salient variables.
A single self report from another student does not prove discrimination or Islamophobia is conclusively not a factor in Ahmed's case.
I'm not drawing conclusions, merely presenting hypotheticals in an attempt to highlight the salient variables.
(IFF) the police are called for every classroom disturbance (THEN) Ahmed was not discriminated (or islamaphobed) against.
(IFF) the police are called for a very few classroom disturbances (AND) the distribution of those cases is representative of the population of the school (THEN) Ahmed was not discriminated (or islamaphobed) against.
(IFF) the police were only called for Ahmed's classroom disturbance and not for any other classroom disturbance (THEN) Ahmed was discriminated (or islamaphobed) against.
So we agree that endless digits behind a number is just as illogical as endless digits before a number?
Infinite - There is no number so close to infinity such that you can't multiply it by 2 and have a new number larger still. Therefore, there is no closest number to infinity. Is that not what an infinite number supposedly is? Or rather, is that not what 0.9r is? A number infinitely close to 1 but not at 1? Such a number isn't logically possible because it's existence isn't consistent with the foregoing reasoning excluding such a number's existence.
"...the possibility of such a remainder is eliminated by the logical impossibility of infitesimals."
and
The question of how is one direction (of endless digits) more logical than the other?
Ok, I gathered as much from your previous comments.
Can you present any logical reasoning in support of your position?
Why would you think it might be more logical for the zeroes to extend endlessly in one direction, but not in the other direction?
How is one direction more logical than the other?
How is it "more impossible" for "infinity" to be before a number instead of after a number?
When you write a 1, isn't it implied that there is an infinite number of zeroes both before and after the 1?
r0000000000000000001.00000000000000r ?
It appears as if I have lost this debate, however I have gained new insight into my philosophical arguments.
I would still consider that a personal win.
Certainly 0.9r ROUNDS to 1. However, in the "real world" you have to add something to 0.9r in order for it to actually cross the line between 0.9r and 1.
The smaller the increment, the more accurate your result will be, but there is a very real practical limit to how small of an increment can be realistically added.
And so, we end up with a precision problem. Certainly there may be some theoretical "remainder", but if that remainder is beyond our scope of measure, it is de-facto meaningless.