----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 2:47 PM Subject: Re: Atheism Re: CD's
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 02:45:03PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > > Its the standard free will question. > > Free will is also ambiguously defined. How do you experimentally test > whether an entity possesses the phenomenon "free will"? You don't, that's an interesting point. It is either an established fact or very close to it that human actions cannot be predicted from experimental observation as a result of quantum indetermancy (the arguement goes all the way back to Bohr.) But, as a good empiricist, wouldn't you consider it a myth? We cannot prove or disprove free will emperically, so by the criterion you use, shoudn't we say its existance is no better established than God's? > > complex than many physical activities, its no more accurate to > > say that a human chooses to do something than it is to say that a > > star chooses a particular moment to go supernova. Is that a fair > > assessment? > > No, a star is not similar. I didn't compare to a star, I chose a Culture > drone as a good comparison. But, since it is a fictional creation, I don't know what type of entity it really is. Lets stick to real physics. I'll be more than happy to agree that any model of human behavior needs to be consistent with experimental observations. That goes with any understanding of God too. The question is whether it must be reducible to experimental observations. Dan M.
