On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 02:57:34PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 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.) Neither can the weather be predicted 1 year from now from experimental observation today (short of using a computer as complex as the entire Earth, and some sort of incredibly sophisticated "transfer" to copy the current state of the Earth to the state of the computer), and it is not even necessary to invoke quantum indeterminacy to explain that, just classical sensitivity to initial conditions in a complex system. > 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? If free will can't be measured by a repeatable experiment, then it need not be a part of any scientific theory. > But, since it is a fictional creation, I don't know what type of > entity it really is. But, since free will is not something that can be measured by experiment, I don't know what type of phenomenon it really is. > Lets stick to real physics. I will if you will. My reply was as real as your question. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
