Hi 1Z, -----Original Message----- From: 1Z Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:38 AM To: Everything List Subject: Re: Compatibilism
On Nov 28, 11:36 pm, "Stephen Paul King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote: > Hi Rex and Bruno, > > I think that you are both missing an important point by taking an from > infinity view. The fact that the world is not given to us in terms where > these is one and only one option given some condition forces us to deal with > alternatives. We can go on and on about causation and determinism but let us > get Real, there is only rarely a situation where there can only be one > singular effect to a singular cause. In fact there is never a actual > singular cause to some event so the argument falls flat because of a false > premise. [1Z] I am not sure if you are saying determinism is false as an ontological fact, or just that alternatives will subjectively appear to be open due to ignorance. [SPK] What is the notion of determinism? Is it that "...is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is, to some large degree, determined by prior states" and involving the belief that "the universe is fully governed by causal laws resulting in only one possible state at any point in time"? (quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism ) We have direct empirical evidence that this is not the case, for example in the case of the Two Slit Experiment, we have the situation that the relative positions of the impact of photons (or whatever particle is shot from the gun) on the screen is “determined” (if we can even use that word in a consistent manner!) not by a single localized event but by the shape of the wave function of the combined system of gun ⊗ particle ⊗ slits ⊗ Screen. I did not invent this idea, I am just thinking of the implications of the content of this conversation so far and what I have learned from my studies. The notion of free will (real or imaginary) involves the notion of a set of alternative outcomes to any one situation, a condition is that is not consistent with the basic premises of determinism as per the definition that I referenced. What am I missing? >We can build and knock over straw men for ever or we can look at > Nature honesty and see that our pet theories of Monolithic Static Structure > will always be Incomplete. > Free Will, illusory or otherwise, is an attempt to deal with the reality > that there are always alternatives that can occur. We promote a notion of > Agency to act as a mechanism that chooses between alternatives without bias > or cohesion and imagine that we have such an agency. [1Z] I don't see why bias should be inimical to FW. [SPK] The term “free” in FW means that it is unconstrained by other factors external to the agent that we are positing might have Free Will. A bias would be a factor that could act as a constraint IFF that bias where imposed from an external source. If I am biased in my choices and I am free to select the conditions of my bias, so be it; I am still free. > Surely this is a > falsehood from the point of view of infinity where we can imagine we can see > all of the variables, but we are only thinking of ourselves as an observer > that is external to the system that we observe and so can see its properties > and *that our means of perception of such has no effect upon what those > properties are*. This role used to be played by the notion of a Deity. Now > we find a secular version of the same thing and wonder why we make no > progress beyond this conundrum! > We are not Omniscient, we are not Omnipresent and we most certainly are > not Omnipotent. Deal with it. [1Z] I don;'t see your point. Are you saying FW is the same as omnipotence? [SPK] No, to the contrary; I am pointing out that the basic premise of determinism requires the equivalent of an Omniscient Being to obtain for only such a “Being” could have the frame of reference of seeing all of the variables that enter into a choice and thus be able to make a conclusion that there was really no “free will” what happened in any occasion just is the result of some prior state. My point is that we have evidence that 1) events are not constrained to follow uniquely fro some specific prior state because there does not even exist a prior state that has some sharp properties independent of the specification of the means to measure such properties. This is the Einstein-Bohr debate redux. Do we really need to retrace that road? Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.