On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 07 Jun 2011, at 00:52, Rex Allen wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>
>>> It is not that hard to get, so would be worth your
>>> while trying to understand.
>> I think I understand this already. The whole teleporting
>> moscow-washington thing, right?
>> In Platonia, there are many computational paths that branch out from
>> the current state that represents "me".
>> Each of these paths looks like a "possible future" from my subjective
>> But, they're not possible, they're actual. In Platonia, they all
>> exist. And they do so timelessly...so they're not "futures" they're a
>> series of "nows".
>> So, subjectively, I have the "illusion" of an undetermined "future".
>> But...really, it's determined. Every one of those paths is
>> objectively actualized.
>> So how does this prove what I said false? All those static "futures"
>> are mine. They're all determined. I'm still on rails...it's just
>> that the rails split in a rather unintuitive way.
>> Even if we say that what constitutes "me" is a single unbranched
>> path...this still doesn't make what I said false. I'm one of those
>> paths, I just don't know which. But ignorance of the future is not
>> indeterminism. Ignorance of the future is ignorance of the (fully
> This is an argument against any determinist theory, or any block-universe
> theory. It is an argument again compatibilist theory of free will, and an
> argument against science in general, not just the mechanist hypothesis.
Hard determinism is incompatible with science in general?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at