On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 09 Jun 2011, at 07:14, Rex Allen wrote: > >> 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> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> standpoint. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> determined) >>>> future. >>> >>> 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? > > ? On the contrary. It was your argument against determinism which I took as > incompatible with science or scientific attitude.
I'm not arguing against determinism. I'm fine with determinism and it's consequences. > But third person determinism does not entails first person > determinism, nor do determinism in general prevents genuine free will. Determinism doesn't prevent your "redefined" version of "free will", which of course isn't free will at all - but rather a psychological coping mechanism disguised as a reasonable position. BUT...I didn't say third person determinism. I said "hard determinism"...the alternative to the soft determinism of compatibilism. > People believing that determinism per se > makes free will impossible confuse themselves with God. No, people who believe that determinism is incompatible with free will have a firm understanding of the meaning of both determinism and free will. > But now I am no more sure what you are saying. Are you OK with hard > determinism? Are you OK with block-multiverse, or block-mindscape? I'm fine with "hard determinism". I am a "hard determinist"...which is the position that determinism is incompatible with free will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism I'm also fine with block-multiverse. And with a block-mindscape. Neither of which allow for free will. Since both of which are static, unchanging, and unchangeable - making it impossible that anyone "could have done otherwise" than they actually did. No one can be free of that fact - and therefore no one has free will. Rex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
