On 7/13/2012 1:52 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/13/2012 10:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.07.2012 22:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/12/2012 12:27 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.07.2012 18:21 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
I understand but the question in principle still remains.
Who play the
chess, I or the M-theory?
There is no logical reason to think those two ways of explaining
the same phenomenon are incompatible. It's true that the reason a
toy balloon doesn't collapse is that the momentum of gas atoms
inside the balloon impacting the surface is greater than or equal
to that of the gas atoms outside the balloon impacting the
surface, but it's also true that the reason is just that the
pressure inside is greater. Sometimes humans find that a high
level description and explanation is more useful and sometimes
they do not. Trying to understand how hurricanes work by looking
at the level of atoms would not be very enlightening, and
super-strings would be even less helpful.
John K Clark
I have read once Elbow Room by Dennett to understand how free will
could be compatible with determinism. Yet, I have not understood
it. I have to work it out.
In Dennett's conception 'free will' is just a marker for
responsibility; hence his aphorism, "You can avoid responsibility for
everything if you just make yourself small enough." So where one
person might say, "Yes, it was me. I did it." another might say, "I
didn't do it of my own free will. I was coerced by threats of being
fired." and yet another might say, "I didn't do it. It was just the
result of deterministic or random physical processes in my brain and
The question then would be what determines what a person say.
You mistake the point. Dennet's aphorism is a reductio ad absurdum -
illustrating how ridiculous is is try to avoid responsibility by
blaming physical processes.
Does unpredictability that you have mentioned in another message will
help in this respect? If yes, how?
If you're asking whether unpredictability eliminates responsibility,
the answer is no.
OK, so does the converse hold? Predictability eliminates
responsibility? That sentence looks very wrong....
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at