On 3/7/2013 10:58 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:43:06 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

    On 3/7/2013 10:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

    On Friday, March 8, 2013, Stephen P. King wrote:

        On 3/7/2013 8:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

            On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:59:50 AM UTC-5, stathisp
            wrote: By the definition I gave above a stone does not
            choose to roll down the hill because it does not
            consider each option in order to decide which one to do.

        Why doesn't it choose when and which direction to roll? A
        deterministic universe means that there is no such thing as
        'considering each option' - there are no options, only
        things happening because they must happen. They have no
        choice, there is no choice, the lack of choice is the
        defining feature of a deterministic world. You are saying
        that this is the world that we live in and that we are the
        stone, except that for some reason we have this delusional
        interactive narrative in which we could not stand being
        still any longer and decided to push ourselves down the hill.

            From my studies of the math of classical determinism, the
        subsequent 'behavior' of the stone follows strictly in a
        one-to-one and onto fashion from the prior state of the
        stone. There are no 'multiple choices' of the stone, thus no
        room at all for "choice". Thankfully we know that classical
        determinism is a delusion that some, for their own reasons,
        cling to.

    Yes, we know that classical determinism is wrong, but it is not
    logically inconsistent with consciousness.

        I must disagree. It is baked into the topology of classical
    mechanics that a system cannot semantically act upon itself. There
    is no way to define intentionality in classical physics. This is
    what Bruno proves with his argument.

Exactly Stephen. What are we talking about here? How is a deterministic system that has preferences and makes choices and considers options different from free will. If something can have a private preference which cannot be determined from the outside, then it is determined privately, i.e. the will of the private determiner.

Good Morning, Craig.

The word 'deterministic' becomes degenerate (in meaning/semiotic content) when we try to stuff free will (or free won't) into it.

    It is also not logically inconsistent with choice and free
    will,  unless you define these terms as inconsistent with
    determinism, in which case in a deterministic world we would have
    to create new words meaning pseudo-choice and pseudo-free will to
    avoid misunderstanding, and then go about our business as usual
    with this minor change to the language.

        So you say...

Yeah, right. Why would a deterministic world need words having anything to do with choice or free will? At what part of a computer program is something like a choice made? Every position on the logic tree is connected to every other by unambiguous prior cause or intentionally generated (pseudo) randomness. It makes no choices, has no preferences, just follows a sequence of instructions.


Exactly. This is why computations are exactly describable as "strings"...



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to