On 30 September 2013 14:26, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm complete missing your point here??? The self-other distinction is a > 1p thing, not part of physics at all. There are no persons in > physics. Even when talking about the self-other distinction in (say) > bacteria, it is our modelling that makes the bacteria a distinct > system from its environment. Physical interactions reach through the > system boundary as though it weren't there. > it's far more likely that I'm missing the point. Maybe if I try to explicate my point, such as it is, it will be more obvious what I'm missing... I can't see how this relates to free will in a way that is different from, say, tossing a coin to make decisions. If the point is simply that the source of randomness is inside the physical structure involved. rather than external, how does that stop it being a "slave to randomness" ? I could (poetically) call a geiger counter a slave to randomness even if the radioactive source it was measuring happened to be inside it. Sorry. Obivously I've missed the point big time. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
