On 24 February 2014 12:49, Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > One more question: Do you agree that if you lived in a block universe that > you would be completely deterministic with no free will at all, and that > you would be effectively a pre-programmed zombie? > >> > No, determinism means that future states are completely determined by past > states, it's logically possible that you could have a block universe where > the laws of physics would *not* allow perfect prediction of future states > by a Laplacina demon who knew the complete physical state of the universe > at an earlier time. And if the laws of physics *are* deterministic, > wouldn't we be equally lacking in the type of "free will" you're talking > about regardless of whether the future actually existed or not, since > either way the future state would be totally inevitable given the present > state? Also, note that many philosophers define "free will" in a different > way that isn't inherently incompatible with determinism, a view known as > "compatibilism": http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ >
If you add quantum theory to relativity you get a block multiverse, in which a system evolves deterministically into a variety of future states. If one is going to start throwing around loaded words like "pre-programmed zombie" then perhaps you will have to go the full nine yards and start addressing our best theories of what is actually happening - this leads to a block multiverse, with all the extra raminifcations that entails. But of course Newtonian mechanics, relativity AND quantum mechanics all imply that we are "pre-programmed zombies", which is basically just a way of saying we aren't supernatural entities. (I guess Edgar just can't help using emotionally loaded phrases in his attempts to overthrow the standard scientific viewpoint on space-time ... for some reason). > >> And stop labeling my theory "presentism". It's not a subset of any other >> theory type. People label things to keep from actually understanding them. >> > > I have only said that your theory is a "presentist" one, not that it is > synonymous with presentism. Obviously your theory is a specific *type* of > presentist theory which adds a lot of additional ideas that aren't part of > a bare definition of presentism, just like general relativity or Newtonian > gravity are specific *types* of mathematical theories of gravity. Are you > denying that your theory would even be a *type* of presentist theory? > Remember, the definition of presentism is just that there is an objective > universal present, and that nothing outside the present really "exists", > both of which seem to be characteristics of your p-time theory. > This is the person who talks about a "block universe cult" in an effort to discredit the idea. I hope the irony of him objecting to the perfectly respectable label "presentist" isn't lost on anyone. -- 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.
