On 16 Jun 2014, at 19:57, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
>If free will just means will then why stick on the "free" ?
> Because we believe that "free" does not add anything,
Except bafflegab.
Only because you quote an half sentence.
> except some emphasis on the needed existence of some degree of
freedom.
And here we go again, same old shit. What does freedom mean?
Degree of freedom? it refers like in physics to a spectrum of possible
move.
The ability to make a choice. What does the ability to make a choice
mean? Freedom.
And round and round she goes and were she stops nobody knows.
This is not relevant.
> That machine does not know in advance its future state, and that
is what I meant.
So a Turing Machine has free will.
Not all turing machine, you need one which can guess that she does not
know. An ability to hesitate and find solution to non computably or
non tractably soluble conflict.
>> I have never in my life said that first person indeterminacy does
not exist, what I dismissed is that the discovery I sometimes don't
know what I'm going to do or see next is profound and was first made
by Bruno Marchal
> WONDERFUL!
You act surprised but I've been saying the exact same thing over and
over and over again for at least 3 years.
You have confuse the 1-view and the 3-view at different places. yes,
you will beat the record of people not understanding step 3.
> I am glad you agree now with the FPI. So you accept step 3.
Other that the fact than your use of personal pronouns was
inexcusably sloppy and inconsistent for a good logician, I have long
since forgotten the details of your "proof". But are you telling me
that the grand conclusion of step 3 reached after pages of verbiage
was "I don't know"?
and you can not know, and you can know that you don't know, and this
shows in a purely deterministic context (indeed arithmetic) the
existence of an indeterminacy (indeed at step 8 you understand that it
bears on all sigma_1 sentences).
The first 2 steps must have been even more trivial, no wonder I
stopped reading.
So good! Step 3 is even less trivial than step 1 and 2?
What about step 4?
All steps in a proof, are supposed to be trivial, especially when the
proof is general, and can be understood by a wide audience.
Time for step 4, John. I hope it does not take you N years for step N!
> You: non compatibilist free will is non sense thus let us abandon
all notion of free will.
There is no notion of free will to abandon, all I'm saying that if
members of the species Homo sapiens made the "free will" noise a
little less often we could all live in a quieter environment.
> Me: non compatibilist free will is non sense thus let us abandon
"non compatibilism".
The trouble with compatibilism is that it's entire purpose was to
solve the free will problem but it never clearly explained what the
free will problem was.
There are many, according to your theology, and to your definition of
free-will. You can read the literature.
I agree with you, there is no such problem in comp.
But to be fair non-compatibilists can't explaine what the free will
problem is either so it's not surprising they haven't solved it.
They made it insoluble at the start, unless with some non-comp theory
(which today are the speculative one).
> You do the same error than with atheism: the christian literal God
is non sense, so let us decree that all what the christian asserts
on God is false.
Oh yes I remember, according to your logic atheism is a branch of
Christianity and thus John K Clark is a Christian. Well..., I will
admit this, I am a Christian if and only if you are logical.
Yes. If you look at theology from a platonist perspective, atheism is
a variant of Christianity. Same creation and dogmatic materialism,
same conception of God (just the "sign" differ).
And same opposition to the idea that theology might be studied with
the scientific method.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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/d/optout.
