Interesting, I would like to read the rest. Can you help me with the mind body question? In Essence, Buddhist > is "Naturalist" but not necessarily "materialist"; but Buddhists are > not inclined to separate mind from matter.
Do they think of it like the traditions that posit a mental body? --- In [email protected], "matrixmonitor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---Forgot to paste in the paragraph. Here it is: > > Free will - you only think you have it > 04 May 2006 > Zeeya Merali > Magazine issue 2550 > Underneath the uncertainty of quantum mechanics could lie a deeper > reality in which, shockingly, all our actions are predetermined > "WE MUST believe in free will, we have no choice," the novelist Isaac > Bashevis Singer once said. He might as well have said, "We must > believe in quantum mechanics, we have no choice," if two new studies > are anything to go by. > > Early last month, a Nobel laureate physicist finished polishing up > his theory that a deeper, deterministic reality underlies the > apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. A week after he announced > it, two eminent mathematicians showed that the theory has profound > implications beyond physics: abandoning the uncertainty of quantum > physics means we must give up the cherished notion that we have free > will. The mathematicians believe the physicist is wrong. > > "It's striking that we have one of the greatest scientists of our > generation pitted against two of the world's greatest > mathematicians," says Hans Halvorson, a philosopher of physics at > Princeton University. > > Quantum mechanics is widely accepted by physicists, but is ... > > The complete article is 1310 words long. > > > > > > > Thanks, previous contributors, for posting your respective opinions > > on the relationship between free will and determinism; a topic in a > > recent New Scientist article. Regarding the question as to whether > > the "mind" aspect to free will is or can be somehow separate from > the > > determinism of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles; this > > controversy was not alluded to specifically, in the article. My > > impresssion is however, that among the two protagonists (pro vs > con > > free will); there's a tacit agreement that "mind" would definitely > be > > included as a subset in the supposed determinism of the "physical" > > particles. Even from a Buddhist perspective, I don't see how such > a > > dualist agenda could be supported. In Essence, Buddhist > > is "Naturalist" but not necessarily "materialist"; but Buddhists > are > > not inclined to separate mind from matter. But let's put this > > question aside for the moment, and assume that IF matter is > > determined, THEN mind and the alleged free will within/as mind is > > also determined by prior causes. This (at this time) is an > > unprovable assumption, but that's the assumption(IMO) the > scientists > > have agreed upon in laying out the framework for their hypotheses. > I > > left the article at home and forgot my password, so I can only copy > > what's in the Newscientist website: the first paragraph. Before > > pasting it in, I will briefly summarize the basic issues. > > The article is entitled "Free Will, you only think you have it".; > > and alludes to the "against" free will, pro determinism researcher, > > Nobel Prize winner Gerhard d'Hooft (or something like that -- can't > > remember how to spell his name). On the pro-free-will (against > > determinism) side, we have John Horton Conway, a famous > mathematician > > at Princeton, inventor of the "Game of Life" cellular automaton. > > Interestingly, these two giants of science are "going at it" not > with > > philosophy, but rather with mathematical formulas; but at this > time, > > d'Hooft only believes he's on the right track. Conway differs, and > > believes that the QM reality of existence is indeterminate. > > However, I would add that in math, there are many hypotheses that > > remain unproven, and there's no guarantee that there will "ever" be > a > > proof pro or con. > > At any rate, the basic assumption among the two combatants is > > that "mind" is only a subset of matter; so the question boils down > to > > determinism vs indeterminism (thus, no free will vs free will). > > Last point, the article writer brought up the interesting point of > > the downside to the pro side. (Conway believes QM - and thus > > the "gross" level of reality...in fact: existence itself) is > > fundamentally indeterminate, thus allowing for free will. The > > downside is that to an extreme, in the absence of determinism, > > RANDOMNESS is the prodominant status of QM: quantum particles and > > thus all of existence as an emergent property, is inherently random. > > So, is a rather bleak tradeoff: if QM reality is indeterminant, > free > > will existence exists, but at a big price: it's "free" but is > > fundamentally random. > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/mDk17A/lOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
