I did arrive as a non-physicalist but that is unrelated.I think you arrived already convinced, no? — Kenosha Kid
Free will, as we all know, is central to ethics. — Agent Smith
No, it's funded by the second law of thermodynamics. You can choose to be ignorant about something (or do your own research in contemporary parlance), but it doesn't follow that all ignorance is voluntary. — Kenosha Kid
Free will, as we all know, is central to ethics. Does ethics make scientific/mathematical sense? The 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) implies that disorder (evil) is more likely than order (good). — Agent Smith
If I act contrary to the principle, which I do, by every action I perform. My will is nor free, nor tied to determinism or any other abstract principle. The will simply is. — Raymond
Even if it were so, the principle doesn't hold for real processes, maybe by approximation only. Are we approximately subjected to it? — Raymond
The principle is even teleological, as it supposes a final point in spacetime that can't be known at the start, except for isolated systems. — Raymond
I did arrive as a non-physicalist but that is unrelated. — Yohan
My partial ignorance could be funded by an enormous chain of deterministic causes, or I could just have free will. Occam's razor? — john27
Occam's razor chooses the simplest explanation for the whole. Which is simpler?
1. Determinism.
2. Determinism + non-deterministic free will. — Kenosha Kid
Well in terms of the predictability of humans and their choices, regarding the analysis of consciousness and thought I'd say 2. is simpler. — john27
Just checking your arithmetic here. (2) consists of two things. (1) just one thing. To clarify, you're going on record that two things is simpler than one thing, yes? — Kenosha Kid
It says "go with the theory with the least free parameters". 2 is twice as many as 1. — Kenosha Kid
I did arrive wanting to believe in free will.I did arrive as a non-physicalist but that is unrelated. — Yohan
It's very related, since there's a huge gap between the OP and your convincing. — Kenosha Kid
Master and slave is a co-dependent relationship. If determinism rules all, then there must be an 'all' that is ruled. If I can be ruled, it implies I could also be free.Occam's razor chooses the simplest explanation for the whole. Which is simpler?
1. Determinism.
2. Determinism + non-deterministic free will.
Since determinism itself is not being disputed here. — Kenosha Kid
Well like kenosha kid said, it could involve the second law of thermodynamics. I don't really know though. — john27
Could determinism not incorporate non-deterministic free will? — john27
I did arrive wanting to believe in free will.
I still do, but can't. Free will doesn't appear to have any explanatory power. — Yohan
Master and slave is a co-dependent relationship. — Yohan
where is this principle situated, and how does it determine? Is there some mad Principle Puppeteer directing processes with strings? — Raymond
By definition, no. Determinism covers deterministic process only. — Kenosha Kid
The question is like asking if the stomach has a free will to be hungry or is it determined to be hungry. I do wonder what is the right course of action for one who feels like a victim of the universe though. Is it wise to will freedom? Or better to let it go? But this is more a question of the good life / ethics than metaphysics.unfree or free. The will simply is — Raymond
If the principle of least action and the second law of thermodynamics derive from the five postulates of QM, what is making those postulates manifest in reality? And so on... — Kenosha Kid
The question is like asking if the stomach has a free will to be hungry or is it determined to be hungry. — Yohan
Remove the master and there is no slave. Remove the slave and there is no master. They can't exist, as slaves or masters, without each other. Good grief of course nobody NEEDS someone to enslave them!Is it? The slave might seem to depend on the master feeding him and sheltering him, but only in the context of the slave's maximally restricted liberty. Remove the master and the slave is free, including free to obtain food and shelter by other, less criminally insane means. So off-topic now... :rofl: — Kenosha Kid
How then can determinism verify itself? A deterministic view necessitates a first cause, does it not? — john27
Even if we are determined sums over histories, and if bound systems could be described non-perturbatively, or if some truly fundamental particles were found, do the laws of qft govern us? — Raymond
Remove the master and there is no slave. Remove the slave and there is no master. They can't exist, as slaves or masters, without each other. — Yohan
Determinism doesn't verify anything at all, it's not in assurance — Kenosha Kid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.