Re: free will and mathematics

On 19 Jun 2012, at 19:02, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jun 2012, at 10:44, R AM wrote: I know that you and Bruno are compatibilists. I'm not attacking your notion of free will. I agree that free will is a social construct. I'm going even furthe

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 13 Jun 2012, at 10:44, R AM wrote: > > I know that you and Bruno are compatibilists. I'm not attacking your > notion of free will. I agree that free will is a social construct. I'm > going even further: free will doesn't even deserve a

Re: free will and mathematics

On 13 Jun 2012, at 15:14, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes, but for the sake of the argument, I wanted you to consider the case where you are pretty certain about eating spaghetti. Defenders of free will would say that free will is active whenev

Re: free will and mathematics

On 13 Jun 2012, at 10:44, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2012 1:06 PM, R AM wrote: Isn't that randomness? No, it's unpredictablity - something we may fruitfully model by a mathematical theory of randomness even though the dynamics are perfectl

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/13/2012 1:44 AM, R AM wrote: I know that you and Bruno are compatibilists. I'm not attacking your notion of free will. I agree that free will is a social construct. I'm going even further: free will doesn't even deserve a name. Deep down, free will is not something people have, but just a

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Yes, but for the sake of the argument, I wanted you to consider the case > where you are pretty certain about eating spaghetti. Defenders of free will > would say that free will is active whenever you make a decision, hesitating > or not

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:08 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/12/2012 1:06 PM, R AM wrote: > > Isn't that randomness? > > > No, it's unpredictablity - something we may fruitfully model by a > mathematical theory of randomness even though the dynamics are perfectly > deterministic, when we don't know e

Re: free will and mathematics

On 12 Jun 2012, at 21:21, R AM wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. But the gangster does not know this determination. So although at that level he could not do otherwise, from his perspective, it still can make genuine sense that he could have done otherw

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/12/2012 1:06 PM, R AM wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM, meekerdb > wrote: I means that, in retrospect, I can't trace back to external (to me) causes, a deterministic sequence that inevitably led me to do that. Isn't that randomness? No, it's

Re: free will and mathematics

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM, meekerdb wrote: > I means that, in retrospect, I can't trace back to external (to me) > causes, a deterministic sequence that inevitably led me to do that. > Isn't that randomness? > Conceivably we could make an intelligent machine that could keep a > record

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/12/2012 11:42 AM, R AM wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM, meekerdb > wrote: Well then it seems to come down to a question of timing. If this 'same conscious state' is before the action, then I can certainly imagine changing my mind. Yes, but

Re: free will and mathematics

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > > Why not. That's the compatibilist view of 'free will' and that's > apparently why Sam Harris disagrees with compatibilism: he defines 'free > will' to be *conscious* authorship of decisions. > I think that is what is meant by typical defende

Re: free will and mathematics

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > No. But the gangster does not know this determination. So although at that > level he could not do otherwise, from his perspective, it still can make > genuine sense that he could have done otherwise, from our embedded pov > perspective. O

Re: free will and mathematics

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > Well then it seems to come down to a question of timing. If this 'same > conscious state' is before the action, then I can certainly imagine > changing my mind. > Yes, but why would you do that? You didn't change your mind in the first situat

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/12/2012 1:31 AM, R AM wrote: On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:42 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 6/11/2012 8:45 AM, R AM wrote: But what I'm saying here is not ontological determinism but in fact, about the subjective experience. I'm defending that we

Re: free will and mathematics

On 11 Jun 2012, at 17:45, R AM wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK, for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that you ate spaghetti because that's what you liked at that moment. Do you think you coul

Re: free will and mathematics

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:18 AM, RMahoney wrote: > > I'm assuming you mean by exactly the same situation, every atom in it's > exact same physical state. > Not really. I mean the same conscious or subjective situation. From the free will point of view, decisions are conscious and can only be ba

Re: free will and mathematics

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/11/2012 8:45 AM, R AM wrote: > >> But what I'm saying here is not ontological determinism but in fact, >> about the subjective experience. I'm defending that we cannot imagine >> ourselves in exactly the same subjective situation and still t

Re: free will and mathematics

On Monday, June 11, 2012 10:45:16 AM UTC-5, RAM wrote: > > But what I'm saying here is not ontological determinism but in fact, > about the subjective experience. I'm defending that we cannot imagine > ourselves in exactly the same subjective situation and still think that we > could have don

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/11/2012 8:45 AM, R AM wrote: But what I'm saying here is not ontological determinism but in fact, about the subjective experience. I'm defending that we cannot imagine ourselves in exactly the same subjective situation and still think that we could have done otherwise. I can certainly im

Re: free will and mathematics

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:34 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> > The answer must be relative to our (imperfect) knowledge. Since that > knowledge is not sufficient to predict what he would do, we say "Yes, he > could have done otherwise." In the same way we may say, "I know him well > and he's not a pers

Re: free will and mathematics

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> OK, for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that you ate spaghetti > because that's what you liked at that moment. Do you think you could have > done otherwise? > > Now, let's

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/7/2012 5:15 AM, R AM wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: Because he remembers that he was hesitating. Yesterday I have eaten spaghetti, but I could have decide otherwise, I hesitated a lot. OK, for the sake of the argument,

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > There is no meaningful difference between will and free will. The will is in the state it is in for a reason or for no reason, but according to Craig Weinberg your free will is in the state it is in for no reason and isn't in the state it is in for no

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 meekerdb wrote: > > If he axed you because he has a brain tumor that caused him to see you > as an alien monster, we wouldn't hold him culpable. > What's with this "we" business, speak for yourself I certainly would hold him culpable, I don't understand why that particular

Re: free will and mathematics

On 07 Jun 2012, at 14:15, R AM wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Because he remembers that he was hesitating. Yesterday I have eaten spaghetti, but I could have decide otherwise, I hesitated a lot. OK, for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that you ate

Re: free will and mathematics

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Because he remembers that he was hesitating. Yesterday I have eaten > spaghetti, but I could have decide otherwise, I hesitated a lot. > OK, for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that you ate spaghetti because that's what you liked a

Re: free will and mathematics

I have started reading Collingwood's An Essay on Metaphysics and I see one definition that seems to be pertinent to this discussion. p. 27 "Def. 4. To assume it to suppose by an act of free choice. A person who 'makes an assumption' is making a supposition about which he is aware that he might

Re: free will and mathematics

On 07 Jun 2012, at 10:00, R AM wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree free-will is silly if it is defined like that. So let us try a less silly definition. So instead of "was exactly the same" in your definition, we can use "was exactly the same from the

Re: free will and mathematics

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I agree free-will is silly if it is defined like that. So let us try a > less silly definition. So instead of "was exactly the same" in your > definition, we can use "was exactly the same from the subject point of > view". > OK. > In tha

Re: free will and mathematics

On 06 Jun 2012, at 19:43, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: I think people make choices from among available options many times every day and that is why the concept in question exists. Deep down, free will is

Re: free will and mathematics

On Jun 6, 1:48 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: There is no meaningful difference between will and free will. Adding 'free' only emphasizes that the intention is your own and not compelled by circumstances beyond your control. All will implies the capacity to int

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:52 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > Contral-causal, I guess. What I'm defending is that the belief in > free-will is, in part, a social construct, useful from the social/legal > point of view, as you say. We are educated to believe it. > > > The social/legal concept is certainly

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/6/2012 10:56 AM, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 6/6/2012 9:30 AM, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson mailto:tenn...@gmail.com>> wrote: I think people make choices from among available op

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/6/2012 9:30 AM, R AM wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: > >> I think people make choices from among available options many times every >> day and that is why the concept in question exists. > > > I agree that

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/6/2012 10:43 AM, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, R AM mailto:ramra...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson mailto:tenn...@gmail.com>> wrote: I think people make choices from among available options many times every day and that

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/6/2012 9:37 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Brian Tenneson mailto:tenn...@gmail.com>> wrote: > how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? It just mystifies me that someone would even ask a question like that. If you're chasing me

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > Punishment only works if something 1. cares whether or not it's > experience is unpleasant Yes. > 2. has causally efficacious motive to alter their behavior, > No, although if the criminal's actions are not causal, if th

Re: free will and mathematics

On 06 Jun 2012, at 18:23, meekerdb wrote: On 6/6/2012 9:08 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Speaking of the legal aspect, Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill the Jews. IF "*gibberish*" does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, R AM wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: > >> I think people make choices from among available options many times every >> day and that is why the concept in question exists. > > > Deep down, free will is the belief that, if we were put

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > It's not possible to punish something that doesn't have free will. I can't say anything directly about that because neither you nor I know what the hell "free will" means, but I do know what "will" means and if something wants to do X and I

Re: free will and mathematics

On Jun 6, 12:37 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012  Brian Tenneson wrote: > > >  how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to > > commit crime? > > It just mystifies me that someone would even ask a question like that. If > you're chasing me with a bloody ax I don

Re: free will and mathematics

On Jun 6, 12:23 pm, meekerdb wrote: > It's that idea of fairness or justice that seems to connect the idea of 'free > will' to > social policy.  But is it really needed to make the connection?  Why not look > at as just > rule utilitarianism, e.g. punishment will be a deterrent to others (would

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/6/2012 9:30 AM, R AM wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson > wrote: I think people make choices from among available options many times every day and that is why the concept in question exists. I agree that people make choices. I dont't t

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Brian Tenneson wrote: > how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to > commit crime? It just mystifies me that someone would even ask a question like that. If you're chasing me with a bloody ax I don't care if you had a "choice" (whatever the hell t

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/6/2012 9:08 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Speaking of the legal aspect, Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill the Jews. IF "*gibberish*" does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? Seems unfa

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: > I think people make choices from among available options many times every > day and that is why the concept in question exists. I agree that people make choices. I dont't think it is free will. You said that people would believe that it w

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/6/2012 9:08 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Speaking of the legal aspect, Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill the Jews. IF "*gibberish*" does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? Seems unfa

Re: free will and mathematics

I think people make choices from among available options many times every day and that is why the concept in question exists. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:15 AM, R AM wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: > >> Speaking of the legal aspect, >> Yes, Hitler exercised his *inse

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote: > Speaking of the legal aspect, > Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to > kill the Jews. > IF "*gibberish*" does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable > in that they had no choice but to commit

Re: free will and mathematics

Speaking of the legal aspect, Yes, Hitler exercised his *insert gibberish here* when he issued orders to kill the Jews. IF "*gibberish*" does not exist, then how can we hold criminals culpable in that they had no choice but to commit crime? Seems unfair to punish anyone under those circumstances.

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark > wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your preferences most of the time. And Turing

Re: free will and mathematics

I will exercise my *insert gibberish here* by disagreeing. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 meekerdb wrote: > > > > while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your >> preferences most of the time. >> > > And Turing proved that some o

Re: free will and mathematics

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 meekerdb wrote: > while you do not *always* know what you're going to do, you know your > preferences most of the time. > And Turing proved that some of the time a computer can tell if it will eventually stop or not, but not all of the time. > The feeling of 'free will' co

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/5/2012 10:35 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 on Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: >> There are only two things I mean by "free will" because they are the only two that are not gibberish, but nobody around here except me likes either definition: 1) Fre

Re: free will and mathematics

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 on Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> There are only two things I mean by "free will" because they are the > only two that are not gibberish, but nobody around here except me likes > either definition: > 1) Free Will is the inability to always know what you are going to do > before yo

Re: free will and mathematics

On 05 Jun 2012, at 18:02, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 meekerdb wrote: > And so you know that pursuant to the purpose of winning a game it may be useful to make a random choice. Certainly! Random choice is a key part of the Monte Carlo method of statistical mechanics and it i

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/5/2012 9:02 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > And so you know that pursuant to the purpose of winning a game it may be useful to make a random choice. Certainly! Random choice is a key part of the Monte Carlo method of sta

Re: free will and mathematics

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 meekerdb wrote: > And so you know that pursuant to the purpose of winning a game it may be > useful to make a random choice. > Certainly! Random choice is a key part of the Monte Carlo method of statistical mechanics and it is one of the most important computer algorithms

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/4/2012 10:07 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be predictable. Apparently you never studied game theory. I'm no world class expert but I've taken several college cours

Re: free will and mathematics

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > > I don't understand what's odd about that, certainly we need retributive >> punishment if we don't want to be murdered in our beds. >> > > I don't understand why anyone could not see that as a glaring violation of > common sense, except that I think i

Re: free will and mathematics

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 meekerdb wrote: > > You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be > predictable. Apparently you never studied game theory. > I'm no world class expert but I've taken several college courses on game theory and I know enough to understand that there has been no

Re: free will and mathematics

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > You try moving your arm with an explanation or a reason or with no > reason. Did it move? That's like asking how long is a piece of string. It depends on if I wanted to move my arm or not. > Now just move your arm. This time I wanted to move my arm

Re: free will and mathematics

OOPS. I hit "send" instead of "delete". Brent On 6/3/2012 4:25 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 6/3/2012 9:38 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson mailto:tenn...@gmail.com>> wrote: > The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to be able (which c

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/3/2012 9:38 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson mailto:tenn...@gmail.com>> wrote: > The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) If it can be done then do so! Expla

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/3/2012 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > "Agent" might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably Without a reason. > but purposefully. With a reason. > But both of those are a little fuzzy. That's not fu

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > Look up 'teleology'. Why? I already know it means things happen for a purpose, although it is never made clear who's purpose were talking about or what his purpose is supposed to b

Re: free will and mathematics

On Jun 3, 1:00 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > oddly after spending 60 pages attacking free will as an illusion of an > > illusion, Sam Harris seems to that we may need retributive punishment > > anyway. > > I don't understand what's odd about that, cer

Re: free will and mathematics

On Jun 3, 12:38 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jun 2, 2012  Brian Tenneson wrote: > > > The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to > > be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) > > If it can be done then do so!  Explain "choose" in a way that

Re: free will and mathematics

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM, meekerdb wrote: > oddly after spending 60 pages attacking free will as an illusion of an > illusion, Sam Harris seems to that we may need retributive punishment > anyway. > I don't understand what's odd about that, certainly we need retributive punishment if we do

Re: free will and mathematics

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 meekerdb wrote: > "Agent" might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably > Without a reason. > but purposefully. > With a reason. > But both of those are a little fuzzy. > That's not fuzzy, it's idiotic. You can arrange the words free, decide, choose, purpose, rea

Re: free will and mathematics

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 Brian Tenneson wrote: > The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to > be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) If it can be done then do so! Explain "choose" in a way that shows it is not deterministic and also not rando

Re: free will and mathematics

I don't think any of us qualify since you have to believe and be aware of your belief of every tautology which means all possible mathematical proofs. Actually it seems to me that so much self awareness is contrary to the common notion of 'free will'. The feeling of 'free will' comes about bec

Re: free will and mathematics

How about define agent to be a type 4 agent as explained here: http://cs.wallawalla.edu/~aabyan/Colloquia/Aware/aware2.html On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM, meekerdb wrote: > The hard one to define with falling into circularity is "agent" which is > often defined as an entity with free will. To

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/1/2012 11:25 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: The fuss is because the concept is thought to be fundamental to jurisprudence and social policy (it's even cited in some Supreme Court decisions). The concept of free will has been carried over from past theological and philosophical ideas. But now the

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/2/2012 11:45 AM, John Mikes wrote: Did ANYBODY so far - among those ~100(+?) posts (so far erased in this discussion) *I D E N T I F Y* */_free will_/*? I've tried to identify two meanings: One, which I consider unproblematic, is the social and legal attribute of decisions which are not

Re: free will and mathematics

The hard one to define with falling into circularity is "agent" which is often defined as an entity with free will. To test something you need an operational definition. "Agent" might be defined as an entity with acts unpredictably but purposefully. But both of those are a little fuzzy. Bre

Re: free will and mathematics

FREE means being *able *to choose *any *among a number of choices. You want freedom of will to mean an agent can choose something beyond what the given choices are? That would imply free will does not exist yet, in that event, free will is still NOT meaningless. Right now I am unconcerned with w

Re: free will and mathematics

The capacity (which can be defined) of an agent (which can be defined) to be able (which can be defined) to choose (which can be defined) when (which can be defined) presented (which can be defined) with a choice (which can be defined). Certainly not meaningless. On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM,

Re: free will and mathematics

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 meekerdb wrote: > Can existing practice be justified on a purely utilitarian basis? > Yes. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegro

Re: free will and mathematics

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson wrote: > The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that > "Free will" is not meaningless. "Free will" has to mean something before > it can be attacked. But I'm not saying "free will" does not exist, and I'm not attacking it because the

Re: free will and mathematics

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:48 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led to a > thousand years of philosophical dead ends; not surprising really, confusion > is inevitable if you insist on trying to make sense out of gibberish. > > > So you think the

Re: free will and mathematics

On 01.06.2012 21:30 meekerdb said the following: On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string "free will" means and neither do you. John K Clark Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but that doesn't mean "free will" is a m

Re: free will and mathematics

On 01.06.2012 20:48 meekerdb said the following: On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote: Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not, that my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any determinative physical antecedent. A belief that was enormously popul

Re: free will and mathematics

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 Brian Tenneson wrote: > Freedom is defined by the observer. > Exactly! A man is walking down a road and spots a fork in the road far ahead. He knows of advantages and disadvantages to both paths so he isn't sure if he will go right or left, he hadn't decided. Now imagine a po

Re: free will and mathematics

The fact that free will is debated lends credence to the notion that "Free will" is not meaningless. "Free will" has to mean something before it can be attacked. On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: > > > >> Cannot comment, don't know w

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string "free will" means and neither do you. John K Clark Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but that doesn't mean "free will" is a meaningless string. Freedom is defined

Re: free will and mathematics

On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote: > Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not, that my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any determinative physical antecedent. A belief that was enormously popular during the dark ages and led to a tho

Re: free will and mathematics

> > Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string "free will" means and neither > do you. > > John K Clark > > > Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but that doesn't mean "free will" is a meaningless string. Freedom is defined by the observer. I note the freedom I have i

Re: free will and mathematics

On Thu, May 31, 2012 meekerdb wrote: > Look up 'teleology'. > Why? I already know it means things happen for a purpose, although it is never made clear who's purpose were talking about or what his purpose is supposed to be. One thing is clear, they had a purpose for a reason or they had a purpo

Re: free will and mathematics

On 5/31/2012 12:39 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:20 PM, meekerdb > wrote: > If they are "rational agents" then it's rational and if it's rational then there is a reason behind it and if there is a reason behind it then it's deterministic.

Re: free will and mathematics

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:20 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > If they are "rational agents" then it's rational and if it's rational > then there is a reason behind it and if there is a reason behind it then > it's deterministic. > > > That's not logically the case. People who believe in 'free will' think

Re: free will and mathematics

On 5/31/2012 10:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: it even has something to do with intelligence. When Alan Turing designed the first stored program electronic digital computer, the Manchester Mark 1, he insisted it have a hardware random number generator incorporated in it because he felt that pseudo

Re: free will and mathematics

On 5/31/2012 10:24 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Brian Tenneson > wrote: >> Of course it doesn't, nothing real can have anything to do with "free will" because "free will" is gibberish. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/f

Re: free will and mathematics

On 31 May 2012, at 17:03, John Clark wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > The axiom of choice just asserts that an arbitrary product of a family of non empty set is non empty. True, but my dictionary says "arbitrary" means "based on a random choice or personal whim". It

Re: free will and mathematics

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: >> Of course it doesn't, nothing real can have anything to do with "free >> will" because "free will" is gibberish. >> > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ > I stopped reading after the first line: “Free Will” is a philosophica

Re: free will and mathematics

Brian, thanks for the excerpt from the Stanford Enc. It is the usual 'scientifically' diluted 'everything', yet includes some supprt for John's quoted phrase. May I add my contribution (not included in the Enc.-txt: In -MY- belief system we are part of that infinite complexity we may call "world"

Re: free will and mathematics

> > Of course it doesn't, nothing real can have anything to do with "free > will" because "free will" is gibberish. > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send ema

Re: free will and mathematics

On Wed, May 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > The axiom of choice just asserts that an arbitrary product of a family of > non empty set is non empty. > True, but my dictionary says "arbitrary" means "based on a random choice or personal whim". > There is no clue of direct relationship with physi

Re: free will and mathematics

On 30 May 2012, at 18:17, meekerdb wrote: On 5/30/2012 1:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Banach and Tarski proved an amazing theorem with the axiom of choice, but it is not a paradox, in the sense that it contradicts nothing, and you can't get anything from it. Bruno It contradicts intuit

  1   2   >