On 06 Jun 2012, at 19:43, R AM wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think people make choices from among available options many times
every day and that is why the concept in question
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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.
Bruno,
I've deleted the previous thread, so I've started a new one on modal
logic's metaaxiom.
IIUC, if I have p (true in a world), and by dint of whatever
convoluted steps, I have
p
--,
q
then it is also true that []q (q must be true in all worlds)?
Could this also be written
p
--- ?
[]q
On 07 Jun 2012, at 01:58, Russell Standish wrote:
Bruno,
I've deleted the previous thread,
?
It is possible to delete thread? Including my posts? That should not
be possible.
so I've started a new one on modal
logic's metaaxiom.
OK.
IIUC, if I have p (true in a world), and by
On 07 Jun 2012, at 10:00, R AM wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
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
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
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
On 07 Jun 2012, at 14:15, R AM wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
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
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 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
On 6/7/2012 5:15 AM, R AM wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
I’ve just read the following paper :
http://istvanaranyosi.net/resources/Should%20we%20fear%20qt%20final.pdf
which argues that it is possible to avoid the descent into decrepitude
that seems to follow from the quantum theory of immortality (QTI).
Aranyosi argues that this is plausible on the
Oops - so the new branching diagrams came out wrong. OK they should
read
U to U or D or C and C to C or U.
On Jun 8, 12:11 am, Nick Prince nickmag.pri...@gmail.com wrote:
I’ve just read the following paper :
http://istvanaranyosi.net/resources/Should%20we%20fear%20qt%20final.pdf
which
13 matches
Mail list logo
