I never implied the behavior of the universe or of any of its subsets was or could be in the future exactly predictable, we know since QM that it is not. QM leaves no room for determinism, which is quite an improvement over classical physics as it gives us an open future. But it doesn't leave room for free will either.
Just this random machine's opinion ;-) Michel 2009/11/25 Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar>: >> No, no, all I meant is that since there doesn't seem to exist such a >> thing as free will in physical systems --fortunately for physicists!-- >> there is no problem. Unless we humans are not bound by the rules >> obeyed by the rest of the universe, which remains to be proved. > > Oh well. Let's put it the other way around: what remains to be proved is > that the Universe is completely governed by the rules of physical systems. > If the Universe is an organism, all our actual suppositions regarding its > essential physical nature would be wrong, or incomplete. > > When I raise my hand, by example, you can express that movement precisely > with the aid of the physical laws. But that does not mean my hand is only > a physical system, because my hand is connected to my body through the > limbs, and my whole organism would be unable to exist in isolation. > Now you should be able to extrapolate that to a planetary body, by example. > > The fact that the actual science of Physics does not contemplate or > embodies these possibilities, tell more about the actual status of the > physical sciences, than about the underlying nature of the Universe. > > Particularly, the ideas regarding the ultimate physico-mechanical reality > of the Universe were challenged, I would say definitely, by Gödel's > incompleteness theorem, which showed that mathematics(formal systems) are > not complete and consistent at the same time, that is, that truth is not > at the same level or category than that of comprobability or > deductibility. > > In recent (and not so recent) times, our gradual comprehension that the > physical laws are in the end no more than approximations of the real > phenomena, and that they are in a very real sense unable to grasp the > ultimate behaviour of physical systems, due to, by example, the problem of > imponderable quantities, are confirming, more than denying, this line of > thought. > > Mathematics and physics are fundamentally unable to grasp ultimate > physical reality. Think about that. It's not only a practical limitation, > related by example to the accuracy of the measurements. It is an essential > one. > > And man, with all its complexity, including free will, is a product of the > Universe, that is, he does not exist in isolation. So, the Universe is at > least as complex and subtle as one of its creatures. And probably more. > > Best regards, > Mauro > >> >> Michel >> >> 2009/11/25 Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar>: >>>> 2009/11/21 Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar>: >>>> >>>>> Yes. The "problem" with all these approaches will always fortunately >>>>> be >>>>> human free will >>>> >>>> Then there is no problem is there? >>> >>> Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I meant problem in the sense that the >>> outcomes of the future experiments in human cloning/eugenics (i.e. >>> trying >>> to clone a genius) could in my opinion turn out not to be the expected >>> ones. That's why I have quoted the word. >>> >>> If you're asking about the ethical considerations of such experiments, >>> or >>> the potential consequences of such actions, I was not talking about >>> them. >>> >>> Do you wanted to know personal opinions regarding the ethical dimension >>> of >>> eugenics and human cloning, and genetic manipulation in general? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Mauro >>> >>> >> >> > > >
