3 ms·

Free will just cannot be described by physics. This is very similar to the perception of the time flow. Time in physics is static. There is no now. Surely one c

by _0w8t 5y ago

Free will just cannot be described by physics. This is very similar to the perception of the time flow. Time in physics is static. There is no now. Surely one can plug any time value into physical equations, but that will not explain, for example, why when we look at a thrown ball, we perceive a movement, and not, say the whole trajectory of the ball at the same time. And given that the free will and now are connected it is easy to see why we cannot describe the free will using physical equations. Well, at least until we will manage to describe now.

burnished 5y ago
Pardon, but your argument does not appear to be coherent. Your example in particular does not seem connected to your thesis in any way. I would suggest reformulating an argument that does not depend on a hazy refutation of physics.
- _0w8t 5y ago
  Time in physics is similar to the number of a frame in video. For example, from two frames of a video of a thrown ball one can deduce the its whole trajectory. But it does now explain why when we see the video we see ball's movement. In a sense from a physical point of view the whole trajectory exists at once, there is nothing special about a particular point of a trajectory. There is no now. Now back to the freedom of will. Its feeling originates in now as if it exists, it is about changing the future following the now. But since the notion of now is not reflected in physical equations, those cannot describe the freedom of will. In physics the whole timeline exists at the same time. In other words time is static and future has already happen. Thus there is literally no choice in physics.
  - burnished 5y ago
    >>Time in physics is similar to the number of a frame in video. For example, from two frames of a video of a thrown ball one can deduce the its whole trajectory. But it does now explain why when we see the video we see ball's movement. In a sense from a physical point of view the whole trajectory exists at once, there is nothing special about a particular point of a trajectory. There is no now. Here you are conflating a perceptual task with a kinematic equation. What makes you think that these two concepts make sense to tie together so intimately?

by _0w8t 5y ago

burnished 5y ago

Pardon, but your argument does not appear to be coherent. Your example in particular does not seem connected to your thesis in any way. I would suggest reformulating an argument that does not depend on a hazy refutation of physics.

_0w8t 5y ago
Time in physics is similar to the number of a frame in video. For example, from two frames of a video of a thrown ball one can deduce the its whole trajectory. But it does now explain why when we see the video we see ball's movement. In a sense from a physical point of view the whole trajectory exists at once, there is nothing special about a particular point of a trajectory. There is no now. Now back to the freedom of will. Its feeling originates in now as if it exists, it is about changing the future following the now. But since the notion of now is not reflected in physical equations, those cannot describe the freedom of will. In physics the whole timeline exists at the same time. In other words time is static and future has already happen. Thus there is literally no choice in physics.
- burnished 5y ago
  >>Time in physics is similar to the number of a frame in video. For example, from two frames of a video of a thrown ball one can deduce the its whole trajectory. But it does now explain why when we see the video we see ball's movement. In a sense from a physical point of view the whole trajectory exists at once, there is nothing special about a particular point of a trajectory. There is no now. Here you are conflating a perceptual task with a kinematic equation. What makes you think that these two concepts make sense to tie together so intimately?