4 ms·
I think you would have to have similar arguments for consciousness as well? Certainly I don't think there's much argument that the laws of physics are a modera
by addaon 4y ago
I think you would have to have similar arguments for consciousness as well?
Certainly I don't think there's much argument that the laws of physics are a moderately good fit for observed phenomenon. They came about by generations of physicists refining previous models.
I would consider the question of why mathematical models that fit observed phenomenon exist at all to be an open question.
- syzar 4y agoMy point is that before the refined physics theories we have today people had to poke around in the dark, so to speak. I don’t think it’s valid to critique the argument you responded to on the grounds you mentioned. What you require before you will consider something, if adopted by everyone, would impede progress.
- addaon 4y agoBut without some level of mechanism, arguments for free will and arguments for God end up looking very similar. They both have massive explanatory power, are consistent with many people's claimed subjective experience, and are unfalsifiable. Why did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs? God did it; it was the causal result of initial conditions; the asteroid or some other party acted non-causally (free will). Of these, I've seen the most evidence for the existence of initial conditions, Boltzmann brains notwithstanding.