3 ms·
They seem to think free will is a part of physics, not philosophy, and reductionist physics at that. They didn't address any actual problems in the field. They
by xenophanes 18y ago
They seem to think free will is a part of physics, not philosophy, and reductionist physics at that. They didn't address any actual problems in the field. They missed the point. That is a flaw in their non-argument.
The burden is on them to say what is a problem in the field they want to address, to know something about the history of the problem, other candidate solutions to it, and how their solution differs, and then say what the answer is. They simply haven't done that.
- sketerpot 18y agoWhat they've done is define a property, tack the name "free will" onto it because it resembles some people's definitions of free will, and prove some things about it. If their math is sound, then good for them. Whether this is applicable to anything is certainly up for discussion, of course.
- gnaritas 18y agoThey're physicists; physicists believe everything can be ultimately traced back to objective measurable reality. What do you expect.