5 ms·
A powerful point, but it relies on the idea that a single set of initial conditions can only result in one outcome. I'm not sure that's true?
by warble 12y ago
A powerful point, but it relies on the idea that a single set of initial conditions can only result in one outcome. I'm not sure that's true?
- gphil 12y ago> a single set of initial conditions can only result in one outcome Nobody knows if this is true or not, or even whether we could know this to be true or not. For more info: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
- Sapient 12y agoNo, thats not accurate, not having free will means we dont consciously choose what we do next - not that there is only one choice we will make in any given circumstance. For example, I chose to ride a boat today, but it was raining, so I read a book instead.
- warble 12y agoI understand the definition. Unless I misinterpreted, the suggestion was that due to circumstance, you can only be expected to ever make one choice. Therefore set of initial conditions = predictable outcome. That was what I was questioning, as the poster above noted, this isn't something you can assume. It's not really an argument for or against free will, just that particular explanation of why we don't have free will.