4 ms·
Your response is ripe with irony. 'A world where multi-verse and string theory are sooner accepted ...' indicates a world where there is agency, and thus will.
by JackFr 12y ago
Your response is ripe with irony.
'A world where multi-verse and string theory are sooner accepted ...' indicates a world where there is agency, and thus will. We won't even go near your normative subjective ideas about the 'good'.
You can't both deny the existence of free will, and castigate those whom with you disagree. If you're right, then none of us can be wrong -- certainly no more than a plant or a rock or the moon can be wrong.
- hrjet 12y ago> You can't both deny the existence of free will, and castigate those whom with you disagree. They certainly can; in fact they have no choice in that matter according to themselves.
- sjy 12y agoIt is easy to imagine a computer program that is both deterministic and wrong. Why not a person?
- shard972 12y agoBecause a computer program is only deterministic if you look at it in a snapshot view, a human within the context of a "snapshot" could also be deterministic I suppose. Or the other way to look at it, A computer program changes over it's lifespan and when you look at it from that perspective it is not deterministic.
- JackFr 12y agoWhen one describes a computer program as "wrong" it is within the context of what some other agent wants or expects it to do. As a purely physical process, it can never be wrong or right, it can just be.
- Houshalter 12y agoYou have defined "wrong" in an incredibly strange and useless way. 2+2=5 is "wrong" regardless what agent you are or what universe you exist in.
- ivanca 12y agoThis is a very common logical fallacy. Because the concept of "right" itself was created by society itself thanks to deterministic events, to be used in practical applications to judge and be judged, where that judgement is itself deterministic, so your concept of "wrong" and "right" would have to be a different one that the one used by society in order to say "no of us can be wrong". That can sound confusing so I will put a very simple example: A fireman is on front of a fire. The fire needs to be extinguish even if you think the fire is not to be blame for what it did because after all is only a fire, it didn't do it on purpose, but regardless it needs to be extinguish. The same happens with people, they are judged for what they do, for practical purposes, when they commit a crime, they are just like a fire that needs to be put out. But not with water by with judgement.