3 ms·
I'm not sure where to start. The first diagram of the proof starts with "there exists some experimenter with at least some free will". That's a problem, as it
by danielrm26 12y ago
I'm not sure where to start.
The first diagram of the proof starts with "there exists some experimenter with at least some free will". That's a problem, as it uses the argument's conclusion as one of its premises.
Using a simpler example, it'd be like saying, "To prove that aliens exist, let me show you three simple steps: 1) let's assume aliens exist, 2) ...
The second problem here is that he seems to be trying to illustrate that if things cannot be predicted that we have free will. This is a common fallacy in the free will debate. Randomness is an attack on fatalism, but offers ZERO degree of control to humans, and therefore has no place in the free will debate.
Finally, if you want to see a much better argument, in the other direction, check out my Two Lever Argument Against Free Will that uses 25 lines of Ruby.
http://danielmiessler.com/blog/two-lever-free-will-ruby/ http://danielmiessler.com/blog/two-lever-free-will-ruby/
- pjungwir 12y ago> it uses the argument's conclusion as one of its premises. His theorem doesn't assert free will. It asserts that if experimenters have free will, then particles have free will. So if it's wrong, then it's not for the reason you give.
- danielrm26 12y agoI think he's asserting that if experimenters have free will, then particles do, which means we do as well. This isn't a proof of particles having free will. That's an intermediary step to saying we have it as well, and therefore you can start with a step that says we do.
- jamesaguilar 12y agoYou need to read it again. The person you're replying to has correctly stated what is shown.
- carstimon 12y agoIsn't the conclusion, "all particles have free will"? So, the arguments conclusion is pretty far from its premise. "All numbers are larger than 5" is very far from "some number is larger than 5". And, whether or not you call this property "free will" is irrelevant to the proof itself; see the final paragraph.
- danielrm26 12y agoThe knight's move seems to be the following: 1. Experimenters have free will 2. They're made up of particles 3. Those particles therefore have free will 4. Therefore we have free will (that's why it's called a proof of free will) Item #1 above assumes the conclusion.
- sjy 12y ago> This theorem states "If there exist experimenters with (some) free will, then elementary particles also have (some) free will." How did you pull (4) out of that?
- roywiggins 12y agoRead it again. That's not the argument. The argument is roughly: Either the observer's choice of measurements of the particle is completely determined by prior events, and the observer has no free will, or the observer can at his or her whim pick a way to measure the particle. If the latter, then the particle must be able to, also at whim, pick which spin to be measured at. He never assumes that the observer is made of particles.
- jamesrom 12y ago> The first diagram of the proof starts with "there exists some experimenter with at least some free will". That's a problem, as it uses the argument's conclusion as one of its premises. Did you actually read the proof? The diagram is just a visual guide on how the axioms are used in his argument. There is no point where that statement is given a priori. > The second problem here is that he seems to be trying to illustrate that if things cannot be predicted that we have free will. This is a common fallacy in the free will debate. Speaking of fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman