5 ms·
it would just be an illusion? no, not necessarily. consider that the deterministic particles in the universe could be receptors and the actual thing that has fr
by fingerprint 12y ago
it would just be an illusion? no, not necessarily. consider that the deterministic particles in the universe could be receptors and the actual thing that has free will exists outside the universe and sends signals to those receptors in some way. this is where the concept of souls would come in, and that would make determinism and free will compatible.
- thaumasiotes 12y agoIn your model, the "deterministic" particles do not actually behave in a deterministic way, unless the thing sending them signals sends those signals in a fully deterministic way. But in that case, there's no reason to bother including it in the model.
- passwordreset 12y agoUm, no. The model suggests that particles would be entirely predictable unless acted upon by an outside force. It doesn't matter at all if "signal-sending things" are deterministic or not. This "free will" wouldn't exist in the physical world, it's metaphysics. If the pool table were the universe, the course of the billiard balls is predetermined until the shooter shoots. No shooter, no change. If the solar system were the universe, the planets would be deterministic until the aliens blow up Jupiter. Aliens don't exist? Then the planets would be entirely deterministic for the full course of their lifetime. If the universe were the universe, all particles are completely deterministic, unless spooky ghosts make magic. Whether the spooky ghosts are real is a question of gullibility.
- thaumasiotes 12y agoAs I attempt to interpret my parent comment using the framework you provide, I get this: - The particles making up the universe are deterministic, unless free will is exercised. This would amount to a concession that while free will is possible, it has never been used. I don't think that's what parent had in mind.