Quote:
Originally posted by Alchoholic Hero
Agreed. Again, though, I would have a tendency to at least connect the two. Barring any unforseen circumstances, if there was a non-determinalistic environment, then wouldn't the actions taken by the subjects in said environment be of their own volition? And ergo, at least partially, free will?
The number that you score cannont be accurately predicted at all times, though the framework of the possibilities can. The difference, however, is that in order for the die to actually make this action possible, it must be acted upon by an outside force. Due to that catalyst, which is the only way that it can make an entrance into that framework, the die cannot be said to have free will as such; only the ability to add a set amount of choices to a certain action.
|
Ok, this occured to me, but I preffered to keep it simple, I was actually only using a dice as an analogy, but how about the decay of a radioactive atom. It is spontaneous (without cause) and unpredictible. Does it have free will?
Quote:
Heh. Jumbo jet.
I'm sorry. I was pointing out the fact that the theory of evolution, the laws of thermodynamics and gravity, et. al. are not airtight, mostly due to the fact that they were based on a foundation of hypotheses that may or may not have been proven true under all situations. Do they allow for incredible leaps forward in technology and the sciences? Of course. Are they empirically more sound that any type of religious dogma? Perhaps...but only for the physicality of the medium of belief.
This was my opinion, and perhaps I should have left it out of a debate on free will, but I felt like saying it. It relies on this: that your average person (mean/median/etc.) who believes in evolution has about the same amount of knowledge of how that came about as the basic bible-thumper has of Genesis (both of the stories). People tend to rely on "noted scholars", or "eminent physicists" on subjects of incredible importance, when the only point of contact that they have with this physicist is through a newsfilter. This reminded me of the general Catholic spiritual view in which I was raised. Hence, my point (however cluttered and winding). Take it with a grain or so of salt, because it has very little to do with free will.
|
Believing in the theory of evolution by natural selection because "my biology teacher said so" is indeed as ignorant as I believe in Creation becasue "my religeon teacher said so". I agree with that. The fact is that there is hard evidence to back up one of these "theories".
I make a point of never researching only one side of an argument. I have read a few Creation "Science" books, despite scornful looks and "what are you reading that crap for?". I'm reading this crap to make certain that it is indeed crap (Which of course it was).
Quote:
|
I never intended to use quantum mechanics to explain that scientists "have no clue;" though I do admit to being less knowledgeable than I would like to be in the quantum field. I understand that the randomness of the quantum particles are random to the extent of said probabalistic framework, and I based my earlier statement on the hypothesis (purely in theory, mind you)that the brain is built to enhance that probabalistic theory ad infinitum, and this may be an actual empiric loophole for the existance of free will.
|
Again i would agree with you in part. I believe that the brain does indeed harness the powers of quantum physics to aid in its operation, but I fail to see how this would result in free will. Would a quantum computer also have "free will"?