That’s enough for me to say “yes, we have free will”.

People like believing in determinism. Makes the world safe and all of their decisions not their problem.

Thing is: While I think that “a lot of” life isn’t our UNFETTERED choice, _some of it_ is.

That’s enough for me to say “yes, we have free will”.

Some? We don’t. Maybe even most. But 100% no free will? Sorry. Insufficient evidence.

=

*IF*
But we don’t.

Even _if_ determinism is true, we *can’t* go at the speed of light. That’s a fiction. Your premise is fictional. It is not factual.

==

Yes they can. Question: What prompted the choice-before-the-conscious awareness of the choice?

Which computer can predict what I’ll be thinking next Thursday? Yesterday at 3pm?

None.

WHEN we have the technology to match the theory, I’ll buy it. THEN we can develop court systems that are NO FREE WILL judicial systems.

Right now, a no-free-will argument is too dangerous to be practical.

=

You’re living in a fantasy land Naveed. You believe it’s scientific but it’s not. Get pragmatic.

So full of “If”‘s and thought experiments and fantasies.

It’s a resurrection of Calvinism in a novel form.

==

I have it. You want to say I don’t? Define it. You want to believe you don’t have it? Go ahead.

==

I’m not denying the relativity of time. I’m denying the deterministic assumption.

Also, determinism was wrecked in the late 20s/30s quantum physics.

It’s over. Determinism lost.

==

The relativity of time solidifies determinism?

You expect me to travel to impossible speeds to come to this conclusion, speeds that would kill any experimental procedure from ever being possible to agree with you?

Sorry. Science fiction. Good for making the math work and function but as factual basis for reality? Sorry. Even if true, it’s useless information.

==

Set in stone.
How can you set something in stone and then cry butterfly effect?

Chaotic systems, complexity theory: Ever hear of those?

“We’re only experiencing it play out.”

Dude, quantum physics can’t even handle few-bodied systems properly and you’re placing the weight of your decision-making as pre-determined and out of your hands?

QM is good for what it’s good for. QM makes for terrible chemistry: that’s why we have chemistry. QM makes for terrible biology: that’s why we have biology.

You want to skip past everything and go straight to the math, then generalize upon the rest of reality based on that?

You apparently don’t seem to realize JUST HOW MANY GAPS their are at present and will be for a very long time to come.

I envy your faith. I’m a practical man.

==

We *do* know QM. It’s VERY WELL STUDIED and very practical. Don’t let the Science promoters get you hooked into the “ooh it’s spooky” stuff.

It’s not spooky at all. It’s a very practical, pragmatic system and very functional.

Determinism is God-under-another-name. Sorry. You can have your deterministic Universe. Einstein wanted it: He didn’t get it.

Einstein lost that battle. You gotta go to the late 1920s and beyond to get up to speed. It’s not spooky.

==

Ok on that level: it’s hard to be what I’d call “unfettered” – unrestrained action without societal consequence.

Thing is: You CAN show up to your job interview naked.

Nudist colony they’d expect it.

But at the local sub shop they’d probably call the cops.

==

You’re behind on the science and fixated on God. I never talked about God except to compare your belief in a deterministic 19th century universe to equivalent to a bible thumper faith-only true believer.

Feynman was awesome but he played up the spookiness for effect. A lot of them do.

I’m friends with a number of people who work in or are going to school for QM, including George Ellis, the Theoretical physicist who called this conference a month ago or so:

==

That’s George Ellis with his hand on his head. That’s what my hand is doing right now on my head trying to get a simple point across to you Naveed. Check out the conference titles – the stuff they talked about in it.

In short, get with the program and away from the science promoters.

You gotta get past Feynman and get to 2016 here.

==

Naveed, you’ve decided and you’re not budging from your decision. That’s fine.

I was a determinist for a time ’til I realized I had my head in the clouds and had to face here-and-now.

Mapping something on paper does not make it so.

Being able to predict SOME things doesn’t mean being able to predict ALL things.

If it brings you comfort to believe in determinism, go ahead, Naveed.

But your arguments are stale and unconvincing. I’m sorry.

==

my position is similar. I don’t honestly know if it’s ‘free’ or not but since there’s no way to predict my thought next tuesday afternoon, no matter HOW MANY COMPUTERS we throw at my brain and life, it might as well be free will.

Our legal system depends on it and it’s practical.

Belief in no-free-will is impractical. Potentially dangerous.

I go with “free to choose”. When I see a list of options, I try to find the one they don’t offer.

Keeps me feeling free enough. A little contrarian.

Works for me. I encourage a little anarchy in everybody.

==

I already know I can’t convince the convinced Naveed. Your position is fixed. As you’re likely a good person with good intentions, I don’t have a problem with it.

BUT: I have known people who have the same position as you. Same justifications – from the same books and speakers, scientists and philosophers.

It justifies their bad behavior.

Often very bad behavior.

It’s impractical. Even I believed it, I’d keep it to myself unless I had a good reason to promote it.

Promoting no free will, if nothing else, is socially irresponsible imo.

Is that an argument against it on a purely logical basis? No.

But again, the dangers of no-free-will are the same as the dangers of a Roman Catholic going to the confessional for forgiveness, repeating the offense, going to the confessional again, repeating the offence:

No accountability. Bad stuff. Just bad.

==

I’m familiar with a single guy who is doing most of the public talking – David Eagleman – a VERY popular and prolific author on the subject.

Seen his videos. Have friends that are devotees of his stuff.

Also seen competition. Eagleman’s voice is usually the only person people mean when they talk about Neurolaw though, unless they’re actually in Neurolaw or are concerned that maybe the popular guy could be going down the wrong path.

==

“We cannot hide the evidence in order to feel comfortable, “

I’m not hiding evidence here. You are.

You’re willing to overlook “the world today” to promote a future world that may never arrive.

I have my eyes wide open. You’re living in future Utopias. They’re nice places and I hope you’re right. But public policy adopted too soon based on these ideas will fail miserably. Too soon. Dream as you wish to dream, but it’s a dream right now.

==

Sir Thomas More – lots of people believed the Utopia was ‘right at hand’, all full of “if only”s. Did they help build a better tomorrow? Some? Likely. But Utopian dreams followed irresponsibly without proper recognition of the fragility of these perfected dreams fail. No evidence that a Utopia will succeed just because people believe a few great motivational speakers speaking convincingly about potential futures.

==

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


8 − four =

Leave a Reply