[FRIAM] alternative response
Marcus Daniels
marcus at snoutfarm.com
Wed Jun 17 11:03:25 EDT 2020
The point is to construct some explanation for how the concept of free will could possibly be meaningful by considering a range of commitments in turn (and then revoking them and trying something else until something works). I can't see there are any commitments that make the idea meaningful. Nonetheless, our legal system includes notions like intent and punishment like they are meaningful, and not just another social apparatus forced on non-believers by believers. Free will is a problem for believers in an omniscient god, because it gives and requires individuals to have the means to sin and the means to avoid sinning. But with that freedom, god is no longer omniscient.
On 6/17/20, 7:34 AM, "Friam on behalf of Jon Zingale" <friam-bounces at redfish.com on behalf of jonzingale at gmail.com> wrote:
The preoccupation with arguing over base ontological commitments reminds me
of the *existential detectives* and their nemesis in the movie *I <3
Huckabees*. Will demanding that the universe is determined, or almost as
random as can be, or simulatable move any other conjectured model forward? I
suspect that it has the effect of putting the discussion in a holding
pattern. In each case, we are making unknown claims as to what the universe
is, or at best wagering as to what we feel the universe will have turned out
to be in some obnoxiously absolute way. Neutered from a motivating
investigation and the development of a model, we may as well exclaim the
names of numbers at one another.
--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
More information about the Friam
mailing list