Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

[Thermal]

Which words confused you?

 

[steenkh]

No its not.

Isn’t it rather strange that you claim that determinism is impossible within the known laws of physics, but you can’t point to where it would go wrong, whereas nobody has as yet accommodated spirits in physics, but that is OK?

 

[Thermal]

Isn’t it rather strange that you claim that determinism is impossible within the known laws of physics,

Not claimed.

but you can’t point to where it would go wrong, whereas nobody has as yet accommodated spirits in physics, but that is OK?

No idea what spirits have to do with anything.

 

[steenkh]

What exactly is making those choices that cannot be influenced by other factors?

 

[Thermal]

Again, no idea what you're talking about. I don't recall using words like 'cannot' and 'impossible' and 'spirits'. Do you have me confused with someone else?

 

[steenkh]

Do you really need reminding:

No it is based on the laws of physics as we currently understand the.

No its not.

So, is the idea that we don’t have a free will based the laws of physics as we currently understand them, or were you replying to something else?

 

[steenkh]

As I said earlier, we’ll not come to agreement here, because there is no clinching argument on either side. To me, the most important argument is that “no free will” can be accommodated within existing physics, whereas “free will” needs new physics. I continued the discussion when you claimed exactly the opposite. If I have misunderstood you, I apologise.

 

[Thermal]

Do you really need reminding:



So, is the idea that we don’t have a free will based the laws of physics as we currently understand them, or were you replying to something else?

Really, truly, honestly, have no idea where you are coming from.

Saying I disagree with Darat's claim in no way shape or form leads to the words you are somewhat violently shoving into my mouth.

I'll bet you could think of a half dozen other meanings for that negation rather than 'cannot', 'impossible", and 'spirits'. Darat's claim is so bald it leaves multiple routes for disagreement on points large and small.

 

[Thermal]

As I said earlier, we’ll not come to agreement here, because there is no clinching argument on either side. To me, the most important argument is that “no free will” can be accommodated within existing physics, whereas “free will” needs new physics. I continued the discussion when you claimed exactly the opposite. If I have misunderstood you, I apologise.

If you could describe the existing physics of decision making, I'd be very interested. No one else has, ever.

 

[acbytesla]

I think it should also be mentioned that there are other valid interpretations than the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics. There is also the Many-Worlds Interpretation which has no “observations”, and no collapse of the wave function.

There's a difference between valid and sound. That someone can come up with a valid arguments for the Many Worlds Interpretation doesn't make it any more valuable than any other unfalsifiable hypothesis pulled out of one's ass.

The same thing is true for String Theory, the Eternal Inflation Theory, the Multiverse Theory, Cosmological Natural Selection Theory and God.
You can't prove or disprove any of them.

 

[Thermal]

“Freest of free will models”. Interesting concept. Influencing and nudging is apparently not going against even this freest of free will. Perhaps you could elucidate.

My point was, by the way, not that influencing and nudging by pheromones and such stuff would be a killer argument, but it certainly shows that what people experience as free will (your argument) cannot be taken granted as advertised.

Reading this again, it seems you are saying that 'free will' is not exercised in a perfect vacuum, but is influenced by other stuff. On that, I totally agree. Experience with almost anything will linger upstairs somewhere, and factor into future decisions without the subject being aware of the influence. Little Albert being a perfect example. But my argument is that free will can override that base impulse to choose in a certain direction. That's what the Libet-esque vetos showed; even when the brains activity was preemptively primed to say 'yea', Libet and the others found his subjects, without runup, saying 'nay'.

 

[steenkh]

The same thing is true for String Theory, the Eternal Inflation Theory, the Multiverse Theory, Cosmological Natural Selection Theory and God.
You can't prove or disprove any of them.

But you can prove the Copenhagen Interpretation?

 

[arthwollipot]

Oh yes they do.

Oooohhhh no they don't.

 

[arthwollipot]

Physics quite happily breaks its own rules when it feels like it.

Physics doesn't have rules. We have rules that we apply to physical observances. We have seen that the way matter and energy behave is consistent and mostly predictable. When matter and energy do something we don't expect, we modify our model to account for it. We don't just make ◊◊◊◊ up, we observe, theorise, and test, and by doing this we produce a model that best approximates what we observe.

 

[acbytesla]

But you can prove the Copenhagen Interpretation?

I'm not convinced you can. This is quantum mechanics which while it can be predictable, it is not deterministic.

 

[acbytesla]

Physics doesn't have rules. We have rules that we apply to physical observances. We have seen that the way matter and energy behave is consistent and mostly predictable. When matter and energy do something we don't expect, we modify our model to account for it. We don't just make ◊◊◊◊ up, we observe, theorise, and test, and by doing this we produce a model that best approximates what we observe.

Exactly, the rules/laws of physics are descriptive, not prescriptive.

 

[Thermal]

Physics doesn't have rules. We have rules that we apply to physical observances. We have seen that the way matter and energy behave is consistent and mostly predictable. When matter and energy do something we don't expect, we modify our model to account for it. We don't just make ◊◊◊◊ up, we observe, theorise, and test, and by doing this we produce a model that best approximates what we observe.

Ya that's what I said, but I did so more concisely. Tell the no-free-willers who have been harping on those very rules that they say we must invariably obey all about it, Squidlly.

 

[Olmstead]

Reading this again, it seems you are saying that 'free will' is not exercised in a perfect vacuum, but is influenced by other stuff. On that, I totally agree. Experience with almost anything will linger upstairs somewhere, and factor into future decisions without the subject being aware of the influence. Little Albert being a perfect example. But my argument is that free will can override that base impulse to choose in a certain direction. That's what the Libet-esque vetos showed; even when the brains activity was preemptively primed to say 'yea', Libet and the others found his subjects, without runup, saying 'nay'.

Let's put Libet aside for a moment, because I want to see if we're on the same page about something:

A person throws a rock through a window today. Assuming that everything leading up to that moment would have been completely the same, could he have willed himself not to throw a rock through the window?

 

[Thermal]

Let's put Libet aside for a moment, because I want to see if we're on the same page about something:

A person throws a rock through a window today. Assuming that everything leading up to that moment would have been completely the same, could he have willed himself not to throw a rock through the window?

Seems a bit of a self-fulfilling premise? "If everything was identical, would it be identical?"

I'd assume the subject's mood and motivation and feelings in that moment would be the same, and he would still throw the rock, yes. The very premise of saying everything was the same leading up kind of requires that. Asking "could he have done something different" actually demands that things were not identical up to rock throwing o'clock.

Assuming this is what you are driving at: no, I'm not saying free will would exist in a vacuum. A subject's will is formed by his experiences, genes, mood that day, etc. In order to make a different choice, something would have had to be different in the run-up that affected his decision making process.

 

[theprestige]

Let's put Libet aside for a moment, because I want to see if we're on the same page about something:

A person throws a rock through a window today. Assuming that everything leading up to that moment would have been completely the same, could he have willed himself not to throw a rock through the window?

The question of willpower is ultimately a question of an arbitrary electrochemical state in a human brain, and its reaction to stimuli. If the circumstances leading from the big bang to the current electrochemical state are predetermined, and the circumstances leading from the big bang to the stimuli are predetermined, then the state and its response will be predetermined.

But surely if we had free will, we'd choose not to have this same exact conversation every year with the same exact conclusion every time.