rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/04/85)
> Ok, you want an example. > Hard Determinism is fabricated. > Why don't you read some physics? > You can't psychoanalyze a particle accelerator. > Wishful thinking, indeed! [WILLIAMS] Indeed was it thinking at all? What ARE you talking about? Have you been psychically communicating with Ellis? :-? > I have tried, as well as a lot of other people, to present > the underlying physics. We have tried quantum mechanics, metastability, > subjectivity, and at least ten other reasons why free will should not > be outlawed. The burden of understanding now rests with you. Oh. ("Outlawed"? You mean like breaking the law of gravity" ...) > Given that free will has two alternatives: > 1) It exists. > 2) It does not exist. > If we say that it exists when it really doesn't, we will never know the > difference. > If we say that it doesn't exist when it really does, we will be forcing > it out of existence through our own free will. The result is a set of > narrow minds. OR (the less presumptive mode of reasoning)... If we say that it exists when it really doesn't, we are making a faulty assumption and thus our conclusions resulting from that assumption. If we say that it doesn't exist when it really does (which we haven't done), then we will be exercising free will. What's wrong with that? I though you liked that... > Rich, can *you* say narrow minded? Not only can I say it, I can see it as well. > I suppose so, you said just about everything else. No, I never covered the topics of human excretory functions and such as well as you did in your valiant early days on the net. > Open up, you might learn something. When are you going to say something worth learning? As in "having some substantive level of information"? -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr