flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/10/85)
In <2558@decwrl.UUCP> williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams) writes: > Furthermore, there is no > probability shown that the popular definitions should change, > meaning that you are participating in an exercise in futility. > And now for the clincher! By defining words very rigidly, > words and phrases like free will, you are restricting the degree > of freedom of thought and communicatable concepts [...] Popular definitions almost certainly will change; many words have had their popular interpretations changed slowly over time. (Of course, that doesn't mean people will adopt clearer, more realistic definitions of free will, but there's hope.) I disagree also with the assertion that defining words rigidly restricts communication -- it enhances communication, by improving specificity. Instead of all the confusion about "free will", we should define that term narrowly (in terms, I suggest, of rational choice), and use "probability", "acausality", "unpredictability", etc. when we mean those things. > So the universe will chug away on it's laws of physics in a > very meticulous and rigorous manner, but we will never know the > initial state. This is where the " if you knew enough " argument > falls headlong into the dirt. > Thus, free will can be attributed as an artifact of the > unknown origin. You are confusing "free will" with "unpredictability". That's a common mistake, but still a mistake. Someone long ago (probably a religious official) figured (wrongly) that freedom was incompatible with predictability, and we've been stuck with the association ever since.