[net.philosophy] Continuity and Free Will

geoff@boulder.UUCP (Geoffrey M. Clemm) (04/14/85)

In article <decwrl.1643> williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) writes:

>	The continuous model of the universe is the most relevent 
>one. Physics are unable to resolve any sort of bottom most 
>primitive particle. For all intents and purposes, the continuous 
>model of the universe is the most accurate.

Consider the question "Is the world flat ?".  This is a question
most appropriately modeled in a binary model (i.e. "flat" or "not-flat").
Since the problem is not that the world falls into a fuzzy area between
flat and non-flat, but rather that we want to decide between two clearly
separated possibilities (flat or spherical).  In the case of a more
difficult question such as "Do we have free will ?", where it is difficult
to even come up with an analysis of "free will" that is generally acceptable,
the additional complexity of a continuous model serves to confuse the
issue even further.  Once we have answered the question "Do we have free
will at all (i.e. 0 or non-zero amount of free will), assuming the answer
is non-zero, it then is relevant to determine "how much" we have.

>	If you are implying that there is an essentially random 
>element to the universe, that is a model that Einstein himself 
>refuted.
>	" I find it very difficult to believe that God plays
>dice " - Einstein ( loosely quoted )
>

This quotation is Einstein's rejection (certainly not a refutation) of
the quantum mechanical model that is usually understood as introducing
an essentially random element to the universe.  Since quantum mechanics
is generally accepted, this quote is usually used in physics classes
to indicate that even Einstein had trouble with the idea, so the student
shouldn't feel concerned about being initially uncomfortable with it.