williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (04/09/85)
Allow me to explain something to you. We live in a continuous universe, meaning that there are always transitions. This means that there is a continuous function that describes the universe. You imply that " free will " is a state. You are arguing whether humans are in a state that is deterministic, or in a state that is " free willed ". The answer, of course, is neither. States are a figment of your imagination which help you carry out the simulation of reality that exists in your mind. So, either may be valid to your own particular perspective, whereas it is not applicable to discussion of reality. The simpler something is, the more deterministic. The more complex, the more that process can be said to display free will. What Rich was basically doing was relating relativity to thought, which happens to be valid, but he should also consider the limitations of our perceptual resolution, and recognize that as observers, we indeed observe " free will ", that which is impossible for us to simulate adequately. Einstein's theories were based on probability. We can state something to be consistent, but there is no proof beyond demonstration, and in demonstration, the probability approaches certainty without limit. So, it is true that our lives follow a precise continuous function, but we are only able to transcend time to a limited degree of resolution, and thus unable to know the universe in detail. Indeed, one of the driving concepts of the universe is the concept of free will, and the continuous function of the universe has included it in it's preordained path. Free will can be said to be a tool of the observer, and the observer's role in the universe appears to be an important one. John Williams
geoff@boulder.UUCP (Geoffrey M. Clemm) (04/10/85)
In article <decwrl.1558> williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) writes: > Allow me to explain something to you. There has been an increasing amount of pomposity in this newsgroup. If one has something significant to say, it should be able to stand on its intellectual merit without this kind of nonsense. > We live in a continuous universe, meaning that there are >always transitions. This means that there is a continuous >function that describes the universe. In many cases, the appropriate model is not a continuous one. A continuous model is just a model, like any other, and has no "special connection" to reality. In particular, the specific concept of free will that interests many of us is not modeled best by a continuous model. (If you are about to respond that "this is false because YOUR concept concept of free will is different from this", please reread Laura's well argued posting about "personal dictionaries" first. > The simpler something is, the more deterministic. The >more complex, the more that process can be said to display free >will. This is an analysis of "free will" that has appeared frequently during the last month. Unfortunately this analysis applies to a concept that does not have all the properties that many of us would wish to capture with the term "free will" (such as a determiner for "responsibility").