jim@ism780b.UUCP (07/25/84)
#R:houca:-44300:ism780b:27500016:000:3348 ism780b!jim Jul 17 23:53:00 1984 > First of all if you believe in God you probably think all your actions are > predetermined anyway by Him. Case closed if you're religious. No, most religions I know of allow you to act freely and then be damned for doing it wrong, mostly for not kissing G*d's a*s. Once you learn this about Him, you can apply it to your teachers, employers, police, Presidents, etc. > According to Maxwell ( I think), if you know the location and motion of > every particle in a system at one moment then you know the entire history > and future of that system, if you're sophisticated enough. I agree, a person with such knowledge and sophistication living in a Maxwellian universe would have no free will. Do you know such a person? You need to define free will, and I'm sure you haven't gotten around to doing that. By my definition, I have free will if neither you nor I can predict my actions. > Now, if you're > a believer in the big bang theory you believe that all the particles in the > universe where in one place at one time. After the explosion, then, if you > knew *everything* about those particles you could certainly predict where > the galaxys would form, how long it would take, and what the galaxy would > look like (ie. where the stars are). Taking it one step further you would > be able to predict where the planets would form and their size, etc. This presumes deterministic physical laws, and my current understanding of quantum mechanics is that it just doesn't work that way. That damn particle can go one way or the other, and there is simply no preference. One will happen and one won't (actually, I prefer the model where both happen, giving you multiple universes. No dice rolling.) > This is where the problem occurs. Agreeing that you could figure all that > out, why wouldn't you assume that you could also predict the possibility > and form of the *life* that might arise on that planet? You must remember > all through this that you knew *everything* about the particles at one > moment and you know everything about physics, chemistry, biology, etc. > If the universe follows the laws of physics, which we assume it does, > we should know what is going to happen given this information. See above. > Taking it a step further, we will know everything about every organism, most > importantly, the *exact* function of its brain. We would know more about > that creature than it would know about itself. Continuing with the logic, > we would know what it would do in any situation, where it would go, even > when it would meet its mate and have children. etc. > The best argument against this theory is that there exists 'free will' in > life forms. WHERE DID IT COME FROM? Did the physics of the universe form > free will? I don't think so. Uh, I thought you were proving that there is no free will. Now you say that the best argument against the demonstration is that there exists 'free will' (is that different from the kind without quotes?). We do not know there is free will in life forms, only that there is behavior which we judge to be the result of free will or not. You have to decide what you *mean* by free will before you can reasonably argue whether or not we have it. > Ya know, we never did come up with any answers... That would take all the fun out of it! -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)