Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Cohesive Unity
Message-ID: <1509@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 18:59:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1509
Posted: Thu Aug 15 18:59:50 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 05:07:00 EDT
References: <1386@pyuxd.UUCP> <1100@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1431@pyuxd.UUCP> <1080@ames.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 75

> 	I would agree that quantum uncertainty is not a very powerful
> argument for free will, but that just makes your insistance on pure
> determinism that much harder to understand. Do you have some "wishful-
> thinking" attachment to pure determinism, or have you simply failed to
> realize that allowing a random factor in physical events does not equate
> to allowing free will, or any kind of will for that matter? The two issues
> are slightly related, but only slightly.

If at all.  I don't know where you get my "insistance on pure determinism".
What I insist on is a little rigorous thinking, not "well this isn't true,
this bit about determinism, so surely MY idea that I like so much must
be true".  Perhaps you are wishfully thinking that I am wishfully thinking?

> 	I'll concede this much: it's possible your juggernaut approach
> to arguing free will, your way of crushing the life out of anything presented
> as being pro-free-will on a sentence-by-sentence basis, has simply obscured
> your real opinion on this side-issue of QM. If so, perhaps you should
> clarify: do you *really* equate the idea of genuinely random events with
> "submicroscopic giraffes", or is it just the supernatural implications
> you see in any notion of "free will" that you want to ridicule? If you
> think QM is off the topic, fine; but say so. If you're really disputing
> the validity of QM, though, how about some reasons?

I'm really sorry.  The notion of submicroscopic giraffes was NOT (repeat, NOT)
intended to be some sort of analogy to QM.  Apparently some people seem to
have gotten that impression.  It was just a fun fabricated notion like Ubizmo
(uhoh, now I've incurred his wrath!! :-) .  The point was that anybody could
take any notion and proclaim that "there is no evidence against this
possibility".  When I hear people scream this in support of some notion that
depicts the world the way they like to think of it regardless of reality,
I cry a "wishful thinking" foul.  And rightfully so.  This holds for the
notion that "well, there's INdeterminism at the quantum level, therefore
we have free will".

>>Yes, indeed, plenty of
>>human behavior APPEARS to be random, Charley.  Plenty of lots of things
>>APPEAR to be random, but on closer examination, we find something holding
>>it together.  A bit more complex than some people who prefer one-sentence
>>explanations for things ("God did it!"), but perhaps they're just too lazy
>>to examine things in that dreaded "scientific" way.  One look at the universe,
>>one careful look, will show you how many "random" things really have very
>>simple physical processes at their root, complexly interweaving with each
>>other to give the illusion of "randomness" to the casual (or causal---oh,
>>I used that one before, sorry) observer.

> 	20th century science does *not* come down on the
> side of strict determinism. Quantum effects are not just things that
> appear to be governed by statistical processes because of the inadequacy
> of our ability to make fine enough measurements; they *are*, *fundamentally*,
> statistical in nature, with a genuine random element. There *is* no cause
> for some specific atom of U-235 to decay at the precise moment that it
> did; it was random, uncaused.

Within what frame?  I mean, how are you sure (if not by faith) that factors
in dimensions/whatever unobservable (currently) by us are not causing the
cause?   But more importantly, in what way does this relate to what I
describe above, the way some people simply don't want to get down to the
root of what's going on and say "Oh, the human brain (ENVISION MRS.
CONCLUSION OR SOME OTHER PYTHONITE IN DRAG HERE), well, that's got so
many complex factors controlling what goes on, it must be random."  "Or
free will."  "Or God."  "Oh, intercourse the photino!"

> 	Yes, there is still a minority view in physics that holds to
> a strict causality. But if your intent is to support that position,
> you should really at least take the trouble to address yourself a bit
> to the issues, which are physical, not philosophical. This arrogant
> insistance that pure determinism speaks with the Voice of Science is
> simply wrong.

To quote Michael Ellis, THIS IS RELIGION (actually to quote John Lydon,
whom Ellis failed to credit, surprisingly).  "Simply wrong"?  Hmm, isn't
that awful religious sounding to you?
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr