Re: Free Will
- On Aug 30, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> Are you saying that Marx's approach to tradition is better thanIt would mean free will should be replaced by a new theory that
>> Popper's? Are you saying that we should aim for massive change,
>> than piecemeal gradual change?
> No, I just thought that quote from Marx was in keeping with what I
> understood as your criticism of philosophy that simply follows logic
> wherever it leads, rather than seeking to improve the world. Suppose
> free will really did turn out to be nonsensical on "abstract logical
> grounds", and suppose further that this idea would have a negative
> impact on those who believed it. Does that mean the idea should be
> suppressed, or even worse, that it isn't true?
A) denies free will exists
B) solves the problems that free will currently addresses
C) hopefully also solves more problems, or the existing ones with
This would be a theory that is truer and also more helpful.
If you replace free will with only (A) then you leave a void which
people will fill in, but starting from scratch. When filling it in
they will make mistakes. So we can expect the result to be a new
theory trying to do (B) that contains mistakes and has less history of
refinement behind it.
-- Elliot Temple
> > Hi Charles, many thanks for this and the previous reply. I wonderHi
> > whether in that more fundamental underlying structure, causality,
> > dimensionality and physicality could in primordial forms, be bound up as
> > representing properties of the same soup?
> There was an article on this ... the article doesn't necessarily describe
> the *correct* approach to discovering the fundamental nature of reality, of
> course, but it gives an idea of how people are thinking about this sort of
> thing at the moment.
I guess i missed a chapter somewhere!
What is ...
"the *correct* approach to discovering the fundamental nature of reality" ?
assuming that this can be summed up in a USEGROUP post ... ;-)
Moreover, would it be possible to provide a simple definition for
- primordial forms
- properties (intrinsic, extrinsic, natural, etc)
- soup (not Heinz please !)
in the hopes of being able to follow the discussion and hopefully recognize a "correct"
from a "pseudo" or "erroneous" approach to knowing "fundamental reality". Is this project
even a possibility in fact ?
Being rather a member of the school of metaphysics than physics, i have some ideas of
what's being referred to. However, to my knowledge there is no single definition of any of
the notions listed above in physics or in philosophy !
furthermore, maintains the investments by universities in hiring philosophers is the fact
that there is no clear and certain sense of "fundamental reality" to be purchased on a
discount basis. Is this what we hope from CERN and its big brothers ?
Ok. but those instruments only confirm parts of theories, which are themselves NOT
science but instruments of scientific practice !
All in all, i'm surprised to see physicists talking like this given that the fundamental nature
of reality is a daily debate subject implicit in most philosophically oriented papers
appearing in the ARXIV.ORG !
I think that Charles remark at the end sums up the situation best - "at the moment" - all
this is an OPEN question and not an existing FACT.