-
Posts
-
The free will argument is a complex one. Most people may say ” you can do XYZ so you have free will” but technically if you state we are all products of DNA, nurture/ nature and other experiences then we are all essentially pre programmed. This article is an interesting one
Free will requires that the brain has some special property that operates outside the normal laws of physics. This has never been observed, there is no refutation of this in the magazine article you linked to.
I am open minded to the free will argument hence I posted the article, but why do you keep mentioning ” the normal laws of physics ” when we have such limited understanding of them? You are quoting our 2017 knowledge of physics as the holy grail which generation will look at in years to come in the same way we laugh at people who thought the earth was flat with the sun orbiting it burning witches if they floated in the river for being the devil.
1 member liked this post.
parallel universes
No evidence that they exist. You have to prove that they exist before you can create laws about how they function.
time
Time is well understood. In which situation do we not know how time will operate?
universe origins
The laws mostly likely operated differnetly when the universe started, if it started. Otherwise it it has always existed and the laws are constant.
Is there a creator
The existance, or not of a creator doesn’t change the nature of the laws the did or did not set.
life after death
This is the same as the free will question.
so if a 5 year old using laws to explain how a house is built with 1 % of knowledge states he will use his laws to explain how he intends to build a high rise flat in Glasgow, you would take that as absolute and verified. Science is the 5 year old with its lack of knowledge in so many areas so why use those laws as a template to base your argument on.
Knowing if a given planet has water or not doesn’t change our understanding how planets interact with each other, or the properties of water.
(Unless we discover water in a place that it shouldn’t be able to exist.)
I am open minded to the free will argument hence I posted the article, but why do you keep mentioning ” the normal laws of physics ” when we have such limited understanding of them? You are quoting our 2017 knowledge of physics as the holy grail which generation will look at in years to come in the same way we laugh at people who thought the earth was flat with the sun orbiting it burning witches if they floated in the river for being the devil.
We have a reasonably good understanding of the components that the brain is made of (neurons, neurotransmitters, hormones, ect), and how they interact with each other.
1 member liked this post.
so the deficiencies in the ” standard model” of physics, such as the origin of mass, neutrino oscillations , dark matter and dark energy are conveniently ignored then? Another problem lies within the mathematical framework of the whole thing which is inconsistent with general relativity to the point that one or both theories break down under certain conditions.. big bang /black holes etc
You seem to ignore all the flaws in physics , but then use the limited things we know as a guide for everything else when it’s proven to be a flawed field saturated in ignorance and lack of understanding for even the most basic things.
-
This reply was modified 7 years ago by
TheNorfolkMafia.
2 members liked this post.
Fascinating stuff. What started out as a debate about Religion and penises, has “evolved” into a debate on Physics. Quite impressive really. If anyone is in any doubt regarding Evolution, your “proof” is here; Just look how one thing can, over time, with slight modifications, evolve into something completely different.
Unfortunately, I can not engage in debates on Physics. But I would like to say something on free will. There is one key word that springs to my mind which is … Improvisation.
A Jazz musician, will exercise his free will to play his Jazz very differently every time. A jazz saxophonist will play his solo differently every time, very differently too. If you gave a Jazz musician, let’s say a Saxophonist, a backing track, which is static, unchanging, and allocate him a 16 bar section to play a solo, he will exercise his free will, with the art of improvisation and produce a different solo every time. Be it twice or 1000 times, each solo will be markedly different.
I’m not sure how relevant this point is, maybe you can Physicists can inform me on that one, but……..
If that isn’t free will, then what is it? So, to conclude, I believe, in this context at least, free will DOES exist.
Dracs belief is the jazz musicians brain is already pre programmed with DNA allowing it to adjust with experiences in a pre destined manner … like a robot basically. Although it sounds ludicrous, there is an element of truth to it
1 member liked this post.
Is that correct Drac?
Of course, improvisation, isn’t just about Jazz.
But isn’t improvisation, or, making things up as we go along, a form of free will?
Is that correct Drac? Of course, improvisation, isn’t just about Jazz. But isn’t improvisation, or, making things up as we go along, a form of free will?
The argument is that even the improvisation is pre determined by the makeup of the brain
Hmmm, I’m not so sure about that.
Isn’t that, or this, MetaPhysics?
-
This reply was modified 7 years ago by
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!