If you seriously believe that fundamental forces leave no space for free will, then it’s impossible for us to genuinely make choices as moral beings
kinda weird considering the preceding 5000 words. Feyman said - and I’m paraphrasing - that one cannot claim to understand something if they cannot explain it in plain language terms to a layperson
also there’s this:
how can order emerge out of this chaos? As explained by Denis Noble and Raymond Noble in their paper for the journal Chaos in 2018, molecular randomness gives cellular mechanisms the option of choosing the outcomes they want
Er... begging the question much? After 79 paragraphs of molecular mechanics of chemistry of cells we just label things with conclusions? Is that how debates work when you are emeritus?
For the sake of argument, let’s [...] take the deterministic view seriously. It implies that the words of every book ever written – the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Das Kapital, the Harry Potter series – were encoded into the initial state of the Universe, whatever that was. No logical thinking by a human played a causal role in the specific words of these books: they were determined by physics alone
Wow. Clearly applied maths guy cuz that fails some basic analysis in concrete math
To muse in the parlance of our times: por que nos dos? Have you considered that determinism and logical thinking are not mutually exclusive? Or is that a deliberate false dichotomy?
stick with applied math my man. Debate is not your thing
to be clear: I have no horse in this race. I’m entirely agnostic about the free will/no free will debate
free will => pass the beer nuts; no free will => also pass the beer nuts
having said that it’s not only physicists who lay claim there’s no free will; there are also biologists like Sapolsky (see related link lecture series)
That’s a LOT of $10 words to get to
kinda weird considering the preceding 5000 words. Feyman said - and I’m paraphrasing - that one cannot claim to understand something if they cannot explain it in plain language terms to a layperson
also there’s this:
Er... begging the question much? After 79 paragraphs of molecular mechanics of chemistry of cells we just label things with conclusions? Is that how debates work when you are emeritus?
Wow. Clearly applied maths guy cuz that fails some basic analysis in concrete math
To muse in the parlance of our times: por que nos dos? Have you considered that determinism and logical thinking are not mutually exclusive? Or is that a deliberate false dichotomy?
stick with applied math my man. Debate is not your thing
to be clear: I have no horse in this race. I’m entirely agnostic about the free will/no free will debate
free will => pass the beer nuts; no free will => also pass the beer nuts
having said that it’s not only physicists who lay claim there’s no free will; there are also biologists like Sapolsky (see related link lecture series)