Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 24: Line 24:  
::It's up for debate in physics. Before quantum mechanics, physicists claimed that it would be possible, in principal, if you knew all the parameters of every particle in the universe and had enough processing power, to calculate and predict the future - therefore no free will. However, since the advent of quantum mechanics, we now know that we can't know all the parameters of even one particle let alone all of them. Now, of course, our ignorance doesn't necessarily mean that these particles don't have a determined future. But most physicists now believe that the probability in quantum mechanics means that the universe is not deterministic even in principal and so the door remains open for free will as a fundamental aspect of the universe. But as I said, it's still debated. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 14:33, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
 
::It's up for debate in physics. Before quantum mechanics, physicists claimed that it would be possible, in principal, if you knew all the parameters of every particle in the universe and had enough processing power, to calculate and predict the future - therefore no free will. However, since the advent of quantum mechanics, we now know that we can't know all the parameters of even one particle let alone all of them. Now, of course, our ignorance doesn't necessarily mean that these particles don't have a determined future. But most physicists now believe that the probability in quantum mechanics means that the universe is not deterministic even in principal and so the door remains open for free will as a fundamental aspect of the universe. But as I said, it's still debated. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 14:33, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
 
::: Agreed ... but I don't understand why the potential existence of ''random'' events implies that people have ''free will.''  If a choice I make is prompted by some random quantum event, it's not ''free'' -- it's partly random, and partly determined, but certainly no ''choice.''  For me to freely ''choose'' something, there must be something ''more'' than randomness and determinism ... there must be some force ... call it a ''soul'' ... that is at least somewhat free of physical causation and randomness, and ''chooses'' things ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
 
::: Agreed ... but I don't understand why the potential existence of ''random'' events implies that people have ''free will.''  If a choice I make is prompted by some random quantum event, it's not ''free'' -- it's partly random, and partly determined, but certainly no ''choice.''  For me to freely ''choose'' something, there must be something ''more'' than randomness and determinism ... there must be some force ... call it a ''soul'' ... that is at least somewhat free of physical causation and randomness, and ''chooses'' things ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
::::This is a controversial topic. However, there are plenty of examples where science attempts to explain how quantum events are used by the brain or consciousness to make choices. This is different to simple randomness. As you say, randomness doesn't imply free will - it simply implies ignorance of measuring techniques. But ideas such as the Quantum Mind, while not a fully formed theory, is an example of how science attempts to classify free will as a natural phenomenon without the need for the supernatural or God. Some theologians have also postulated that natural free will must exist because God would design a natural universe with the capacity for free will - His Creation is, after all, perfect. While naturalistic free will might not be correct, it should be added to your otherwise excellent list of objections. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:18, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
+
::::This is a controversial topic. However, there are plenty of examples where science attempts to explain how quantum events are used by the brain or consciousness to make choices. This is different to simple randomness. As you say, randomness doesn't imply free will - it simply implies ignorance of measuring techniques or unpredictability. But ideas such as the Quantum Mind, while not a fully formed theory, is an example of how science attempts to classify free will as a natural phenomenon without the need for the supernatural or God. Some theologians have also postulated that natural free will must exist because God would design a natural universe with the capacity for free will - His Creation is, after all, perfect. While naturalistic free will might not be correct, it should be added to your otherwise excellent list of objections. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:18, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
511

edits

Navigation menu