This comes from what the Moral Nihilism thread turned into later on... - this is what I think on the matter of 'free will':
Firstly:
I need a reason to believe in this 'free will' thing - I would think NO 'free will would be the default. Because there's already evidence for physics and the mechanics of the universe. But no evidence (as far as I know) that we can influence THAT other than what we are doing simply BECAUSE of it whether we like it or not. In which case we don't really influence stuff 'ourselves' because we are PART OF it. We are bound by the same things as far as I know; either we are determined like the rest of the universe (determinism) or we're not (indeterminism) and we're more random. This applies to the rest of physics - what evidence is there even remotely that it isn't exactly the same for US? I know of no evidence that PHYSICS ITSELF has 'free will' - why would we be any different?
The fact people merely believe that GOD exists or is present in the universe is not even remotely evidence that he exists - why would it be different for free will? And if we need evidence FOR GOD's presence/existence first why wouldn't we for free will too?
Secondly:
Determinism='free will' is impossible.
INdeterminism='Free will' is now perhaps, possible - but as far as I know no more probable other than the fact the mere possibility is perhaps open. I STILL know of no evidence that we actually make decisions other than the fact we (at least those who believe in free will) merely believe we do. INdeterminism just means the universe isn't determined; i.e. physics is more random... How does more random remotely give any evidence of or reason to believe in 'free will'?
Dice are random. But do they have any more choice in how they get thrown simply if they aren't RIGGED dice? Just because there are more possibilities?
How does possibility remotely imply any real CHOICE OF possibility?
Thoughts?
EvF
Firstly:
I need a reason to believe in this 'free will' thing - I would think NO 'free will would be the default. Because there's already evidence for physics and the mechanics of the universe. But no evidence (as far as I know) that we can influence THAT other than what we are doing simply BECAUSE of it whether we like it or not. In which case we don't really influence stuff 'ourselves' because we are PART OF it. We are bound by the same things as far as I know; either we are determined like the rest of the universe (determinism) or we're not (indeterminism) and we're more random. This applies to the rest of physics - what evidence is there even remotely that it isn't exactly the same for US? I know of no evidence that PHYSICS ITSELF has 'free will' - why would we be any different?
The fact people merely believe that GOD exists or is present in the universe is not even remotely evidence that he exists - why would it be different for free will? And if we need evidence FOR GOD's presence/existence first why wouldn't we for free will too?
Secondly:
Determinism='free will' is impossible.
INdeterminism='Free will' is now perhaps, possible - but as far as I know no more probable other than the fact the mere possibility is perhaps open. I STILL know of no evidence that we actually make decisions other than the fact we (at least those who believe in free will) merely believe we do. INdeterminism just means the universe isn't determined; i.e. physics is more random... How does more random remotely give any evidence of or reason to believe in 'free will'?
Dice are random. But do they have any more choice in how they get thrown simply if they aren't RIGGED dice? Just because there are more possibilities?
How does possibility remotely imply any real CHOICE OF possibility?
Thoughts?
EvF
