(April 14, 2015 at 4:23 pm)Cato Wrote: Even incompatibilists and hard determinists must navigate existence as if they had free will. I think this is what Simon Moon was getting at. For simplicity's sake, I am defining free will as the ability to choose between two or more courses of bounded action. By bounded action I mean that we are constrained by physical laws and even then are limited if others are involved. An example of the former constraint is that I cannot choose to take a stroll on Europa; an example of the later is that I cannot suit up tomorrow at third base for the Cincinnati Reds wearing the number 14.
The entire free will debate is no doubt an interesting philosophical endeavor that could lead to future meaningful scientific inquiry, but for all practical purposes it's irrelevant and nowhere near being resolved.
Although I agree it isn't resolved, and possibly cannot be because of our own built-in bias on the subject, but I would certainly argue that it is not at all irrelevant. Again, see the Humanist argument that deterministic worldviews would lead to a more compassionate society, and even a more functional one.
“Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
