I would, can, and have argued they are impossible in this one universe we know exists, and I believe they would be impossible in any possible world. I don't believe there is a possible world that can contain a natural infinite. However when the theoretical boys are playing around in fantasy land it is hard to get them to use inconvenient things like facts. I did not mean that anything natural being infinite was possible. Just that other universes and something existing prior to the BB was not proven impossible. Neither of those have inherent infinites unless they are tacked on by someone in which case I would say that scenario was impossible.
I have never said they could not. I have said if they did produce something with actual intent (intent having assumed free will), that at that point determinism alone does not explain reality. I am not saying that determinism can create a brain with intent but if it did then at that point free will entered the picture.
This is so easy we do not need logical equations. If you having a different causal chain than I can answer my questions in a timely manner then determinism does not explain it. Determinism has no desire to answer my questions in a timely manner and so if you can do so you are freely intending to. No logical equations, no mathematics, no statistics, only common sense is required for this cake walk.
Agreed
It does have the capacity to assemble things with electrical charge. Besides electrical charges existed in the singularity. They do not even need causal chains, they are brute facts.
Agreed
I disagree.
Almost no one would agree.
Inaccurate premise = false conclusion.
The singularity contained electrically charged particles. The singularity is a complete mystery but it is not a mystery that is not in need of a cause and no significant evidence posits that anything natural predates it.
2 and 4. Electrically charged particles go back as far as the universe does. There is no known pre-electrically charged particle period in natural history. At least if there is I have never heard anyone mention it.
Well, let's see whether we can reach a compromise here, by laying down my position more accurately. Maybe I am a compatibilist without knowing it, lol.
Carroll says that free will is as real as baseball. I think it is as real as the probability applied to a game of roulette. What do I mean?
When I play a round of roulette, I make the rational assumption (if it is not rigged) that I can apply the laws of probability in order to calculate my expected return. Each slot has the same probability to get the little ball.
Of course, I know that if I had perfect knowledge of the microphysics of the ball, its initial momentum, the roulette, its initial spin, air conditions, pressure, etc. etc....i could determine the outcome with perfect precision.
But this information is not accessible to me. Detailed information about a physical system like that might require a lot of energy, and it is possible that I cannot access this information, not even in principe.
So, if I win, i won because of luck not because of my knowledge of dynamics.
In the same way, I cannot possibly access the microstate information relevant for an intentional agent. The perfect state of his brain and the perfect state of the physics around him, even if I think that they would make me anticipate her actions. So, I settle for agency and, at the same time, can make sense of moral responsability in the same way I could make sense of probability for the roulette case.
Does that make me a compatibilist?
Ciao
- viole