![]() If you wish to continue in your belief in free will, then you will have to show us how that can be in view of that contradiction. How can you possibly see free will as consistent with determinism or causality? There are either physical causes for all effects, or there are not. is inconsistent with determinism or causality.” It should be clear by now that the “Free of what?” question means free of physical causality, that is, collisions that determine events. That is why determinists remain determinists and indeterminists remain indeterminists. They might even be labeled “mostly vague assemblies of jargon” as they fade from a memory not willing to accept the beginning assumptions in the first place. ![]() The definitions that are necessarily part of a particular logical train of thought are then not understandable. This removes the cognitive dissonance we all wish to avoid. Those confronted with opposing assumptions tend to automatically dismiss them, trying to forget them almost immediately. Mental pathways developed over decades are unlikely to be abandoned overnight. Horse, water, drink… That does not automatically convert indeterminists to determinists, as you have demonstrated. That is why “The Scientific Worldview” starts out by firmly establishing the deterministic assumptions upon which it is based. Where there is controversy, such as in philosophy, politics, and religion, folks may have opposing assumptions that prevent them from following the logical train of thought intended by the writer. ![]() Because scientists deal with the real world, it is possible that we will eventually reach agreement on definitions and connotations. Nonetheless, readers bring their own experiences with them when they try to understand the jargon common to a discipline. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |