Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
Except that your definition of random is inappropriate for QM. Consider for example radioactive decay.

See. Now you're strawmanning me again. I never said that. "Random" means an equal probability of any outcome. Such as rolling a die. There is a 1 in 6 chance of getting any specific value. Radioactive decay is completely different, and I'm quite familiar with it. We spent a lot of time with that in school, deriving the equations, etc. If you think I am not understanding something about math or physics, you might want to read my statement again to be sure you're not making too many assumptions. I'm many years out of school, but I at least remember all the concepts and relationships.

All I've been doing is countering the baseless assertions made by you and others that there is clear evidence against the existence of free will...

It doesn't seem so to me. However, I have never said there is "clear evidence against" free will. Another strawman against me. What I've said is that I have seen no evidence in favor it, and logically I don't see where it could come from. Not seeing evidence for something is not the same as having evidence against something. Just as I see no evidence for a deity, or pixies, or any of a large number of other things. I'm happy to accept new data, but thus far none has been forthcoming.

This is an absurd position and one that no one, not even you, actually practices in everyday life.

This is the heart of our problem. Either you cannot accept the idea, or you misunderstand the position. Yes, I live my life as if my senses are accurate and I have free will. Because I have no viable alternative. But I can prove neither of those propositions, though there is more evidence my senses are at least somewhat reliable than there is that I actually have some form of free will (keeping in mind there are several definitions from libertarian to compatibilist to a-bunch-of-others-I-probably-don't-know-about). If you tried to publish "subjective experience" it would never get past peer review. Your peers would (rightly) demand rigorous data from a reproducible experiment that can allow for verification.

...rather to counter the assertion that quantum mechanics specifically or science in general has somehow made free will untenable.

I won't speak for benjd25, though I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying. It's definitely not what I'm saying. I'm saying "no evidence", and countering your assertions that QM somehow allows for free will, and that consciousness is a property of matter. Both of those are strong statements, and I dispute both of them as not rigorously supported. Actual data will change my mind. If they ever add an entry for each element on the periodic table that indicates how much "consciousness" an element has (a "consciousness number"?), and can back it with data, then I'm right there with you. For example.

I'm happy to discuss logical derivations of a position/proposition, looking for flaws, consequences, etc. We can argue that all day and give each other stuff to think about. But when someone invokes actual science (e.g. "property of matter") and QM, then suddenly we are in the realm of the scientific method. And the associated rules then apply, including burden of proof and reproducibility.
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.