Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!cca!ima!ism780!martin From: martin@ism780.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Time and Free Will Message-ID: <350@ism780.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-Aug-84 00:08:48 EDT Article-I.D.: ism780.350 Posted: Wed Aug 8 00:08:48 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 01:32:56 EDT Lines: 50 Nf-ID: #R:ism780:20200016:ism780:20200019:000:2368 Nf-From: ism780!martin Jul 31 09:12:00 1984 >***** ism780:net.philosophy / proper!gam / 10:45 am Jul 30, 1984 >> From: martin@ism780.UUCP (martin smith INTERACTIVE Systems) >> >> I think the principle of cause and effect is nothing more than identity. That >> is, if A causes B, then A and B are the same. >Could you please explain how this works? No. When you ask how something works, you are asking for the cause of an effect. Since even our language assumes Cause and Effect, I cannot use this language to explain a concept that says there is no Cause and Effect. >> ... Without the principle of cause >> and effect there is no determinism. >Absolutely! Cause and effect is the underlying assumption of the >philosophy of science, and hence the scientific method. While philosophy and science at first seem to be limitless, they are restricted by their base. Perhaps we have hit this limit when we try to describe a black hole or a mind. If Cause and Effect is the underlying assumption of the scientific method, then it is also the underlying limit of our understanding of things. >> ... In the picture below, I am standing on >> the X, forever in the present being bombarded with possible futures. I choose >> which future will become my past. >> >> Past Present Futures >> >> <------------ >> <--------------------------------------------X <------------ >> <------------ >> >> "And that's where free will comes from, Charlie Brown." Having so said, Linus >> threw his blanky over his shoulder, planted his thumb firmly in his mouth, and >> prepared to withstand the hurricane he knew was coming. >Whoosh! You have snuck in this concept of `future' and then boldly >claimed that you "choose which future will become my past." How >have you shown that this choice (if there is in fact a choice) is >not the result of deterministic forces? -- I haven't shown it. But I think I have shown that I can't show it when our system of showing things assumes that I can't show it. That would be like discussing the existance of God with Jerry Falwell. But don't worry, I'm gonna think s'more (because I freely choose to). martin smith, INTERACTIVE Systems