[FoRK] Re: Re: A bit of religion - Problem of Evil

Zee Roe zero
Sun Jan 8 14:54:24 PST 2006



On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Russell Turpin wrote:

> "Corinna" <corinna.schultz at gmail.com>:
> >Aha... But then what of quantum physics? ..
>
> You're right, that the alternative to a deterministic
> physics is a probabilistic physics. But if a deterministic
> reaction causing a neuron to fire causing a person
> to make a decision means that the choice wasn't
> really "free," does it really change the moral or
> normative account if the chain starts with a
> chemical coin flip?

At the time of the discussion I mentioned, quantum physics was not around
in any sort of appreciable form that would make arguing about it remotely
worthwhile.  That said -- injecting "randomness" (in quotes for a variety
of reasons which should probably be obvious) hardly implies free will
either.

> I think philosophers make a mistake when they
> try to analyze political or personal freedom in
> terms of physics, and that the changing theories
> of physics are not going to help that.

Out of curiosity, why do you consider it a mistake? I don't necessarily
disagree with you, here, but I don't think it's an obvious conclusion,
either. I think the minute you have philosophers basing arguments on
mathematics you will have trouble saying physics is somehow different...



More information about the FoRK mailing list