From xod@sixgirls.org Sun Feb 11 13:43:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@erika.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 11 Feb 2001 21:43:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 74191 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2001 21:42:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Feb 2001 21:42:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO erika.sixgirls.org) (209.208.150.50) by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2001 21:42:58 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by erika.sixgirls.org (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1BLgva06195 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:42:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:42:57 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: imaginary worlds and the death of God In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > la pycyn cusku di'e > > >All events therefore are determined (could not have been > >otherwise than they are), so there is no free will > > I don't think this follows. What we call free will is something > we experience, and we could still experience it even if all > events were determined. Indeed, we would be determined to > experience free will. You're right. It doesn't follow at all!! The fact that the past and present are completely "determined", that is, fixed and inexorable, does not mean that anybody has enough information to be able to compute the future precisely. Also, free will is a subjective feeling, exactly as Jorge said. And we experience it -- that's a true fact. But it doesn't have to correspond to the existence of multiple worlds. Reality certain feels like free-will, because we're ignorant of coin flips, and of our own brain processes. But so what? And furthermore, I think that with no multiple worlds, the opposite views of free-will converge into one. I think it means that, yes, we have free-will, and yes, we have no free-will. If the notion of "free-will" is analyzed in a single-world context, it ceases to be a meaningful concept. > >-- even for God (if there > >is one, which there now is not, by definition) -- > > What definition? Most definitions of God are self-contradictory, > indeed self-contradiction is probably an essential property of God. > If God is omniscient then a deterministic universe is convenient, > for otherwise we would have to admit that God could be wrong in > His knowledge of the future. > > >and so no moral > >responsibility nor any just punishment I hope you're not saying that the elimination of this multiple-worlds hallucination leads to the negation of God and the destruction of moral culpability -- and since that's a bad thing, we must accept the multiple-worlds fantasy and keep this lojban thread going forever! > >And most of our talk is utter nonsense. > > Can't argue with that! Once we start talking about non-provable assertions and ill-defined concepts, we are talking nonsense. I wrote about this in my jinvi article on balvi. I suggest you read it. ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!