My mother (I’m 63) used to read Will and Ariel Durant and was a big fan. It really brings me back. I did some rereading recently myself. I am a physicist and I do believe in free will.
I'm perplexed and somewhat amused by the idea that, if we don't have free will, that has significant implications for how we as a society should treat criminals, etc. Does it?
The criminal doesn't have free will in deciding whether or not to commit the crime... but we somehow have free will in determining how to handle the criminal? Or, for that matter, in deciding whether or not we have free will?
In a world without free will, why wouldn't how we handle crime be just as predetermined as the crime itself?
Like Brian Greene, I'll choose to believe in free will. If I'm right, then it was wise for me to believe in it. If I'm wrong, then I didn't have the free will to choose otherwise.
I should add: I understand this isn't an either/or topic. The question of how much freedom someone truly has is an important and interesting one, and that may have implications for criminal justice and so on.
I just think that "if there's no free will, how should we act?" is an entertaining question. It presumes that the "no free will" part applies only to some. Those fools over there maybe. Not us, of course. We shall wisely contemplate and choose our course of action!
Nah man. We'll choose exactly according to the laws of physics (or god's plan, our circumstances, the script, mysterious forces we don't understand, whatever), just like everyone else.
Ha, that is exactly the part of the problem that I avoided getting into. That our debate over free will is also pre-determined, as are my vociferous objections, as is the inevitable frustration over the whole thing! 😅
My mother (I’m 63) used to read Will and Ariel Durant and was a big fan. It really brings me back. I did some rereading recently myself. I am a physicist and I do believe in free will.
Wonderful to hear that, Maria! 😊
I'm perplexed and somewhat amused by the idea that, if we don't have free will, that has significant implications for how we as a society should treat criminals, etc. Does it?
The criminal doesn't have free will in deciding whether or not to commit the crime... but we somehow have free will in determining how to handle the criminal? Or, for that matter, in deciding whether or not we have free will?
In a world without free will, why wouldn't how we handle crime be just as predetermined as the crime itself?
Like Brian Greene, I'll choose to believe in free will. If I'm right, then it was wise for me to believe in it. If I'm wrong, then I didn't have the free will to choose otherwise.
I should add: I understand this isn't an either/or topic. The question of how much freedom someone truly has is an important and interesting one, and that may have implications for criminal justice and so on.
I just think that "if there's no free will, how should we act?" is an entertaining question. It presumes that the "no free will" part applies only to some. Those fools over there maybe. Not us, of course. We shall wisely contemplate and choose our course of action!
Nah man. We'll choose exactly according to the laws of physics (or god's plan, our circumstances, the script, mysterious forces we don't understand, whatever), just like everyone else.
Ha, that is exactly the part of the problem that I avoided getting into. That our debate over free will is also pre-determined, as are my vociferous objections, as is the inevitable frustration over the whole thing! 😅
Was just wondering…18 months old … why no updates of my favorite subject😘
It's been a while! 😅