A delightful quirk of relativity theory

Post by nextaccountic » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 10:11 AM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #101

kybernetikos wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've put the dilemma nicely - it can't be both 'free' and 'your will' by your definitions (well, without admitting supernatural beings that can affect and be affected by the natural world, but are not part of it). Personally I'm happy with other definitions, not because I feel I'm doing mental gymnastics, but because the version you give is clearly not what normal people mean by it when they refer to it. It might w…

> Personally I'm happy with other definitions, not because I feel I'm doing mental gymnastics, but because the version you give is clearly not what normal people mean by it when they refer to it. It might well be related to what philosophers argue about, but normal people who offer you a 'free choice' or who say that you did something 'of your own free will' do not mean anything like 'your choice was not a function o…

> E.g. if you genuinely believe the notion that we have free will is nonsense (and I do), then the logical extension is to be very uncomfortable with the notion of e.g. prison used for vengeance or anything at all other than to the bare minimal extent required to protect others, because the logical conclusion of thinking people don't have agency is that there was no way other than other external stimuli in their lives that they could have come out making other decisions.

There's this dialog from some centuries ago (I guess it's from some Enlightenment philosopher?) that goes like this

- Guards, please, set this murderer free: he has no free will, so he can't be held responsible for his actions.

And the guard replies

- Uhm.. no. But if I'm making a mistake, don't worry: per your own explanation, I can't be held responsible for it either.

edit: this view was echoed in another comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29985738

Post by skeaker » Mon, Jan 24, 2022, 11:16 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #116

awb wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is reversing the burden of proof. No, in response to someone vaguely mentioning the words “free will”, you made the claim: “Free will does not exist.” The burden of proof is now on you to provide evidence of your claim as well as on you to define the terms contained within your claim. I am not arguing the “free will” debate either way for the reasons mentioned previously and do not care to define the terms as…

Russel's teapot. If I claim Russel's teapot doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on you to prove it exists if you disagree with me, not me, because the set of claims that are so poorly defined and unlikely as to make it an unjustified burden to expect anyone to caveat the claims to make them technically correct is infinite - someone who makes an extraordinary claim without being able to provide a justification there…

That's quite literally the opposite of how Russel's teapot works. Russel originally thought up that scenario to show how silly it is to put an unprovable idea forward (specifically the existence of god, which Russel absolutely did not believe in) and expect another party to disprove it when doing so is impossible. Here in this thread you've put forward an unprovable idea and now expect others to disprove it, which is the exact scenario Russel criticizes. How on earth did you interpret it so wrongly that you came out with the exact opposite of the message that Russel intended?

Re: A delightful quirk of relativity theory

Re: A delightful quirk of relativity theory