I keep saying that if you specify the physics/reality, the decision to make is obvious. People keep replying by basically saying, “but physics/reality works this way, so this is the answer”. And then I keep replying, “maybe you’re right. I don’t know how it works. all I know is the argument is over physics/reality.”
Do you agree with this? If not, where do you disagree.
Their point (which may or may not be based on a misunderstanding of what you’re talking about) is that one of your options (“free will”) does not correspond to a possible set of the laws of physics—it’s self-contradictory.
People who live in reductionist universes cannot concretely envision non-reductionist universes. They can pronounce the syllables “non-reductionist” but they can’t imagine it.
I keep saying that if you specify the physics/reality, the decision to make is obvious. People keep replying by basically saying, “but physics/reality works this way, so this is the answer”. And then I keep replying, “maybe you’re right. I don’t know how it works. all I know is the argument is over physics/reality.”
Do you agree with this? If not, where do you disagree.
Their point (which may or may not be based on a misunderstanding of what you’re talking about) is that one of your options (“free will”) does not correspond to a possible set of the laws of physics—it’s self-contradictory.
I think this is the relevant page. Key quote: