This is a ridiculous statement. Logically, what you have said implies that all incoherent concepts must be true!
I am indeed arguing that contra-causal free will is an incoherent concept, at which point there is nothing to refute, we can simply dismiss it as nonsense.
Agreed. This is why, in addition to explaining why I think the definition is incoherent (post #32), I have also noted that there is no observed phenomenon that corresponds to the loose intuitive concept of contra-causal free will.
Your definition seems to me tautologous & petitio principii, or at best extremely vague.
We agree (I think), that contra-causal free will cannot inhere in either deterministic processes (cause and effect, making choices for reasons), or stochastic indeterministic processes (rolling a dice). If you agree with that, but still insist that contra-causal free will may exist, there is at least a burden to propose what kind of mechanism of interaction can conceivably be neither determinisitc nor stochastic. I accept that there is much that’s beyond the ken of current knowledge, and perhaps there are supernatural processes “unconstrained by the physical laws of the universe”. But there must still be some kind of principles of supernatural interaction. How can a supernatural entity be said to be making choices when it does so neither for reasons nor by whim? What could that possibly mean?
If you can’t even begin to explain what that might mean, in my view what your doing is analogous to (say) starting out as a skeptic of SR or QM or biological design by natural selection (because it’s so counterintuitive), having the concepts and misconceptions explained and being shown all the evidence that it’s true, but still insisting that it cannot be right, and when asked for your reasons, responding “because magic”. Magic can’t be refuted, but it’s simply empty of meaningful content.
No. You clearly are educated but you aren’t reading what I wrote correctly. You are making far too many assumptions. And you are claiming that I believe the exact opposite of what I clearly wrote.
Equally, my view is that your are educated but that you apparently refuse to accept the logical implications of what you claim to agree with. I’ve addressed what you’ve said, I think, clearly and point by point. I’m open to correction if you can point out specifically where I’m misreading or misinterpreting what you’ve said.
Specifically, if you claim that your definition of contra-causal free will:
“It’s the ability for some agent to make real choices unconstrained by the physical laws of the universe.”
is more substantial than just saying “it’s magic”, please explain what it means.
I’m clearly saying in a universe governed by physics I have no idea how what is commonly conceived as real free will can exist. I don’t think it could because cause and effect dominate even if impossible to predict or measure.
Thus the hypothetical that if it did it would have to be a supernatural effect. I’m not saying it does or does not with that statement. I’m saying the criteria necessary for real free will to exist.
So your proposal to potentially “save” contra-causal free will has no specified properties whatsover?
Again, please distinguish this proposal from just saying “it’s magic”, a proposal that is empty of meaningful content. And why can’t such a proposal save any incoherent concept for which there is no evidence?
Again. You need to not assume any intent that isn’t clearly written. You assume too much and it leads to bad conclusions and many unnecessary posts. I can’t write what I wrote any more clearer. Try reading it without making assumptions.
If you’re standing on a beach and you know that all but one grain of sand is authentic and the remainder copies, could you pick out the real one?
This is Tyson’s point: assuming your grain of sand is the real one is no more legitimate than assuming your grain of sand is a copy. Other than the fact that we don’t know if any copies exist. Ultimately, the assumption (one way or the other) itself is irrelevant; we can in no way exclude the possibility of the universe as a simulation.
(And, if you really think about it, Tyson’s concept is just a mirror of the “infinite parallel universe” theory that is regarded quite seriously in scientific circles. We can presume, with no hard evidence, of parallel universes, but we can’t dare consider simulations? Seems like the height of arrogance to exclude one for the other.)
Except, WE listen for foreign interstellar broadcasts attempting to discover that exact thing. We’re doing the very thing you describe as foolish to presume…
You’re making my point. Tyson jumps from “it is a possibility we can dream up that the universe is a simulation” to “it is very likely that the universe is a simulation”. There are undoubtedly billions of possibilities we can dream up but not exclude. Your logic says that each of them must therefore be very likely. That’s not likely.
Again, this is exactly the same as saying that god must have created the universe. Rejecting one is no more of an issue than rejecting the other.
I nowhere said that it’s foolish to presume that if other intelligent life forms existed they might try to listen to the universe. I said it is specifically foolish to conclude that sending out any signal whatsoever is an invitation to get the planet invaded. Taking a pile of “ifs” and saying that one particular end conclusion must therefore be correct and real is what I challenge, in any form I see it.
I agree that expressing any measure of certainty that the universe is a simulation or that interstellar civilizations would seek to harm us is foolish. Your prior posts, however, reeked to me of outright condescension and dismissal of these ideas. I saw an arrogance not indistinct from that which you were critiquing. My apologies if I read too much into it.