# Thompson's Lamp

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thompsons-lamp/955473>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [December 3, 2021, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thompsons-lamp/955473 "2021-12-03T23:17:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2021, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thompsons-lamp/955473/7 "2021-12-04T12:45:00Z")

</div>

> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#):
>
> Because it wouldn’t be switched on again for the last time it was switched off, and hence, not every time it was switched off was followed by it being switched on again

I don’t think you properly read my objection, because no, in my version there are still infinite steps, just a finite number before 2.  
It’s an illustration that “Every on is followed by off, and vice versa” is not actually what creates the problem, it’s the infinite steps before 2.

> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#):
>
> then it has the resources of completing the infinite regress encountered in the notion of free will (and it will also not be computable).

There is no reason that free will needs to be an infinite regress – that would just add _one more_ problem to the concept. Because one could explain where the “will” comes from hypothetically in one step.  
So what this comes down to is that **if** we posit one extra problem regarding the concept of free will, and **if** the universe can deal with infinite regress, then **that particular** problem has been solved.

I think this level of argument says all we need to about how defensible the free will concept actually is.

> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#):
>
> The existence of free will isn’t an empirical claim. At most, our experience of it could be called ‘empirical’, but as that data is subjective and hence, not publicly available, I don’t think many would agree with such a notion of ‘empirical’.

Right, so it’s a philosophical claim, and we’re back to square one. We have no reason in the first place to posit the existence of this thing. Prior to neuroscience maybe the notion of decisions being causally disconnected made a kind of intuitive sense – that’s the beginning, middle and end of the evidence for the concept.

> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#):
>
> This is what I was talking about in the other thread: you’re here appealing to the notion of causal connection as if it was completely unproblematic—but it’s subject to difficulties just as great as (and IMO, equivalent to those of) the notion of free will.

Please elaborate.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thompsons-lamp/955473)._