Quote:
The number of physical laws is for all practical purposes infinite.6
Adopt the view that laws
are nothing other than general statements of what happens, and one has the means to
accommodate free will. Human beings (and Martians) – as a sheer matter of fact – have evolved
to a sufficient degree of complexity that their behavior can be described only by a (potentially)
infinite set of laws. This situation may be as utterly determined as one could like, in the sense
that every action may be subsumable under one or more universal physical laws. But it also
allows human choice. I am presented with a difficult decision. There are strong arguments both
for and against choosing merged-gender mortality tables. I weigh the probable consequences; I
reflect on my principles of fairness; I look at previous similar, but not precisely the same,
precedents; I try to balance the cost-savings against the measures of outrage; and eventually I
decide. Nothing forced my decision, although it was completely determined in the sense of being
deducible from timelessly true physical laws and antecedent conditions. But note (and this is
perhaps my most important point and shows just how antithetical the Regularity account is to the
Autonomy account): If I had chosen otherwise, that is, had chosen instead that the sex-distinct
tables should be used, that choice, too, would have been determined. That choice, had I made it,
would have, too, been subsumable under a timelessly true physical law, and would have been
deducible from that law and a statement of antecedent conditions. Clearly, I could not choose
both alternatives; but I could choose either. And in choosing the one, I ‘made’ it the one that was
deducible from physical laws and antecedent conditions. But in every sense in which one could
possibly want, I was free to choose the other.
|
100% wrong! Let me correct this statement: In every sense in which you could possibly want, you were NOT free to choose the other.
Statement One:
That choice, had I made it,
would have, too, been subsumable under a timelessly true physical law, and would have been
deducible from that law and a statement of antecedent conditions. Clearly, I could not choose
both alternatives; but I could choose either...
Either option is available to you, but you could not choose either option, as if they are both equal in value. That would make meaningless any kind of reasoning to determine what is the best choice in your eyes. As long as there are meaningful differences between A and B, they do not hold equal weight otherwise it would be like choosing A or A. This natural law does not force anything on you that you yourself don't want. You are presented with certain alternatives where you make a choice based on your particular circumstances rendering the other choice impossible under those same exact circumstances. If it were a free choice you could choose one or the other equally, but this is impossible as long as there are meaningful differences between them. What is the point of contemplation if not to decide which option is the most preferable? There is no conflict with the idea that natural laws are descriptive, but that in no way means we have free will.
Conclusion:
But in every sense in which one could
possibly want, I was free to choose the other.
This is the most unscientific of all conclusions. This is done for obvious reasons (to squeeze free will in somehow, someway) but has no scientific basis to support it. 