In article <20000316131114.02604.00002…@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
alsa…@aol.com (Alsagan) wrote:
> I am trying to get a handle on Lorentz contraction and here is what I
> think
> would happen in a specific situation. Any comments and CORRECTIONS
> would be
> helpful since I am a teacher and I want the information I present to
> the class
> to be accurate! (My original post got long and convoluted so I decided
> to start
> a new thread.)
> Here is the situation
> There is a 100 m long spaceship that is at rest.
Aye! There’s the rub! For, you see, the ONLY place from which
you will be able to measure your 100 m long ship is from inside your
100 m long ship. (If you believe the Lorentz Contraction effect really
exists, then you are forced to believe that your 100 m long ship will
always measure something less than that when measured from anywhere
outside your "rest frame" ship.) And, 2) your ship can never be "at
rest" according to Einstein, so forget about this experiment… the only
place it will get you is into the lunatic asylum (as you zip past
something at slightly over half the speed of light which is itself
zipping past you in the opposite direction at slightly over half the
speed of light, so one of you MUST have contracted to a length greater
than -0). And, if after some marvelous travels in the realms of the
pixies you stop your ship and check your clocks (and find that the
clocks which moved last are now ahead of those which moved first)…
just do yourself a favor and flip a coin to pick one of the two clocks
and re-synchronize it with the other one–Because, once you go back to
the same state of "rest" you started from… you’re right back where you
started from (in an impossible position, except now you’ve screwed up
two once perfectly working clocks).
The only way for your army of observers to be "at rest" along with
your ship is if they are part of the ship, in which case your ship can
be a mere souped-up Toyota
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> I will call the original rest
> frame. This spaceship accelerates starting at time=1 SEC and then
> stops
> accelerating at some later time. The acceleration is done such that
> these 2
> conditions are met form the spaceship’s frame or reference:
> 1) The length of the spaceship is still 100 m after all accelerations
> have
> stopped
> 2) The clocks on the ship are still synchronized after all
> accelerations
> have stopped
> There is an infinite army of observers (paid at union wages I might
> add) at
> rest with respect to the spaceship when time=0. They are arranged in a
> straight
> line along the spaceship’s path. Their job is to record what point on
> the
> spaceship (if any) is passing their location and the time on the
> spaceship’s
> clock at this point starting at time=0
> After all acceleration has stopped for the army of observers, they
> would
> measure these 2 things:
> A) The clocks on the ship are not synchronized, in fact the clocks on
> the
> back of the ship read a later time then the clocks on the front of the
> ship
That’s not a ship, it’s an accordion. And even if the accordion starts
out stretched and contracts along the way, if it ends up stretched then
both ends of the accordion must have experienced identical accelerations
(even if not at the same moments along their travels). So all the ship’s
clocks may indeed fall out of synchronization along the way but they
will all be re-synchronized at the end of the run.
> B) The length of the ship is smaller than 100 m. (What I mean by this
> is
> that for a given time T the distance between the observer that
> measures the
> head at their position at time T and the observer that measures the
> tail at
> their position at time T is less than 100 m)
Let’s wait until this marvy experiment is actually (in actuality)
carried out. Until then let’s NOT assume Lorentz’s contraction hold in
reality (however entertaining it may be to dream about it happening in
some fantastic comic book).
> All the rest of the discussion will be from the army’s frame of
> reference.
> From B we can conclude that at some point the back of the ship must
> have been
> going faster than the front of the ship. But if the velocity of the
> back was
> always greater than or equal to the velocity of the front
… then the accordion could NEVER end up stretched (although,
otherwise, it could end up inside out, of course–that’s the only way
the clocks at the rear could end up slower than the clocks at the front
of the accordion).
> then because of time
> dilation the clocks in the back would read an earlier time than the
> clocks in
> the front, contradicting A. Thus we can conclude that there must be
> times where
> the velocity of the front of the ship is greater than the velocity of
> the back
> of the ship.
… in the Lorentz-Einstein Tale, yes! Or, in our reality, only if
all we’re talking about is convoluted accordions here.
> To get a handle on how the contraction might happen I want to consider
> 2 simple
> cases that take into account the above situation and facts:
> Case 1 (remember everything is still from the original frame):
> There is a time T such that for times between 1 and T the back of the
> ship is
> traveling faster than the front and for the times greater than T the
> front is
> traveling faster or equal to the back. In this case the ship contracts
> for the
> time span from 1 to T and then starts to lengthen after T until it
> comes to
> rest at the normal Lorentz contracted length. In a nutshell, the ship
> over
> contracts and then expands to the final length.
It’s unthinkable BECAUSE all your velocities are relative, and once your
"ship" starts moving independently of eath other with respect to your
army of observers neither the front NOR the rear are moving with their
"rest frame" (this means that none of your observers will be able to
tell whether the front of the ship is accelerating with respect to its
rear with respect to them or vice-versa): Is the rear speeding up to
catch the front or is the front waiting (negative acceleration, which in
this case really does mean "moving relatively towards the rear") for the
rear to catch up? Who will know this? Certainly none of them. I say
throw away your accordion & take up tap dancing.
> Case 2:
> There is a time T such that for times between 1 and T the front of the
> ship is
> traveling faster than the back and for the times greater than T the
> back is
> traveling faster or equal to the front. I don’t think this case is
> possible
> give that conditions 1 and 2 have to be met.
> Any comments would be most helpful.
> Alan
Closest truth: There will be NO contraction in the direction of motion
but clocks WILL slow with velocity with respect to your observers:
1) At the conclusion of the sprint the ship’s clocks will seemed to have
slowed with respect to the observers’ clocks.
2) It the observers pass along a clock from first observer to last
observer along the length of the sprint, that clock will ALSO show it
has slowed although never slowed as much as the ship’s clock.
3) If the observers synchronized their clocks… their clocks will also
show that the farther away an observer was from the guy who "sent out
the synchronizing signal" the slower their clocks will read (provided
they are accurate enough, of course, because that signal takes time to
travel–AND if the troop of observers wants to cheat on this and…
synchronize all their clocks together and then spread out along the race
course… they will also find that, if their watches are accurate
enough, that the watch of the guy who traveled the greatest distance
from where they all synchronized their watches … is also slowest now
and the watch of the guy who traveled the least distance from there is
least slow but still slow nevertheless). And if they all then collect
from where they originally synchronized their watches [to] where the guy
who traveled the greatest length now is … they will discover that now,
suddenly, all their watches at perfectly synchronized again!!!! BECAUSE
clocks will "slow down" (with respect to clocks they were synchronized
with) when they experience greater velocities (with respect to them)
regardless how small the velocity (it’s just that the differences are
so minute at lesser velocities… and it normally takes very large
velocities to make the differences apparent/noticeable). And so…
… your observers give up, throw away their stupid watches, and go for
beers at the nearest pub to roast (sic) the evil memory of Einstein &
Lorentz.
SDR
s…@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absoluterelativity
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
In article <20000318212011.17304.00005…@ng-xe1.aol.com>,
mercury…@aol.com (Mercury481) wrote:
> SDRodrian don_quix…@mindless.com wrote:
> >Let’s wait until this marvy experiment is actually (in actuality)
> >carried out. Until then let’s NOT assume Lorentz’s contraction hold
> >in
> >reality (however entertaining it may be to dream about it happening
> >in
> >some fantastic comic book).
> The Lorentz’s trasformation!!!.
Sorry. The posts originate from the misstated "Lorentz contraction"
(which should really read as the "Fitzgerald contraction"). This is
the meaning regardless of what was said. I did not correct it because
the Fitzgerald/Lorentz equations are so wedded together that it never
even crossed my mind the distinction was crucial to understanding:
But it is, of course. Lorentz’s portion, that mass increases with
velocity
is not only true but proven (as you say). However, Fitzgerald’s portion,
that matter contracts in the direction of its motion… is not only not
proven but BOTH highly unlikely ever to be proven OR "seen," obviously.
> Hum… experiments have been carried
> out
> (actually, and in actuality even…) that prove the Lorentz’s
> transformation to
> be consistent with >real< observations in particle accelerators. I
> guess the
> day dreamers at CERN are writing you a "fantastic comic book" LOL
> Even a little information can go a long way, seems you haven’t gotten
> very far,
> better hurry and get informed cause you are getting left behind SD…
Sorry again: But sometimes the ole brain assumes everybody knows
what everybody’s talking about regardless of the words (terms) being
used! It might get worse (as time goes by) a lot sooner than it’ll
improve.
An older & wiser,
S D Rodrian
s…@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang
P.S. It might have been nicer had you actually noticed & corrected
the running mistake in the entire thread instead of putting
the sole blame on me, as: "I was just following orders, you know."
But usually you only get one shot to do the right thing, as you may
now realize.
____________________
> We can welcome a challenge to scientific assumptions about nature
> without
> asserting such challenger to be true.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
In article <20000319072232.02057.00002…@ng-da1.aol.com>,
george…@aol.com (George Ortega) wrote:
> >SIZE=3>Subject: Re: Lorentz Contraction Revisited
> >From: SDRodrian <don_quix…@mindless.com>
> >Date: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 19:28 EST
> >Message-id: <8b16un$jb…@nnrp1.deja.com>
> You appear to understand the faulty logic in many of our commonly
accepted
> scientific conclusions. At sci.physics I am defending the Law of Cause
and
> Effect against those who render reality indeterministic.
Good luck! Determinism goes against practically the entire human
experience (both historical and ordinary): All human laws are based
on rewards & punishments (on criminals having the "free will" to choose
whether to commit or not commit crimes). Practically every notion of
education (whether it involves the mamma bird educating her baby bird
or your mother educating you) exemplifies the "very apparent fact" that
"babies" need to be taught to themselves make the "decision." [I believe
Clarence Darrow had some success positing in court that his clients,
"couldn't help doing what they did." But that defense hasn't always been
all that successful. Further, if you uphold a hard determinism you seem
to risk the cornerstone of democracy (because it nullifies all decision-
making processes, deliberation). Additionally, morality usually requires
one to sacrifice instant gratification for the sake of some greater good
(and this apparently calls not for some blind stumbling into a given
path, but, again, for a considered choice). Moreover, men's "pursuit
of ends" (their conviction that they can work "long term" for results
which may eventually pay off in some way or other) implies that men
follow plans of action... forever free to lead to mistakes no less than
to pay-offs (something which only their continued constant "good"
judgments determine). And how you're going to convince humanity
that their concern with morality and justice is beyond their ability to
will (a preferred morality & justice) is hard to see; as people will do
as they have always done when presented determinism (and which
is exemplified in the tale of determinist philosopher Zeno's beating of
his slave): "Why," rightfully protests the slave: "Why do you beat me
when your own philosophy is telling you that it's not my fault and that
I was destined to commit this wrong since the beginning of the world?"
Zeno's reply, of course, is that, if the slave had understood his
philosophy better... he would have known that he, Zeno, was also
destined from the beginning of the world to beat his slave for the
transgression. And here we come to the matter of paradoxes which
arise from trying to deny reality (which is a reality of cause/effect
without any possible exception)... for if we accept that determinism
holds true in the world, then nothing really changes (as you can see
from the example of Zeno and his slave): The criminal commits his
crime & he is subsequently punished for it (most cases). Objections
on the basis that determinism leads to an impossibly fatalistic ethics
may be referred to such concepts as that of philosopher Chrysippus's
"condestinate" facts (facts dependent upon other facts, in which the
fact of... whether a man is destined to live or die is dependent upon
the fact that he acts to save his life, of course). The future is indeed
predictable in the absolute, but only given absolute knowledge. But
the human experience is a bundle of feelings.... and we all "feel"
quite free to choose, no matter what the evidence to the contrary!
On the other hand, those who reject determinism usually do so
on the premise that nothing anyone ever does is without a cause!
(A logical absurdity: Opponents of determinism yet punish the
criminal to the degree that he had or had not a reason for doing
what he did... and "forgive" only the lunatic.) Such self-evidently
irrational rationalizations for indeterminism (and thereby "free will")
go back all the way to the Epicurean philosophers, who adapted
earlier atomistic notions (in which everything that happens comes
about from the interactions and motions of atoms, deterministic)
with their own absurd idea that "occasionally" atoms could rather
"spontaneously" and of their own accord, mind you, change their
motions (apparently some atoms had "the capacity to swerve" at
will and for no apparent reason/cause whatsoever). Yet this is the
nature of the human condition, I'm afraid... to believe in magic and
most especially of all, in God: It might be hard-wired into our brains
(since I myself know for a fact not only that there cannot be a God
but that there could NEVER have been a God, yet I believe in Him).
Then too, mathematicians will, willy-nilly, tell you that a true random
number (one which does not arise out of some process which then
inevitably leads to it) is possible... and I have seen many a
description
of systems which mathematicians will tell you with a straight face
indeed produce random numbers left & right (the equivalent of mass-
producing miracles)... then being used to produce all sorts of results
entirely "original" in the world (effects without causes, no less). O
well!
Being a rather conservative Stoic myself, I do the conventional thing
and merely seek out my place in the world (I accept reality for what
it is... every chance I get).
Most religions reject determinism, of course, because when God
knows all that is to happen (unless He is mistaken, and what God is)
He has either willed it thus (which absolves sinners), or He cannot
change any of it (and has thus been stripped of His omnipotence):
St. Augustine made a nifty "out" for God by proposing that God's
omniscience is independent of time (consequently... it's not unlike
memory... again creating the paradox of a powerless Omnipotent
in order to give reality to the notion of a free will in a world in
which
God is not the author of sin & evil as well as of the good). So you
can see to what extent proponents of indeterminism & free will are
"willing" to go... when even the most religious of them (St. Augustine,
St. Thomas Aquinas, Boethius, Erasmus) are quite happy to reduce
God to a mere idle dreamer for its sake. So I don't advise anyone to
make it his/her lifework to try to stamp out irrational beliefs in this
crazy world of ours.
Although Eastern religions have sometimes been termed more hard
fatalistic (hard deterministic), in practice they are no less
irrationally
indeterministic than ours: So that, in practice, any Easterner patient
who is told he has been condemned to die by cancer... is just as
likely as a Westerner to seek a second opinion. But even a great
man like Voltaire ridiculed the notion that ours is the only possible
reality (determinism) in Leibniz's theist version (... God being good,
and ours being God's creation, then) that ours is the best of all
possible worlds (since ours must be the only world possible). And
it is still Leibniz we ridicule to this day; and Voltaire whom we laugh
along with. Although many religious figures have favored a sort of
determinism (at least where God was concerned), to do so (Luther
and Calvin, for example) stresses the omnipotence of God over His
supposed love and mercy: So, for them, it is not within man's power
to do any good thing, even charity, without it first being prompted by
grace. According to Luther, God does not only know everything but
does everything (so to posit that a man can do even good without it
coming from God is, to Luther, the same as that man acting outside
God): This makes theirs not a very Christian God... who leaves a man
in a world in which the laws of man (indeterministic) are in complete
disagreement with the (deterministic) laws of God. {Don't worry, most
Protestants only pay lip service to Luther & Calvin these days.] But
do theists have a choice (pun)? Their belief in God and in magic agrees
with our reality only by "only paying lip service" to the many paradoxes
which arise out of trying to imagine exceptions to a reality which is
unforgivingly deterministic not here & there, but absolutely/everywhere.
Hobbes’s materialism is just this sort of partially deterministic
approach
… which, while denying the existence of the soul, yet proposes that
free will is possible, as it arises from motions and/or modifications of
matter in the brain, which, while yet deterministic, the will can bring
to a
"willed" halt). Schopenhauer, A. J. Ayer, Moritz Schlick and others have
followed this illogical "half-way" too. The problem remains what is has
always been: We may acknowledge the deterministic nature of the
inanimate
world (about which we can do nothing), but we just can’t help "feeling"
that
our minds can still make a true/real choice/decision. [Spinoza's
marvelous
analogy of a conscious rock thinking it's flying through the air
according
to its will because it doesn't know the cause of its motion... really
reaches
to the heart of it: As the idea of free will stems directly from the
fact that
we do not know how we come to "feel" we are "right" ... and this
ignorance
leaves open the room to propose the human will as a tiny version of
God's
Omnipotent Free Will in each of us.] However, the modern formal
discipline
of psychiatry is obviously based upon a deterministic assertion that
neuroses
are caused (so at least this particular branch of modern science seems
to
have a grip on the deterministic nature of reality also "penetrating"
even
into the workings of the human mind). This little bit of sanity hasn’t
always
necessarily been the case: Descartes distinguished "minds" & "bodies" as
two completely distinct substances whose essential properties "are
utterly
different." Stop for a moment to consider the real (logical)
consequences of
a "free will" and it becomes self-evident it implies that our choices
must be
random & capricious, unpredictable and inexplicable (as they do not
arise
from anything inevitably leading up to them but, rather, are entirely
"original"
uncaused
…
read more »
In article <MhBC4.16993$mf.1347…@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"Val Miranda" <comcat…@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> SD, the law of cause and effect is valid for a material universe, but
the
> brain-body supported mind acts as an immaterial unit not subject to
this law
> in the sense that it can make choices in the material universe. But
not
> only that, the mind can be the force for changes and can make
determinations
> about reality such as the big bang was an implosion; it is free to
think
> such thoughts. There is no free will, but there is a free intellect.
> Regards,
> Val
> SDRodrian <don_quix…@mindless.com> wrote in message
> news:8bc746$lrt$1@nnrp1.deja.com…
> > In article <20000319072232.02057.00002…@ng-da1.aol.com>,
> > george…@aol.com (George Ortega) wrote:
> > > >SIZE=3>Subject: Re: Lorentz Contraction Revisited
> > > >From: SDRodrian <don_quix…@mindless.com>
> > > >Date: Sat, Mar 18, 2000 19:28 EST
> > > >Message-id: <8b16un$jb…@nnrp1.deja.com>
> > > You appear to understand the faulty logic in many of our commonly
> > accepted
> > > scientific conclusions. At sci.physics I am defending the Law of
Cause
> > and
> > > Effect against those who render reality indeterministic.
> > Good luck! Determinism goes against practically the entire human
> > experience (both historical and ordinary): All human laws are based
> > on rewards & punishments (on criminals having the "free will" to
choose
> > whether to commit or not commit crimes). Practically every notion of
> > education (whether it involves the mamma bird educating her baby
bird
> > or your mother educating you) exemplifies the "very apparent fact"
that
> > "babies" need to be taught to themselves make the "decision." [I
believe
> > Clarence Darrow had some success positing in court that his clients,
> > "couldn't help doing what they did." But that defense hasn't always
been
> > all that successful. Further, if you uphold a hard determinism you
seem
> > to risk the cornerstone of democracy (because it nullifies all
decision-
> > making processes, deliberation). Additionally, morality usually
requires
> > one to sacrifice instant gratification for the sake of some greater
good
> > (and this apparently calls not for some blind stumbling into a given
> > path, but, again, for a considered choice). Moreover, men's "pursuit
> > of ends" (their conviction that they can work "long term" for
results
> > which may eventually pay off in some way or other) implies that men
> > follow plans of action... forever free to lead to mistakes no less
than
> > to pay-offs (something which only their continued constant "good"
> > judgments determine). And how you're going to convince humanity
> > that their concern with morality and justice is beyond their ability
to
> > will (a preferred morality & justice) is hard to see; as people will
do
> > as they have always done when presented determinism (and which
> > is exemplified in the tale of determinist philosopher Zeno's beating
of
> > his slave): "Why," rightfully protests the slave: "Why do you beat
me
> > when your own philosophy is telling you that it's not my fault and
that
> > I was destined to commit this wrong since the beginning of the
world?"
> > Zeno's reply, of course, is that, if the slave had understood his
> > philosophy better... he would have known that he, Zeno, was also
> > destined from the beginning of the world to beat his slave for the
> > transgression. And here we come to the matter of paradoxes which
> > arise from trying to deny reality (which is a reality of
cause/effect
> > without any possible exception)... for if we accept that determinism
> > holds true in the world, then nothing really changes (as you can see
> > from the example of Zeno and his slave): The criminal commits his
> > crime & he is subsequently punished for it (most cases). Objections
> > on the basis that determinism leads to an impossibly fatalistic
ethics
> > may be referred to such concepts as that of philosopher Chrysippus's
> > "condestinate" facts (facts dependent upon other facts, in which the
> > fact of... whether a man is destined to live or die is dependent
upon
> > the fact that he acts to save his life, of course). The future is
indeed
> > predictable in the absolute, but only given absolute knowledge. But
> > the human experience is a bundle of feelings.... and we all "feel"
> > quite free to choose, no matter what the evidence to the contrary!
> > On the other hand, those who reject determinism usually do so
> > on the premise that nothing anyone ever does is without a cause!
> > (A logical absurdity: Opponents of determinism yet punish the
> > criminal to the degree that he had or had not a reason for doing
> > what he did... and "forgive" only the lunatic.) Such self-evidently
> > irrational rationalizations for indeterminism (and thereby "free
will")
> > go back all the way to the Epicurean philosophers, who adapted
> > earlier atomistic notions (in which everything that happens comes
> > about from the interactions and motions of atoms, deterministic)
> > with their own absurd idea that "occasionally" atoms could rather
> > "spontaneously" and of their own accord, mind you, change their
> > motions (apparently some atoms had "the capacity to swerve" at
> > will and for no apparent reason/cause whatsoever). Yet this is the
> > nature of the human condition, I'm afraid... to believe in magic and
> > most especially of all, in God: It might be hard-wired into our
brains
> > (since I myself know for a fact not only that there cannot be a God
> > but that there could NEVER have been a God, yet I believe in Him).
> > Then too, mathematicians will, willy-nilly, tell you that a true
random
> > number (one which does not arise out of some process which then
> > inevitably leads to it) is possible... and I have seen many a
> > description
> > of systems which mathematicians will tell you with a straight face
> > indeed produce random numbers left & right (the equivalent of mass-
> > producing miracles)... then being used to produce all sorts of
results
> > entirely "original" in the world (effects without causes, no less).
O
> > well!
> > Being a rather conservative Stoic myself, I do the conventional
thing
> > and merely seek out my place in the world (I accept reality for what
> > it is... every chance I get).
> > Most religions reject determinism, of course, because when God
> > knows all that is to happen (unless He is mistaken, and what God is)
> > He has either willed it thus (which absolves sinners), or He cannot
> > change any of it (and has thus been stripped of His omnipotence):
> > St. Augustine made a nifty "out" for God by proposing that God's
> > omniscience is independent of time (consequently... it's not unlike
> > memory... again creating the paradox of a powerless Omnipotent
> > in order to give reality to the notion of a free will in a world in
> > which
> > God is not the author of sin & evil as well as of the good). So you
> > can see to what extent proponents of indeterminism & free will are
> > "willing" to go... when even the most religious of them (St.
Augustine,
> > St. Thomas Aquinas, Boethius, Erasmus) are quite happy to reduce
> > God to a mere idle dreamer for its sake. So I don't advise anyone to
> > make it his/her lifework to try to stamp out irrational beliefs in
this
> > crazy world of ours.
> > Although Eastern religions have sometimes been termed more hard
> > fatalistic (hard deterministic), in practice they are no less
> > irrationally
> > indeterministic than ours: So that, in practice, any Easterner
patient
> > who is told he has been condemned to die by cancer... is just as
> > likely as a Westerner to seek a second opinion. But even a great
> > man like Voltaire ridiculed the notion that ours is the only
possible
> > reality (determinism) in Leibniz's theist version (... God being
good,
> > and ours being God's creation, then) that ours is the best of all
> > possible worlds (since ours must be the only world possible). And
> > it is still Leibniz we ridicule to this day; and Voltaire whom we
laugh
> > along with. Although many religious figures have favored a sort of
> > determinism (at least where God was concerned), to do so (Luther
> > and Calvin, for example) stresses the omnipotence of God over His
> > supposed love and mercy: So, for them, it is not within man's power
> > to do any good thing, even charity, without it first being prompted
by
> > grace. According to Luther, God does not only know everything but
> > does everything (so to posit that a man can do even good without it
> > coming from God is, to Luther, the same as that man acting outside
> > God): This makes theirs not a very Christian God... who leaves a man
> > in a world in which the laws of man (indeterministic) are in
complete
> > disagreement with the (deterministic) laws of God. {Don't worry,
most
> > Protestants only pay lip service to Luther & Calvin these days.] But
> > do theists have a choice (pun)? Their belief in God and in magic
agrees
> > with our reality only by "only paying lip service" to the many
paradoxes
> > which arise out of trying to imagine exceptions to a reality which
is
> > unforgivingly deterministic not here & there, but
absolutely/everywhere.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > Hobbes’s materialism is just this sort of partially deterministic
> > approach
> > … which, while denying the existence of the soul, yet proposes
that
> > free will is possible, as it arises from motions and/or
modifications of
> > matter in the brain, which, while yet deterministic, the will can
bring
> > to a
> > "willed" halt). Schopenhauer, A. J. Ayer, Moritz Schlick and others
have
> > followed this illogical "half-way" too. The problem remains what is
has
> > always been: We may acknowledge the deterministic nature of the
> > inanimate
> > world (about which we can do nothing), but we just can’t help
"feeling"
> > that
> > our minds can still make a true/real
…
read more »