TE, souls, and freedom

Bertvan@aol.com
Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:53:54 EDT

Brian:
>Now, regarding freedom. Here I want to deal only with
>physical freedom. Is a human (body/soul/spirit) capable
>of interacting with the physical world in such a way as
>to not only make choices from alternatives but also to
>have some effect upon what those alternatives are?

(Snip a lot of good stuff)

>To anticipate a possible complaint by Bertvan :-), let us remind
>ourselves that the words being used here are in a technical
>context. When we say that there may be things that happen in the
>world for no reason we are not making some philosophical statement
>regarding lack of purpose. All we are saying is that the world
>may not be deterministic. You really can't have your cake and
>eat it too. If you're unhappy with the implications of determinism
>then you better grow fond of the notion of randomness :).

Hi Brian,

I have pondered your post some more and read a bit of Chaitin. He seems to
"prove" mathematically that paradoxes exist in mathematics. I suppose that
might be a shocker for someone with a reverent faith that mathematics has an
infallible answer to all questions. However, I view mathematics as a crude
language with which to describe reality. Like geometry, mathematics can
discern the overall shapes, but misses the rich, subtitle details which is
the essence of nature. Mathematics might be capable of describing a dead
nature, but I personally doubt even the cosmos is dead. I see paradoxes
everywhere, and would be surprised if they didn't exist in mathematics.

I am having trouble with a definition of "random". I could define anything
unpredictable as random, but I would still be in disagreement with "random
mutations" as most people understand the term. If the unpredictable aspect
of nature were due to "freedom" (which is my belief), freedom involves a free
choice between alternatives, and how can both choice and chance mean
"random"? Isn't "random" without pattern, plan or purpose? Free choice
might deny plan or pattern, (It has to, if it is free) but choice always
implies some unknown purpose. Choice without purpose is the forfeiture of
choice.

I admit this is a problem of definitions. Even if we decide a definition of
"random" can include freedom, you must admit that would not eliminate my
disagreement with "random mutations and natural selection" as most people use
the term. How do I continue to discuss the subject?

Bertvan