Герштейн Михаил Львович : другие произведения.

Discussion about Determinism and free will

Самиздат: [Регистрация] [Найти] [Рейтинги] [Обсуждения] [Новинки] [Обзоры] [Помощь|Техвопросы]
Ссылки:
 Ваша оценка:
  • Аннотация:
    "I think that the act of knowledge in its essence is directed at learning to change something, that is, to express one"s Will. At a certain time period, we attempt to predict the future so as to change it - for instance, to move away when a brick falls down. To conclude on the basis of scientific models an absence of free will appears to me just as hopeless as to think that with the development of locksmith instruments, we will be able to predict the behavior of locksmiths." Mikhail L. Gershteyn
  
  DISCUSSION ABOUT DETERMINISM AND FREE WILL (2003)
  
  Mikhail Lvovich Gershteyn - Mikhail Ivanovich Petelin
  
  Translated by Vlada Brofman
  
  
  Letter 1 09/23/03
  From: M.Gershteyn Тo: M.Petelin
  
  Dear Mikhail Ivanovich,
  
  I"m sending you my short article on cognitive philosophy, "The Laws of Nature or of Men." I will be grateful for any comments. If you have any observations, we could publish them on www. AttractiveUniverse.com.
  
  Regards and best wishes,
  
  Mikhail Gershteyn
  
  Letter 2 11/22/03
  From: M.Petelin To: M.Gershteyn
  
  Misha,
  
  Thanks for your essay. It is very elegant, but let me smoothen a
  couple of angles:
  
  1) Any believer in God being identical to the Nature is a materialist:
  the Laplacian determinism frees the man of responsibility to God. On
  the contrary, any really religious man believes that God supervises
  not only the Nature, but human morals as well.
  
  2) Any real scientist, independently on his religion, tries to guess
  Laws of the Nature and translate them to a convenient language. In the
  latter sense I totally agree with you.
  
  The both comments are borrowed from books, especially from essays of
  Gregory Pomerantz whom I respect very much.
  
  Sincerely yours,
  Michael Petelin.
  
  Letter 3 11/24/03
  From: M.Gershteyn Тo: M.Petelin
  
  
  Dear Mikhail Ivanovich,
  
  I appreciate your kind praise of the article and your comments. Laplacian determinism seems to me a philosophical error: the very fact of Laplace"s requesting data on the world is an act of free will. The prediction of the future is also an act of will. If Laplace is capable of acts of will, then prediction can only work in the intervals between them since he could take part in or choose not to interfere with events. If there is more than one such "Laplace", the model becomes even more unpredictable (like the croquet game in Alice in Wonderland, where the balls are live hedgehogs who can crawl away as they like between the shots).
  
  Sincerely yours.
  
  Mikhail Gershteyn
  
  
  
  Lerrer 4 11/25/03
  From: M.Petelin To: M.Gershteyn
  
  Dear Misha,
  
  The Laplacian determinism seems misinterpreted by you. Laplace says:
  Let Anybody (not myself, of course) know, with the perfect precision,
  coordinates and momentums of all microparticles (the modern physicist
  might add photons) at a definite time (denote it t=0). Then this
  Anybody, basing on exact motion equations, can calculate the state of
  the System at any times (both at t<0 and t>0).
  CONSEQUENCE: No one hair will drop from your head, being not
  pre-calculated by this Anybody.
  
  Letter 5 11/25/03
  
  From: M.Gershteyn Тo: M.Petelin
  
  1.The formulation of Laplace"s principle
  
  Dear Mikhail Ivanovich,
  
  I agree that the exact formulation of Laplace"s principle which you cited is closer than the one I held in my memory. This is how I remembered it: "Give me the coordinates and speeds of all the particles in the universe and the forces acting on them, and I will predict the future."
  
  You correctly note that Laplace is not talking of himself, but of another "intelligent being."...
  
  Today I found a webpage by a historian of science John H. Van Drie; he dedicated it to the discussion of the formulation of Laplace"s principle.
  
  Curiously, John H. Van Drie and many others, similar to me, remember this principle by analogy with a more active utterance by Archimedes, "Give me a place to stand on, and I will move the Earth."
  
  
  2. The mistake of Laplace
  
  The principle of Laplace still appears erroneous to me. The point is that the "intelligent being" that makes the predictions is also a part of the universe. The free will of such a creature is manifested at least in his or her decision to make this prediction. However, a being with a free will can voluntarily interfere in the process, i.e. change the future; thus, the future is undetermined.
  
  3. Yes - to Archimedes, no - to Laplace
  
  I think that the act of knowledge in its essence is directed at learning to change something, that is, to express one"s Will. At a certain time period, we attempt to predict the future so as to change it - for instance, to move away when a brick falls down.
  
  To conclude on the basis of scientific models an absence of free will appears to me just as hopeless as to think that with the development of locksmith instruments, we will be able to predict the behavior of locksmiths.
  
  I think that the process of cognition is equivalent corresponds not to the principle of Laplace, but to that of Archimedes: "Give me a place to stand on, and I will move the Earth. "
  
  
  Sincerely yours,
  M. Gershteyn
   First published in 2003 on http://attractiveuniverse.com
 Ваша оценка:
Связаться с программистом сайта.

Новые книги авторов СИ, вышедшие из печати:
О.Болдырева "Крадуш. Чужие души" М.Николаев "Вторжение на Землю"

Как попасть в этoт список
Сайт - "Художники" .. || .. Доска об'явлений "Книги"