(2019-03-09, 08:06 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: I mean change as the actualization of a potential, which requires something actual to facilitate.No? Interesting. Physics talks about potential all the time. But whatever the lowest-level actualizers are, they are going to be axiomatic.
That doesn't sound like a physical law to me.
Quote:I mean there were the Tallis essays you were going to read, but if you are going to read Of Time & Lamentation we can just wait for you to finish that.That'll take awhile. I can take just a little bit of heavy philosophy at a time.
What I might do is look around the interwebs to see if anyone addresses my specific question.
Quote:Beyond that, the answer is Final Cause by way of Rationality / Intentionality / Subjectivity. Perhaps if there is some specific issue you have with some specific explanation in some specific post it might help to see what the problem is...I'm quite sure Physicalism of varied types -- like if angels had to have their own type of physics that bound everything there is to say about their reality -- has a problem and I agree there's no free will there...That answer is a proper name and three proper attributes that have something to do with making the decision. Beyond that there are no details. It doesn't get to how that tetrad decides for chicken rather than fish.
Quote:Don't you mean the swerve and bounce of particles are what actually accomplished things? Seems to me under Physicalism you were just along for the ride.I am the ride. I suppose I might think free will makes my decisions "more mine" if I understood how those decisions were made.
~~ Paul
If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi