/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15206726
>If you have not shown your formal system to be sound, you could not just replace 'provable' with 'true
I didn't say you could. I am just stating that that is the way it is usually put instead of using truth. Truth is determined by minds ultimately. Something outside of syntax or formal systems.
>One is a syntactic property, the other a semantic one
Yes, I know. Semantics are grounded in minds only. Semantics are not grounded in syntax, see the chinese room experiment. though, syntax CAN, of course, be utilized to CONVEY semantics and meaning to minds. Minds are semantic generators or meaning generators, not programs. We also give qualitative-ness to quantities or quantifiables. We turn data into INFORMATION, just as we take the physical data stream and through interface we create qualia or qualitative experience INFORMATION. We also are uncertainty resolvers. This is what we are doing in life. Creating information.

>>15134227
>he plainly denied the existence of free will on the recent podcast episode I watched the other day
Ok, I believe you. I don't watch every interview of his. Irrelevant though. I don't subscribe to his model anyways. He is right about a lot of stuff and he won against sabine, except he should have read that other paper. That's just an issue of being unprepared though. It wasn't an issue of sabine being right.
>you will never prove free will exists
I don't care about 'proving' it. There is nothing logically inconsistent about the idea, that's the point.
> it would require proving the realness of counterfactual worlds in which alternative choices were made
You are appealing to physicalism again with regard to philosophy of mind. Physicalism can't account for consciousness. See here
>>15134198
>And how many alternative choices would need to be available before a will can be considered "free"?
I gave the definition here
>>15134153
So 2 I suppose. A choice between two possible values in a decision space, this way or that, move towards the hot area or the cold area, move toward the dark of the light, eat now or wait. One resolution of uncertainty. Choose between up-down, left-right, backwards or forwards.
>you quickly realise that even if it was all possible choices save 1, that would be a major constraint on that will's freedom
There are all kinds of constraints on freewill. Hunger for instance. You can't stop from getting hungry, but you can choose what to eat or to fast longer. Or a behavioral or drug addiction. As the drug addict slips farther into the addiction, the freewill becomes constrained. The decision space narrows. Even in the deepest depths though, the freewill awareness unit is still there. Addicts who have been drunks for 30, 40 50 years ect still have that sliver of freewill left in there, and they quit.