spacer1

And I see this as being the source of paradox in Zeno's Paradox. Logically, there is the possibility of being up to an infinite amount of divisions between any two numbers, but to actually count all these numbers (e.g., counting aloud "one, two, three...") would also require an infinite amount of time. The source of paradox may be better described as attempting to "pin-down" a truth about reality in time, while reality is ultimately changing (through time); or, statements are static, while our experiences are dynamic.

While you may now claim that there is some regularity to our perceptions of reality and so we can infer laws, etc., this is beside my point. My point is somewhat related to the problem of inductive theories, in that we would have to physically verify every instance to justify the absolute "truth" of the statement. It is also related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in that you can know your momentum (your experience of reality in time) or your position (which I equate to static statements regarding reality, or any verbal expression of knowledge (which occurs at some point in time)) but not both simultaneously.

My 3 cents.

spacer1

Perhaps it might be better to say we cannot 'know' and reflect/express that knowledge simultaneouly.

spacer1

Perhaps it may be better to say we cannot come to know (learn) and express what we ultimately will learn ("at the end") simultaneously.

spacer1

We cannot have an experience and fully describe that experience simultaneously.

kelsos

> I was wondering if anyone else has come across the idea that the decision-making
> process known as "free-will" could come about through uncertainty in quantum systems
> within the brain?

That's an elegant way out of this problem, but the uncertainty of quantum mechanics is not necessary for free will. Even in a deterministic world there can be no knowlegde about all variables of a given system (such as a brain) so although in theory there would be no free will the practial limit of what we can know still serves as a basis for defending free will.

Besides, both quantum mechanics and classical deterministic theories are *descriptions* of reality, and should not be confused with reality itself.

Apathist

True enough. Also true - people make decisions all the time, and if determinism can't explain this, so much the worse for determinism.

Whatup?

Eh, what is the basis of that claim? Can you elaborate?

Nowhere357

Could you expound on this? I think I've seen the concept before, and I'm not sure I understand it. It's similar to the indetermanancy principle, I think.

spacer1

Nowhere357,
It is something I arrived at myself, so I'm not sure of other sources for the idea. I tried to explain it more fully on this thread.