Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5706349" data-attributes="member: 4937">There may be free will somewhere in the stack, but it doesn't have to reside in the mortal level.&nbsp; If it doesn't reside in the mortal level, it doesn't require infinite recursion.&nbsp; The is an argument usually seen from a misuse of Occam's razor.&nbsp;&nbsp; Occam's razor is perfectly happy to accept two or three or four or n components to the system provided that observation rules out n-1.&nbsp; My point is that someone who doesn't think that free will holds, will also agree that your definition of 'rights' will not hold.&nbsp; Instead, they will see the real rights of the agents as being akin to the physical laws of the universe or to those granted to software agents.&nbsp; I can provide real world examples, but it would probably violate the board rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; Instead I'll just say that in our hypothetical fantasy world, the chaotics and the lawfuls don't actually know either how the world is and disagree with how it should be.&nbsp; Therefore, something like our inability to grasp the fundamental axioms of the universe probably holds true for them (at least on the mortal level) as it does for us.&nbsp;&nbsp; They could also be arguing over whether the universe favors destiny or free will, and be equally unable to prove their intuitive understanding or preference.One of the difficulties here is if I talked about what I actually believed we'd quickly get into talking about things EnWorld doesn't smile upon.&nbsp; So I have to confine myself to saying things like, &quot;In my opinion, law loosely maps to this set of philosophical positions, and so they'd view the hypothetical in this way...&quot;&nbsp; And just for the record, I don't actually hold any of the positions I've hitherto talked about.&nbsp; Many real world philosophical positions essentially hold that you could no more choose not to do the things that you do than your brother could choose to walk.&nbsp; In reality, we may actually agree about a lot of things.&nbsp; Reality though tends to be sticky subject.Almost certainly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5706349, member: 4937"] There may be free will somewhere in the stack, but it doesn't have to reside in the mortal level. If it doesn't reside in the mortal level, it doesn't require infinite recursion. The is an argument usually seen from a misuse of Occam's razor. Occam's razor is perfectly happy to accept two or three or four or n components to the system provided that observation rules out n-1. My point is that someone who doesn't think that free will holds, will also agree that your definition of 'rights' will not hold. Instead, they will see the real rights of the agents as being akin to the physical laws of the universe or to those granted to software agents. I can provide real world examples, but it would probably violate the board rules. Instead I'll just say that in our hypothetical fantasy world, the chaotics and the lawfuls don't actually know either how the world is and disagree with how it should be. Therefore, something like our inability to grasp the fundamental axioms of the universe probably holds true for them (at least on the mortal level) as it does for us. They could also be arguing over whether the universe favors destiny or free will, and be equally unable to prove their intuitive understanding or preference. One of the difficulties here is if I talked about what I actually believed we'd quickly get into talking about things EnWorld doesn't smile upon. So I have to confine myself to saying things like, "In my opinion, law loosely maps to this set of philosophical positions, and so they'd view the hypothetical in this way..." And just for the record, I don't actually hold any of the positions I've hitherto talked about. Many real world philosophical positions essentially hold that you could no more choose not to do the things that you do than your brother could choose to walk. In reality, we may actually agree about a lot of things. Reality though tends to be sticky subject. Almost certainly. [/QUOTE]

Verification