New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

A note on the book “The Science of Freedom”

שו”תCategory: philosophyA note on the book “The Science of Freedom”
asked 8 years ago

The book presents Koppel’s argument for the existence of free choice (pages 220-230).
Number of comments
A: The Rabbi divided (or folded) between three series: a random series, a semi-random series, a semi-fixed series, and a completely fixed series. Where do we find that completely fixed series? After all, even if all the terms are arranged among themselves in complete coherence, who determined the value of the first term (and fills them all)?
B: The rabbi rejected Koppel’s claim on the basis of the derivation of the series to the life of the individual and since it is again a finite series with a model, etc., how can one refute the claim on the basis of a private derivation? After all, any infinite series that we derive will become a finite series if the derivation part is derived?
The question should be asked in a different way, because according to the (agreed upon?) assumption that our world is a finite world and not infinite, even without a derivation, it is a finite series and at the end of the world (no matter which one) it will turn out reactively that the series is a modeled=deterministic series.
As a possible solution I will propose dualism with the addition of the permanence and immortality of the soul (Plato, I think).
 


Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 8 years ago
First, Koppel tries to show feasibility or possibility rather than the actual existence of free choice. Second, there is a misunderstanding here. When I talk about modeling, I do not mean that one element in a chain determines the next one (a regression formula), but that there is a formula that describes the whole (if there was a regression formula, this is its solution). Therefore, the first element has no special meaning. You can ask who determined the formula, but I am discussing the very existence of a formula. In rejecting his words, I argued that my definition of freedom is not based on an infinite series that cannot be modeled (it’s just a good metaphor, but not essential), but rather on a local mechanism, that is, a relationship between two members of the series (a regression formula that has a free element). In this definition, it really doesn’t matter whether you can attach some model de facto to the product (our chain of behaviors). Hence, there is no need to add the persistence of the soul in order to reach eternity, in order to grasp the libertarian view.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

אריה לב replied 8 years ago

Righteousness

Leave a Reply

Back to top button