Anton Zeilinger's comment about free will being required for science

[PeterDonis]

I have no issue assuming the premise.

We're not talking about assuming the premise. We're talking about whether what humans claim they can or cannot imagine has any bearing at all on an argument that purports to prove a general claim that includes beings which are nothing like humans are now or will be in the foreseeable future.

Given your personal restriction, it makes sense that you don’t understand the validity of the argument.

I don't "understand" that appealing to intuition or imaginings is valid argument, yes. I don't see such a failure to "understand" as a problem.

 

[RUTA]

We're not talking about assuming the premise. We're talking about whether what humans claim they can or cannot imagine has any bearing at all on an argument that purports to prove a general claim that includes beings which are nothing like humans are now or will be in the foreseeable future.

I don't "understand" that appealing to intuition or imaginings is valid argument, yes. I don't see such a failure to "understand" as a problem.

The argument stands whether you personally can or cannot comprehend the premises. Again, I and many others have no problem comprehending the premises and therefore the conclusion. All you can say legitimately is that you do not.

 

[PeterDonis]

The argument stands whether you personally can or cannot comprehend the premises.

The problem is not that I don't comprehend the premises. The problem is that I disagree with you about the validity of the argument as a matter of logic. The argument is not logically valid; it is simply an expression of a widely held intuition that does not logically entail the argument's conclusion.

As my reference to Dennett should show you, I am not the only person that holds that view, so you cannot say it is just me personally. Nor is Dennett the only philosopher who disagrees with your position; there is quite a lot of literature on this, on both sides of the question. So I don't think you can simply help yourself to the claim that your position is right and any disagreement with it must be due to failure to comprehend the premises.

 

[fresh_42]

The argument stands whether you personally can or cannot comprehend the premises.

Please avoid personal offenses.

If the premise of an argument only holds per logical assumption, but is void in the physical world due to the lack of possible experiments, then this thread is no longer about physics, but philosophy.

Red and grey are measurable. Even if my imagination of red differs from other people's imagination, we can still agree on the frequency. An ideal person knowing everything physical contradicts in my opinion the achievements in the last century and throws us back to a, which I emphasize to say philosophical discussion about determinism and the philosophy of Descartes.

As this thread became obviously a philosophical one, or at best a thread about meta logic, it will be closed.