Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?

[SNOWBALL138]

[ QUOTE ]
What determinism says is that the whole cannot be larger than the sum of its parts. If you're made up of atoms, you follow the same physical laws atoms follow. Since the atoms don't have free will, you don't have free will.


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this called the fallacy of composition?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What determinism says is that the whole cannot be larger than the sum of its parts. If you're made up of atoms, you follow the same physical laws atoms follow. Since the atoms don't have free will, you don't have free will.


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this called the fallacy of composition?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the inference is justifiable in this case. A human body is composed entirely of matter, and matter is subjuct to the laws of physics, thus a human body is subject to the laws of physics.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...mposition.html

[atrifix]

Well, the example wasn't particularly rigorous, just meant to shed some light on the subject. Even if it is valid, the assumption (that all processes are reducible to fundamental particles) is pretty clearly false.

Moreover, though, composition isn't always a fallacy (unlike ad hominem, say). In this case there is sufficient justification to make the inference. Of course, the simplistic statement "atoms don't have free will, so you don't have free will" is fallacious, but I only wanted to make sure my meaningwas understood.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What determinism says is that the whole cannot be larger than the sum of its parts. If you're made up of atoms, you follow the same physical laws atoms follow. Since the atoms don't have free will, you don't have free will.


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this called the fallacy of composition?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what it's called, but it's obviously fallacious.

Since atoms don't have a mother, you don't have a mother. Since atoms don't have a beautiful singing voice, Mariah Carey doesn't have a beautiful singing voice. Etc.

Free will, since it depends on consciousness, is an emergent property. Just because the individual parts don't have it doesn't mean that the whole doesn't.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what it's called, but it's obviously fallacious.

Since atoms don't have a mother, you don't have a mother. Since atoms don't have a beautiful singing voice, Mariah Carey doesn't have a beautiful singing voice. Etc.

Free will, since it depends on consciousness, is an emergent property. Just because the individual parts don't have it doesn't mean that the whole doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, this inference might be a composition fallacy (even if it is, though, there are other arguments for determinism), but it's not nearly as obvious as this. You're mischaracterizing my argument. What I meant was that "since (any collection of) atoms don't have free will, you don't have free will". Your inferences are more like "since (single) atoms don't have a mother, you don't have a mother." Obviously certain collections of atoms do have mothers.