M Theory

[Omyo12]

Ummm… Actually, Gravity has graduated for some time now from a theory to a Law of physics. So it is called the LAW of gravity, not the theory of gravity.

In any case, scientific THEORIES are very often the basis for what’s known as science FICTION. The other basis for science fiction is human imagination.

Blessings

Wowwww… theories and laws are two different things…

* Laws are **generalizations** about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

* Theories are **explanations** of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

Gravity in general will always be a theory by its very property

The Newton’s LAWS are like, “if you push something small and light, it’ll move”

Their are also many THEORIES of Gravity try to answer how gravity really works
(i.e. the Theory of Special Relativity)

Of course the Theory of Special Relativity is true (just look at a GPS- the clocks on-board the satellites are programmed to run faster because when they travel in space, they are going so fast time actually slows down)
But it’s still called a “THEORY” because that’s the proper name for them

Unfortunately, many people don’t know the difference and think a “theory” graduates into “law”
Many creationist pull the old: " THEORY of evolution" trick

its the buzzword of the uninformed masses…

 

[mardukm]

Wowwww… theories and laws are two different things…

Yes they are.

* Laws are **generalizations** about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.

* Theories are **explanations** of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

Nope. You are confusing “theory” with “hypothesis” A theory is what you said PLUS the fact that it has obtained SOME measure of scientific validity, but has not yet satisfied the criteria for scientific certainly. A Law is a theory that has satisfied the criteria for scientific certainty.

Gravity in general will always be a theory by its very property.

No. Gravity is an accepted physical law of the known universe. It is not a theory.

Their are also many THEORIES of Gravity try to answer how gravity really works
(i.e. the Theory of Special Relativity)

No. More concisely, there is the Law of Gravity, and then there are theories on the relationship of gravity to other forces or constants in the universe (such as the Theory of Special Relativity).

Of course the Theory of Special Relativity is true (just look at a GPS- the clocks on-board the satellites are programmed to run faster because when they travel in space, they are going so fast time actually slows down)
But it’s still called a “THEORY” because that’s the proper name for them.

No, it is a theory because it has not been definitively proven to be predictably constant in the universe (since it is rather difficult to perform the experiment to prove the theory). THAT’S why it is a theory, and not a law. The clock experiment does not prove anything, and scientists admit that. For all we know, the theory could break down at greater speeds. The reason a theory is a theory is NOT because it is an attempt to explain “how.” A theory is a theory because it has not been absolutely scientifically verified. If it has scientific certainty through scientific observation/ experimentation/ verification (whereby it has the quality of predicatibility, as you stated earlier), then it indeed graduates to the status of a physical Law,

Unfortunately, many people don’t know the difference and think a “theory” graduates into “law”
Many creationist pull the old: " THEORY of evolution" trick

its the buzzword of the uninformed masses…

I think perhaps you a bit misinformed on the relationship between hypothesis, theory, and law.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Omyo12]

Nope. You are confusing “theory” with “hypothesis” A theory is what you said PLUS the fact that it has obtained SOME measure of scientific validity, but has not yet satisfied the criteria for scientific certainly.

I neglected to add “with scientific backing” since I assumed it would be a given…

A Law is a theory that has satisfied the criteria for scientific certainty.

Your statement is misleading. They are certain because they are very “simple”

There is no “hierarchy” in regards to theories and laws. A theory is NOT a “law in waiting” as I take you imply.
A law is simply accepted as happening.

But here’s the kicker… it is possible for a Law to be proven false at a later date.
There is no absolute certainty

(There is a link at the bottom to better explain)

No. Gravity is an accepted physical law of the known universe. It is not a theory.

No. More concisely, there is the Law of Gravity, and then there are theories on the relationship of gravity to other forces or constants in the universe (such as the Theory of Special Relativity).

Yes, there is a concise Law of Gravity, however more generally it can be taken as a series of theories. F=MG is accepted as a law because that’s the way things are.

However HOW does F=MG?

Well, according to the THEORY of General Relativity, the large mass of the Earth bends the fabric of space and we are “pulled” to the center. And this happens universally but with changing variables

(ugh, that was grotesquely simplified… >_< )

A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

(Once again, refer to the link at the bottom of the post)

This theory is logically sound (given the current information) and is accepted as true on par with the laws is uses.

No, it is a theory because it has not been definitively proven to be predictably constant in the universe (since it is rather difficult to perform the experiment to prove the theory). THAT’S why it is a theory, and not a law.

Theories can only be logically sound based on math and the laws used to explain themselves. They can never be definitively proven. There can be an infinite number of mathematical experiments on a phenomena but it can never be “definitely” proven. A Theory will never “graduate” into a Law because they explain different things.

The clock experiment does not prove anything, and scientists admit that. For all we know, the theory could break down at greater speeds.

which scientists?

If it breaks down, then E=MC^2 is wrong. It is accepted as a constant and it too serves as a building block for grander theories (String Theory for example).
Mathematically speaking, E=MC^2 is extremely solid in Special Relativity

But of course, valid questions are welcomed in the scientific community because that’s how science is built and advanced.

Einstein questioned Newton

---

to go on tangent for a moment, Quantum Mechanics is the exact opposite of Relativity and they tend to hate each other. M-Theory (also called String Theory in variation) is an attempt to “unify” the two fields.

String Theory is an unfinished theory and will probably not be finished in our lifetimes.
It is called the “Unified Theory of Everything”… quite ambitious ​

The reason a theory is a theory is NOT because it is an attempt to explain “how.” A theory is a theory because it has not been absolutely scientifically verified. If it has scientific certainty through scientific observation/ experimentation/ verification (whereby it has the quality of predicatibility, as you stated earlier), then it indeed graduates to the status of a physical Law,

All you’re claiming is that a Theory is an unproven Law, that’s simply not true… (the link at the bottom has better explanations than mine)

I think perhaps you a bit misinformed on the relationship between hypothesis, theory, and law.

facepalm

This is a short read:
science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

Blessings,
Marduk

Peace be with you

 

[mardukm]

As the essay in your link admitted, my understanding is one of the proper understandings of the matter. The author’s viewpoint, which you reflect, is obviously just that - his own viewpoint.

I do believe that hypothesis-theory-law is an hierarchical chain depending on scientific evidence. The various defintions given by the author in fact support that understanding, so I certainly do not agree with his interpreation of the available evidence.

Further, the definition that theory in is an accepted explanation given available facts demonstrates the subjectivity inherent in the definition. That definition is equivalent, in my view, to “wishful thinking” on the part of certain circles in the scientific community. They accept a theory as law, but really it is not since it has truly not satisfied the rigorous demands of scientific proof. People who hold to an understanding that equates theory and law on the level of scientific inquiry are, IMO, not real scientists, but are rather demagogues disguised as scientists, hoping to create their own religion based not on scientific fact, but mere belief.

I do think that the only worthy point in support of your position is the idea that both law and theory can, through available evidence, be proven wrong. Nevertheless, there is a difference between law and theory in this regard. When a theory is proven wrong, the theory is either discarded or revised. In distinction, when a LAW is proven wrong, the LAW remains intact - it is merely that a new law for the new and/or different circumstances that have been discovered is added as a corollary.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[masterjedi747]

Many world theory… Just as a superposition is collapsed in wave-partical duality, when a choice is made it collapses the wave function, eliminating the quasi-superposition existance of the potential futures and collapsing the wave function into a single existence. None of the other possible futures come into being or survive afterwards.

Wiki has an incredibly over-simplified explanation of the situation.

If you’re right, that would be great… but I’m still not… quite convinced…

Another example:
"The reason for adopting the MWI is that it avoids the collapse of the quantum wave… The MWI is a deterministic theory for a physical Universe and it explains why a world appears to be indeterministic for human observers.

“I” is defined at a particular time by a complete (classical) description of the state of my body and of my brain. “I” and “Lev” do not name the same things (even though my name is Lev). At the present moment there are many different "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another “I”. I have a particular, well defined past: I correspond to a particular “Lev” in 2002, but I do not have a well defined future: I correspond to a multitude of "Lev"s in 2010. In the framework of the MWI it is meaningless to ask: Which Lev in 2010 will I be? I will correspond to them all. Every time I perform a quantum experiment (with several possible results) it only seems to me that I obtain a single definite result. Indeed, Lev who obtains this particular result thinks this way. However, this Lev cannot be identified as the only Lev after the experiment. Lev before the experiment corresponds to all "Lev"s obtaining all possible results.

According to the MWI, a world defined at some moment of time corresponds to a unique world at a time in the past, but to a multitude of worlds at a time in the future."

…can you provide another source (not too technical) that disagrees with this?
Because I can’t find anything that actually disagrees with the Wikipedia explanation.

 

[promethius]

I do believe that hypothesis-theory-law is an hierarchical chain depending on scientific evidence. The various defintions given by the author in fact support that understanding, so I certainly do not agree with his interpreation of the available evidence.

Unfortunately, Markduk, in this case many worlds theory is a physics based theory. In the world of physics we function, much as the catholic church, under a specific functional language which is seperate from standard definitions in use by the populous at large. In this case you are wrong. Laws are used to develop theories over time as the laws are proven true, not the other way around. Vis Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 5th Ed:

“The main objective of Physics is to find the limited number of fundamental laws that govern natural phenomenon and to use them to develop theories that can predict the results of future experiments. The fundamental laws used in developing theories are expressed in the language of mathematics, the tool that provides a bridge between theory and experiment” (Dr.s Serway and Beichner, pg 3)

I think you have theory confused with the term “hypothesis” or “concept”

As to gravity, you’re both incorrect. The law of universal gravitation describes the theory of gravity through mathematical terms. Gravity is not theory OR law, it is both.

 

[promethius]

If you’re right, that would be great… but I’m still not… quite convinced…

Another example:

You do realize that the source for this paper is a student who did absolutely no experimentation and denies the popular physics-based explanation in favor of his totally philosophically based definition, right?

Unfortunately, the student went FAR beyond what any experiment can show to create a dream-world “wouldn’t it be nice” hypothesis that can’t be proven. At this point, that paper is nothing more than wishful thinking unless the student can create an objective and repeatable experiment to verify his hypothesis.

HOWEVER, this:

According to the MWI, a world defined at some moment of time corresponds to a unique world at a time in the past, but to a multitude of worlds at a time in the future."

Is spot on. The author admits that in the proper many worlds theory, that only the future is a superposition, none of those futures exist in totality, and that as the “present” or “existance” comes to points in that path, the wavefunction collapses into one state of being. That’s what is meant by “a world defined at some moment of time corresponds to a unique world at a time in the past.” In other words, your student reference is noting that his idea that “Lev” (a philosophical rather than scientific term) continues to exist on a seperate world is contrary to what science has to say on the subject.

…can you provide another source (not too technical) that disagrees with this?
Because I can’t find anything that actually disagrees with the Wikipedia explanation.

The problem is “not too technical”. I suppose I could crack open my quantum mechanics textbook and see if it has an english-looking explanation. That’s part of the problem here… is that many worlds theory is incredibly complex and based on mathematical laws that are hard to grasp. As such, converting the descriptors of laws from multivariable calculus back into english is difficult… Okay, here goes (note the many worlds theory is a subset of the orthodox position):

An Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2nd Ed (Dr David J Griffiths):
"…statistical interpretation introduces a kind of indeterminacy into quantum mechanics, for even if you know everything the theory has to tell you about the particle (to wit: it’s wave function), still you cannot predict with certainty the outcome of a simple experiment to measure its position–all quantum mechanics has to offer is statistical information about the possible results. This indeterminancy has been profoundly disturbing to physicists and philosophers alike…
… Suppose I do measure the position of the particle and I find it to be at point C. Question: Where was the particle just before I made the measurement? There are three plausible answers to this question, and they serve to characterize the main schools of thought regarding quantum indeterminancy:…
… 2. The orthodox position: The particle wasn’t really anywhere. It was the act of measurement that forced the particle to “take a stand” (though how and why it decided on point C we dare not ask). Jordan said it most starkly: “Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it… we compel (the particle) to assume a definite position.” This view (the so-called Copenhagen interpretation), is associated with Bohr and his followers. Among physicists it has always been the most widely accepted position…
… Suffice it to say that the experiments have decisively confirmed the orthodox interpretation. ** A particle simply does not have a precise position prior to the measurement, any more than the ripples on a pond do. it is the measurement process that insists on one particular number and in a sense creates the specific result, limited only by the statistical weighting imposed by the wave function."**

---

The part made bold above is the most important part. Many worlds theory, as an orthodox school of thought, likewise states that before measurement (or choice, in lay-terms for general decisions) the world’s future(s) don’t actually exist, but rather have a psuedo existance as a mathematical superposition in a wave probability function. Making a choice or measurement collapses that wave function into a single point of existance, making all other potentialities non-existant.

 

[masterjedi747]

You do realize that the source for this paper is a student who did absolutely no experimentation and denies the popular physics-based explanation in favor of his totally philosophically based definition, right?

Nope!

Many worlds theory, as an orthodox school of thought, likewise states that before measurement (or choice, in lay-terms for general decisions) the world’s future(s) don’t actually exist, but rather have a psuedo existance as a mathematical superposition in a wave probability function. Making a choice or measurement collapses that wave function into a single point of existance, making all other potentialities non-existant.

That actually sounds a lot more like interpretationsother* of quantum mechanics that I read about, as opposed to MWI… but regardless, I have no particular problems with the scenario you just presented. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

*…sorry, it’s also a Wikipedia link, but I found that particular table format useful (though perhaps it’s incorrect).

 

[promethius]

Nope!

That actually sounds a lot more like other interpretations* of quantum mechanics that I read about, as opposed to MWI… but regardless, I have no particular problems with the scenario you just presented. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

*…sorry, it’s also a Wikipedia link, but I found that particular table format useful (though perhaps it’s incorrect).

There are actually a lot of interpretations under the orthodox school of thought. There are even differing versions of many world theory as well… though most of those deal with philosophical and unprovable forms. The important part is that there is ONE existance. Whether or not possible existances continue to branch off after the chronology has passed that point, they remain psuedo existances that never happened, just as future events are psuedo existances which may or may not ever happen.

 

[Omyo12]

Gravity is not theory OR law, it is both.

Right on!

I suck at explanations hence why I tried to provide a link to a PhD

 

[Just_Lurking]

The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics is a desperate (and absurd) attempt to preserve the philosophy of a deterministic universe, and deny the not-insignificant role of Divine Providence.

What? There is a vast conspiracy of evil, atheist physicists whose primary motivation is to discredit religious belief at all costs, even if it means clinging to random theories for no other reason than those theories go against religious belief?

Newtonian physics is completely deterministic, so I guess that Da Vinci Code movie was right - Sir Isaac Newton was part of a secret movement battling Opus Dei!

 

[masterjedi747]

What? There is a vast conspiracy of evil, atheist physicists whose primary motivation is to discredit religious belief at all costs, even if it means clinging to random theories for no other reason than those theories go against religious belief?

Not… quite what I had in mind. More like: There are (some) atheist physicists whose primary philosophical motivation is to discredit religious belief, even if it means positing ridiculous theories simply because they contradict religious belief.

Newtonian physics is completely deterministic

And fortunately somewhat outdated…

so I guess that Da Vinci Code movie was right - Sir Isaac Newton was part of a secret movement battling Opus Dei!

Very funny. I do hope you were joking?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Very funny. I do hope you were joking?

Yes, but I did have a point as well. I don’t think that physicists, for example Newton, who propose deterministic theories are motivated to do so by a desire to contradict Catholic doctrine. I also think that at a mathematical level, chaos theory shows how determinism can be compatible with free will. Some philosophers (see here) also don’t seem to have a problem with determinism and free will. I also don’t see how a purely random/stochastic physical theory is any more compatible with free will than a deterministic physical theory. Do particles that are undergoing Brownian motion somehow have free will, while particles that are undergoing uniform acceleration do not?

Put another way, free will is the idea that my consciousness is directing my actions. Quantum mechanics, whether MWI or any other interpretation, doesn’t allow for my conscious control over the direction of wave-function collapse any more than Newtonian physics allows for my conscious control over F=ma.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What? There is a vast conspiracy of evil, atheist physicists whose primary motivation is to discredit religious belief at all costs, even if it means clinging to random theories for no other reason than those theories go against religious belief?

Newtonian physics is completely deterministic, so I guess that Da Vinci Code movie was right - Sir Isaac Newton was part of a secret movement battling Opus Dei!

i might point out that all physics are deterministic, we may not have yet pinned down the cause of certain particle phenomenon, but that doesnt mean they have no cause, the fact they they are contingent on a pre existing vacuum, they cant account for the origins of the physical universe.

and yes im pretty sure that there is a vast conspiracy! lol.

actually, people in the sciences are inculturated to the idea that physical empiricism is the only that thing that really can account for the universe, they believe there must be a natural explanation.

as a natural explanation is impossible (see my previous post to this thread) there are uncounted numbers of people worldwide waiting expectantly for an answer that will never arrive.

its interesting that such brilliant people can miss the obvious, but few are classicly educated to any great degree, i suppose the hunt for waldo will continue

 

[masterjedi747]

I don’t think that physicists, for example Newton, who propose deterministic theories are motivated to do so by a desire to contradict Catholic doctrine.

Sure, granted.

I also think that at a mathematical level, chaos theory shows how determinism can be compatible with free will.

…I don’t see that at all. If you’re working with determinism, then chaos theory has far more to do with explaining apparent randomness that ultimately reduces to those deterministic causes. It’s not really unpredictable, but it seems that way because we don’t (or can’t) have enough information about the system.

Some philosophers (see here) also don’t seem to have a problem with determinism and free will.

Compatibilism truly makes no sense to me. The best it seems you can do is redefine “free will” in order to eliminate the difficulty, rather than actually providing a solution. Determinism left to itself would say that given X starting conditions, Y solution must always result from those conditions… no other option. Free will, however, would require that Y and Z are both actually achievable results. So if real free will is going to exist, then it either has to “break” the deterministic rules somehow, or the rules themselves must not be wholly deterministic. I would just argue that physics tends towards the second option, which also happens to fit with our personal experience.

I also don’t see how a purely random/stochastic physical theory is any more compatible with free will than a deterministic physical theory.

I’d like to argue is that it’s “more compatible” simply because it leaves the possibility open, whereas classical determinism was in principle wholly self-contained and had to be at least temporarily “broken” on some level in order to co-exist with free will.

Quantum mechanics, whether MWI or any other interpretation, doesn’t allow for my conscious control over the direction of wave-function collapse…

With determinism, I think it’s clear that it can’t… every motion of every particle is your brain should be perfectly predictable, in principle, so free will shouldn’t be able to exist unless some step of the chain gets “broken”. But I don’t see the same inherent limiting factor when we jump to indeterminism… if the wave function has to be resolved somehow, then why couldn’t your soul be responsible for exerting influence on some level under the right conditions? The particles wouldn’t actually have to behave differently… they would just be determined a certain way by the will, rather than determined a certain way by some other cause. And granted this is speculation, and maybe there are too many other problems with it that I’m simply unaware of… but my point was just that modern physics at least seems more open to the possibility of free will than determinism ever could be. (Thoughts?)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, but I did have a point as well. I don’t think that physicists, for example Newton, who propose deterministic theories are motivated to do so by a desire to contradict Catholic doctrine. I also think that at a mathematical level, chaos theory shows how determinism can be compatible with free will. Some philosophers (see here) also don’t seem to have a problem with determinism and free will. I also don’t see how a purely random/stochastic physical theory is any more compatible with free will than a deterministic physical theory. Do particles that are undergoing Brownian motion somehow have free will, while particles that are undergoing uniform acceleration do not?

Put another way, free will is the idea that my consciousness is directing my actions. Quantum mechanics, whether MWI or any other interpretation, doesn’t allow for my conscious control over the direction of wave-function collapse any more than Newtonian physics allows for my conscious control over F=ma.

ive always thought that free will as we practice it in the deterministic universe is evidence of the non-physical, we shouldnt have it, but somehow the deterministic chains are broken. i dont know the mechanism, but it seems one could relate such activity to the idea of a soul.

aside, im interested in the connection between chaos theory and free will, do you have a link?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There’s this theory where there’s multiple infinite universes, and were in just one. In this infinite universe, the past is happening, future is happening. Marilyn Monroe never died, and Hitler was a saint. I never existed in one, and in another I existed. The ugliest creature exist in one, and the most beautiful exist… In one I could be an athiest prostitute, and another the greatest saint in that universe.

So if all these universes exist where is my soul?? Do you think this is possible?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

Interesting, but how does it avoid cutting of the branch it sits on ? That is what - AFAI understand it - it does; because it seems to deny the determinacy, the particularity, of human identity. And if we have more than one identity, this makes it very difficult to assert anything definite about human identity. If Marilyn Monroe is alive and dead in (so-called) different “universes”, this is not a fulfilment of her being, but a negation of it.​

Bi-location, & even multi-location, may be possible - but bi-location seems to be such that it does not negate, but presupposes, the unity & enduring character of human identity. What you describe, looks very like a version of multi-location that negates the unity & enduring character of human identity. The Eucharistic Presence is a very helpful model & analogy - it retains its Identity, yet its Presence is multiplied. Creation is Eucharistic: the Eucharist is a very significant model of what creation is for, & why.

As for the soul - it’s not any where; we might as well ask what colour it is, or when it is. Such questions are appropriate to material objects - but our souls are (created, therefore finite) spirits; they are not material at all. If anything, these “universes” are “in” our souls - whatever is in our minds, is…in them: so we contain these “universes”, not the other way round. The capacity of the soul to contain, by thought, whatever it thinks of, is a sort of created participation in the infinite “Mind” of God. To say “Reality is all in the mind”, is very true; it’s just a bit one-sided.

Maybe we can say this: the Eucharist is something like the Big Bang, but not diffused it is; instead, the Big Bang is “concentrated into” the Consecrated Gifts. Christ is the Goal, Purpose, Significance & Fulfilment of creation & everything in it, at every level; so all creation is present “in Him”. Which affects what happens at Mass. Which suggests that through the Holy Spirit, Christ empowers mere men to offer the Consecrated Gifts: IOW, to offer to God something which in a certain manner contains the entire creation, themselves included. They are “in” What they offer, since they are created - but they are also its offerers. It is, maybe, a model of the universe.

ISTM that the distinctions of space and time break down - but that identity does not. I think the ideas you’ve asked about are back-to-front, or inside-out, or both. If identity does break down, so does meaning - which makes the entire discussion pointless

 

[Just_Lurking]

And granted this is speculation, and maybe there are too many other problems with it that I’m simply unaware of… but my point was just that modern physics at least seems more open to the possibility of free will than determinism ever could be. (Thoughts?)

You position is logically consistent and actually makes reasonable sense. (Except for the “conspiracy theory” part, sorry. Until I see a smoking gun like the Wedge document was for Intelligent Design, I just can’t accept that any practicing physicists actually care that much about the philosophical or religious implications of their theories.)

One interesting point to consider is that any physics theory can be made deterministic, based on the simple fact that no matter how many outcomes may be possible, only one outcome ever actually happens. The choice between the possible outcomes can always be postulated to be controlled by a big hidden variable instead of by chance. David Bohm did the math for this for quantum mechanics, and it is as ugly as sin, but it is deterministic and it yields the same predictions as quantum mechanics. But I guess if you can imagine your soul controlling the wave-function collapse, it’s just as easy to imagine that your soul, or God for that matter, as controlling the big hidden variable instead.

 

[Just_Lurking]

aside, im interested in the connection between chaos theory and free will, do you have a link?

I haven’t read anything on the subject other than random blog entries, but I did a quick search and what came up was “The Significance of Free Will” by Robert Kane (see here).

I tried to skim it quickly, and the point seems to be that chaos theory shows that determinism does not necessarily imply predictability. I guess non-predictability could be the important prerequisite to free will instead of non-determinism, but I haven’t found any philosophers saying this.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I haven’t read anything on the subject other than random blog entries, but I did a quick search and what came up was “The Significance of Free Will” by Robert Kane (see here).

I tried to skim it quickly, and the point seems to be that chaos theory shows that determinism does not necessarily imply predictability. I guess non-predictability could be the important prerequisite to free will instead of non-determinism, but I haven’t found any philosophers saying this.

thank you