Hey Tim,
Remember that wiki article you linked me to? Maybe we could discuss it in the comments of this link. Sound good?
Remember that wiki article you linked me to? Maybe we could discuss it in the comments of this link. Sound good?
Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson. He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal. My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this. I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true. Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist. In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Comments
For starters, the equation by McCulloch doesn't mean anything to me: what's dQ?
The equations aren't really important in that article. dX (where X in any variable) is essentially synonymous with delta_x, or change in X. dX means a small change in X. Technically, dX is an infinitesimally small change in X - this assumption is the basis of calculus. What that equation means in words is that if you add a small amount of heat energy to a closed system otherwise kept at constant temperature, you will likely contribute to it's disorder. This, if I hold an ice cube and put a lighter by it (adding the dQ), some of it will melt into water - thus ruining its order and increasing its entropy (corresponding to an increase in S on the other side of the equation).