Well it certainly isn't being asserted by me, although I never use the expression, "free will," I must have said (or implied) at least five or six times on this thread: within the constraints of logical and physical possibility and one's knowledge, one is completely free to choose, in fact, must choose all their actions in both thought and action. Please see my post #417
The little piece you quoted pertains to my argument that volition does not require an appeal to QM to be true. I was certainly not arguing for determinism, only that QM is not the way to argue against it.
...it is precisely the thing with which you and bb are being charged; i.e. an excuse for ignorance....
Wow! I didn't even know an, "accusation," was being made, and bb is going to be very surprised since she disagrees with almost everything I believe. Poor bb.
As for being ignorant, I certainly don't need any excuse for it. I'm ignorant by design, I am blatantly and openly ignorant, unashamed and defiant about it. The one thing I have learned in over three score years is that there are more things I don't know than there are that I do. How's that for ignorance. I would like to see somebody charge me with more ignorance than I charge me with.
However, that does not mean I do not know anything, and what I do know I know certainly, and know exactly how and why I know it. I suspect there is one thing you do not know, and that is what my position or philosophy is. If your interested, start here:
Hank
OK. Sorry for the miscue.
Hank, the high significance of the operator in quantum mechanics is that at some fundamental level a non-deterministic decision is made. This obviously involves free will of some sort. Were this not so, the math could describe it. This has been shown to be impossible. The mechanics of quantum mechanics (if you will) are not understood and I would go so far as to say they can never be understood in deterministic terms.
Consciousness and free will are thus alive and well within the physics profession, denial and dissembling by many physicists notwithstanding.
Hank, I think you said you're an autonomist/objectivist and I take you at your word. Trouble is that objectivism doesn't say much at all of significance philosophically. You live your life as a responsible adult because you believe its right. I respect that. But it's not philosophy. You're also a bit of a curmudgeon. And I like that. You also ride a bike. I like that a lot. Now you see, I am indeed following along, albeit mostly silently.