While I agree on statement for un-deterministic behaviour of nature, I don't
think that all arguments are correct.
> Well, let's consider the physical universe rather than the mind. It is
> controlled to a large degree by physical laws, so it certainly isn't a
> "hodge-podge of meaningless and unpredictable events." But at the same
> time, there is a uncertainty (unpredictability) component that prevents it
> from operating in a totally deterministic fashion.
Nature doesn't follow any rules, for sure - all rules and natural laws exist
entirely in our minds - it's our way for dealing with nature's complexity.
Actually rules follow the nature, because science in all it's aspects is
some model of nature and laws are created to match to greatest possible
degree natural events.
> "Free will" is an oxymoron. You either believe in "free" in which case
> the universe is a nihilistic hodge-podge of meaningless and
> unpredictable events, or you believe in "will", in which case something
> exists (physical laws, biases, stimuli, etc.) which provide it a push
Is the world logical extension of fixed number of axioms? I don't think so.
So why trying to put each event in only two extreme categories - (a)
conforming to no axioms, i.e. the ulitmate goal of entropy, or (b)
conforming to some existent axioms - the existing physical laws. Why don't
consider the "free will" just another axiom in our world - a new dimension
of measuring events?
Btw - each theory in order to be consistent should not have a contradiction
between any two conlcusions. Do you think that our - especially the human
world - is a set of axioms producing consistent theory? I don't. So doing
science to me is mainly finding the most appropriate model of existing
events, in specific area, to suit specific purpose. Probably this property
is a kinda hard, when dealing with AI.