Originally posted by Astyanax
Science is in the business of finding out the laws and principles underlying natural processes.
Ok, so now let's separate "science" from those "natural processes." They are ultimately two separate things.
This is far more than mere formalism; it is about reality*.
It is
about reality, yes, but the "laws and principles" we discover, we express
scientifically through various formalisms, ie
"systems" called "calculus," "geometry," "trigonometry," "vectors," "chemistry," etc. Even then, obviously, we can still be wrong.
Or we could make up a fairytale about a divine promise to humankind in order to explain rainbows...
I don't know who is making fairy tales, but if you propose that you can disprove the idea of "free will" using actual science, then you are the
one chasing fairy tales. Science is not something that simply conforms to your opinion. I admit there is neither evidence for nor against, but that
is something entirely different than saying therefore it does not exist. If you don't understand this logic then you don't understand the concept
of empiricism at its ultimate.
Besides (to be strictly formal 
), chaos theory models processes; it doesn't predict outcomes.
I know of several fields where models taken from chaos theory have been used to make sense of data that would otherwise be completely meaningless.
Maths and sciences all interrelate; people know this. We also have our modern obstacles to overcome in each field; this is something else people
know.
However, none of this is strictly relevant, because the conclusion that there is no free will is not drawn from science, but from
philosophy.
Which philosophy?
Thus: all logical courses of action undertaken by an organism must be engendered by a combination of three factors: the organism's
inherent capabilities (as encoded in its genes), its individual history (with attendant conditioning) and the circumstances of the moment (the net
stimulus to which it is responding). Any action that is not derived from these factors is by definition random.
I think your model is overly simplistic and needs fleshing out into some formal system where we can play with its validity.
Quantum physics ties into our brains. All those bizarre and unpredictable things happening "down there" are also happening "in here" and there
are many books out that explain this in ways I am unable to myself. I am someone who sees the merit in admitting ignorance, and this is something
where there is enough information missing, and yet enough suggested at the same time, that I think forming any conclusion now is premature.
Still, none of this is likely to convince someone who is not only a theist
but also, apparently, a Gnostic.
Before you start walking around on the crutch that is
ad hominem, I am neither a "theist" nor a gnostic. I do not believe in god, I simply
humor the word. I have studied the Bhagavad Gita, but I am not Hindu, either. I have studied Zen Buddhism but I don't consider myself Buddhist. I
have also studied Taoism, and if anything I would consider myself Taoist but I even dislike that simply because of the label it creates. I have
studied mythologies, etc.
I do not have a label, and so I do not have a "handle" by which you can grasp me and get a feel for what is going through my head. I know you
can't, and you really shouldn't even be trying, because it's a presumptuous and distasteful form of discrimination anyway.
Sadly, scientifically and forensically verifiable miracles never seem to occur
On the contrary, they happen every instant. Which I guess might as well be to say they never happen, because what is nothing except by comparison
to everything? Either concept is meaningless without the other as a reference, just as you can't have "short" without a "long" to compare it to,
or a "bright" without a "dark" for comparison. If everything is bright, then you could equally say everything is dark.
