teroko

35 minutes ago, Eise said:

In philosophy, one does not give a viewpoint without reasons why this viewpoint should be valid. As you don't, I can just put it aside.

For me it is only obvious that Hawking means it to be an argument against not having free will. But he is wrong: it is an argument against fatalism. And I explained why.

You are not going too give up so easily isn't it? And now you are stating Hawking did it wrongly...

Fatalism has nothing to do here! That isn't even mentioned in the article of the context of the quote. You wrongly invented that.

The quote is about freedom of choice, in other words "free will". How could you not understand that? Unbelievable.

This is my last comment. I'm out now. It doesn't worth discuss this anymore.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Yes, but the original quote does not support it, as said, it is an argument against fatalism, not against not having free will.

If you are stubborn I'm worst.

Hawking's quote "I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined and that we can do nothing to change it look before they cross the road." is clearly and obviously related to free will.

44 minutes ago, Eise said:

Ah, well, that is interpretation too, and it is not bad as an abstract, but it is generally not a good idea to base philosophical discussions on abstracts.

I found the complete text, and here is what, in my opinion, makes clear what Hawking means (added an empty line for readability):

I think he should have left the red lines out, because they do not fit the rest argumentation. In all the text he is talking about 'determined', but in the red lines he switches to 'predestined', which are definitely different concepts. 'Predestined' means that whatever you do, your fate is fixed. For this Hawking's red lines fully apply, but it is not an argument against determinism. Say we are determined: then what we do is determined as well. But the 'whatever you do' is not valid anymore. If you die on the gallows or in a storm at sea depends on your decision, even if your decision is determined. That is simply not what 'predestined' means. The red lines are an argument against fatalism.

Any case, with or without determinism, what i remark is Hawking's support to the existence of free will, the main subject of this thread.

My personal opinion on the subject is that i find rather difficult if not impossible the possibility of the existence of free will within a completely deterministic Universe…

I couldn't answer before because of the five post limit in the first day of a new member.

Here it is shown the free will context for Stephen Hawking's comment I posted:

On free will and determinism
"I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined and that we can do nothing to change it look before they cross the road."
The question of free will has long been a mainstay of philosophy and science, and it's a topic Hawking visited from a scientific point of view in his essay Is Everything Determined from his book Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, first published in 1993. It's the origin of this quotation. The next line is less-frequently cited, however: "Maybe it's just that those who don't look don't survive to tell the tale."
Hawking touches on a grand unified theory of science, quantum mechanics, natural selection, DNA, the complexity of the human brain and fluid dynamics in particular before arguing that assuming that we have free will is the safest course of action.

It is an extract of a page explaining the context of the more known Stephen Hawking's quotes:
https://newatlas.com/stephen-hawking-quotes/53804/

I think the right question is on how much free will we have. May be in some circumstances we are totally conditioned with no possibility for a choice and in other ones we have complete freedom to decide and be totally responsible for our actions.

Stephen Hawking's pretty good argument for free will...