jim@ism780b.UUCP (08/01/84)
#R:houca:-44800:ism780b:27500021:000:831 ism780b!jim Jul 20 12:29:00 1984 > But the fact remains that the particle must be somewhere. No so, because the universe does not really contain "particles". "Particle" is merely an organizing concept which human beings use to try to get a handle on what is really there. When you get to a finer level, you start using the organizing concept "probability wave function". > My premise was that whoever or whatever was analyzing the universe > had the means to determine these things. Not if you believe, as many physicists seem to, that the universe itself has "free will", it has multiple possible futures, no one of which alone is implicit in the current state. According to the multiple-worlds model, they are all implicit and they all "happen", and the one you see is just the one that this "you" happened in. -- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (08/02/84)
< ... quoting > >From: jim@ism780b.UUCP Wed Aug 1 00:19:24 1984 >You seem to be assuming that "cause and effect" is an independent something >that either does exist or does not, in the same way that black holes either >do exist or not. A great many philosophers, including David Hume (could outconsume...) have argued that cause and effect are mere illusions, in the sense that my clock radio coming on immediately before sunrise mighht be thought to "cause" the rising of the sun. Being rather pragmatic and utilitarian in my outlook (terms not intended in their strictly philosophical sense), I consider this point of view impractical but it certainly can't be dismissed out of hand. >... Now, it turns out that >in the real physical world, you don't even need to worry about Zeno's >paradox, because time is quantized, and so B happens in the next time >packet following A, and there are no packets in between. I don't disagree with the point being made, but I'd like to note that quantization of spacetime is far from being an established fact (as particle quantization is). >... Note that free will aand determinism *are >not* mutually exclusive. If even I myself cannot predict my decisions, then I >have free will regardless of how tightly coupled my brain state and my actions >are. >-- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim) This may be true with regard to your definition of the terms, but in normal usage they are taken to be mutually exclusive. Actually, physics would now lead one to reject strict determinism. The question is whether quantum-level randomness offers enough of a loophole in determinism to allow free will to get a toehold. Bertrand Russell argued that quantum effects are irrlevant in the normal world of our experience, but I suspect our neurons may "leverage up" quantum randomness to the level we can experience. It is certainly true that things like radioactively induced glitches in computer circuits are (in current physics anyway) nondterministic, and we know what THEY can lead to... D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary