david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/22/85)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From: wkp@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Free will and the use of mumbo-jumbo
Message-ID: <24814@lanl.ARPA>
Date: 21 Apr 85 05:49:20 GMT
Date-Received: 21 Apr 85 11:03:03 GMT
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Distribution: net
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 16
Xref: cvl net.religion:6377 net.philosophy:1558
Free will is really interesting to argue about, but let's keep
the inaccurate physics out of these articles, guys (and gal).
If you have a viewpoint about free will, fine, but let's not
not bring up quantum mechanics and entropy to prove your point.
I'm really getting frustrated at having to see such flagrant
conceptual errors in physics being posted in this newsgroup.
Even my students in the Phys 262 class I teach at UNM seem to have
more understanding. But then, they're all Ken Arndt's age, and
that's pretty old...:-)
--
bill peter {seismo,ihnp4}!cmcl2!lanl!wkp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regardless of whether or not quantum mechanical indeterminacy
is relevant to speculations about "free will", it may be relevant to
whether human history is humanly predictable. My point is that history
involves the coming into being of genetically unique individuals, as well
as of original ideas, and both human genetic and ideological conception
almost certainly are sensitive to quantum mechanical "events" which are
observationally indeterminate, in principle.
It may be that there is a veil over human history which is
ultimately the same veil over our physical understanding. Of course,
there may be no veil before God; also, we could never know, in principle,
whether He might be busy with some "miracles" (as Einstein might have said,
God plays with ~loaded dice~). Besides this, it seems to me to be a good
thing that there is no way we can know the outcome of history, even if it
is "freely" determined by our natures. After all, we are naturally curious
and hopeful and speculative, and if we were perfectly informed about human
behavior, as well as about lifeless phenomena, what mystery and adventure
would there be in life.
(To suggest the sensitivity of neurological mechanism, a single
retinal cell (a photo-chemical transducer) can reliably "fire" upon
the incidence of ~one~ photon; not only this, but a person whose vision
is totally dark-adapted can reliably ~consciously~ detect the incidence
of 15 photons in a brief moment (nervous cells integrate information over
a short time, which is longer than the refractory period of the cells,
which period of sampling is longer than 1 msec., for the fastest (auditory)
cells.) The point is that the neurological mechanism is generally sensitive
to the absolute limits of physical information, because the most sensitive
creature will more likely survive, and the least twinkling of the eye, or
of recticular activation, or of the other unconscious mechanisms may be
significant.)
I've been told by my physicist friends that even they do not
understand quantum mechanics -- they simply become more familiar with
manipulating symbols of their ignorance. Of course, they have not attended
your classes in New Mexico. (just teasing)
It is good for you to inform us that you are a physicist, with
reservations about others' speculations, but I would rather have you inform
us of your moral reservations about the military research of physicists.
I suppose that you are employed at Los Alamos, and I would be very interested
in your views. Certainly everyone is concerned with the fate of the Earth,
which, these days, seems to be in the hands of politicians and their
physicists. Would you care to say something in Net.religion about the race
from knowledge to self-destruction?
I am reminded that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, the talented
companions of Daniel, were also threatened with immediate fiery destruction
if they would not bow down to the extravagant 90 foot monolith of Babylon,
nevertheless they would not bow down.
I don't mean to suggest at all that you yourself are employed in
this way; I am simply wanting to hear from you about this matter, which
my pacifist friends believe is of religious significance (although perhaps
you would disagree that this also should be left to those who are more
informed about politics or physics.) Would you care to say something about
this?
David Harwoodpeter@unm-la.UUCP (04/28/85)
In article <335@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: >It is good for you to inform us that you are a physicist...but I would >rather have you inform us of your moral reservations about the military >research of physicists. I suppose that you are employed at Los Alamos, and I >would be very interested in your views. I had initially declined to answer David publicly. But after some private exchanges, I have agreed to answer him publicly. He has agreed to allow me to summarize the views he expressed to me privately over the net. From our private correspondence, I understand David to be a very moral and religious human being who considers working on any project funded by a military contract to be immoral. I consider this commendable considering his pacifist ideology. As a non-christian, I am confused as to his beliefs that non-pacifism is a contradiction of the gospels. Many of the more bellicose people I am acquainted with happen to be very zealous christians. One of the local pastors here in Los Alamos works in one of the weapons divisions. I myself view the morality of working on scientific research funded by defense contracts somewhat cautiously. On the one hand, I accept the need for a nation (especially a democratic one like the United States) to provide for its own defense. On the other hand, it is impossible to ensure that research knowledge gained will never be misused by those in power. I do not view all wars as immoral (e.g., the war against fascism in 1939-1945). I am not a pacifist. Though I have high regard for David's principles, I cannot understand them in a world containing an Iran and a South Africa. I appreciate the fact that David does not blame scientists for the misuse of science by those in power. Unfortunately, some scientists have not been blameless. But in a broader sense, no citizen is blameless when a government misuses the power given to it by it's citizenry. For personal reasons, I find it hard to relate to a few of my colleagues on a personal or humanistic basis. But I will not condemn them for choosing employment in research laboratories set up by the citizenry of this nation to provide for their own defense. For whatever reason, many of David's fellow christians either do not agree with his pacifist ideologies or do not abide by them. This is historically understandable, since from the times of Constantine, Christianity has been one of the more aggressive ideological movements in history. The Jewish prophets foresaw a time when a nation will not lift up sword against another nation. This may be ambiguous from a Christian perspective since their messiah has already come. But in an age witnessing the destruction of six million Jews in Christian Europe, I will not trust in man what I hope of G-d. -- bill peter ihnp4!lanl!wkp