speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (03/06/84)
As part of a discussion of free will, Dave Norris writes:
A cannon ball doesn't have the ability to change course, even
if it had the free will to do so.
According to quantum mechanical findings, a cannon ball can
change course.
Well, I'm no expert in Quantum Mechanics... but I don't think
that you are going to find any non-newtonian behavior anywhere
above the sub-atomic level.
There is a sense in which automata capable of random behaviour
can do more than strictly deterministic automata -- a fact of
considerable value to network designers, who use routing
programs based on such methods. So, I pose these questions:
1. Can we construct systems which will not work without randomness?
Many systems in existance today work without such randomness.
Systems that do allow such randomness are by definition,
not determinisitic. Remember... even psuedo-randomness is still
deterministic.
2. Do such things exist in nature?
Digital computers.
3. Does what we call "free will" actually consist of
randomness?
Some people believe that free will actually occurs below
the chemical reations... at the sub-atomic level where the
randomness of quantum electrodynamics can do its thing.
- Speakerrpw3@fortune.UUCP (03/07/84)
#R:umcp-cs:-571900:fortune:21900012:000:923
fortune!rpw3 Mar 6 22:19:00 1984
Uhh...
Digital computers are not all that deterministic. Get a local hardware
wizard to explain about Heisenberg Uncertainty and the "metastable
problem" in synchronizers. (Synchronizers are the gadgets that have
to make decisions as to whether something happened or not.) Quantum
effects show up in many places in modern semiconductor logic. MOST
of the time they can be ignored, but...
Given that neurons have to make the same sorts of decisions as computer
synchronizers (whether to fire or not), it seems that we should not
be surprised to discover nondeterminacy in human "consciousness"
(whatever that is!). Heisenberg + decisionmaking => SchroedingerCats
(And I am NOT talking about the "alpha particle" problem. That's still
another hassle.)
Rob Warnock
UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD: (415)595-8444
USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphins Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (03/09/84)
Digital computers are not all that deterministic. Get a local hardware wizard to explain about Heisenberg Uncertainty and the "metastable problem" in synchronizers. (Synchronizers are the gadgets that have to make decisions as to whether something happened or not.) Quantum effects show up in many places in modern semiconductor logic. MOST of the time they can be ignored, but... Ah! Good! This is very true. Tunnel diodes can only be explained via quantum mechanics. A cannon ball is a very simple device, however; not as obtuse as a tunnel diode. There are times when newtonian mechanics seems to totally break down altogether. In some cases where frictional forces are involved, traditional theory simply cannot describe what is observed. I view this, not as the introduction of random behavior or uncertainty, but of the inadequacy of theory to describe fact.... Besides, hardware doesn't count! I did specify a STABLE computing environment. Given that neurons have to make the same sorts of decisions as computer synchronizers (whether to fire or not), it seems that we should not be surprised to discover nondeterminacy in human "consciousness" (whatever that is!). Heisenberg + decisionmaking => SchroedingerCats Yes. Although remember, making a high-level conscious decision is MUCH different from one or two or a thousand random neurons firing. That's like saying a computer program can make random decisions by pouring hot tea on the CPU. -- Debbie does Daleks - Speaker
dap@ihopa.UUCP (afsd) (03/10/84)
All this talk of non-determinism vs. determinism doesn't really have much bearing on free will vs. lack of same. So what if atoms happen to disintegrate at random rather that due to some predetermined cause? It still isn't due to "free will". It happens by pure chance (as opposed to the type of chance which one gets when rolling dice). So you have your choice. Either it happens determinately or it happens by pure chance. I don't see how the lack of determinacy "proves" free will. Darrell Plank ihnp4!ihopa!dap
rpw3@fortune.UUCP (03/11/84)
#R:umcp-cs:-571900:fortune:21900013:000:2194
fortune!rpw3 Mar 10 20:17:00 1984
Let's see:
"STABLE computing environment"?
Maybe you misunderstood or I wasn't clear enough. The uncertainty problem
with synchronizers is NOT a matter of bad design, it is inherent in ANY
digital system that must communicate with an "outside" (asynchronous)
world. There is no way (even theoretically) to avoid it.
"making random decisions...hot tea on the CPU".
The problem is not that a "random" decision gets made. A random decision
could be tolerated and is in fact expected (that's why the synchronizer
is there). It's that NO decisions (or sometimes MULTIPLE "decisions") get
made, and the logic then does any number of non-deterministic things, like
execute NO code, multiple codes, mixtures of codes, or worse. The microscopic
quantum effects can and do cause macroscopic system crashes.
As far as human thought goes, again I am not talking about "random", but
"non-deterministic" (which is why I mentioned the "S. Cat"). Since neurons
are subject to the same problems as any other synchronizers, no matter
how complete our model of the brain becomes, we will not be able to
predict its behaviour completely, since the completeness of our model
is in fact limited by quantum effects. Such effects ARE significant at the
macro level wherever binary decisions (neuron firings) are made from either
asynchronous digital inputs (other neurons) or analog inputs (perceptions,
hormone levels, sugar level, etc.).
As was so nicely pointed out in an editorial in Analog magazine (April 1984),
the most one can ever hope for is a statistical description of likelihoods.
The actual behaviour of an individual can only be discovered by examination
(observation). ("O.k., cat, time to open the box!")
(This article goes into considerable detail on the appropriate and
inappropriate use of statistical techniques when dealing with humans.
While most of the article is concerned with classical mechanics [human
populations vs. "ideal gases"], the author does touch on the question of
quantum effects towards the end.)
Rob Warnock
UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD: (415)595-8444
USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (03/15/84)
"STABLE computing environment"? Maybe you misunderstood or I wasn't clear enough. The uncertainty problem with synchronizers is NOT a matter of bad design, it is inherent in ANY digital system that must communicate with an "outside" (asynchronous) world. I didn't say it WAS bad design! My point was that the functionality of a computer is totally deterministic, because the underlying software is deterministic. I specified a STABLE computing envronment to exclude this hardware-oriented random-crash stuff. Computing devices (in their cleanest sense) DO NOT rely on randomness. There is no way (even theoretically) to avoid it. Turing machines are clearly deterministic and do not rely on randomness for their operation. You'll also have a hard time convincing us that a DFA (a computing model) is in anyway non-deterministic. Not only devices on paper... but devices that function in everday life. You will NOT find a synchroninzer in the definition of the Turing Machine. Nor will you find a synchronizer in a cash register. You claim that ALL digital devices rely on randomness, but does your hand (the first digital computer) rely on randomness or synchronizers? Of course not... because the implementation is far above the quantum level. "making random decisions...hot tea on the CPU". The problem is not that a "random" decision gets made. A random decision could be tolerated and is in fact expected (that's why the synchronizer is there). It's that NO decisions (or sometimes MULTIPLE "decisions") get made, and the logic then does any number of non-deterministic things, like execute NO code, multiple codes, mixtures of codes, or worse. The microscopic quantum effects can and do cause macroscopic system crashes. No, no, no... my point is that functional decisions cannot be made by introducing randomness into the implementation (e.i. hardware). As far as human thought goes, again I am not talking about "random", but "non-deterministic" (which is why I mentioned the "S. Cat"). Since neurons are subject to the same problems as any other synchronizers, no matter how complete our model of the brain becomes, we will not be able to predict its behaviour completely, since the completeness of our model is in fact limited by quantum effects. Such effects ARE significant at the macro level wherever binary decisions (neuron firings) are made from either asynchronous digital inputs (other neurons) or analog inputs (perceptions, hormone levels, sugar level, etc.). This says that neurons (and other objects) will display non-deterministic behavior because they are subject to non-deterministic quantum events. That's like saying the cannon-ball will "fall up" once every thousand years or so. Neurons are not similar to semiconductor devices since the behavior of semiconductors is more dependent upon the atomic structure of the semiconductor. You might very well expect to see some aggregate effects in this kind of crystal. Neurons involve more complex chemical reactions... not processes related only to the atomic structure of the material. Small-scale quantum effects will probably be totally overshadowed by the larger chemical reactions. Besides... I AGREED with you on that point (assuming that neurons DO fire non-deterministically). -- Debbie does Daleks - Speaker