Le 06-avr.-06, à 10:04, Dominic Tarr a écrit :

## Advertising

> Bruno wrote >> ... >> Karl Popper did make an attempt to explain >> free-will in term of "self-diagonalization" indeed. The basic and >> simple idea is that IF I can totally predict myself, then I have the >> opportunity to refute such a prediction. This is why in a trial your >> lawyer cannot invoke determinacy (like my client has made a murder, >> but >> really he was just obeying to the physical laws), because if such a >> determination can make sense then the "client" could have use in some >> responsible way to escape its murderer fate still without violating >> the >> physical laws. I don't pretend there is any rigor here. >> "Free from what?": Free from what you can determine. The one who can >> determine that heavy bodies fall, will soon or later be able to fly. > > I was just about to make a post to this effect, and then when i read > down to the end i found it. > > but so how could primes be said to have free will? primes are complex > in the sense that they can not be predicted except by performing the > calculation they literally represent faster than some algorithm which > you are trying to beat. > > likewise, one could surely calculate the outcome of a coin flip with a > sufficiently large and accurate number of measurements and fast > calculations, or even a human being, if you could accurately model > them and a sufficient amount of their local environment. there is no > shortcut to computing these things, you just have do all the hard work > quickly to make a prediction, so they are all complex, if not free. > > however, as a person's local environment might plausibly contain a > computer which modeled their local environment and predicted their > behaviour. so the model would actually have to model itself, now > having to recalculate what the subject will do after every calculation > would take so long the subject would have already done something and > the model wouldn't be making a prediction any more! > > this looks like a different order of magnitude of unpredictability to > what primes and coins have, because of the potential self-referential > step. > > perhaps the key is that primes and coins do not have a will, thus > remain indifferent to being predicted. so you might say they are > "free", but you could not say they had "freewill". I did not intent to be so precise, and my "attribution" of free will to primes was, well, admittedly a little bit poetical. My point is this common point between the primes and human (as conceived by determinist): they are simultaneously determinate and free (cf Zagier's quote). Of course primes does not have "will", at least as we conceive them today. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---