On 12 Mar 2010, at 18:57, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 3/12/2010 4:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Brent,

We have discussed this a long time ago. Ah, perhaps it was on the FOR list.

Free-will can only diminish when indeterminacy is added.
It is a product of awareness of ignorance on oneself, that an high level construct. I appreciate infinitely both Kochen and Conway, but on "free will" they make the beginners' error, like Penrose makes the beginners
error on Gödel.

What error is that?

The error of linking free-will with indeterminacy.


They only purport to prove that the particles have the same free will as experiments - not that either one has it (whatever it is).


You can use the self-duplications iteration thought experiment to
illustrate that indeterminacy is not needed, and even annoying if too
big, to let free will develop itself.

Or to let the will develop itself. free-will is an oxymoron. Do you
believe in free free-will ? :)

Only in the legal sense of "free from coercion", otherwise I think Dennett has it right in "Elbow Room".

Brent
"You can avoid responsibility for everything if you make yourself small enough."
        --- Daniel Dennett



You can elaborate. As an honst materialist and mechanist, Dennett is close to consciousness eleminativism.


Bruno







Bruno


On 12 Mar 2010, at 00:04, Brent Meeker wrote:

My apologies. I forgot that Lawrence National Laboratories no longer
hosted the physics archive. I should have cited:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079


 The Free Will Theorem

Authors: John Conway
<http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Conway_J/0/1/0/all/0/1>, Simon
Kochen <http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Kochen_S/0/1/0/all/0/1>
(Submitted on 11 Apr 2006)

   Abstract: On the basis of three physical axioms, we prove that if
   the choice of a particular type of spin 1 experiment is not a
   function of the information accessible to the experimenters, then
   its outcome is equally not a function of the information
   accessible to the particles. We show that this result is robust,
and deduce that neither hidden variable theories nor mechanisms of
   the GRW type for wave function collapse can be made relativistic.
   We also establish the consistency of our axioms and discuss the
   philosophical implications.



And here's a later, stronger version that uses some weaker premises.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3286

Brent

On 3/11/2010 2:16 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent, nice statement:
* "But it's certainly not a deterministic universe" *
**
I have to take your word, because the reference you gave said: * "NOT
FOUND"*
So what kind of a 'universe' is it? bootstrap, self reflecting
autodidacta? Creator-made?
John M
**
**
On 3/11/10, *Brent Meeker* <meeke...@dslextreme.com
<mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>> wrote:

   On 3/11/2010 1:26 PM, m.a. wrote:
   *Bruno and John,*
   * The confusion is my fault. I copied the URL from a Kurzweil
   page heading when I should have gone to the article itself, so
the wrong feature appeared. This is the one I requested comments
   about:*
   *http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html*
   (Excerpts)
*PhysOrg.com) -- When biologist Anthony Cashmore claims that the
   concept of free will is an illusion, he's not breaking any new
   ground. At least as far back as the ancient Greeks, people have
   wondered how humans seem to have the ability to make their own
   personal decisions in a manner lacking any causal component
   other than their desire to "will" something. But Cashmore,
   Professor of Biology at the University of Pennsylvania, says
that many biologists today still cling to the idea of free will,
   and reject the idea that we are simply conscious machines,
   completely controlled by a combination of our chemistry and
   external environmental forces.*
   **
   *To put it simply, free will just doesn’t fit with how the
physical world works. Cashmore compares a belief in free will to an earlier belief in vitalism - the belief that there are forces
   governing the biological world that are distinct from those
   governing the physical world. Vitalism was discarded more than
   100 years ago, being replaced with evidence that biological
   systems obey the laws of chemistry and physics, not special
   biological laws for living things.“I would like to convince
   biologists that a belief in free will is nothing other than a
   continuing belief in vitalism (or, as I say, a belief in
   magic),” Cashmore told /PhysOrg.com/. *
   **
   *There seems to be an evolutionary rightness and inevitability
   to the idea that free will is taking its place as just another
   illusion like vitalism, religion, aether, absolute time and
   space, geocentric universe, single-galaxy universe and so on.
   But I think people will have an even tougher time dealing with
   the implications of strict determinism. It's an idea that could
tear through the entire fabric of society even though acceptance needn't change one's behavior in the slightest respect. marty a.*


   But it's certainly not a deterministic universe.


   _http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604079.pdf_


   Brent
   --
   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
   <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
   To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
   everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
   <mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
   For more options, visit this group at
   http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

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- l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .


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-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to