# Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

```On Sat, Jul 28, 2012  Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> You goal does not seem in discussing ideas, but in mocking people.```
```

That is not true, my goal has two parts:

1) Figuring out what you mean by "free will".
2) Figuring out if what you say about "free will" is true.

I have never completed the first goal, so it's a bit maddening when you
keep claiming over and over and over that sometime in the unspecified past
you provided a marvelous exact self consistent definition of "free will"
that makes everything clear and that for some unspecified reason, or
perhaps for no reason at all, I am ignoring it.

>The onoly question is in solving problem. To say "free will" is noise just
> hides problems.

Before I can solve a problem I need to know what the problem is and I
don't, and you don't know either.

> You really talk like a pseudo-priest having answers to all questions.

Wow, calling a guy who doesn't like religion religious! Never heard that
one before, at least not before the sixth grade.

> It is not random at all in the third person perspective.
>

Fine. In this context I don't know what  "the third person perspective"
means but that is information I don't need to have to be able to say, "if
its not random, that is to say if it didn't happen for no reason then it
must have happened for a reason and if it happened for a reason then it's
deterministic".

> It is relatively random in the first person perspective, like the first
> person indeterminacy,

So all you're saying is that in this thing you like to call "first person
indeterminacy" the outcome of the simple multiplication problem 74* 836 is
indeterminate until you finish the calculation. Well it's not deep but at
least its true that you don't know what the result of a calculation will be
until you finish the calculation.

>> As to "free will" I have no opinion, first you're going to have to
>> explain what those ASCII characters mean.
>>
>
> > ?
>

> > You just recall my definition, and you accept it makes sense.

Good God not that again! Stop with this mysterious marvelous strictly
logical definition of Free Will that you claim to have provided at some
unspecified time in the past, it's really getting old. Until you have
something new and much much much better stop saying I'm ignoring your
marvelous new definition of the "Free Will" noise.

>> I accept "will" because I know for a fact that somethings I want to do
>> and other things I do not.
>
>
> > You seem to know a lo of things
>

I know what I want but I don't know what something that didn't happen for a
reason AND didn't happen for no reason means, and I don't know what the
"free will" noise means let alone if its true that people have it. And you
don't know either.

>>I neither accept nor reject "free will" because I don't know what those
>> ASCII characters mean and despite your protests to the contrary it's now
>> pretty clear to me that you don't either.
>>
>
> > The ability to act in the state of being aware lacking complete
> information.

A computer can be programed with knowledge of induction, statistics, and
heuristic rules of thumb and act without complete information and produce
good (although not perfect) results. So according to your definition even
today computers like Watson and Siri have free will, although at their
deepest level they are deterministic and operate by very simple rules
involving just 0 and 1.

> Cantor continuum is not gibberish

I assume you mean the continuum hypothesis, if so then I agree it's not
gibberish to say there exists a set that has a cardinality larger than the
integers but smaller than the real numbers, in fact it might even be true.
The reason I know it's not gibberish is that such a set either exists or it
does not.

>  but I don't see why this wopuld imply that we can use the excluded
> middle on such hard set theoretical proposition.

So you think you can bring clarity to the confusing imprecise vague
mishmash of things called "philosophy" by introducing something, like free
will, that doesn't exist AND doesn't not exist. I really don't think that
will bring illumination.

> You are perhaps confusing "I will never prove that 1≠ 0", which needs
> faith and is religious, with "1≠0", which is a simple theorem

I well understand the difference, but your meaning of "religious" seems to
cover a awful lot of ground, including "I will never be able to stop loving
pizza".

>>As I've said before for something to be meaningful you need contrast, so
>> please provide me with an example of something that is NOT religious.
>>
>
>    0 ≠ 1.

But you don't believe in the law of the excluded middle so if "0 ≠ 1" is
untrue that does not mean that that 0=1, so I don't know what 0 ≠ 1 means.
And yet even though its meaning is far from clear you still believe that 0
≠ 1, so you must be religious, in fact you must be the Pope of the 0 ≠ 1
church, or at least a Cardinal.

John K Clark

--
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