On 9/23/2013 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short
book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will, which
is one of those rare works in that topic that is not
gibberish. Suffice it to say, that if he is ultimately convincing, he
would get me to stop at step 0 (ie COMP is false), but more on that
later when I finish it.
I read a book by Aaronson sometimes ago, but, like many, he did not go out of the frame
of Aristotle notion of reality in that book. I will take a look to the paper. ...
After a glimpse overview, If he is correct, and if comp is correct, it would only mean
that his "freebits" would emerge from the numbers law; but I am not sure if I need to
believe in such a use of "free" for free-will. The compatibilist approach is enough.
Randomness adds nothing as this has been often debated. To be quick here ...
Aaronson seems satisfied that a person cannot be duplicated because of the no-cloning
theorem. So he assumes that avoids first person indeterminacy. I don't think he properly
considered that a 'person' is not that sharply defined and many duplications would be
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.