On 30 September 2013 13:58, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> The reason it doesn't make the will a slave to randomness, is that the > will is random in its essence. There is no self-other distinction > between the will and the random source. > I don't see this. The random source here is the laws of physics, surely? So unless you identify your will with physical law, the self-other distinction is merely hidden - the source of your random decision lies inside the evolution of the state vector, or whatever it is. But I admit I'm still reading through the paper, so I may change my views once I manage to do so. I've almost reached section 3, at which point I am hoping to discover why it's called "Knightian" randomness - I'm hoping it has something to do with Knights and Knaves! :D -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
