On 30 September 2013 13:58, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> 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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.