On Mon, May 11, 2015 Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
> > > I should have written "No free will <= deterministic behaviour." > (<= means "entailed by", not ≤). > Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will. > You say that no free will is caused by deterministic behavior, and nondeterminism (randomness) need not have free will, so now that you've told me what free will isn't it might be nice if you told me what in the world "free will" is. Then after we agree on what the term means we can debate if human beings or computers or anything has this property or not. > > Og was seeing, and Laplace's daemon, which operates in a deterministic > setting. > As I said before, if the daemon tells Og what his prediction of Og's behavior will be the situation is not deterministic, or at least it can not be determined by the daemon, for that you'd need a mega-daemon. And then things iterate. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
