--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > "Kochen and Conway stress that their theorem doesn't disprove 't > Hooft's theory. It simply states that if his theory is true, our > actions cannot be free. And they admit that there's no way for us > to tell. "Our lives could be like the second showing of a movie -- > all actions play out as theough they are free, but that freedom is > an illusion", says Kochen". > > "Since the mathematicians believe that we have free will, it > follows for them that 't Hooft's theory must be wrong. "We have to > believe in free will to do anything," says Conway. "I believe I am > free to drink this cup of coffee, or throw it across the room. I > believe I am free in choosing to have this conversation". > > Halvorson [Hans Halvorson, philosopher of physics at Princeton] > says the debate really boils down to a matter of personal > taste. "Kochen and Conway can't tolerate the idea that our future > may already be settled,", he says, "but people like 't Hooft and > Einstein find the notion that the univere can't be completely > described by physics just as disturbing.". > > "For philosophers, both arguments can be troubling. Quantum > randomness as the basis fo free will doesn't really give us control > over our actions," says Tim Maudlin, a philosopher of physics at > Rutgers. "We're either deterministic machines, or we're random > machines. That's not much of a choice."
It's almost scary how closely this follows the discussion Curtis and I were having about free will based on the Schroedinger quote. This is exactly the problem Schroedeinger was addressing: our powerful sense of free will, versus the science that says it's just an illusion. The one point we didn't get into was the randomness factor. And I think it's *remarkable* how closely it tracks with the Upanishadic and Gita view of the realization of higher consciousness that MMY teaches, that one is not the author of one's actions, it's all the interplay of the gunas. The only thing missing from the scientists' and mathematicians' ideas is the concept of the Self, that one can be "without the gunas." If they were introduced to it--intellectually and experientially--would the mathematicians find the scientists' theories quite so threatening? > [last, Halvorson says]:, "There are very important questions to be > asked about free will, and maybe physics can answer them.". > [end of article]. > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/mDk17A/lOaOAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
