Re: Aaronson's paper

On 05 Oct 2013, at 03:07, meekerdb wrote: On 10/4/2013 2:14 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 October 2013 06:53, meekerdb wrote: He comes to this because he's *defined* "Knightian uncertainty" as radical unpredictability without randomness. I don't see why it doesn't entail randomness, especially if

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 10/4/2013 2:14 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 October 2013 06:53, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: He comes to this because he's *defined* "Knightian uncertainty" as radical unpredictability without randomness. I don't see why it doesn't entail randomness, especially if it comes

Re: Aaronson's paper

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 02:15:47AM +1300, LizR wrote: > I'm still slogging through Scott Aaronson's paper, and have now reached > page 37. It looks as though there are still lots of interesting matters to > be discussed, but there is something I already have a problem with that > seems central to w

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 5 October 2013 06:53, meekerdb wrote: He comes to this because he's *defined* "Knightian uncertainty" as radical > unpredictability without randomness. > I don't see why it doesn't entail randomness, especially if it comes from quantum fluctuations during the big bang. But even if it doesn't,

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 10/4/2013 6:15 AM, LizR wrote: I'm still slogging through Scott Aaronson's paper, and have now reached page 37. It looks as though there are still lots of interesting matters to be discussed, but there is something I already have a problem with that seems central to what he is saying, namely

Re: Aaronson's paper

I'm still slogging through Scott Aaronson's paper, and have now reached page 37. It looks as though there are still lots of interesting matters to be discussed, but there is something I already have a problem with that seems central to what he is saying, namely what is the significance of Knightian

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 30 Sep 2013, at 06:25, meekerdb wrote: On 9/29/2013 9:00 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 September 2013 16:56, meekerdb wrote: I think it's just definitional. What constitutes "you". If you see someone else throw dice and you're bound to follow different actions depending on how they fall the

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 30 Sep 2013, at 02:58, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 07:33:08PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree that free-will is related to a lack of predictibity. It is not related to any indeterminacy due to superposition or duplication, as this only would only made the will more

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 30 Sep 2013, at 03:17, meekerdb wrote: On 9/29/2013 2:03 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: Citeren meekerdb : On 9/29/2013 6:26 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: ... Also, you can run the copy inside a virtual environment and then the copies will never diverge. ?? I don't think so. Insofar as t

Re: Aaronson's paper

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:30:59PM +1300, LizR wrote: > On 30 September 2013 14:26, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > I'm complete missing your point here??? The self-other distinction is a > > 1p thing, not part of physics at all. There are no persons in > > physics. Even when talking about the

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 30 September 2013 16:56, meekerdb wrote: > > I think it's just definitional. What constitutes "you". If you see > someone else throw dice and you're bound to follow different actions > depending on how they fall then you're a slave to randomness. If you > decide to throw the dice in order t

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 30 September 2013 16:59, Russell Standish wrote: > > "Throwing dice inside my head" is part of me, part of the entity > making the decision, using a dice thrown externally to me is just > abrogating my free will to an external agent. > Sorry I still don't see the diference, if the dice is sti

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 9/29/2013 8:39 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 September 2013 16:18, meekerdb > wrote: On 9/29/2013 6:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 September 2013 13:58, Russell Standish mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au>> wrote: The reason it doesn't make the will a slave to rando

Re: Aaronson's paper

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 04:39:28PM +1300, LizR wrote: > On 30 September 2013 16:18, meekerdb wrote: > > > On 9/29/2013 6:03 PM, LizR wrote: > > > > On 30 September 2013 13:58, Russell Standish wrote: > > > >> The reason it doesn't make the will a slave to randomness, is that the > >> will is ra

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 30 September 2013 16:18, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/29/2013 6:03 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 30 September 2013 13:58, Russell Standish 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

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 9/29/2013 6:03 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 September 2013 13:58, Russell Standish > 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 rand

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 9/29/2013 5:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 07:33:08PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree that free-will is related to a lack of predictibity. It is not related to any indeterminacy due to superposition or duplication, as this only would only made the will more slave,

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 30 September 2013 14:26, Russell Standish wrote: > > I'm complete missing your point here??? The self-other distinction is a > 1p thing, not part of physics at all. There are no persons in > physics. Even when talking about the self-other distinction in (say) > bacteria, it is our modelling th

Re: Aaronson's paper

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:03:15PM +1300, LizR wrote: > On 30 September 2013 13:58, Russell Standish 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

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 9/29/2013 2:03 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: Citeren meekerdb : On 9/29/2013 6:26 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: ... Also, you can run the copy inside a virtual environment and then the copies will never diverge. ?? I don't think so. Insofar as they are classical objects they depend on decoh

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 30 September 2013 13:58, Russell Standish 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 phy

Re: Aaronson's paper

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 07:33:08PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I agree that free-will is related to a lack of predictibity. > It is not related to any indeterminacy due to superposition or > duplication, as this only would only made the will more slave, to > randomness, instead of of ponder

Re: Aaronson's paper

Citeren meekerdb : On 9/29/2013 6:26 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: Citeren meekerdb : On 9/28/2013 7:20 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:47:28PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish wrote: For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to s

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 9/29/2013 6:26 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: Citeren meekerdb : On 9/28/2013 7:20 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:47:28PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish wrote: For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the intense d

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 29 Sep 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:47:28PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish wrote: For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the intense discussion we had earlier this year on this topic, but that w

Re: Aaronson's paper

Citeren meekerdb : On 9/28/2013 7:20 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:47:28PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish wrote: For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the intense discussion we had earlier this year on this topi

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 9/28/2013 7:20 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:47:28PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish wrote: For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the intense discussion we had earlier this year on this topic, but that will requ