I have misunderstood John Conway. He actually makes a distinction between randomness and quantum mechanics. He thinks quantum mechanics is compatible with free choice as long as particles have free choice as well . He argues that free choice for particles is possible on the basis of three axioms one of which is that locality is true and that non-locality is just an illusion. I think he has it backwards. Locality is the illusion. `The world is naturally non-local. This does not mean that locality is necessarily bad because it is not natural. The illusion of locality if functional, because it helps us to make a functional distinction between the self and the other.
Harry On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:09 AM H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:23 PM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> Ha! "Layman's terms" you say ? >> >> Sorry to hear of another casualty of covid... and admittedly Conway was >> an important thinker... but this rambling interview seems best described as >> confused. Does it really serve to further his legacy? >> >> Randomness itself is an illusion in many ways - a semantic contrivance >> used as a strawman, impossible to document as relevant on a large scale or >> outside of narrow constraints - but for that imply determinism, then we >> always seem to end up with the need for some kind of embedded memory or >> lingering "information field"...with spiritual overtones which then create >> another issue. >> >> This is the strange and ironic paradox for an atheist like Conway. The >> "Game of Life" can in fact be used as the very basis of a kind of >> science-based spirituality - for those so inclined. >> >> Everything that occurs on a large enough scale seems to possess a >> lingering echo of the past - which even as minimal causality, will be >> labeled as deism. And why not? >> >> > > He believes we live in a universe which affords us "free choice" or "free > will" so for him the deterministic laws of classical mechanics must be > incorrect since they don`t allow us to make choices which are not > determined by the past. However, for a similar reason he also thinks > quantum mechanics must be incorrect because he argues that randomness is > also a type of determinism. > As he points out random numbers which affect outcomes today could have > been generated or "rolled" by God in the past or even outside of time. > However, unless the current laws of physics are regarded as a reliable > proof of God, I don`t think his intention in this exercise was to refute > the the existence of God. > > The the link I provided below starts the video at the relevant part of the > interview. His explanation lasts about 8 minutes. > > > Harry > > > >> >> H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The mathematician John Conway died in April from complications due to >> Covid-19. He was most well known for his Game of Life, however he felt his >> best work was his discovery of surreal numbers which grew out his interest >> in the game of Go. >> >> In this interview clip John Conway explains in layman's terms why the >> opposite of deterministic is not random. He says that Einstein`s >> famous remark that "God does not play dice with the universe" is irrelevant >> because he shows how randomness is also a type of determinism. >> >> https://youtu.be/r1bDSlt1n9M?t=2294 >> >> Harry >> >> >>
