On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 2:17 PM Jürg Wyttenbach <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is fascinating to see that people do believe that a simple approximate > engineering method like QM should be used to explain our reality! > > QM only has a value in modelling chemical orbitals. All other use has > dramatically failed to deliver any useful explanation - e.g. for particle > physics. In fact the use of QM for modelling e.g. a proton is fringe > science as the whole math is not useful for describing a static situation > and completely misses the static magnetic flux/charge interaction. > > The action of nature is not random. We simply do not have the means to > watch a proton in action and thus we deal with collectives that can be > treated by random functions. This is a subtle difference. We simply cannot > see behind the curtain and we only have a restricted knowledge of nature. > > Free will = power to act. You can tell anybody that you have a free will. > This makes no sense if you have no power to act on it. Thus for most people > the free will is restricted on (actions on) themselves. > Awareness is a brain function that enables you to predict what your action > will cause and may be to adjust it. > > The metaphysical problem of free will is that all our actions appear to be determined by the laws of physics (which govern the particles which make our bodies) rather than by intentional choice. In other words every choice we make was determined long ago, before we were born. If this is true, then free will is just an illusion for both the powerful and the weak. > Randomness is also a weak argument. If you have the strange feeling you > would like to kick somebody in the ass, then even if you choose a random > victim on a sidewalk your choice is not fully random because your location > is not random. Also for the victim it' not a random act as he will never > get kicked in the ass again unless he enjoys it... So its a unique event. > I agree that the thought "I want to kick someone" is not a random event, but was the thought determined long ago by the laws of physics? If our thoughts are not determined by the laws of physics, then it is our strange thoughts which give us our "free will". > But as said already with the proton. We can only describe such single > events by a random function if these do have a statistics = do reoccur more > or less the same way. > > Thus forget about QM and philosophy .. unless you like to live like an ant. > > J.W. > > When I was in grade three I did a project on ants. On my diagram of an ant I misspelled diagram: daigram . Harry > > > Am 07.05.20 um 19:45 schrieb H LV: > > Jones, > > I agree with Conway`s argument that randomness is not the opposite of > determinism, but I find myself disagreeing with his assessment of quantum > mechanics which says if we have free will than so do electrons. > > Free will is not free if it only exists to enhance survival. Certain > starting configurations of the game of life will survive and even multiply > while others will die out. Survival can happen without intent. > > You say consciousness is an emergent property of free will. I would say it > is the other way around. Consciousness pervades everything, but it is > primitive which is different from higher levels of consciousness or > self-awareness. > Free will is a sign of self-awareness which emerges from consciousness. > > Harry > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:49 PM Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Harry >> >> Did you notice that there is a kind of deep irony about "The Game or >> Life" and the virus itself (any virus) on several levels, including the >> life and death of Conway? >> >> The virus, in general, like a cellular automaton in a computer applet, is >> not "alive" in the normal sense but nevertheless can function and evolve in >> the same way that complex life does - for its own survival. There is no >> free will unless the choice can enhance survival. >> >> If chemistry alone can present the outward appearance of discretion and >> intent - there is almost no doubt that AI will evolve on its own to become >> "conscious." Consciousness is the emergent property of free will. >> >> H LV wrote: >> >> > 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 . >> >> >> >> > -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr.22 > 8910 Affoltern a.A. > 044 760 14 18 > 079 246 36 06 > >
