[PLUG-TALK] Re: Omniscience vs. Freewill

[Russell Senior]

>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Lofstrom <keithl at kl-ic.com> writes:

Keith> Determinism:

Keith> ... is mathematically bogus, even given classical, pre-quantum,
Keith> pre-Boltzmann, pre-chaos physics.

Keith> The smallest possible representation of the universe that we
Keith> can imagine is the universe itself.  Determinism implies a
Keith> rigid linkage between past, present, and future.  [...]

Just to clarify, when I say pre-determined (or whatever I actually
said, I am too lazy to look), I don't mean that _we_ can determine it.
It isn't calculable.  It isn't pre-determinable.  I just mean that it
was always going to happen the way it happened.  The uncertainty
principle applies to the observer, not necessarily to the universe and
its myriad interactions.  The universe *is* the computer that
determines what happens within it.

And to qualify (or disqualify) my opinion, I had one year of Modern
Physics in college and I'll admit that either I didn't "get" all of it
at the time, or I may have gotten confused in the interim.  However,
pending further illumination, that is how I think about it.  And in
the work I do and the subset of the universe I inhabit, it has thus
far seemed an adequate model.

PS: My conception of pre-determination does NOT imply an excuse to be
    lazy "because whatever is going to happen will happen anyway".  I
    like Paul Grahams line: "[...] if you're trying to choose between
    two theories and one gives you an excuse for being lazy, the other
    one is probably right." (See: <http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html>)


-- 
Russell Senior         ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
seniorr at aracnet.com