Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics,alt.extropians
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!news.math.psu.edu!psuvax1!news.eecs.nwu.edu!newsfeed.acns.nwu.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!in2p3.fr!swidir.switch.ch!swsbe6.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!howland.reston.ans.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!nb.rockwell.com!sunshine!yqg023
From: yqg023@sunshine.rockwell.com ( Jim Glass ; JF ; GLASS ; x586-0375 ; (W) ; 634-000)
Subject: Re: Randomness and free will
Message-ID: <1996Feb1.192126.28158@nb.rockwell.com>
Sender: yqg023@sunshine ( Jim Glass ; JF ; GLASS ; x586-0375 ; (W) ; 634-000)
Organization: Rockwell Info Sys
References:  <823175308.29461@ray.division.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 19:21:26 GMT
Lines: 41
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:168614 comp.ai:36653 comp.ai.philosophy:37317 sci.philosophy.meta:24049

In article <823175308.29461@ray.division.co.uk>, ray@division.co.uk (Ray McConnell) writes:
|> 
|> Surely the issue here is wether there really is 
|> such a thing as randomness. 
|> 
|> Our limited perceptions cause us to simplify the universe
|> and call complex (maybe unknowable) phenomenum as
|> 'Random'. It is useful to call this complexity 'random' as we have
|> no way to grasp the enormity of universal cause and effect.
|> 
|> These simplifications give rise to such things as language,
|> conciosness and the perception of free will.
|> 
|> So free will and determinism are not contradictory, 
|> free will is a simplification we can grasp.
|> 
|> Ray
|> 
|> 

There is a difference between one's inability to predict an event 
or series of events and non-determinism.

I.e., just because you are not competent to predict something does NOT
imply it is not determined.

If free will depends on random processes, it is a poor and unsatisfying
form of 'free' will.

A random robot is still a robot.

It seems to me that science and mathematics have evolved good definitions
and even measures of "randomness", which are far more rigorous and precise
than your statement that randomness results merely from our perception of
complexity.

In other words, I disagree with nearly every word you posted.

Isn't that special?

Jim Glass
