Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.math,sci.math.symbolic,sci.logic,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics,alt.extropians
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!news.er.usgs.gov!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!uwm.edu!psuvax1!news.eecs.nwu.edu!newsfeed.acns.nwu.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!EU.net!CERN.ch!cms3!potts
From: Anthony Potts <potts@afsmail.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Open Letter to Professor Penrose 
In-Reply-To: <4d10nc$3ol@mystech.mystech.com> 
X-Sender: potts@cms3
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: cms3.cern.ch
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960112104734.16927B-100000@cms3>
Sender: news@news.cern.ch (USENET News System)
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics
References: <4bncj5$a94@panix3.panix.com> <4cm1ss$mn9@bell.maths.tcd.ie> <30ef0c53.56554c43414e@vulcan.xs4all.nl> <4cp242$lgm@bell.maths.tcd.ie> <30f1234c.56554c43414e@vulcan.xs4all.nl> <4d10nc$3ol@mystech.mystech.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 10:02:59 GMT
Lines: 78
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:164652 sci.physics.particle:7277 sci.math:132129 sci.math.symbolic:20636 sci.logic:16519 comp.ai:35831 comp.ai.philosophy:36512 sci.philosophy.meta:22963



On 10 Jan 1996, Kerry Thurber wrote:

> johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl (Johan Wevers) wrote:
> >Timothy Murphy <tim@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
> >
> >>You claimed (if you were the original poster)
> >>that free-will is an illusion,
> >>and that thoughts are merely the consequence of physical changes
> >>in the brain, which are themselves prescribed by physical laws.
> >This describes my opinion in this matter.
> 
> Here is illustrated the stupidest physical change to ever come across a 
> brain.  Can't understand it?  Let's just pretend like it's an illusion.
> 
> Whatever makes you think the physical changes are real?  Couldn't 
> you just as well argue that physics is an illusion, the effects of which 
> are merely the consequences of free-will?
> 
Yes, but it does not lead to any useful predictions, and so it cannot be 
tested as a theory. Rather it is akin to a reilgious viewpoint.

You would do much better arguing about whether Ginola was right to use 
his fists in the Arsenal/Newcastle match on wednesday. That is a much 
more interesting subject of discussion, and it will not get you laughed 
at quite so much in the pub.

Other good topics for discussion, once you have got past the stage of 
being a naive fresher, and have left the unanswerables alone for a while, 
are the following;

Who is the best bet in Euro 96?

Will Bruno beat Tyson?

Who is the better footballer, Keegan or God?

Woll Juninho stick it out in Middlesbrough, or is the English style of 
play not suited to his talents?

Have you stopped eating beef since the latest BSE scare?

Should we enter Europe, and what do you think the ECU should be called?

Would a job in the city be worthwhile, o rcan the millions in salary not 
compensate for the lack of freetime?



You see, these questions are much more relevant to the world we live in, 
and are the sort of things that everyone will have an opinion on. Yuo can 
drop these into conversation and people will turn to you and take an 
interest, or you can spend your time discussing metaphysics, and always 
end up drinking alone.


As for physics being the consequence of free will, you really need to 
define what you mean better, or else you will spend too long before 
getting to the question of whether a physical theorem can be said to have 
any meaning if its sole predictions are not measureable in theory. It is 
only then that you can start to formulate a view of world reality which 
is in conjunction with the pragmatic approach of modern day physicists.

To paraphrase the basic idea of modern physics, What you don't know, 
can't hurt you.

Think about that one. It is VERY important.


For my money, Bruno will win by a knockout, oh and did you spot the trick 
question up above? Of course you did, the answer is that neither can be 
the better footballer because keegan IS god.

Happy cogitating,

Anthony Potts

