Re: Freedom is real

On 15 Nov, 04:30, Bill Morse <wdNOSPAmo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
nando_rontel...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I don't believe you, and rather then reading some textbook, why don't
you tell me how freedom is real.

I am always looking for a Darwinist that actually believes that there
are alternative futures, and kind of believes it on an intellectual
level.

I have not found one, I have gotten some assertions of Darwinists that
they do believe it, but then they seem afraid to talk about it in any
detail to really confirm that they actually do believe it.

Well, actually, one of the proposals put forward to reconcile quantum
mechanics and general relativity is the "many worlds" hypothesis, which not
only admits of alternative futures but requires them.

I'm not aware that it helps to reconcile quantum mechanics with
general relativity.
Can you provide some reference?

But there have been a number of theoretical developments in science that
indicate that things are not pre-ordained. These include:

Poincare's proof that there are conditions under which the three-body
problem is not solvable.

I think it has been show that the system is chaotic, but not
mathematically unpredictable.

Godel's proof that for any formal mathematical system there are theorems
that cannot be shown to be true or false within that system.

Theorems are, by definition, statements that can be proved from the
axioms using the inference rules.
Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that in any consistent formal
system capable of expressing statements about arithmetics, there are
statements which are true but are not theorems (that is, can't be
proved).

Turing's proof that it is not possible to determine whether a given
algorithm will ever halt

It says that there is no Turing machine (abstract computer program)
which, given as input the specification of a Turing machine and an
input for it, can determine whether that Turing machine will halt when
given such input.
(The essence of the proof consists in a reductio to absurdum in which
the existence of such machine is assumed and then it's shown that when
that machine is asked to solve its own halting problem a
contraddiction arises).


And of course the uncertainty principle, that it is not possible to have
exact knowledge about the position and momentum of particles.

This follows from the (possibly apparent) non-deterministc nature of
quantum mechanics.

Combine these with the sensitivity of recursive non-linear functions to
initial conditions, and it is easy for me to believe that evolution can and
has created an intelligence sufficiently complex to be able to make free
choices.

--
Yours, Bill Morse

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question on Chaitin
    ... >> I've tried to correct some of your ignorant claims about philosophy ... modeled as, a digital computer or Turing machine, is too vague to apply ... undermined by the incompleteness theorems. ... There is no question of what set a given Turing machine ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
    ... a turing machine has no formulas in it. ... > structures, programming requirements, assertions ... theorems of Godel, Rosser, Turing and Smullyan ... You are not stating the conditions under which these theorems apply to ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading